Posted on 07/02/2007 2:14:32 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Former police officer Bobby Cutts was arrested for the killing of his ex-girlfriend, 26 year-old Jessie Davis and their unborn baby, whom she had already named Chloe. The horrible crimes gripped the nation for more than a week while Jessie was missing and as thousands of volunteers searched and prayed for her safe return. Cutts is being charged with two counts of murder, one count of murder is for the unborn child. The crimes took place in Ohio, which is among the 35 States that as of early 2007 recognizes the “unlawful” killing of an unborn child as homicide.
Sadly Ohio and the rest of the US recognize abortion as the “lawful” killing of an unborn child.
On the day before she and Chloe were murdered, Jessie Davis, if she had wanted could have driven to a late term abortionist and paid to have her near term baby killed. That would have been “legal” and her “choice”. This case, like the Laci Peterson case in California and so many others illustrates the break from reality we as a nation and a culture have devolved into.
We have become so sick as a nation that we actually have laws that prosecute the killing of an unborn child as murder in one instance while the killing of that same child, if “unwanted” can be “legally” done as a Constitutionally protected right.
Justice Blackmum, writing the majority opinion in Roe v Wade in 1973 said: “If the suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” So the definition of one word, “personhood” when pertaining to an unborn child that is not wanted is the single point on which the Roe court has allowed the killing of over 47 million children.
The Roe decision is all the more repulsive when it is understood that in 1859, the American Medical Association called for strong anti-abortion laws in all states and vigorous enforcement of them. By then medical science had repeatedly proven beyond any doubt that life begins at conception. The AMA sponsored initiatives, spurring most legislatures to enact strong prohibitions upon abortion. An excerpt from an 1859 AMA public letter: “…this body, representing, as it does, the physicians of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature, as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child." In 1967 abortion was a felony in 49 states; in New Jersey it was a high misdemeanor.*
In a capital punishment case where the life of a single individual is at stake the decision of the jury must be unanimous. They must find that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt—and rightly so. The Roe v Wade case would involve tens of millions of lives, none of whom could possibly be guilty of anything, yet the court’s decision was not unanimous and it was based on unreasonable, even twisted thinking and outright lies of known scientific facts about life before birth.
The killing of an unborn baby at the hands of a criminal with a gun is a homicidal crime but the killing of that same unborn baby at the hands of a criminal with a suction machine and a medical degree is a Constitutionally protected right. This disgusting logic from our judicial branch is worse than any “two-tiered” system of justice. It is state approved and protected murder; frequently state funded, and is genocide.
In his book, "Notes on the State of Virginia," Thomas Jefferson, commenting as a lifelong slave owner wrote, "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: That his justice cannot sleep for ever." Jefferson logically counted as first the unalienable Right to Life in our nation’s founding document. One can hardly imagine what he would say today of his beloved Republic, which is becoming an ever darkening culture of death.
* http://www.missourilife.org/law/preroe.htm
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
PING
What the Left and defenders of Roe don’t want to bring up is this is not the first time the issue of who is a person has come before the Court and this is not the first time that the Court has not hesitated to make that determination.
A critical court case in the 1800’s that also pivoted on who is a person was Dred Scott v Sanford, where the Court decided that negro slaves were not persons and were property. Even worse, one of the supporting points was if slaves where persons they would enjoy the right to travel and keep and bear arms.
(For this reason, the Left doesn’t want to bring up Roe in the same discussion as Dred Scott.)
This very decision is the hight of judicial activism, for it rips humanity from reality. But then again, the Left doesn’t recognize reality when it conflicts with the perfect world they want to build.
A great book that goes into this history is “Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives” http://www.lifecyclebooks.com/item_detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=2019P
Pray for mercy, pray for our nation and the world folks.
You’re all making this more complex than it really is. It boils down to one simple thing: Liberals want to be able to do whatever they please, any time they please, without consequences - and if there is a payment to be made or some unpleasant thing happens as a result, then “the little people” i.e. non-liberal elites, just need to deal.
If a liberal woman says her baby is infinitely precious, then it’s infinitely precious. If she says it’s an unwanted parasite, then boom it’s an unwanted parasite, and a doctor shouldn’t even be allowed to try to talk her into carrying the baby to term.
If a gay man wants to get his rear end ripped up on a nightly basis, who are we to disapprove? Just pony up the cash for all the reconstructive surgery and anti-AIDS drugs. Oh and by the way, you’re not allowed to make sarcastic “hate speech” remarks about his activities either.
It’s just “I want what I want, when I want it.” The scary part is that there are enough of them now to vote all of our money into their pockets and there’s nothing we can do about it except violent revolution.
Agreed, especially w “Liberals want to be able to do whatever they please, any time they please, without consequences...”
The only part I think you (might) be wrong on is “there’s nothing we can do about it except violent revolution.”
The nation responded forcefully but peacefully to the Amnesty bill which was planned by the shadiest of SOB’s in DC. That has renewed my hope that maybe, just maybe we are not done yet.
I still believe in miracles!
Colorado for Equal Rights files Pro-Life Amendment
June 19th, 2007
Today Colorado for Equal Rights filed language with the Colorado
Legislative Council to start the process of a ballot initiative for the November 2008 election, which will grant rights of personhood from conception.
This proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution states, “As used in Article II, Sections 3, 6, and 25 of the Colorado Constitution, the words “person” and “persons” shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”
See http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0211/opinion/linton.html
“How Not To Overturn Roe v. Wade”
Thanks, CP! God’s timing is perfect on this.
For example, as revolting as sodomy is to me, I cannot find a clause in the Constitution that was designed to limit the federal government that enumerates a power allowing me to make this sin a crime.
Yet, when we engage in the sin of socialism (which really springs from the sins of lies, coveting and theft), and have taxpayer funded health care, that forms the basis for many liberty-loving people to think they can have a say over the private activities of another person. If we pay for your recovering from the motorcycle accident, and pay for your lifelong disability, that somehow gives us the right to force you to wear a helmet. If we pay for your lung cancer treatment, we can control your smoking. If we pay for your AIDS treatment, we might even dare to suggest controls on sexual activity.
With respect to the complexity here, as much as you are right that libs want what they want, at least most of the time they must also go through the proper legal motions and channels. They may want government-funded abortions, but they have not yet been able to get the federal government to fully authorize such payments. They may want every city to hand out condoms, but so far only a few are willing to do so.
And a lot of the time their reach has been cut off or at least cut short by other forces, who require the libs to cite chapter and verse, to at least give a reason that will stand up in court, even if that court is open sympathetic to the cause du jour. Sometimes, previous rulings place roadblocks that cannot be overcome, where logic and reason would have to be bent and twisted too much. Sometimes prior law and rulings do actually bring the “I want” to a screeching halt, at least for a time.
In that case, as much as the Left loves to argue its case in court, it does not want to do so if the court is reminded of how it previously ruled where that ruling is inconvenient to the cause at hand.
That is why Dred Scott is so odious to the Left. They detest slavery for a lot of reasons that go beyond the simple human misery that it was. The very idea of declaring a human to not be a “person” is absurd, yet there it stands. (even better that one of the reasons for such absurdity was because of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms).
So even the left, as simple on the surface as their motives appear, actually are attempting to navigate a complex history, so they can both achieve today’s goal and doing so without making life more difficult to reach the next goal, which of course they won’t know about until they want what they want.
A letter to the editor that I wrote was published today and included this:
“.. year after year, Duncan Hunter has tried to get legislation passed with the bill he authored, the personhood-at-conception bill that has over 100 co-sponsors, which would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.”
.
CP, or anyone else....which states are currently working on similar amendments to Colorado?
It would be interesting if Cutts’ lawyers put up an “equal protection” challenge to the charge of killing the unborn child, since the mother could legally kill the child without consequence.
It would further expose and illustrate the legal system's psychotic mentality when it comes to unborn people.
Another thought on this...
IF enough States could pass unborn personhood legislation it could cause a groundswell at the federal level. There are so many unseen scenarios that could play out to our desired goals. At this time it seems that the movement is in the try everything and anything mode.
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.