1 - 10 Next
I wouldn't go as far as calling them cowards. They are merely upholding present interpretations of existing laws, and elements contained within the Constitution. It's obvious that those elements need to be re-examined, and until then, the justices can only pass judgment on what exists. When the legal definition of the beginning of life finally becomes accepted as at conception, the rulings of the Supreme Court will change dramatically in favor of the unborn child. Then, that life will be protected by the same elements held in the Constitution as the mother wishing to terminate the life of the unborn child.
Are you familiar with required "informed consent" which requires a signature by the patient as accepting full knowledge of the procedure? It's a requirement for all surgical procedures. When the patient fails to read the consent, it's the fault of the patient, and no one else. Any responsible health care facility, or health care provider is well aware of the importance of informed consent, as well as the legal consequences of failure to fully provide all of the significant details of same.
The law of the land is presently operating under the position which does not recognize life beginning at conception. The Supreme Court has left this detail unanswered and unrecognized according to the majority of established positions held in the medical and scientific communities which clearly and overwhelmingly support life as beginning at conception. When Congress finally declares and supports this fact, the Supreme Court will be required to rule in a much different fashion. Until then, the law is flawed and judgments will be upheld according to present law. Change may be coming soon. When an unborn human life is clearly established as being at conception, that human life will automatically fall under current and existing laws and will be protected as such. The law will become fair once life is recognized as beginning at conception. There are those who wish to deny that nascent embryo is not a life form, or a living entity. They should consider if they would also claim that a single celled bacterium is NOT a living entity. To do that would be contradictory. In the case of certain bacteria, they possess the ability to actually proliferate and kill the host patient, quite unlike normal circumstances in regard to a human fetus.
Good comment Mud. I hope my comment clearly indicates my sensitivity to that particular necessity of war.
Wars are declared by cowards as a result of fear of their opposition, which is quite different from any conditions posed by an unborn child who is innocent, and defenseless. Those who wage wars are self righteous quite often, but not always, while abortionist "warmongers" and sponsoring mothers who have no regard for the innocent human life are always self righteous, insensitive, and cowards who simply fear having to assume respect and responsibility for another human life that they help create. Denial justifies the ends to their means only, and not the end of another life.
It has significant impact on the future of society and mankind, but this concept is only recognized when one can fully respect the significance of the gift of life. Hypocrites validate their positions through denial, which only serves to breed ignorance when the uninformed perceive those positions of denial as truths.
Abortion is a medical procedure, and by law, full and accurate information is already required to be given to the mother in order to established informed consent to the medical procedure. It's supposed to be standard of care, but some abortionists fail to follow these standards, which violates laws established to protect the patient. The age of the unborn fetus is to be determined medically prior to a legal abortion, and it's often standard procedure to utilize ultrasound to support the facts which are to be reported in the medical record of the patient.
You are assuming that the unborn child has no rights according to the Fourth Amendment. Eventual accepted definition of life will significantly alter your perceptions of the limits of the Fourth Amendment once this milestone is achieved. When life is determined on a legal basis to be clearly begun at conception, the rights of the people will clearly include the unborn. Your argument does not settle the question of unwanted ultrasounds, unless you can demonstrate a viable argument that life does not begin at conception. Good luck with that! The medical and scientific community overwhelmingly supports the fact that life begins at conception.
I find it difficult to believe that the present form of our Constitution is adequate in determining rights of human lives when it comes to the unborn, as abortion measures were not common, nor intended at the level as they are today. The Constitution was not written with suggestion of anticipated changes in the practice of diminishing respect for human life also, rather, it was written to respect human life, which should include the life of an unborn child. The supreme court left the door open for judgment based upon the definition of when life begins, which has clearly been accepted in the scientific community as at conception. When this is finally legally defined, it will significantly alter the powers of the supreme court as they currently exist. The attorney for reproductive rights suggests that ultrasound is an invasive procedure, when in fact, it is not considered invasive by common medical standards. When we allow the sterility of laws dictate our responsibilities as civilized people, only God will ultimately survive after society self destructs.
He has to be the most nervous puppet in the world. Pinocchio would be jealous!
1 - 10 Next