New Abortion Ban Ignores Court (Double-Bagger Baby Killer Barf Alert!!!)

Prayer for the Helpless Unborn

            Heavenly Father, in your love for us,
            protect against the wickedness of the
            devil, those helpless little ones to
            whom you have give the gift of life.

            Touch with pity the hearts of those
            women pregnant in our world today
            who are not thinking of motherhood.

            Help them to see that the child they
            carry is made in your image- as well
            as theirs- made for eternal life.

            Dispel their fear and selfishness and
            give them tur womanly hearts to love
            their babies and give them birth and
            all the needed care that a mother
            alone can give.

            We ask this through Jesus Christ,
            your Son, our Lord, who lives and
            reigns in the Holy Spirit, one God,
            forever and ever.

Amen.

Let's take you to the North Pole with nothing but underwear on and see if you can maintain homeostasis. Your arguments are juvenile in the main. It is amazing to what lengths of irrational mental gymnastics people like you will go in order to continue defending the indefensible! Location doesn't determine the aliveness of an organism, adaptability to the environment is far more important in the picture, yet even adaptability isn't the measure of aliveness. That you want to assert such a specious notion is telling of your mindset.

You might be more comfortable at DemocratUnderground, where the vast majority of members hold sacred the woman's specious right to kill the alive, individual unborn human beings unfortunate to be sequestered in a womb where they are not 'wanted' because of selfish behvaior for which a woman seeks any means to avoid the consequences, even killing another alive individual human being. You'd fit right in!

"" I predict that the next appointee to the SCOTUS will fall somewhere between Stevens and Scalia."

I laughed when I first read this post, because I consider these 2 to be at either end of the spectrum. Then I remembered Ginburg and Souter.

Do you consider Thomas to be more conservative than Scalia?

First, mothers who had abortions were very rarely prosecuted before Roe v. Wade. The doctors who are State regulated, or the non-doctors who were practicing without a license were prosecuted.

Second, each state will decide how to designate the level or degree of homicide for the crime of abortion when it becomes illegal. We've dealt with this sort of change in law, before, when slavery was outlawed.

Third, would you prosecute those of us who enjoy a Cuban cigar in another country or who smoke marijuana in Amsterdam?

Fourth, there is strong evidence that people can control themselves and take extra care when they are at risk of pregnancy in times and countries when/where abortion is difficult to obtain. The If you can handle pdf files, there's an article which is actually a report on an economics seminar, called "Abortion as Insurance." I highly recommend it.

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/research/workshops/wae/levine_staiger.pdf?ID=337

""In contrast, we find that modest restrictions on abortion access have no significant effects
on birth rates, but do reduce abortion rates and, by implication, pregnancy rates by a substantial
amount. Estimates indicate that modest restrictions on abortion access reduced abortions by about
25 percent and pregnancies by about 10 to 25 percent. Moreover, we find no evidence of a rise in
maternal mortality associated with these modest restrictions, which suggests that this decline in
pregnancy was not offset by any substantial rise in illegal abortions.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Our results add to the growing evidence that both pregnancy rates and the use of abortion
react to changes in abortion access. If abortion access is viewed as a form of insurance, it naturally
provides insurance value (in the form of avoiding unwanted births) and incentive effects (in the form
of less pregnancy avoidance). Our findings suggest that both exist, and should be acknowledged
in the design of abortion policy.""

"The US Government does go after Americans who commit murder overseas if the local government doesn't get them first."

I wasn't aware of that. When does that happen?

I feel that way, but I can't say why.

If the rich aren't held exactly to the same standard then the poor shouldn't be held to a standard period. ... Either we are all equal before the law or we have no law at all.

The idea of equality before the law extends to the limits of that law's jurisdiction, as always.

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right, but we can only regulate that within the bounds of our own government. If you wish to go elsewhere and comply with their laws, you will, as your means permit. The rich have always had that option.

But how can you, on one hand argue for equality under the law and argue for abortion on the other?

If a charge of murder can be (and frequently is) issued for the killing of an unborn child by, say, gunshot or drunken driving, why is the child murdered in the womb by a bullet or a drunk's automobile more entitled to the protection of the law than one who is slaughtered by curetage and suction through a natural orifice?

Given a choice, I would no more pay for a D&C under a Welfare program than I would pay for the murderer's ammunition or buy the drunk 'one for the road'. I see no moral distinction.

Furthermore, I find it disingenous that you would argue for poor people getting abortions on the basis of doing away with welfare spending. Really poor people can't afford an abortion. Where do you think they get the money? 'Medical Necessity' has been expanded to include the emotional health of the mother. "You say you'll go crazy if you have this kid? (scribble scribble) OK, sign here....." From welfare! {READ: My tax money at work.}

If they can't, with our (collectively) callous cultural attitude toward infanticide in the womb, it is a short jump, morally speaking, to wrapping the baby in a trash bag and leaving it in a dumpster, something we hear more of in the news.

They used to at least leave the kid on the church steps in a basket, making adoption possible.

But with abortion-on-demand, perfectly healthy children (rich, middle class, and, occasionally poor) are being slaughtered because they are inconvenient or unwanted. Justify that. Anyone who has raised a child will tell you that they are all inconvenient, at least at times. That goes with the territory.

Those who do not wish to have children have a plethora of devices and methods to prevent conception, if they will grow up, be responsible, and use them, ranging from abstinence to contraception to sterilization. All of these methods are cheaper than abortion, and all prevent conception and all the moral problems which begin with that first cell division and, from there, have the potential to break olympic records, teach other children, battle fires, or invent a faster than light drive.

One of the most prominent physicists of our time might have been suctioned out if the means had existed to perform a genetic profiling and determine that with his genius would come severe physical handicaps.

With the mapping of the human genome, how long before the state decides whether you can even have a child? (Read Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, if you haven't. It is a little dated, but we will face--and are facing issues raised there today.) Keep in mind that the State will use the tools accepted by the prevailing culture in place and you decide the future today.

As for Crack moms, they don't care about anything but the high, and are just as likely to have the kid, provided it survives the prenatal environmnet.

Freepers, rather than waiting to see what happens with Estrada, we need to take the lead. That means presuring Senators, special interest groups, media organizations, etc. This thread is meant to be an ongoing effort to get this man confirmed. For too many years liberals have had their way on the courts. Now, President Bush is in a position to move the courts to the right. The election of '02 showed that the country is with the President. I think it's time to let Daschle, Hillary, and Pelosi know this is Bush country. Are you with me! Let's FREEP these people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/847037/posts