Posted on 11/12/2006, 11:27:43 AM by nancyvideo
Can lawyers debate the butchering of innocent children while keeping a straight face, and a settled stomach? The answer, apparently, is "almost." At least that's what I saw from my center seat at the Supreme Court arguments Wednesday on partial birth abortion. I came away with three observations.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Just wait for the next justice. We have lost so much in this election. Women voters just won't give up baby killing.
"Women voters just won't give up baby killing."
Not so. Most women, most Americans, are against partial birth abortion. This is an 'elite-driven' issue.
If the word "fetus" or "baby" was replaced with "puppy" or "kitten," it would be a 9-0 vote to protect life.
All,
Read the whole article at the supplied link, it is well worth the time.
(But avoid food while you do so.)
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/pbacommentary.htm
There hasn't been a legislative victory for foes of abortion like the partial-birth abortion ban in a long time. Maybe that's why the opponents of the ban don't seem to know how to adjust to reality. They exhibit all the signs of denial.
After years of expert testimony from hundreds of physicians, and the failure of anyone to identify a single medical complication that can be solved only by a partial-birth abortion, foes of the ban continue to insist that the procedure is necessary for the health of women.
After the will of the American people has been made evident by poll after poll, and by the fact that over half the states passed bans on this procedure, foes of the ban continue to behave as if the public wants partial-birth abortion.
And after two of the three co-equal branches of government -- the Legislative and the Executive -- have exercised their power in a bi-partisan way to stop partial-birth abortion, foes of the ban go running like offended children to unelected judges, asking them to contradict the will of the people and overrule the other two branches of government.
It's time for a reality check. No amount of slogans, rhetoric, or abstract reasoning can take away the horror of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Legislators who identify themselves as "pro-choice" and vote in other contexts to uphold abortion rights have, in large numbers, concluded that partial-birth abortion goes too far. That is due in large part to the fact that in this debate, for the first time, attention was focused on what actually happens to the baby during the abortion. While it is easy to talk about "rights, freedoms, and choices," it is hard to talk about methods of killing -- so hard, in fact, that some in the media have refused to describe how a partial-birth abortion takes place.
Opponents of the ban on partial-birth abortion are constructing for themselves a public relations nightmare if they continue fighting a battle they have lost. Whose support do they hope to gain for keeping this procedure legal? Or perhaps do they not care whether they have anyone's support, as long as they can deceive people with slogans, mask over the violence of this procedure, and subvert the ability of the American people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an oligarchy of federal judges?
One of the ironic elements to this dispute is that we seem to have finally found a piece of ground in the abortion war on which pro-life and pro-choice people, in large numbers, can agree and unite. But radical pro-abortion supporters don't want to accept that. Yet, as usual, it is the pro-life camp that is accused of being "divisive."
What, then, is the next step for America regarding partial-birth abortion?
First, if pro-choice radicals keep pushing for partial-birth abortion, they will fall victim to what feminist author Naomi Wolf warned about when she wrote, "[W]e stand in jeopardy of losing what can only be called our souls. Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life" (Our Bodies, Our Souls, The New Republic, 1995).
Second, if the courts continue to flatly contradict the clear, strong and consistent will of the American people, we may finally awaken to the need to restore a balance of power in our government. No longer will special interest groups be able to short-circuit the legislative system in order to accomplish their goals.
Third, maybe the partial-birth abortion debate has taught us a new way of looking at abortion -- namely, to examine what the procedure actually does, rather than go round and round about "Who decides?" Reading medical descriptions and seeing diagrams of the other abortion procedures reveals them as horrifying as partial-birth abortion.
If all that happens, the pro-choice movement is in a lot of trouble.
The swing voters are women. They keep the DEMS in power. Women will give us Hillary next. Women will not give up abortion. That is the baby killing. Wake up. Your sisters are the problem.
I know of no other "right" that so demonstrates how out of control our judiciary is.
The court will litigate itself into a coroner.
How can this barbarism still be allowed?
I think they are just perhaps a few men who like abortion too. The article is chilling. HOW can people be for this?
There are liberal men the the greater amount is women. Too many want abortion, take the guns, and vote for DEMS.
Senator Kennedy supports extremely late term abortions. (Mary Jo Kopechne)
Nice attitude for a justice to have....
"your sisters are the problem"
Liar! How many women were on the SCOTUS when Roe vs Wade came up?
When Justice Stevens awkwardly insisted that Clement talk of a fetus rather than a child, Scalia remarked that "when it's halfway out, I guess you can call it either a child or a fetus." Or when the Planned Parenthood attorney discussed whether the fetus dies before or after delivery of its ripped-off parts, Scalia resolved the dilemma by pointing out that we generally don't speak of a "leg" dying. And Scalia asked whether it would be criminal to deliver the baby all the way and just let him die. This contextualized the argument that partial birth abortion is the “safest option,” by implying that it is only the safest abortion option. Delivering the baby all the way without puncturing his head would often be the safest "option" at this moment, so as to avoid committing that violent, piercing act so near the woman’s body (sometimes the abortionist even has to hold the head in to prevent the magical occurrence of personhood). But pro-aborts want a healthy execution, not women's health in general. And they are not yet public members of the Peter Singer fan club.Thank God for Scalia. Stevens and the other monsters on the court better wake up, because they're on the hell express, and there isn't much time left to get off.
I don't think they'd care. I mean, how can they not know? How's that for a sobering thought?
Of course men like abortion. They won't be held accountable for their behavior either. This whole situation sickens me. I have a hard time believing our society is for infanticide.
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.