D
drantolic
Guest
Laddies and gentlemen of the Jury, in 1973 only 9 year after the Equal Rights Amendments was passed into law, the Supreme Court ruled favorably to infanticide or more popularly called abortion. This landmark case would become the downward spiral of American morality. The unfortunate truth is the Interpretations of our law is always subject to outside cultural and political influences. Therefore, no matter what oath may have been taken, human nature still may pressure the individual to brake his or her oath to up hold the Constitution. You see the Federal Supreme Court’s involvement in the landmark case known as Row verses Wade, is in fact in valuation of the First Amendment’s separation of Church and State, do to the extreme religious implications of the case.
Furthermore, the Interpretation of what defines a person is truly what the abortion debate is really about. The “Independent Women,” trapped in WELFARE, wants to say that they have a right to do what they will with their own bodies. But even our Founding Fathers admitted that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (The Declaration of Independence). The only true way to look at this issue, is to examine how you can own anything that you did not create. Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict, once told the press, “You came here to hear what the church has to say on the abortion issue, I well tell there is no issue, for the woman’s body is not her own, it is on loan to her by God.”
One irony that emerges when studding the pro-choices movement is that the people who believe in the woman’s right to choose use the same irrational argument to justify the termination of life as the Slave Traders did against the African American’s, as Andrew Jackson did against the Native American’s, as well as Hitler against the Jews. The justification that the mother and sometimes even the father uses is that, “the thing growing inside me is not alive (or are not yet human).” Sorry Laddies and I use that term loosely, science has never agreed with you or the Supreme Court. But on a more personal note, any one who can kill a child is not yet human: so does that make you fair game?
You see both scientist and philosopher a like, agree on the basic defining properties of life. Does the entity have the potential for growth? Does the entity consume nutrition to sustain its self? Because even the hoist (mother) must admit that the unborn American is growing and consuming food from with in her body, the Supreme Court should have said, “the termination of said life is murder.” Although the life inside the mother at this point is nothing more than a parasite, not even the fools on the Supreme Court can oppose that even a tape worm has life and this tapeworm has the potential of becoming human, unlike a lot of Democrats. So why would the Supreme Court rule otherwise? Could it be once again to pacify some of the loudest special interest groups in America? That is one more strike against Democracy.
But over the course of this trial, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused had meticulously planed and even conspired with her Husband and their Physician to assassinate her unborn child.
Furthermore, the Interpretation of what defines a person is truly what the abortion debate is really about. The “Independent Women,” trapped in WELFARE, wants to say that they have a right to do what they will with their own bodies. But even our Founding Fathers admitted that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (The Declaration of Independence). The only true way to look at this issue, is to examine how you can own anything that you did not create. Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict, once told the press, “You came here to hear what the church has to say on the abortion issue, I well tell there is no issue, for the woman’s body is not her own, it is on loan to her by God.”
One irony that emerges when studding the pro-choices movement is that the people who believe in the woman’s right to choose use the same irrational argument to justify the termination of life as the Slave Traders did against the African American’s, as Andrew Jackson did against the Native American’s, as well as Hitler against the Jews. The justification that the mother and sometimes even the father uses is that, “the thing growing inside me is not alive (or are not yet human).” Sorry Laddies and I use that term loosely, science has never agreed with you or the Supreme Court. But on a more personal note, any one who can kill a child is not yet human: so does that make you fair game?
You see both scientist and philosopher a like, agree on the basic defining properties of life. Does the entity have the potential for growth? Does the entity consume nutrition to sustain its self? Because even the hoist (mother) must admit that the unborn American is growing and consuming food from with in her body, the Supreme Court should have said, “the termination of said life is murder.” Although the life inside the mother at this point is nothing more than a parasite, not even the fools on the Supreme Court can oppose that even a tape worm has life and this tapeworm has the potential of becoming human, unlike a lot of Democrats. So why would the Supreme Court rule otherwise? Could it be once again to pacify some of the loudest special interest groups in America? That is one more strike against Democracy.
But over the course of this trial, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused had meticulously planed and even conspired with her Husband and their Physician to assassinate her unborn child.