I understand that there is a lot of emotion circulated with the old Roe v. Wade that allowed for the lawful killing in utero of babies by their mother’s election and with their physician’s support. The Democrat party is whipping up hysteria that the addition of another conservative justice to the Supreme Court will inevitably lead to a ‘sanctity of life’ argument, that is so fundamentally at odds with their wishes.
However, I would like the court to consider this: When is a baby “alive” and when does it have “rights” as a living human being. The law today is not consistent on this matter. If someone should kill a pregnant woman and should her baby also die, most US States call for a charge of DOUBLE HOMICIDE. Should the mother elect to kill the baby she carries, she is lauded by the left as being very progressive and there are no legal consequences for the woman or one who aids and abets. The abortion provider then sells the baby’s corpse to drug companies who pay top dollar for dissection and harvesting fetal stem cells. We’ve all seen the undercover videos of this play out. Dead babies are politically correct in America today and their deaths lead to big profits.
Viable babies (outside of the womb) are lawfully killed every day in America, often with taxpayer support. They could live outside of the mother, but if the mother wants them dead, they can be killed. This is the position of the law (sometimes – except if somebody else kills the baby). It’s an unusual position for the progressive left who shout and march about the families of criminal illegal aliens being separated and segregated while in custody pending adjudication of (usually bogus) asylum applications. The taking of a baby’s life is removing it from a family forever.
I am not personally opposed to abortion in the case of rape, incest or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. There are chemical measures to insure that there is not pregnancy after intercourse (72 hour pill). However the Supreme Court handles this, I don’t see how a viable baby in utero can not be considered to be a human being with specific rights.
Riddle me this, dear readers.
|Prof. Barrett (Notre Damme)
Moving on to the current spat over who will serve as the next member of the US Supreme Court:
If you have a moment, breeze over to Legal Insurrection where they discuss Professor Amy Barrett’s possibilities as the next member of SCOTUS.
Is a ‘Catholics don’t apply’ standard a fair one for the Senate to consider?
What about Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon faith)? As I understand it, he’s not on the short list but he is on the longer list. Is it ok to posit a ‘Mormon’s don’t apply’ standard for the high court?
Both the Catholic and Mormon faiths oppose abortion. Is it fair to discriminate based on faith or a system of religion but not on sexual orientation, race and the other standard chauvinisms?
Riddle me that, dear readers.
"I am not personally opposed to abortion in the case of rape, incest or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother."
You should be.
"There are chemical measures to insure that there is not pregnancy after intercourse (72 hour pill)."
Conception has already taken place.
Riddle answers can be found on the back wall of the barn. Paint should be just about dry by now.
Guess I'm a moral coward. I don't think any man should tell any woman what to do with her body.
WSF, what about the baby's body? I am against abortion, except for the reasons LL mentioned, but I also wonder about the extra millions of mouth's, clothes, living space, food growth, etc, that would need to be dealt with. Is abortion our way of thinning out the herd?
All I know is that I am against any Supreme Court nominee that the Drms think is ok.
Besides, the Supreme Court has enough to do, they are not going to sit there and say 'what old rule should I throw out?'
Unless it comes before them again, I don't see it happening no matter who is picked.
The rape exception reveals it's all about punishing sexual pleasure, not saving the future baby's life.
No other person is a party to the conflict between the fetus and mother, and has no standing to interfere. Not even the father, since his risk/investment was so minimal. To claim otherwise makes the mother a chattel slave of communism.
Rape is not about sexual pleasure, it's about aggression. I wasn't going to comment given the nature of this blog posting, but I had to weigh in on that one.
Hard question. That is why I am a moral coward. Not in favor of abortion.
i challenge those opposed to abortion to adopt all those unwanted babies(and illegal immigrants). i also challenge all those seeking abortions to engage in permanent contraception in return. morally i find it abhorrent, yet practically i find it a necessity. can you imagine the damage that the extra low information voters could do?
Yep, this one is going to get UGLY!!! Dammit…
Would you permit abortion at, say, eight months?
Why would you permit abortion in the case of rape or incest. Is t that baby’s life still sacred?
LL I do t think the commentator was saying rape was about sexual pleasure. Think it was the opposite.
Sorry, I didn't write clearly. Yes, rape is for aggression, not pleasure. If the fetus was being protected, then the circumstances of conception wouldn't matter, and there would be no abortion allowed after rape. Since abortion after rape is allowed, the difference is the circumstances of conception. That's what matters to the rulemakers, not the fetus' welfare. The circumstance the rulemakers hate is sex for pleasure by a couple who isn't attempting to make a baby. When that leads to pregnancy, raising the baby is imposed as a punishment for the parents.
Comments are closed.