Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
The justices that decided for abortion "rights", refused to even consider that the unborn child was entitled to the right to life and Blackmun stated the science wasn't settled on that question. What a cop-out!
Now, 45 years and 50+ MILLION abortions later, will the Supreme Court finally get around to addressing the science that the human life begins at fertilization - something that they HAVE known for much longer than that - and do what is right and just or will they continue to succumb to the pressure of society that demands killing unborn children is a right ABOVE the child's right to live?
I have used that argument with abortion advocates. If life does not begin at conception, what physical act happens after conception that starts the baby’s life?
They never have an answer.
Forget the law. The bottom line in abortion is that a woman has decided to kill her own conception. A pre born human life is killed. The ramifications for the woman, the culture and the human species are profound and terrible. Those who mold their conscience to acquiesce to this unrestricted killing of human life are capable of justifying or committing any vile action. A “pro choice” person should never be trusted in any matter of importance.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Progressive liberals have no concept biological reality.
**Using this logic, Craddock notes, the Supreme Court justices were flawed in their 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which granted the right to abortion. When he wrote the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun failed to properly assess the word “person” as it was applied in 1868, Craddock argues. **
Wow! We’ll have to watch and see what happens.
Not quite. Harry Blackmun purposely ignored the word “person” as it was applied in 1868. Blackmun simply wanted to "legalize" the killing of children before birth and did not care about the truth or the consequences.
My hope and prayer is that President Trump will appoint enough justices to SCOTUS to overturn Roe. And for a bigger miracle: one day a pro-life amendment to the COTUS.
Here's Bork:
“Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that.
Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.
--Robert H. Bork
Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
Robert H. Bork is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Exactly!
The thing that amazes me is how some sort of right to a woman’s body in her convenience and excuse from responsibility with what she did with her body trumps the right to life of the baby that results.
bttt
Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott decision where SCOTUS decided that Blacks are not legal persons even though they are biological persons.
The entire Roe v Wade decision was that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment meant “LEGAL (not merely biological) PERSON”.
But if that is really what was meant in the 14th Amendment then the 14th Amendment never applied to Blacks, who had already been determined by SCOTUS to be “human livestock” rather than “legal persons” (persons with Bill of Rights protections).
IOW, if Roe v Wade is correct and “person” in the 14th Amendment means “legal person”, then Blacks are STILL “human livestock” as decided in the Dred Scott case, because Dred Scott was never overturned. The 14th Amendment wouldn’t apply to Blacks, since Blacks have never been ruled to be LEGAL PERSONS who then qualify for 14th Amendment protections.
If the rationale of Roe v Wade was actually taken seriously, Blacks would still be legal non-persons. But everybody knows that Roe v Wade was just an excuse for SCOTUS to legislate from the bench. Nobody takes the rationale seriously because it is so deeply flawed.
And you can get some really tortured logic if you take Roe’s rationale seriously. For instance, involuntary servitude is banned. If that applies to Blacks, who are still classified legally as human livestock, then would it also apply to bovine livestock? Is bovine involuntary servitude forbidden in the US Constitution?
What if SCOTUS ruled that female humans are legal non-persons? Or Jews and the handicapped? Adolf Hitler didn’t exterminate a single person, you know, because he defined them all out of legal personhood before he exterminated them. What is to stop SCOTUS from doing the same thing, using the Roe decision as the precedent?
Roe v Wade is a terrible, terrible decision, on SO MANY different levels. It is the slavery beast and the Nazi beast all rolled into one. It is a travesty, and this nation is under its own curse as long as this ruling stands.
If a pregnant mother is killed, frequently the suspect is charged with murder of two people. How can that be?
Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of his unborn child and convicted.
That should have been brought as precedent to the Supreme Court.
Well, if refugees who seek to come here have U.S. Constitutional rights (according to the latest 4th Circuit decision) then certainly the unborn have the same right; even more so.
The only way Harvard could get there is for them to conclude an unborn baby is an illegal immigrant.
If they do the lawyer in the case needs to craft the question to the court carefully to give them little wiggle room.
The life of every human baby begins at their conception and merits full legal protection from that moment forward.