View Full Version : Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!
For those of you who don't think politics matter and that it doesn't matter who is President and from which party please take note;
Today in a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court upheld the Administration supported ban on partial birth abortion!!!!!!
They are the final say and now it is final that a significant number of children will no longer be murdered in this horrendous way.
Is it a total victory against the murder that is abortion? No, of course not. But it is going to save a signifcant number of lives and would not have happened if a liberal (read that DEMOCRAT) had been elected President and appointed the last few Supreme Court Justices.
ChTatum
04-18-2007, 09:09 AM
Thanks for posting this!
For those of you who don't think politics matter and that it doesn't matter who is President and from which party please take note;
Today in a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court upheld the Administration supported ban on partial birth abortion!!!!!!
They are the final say and now it is final that a significant number of children will no longer be murdered in this horrendous way.
Is it a total victory against the murder that is abortion? No, of course not. But it is going to save a signifcant number of lives and would not have happened if a liberal (read that DEMOCRAT) had been elected President and appointed the last few Supreme Court Justices.I wouldn't get so excited about this. The Court can overturn its own decisions.
Are there really a significant number of children being aborted in the third trimester? (Not that even one child being aborted is insignificant).
Pressing-On
04-18-2007, 10:47 AM
For those of you who don't think politics matter and that it doesn't matter who is President and from which party please take note;
Today in a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court upheld the Administration supported ban on partial birth abortion!!!!!!
They are the final say and now it is final that a significant number of children will no longer be murdered in this horrendous way.
Is it a total victory against the murder that is abortion? No, of course not. But it is going to save a signifcant number of lives and would not have happened if a liberal (read that DEMOCRAT) had been elected President and appointed the last few Supreme Court Justices.
The Democrats support the welfare state and, IMO, is why they support abortion. It saves them money in the long haul.
I wouldn't get so excited about this. The Court can overturn its own decisions.
Are there really a significant number of children being aborted in the third trimester? (Not that even one child being aborted is insignificant).
Bro,
To the best of my knowledge,
Kansas is the only state that requires separate reporting for partial birth abortions. In 1999, 182 of them were reported. They were all done for "mental reasons".
Nina
RevDWW
04-18-2007, 11:49 AM
The Democrats support the welfare state and, IMO, is why they support abortion. It saves them money in the long haul.
Why kill off the next generation that will be dependant on you and impower you because of that dependence?
I think for the most part they just have no standard of decency!
Pressing-On
04-18-2007, 11:52 AM
Why kill off the next generation that will be dependant on you and impower you because of that dependence?
I think for the most part they just have no standard of decency!
You have a good point. I agree that they have no standard of decency, but they must have some thoughts on the welfare state in mind when taking that stand.
I think they are trying to support the welfare state, but keep the spending at a minimum or at least down to some degree. It makes them look like they are doing a good thing. If it got out of control by supporting so many, people would really be able to tell that it isnt' working for America.
I don't think they want that. JMO.
RevDWW
04-18-2007, 11:56 AM
You have a good point. I agree that they have no standard of decency, but they must have some thoughts on the welfare state in mind when taking that stand.
I think they are trying to support the welfare state, but keep the spending at a minimum or at least down to some degree. It makes them look like they are doing a good thing. If it got out of control by supporting so many, people would really be able to tell that it isnt' working for America.
I don't think they want that. JMO.
Could be like Pharaoh's order to "kill the boy babies off at birth so they don't grow so big in number as to overthrow us". [Weaver Paraphrase]
Pressing-On
04-18-2007, 12:00 PM
Could be like Pharaoh's order to "kill the boy babies off at birth so they don't grow so big in number as to overthrow us". [Weaver Paraphrase]
Maybe so! :happydance
I wouldn't get so excited about this. The Court can overturn its own decisions.
Are there really a significant number of children being aborted in the third trimester? (Not that even one child being aborted is insignificant).
Didn’t I read where you claimed that the tragedy of Virginia Tech was no worse than any other typical murder? Does it matter if one baby is killed or ten thousand?
Aren’t you arguing both sides of an argument here?
Esther
04-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Didn’t I read where you claimed that the tragedy of Virginia Tech was no worse than any other typical murder? Does it matter if one baby is killed or ten thousand?
Aren’t you arguing both sides of an argument here?
My thoughts as well.
Here are some quotes from some of the 2008 Presidential canidates responding to the ban on partial birth abortion.
Notice any trends in them?;
HILLARY: 'Erosion of our constitutional rights'...
GIULIANI: 'I agree with it'...
OBAMA: 'I strongly disagree'...
ROMNEY: 'A step forward'...
MCCAIN: I'm very happy...
EDWARDS: 'I could not disagree more strongly'...
Pressing-On
04-18-2007, 01:25 PM
Here are some quotes from some of the 2008 Presidential canidates responding to the ban on partial birth abortion.
Notice any trends in them?;
HILLARY: 'Erosion of our constitutional rights'...
GIULIANI: 'I agree with it'...
OBAMA: 'I strongly disagree'...
ROMNEY: 'A step forward'...
MCCAIN: I'm very happy...
EDWARDS: 'I could not disagree more strongly'...
This is going to support Giuliani for standing on the side of constitutional law/states rights and not personal opinion. That sets a precedent for him.
Pragmatist
04-18-2007, 01:34 PM
Bro,
To the best of my knowledge,
Kansas is the only state that requires separate reporting for partial birth abortions. In 1999, 182 of them were reported. They were all done for "mental reasons".
Nina
The number in Kansas may be higher, though, because many other states do not have doctors that perform late term abortions. I've lived in three states bordering Kansas and have heard of people traveling to Kansas to have abortions in all three of these states since it was not legal or available where they lived.
This is going to support Giuliani for standing on the side of constitutional law/states rights and not personal opinion. That sets a precedent for him.
The Mayor is trying to wak a tightrope. He is maintaining his view that abortion is a woman's right while trying to counter that with his personal view that it is wrong and the promise that he would appoint constructionist judges.
While the Mayor is a strong leader who I believe could do well as President his liberal social views along with his messy personal life make him not my canidate.
Of course if he gets the nomination I would enthusiastically support him over any Democrat I can think of since there are no conservative or even moderate Democrats anymore (at least not running for Prez in 08)
Pressing-On
04-18-2007, 01:46 PM
The Mayor is trying to wak a tightrope. He is maintaining his view that abortion is a woman's right while trying to counter that with his personal view that it is wrong and the promise that he would appoint constructionist judges.
While the Mayor is a strong leader who I believe could do well as President his liberal social views along with his messy personal life make him not my canidate.
Of course if he gets the nomination I would enthusiastically support him over any Democrat I can think of since there are no conservative or even moderate Democrats anymore (at least not running for Prez in 08)
I am with you. I'm just saying that his stand is the same as Laura Bush. There is no difference there. They both believe it should be the woman's choice.
I am with you. I'm just saying that his stand is the same as Laura Bush. There is no difference there. They both believe it should be the woman's choice.
I don't know why they don't extend that logic to include a woman's right to kill any child under 18 who is a threat to her mental well being!!
(of course that would mean all teenagers would be killed):grampa
Steve Epley
04-18-2007, 03:44 PM
We have 6 Democrats running for president on both tickets. Not voting unless someone else gets into the race first time since Regan.
We have 6 Democrats running for president on both tickets. Not voting unless someone else gets into the race first time since Regan.
If Christians had done that in the past electionis then partial birth abortions would still be legal today.
The Republicans running may not be as conservative as I like but they still are way more conservative than any Dems running and will appoint more conservative judges.
Those judicial appointments live on far beyond the term of a President since Federal judges and Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.
I care too much about my kids and hopefully grand kids some day to skip an election.
Fred Thompson may or may not run but I believe that he has articualted what will be the new Republican position on Abortion and will allow a more socially liberal Republican to run and be elected without being a problem for us social conservitives.
He stated that Roe is bad law and needs to be overturned. He said that abortion was not something that the federal government needs to be involved in, that this is a state issue.
Republicans will never win on the idea that the Federal government should ban abortion. but we can win on putting this at the state level.
Thompson is my candidate. outside of that, i will support Rudy more than likely but i really wish Newt could win but he cant so there is no point.
RevDWW
04-18-2007, 04:30 PM
Fred Thompson may or may not run but I believe that he has articualted what will be the new Republican position on Abortion and will allow a more socially liberal Republican to run and be elected without being a problem for us social conservitives.
He stated that Roe is bad law and needs to be overturned. He said that abortion was not something that the federal government needs to be involved in, that this is a state issue.
Republicans will never win on the idea that the Federal government should ban abortion. but we can win on putting this at the state level.
Thompson is my candidate. outside of that, i will support Rudy more than likely but i really wish Newt could win but he cant so there is no point.
Ferd, will you support me if I throw my hat into the ring? :tiphat
I would make abortion legal in all 50 States and my law would state you are entitled to an abortion if we can harvest all your oragans at the same time for someone who actually charishes life........OF course that was a sad attempt at humor.
Ferd, will you support me if I throw my hat into the ring? :tiphat
Bro, as smarmy as you are, ive already decided that I will only vote for Movie Stars for president.
if you have some home movies, then that might qualify you!
RevDWW
04-18-2007, 04:36 PM
Bro, as smarmy as you are, ive already decided that I will only vote for Movie Stars for president.
if you have some home movies, then that might qualify you!
Smarm is my charm!
For those of you who don't think politics matter and that it doesn't matter who is President and from which party please take note;
Today in a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court upheld the Administration supported ban on partial birth abortion!!!!!!
They are the final say and now it is final that a significant number of children will no longer be murdered in this horrendous way.
Is it a total victory against the murder that is abortion? No, of course not. But it is going to save a signifcant number of lives and would not have happened if a liberal (read that DEMOCRAT) had been elected President and appointed the last few Supreme Court Justices.
Wonderful. Who says one person can't change the world?
Fred Thompson may or may not run but I believe that he has articualted what will be the new Republican position on Abortion and will allow a more socially liberal Republican to run and be elected without being a problem for us social conservitives.
He stated that Roe is bad law and needs to be overturned. He said that abortion was not something that the federal government needs to be involved in, that this is a state issue.
Republicans will never win on the idea that the Federal government should ban abortion. but we can win on putting this at the state level.
Thompson is my candidate. outside of that, i will support Rudy more than likely but i really wish Newt could win but he cant so there is no point.
As usual you are right on the money when it comes to politics! Newt has too much baggage and his negatives are way too high to win. Discussing divorce with your wife while she is being treated for cancer is not a heartwarming story about Newt and it would be used big time. Intellectually I like him but he is not Presidental material.
If Fred Thompson does jump in I will be supporting him big time. I think he would make a great President.
Falla39
04-18-2007, 10:40 PM
Could be like Pharaoh's order to "kill the boy babies off at birth so they don't grow so big in number as to overthrow us". [Weaver Paraphrase]
And they killed the boy babies again in the NT after Jesus was born,
but for another reason!
Blessings,
Falla39
crakjak
04-18-2007, 10:47 PM
For those of you who don't think politics matter and that it doesn't matter who is President and from which party please take note;
Today in a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court upheld the Administration supported ban on partial birth abortion!!!!!!
They are the final say and now it is final that a significant number of children will no longer be murdered in this horrendous way.
Is it a total victory against the murder that is abortion? No, of course not. But it is going to save a signifcant number of lives and would not have happened if a liberal (read that DEMOCRAT) had been elected President and appointed the last few Supreme Court Justices.
Yes, it really does matter who is President, the Demo's rail about Iraq, but what the really hate about Bush is his bringing to the Supreme Court judges that cut, the leftist legislating from the bench judges, off at the knees.
We have 6 Democrats running for president on both tickets. Not voting unless someone else gets into the race first time since Regan.
Elder,
I think I know what you are saying.
I'm usually not pleased with any of the candidates.
Quite often my vote is more "against" one candidate than it is "for" the other.
I don't think "not voting" is a good idea.
I would suggest that you at least vote "against" the more liberal one even if you don't believe you can support the one you vote for. Sorta like taking the lesser of two evils but at least trying to keep out the more liberal one.
Bro,
To the best of my knowledge,
Kansas is the only state that requires separate reporting for partial birth abortions. In 1999, 182 of them were reported. They were all done for "mental reasons".
NinaBut Congress and various states have seen fit to distinguish between this particular procedure and other abortions. Is it because there really is a significant number of these acts of infanticide (partial birth abortion)?
Didn’t I read where you claimed that the tragedy of Virginia Tech was no worse than any other typical murder? Does it matter if one baby is killed or ten thousand?
Aren’t you arguing both sides of an argument here?Did you notice the parenthetical statement in the post you quoted? Let me quote it for you:
(Not that even one child being aborted is insignificant).
As for the Virginia Tech tragedy, what I was arguing (in part) is that the event is not more worthy of our attention than all of the other murders that happened that day.
We have 6 Democrats running for president on both tickets. Not voting unless someone else gets into the race first time since Regan.Ron Paul is running as a Republican. Of course, you may be more comfortable with the Constitution Party candidate.
RevDWW
04-19-2007, 04:13 PM
And they killed the boy babies again in the NT after Jesus was born,
but for another reason!
Blessings,
Falla39
The motive of the enemy was the same in both cases: Cut off the blood line that would bring the promised Redeemer!
Did you notice the parenthetical statement in the post you quoted? Let me quote it for you:
(Not that even one child being aborted is insignificant).
As for the Virginia Tech tragedy, what I was arguing (in part) is that the event is not more worthy of our attention than all of the other murders that happened that day.
Chan,
You really diminish your credibility as a reasonable person when you put forth ideas like this. To say that a nation should not pause and give more attention to the single most people killed in a single incident involving a gunman in modern times in our country is absurd and does not make one lick of sense.
I suppose if you had been alive in WWII you would have been ridiculing all of the attention to Hiroshama and Nagasaki when the A Bomb went off and killed many.
Chan,
You really diminish your credibility as a reasonable person when you put forth ideas like this. To say that a nation should not pause and give more attention to the single most people killed in a single incident involving a gunman in modern times in our country is absurd and does not make one lick of sense.It doesn't make sense to someone who bases his responses to situations on his emotions instead of on the word of God. You would likely have told Jesus the same thing if you had been there during what transpired in Luke 13:1-5. And, NO, we have no business making this tragedy out to be somehow more worthy of our attention than all the other tragedies that happened that day. It doesn't matter that this one just happened to be carried by the same individual in the same day.
I suppose if you had been alive in WWII you would have been ridiculing all of the attention to Hiroshama and Nagasaki when the A Bomb went off and killed many.[/quote]Ridiculing???? How have I ridiculed? To answer this statement of yours, though, I probably would have asked the kind of question Jesus asked in Luke 13:1-5 and quoted Jesus' answer.
Chan,
The Meds, don't forget to take the Meds!!!!
Falla39
06-10-2007, 07:34 AM
The motive of the enemy was the same in both cases: Cut off the blood line that would bring the promised Redeemer!
Bro. RevDWW,
This is SO true. I had overlooked this post and in reviewing some
past threads saw this. Your statement was PROFOUND, Brother!!
Blessings,
Falla39
Didn’t I read where you claimed that the tragedy of Virginia Tech was no worse than any other typical murder? Does it matter if one baby is killed or ten thousand?
Aren’t you arguing both sides of an argument here?You did not read any such claim! You may have read such a claim into what I said. What I was arguing (in part) is that the event was not more worthy of our attention than all of the other murders that happened that day.
You did not read any such claim! You may have read such a claim into what I said. What I was arguing (in part) is that the event was not more worthy of our attention than all of the other murders that happened that day.
go back and read the time stamp on my post. that discussion has been put to bed.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.