The court position on personhood expressed in Roe otherwise made some sense to me, at the time, though not the court's refusal to protect the viable fetus as a person.
And though the privacy right was a sheer invention and the court’s takeover of the issue struck me as offensive and I resented its naked liberal arrogance from the beginning.
Too, I feared a slippery slope leading to outright infanticide if we abandoned the tradition, admittedly religion-based, that protected the unborn from the very moment of conception.
Starting protection too early is better by far than starting too late, I thought.
And why, really, would anyone in his right mind want the decision who or what is a person when the matter is legitimately doubtful to rest in the hands of a court?
How is that a question for judges and not for all of us to cope with, democratically?
And though the privacy right was a sheer invention and the court’s takeover of the issue struck me as offensive and I resented its naked liberal arrogance from the beginning.
Too, I feared a slippery slope leading to outright infanticide if we abandoned the tradition, admittedly religion-based, that protected the unborn from the very moment of conception.
Starting protection too early is better by far than starting too late, I thought.
And why, really, would anyone in his right mind want the decision who or what is a person when the matter is legitimately doubtful to rest in the hands of a court?
How is that a question for judges and not for all of us to cope with, democratically?
The sexual revolution was and is a good thing, but we could
and should have come by it honestly, and could even today do without the constitutional
mendacity that led the way and still keeps the whole issue outside the power of the people, out of the reach of democracy.
Anyway, late term is any time after viability or any time after it
begins to make sense to call the fetus an unborn child.
And in such as case I would prefer that we admit the fetus is a person, and that abortion be illegal except
when euthanasia of the fetus would make sense.
I oppose efforts to legalize infanticide or significantly
diminish punishments as frightening and dangerous.
And I would prefer late term abortions, at least, be treated legally like
infanticides.
It would be a legitimate appeal to the 14th Amendment to insist on it as a direct requirement of the command that the states provide equal protection of the law, in its most basic and incontestable sense, to all persons.
It would be a legitimate appeal to the 14th Amendment to insist on it as a direct requirement of the command that the states provide equal protection of the law, in its most basic and incontestable sense, to all persons.
Meanwhile, BooMan stand-in Steven D and those commenting his
post denounce Will for his protest in gross and vulgar terms.
On the other hand, that "quiet, sidewalk counseling," as Will puts it, gets to be quite awful.
I have seen it, and calling it harassment understates the thing.
Why does Planned Parenthood receive federal subsidies?
No federal money for propaganda, I pefer.
Money for lawful services is another thing, though I oppose
money for late term abortions and for infanticide under any euphemism,
legitimate euthanasia excepted.
And I would prefer that no abortions at all be required and that counseling and the like ensure things get nipped in the bud.
And I would prefer that no abortions at all be required and that counseling and the like ensure things get nipped in the bud.
Of course, it's all unconstitutional in any case.
Spending federal money to subsidize such things, I mean.
Spending federal money to subsidize such things, I mean.
What’s your point?
Oh, Roman law allowed the right to infanticide to the unilateral choice of the Dad.
How do you think it would work in America?
Oh, Roman law allowed the right to infanticide to the unilateral choice of the Dad.
How do you think it would work in America?
No comments:
Post a Comment