Not one, but two Federal courts on the same day declared that abortionists can still partially deliver a live healthy baby feet first while leaving the baby's head inside the mother, jam scissors into the base of the skull, insert a tube and then suck out the brains of a perfectly healthy human.
Here's a diagram on the above description of a Partial birth abortion in case you can't even visualize such a thing would ever take place.
Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, "We are reluctant to invalidate an entire statute," "However, after considering all of the obstacles to our devising a narrower remedy, we conclude that such is our obligation."
Yes, such is your obligation to continue to allow humans to practice infanticide legally. We know that you're reluctant, but its your obligation.
I would like to curse now.
@#$% *&^% @#$%& (*&^) @#%$& (*&()*_^^%^*
Dissenter Chester J. Straub said, "Allowing a physician to destroy a child as long as one toe remains within the mother would place society on the path towards condoning infanticide," he said. He added: "I find the current expansion of the right to terminate a pregnancy to cover a child in the process of being born morally, ethically and legally unacceptable."
On the path towards condoning infanticide? On the path???? How long must you walk down a path before you determine that your walking on it? If you haven't already made the determination that we have been walking on the path of condoning infanticide for thirty three years now, you will never see the asphalt for the road. Straub goes on to say that he "..finds the current expansion of the right to terminate a pregnancy. Morally, ethically and legally unacceptable." I can almost hear him saying, "..as long as you don't partially deliver the baby first, well then it's Ok with me, but this is just too much." It's the ole 'out of site out of mind' mentality. I probably shouldn't be so harsh with the only dissenter, but jeez.
God help us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
We crossed the Infanticide city limits 33 years ago from a Federal standpoint. Before that, abortion was legal in most states, but under strict guidelines. In some cases, those guidelines still allowed for infanticide.
To read the decision of Roe, one would conclude that, according to the majority, abortion had been around for a long time. They cited Roman law and English common law, which, according to the decision, did not recognize the life of a baby until "quickening" or around 12 to 14 weeks of gestation.
They also cited great advances in medicine and science has allowed us more knowledge than before. But no citing of the Constitution as to what article or amendment gave the Federal government the right to regulate healthcare.
Using the same logic, the same court would find against Roe today, since we have medical technology that allows us see that it is a baby, in 3-D glory, inside the womb.
But we have arrived with so-called "partial birth abortion" to the final destination of the feminist movement, the final slap in the face to God (in their view) for making women as he did; the power to dictate whether their own children live or die. The only difference in this procedure and the Susan Smith child drowning case is 3 to 6 years and the drowning, as opposed to stabbing. The result is the same.
Exactly! I get so riled up when I read the idiocy of the courts! I would like to have this procedure done to these judges, except there is nothing suck out of their heads. Just empty space. All I can say is that God is in control, and one day all will be reconciled. If it were me in charge, I would have torched these guys a long time ago.
Post a Comment