Let me premise this post with the qualification that I believe many women who choose abortion do not know what they are really doing and have been lied to for a political cause. Also, anyone can be forgiven of any sin, period. I grieve for those who have made this decision and later regretted it.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court declared preborns to be “non-persons” when it ruled in a 7–2 decision that the United States Constitution guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion any time in the first trimester (the first thirteen weeks). The opinion stated that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause guaranteeing life and liberty, “does not include the unborn.” The trimester system proved to be irrational given the premise of the court. Subsequent decisions concluded that if a preborn baby is not a person, then it stands to reason that “it” can be killed as long as “it” doesn’t see the light of day. The Hawaiian Supreme Court followed the logic of the Supreme Court without flinching: “The proscribed conduct must have been committed at a time when Treyson ‘qualified’ as a ‘person,’ defined by the Hawaii Penal Code as ‘a human being who has been born and is alive.’”1 The ruling was cold blooded and rational.
This same “logic” was used to defend slavery and the Nazi holocaust. If the law says that slaves are not “citizens” as defined by the Constitution, and Jews are not persons according to the laws written by Nazi lawyers and sanctioned by the State, then slaves are property and Jews can be sterilized and exterminated at will. What crime did Hitler commit? What German laws were broken?
In the Dred Scott case of 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves . . . were not intended to be included under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” In the Roe v. Wade case of 1973, the Court said: “The word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. . . . [T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Without a law above the law, as John Warwick Montgomery describes it, there is nothing fundamentally unreasonable in either of these court decisions.
SCIENCE has learned so much more about the actual humanity of the unborn during the last 30 years. So much so, that pro-abortionists typically defend the rights of women to decide by falling back on the non-person excuse. I have heard all of the Hollywood elite trying to get off this brutal killer, Tootie. They stand against any type of state execution (which is ok if consistent) but the same ones will also support the right of a woman to decide to kill an unborn human being!
Allow the killers to get off and kill off the babies.....Now we have the Supreme Court finally deciding wheter or not parents have a right to notification on abortion. We'll see what happens. We have to be notified when they want to give them an aspirin but NOT when they are going in for potentially harmful surgery? What a screwed up, hypocritical morality the left has. Why aren't the 'secular humanists' standing up for the unborn?
Rex
Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade
by Shining One 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
The Chuckler
Nice to see the spirit of Christian kindness and forgivenness still flowing free. Geez.
Where did you pull this piece of cut & paste poison from Rex? -
Shining One
Hey Chuckler,
Read it again a few times and maybe the points will be clearer to you. Wait, let me tell you: The unborn are non-persons just like African-Americans used to be. Libs believe in a woman choosing to kill her unborn child yet deny the right of the state to kill murderers.
Rex -
peacefulpete
The issue is not over whether killing "babies" is wrong but whether a growing cytoplast to embryo is a "baby". This topic has been beaten to death with few changing their mind. This is why it is yet a personal choice. There is no consensus about when human rights should be granted a developing protoperson. Most folks agree that the public needs some clarification and education. Equating a ball of tissue with human DNA with sentient fully formed minorites is simply rhetoric.
-
Shining One
pete,
You are a blooming idiot!
>Equating a ball of tissue with human DNA with sentient fully formed minorites is simply rhetoric.
Go look at the 'ball of tissue' on an ultrasound. Take a look at the hacked up remains of a unborn baby after it is aborted. Look at a video of the pincers crushing the skull of an infant that is absolutely human, then the sucking out of his/her brains. Medical science has proven that the fetus is a HUMAN BEING that feels pain and struggles to survive attempts on his/her life. It is a human being and he/she has a soul and potential impact on society through life outside of the womb.
Let me tell you what abortion also is. It is racism and genocide of blacks, hispanics and asian (primarily)! The horrible founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist who believed in Nazi style human engineering. Am I using rhetoric here? Absolutely I am because babies are being killed and you libs endorse it through your ignorance and/or philosophy that you hold to.
Rex -
peacefulpete
Insults are not constructive. I explained the issue, not my position.
-
Shining One
Pete,
I apologize for my loss of temper. I am passionate about the killing of the unborn.
Rex