Posted on 07/16/2015 9:42:26 AM PDT by wagglebee
A heart from a preborn baby is NOT goiong to be of any use to an adult.
Care to expound on your statement?
How may baby parts are bought and NOT used for research? How many “calvarium” are just used in rituals?
Absolutely.
What has emerged in the mainstream pro-life movement in the past forty years is what I like to call ProLife, Inc. While it is true that groups like National Right to Life started as pro-life groups and many of their members are genuinely pro-life, they are actually just another charity that raises money to pay salaries without actually doing any good.
ProLife, Inc. is COMPLICIT in the abortion industry through their unending promotion of laws that are designed to keep abortion LEGAL. Every law they propose effectively ends with a clause that says, "and then you can kill the baby."
Parental Consent Laws: a minor needs a parent or a judge (and EVERY abortionist has the names of judges who are happy to sign-off under the flimsiest of pretexts) to consent, "and then you can kill the baby."
Waiting Periods: a woman needs to wait a few days to consider what Big Murder has already told her is the best thing she can do, "and then you can kill the baby."
Partial Birth Abortion Ban: you can no longer partially deliver a baby to kill it; however, there is NO BAN on injecting poison into the baby's heart, find a doctor to do this, "and then you can kill the baby."
And the list goes on.
NONE of these laws are designed to outlaw abortion any more than traffic laws are designed to outlaw driving, they are designed to codify and regulate abortion.
ProLife, Inc. is actually the originator of the whole, "safe and legal and rare" approach to infanticide. However, they refuse to look at the fact that abortion IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Blackmun's opinion in Roe made it clear that if personhood of the baby is established the baby then has 14th Amendment protection. So why continue to propose laws that aren't designed to save a single life?
What ProLife, Inc. and Big Murder have is a rivalry, and being someone's rival is very different from being their enemy. Look at college football, the Saturday after Thanksgiving is dedicated to rivalries and people love it. Alabama-Auburn, Michigan-Ohio State, etc., these teams aren't enemies, they're rivals. Enemies want to DESTROY each other permanently, rivals want bragging rights. These football programs rake in millions of dollars BECAUSE of the rivalry, what would happen if the rivalry ENDED? People live for these games, they don't want them to end.
And it is the same with ProLife, Inc. and Big Murder. A new "abortion regulation" that doesn't actually end stop a single abortion is passed and ProLife, Inc. sends out a press release applauding themselves, while Big Murder sends out an urgent plea for more money. A while later, Big Murder announces a new state of the art abortuary and ProLife, Inc. sends out their urgent plea for money. It has gone on for four decades. They don't want this to end, they need this.
The true pro-life movement is based upon the understanding that the baby is a PERSON and is therefore entitled to the same God-given rights as everyone else. That means that abortion is illegal, not something to be regulated. The TRUE abolitionist movement before the Civil War didn't want to regulate slavery, they wanted to end slavery because they understood that this was the ONLY moral thing to do, ending abortion is the same.
And I cannot disagree that there are undoubtedly members and leaders of the pro-life movement that are in it for the power and money.
That being said, as long as the Supreme Court maintains the legitimacy of abortion, perhaps the best that can be done is to cause difficulties and delays in a mother having the procedure in the hope that she changes her mind.
This is not satisfactory, I know, but it's like, say, immigration, where just because a border fence will not stop every illegal alien from coming to America, it will help.
These are tough questions, but they are questions of tactics for you and me. There are, as you say, those that are in it for the money.
Cheers.
However, the Supreme Court HAS NOT maintained the legitimacy of abortion. ProLife, Inc. maintains it by continuing to lobby for laws that keep abortion legal.
Read what's in the Roe opinion:
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. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.
There is NO REASON why Congress cannot pass legislation acknowledging that a baby is a person. There is no reason that a president cannot do this through executive order. Simply stating the obvious fact that a baby is a person would be practically impossible to reverse at a later date.
This is not satisfactory, I know, but it's like, say, immigration, where just because a border fence will not stop every illegal alien from coming to America, it will help.
However, NONE of these laws can be shown to have saved a single life, not one. A baby is murdered EVERY 24 SECONDS in the United States, that number varies from time to time but there's no correlation to any laws.
A) Decisions by the supreme court or laws that violate the laws of nature and nature’s God or the Constitution are null and void. This is one of the first principles of western civilization and American republicanism.
If these murderous opinions are “maintained as legitimate” it is by the other branches who go along with the court’s illegitimate opinions. Not only does the court have no lawmaking powers, they have no enforcement powers. All they have is the authority to decide individual cases that come before them, in keeping with the Constitution and all constitutionally valid laws.
B) The bills in question are in and of themselves completely immoral and unconstitutional. They encode explicit permission to kill babies, all of the babies, as long as they are murdered on schedule and by an arbitrary set of rules. This is of course an obvious violation of the explicit, imperative equal protection requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, not to speak of being destructive of every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution in the preamble.
These bills surrender the only two real moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion on demand: First, the intrinsic God-given right to life of the individual child, and second, required equal protection under the law.
In other words, in the real world, these bills don’t “save some,” they assure the continued destruction of all.
Once you surrender your only weapons, you are in fact a casualty, and casualties don’t win wars.
Please carefully ponder the wise words of President Lincoln below.
“I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
— Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
bump!
But then the Law and Morality are only occasionally on the same side of a lot of issues.
The point is that the president or Congress doesn't need to tell SCOTUS to stick it. SCOTUS has ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED that establishment of personhood trumps abortion. Affirm personhood via executive order and it ends. NO president would dare suggest at a later date that a baby isn't a person.
****************************
So elegant in simplicity.
Elegant and simple.
Now. How do we get such a President elected in the first place?
Yup. Lincoln so eloquently and precisely nailed the predicament we are in today, in that one paragraph. Because we have rolled over to this eminent tribunal, we have ceased to be our own rulers and haven’t been since 1973.
Yeah. But ironically, since the court has no executive or legislative power, we could still turn this around tomorrow.
All we lack are representatives who actually represent us, and actually keep the oath they are all required to take.
Yes Sir.
I may be late to the party, naive, or both, but this .... Along with this ...
“Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized
First half sentence, first Big Lie.
“Same-sex marriage” not only does not exist, courts don’t get to make law. They can’t “legalize” anything.
And any law that violates the laws of nature and nature’s God or the Constitution don’t exist either. They are null and void.”
Has me totally confused as to why this is not a core argument of someone like Ted Cruz brought forth in a legitimate challenge.
Can you explain why this basic truth and/or argument is not being made via a very loud drumbeat?
Thank you for your time and insight ~
Because Cruz is a lawyer. He’s a judicial supremacist by training.
“Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
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.