Only if sworn officers of government won't keep their oaths.
-- George Washington "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
Posted on 04/13/2012 5:40:09 AM PDT by Wpin
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a pro-life bill into law today to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
House members passed the bill by a 37-22 vote and abortions after that time period would not be allowed except in very rare cases of medical emergency. The bill also requires abortion facilities to allow women to have an ultrasound of their unborn baby at least 24 hours prior to having the abortion. In many cases women change their minds about a planned abortion after seeing the images of their developing child.
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest commended Brewer and called the bill “a life-protecting bill designed to ensure that women don’t suffer from the risks of a dangerous, late-term procedure.” She said Arizona is the first state in the country to enact a late-term ban based on concerns over protecting women’s health by demonstrating that abortion is not only bad for the unborn child, it is also bad for women.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
You are trying to equate killing a baby over a lawful and rightful eviction??
Roe v. Wade has tied the hands of elected officals
Well, it shouldn't. They swore to support the Constitution, not the Court.
The judicial supremacist mindset is doing more than just about anything else I can think of to destroy this free republic.
And "pro-life" "Republicanism" is rotten to the core with it.
One’s legalized murder. The other isn’t nice, but isn’t a death sentence.
And it still does. And in exchange for nothing you’ve codified the killing of innocent persons, contrary to the moral law, the natural law, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, all the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution, the explicit, imperative requirements of that Constitution, and the principles, purposes, and requirements of all the state constitutions as well.
Congratulations.
We won't get perfect until PP v Casey, Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton are gone. That won't be done until SCOTUS fixes its mistake.
You're fooling yourself if you think you have enough power or perspective to play incremental games with evil.
Compromise with evil and you've already lost.
All we can do is the right thing, leaving the results to God. He has the perspective and the power to bring about His will, either immediately or over time. We do not.
If every Christian in America would simply adopt George Washington's attitude concerning things like this, the abortion carnage would stop.
-- George Washington"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
“A landlord can have a tenant forcibly evicted even in the middle of winter, even if that tenant has nowhere else to go and no means to get there.”
Try getting a tenant evicted with 24 hours notice. Just go ahead and try...
“Landlords may evict tenants for a variety of reasons, however, all eviction notices must be in writing. The amount of time a tenant has to either vacate the premises or fix the problem, if possible, is dependent upon the type of eviction. For example, if you have an unauthorized pet, the landlord could give you 10 days to either vacate the premises or get rid of the pet. If the problem involves such things as criminal activity or threatening other residents or apartment staff, the required notice to vacate is 24 hours and there is no opportunity to fix the problem.”
To follow your analogy - if the baby in the womb is threatening the lives of other people...
“Giving notice is the first step in the eviction process. The notice required in Arizona for all situations except non-payment is a 10 Day Notice. Notice must be in writing and delivered in person or by certified mail to the tenant.”
So I guess if the baby has agreed to pay the mother rent, and then withholds the payment...
Bottom line: The baby, unlike a tenant, has a 100% chance of death in abortion. And the mother, by conceiving the baby, has an obligation to fulfill ‘the contract’ - which means delivery.
If the baby refuses to leave at 9 months, feel free to evict. It is called a C-section.
I have always wondered why there has not been a push to have “fetal transplants”. If a baby in a womb can be transfered to another womb (human or artificial), then the issue moves from termination to viability.
It also opens the door to “fetal adoption”. (of course the issue of fetus selling becomes a possible issue)
No it isn't. The "law" is immoral, lawless, and blatantly unconstitutional.
The Constitution of the United States requires equal protection for the God-given, unalienable right to life of every single innocent person. No exceptions. It's not optional. It is imperative.
"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.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
In the end, the Supreme Court decides (for better or for worse) what is Constitutional.
I support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, but that would seem impossible to get ratified at this point.
The makeup of the SCOTUS has changed greatly since 1973 and the there are 4 justices who understand and respect the Constitution and another who is on the fence. If a case regarding a law like this makes it to the SCOTUS we might well be freed from the evil of Roe v. Wade.
Would you vote against a law banning the murder of “viable” unborn babies, newborn babies, toddlers, children and adults, because it does not protect the younger unborn?
What actions do you propose to end abortion? Would you support actions that greatly reduce it (say by 90%) but didn’t completely ban it, provided taking such actions did not preclude a total ban in the future?
>>>Your arguments are Utilitarian, not moral or constitutional. <<<
Is it “moral” to refuse to save 10 innocent lives that you have the ability to save, because there are 10 others that you cannot save?
Sorry, but we live in a constitutional republic, not a judicial oligarchy.
We won't get "perfect" until the people of this country, starting with the Christians, DEMAND that ALL officers, in every branch, at every level, keep the first and most important part of their oath, which is to provide equal protection for the lives of every innocent person within their jurisdiction. And that every officer of government who will not keep the first and most important part of their oath have abdicated any legitimacy to govern anyone, and must be removed by any and all constitutional means.
You’re fooling yourself if you think you have enough power or perspective to play incremental games with evil.
Compromise with evil and you’ve already lost.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No one is fooled here and no one is compromising a single thing.
We are moving the ball toward the goal line here. This is how you win the hearts and minds of the majority.
The next step would be a law, for example, outlawing abortions after the presence of brain waves in the fetus. This happens after 6-8 weeks.
The laws passed by different states then begin to support one another. Soon some state will ban abortions altogether, more will follow, then under the right conditions, a national law could pass and not be overturned.
But it has to be done one step at a time. That is how things realistically get done.
Pray without ceasing.
No. The Constitution belongs to the people of the United States, not to the lawyers and politicians.
-- Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451."Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. THE PEOPLE MAKE THEM, THE PEOPLE ADOPT THEM, THE PEOPLE MUST BE SUPPOSED TO READ THEM, WITH THE HELP OF COMMON-SENSE, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss."
And every officer of government is required to support the Constitution, not just judges.
-- Article VI, the United States Constitution“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
You might want to explain how you think all those officers of the various branches, at all levels, can possibly keep their own oath if they can't decide what the Constitution means, that only judges somehow have such ability and authority.
Landlords aren’t allowed to murder their tenants.
That’s the parallel.
all or nothing means you get nothing.
you have to think this out to the logical extension.
At 20 weeks it is high risk so outlawed. (if the courts uphold it)
Then how can science reduce pregnancy rist to take that to 19? 18?
what if the fetus can be safely removed is a lesser risk than an abortion? Suddenly you start to shift the debate.
the science is the key, thumping religious posturing only ends up abdicating the field to the pro-abortion crowd.
Mitt Romney, the de facto nominee of the Republican party, is pro-abortion. So, it's unsurprising that abortion is advocated in Republican and nominally conservative circles. I doubt that what is left of the pro-life plank in the Republican platform would survive a Romney presidency.
Your definition of ‘eviction’ apparently means that the landlord murders the tenant, drags his corpse out of the house and dumps his lifeless body in the most convenient dumpster. You must not be using Webster.
No, you're not. You're advocating for legislation that sacrifices every decent moral, constitutional and legal argument against the practice of abortion. That is an advancement of the ball for those who hate the first principles of this republic and would like to drive those principles completely out of American public life and American jurisprudence.
This is how you win the hearts and minds of the majority.
No, you don't win the hearts and minds of anyone by sacrificing every decent moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion. You signal to the people that you don't even understand the fundamentals of what you're dealing with. Ignorant and unprincipled "leaders" aren't going to lead the people anywhere good. It's the blind leading the blind.
You actually win hearts and minds in a way that matters by steadfastly standing for what is true and right, and "legal" in the true sense.
Read about William Wilberforce's efforts to ban the slave trade in the British empire. For years he played the incrementalist game, until he finally figured out that not only was it morally wrong, it simply doesn't work.
He changed his strategy and tactics to an unbending advocacy for liberty, and guess what? Slavery was banned. Without a civil war.
So you agree with President Obama that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn laws?
Since you didn’t respond to my earlier questions, I will ask them again:
What actions do you propose to end abortion? Would you support actions that greatly reduce it (say by 90%) but didn’t completely ban it, provided taking such actions did not preclude a total ban in the future?
Is it “moral” to refuse to save 10 innocent lives that you have the ability to save, because there are 10 others that you cannot save?
under the law tenants are alive, a fetus is not “living” and can be removed. not saying it is right just saying it is.
now if science can create a situation where a fetus can gestate OUTSIDE the body then you shift the debate.
Odd how religious groups never fund any hard research into this.
Without a moral basis there is absolutely no decent constitutional or legal argument against the practice of abortion. Because, without a moral basis there is no constitution or law. They're just dead letters.
In any case, here is my position on this in detail:
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.
The moment you get the immoral Roe vs Wade decision struck down, this law in AZ will become unimportant. Children will be protected in the womb from the moment of conception.
And if this law itself is struck down for not being Constitutional, then the Roe vs Wade decision will have been sidelined by history. The new X vs Y decision (whomever X and Y turn out to be) will dominate abortion jurisprudence from then on.
And in the meantime: some children in the womb are being protected BY THIS LAW from the current murderous misrepresentation of the Constitution.
As an added bonus: the noose can be tightened from here with reduced limits: 10 weeks, 5 weeks, 2 weeks, and so on.
A couple more Conservative judges and this all goes away. But until it does, Arizona is doing what it can to protect its children from murderous Federal overreach. Everything short of secession (though it may yet come to that).
Arizona has not enshrined child-murder into law any more than it is already enshrined in law: moreover Arizona is reducing the scope of the current toxic jurisprudence. This is a good thing.
The Supreme Court has the duty to follow the Constitution in every case that comes before it. If they refuse to follow the Constitution, the officers of the other branches have a sworn obligation to oppose them. It's really simple. It's called checks and balances. I'm surprised so many seem not to have heard of it.
What actions do you propose to end abortion?
There is only one way to end abortion, and that is for every officer of government, in every branch and at every level, to begin to perform the first obligation of their sacred oath, which is to provide equal protection for the God-given, unalienable right to life of every person within their lawful jurisdiction.
And again, if some officers refuse to do their first duty, they must be removed from office by the earliest and most efficient constitutional means at the people's disposal.
Would you support actions that greatly reduce it (say by 90%) but didn’t completely ban it, provided taking such actions did not preclude a total ban in the future? Is it “moral” to refuse to save 10 innocent lives that you have the ability to save, because there are 10 others that you cannot save?
That's all moot, since we not only have the duty to save all, as is required by God, by nature, by the cornerstone principles of our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, by every stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, and by its explicit, imperative provisions.
Ask yourself, why didn't this "pro-life" majority in AZ, with their "pro-life" possession of the Governor's mansion, simply outlaw the killing of innocent little persons in their state?
Again, you are making Utilitarian arguments, which never pan out in the real world anyhow. I'm making moral and constitutional arguments.
If the woman’s body is her “property” then the baby’s body is also its “property”.
A siren song we've been hearing for forty years. But it never seems to work out, unsurprisingly.
I know full well that oaths of office require allegiance to the Constitution, not to the prevailing interpretation by courts. But I’m not saying that AZ legislators should violate their oath. The AZ law does not say that babies of less than 20 weeks’ gestation may be aborted; it says that babies of over 20 weeks’ gestation may not be aborted.
Would you rather that AZ continue to have abortion-on-demand until the 40th week? Because that’s what you’d get if AZ passed a law banning all abortion from the moment of conception.
Simply not true.
It's been happening state by state for a decade now, driven by the unprincipled Romney Republicans at National Right to Life. It's also in the U.S. Code, put there by "pro-life" Republicans and signed into law by a Republican "pro-life" president, at the urging of the Romney Republicans at National Right to Life. Go look up the "Lacey Peterson" law. Like the legislation in question, it recognizes the personhood of the child, and then allows certain disfavored classes of said persons to be butchered by the abortionists. Immoral, unconstitutional.
Even the infamous Blackmun, in the majority Roe decision, admitted that if the child is a PERSON, they are "OF COURSE" protected by the explicit provisions of the U.S. Constitution. ALL of them.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...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 [Fourteenth] Amendment."
Wanna bet?
>>>Again, you are making Utilitarian arguments, which never pan out in the real world anyhow. I’m making moral and constitutional arguments.<<<
High minded, “moral” and “constitutional” arguments with no action behind them, and that condemn those who do take the actions they are able to take, are not only useless, but are immoral and sinful.
You are not interested in saving the lives of unborn children, but only pontificating and condemning those who are trying to save as many as they can.
Nonsense.
They’re not saving any. All they are doing is assuring the continuation of abortion on demand.
But hey, they’ll have their fake credentials to raise more money and garner more votes for Republicans from naive, ignorant pro-lifers!
How soon before this is declared unconstitutional?
OH, BUT GREAT NEWS ANYWAY! GLORY HALlLUJAH!
That's all well and good, but does even a legally-recognized PERSON have the unlimited right to the use of another person's body for as long as necessary? The Thirteenth Amendment is also part of the Constitution, remember, along with the Fourteenth.
I don't think the legal issues are as cut and dried as some people think they are. It won't do a lot of good to finally get the courts to recognize the personhood of the fetus if fetal homicide is then just considered another form of justifiable homicide.
Well said.
meaningless
Only if sworn officers of government won't keep their oaths.
-- George Washington "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
Parents have a moral and legal obligation to protect and care for their children.
We're not barbarians.
develope the science of gestation outside the mother or gestational transplants and suddenly the debate goes from choice vs life into viability vs convenience.
we already have the start of this with women/couples who buy frozen fetilized eggs. Now it is just a matter of converging frozen implants and premature births so that viability is at ANY point during pregnancy.
(of course you also have to develope the support laws too establishing that a transplanted fetus is the property of the woman carrying it and if married/consent the paternity is the husbands as a matter of law)
One: A fetus is a living, genetically distinct human being. It is not part of "her own body."
Two: A tenant subject to eviction is not unlike a trespasser. A fetus is not trespassing on the woman's body; he is exactly where he is supposed to be at that stage of his development.
Three: Your analogy only holds water if the landlord has the legal right to kill his tenant, and then throw his dismembered remains into the trash.
You are wasting your breath debating with EV. I have had this argument with him before. He would gladly allow millions of babies to be aborted rather that accept a partial victory on this issue. He is truly an "all or nothing" zealot of the first order.
On the other hand, I will not say that if I am not able to save all, I will not save any. Rather, I will will work to save every one that I can, with the goal of eventually being able to save them all.
In the overwhelming majority of cases where the child's use of the mother's body as home and nutritional source (i.e. pregnancy) was initiated willingly by the mother (i.e. consensual sex), then I might say yes.
You might call it entering into a contract of sorts.
Here’s a hypothetical with a born baby:
You see a little baby, perfectly innocent, and are shocked to hear that someone has been granted a 9-month window to kill her.
Then you hear that due to a new law, the person is now limited to a 5-month window to kill that innocent little baby girl.
Would that be anything to celebrate?
Celebrate? No. But lets extend the analogy - under the first law, a million children will be killed in a year - under the 2nd, 200,000 of those will be saved. Is the first law better than the 2nd or not?
Make that “is the 2nd law better than the first or not?”
It's a start. Should have been 12 weeks, but they had to make sure they could get the votes.
Obama thinks nine months and one day is pretty good.
If a daughter of mine was the baby in question - who could legally be killed within a 5-month window under the new law - I would not accept that.
Better to have laws in the Third Law category, which ban abortions at conception.
Of course, that's a given. You and others seem to have missed this point: Apartment : uterus :: tenant : fetus.
Two: A tenant subject to eviction is not unlike a trespasser. A fetus is not trespassing on the woman's body; he is exactly where he is supposed to be at that stage of his development.
A tenant subject to eviction was also exactly where he was supposed to be until the point in time where the landlord decided to assert his authority over his property to end the tenant's occupancy.
Three: Your analogy only holds water if the landlord has the legal right to kill his tenant, and then throw his dismembered remains into the trash.
What else do you think the extreme end of a sheriff conducting a forcible eviction is? If the tenant resists, the guns come out, the media calls it a "standoff," and the tenant ends up outside either breathing or not. That's just how the police operate, and they do it on behalf of the landlord.
Google "Eviction turns deadly" - there's 1,720 results.
Look, abortion is a horrific travesty, and our nation and humanity as a whole will certainly be judged harshly for it. But Ceaucescu in Romania was also judged harshly for his crimes.
Not even close to analogous. A fetus comes into existence within the uterus, an organ designed for that purpose. An apartment is simply a set of rooms available to rent by an arbitrary individual.
What else do you think the extreme end of a sheriff conducting a forcible eviction is? If the tenant resists, the guns come out, the media calls it a "standoff," and the tenant ends up outside either breathing or not.
LOL. What are you trying to assert, that a fetus is a squatter that refuses to vacate his mother's uterus, and this makes abortion necessary?
This is really simple: the unborn are not intruders. They are a natural function of the reproductive system.
And that is why we have no abortion law of any kind in Canada. The last time the government tried to restrict abortion, in 1991, conservatives were upset that it banned some abortions rather than all abortions, and decided that it was better to side with the feminists who wanted no restrictions.
Should one of these all-or-nothing zealots ever end up at my table for a meal, I plan on refusing to serve him even one portion, unless he agrees to eat everything I prepared.
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.