Posted on 01/19/2008 8:18:29 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
Thousands of abortion protesters marched along San Francisco's waterfront Saturday, hectored by a smaller band of abortion rights supporters, as both sides marked the impending anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that established those rights 35 years ago.
Although passions ran high in both camps, the event - what is becoming an annual trek by the anti-abortion movement into what they consider the heart of abortion rights territory - was peaceful.
At least 10,000 abortion opponents were bused into the city from all over California, and from outside the state, for a morning rally in Justin Herman Plaza.
The two-mile Walk for Life West Coast was organized to coincide with the forthcoming anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States.
Mark Bradford, 50, said he flew from Philadelphia to march for his 6-year-old son who has Down syndrome. "Every day I see the joy that my son brings to me and to my family," Bradford said. "It's distressing to me to think that under some circumstances that beautiful life would not be brought into the world."
The event was also promoted as a part of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration and featured several black leaders, including Alveda King, a niece of the slain civil rights leader.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Into the heart of evil.
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”
— Ronald Reagan
The bias...........
Since they were bussed in from all over, it was not a legitimate crowd
unintended irony
They used the wrong words for a reason. anytime the pro-aborts or demoncrats for that matter need a crowd they pay their protesters/voters’ way.
Pro-lifers pay their own way and they come become they know that killing children is wrong and never should have become a ‘choice’.
Defend Life!
“Mark Bradford, 50, said he flew from Philadelphia to march for his 6-year-old son who has Down syndrome. “Every day I see the joy that my son brings to me and to my family,” Bradford said. “It’s distressing to me to think that under some circumstances that beautiful life would not be brought into the world.”’
That is so moving. It must hurt this dad, and other parents who have children with Down syndrome, that some would not want their children to live.
“Our speakers today at the rally included Alveda King, (niece of Martin Luther King, Jr), Gianna Jessen (abortion survivor), Pastor Clenard Childress (of the website focused on Black Genocice), Jesse Romero (radio host), and Father Frank Pavone (Priests for Life).
Eduardo Verastegui, star of the movie Bella was to have made it, but plane delays prevented him from making the rally.”
Wow! Very impressive speakers. I wish I were there.
From your other post:
“To begin with, since the federal Constitution says nothing about abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to address abortion to the state governments.”
While I believe in states’ rights, I don’t believe that abortion should be allowed in one state, but not another state - just like slavery should not.
What about the 5th amendment?
Amendment V
“..nor be
deprived of LIFE (emphasis mine), liberty, ..”
On the other hand...
As someone else in cyberspace has pointed out, not only is the word "Posterity" as used in the Preamble to the Constitution a reference to future generations of people, but have your considered the following from my posts?
Given that the USSC thought that it had the license to use Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a mere, private letter help justify its scandalous interpretation of the scope of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion, surely the Court should have used Jefferson's "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence to help justify finding the rights of unborn children in the 9th Amendment. After, all, Jefferson could just have easily written that all men are born equal. Instead, Jefferson evidently reflected the beliefs of the signers of the DoI that God-given rights start from the moment of conception.And not only did the USSC fail to weigh the 9th A. protected rights of unborn children against the right to have an abortion, the Court also "overlooked" the 9th A. protected right of a man to be a father.
The reason that I identify myself with the 10th A. is because the USSC has arguably been ignoring the 10th A. since the days of FDR. Otherwise, I am not a state power freak but actually a respect the Constitution freak.
Where abortion is concerned, given that the federal Constitution doesn't reasonably enumerate abortion as a federal power issue, abortion remains a state power issue. However, I have no major problems if the states choose to exercise their Article V power to amend the Constitution to make abortion a federal power issue.
My one reservation with doing so, however, is the idea that a later generation of renegade justices will find a way to pervert such an amendment as they have managed to do with existing amendments.
“But personally, I cannot accept that constitutional lawmakers had things like abortion in mind as they drafted Amendment V. “
I think that you are correct that they didn’t have abortion in mind, because they probably never dreamed that abortion would be the law of the land, and if they HAD thought of that, I’m sure they would have spelled it out, that by life, that also included defending the life of the unborn.
Also, Mark Levin was saying that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on natural law, and most certainly, it is unnatural to kill an unborn baby in it’s mother’s womb.
And in Washington, D.C....not a word from the news.
On the bright side, he will probably never be responsible for an abortion.
I would like to believe that ... but aside from these annual marches (which I go on almost every year) ... where's the objective evidence of it?
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.
