Posted on 11/19/2007 5:32:58 AM PST by the tongue
State law also trumps federal law in how the comatose and retarded are treated - as we saw in the Schiavo tragedy.
Applying the existing Constitution & its Amendments to abortion is a waste of time. The unlikeliness of a new Amendment passing all the states required would make it a shame to divert energy from overturning Roe v. Wade NOW THAT IT IS WITHIN GRASP.
Fred Thompson nailed this phony-baloney yesterday in his interview with George Step-on-all-of-us. Referred to Huckabee as a “right-to-life liberal”.
Right said, Fred!
Thank you!
Some people are terminally dumbed down and COLD when it comes to human life.
Terri S. comes to mind ...we don’t want a society that EXPOLITS the extremely retarded, comatose or others unable to properly defend themselves due to their disability in life. They have a right to live too! They have a right to have property bequeathed to them and a responsible HONEST adult help them to manage it - perhaps for their care.
This is not NAZI Germany! There the unborn and born where mercilessly experimented on primarily for the evil thrill of it - especially twins. Adults were viewed as subhuman. No one cared about pregnant Jewish women. Now we have people ADVOCATING NAZI GERMANY tactics in the most arrogant way. These folks are NO BETTER THAN NAZIS.
An amendment won’t make it.
Roe vs Wade needs to be ABORTED.
It was based on LIES and fabrications.
Not on murdering the unborn.
You can’t have murdering your unborn legal in one state and illegal in another. We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state. The unborn deserve the same protection as HUMAN BEINGS.
Methinks Mikey's trolley just ran off the tracks.
I'd like for him to explain where, in the Constitution, it reserves the right to control over an individual's body and allow them to murder unborn children to the federal government.
I'll wait.
You can’t have murdering your unborn LEGAL in one state and ILLEGAL in another state.
We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state. The unborn deserve the same protection since they are defenseless HUMAN BEINGS. It's long overdue that we got away from being "relative" and "situational ethics". It's no wonder our kids are confused .... the adults are confused and hypocritical that support abortion and get indignant at kids murdering adults or adults murdering kids. For some sick reason, it's okay with them to have adults or kids MURDER babies and unborn babies - it's sick and Nazi Germany like in it's SICK "logic".
Not on murdering the unborn.
You can’t have murdering your unborn LEGAL in one state and ILLEGAL in another state.
We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state. The unborn deserve the same protection since they are defenseless HUMAN BEINGS. It's long overdue that we got away from being "relative" and "situational ethics" concerning abortion. It's no wonder our kids are confused .... the adults are confused and hypocritical that support abortion and get indignant at kids murdering adults or adults murdering kids. For some sick reason, it's okay with these hypocrites to have adults or kids MURDER babies and unborn babies - it's sick and Nazi Germany like in it's SICK "logic".
Definitely the New White Meat.
He racked through civics class it appears. Big puddle of drool on the desk where his notebook should have been.
The founders compromise on slavery worked out real great for them and for our country didn’t it. The Civil war killed more Americans then all of our other wars combined. Yet the number killed in the civil war pales compared to the millions killed by abortion. How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of a misguided view of federalism.
I don't think you have understood my post. I said that we need an amendment ASAP!
We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state
True, but we do allow variations in types of murders, mitigating circumstance, punisment etc. Anyway, I don't think every state needs to have the same speed limits, tax policies or hunting laws and seasons. Do you?
Huckabee's comments about civil war are ridiculous. Do think that a civil war could be any worse than the slaughter of abortion?
In the absence of an new Amendment - which requires super majorities of various representative bodies - you better settle for reversing Roe v. Wade, or you'll wind up with NOTHING.
Indeed. But the unborn beneficiaries of the will still get their day in probabte court - thus their property rights are subjected to due process.
State law also trumps federal law in how the comatose and retarded are treated - as we saw in the Schiavo tragedy.
Again, the presumption was that Terry Schiavo had rights and those rights could not be infringed without the due process of law.
The unlikeliness of a new Amendment passing all the states required would make it a shame to divert energy from overturning Roe v. Wade NOW THAT IT IS WITHIN GRASP.
Of course Roe v. Wade should be overturned at the earliest opportunity.
I don’t think that nmh is arguing that the same exact same penalties or defenses should apply in every state. I believe that he is arguing that the 14th Amendment allows Congress to require each state to criminalize abortion. As to the exact details that would left up to the states. Similarly, Congress doesn’t require each state to adopt one exact form of homicide laws. However, congress could intervene to prevent a state from legalizing homicide.
Dschapin, answer this question. How many babies has the push for an HLA saved, to date? Feel free to limit yourself to one hand in counting them all.
Is anyone aware of any instance of federal law or courts becoming involved in this state issue?
We need to get rid of the very flawed Roe v. Wade first and foremost. A constitutional amendment may be possible down the road, but anyone who thinks a constitutional amendment has a chance at this stage is hard to take seriously.
“Huckabee’s comments about civil war are ridiculous. Do think that a civil war could be any worse than the slaughter of abortion?”
Aren’t we having a civil war against the unborn?
They absolutely would.
Hypothetical: Say someone made out a will in 2005 leaving an equal share of his estate to "all my natural children." At the time he signed the will he had two children aged 10 and 15. In 2003 he had divorced their mother and in 2005 married another woman. In 2006 his new wife was expecting a child when he got hit by a bus crossing the street.
If the counsel for the children of the first wife tried to argue that the unborn child of his second wife was not "a living person" and therefore not entitled to his equal share of the father's inheritance, and the state courts ruled against the youngest child, that case would be appealed to a federal court.
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.