One of the greatest crimes of our century has been grossly misjudged Roe v. Wade case that legalized the systematic murder of children. Out of abortion has grown an even more barbaric practice, partial birth abortion. A accurate description of this procedure is worth seeing.
The Supreme Court has agreed to take a case out of California concerning the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion. This is the second case involving the ban on partial-birth abortion that the high court has agreed to hear. As you may recall, Congress approved a national ban on the procedure. The law was challenged in three separate cases in the federal court system in Nebraska, New York, and California. In all cases, the ban was declared unconstitutional. The high court first agreed to hear the case out of Nebraska (see below). The ACLJ, which has been involved in defending the national ban since its passage by Congress, is supporting the government’s position defending the ban and is representing members of Congress in an amicus brief filed with the high court. Like the Nebraska case, the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in CA case in the fall of 2006. The case is Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.
I just learned of this group tonight and the facts above, about this case are from there.
I have mentioned this channel before, and again there are many things here that I’m not interested in, but there are very good historical stories. There is also, a good news segment at 6pm. I heard this case was about to come before the Supreme Court tonight. It’s funny that I’ve not heard a word about it on any of the regular news programs. I was amazed to see Lawyer’s for the adlj speaking in a way that made me think that maybe there actually are lawyers, who really care about something besides a fat paycheck. They explored in detail this case. Lets hope that with the recent improvements in the court the absolutely horrendous act of partial birth abortion will finally be made a part of a tragic time of past history and not the future.
The absurdity of the Roe v. Wade decision (even “pro-choice” people admit it’s bad law) is that despite its arbitrary trimester framework for dealing with abortion, there are two gaping holes in the decision: 1) abortion was declared legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all; and 2) the issue of when life begins was never addressed. As a result, a “woman’s right to choose” became a 9-month monolith. Pro-choice extremists have find themselves in the unenviable position of defending what is clearly infanticide, lest the whole deck of cards collapse.
The number of abortions has declined in recent years, due in part because there are fewer women of child-bearing age, since so many were aborted in the 70’s and 80’s. Yet despite this, the decline in births over the last 33 years has created demographic distortion that will affect social policy for years to come.
With fewer workers around to support the retiring baby boomers, three possibilities await us: 1) bleed the Gen X’ers white through increased taxation to support their parents’ and grandparents’ social security and Medicare; 2) increase the retirement age, so that baby boomers will have to work well into their 70’s; or 3) exert pressure on ailing baby boomers to “do the right thing” and commit doctor-assisted suicide for the sake of their progeny. Since the whole “quality of life” argument attacks both the youngest and the oldest of our society, this third option is not as far fetched as it once was. With more and more effective measures to keep older people alive, this will be touted as the “final solution.”
As a result of the discovery of a consistutional right (a woman’s right to choose) within a similarly fabricated right to privacy, social security has been gutted (you can’t sustain a pyramid scheme unless the base of the pyramid keeps growing), and we’ve accepted the murder of a baby with all but its head out of the womb as a “constitutional right.”
Getting information you suppose to be true from a chaannel that specializes in lying for money probably isn’t wise.
Ol’ purple hair is the true face and ugly soul of TBN.
and curious… the right to privacy a fabrication?
You know better than that.
The ACLJ?
Are you guys supporting judicial activism???
Getting information you suppose to be true from a chaannel that specializes in lying for money probably isn’t wise.
Attacking the source when there are plenty of other places this information is available probably isn’t credible. A Google search for the exact phrase “Partial Birth Abortion” yields about 1, 440,000 hits.
Are you implying that this procedure doesn’t exist or isn’t as gruesome as the diagrams show?
…the right to privacy a fabrication? You know better than that.
Here’s a pretty good synopsis of the history of the right to privacy, from Cornell Law School:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy
Please note that this “right” is only implied in the Constitution. The article refers to an implicit right to privacy in the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Making the leap from the right against illegal search and seizure and self-incrimination to the right to “privately” have your baby killed while its arms and legs are dangling outside the womb is the height of absurdity.
Roe v. Wade refers to the right to choose as hidden in the “shadows and penumbra” of the Constitution.
Clint, I’d be interested in your rationale as to why partial birth abortion is a constitutional right.
Whatever.
OK, Clint, let’s try this one: When does life begin?
LOL. The response from a liberal when confronted with absolute fact always tickles me. “Whatever.” How many times have I heard that. I’m not sure who ol purple hair is and I’ll be the first to admit that not all on TBN is to my liking but it doesn’t change the fact that some programming is excellent.
Ct you hit on very good points in both your replies. I had thought about getting into the so called right to privacy. But it would have added to much to the original post. It is indeed a subject unto itself. Many sick laws have been advanced through this incredibility ignorant interpretation. You answer well with your link.
The point you bring up about the shrinking numbers of child bearing women is also excellent. This factor figures in big to the excuses from both the right and the left when they refuse to do something about illegal immigration. It is said by both that for Social Security to remain viable these people must be let in. This of course is a fallacy to hide true motives. Most money made by illegals is sent back to their country of origin. Much of the money made by these folks is never taxed at all as it is earned under the table. But this also is a complex subject best left for a separate post.
One of the most stupid statements revolving around this subject is the subject of, “When does life start?” This is a stupid argument because to start life implies that it must be created. A baby is not a new life it is a continuation of it’s parent’s life. Ontogeny recapitulates ontogeny. Life does not spontaneously generate in the womb. Bits of life from two parents join and continue as a different individual. I believe in a womans right to chose. She should always be allowed to chose to open or, keep shut her legs. Past that, there is no question about life, only a gruesome death. I suggest those unconvinced also google, “The silent scream”, and watch if you can stand it.
Celtictexan,
Your comment about conception as the continuation (as opposed to the beginning) of life is very thought provoking. I’ve thought of physical life as a continuum beginning at conception and ending at death; you propose a much longer continuum. I’ll have to ponder that some more. Thanks for such a stimulating proposition so early on a Wednesday morning.
The issue of when life begins is cautiously avoided by the liberals, because to do so would knock the pins out from under the rationale for the “right to choose [abortion].” The problem with this is that when human life is left undefined, it’s up to the individual to make that “choice.”
What some of our contributors don’t seem to understand is that without a standard, a non-human can be defined just as easily as a twenty-something liberal working at AQHA as a race, ethnic group, or a “mass of undifferentiated cells.”
You may have noticed that when speaking of partial birth abortion, the emphsis today is not about when life starts but viability. When is a baby capable of living on its own outside the womb? Some of the more disturbing parts of testimony before the various courts so far, has been the abotion doctor telling the court that the arms and legs of the baby are moving around prior to the skull being penetrated by the vacume device. I just wonder what kind of doctor, what kind of person could do this? What kind of mother could allow it? What kind of country could allow it?
For another description of partial birth abortion click on the top abortion link that has appeared as an advertisement on the front page.