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]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“OK. Question, do you believe in anything?”
Sure...I believe in lots of things (freedom, capitalism, science, etc.), but I do not believe in God or anything else supernatural.
“Giuliani says he would appoint strict constructionists.”
Guliani has said many things regarding abortion...most importantly that he supports a woman’s “right” to have one.
He isn’t about to appoint a judge who would overturn Roe.
He went further and told pro-lifers to pound sand.
That's not in the Bill of Rights, it's from the Declaration of Independence. And you may have noticed that the guy who wrote it owned slaves. The Declaration also says that among our inalienable human rights is the right to life. Abortion surely eliminates that. So, if we're going to play by your rules and say mention in the Declaration gives the federal government a power, they would therefore have the power to protect life.
BTW...nothing against the Founders, but the other inalienable rights Jefferson listed were liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two other things denied the slaves until almost 90 years after the Declaration. So, your citation makes no sense.
The Constitution does not address abortion in any fashion,
It doesn't mention lynching either, but the federal government acted in lynching cases because life was being taken without due process. It doesn't mention kidnapping or sex trafficking, but the feds act in those cases because liberty is being taken away without due process. As for your 10th Amendment concerns, the 14th Amendment supercedes that, specifically the Due Process clause.
It is a States Rights issue.
A state government can decide that a human can be killed without due process? Well, what would stop the Wisconsin state government from saying that it's open season on guys with "Milwaukee" in their internet screen names? If the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to a baby, why does it apply to you?
Whether the congresscritters explicitly based their bill on the 14th Amendment or not, it clearly grants them the authority to take this action, and not a single thing about it would be different if they had based it on the 14th.
Non-viability = Not a person = No rights
Unless of course you believe humans have souls. I do not subscribe to that belief. It has no scientific basis and is nothing more than magical thinking]
By your convoluted logic, only humans within certain parameters have “rights”. Even a right to life. So I’m assuming that you’re definition of “viability” includes people with severe physical and/or mental disabilities? If that is true, basically you are saying that the disabled aren't really “persons” and therefore; do not have “rights”. Who decides the big question of viability? What exactly does that mean? Does a cancer patient that cannot walk cease to have “viability”?
Throughout history, personhood, rights, etc., has varied upon whom you ask, but civilized societies seem to have achieved some consensus on the issue, which you obviously choose to ignore.
They obviously have the power to do so, but certainly not according to the Constitution, in my view.
Finally, some good news for a change.
I watched Katic Couric tonight JUST to see her bristle about this!
I hope she was completely beside herself.
This is just incorrect. Perhaps you don't regard property as a substantive right, but besides that, what do you think the common law term, life in being actually means? Clusty en ventre sa mere.
...Two cases decided in the late eighteenth century are representative of English common law. Doe v. Clarke held that an unborn child is one of the "children living" at the time of a testator's demise, and Thellusson s'. Woodford enumerated fetal rights as including recovery, execution, devise and injunction. American courts were not hesitant to pick up the English common law, as evidenced by Hall v. Hancock in 1834 when it was held that a grandson born almost nine months after the testator's death was a beneficiary under a bequest to such grandchildren "as may be living at my death."In America, Crisfotd v. Starr established the rule that an infant en ventre sa mere is deemed in esse for the purpose of taking an estate in remainder the same as if born.
The Rule Against Perpetuities is perhaps the best instance of the en ventre sa mere doctrine coming into play. It is well established that a child en ventre sa mere is a life in being at the death of the testator. This effectuates an extension of the period recovered by the Rule to 21 years and period of gestation.
In the area of trusts, the en ventre sa mere doctrine is just as firmly noted: upon the father's death, a child may be an income recipient of the father's trust before it is born.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar28.htmz,
Under the Fourteenth Amdendments, they [non-naturalized aliens] are not.
Nobody argues that foreigners become persons become "persons" by becoming naturalized citizens.
Person In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.Immigrants certainly do not lack the legal capacity to sue as 'persons' in civil courts of U.S. jurisdiction before they are naturalized. If I were to commit a tort against an illegal alien, and then assert the defense in a civil court that "non-persons" can't sue me I would be laughed out of court.
In the grammar of the Fourteenth Amendment the subject "persons" is described as having been subject to the actions of being born or naturalized. It means "All persons [who were] born or naturalized in the United States." It is as grammatically stupid to interpret this clause as, "All persons [who became persons by being] born or naturalized in the United States", as it is to assert that foreigners become persons by becoming naturalized citizens.
Cordially,
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 34 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[3]
]
So very true.
“By your convoluted logic, only humans within certain parameters have “rights”. Even a right to life. So I’m assuming that you’re definition of “viability” includes people with severe physical and/or mental disabilities? If that is true, basically you are saying that the disabled aren’t really “persons” and therefore; do not have “rights”. Who decides the big question of viability? What exactly does that mean? Does a cancer patient that cannot walk cease to have “viability”?
Throughout history, personhood, rights, etc., has varied upon whom you ask, but civilized societies seem to have achieved some consensus on the issue, which you obviously choose to ignore.”
Nice attempt at a strawman...but we are talking about unborn fetuses...please try to stay on subject...thank you.
“That’s really unfortunate for you.”
Not really.
That’s the best you can come up with? LOL.
I see you’re either afraid or too incompetent to answer the question.
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 34 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[3]
Of course, there is an explicit exception for abortion.
Bump to a great post!
I would think as a person who obviously reveres “science” you could come up with something...anything, but instead, it’s bs and misdirection.
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.