Out of the Mainstream

[st_lucy]

Brian Williams asked a revealing question at the Democratic
presidential debate in South Carolina last week. The NBC News
anchor, who was serving as moderator, inquired whether criticism
of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the federal partial-birth
abortion ban put the Democrats on stage at odds with the majority
of Americans who applauded the decision.
John Edwards, apparently missing the rhetorical nature of the question, responded, “No, I don’t
believe it is.”
Polls show between 60% and 70% of Americans oppose late term abortions, except to save the
life of the mother. The Democratic candidates – all of whom vocally criticized the ruling – are
out of touch with most Americans,

more:

It’s tragic that abortion rights have become synonymous with modern day feminism. But it’s mindboggling
that late-term abortions now enjoy the imprimatur of every one of the presidential
candidates of one of the two main political parties. Many early feminists – the Suffragettes –
opposed abortion. They viewed it as an affront to human rights. There is little doubt that they
would have recognized elective, late-term abortion for what it is, a gruesome, uncivilized and
inhuman procedure.
Feminism was meant to establish women as having equal legal rights to men. Yet, in today’s
twisted debate, women are not mere equals. Instead, they have been elevated to a special status
where they have the “right” to determine whether a five-month or older “live fetus,” as the court
called it, should be partially delivered outside of their body and killed in the most gruesome
manner imaginable, even if carrying that fetus poses no threat to their life.

View attachment 952

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you are looking for logic on the pro-abortion side, you will not find it.

In Roe vs. Wade, the court found a right to privacy (which entitles one to have an abortion) "emanating from the penumbra of the XIV Amendment.

Here is the XIV Amendment:

Amendment XIV (1868)

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;** nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law**; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Note the part that I bolded.

Is that irony, or what?

 

[Vaclav]

It is really sad to me that it even matters how many months along the pregnancy is. I mean, five months is somehow more living than three months, or two months?

If more people would adopt the Church’s views on life and stop using birth control, then abortion at any stage would be unthinkable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is really sad to me that it even matters how many months along the pregnancy is. I mean, five months is somehow more living than three months, or two months?

If more people would adopt the Church’s views on life and stop using birth control, then abortion at any stage would be unthinkable.

How can any society ever be just when it tolerates - -no, encourages – the wholesale murder of the most innocent and helpless?

 

[Vaclav]

How can any society ever be just when it tolerates - -no, encourages – the wholesale murder of the most innocent and helpless?

Agreed.

(Hey we agreed on something Vern!)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agreed.

(Hey we agreed on something Vern!)

Of course – I want to reduce poverty and abortion, increase education and promote a better society. Who could object to that?

 

[CCM08]

This is why I hate it when people call women’s sufferage advocates “feminists.” They weren’t, they just wanted to the right to vote, a very logical and reasonable objective. Feminism, like any other “ism” has never been, will never be, and could never be about equality. It’s about special rights for select individuals. Most people are smart enough to laugh it off when racists proclaim they aren’t about racial superiority, just “equal treatment” or separatism. We know by it’s very nature racism is about the privilidging of one race of people over others. The same is true of feminism, it’s about whatever these women feel they want, whether it’s fair, just, or even sane is of no importance. As a case in point, the New York chapter of NOW is creating a quilt, like the famous AIDS quilt, for women who have lost phyiscal custody of their children. You can see right there that the belief of NOW has nothing to do with children’s interests, simply that women should always, regardless of the child’s interests, have custody of their children. You’ll equally note that groups like NOW always rail against laws that would provide joint custody when both parents seek custody of their children despite the fact kids do better in life when both their parents are active in their lives. The reason is quite simple, for feminists its about ensuring that women have the power to do as they wish. Joint custody arrangments would mean that alimony, er ah, I mean child support was reduced and take away women’s ability to marginalize the father or use his children as leverage against him.

Reasonable people need to get rid of these radicals that polarize groups against one another, and cooperate. That’s the only way progress will ever be made.

 

[Riley259]

If you are looking for logic on the pro-abortion side, you will not find it.

In Roe vs. Wade, the court found a right to privacy (which entitles one to have an abortion) "emanating from the penumbra of the XIV Amendment.

Here is the XIV Amendment:

Note the part that I bolded.

Is that irony, or what?

Incredible…the illogic and hypocrisy of the pro-aborts is astounding.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Incredible…the illogic and hypocrisy of the pro-aborts is astounding.

If I ran the universe, I’d add an “original intent” amendment into the Constitution – requiring judges to base all interpretations of the law and Constitution on the debates at time of passage, and forbidding them to “find” anything extra – or discount anything clearly there – in any part of the Constitution or laws.