Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff
Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
That actually was't true until the post-civil war era; and even then most statutes differentiated between early-term and late-term abortions.
Well done!
Maybe because I'm a conservative? There is more to being a conservative than just being a rabid anti-abortion activist.
Sadly, I have no doubt in my mind that many of you would vote for a Hugo Chavez clone if he was anti-abortion.
“No, Satan. See post 334”
Satan? Doesn’t he play Right Wing for the New York Islanders???
Sorry, but the preamble is changeable, and it has not been changed. As the purpose statement, the 14th amendment must be seen in the preamble’s light.
The preamble extends the blessings of liberty to our posterity. The 14th amendment does not specifically exclude the unborn, and since the preamble sees the future as present, and since they are anticipated citizens, then they cannot be deprived of life.
Right now, the GOP stands for very little.
Apparently, you haven’t thoughtfully considered the issue.
So how long have you been working out those questions? Are you any closer to an answer than you were when you started?
I trust this has already been addressed in this thread; but I would answer that it is the same constitutional authority that gave us Roe-v-Wade. And until that poorly made decision is consigned to the dust heap, these "band-aid" measures will continue to be necessary - IMO.
If the law made no distinction between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb then why was there the need for anti-abortion laws?
If the law treated them the same then the babies would be covered under existing homicide laws.
FTR, the Ninth Circus is once again reversed.
“There’s no developmental changes in the heartbeat it takes for a child within the womb to a child *outside* the womb. It’s an environmental change.”
We are not talking about the moment of birth, either...we are talking about the 24th week of pregnancy...please pay attention.
We all should be “greedy” because Kennedy is wishy washy and will not vote with conservative SC members often. It will be hard if not impossible to get a real conservative on the SC with Rats in control of the senate.
I thought I knew the answer. I just had to hear it from someone else. That is quite......utterly insane.
So, in regard to partial birth abortion, getting a breathe of oxygen through the mouth, rather than the blood stream from the placenta, determines whether we can live, or die. Even though the baby is moving, sucking its thumb, and hiccuping. Hmmmmm...I do believe this world is going to end rather soon.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sure looks like the 14A (the only substantive law on the subject in the Constitution) is pretty well limited to citizens "born or naturalized in the United States."
You can try to argue from the Preamble, but never, ever has the Preamble been considered substantive law. As such, you are simply spinning your wheels.
First you say that environment has nothing to do with it,its about development.
Now you are back to environment because your first argument gets shot down.
You are going to spin yourself into the ground...lol
He just might live to 100 then.
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
"in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother." Or "in the case of breech presentation", the child should be killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of S.3 and HR 760 in quotes)
This is not a ban. These are targeting coordinates, plain and simple giving instructions to the abortionists on how to do the procedure whether the navel is showing outside the body in a breech procedure and whether or not the fetal head is fully presented outside the body during a head-first presentation. The abortionists are certainly not stupid. This will not even slow them down. And will there be a federal official in each abortuary monitoring each PBA procedure? Of course not, there is no way to enforce this so-called ban. A law that only protects a child in the last ten seconds of a nine-month pregnancy is a total fraud.
This is the reason why Judie Brown of the American Life League did NOT support this bill. It's a fraud, plain and simple. It is hard to imagine how anyone could even write a law that would provide fewer restrictions on the legal killing of a human being. As such, it is highly unlikely that even one single child will be saved using the language of this "ban." In addition, the health of the mother provision does not take into account that the PBA procedure is mostly a 2-day (sometimes a 3-day) procedure. If a woman is supposedly dying because she is pregnant a C-section would save her, not a PBA. There is NO reason why a mother would have to undergo the Partial Birth Abortion procedure except to kill her infant due to a selfish reason as a means of convenience.
please see my post 550
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.