Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge: life begins at conception
Life Site News ^ | Tue Jun 28, 2011 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 06/28/2011 11:56:26 AM PDT by GonzoII


Federal judge: life begins at conception

by Kathleen Gilbert

Tue Jun 28 1:04 PM EST

INDIANAPOLIS, June 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Planned Parenthood’s request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm,” was denied by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt last week.

“Plaintiffs contend that in the context of abortion, the meaning of these words, both individually and in combination, represent a plethora of opinions and beliefs about life and its inception. The Court respectfully disagrees,” wrote Pratt.

“When read together, the language crafted by the legislature in this provision supports a finding that the mandated statement refers exclusively to a growing organism that is a member of the Homo sapiens species.”

The judge disagreed with Planned Parenthood’s suggestion that the phrasing was “misleading.”

“Here, the mandated statement states only a biological fact relating to the development of the living organism; therefore, it may be reasonably read to provide accurate, non-misleading information to the patient,” the court wrote. “Under Indiana law, a physician must disclose the facts and risks of a treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would be expected to disclose under like circumstances, and which a reasonable person would want to know.”

Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) had also sought an injunction against another part of the same law, House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1210, which barred federal Medicaid funds from going to the abortion provider. Pratt granted that request, noting that the Obama administration had threatened to gut the state’s entire Medicaid allotment to save PPIN’s portion.

Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, praised the judge for upholding scientific fact, but said that they would continue to ensure that the measure defunding Planned Parenthood goes into effect.

“While this is a significant partial victory for Life, we will press on to ensure that the full law will go into effect to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana,” Brejcha said. “We stand ready to defend Life in other states as they plan to defund Planned Parenthood and require doctors to tell women that life begins at conception.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: abortion; conception; courts; humanlife; law; moralabsolutes; plannedparenthood; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
It's on the records.
1 posted on 06/28/2011 11:56:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Breaking News?


2 posted on 06/28/2011 12:01:46 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
The key phrase that the Federal Judge has upheld is:

human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm

If this case goes to SCOTUS (appeal of blocking Planned Parenthood funding), it might be grounds to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Or is this wishful thinking?

3 posted on 06/28/2011 12:07:03 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; Amos the Prophet; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


4 posted on 06/28/2011 12:08:29 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Murderers being forced to admit they are murderers.

Wow! That will probably embarrass them into not committing murder. /sarc

5 posted on 06/28/2011 12:09:35 PM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

I’d rather have this decided in legislation.

One judge says this, the other one says that. Nothing gets decided.


6 posted on 06/28/2011 12:10:30 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

It WAS legislated that the language be included. The judgement is that the language is accurate and not misleading.


7 posted on 06/28/2011 12:15:30 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
"I’d rather have this decided in legislation."

It was and the judge backed it. The way things aught to be when legislation is commonsensible.

8 posted on 06/28/2011 12:18:18 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
I’d rather have this decided in legislation.

That is exactly what happened. The judge upheld the legislation.

9 posted on 06/28/2011 12:20:06 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
I’d rather have this decided in legislation.

It is decided by neither legislatures or judges, it is simple biological fact. And it can be found in any embryology text. Human life begins at conception. That is the science of the matter.

10 posted on 06/28/2011 12:21:27 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: topher; EternalVigilance
If this case goes to SCOTUS (appeal of blocking Planned Parenthood funding), it might be grounds to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It gets better than that.

It would not just overturn Roe, it would END ABORTION (e.g. none of this let the states decide BS).

The majority opinion in Roe itself acknowledges that once personhood for the unborn is established that the unborn would automatically enjoy 14th Amendment rights.

11 posted on 06/28/2011 12:24:11 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Human life begins at conception. That is the science of the matter.

Which means that Roe v Wade is as Constitutionally supportable as Dred Scott is. Roe v Wade flies directly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and SCOTUS knows it, though they are unwilling to publicly admit it...

the infowarrior

12 posted on 06/28/2011 12:28:27 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The majority opinion in Roe itself acknowledges that once personhood for the unborn is established that the unborn would automatically enjoy 14th Amendment rights.

Thus, the "it's just a bunch of cells" gibberish. The reality is too harsh for the 'culture of death' crowd to bear...

the infowarrior

13 posted on 06/28/2011 12:31:26 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It is decided by neither legislatures or judges, it is simple biological fact. And it can be found in any embryology text. Human life begins at conception. That is the science of the matter.

A big Yup. The progressives are continually trying to state as scientific fact those political points of view that they want foisted on the population. I sure would like to get back to absolute scientific fact determination.

It's one thing to accept that you're going to make decisions that are based on political considerations rather than science - this is what an informed public and their representatives could and should do; it's certainly another when you state political positions on issues - falsely - as scientific fact in an attempt to mislead the voting public - which is what our so-called representatives continue to do.

14 posted on 06/28/2011 12:31:57 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More (ual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

Of course but if you think the court will overturn Roe any time soon, despite it being awful law, you’re a lot more optimistic than I am. But optimism is good!


15 posted on 06/28/2011 12:33:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: topher
"Or is this wishful thinking?"

Well, in a way. SCOTUS can always define a class of homicide that is both exempt from prosecution and available only to women. In order to avoid being so obviously full of chit, though, they'll rule that every pregnancy should end in abortion unless both the father and the mother want the child to be born. /sarc

16 posted on 06/28/2011 12:35:50 PM PDT by Rashputin (Obama is insane but kept medicated and on golf courses to hide it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The sad part is that the legislation, passed by "pro-life" Republicans, not only identifies the being involved as a human person, it says that you can kill them.

Which is worse than Roe. And completely contrary to the Constitution's requirements.

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Even Blackmun admitted, in the Roe majority opinion, that if the fetus is a person, OF COURSE they are protected by the explicit imperative provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973


17 posted on 06/28/2011 12:37:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topher
Yeah, wishful thinking. The Leftwingtards gotta' have their dead babies.

Look how they act on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ~ willing to kill another member of the court and then get together and lie about it.

It'd be the same at the USSC ~ probably have Ginsburg wear a suicide vest to work some day and BANG ~ all of 'em gone and Obama free to appoint 9 Commies.

18 posted on 06/28/2011 12:38:52 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Of course but if you think the court will overturn Roe any time soon, despite it being awful law, you’re a lot more optimistic than I am. But optimism is good!

I'm not optimistic at all. "Dred Scott" was never officially overturned by the court. It took civil war, and a Constitutional Amendment to rectify that. No, I'm even less optimistic than you are...

the infowarrior

19 posted on 06/28/2011 12:40:22 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Oral arguments in Roe v. Wade concerning personhood and the Fourteenth Amendment. [Audio]
20 posted on 06/28/2011 12:40:56 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

“Life begins at conception because it’s the only time it can.” - Rush


21 posted on 06/28/2011 12:42:52 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

So Dred Scott was “settled law”?


22 posted on 06/28/2011 12:43:50 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

So Dred Scott was “settled law”?


23 posted on 06/28/2011 12:43:59 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

In short, Blackmun *knew* the decision was utterly unconstitutional on the face of it, a modern day Dred Scott, and supported that. History should not be kind to him, and he should fall into historical oblivion, even as Roger B. Taney did...

the infowarrior

24 posted on 06/28/2011 12:46:52 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.

WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and

WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and

WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and

WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and

WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;

THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.


25 posted on 06/28/2011 12:47:14 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
So Dred Scott was “settled law”?

In a word, yes. It did more to set the stage for the Civil War, than any other single event...

the infowarrior

26 posted on 06/28/2011 12:48:21 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
Fifty million dead American babies, and hundreds and hundreds of million dead babies in other countries because of our immoral example, is a whole lot of innocent blood to have on one's hands, that's for sure.

The unspeakable horrors of human slavery in this country pale by comparison.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

-- Thomas Jefferson


27 posted on 06/28/2011 12:51:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail


28 posted on 06/28/2011 12:53:33 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: topher
"Or is this wishful thinking?"

Given the current composition of the court, probably.

29 posted on 06/28/2011 1:01:21 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I too, tremble for my country, knowing that God's justice will not be denied...

the infowarrior

30 posted on 06/28/2011 1:03:46 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Oooooh, I see.


31 posted on 06/28/2011 1:04:26 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
Courts don't make law. We have to fiercely combat that notion. It's destroying our free republic.

Courts decide individual cases which are brought before them, according to the Constitution and the laws which have been duly passed by the people's representatives. If they do more than that, they are outside their constitutional jurisdiction and should therefore be promptly removed from office.

Only the legislative branch, the representatives of the people, are authorized to make laws.

The United States Constitution

Article I

Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

And, of course, if the legislative branch passes legislation that violates the Constitution, or the Natural Law, that too is lawless, having been done outside the lawful jurisdiction of any branch of government.

"A unjust law, is no law at all."

-- Augustine of Hippo


32 posted on 06/28/2011 1:08:11 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
"I’d rather have this decided in legislation."

What "this" conception? If that is what you are referring to, you're a bit too late on that one buddy, God already decided it.

33 posted on 06/28/2011 1:09:52 PM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Not a single one of the sitting “justices” on this supreme court is a personhood pro-lifer.


34 posted on 06/28/2011 1:10:47 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I don't disagree with anything you posted, there...

the infowarrior

35 posted on 06/28/2011 1:14:24 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wagglebee; narses; blue-duncan
“human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm,”

If it wasn't living, then they wouldn't have to kill it.

Very important wording, imho.

The other part of the judge's ruling is illogical in the context of his first part. Without a congressional law that exempts this taking of life from the due process clause of the US Constitution, why should taxpayers be funding a private organization that performs homicidal procedures?

Congress has never had a chance to vote in favor of such a law, because they've been preempted by the courts.

I agree that many find war and police killings morally repugnant and the taking of life, but those instances are covered by law, not by judicial fiat.

36 posted on 06/28/2011 1:38:46 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Imagine that! Planned Unparenthood wants doctors to pretend that the unborn child is only a blob of cells no different from those of a fish, a frog, a bird, etc. What the heck is it if not a human being?

In like news, North Carolina's Governor Bev Perdue vetoed a recent bill passed by the state legislature that would require a woman be given information about the current development of her baby, the risks associated with abortion and alternatives to abortion. She says she did this because she doesn't think it is right to impose upon a woman's relationship between her and her doctor. This is a pure, liberal knee-jerk reaction to ANYTHING that would stand in the way of on demand, anytime for any reason abortion. She KNOWS that most abortions are performed in clinics where the only time a woman even sees the doctor is when he enters the procedure room to do the dirty deed. He doesn't know her and she doesn't know him - unless she is a repeat customer. The only information she receives is from a “counselor” and not a doctor.

I am so tired of the empty rhetoric these politicians use to justify their far-left Liberal views. Hopefully, they will be a dying breed as more and more voters become better educated on this issue and those who genuinely respect life take their places. The right to life is the first of our unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, only people who respect this should represent us.

37 posted on 06/28/2011 2:07:45 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Of course the Courts have said that thre is no consensus when human life begins and personhood- which has been defined as having been born or in the process of being born


38 posted on 06/28/2011 2:09:09 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Do you agree with such nonsense?

The fact that the human person’s physical earthly existence begins at the moment of his or her biological inception or creation is scientifically so far beyond debate now that any argument to the contrary doesn’t even pass the laugh test.


39 posted on 06/28/2011 2:18:27 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The sad part is that the legislation, passed by "pro-life" Republicans, not only identifies the being involved as a human person, it says that you can kill them.

That is true, but one step at a time, Roe V. Wade will be overturned. The camel's nose in the tent that permitted abortion on demand and at any time that we have today was the exception of rape, incest and mother's "health". The Doe vs. Bolton companion ruling to Roe defined health as virtually any reason where the woman might suffer anything from discomfort to financial problems, even being too young was found to qualify as health. Why this allowed what we have today is that it disallowed the rights of the developing human being. If he could be killed because he was inconvenient or because of how or when he was conceived, then there would be no rights whatsoever recognized for him. Abortion must be outlawed unless there is no other way to save the life of the mother and those cases should indeed be rare.

40 posted on 06/28/2011 2:27:29 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
In short, Blackmun *knew* the decision was utterly unconstitutional on the face of it, a modern day Dred Scott, and supported that. History should not be kind to him, and he should fall into historical oblivion, even as Roger B. Taney did...

Of course, he knew it. That's why he found a "penumbra of an emanation" in the constitution. Basically a shadow of a ghost of a right to privacy. Pretty poor reasoning for such a "bright" man. He answered to God already for it, that we know.

41 posted on 06/28/2011 2:46:59 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
There are steps forward, and there are steps backwards and over a cliff.

Codifying immoral, unconstitutional, lawless "laws" that say you can kill innocent persons is the latter, not the former.

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


42 posted on 06/28/2011 2:52:23 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Sign me up!!!


43 posted on 06/28/2011 2:57:08 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Of course not. But to get around the 5th A and Due Process Clause of the 14th A, the Courts have defined a person as one who has been born or is in the process of being born.

The odd thing about Roe v. Wade, is that while the majority opinion says that is is unsure as to when life begins for the purposes of constituional protection, it then goes on to itself make this conclusion by constructing the trimester framework. A framework plucked out of thin air that had all the hallmarks of a piece of legislation without a preamble to it.

Later, embarrassed by this opinion, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, they dropped the trimester famework, but still went onto hold what it called the essential holding in Roe- that denies the right of constitutional protection until post-viability.


44 posted on 06/28/2011 2:57:50 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Fifty million dead American babies, and hundreds and hundreds of million dead babies in other countries because of our immoral example, is a whole lot of innocent blood to have on one's hands, that's for sure.

And don't forget the hundreds of millions of mothers and fathers of those doomed unborn. They are the walking wounded - most totally unaware that they are.

45 posted on 06/28/2011 3:02:14 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Rights exist whether they are enumerated in the Constitution or not. Even the Constitution itself says so, in the Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the right to privacy is real. It's not some "emanation" or "penumbra." The Fourth Amendment even clearly enumerates it.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The right to privacy has limits, as the Fourth Amendment makes clear. And, it most certainly does not trump the supreme right, the right to live. You can't kill Grandma just because you did it in private, hiding in a closet.

The arguments over privacy have always been a silly distraction, at best, from what should be the laser-like focus of pro-lifers.

Personhood is the key to stopping this ongoing holocaust, before it has completely destroyed this free republic.

46 posted on 06/28/2011 3:04:06 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's no longer the federal government. It's the feral government. Tame it now or it will eat us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You are correct that the right to privacy - though not expressed exactly in that way in the constitution - does exist. Also, as you said, those rights are governed by higher laws. Blackmun, himself, said that the Roe decision was based upon an emanation of a penumbra within this right to privacy. So, although he admitted that there was no such expressed right to abortion, he decided it was contained within the right to privacy.


47 posted on 06/28/2011 3:56:18 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

It’s a law, created by the legislature and signed by the governor.


48 posted on 06/28/2011 4:30:43 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: topher

Roe v Wade was decided based on the limited knowledge and technology at the time. Today we have such advanced tech that the development of the baby can be seen within weeks of conception. That will be hard to dispute.

However Justice Ginsburg who has in the past expressed objections to the way Roe v Wade was decided will find a penumbra within a penumbra of the Constitution to allow abortion.


49 posted on 06/28/2011 4:45:46 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topher
The key phrase that the Federal Judge has upheld is: "human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm." If this case goes to SCOTUS (appeal of blocking Planned Parenthood funding), it might be grounds to overturn Roe v. Wade. Or is this wishful thinking?

There are two aspects to the issue, and they've been blended together for so long that this ruling is like a breath of fresh air in a stuffy room. There is the beginning of the physical human body, and then there is the entry of the soul into the body.

Atheists and agnostics and communists and Leftists are stuck with the first aspect alone - the beginning of the physical body alone. Ironically, these shiftless lying bastards and bitches have invoked spiritual arguments to avoid the obvious, which the judge just nailed: the physical human body begins at conception, by definitions, because nothing but innate growth takes place after that, not any addiction of new biological material. So at the physical level, that's that - legally. And if that's all you recognize for abortion, then conception is it.

Spiritually, however, there's the discussion of the soul, and when it enters the physical body. Obviously, many believe the soul enters at conception. But there are ancient teachings from many different religions that this isn't so - that the body has to develop to a certain level of sophistication before it provides a suitable environment for the soul.

As for abortion, in a spiritual sense, the discussion becomes a definition of terms at the most fundamental level - the destruction of the human body without the soul, versus the destruction of the human body containing a soul (and I'm not even getting into the demonic atrocity of killing a late-term baby, or one being born).

Obviously, if the soul enters after conception, at some point in the development of the fetus, the human body before it enters is hardly "neutral" since it is being prepared FOR a soul. So killing it would NOT be "neutral," either.

But killing a fetus WITH a soul, by any definition, is killing a full-fledged human being. And human civilizations can only allow such killing under extremely limited circumstances, lest they condone murder and, eventually, destroy themselves.

50 posted on 06/28/2011 4:46:51 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson