Posted on 10/21/2005 6:49:57 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Yes, he continues to. TY
Slim and none, and Slim has been out of town a long time now.
There's no way something this big could ever get past even a 100% GOP congress in one lurch. They would do better to start with unborn babies that could be delivered alive, and keep the life of mother exception (have you EVER seen the life of mother exception -- and please stay on topic when answering -- prevail in a court where it was clearly frivolous?).
What about the fetal homicide laws?
I know that Ron Paul is very pro-life, which is why it makes me nervous that his name isn't there. Maybe he thinks this legislation won't work.
Also, do you know why not even one baby has been saved after the president signed the pba ban??
Here are some thoughts from this website, if you have time:
It IS an Alex Jones type website, and sometimes he is way out there, but some of this info makes sense.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1821.cfm
If this is a legitimate sincere effort and not some political posturing , my hat is off to these who are are willing to be real leaders and not doormats, no matter the outcome.
Who knows there might be the tiniest glimmer of hope for our country yet.
Interesting fyi, in case you had not heard:
The Pro-abortion advocates knew that the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths were a myth. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, admits his group lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions.
When testifying before the Supreme Court in 1972, he said, “We spoke of 5,000-10,000 deaths a year. . . . I confess that I knew the figures were totally false. . . it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”
excerpt http://www.nyfrf.org/myth.htm
Stats before Roe vs. Wade:
http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf
Uh, actually it is that simple. That is what the Legislative Branch does make law.
That is why why for so many years some of us have been livid with the Courts and our Congress. The Congress for ducking the close hot button moral issues and the Courts for taking advantage of their weakness to increase their power by taking it from the state legislators and turning their opinions and their Judicial Branch into something our founders never meant it to be.
That is a group of nine people appointed for life, unelected, directly unanswerable to the people, who could say what is the law and what is not the law.
This they do for fifty states and two hundred million people based solely on what they think it is or ought to be.
This should have been left right where it was at, with each state and it's laws deciding.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
BUMP!
In what context? In the second semester the fetus is a provisional 'person', being the chattel of the woman as though it was one of her children. But in the case of a second semester fetus, it is only a crime against the woman and not society at large, and a woman cannot commit a crime against herself, whereas if you killed a born child it would be a crime against society as well.
No matter what position one has on this issue, the dividing line is somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous -- even "personhood at conception" has this feature. Therefore, any legal tradition on this issue will be a compromise of some type. It is important not to ignore that the Common Law has been refined in application for thousands of years, trying a lot of hard cases and edge cases, and the guidelines that were developed approximate the best guidelines for the largest number of legal cases. As always, there are many unintended consequences were one to change such guidelines, and setting radically "new" ones (every guideline you can think of has probably been tested in this system, at one time or another) by fiat is very likely to end up with a legal situation that is worse than what we have. Heavy-handed messing with the Common Law is likely to have the same consequences as when liberals do heavy-handed messing with the economy.
fyi
Stats before Roe vs. Wade:
http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf - States that abortions went down 450,000 in 1973. So there is doubt about statistics re: the number of abortions before Roe vs. Wade, because why would there be 450,000 LESS abortions in that year when abortion became legal?
Yep. The RINO's will join up with the rats and it will fail unfortunately.
Since you offered the following so assuredly, you must also know that this is not the case in all states and in fact a few recognize the unborn all the way back to conception. But you made a nice broad stroke for defense of the dehumanization ... "In the second semester the fetus is a provisional 'person', being the chattel of the woman as though it was one of her children. But in the case of a second semester fetus, it is only a crime against the woman and not society at large." [Was that the case in the Scott Peterson trial? ... very deceptive of you, turtle.]
Actually, it was the case in the Peterson trial. It has been traditionally used for "double murder" when someone killed a women in the second semester. Because the woman is also dead, the state is essentially asserting the right to the child's life on her behalf since she obviously cannot testify. In cases where a second semester fetus was killed but the mother lived, the killer was only liable if the mother brought charges -- the state had no legal interest.
Again, I'm not taking a position here, I am pointing out the English Common Law that defines how our laws are interpreted. I fully agree that the legal reasoning in Roe vs. Wade was specious and incorrect, but we need to understand that even without that specious reasoning the Supreme Court would have a very hard time banning abortion outright due to the extremely deep precedent in the Common Law that asserts the state has no interest. In this sense, the best and correct ruling would be to defer this decision to the individual States, a number of which operate under other Common Law systems (notably Spanish and French) in addition to English Common Law, with different interpretations of the legal precedent. The Federal government had no legal interest in precedent, so they invented a legal interest to keep control. The States have far more flexibility in this matter than the Federal government. We have to be careful of what we ask for, or we may find ourselves in a much less tenable position than we are now -- unintended consequences due to operating from a naive legal perspective.
I would also point out that "conception" is as legally ambiguous as "birth". These terms do not have strict definitions and are therefore fuzzy at the edges -- see "partial birth abortion" for an example of people exploiting the boundary area. This will always be a contentious and fuzzy issue no matter where you draw the line for legal protection. As I stated, the common law gives three levels of protection from conception to birth: no legal status in the first semester, legal chattel of the women in the second semester, and full independent legal protection at birth.
I'm sure there where fatalities from illegal abortions, but Dr. Nathanson - former key member of NARAL - says that the numbers were greatly exaggerated by pro-abortion proponents, and then spread by the press. He should know, because he helped to make them up.
-- Joe
I would like to point out, that from what I hear- many die from legal abortions. If a woman gets in distress at an abortion clinic or at home following abortion she is whisked to the local hospital so the statistics are not shown as being abortion clinic caused. I have seen news articles about this in the past and just last year I think it was there was a teen who died from a legal abortion and her parents did not know she had even had one.
You bought the lie.
Bernard Nathanson, who helped spear-head the drive for legalized abortion -- and is now pro-life -- said he made up the infamous back-alley abortion death stats.
All bogus, he said.
Thank you for this post.
We're keeping praying stronger than ever.
God bless you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.