Disgusted with Gary Jacobsen’s column
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Paul Ross
Published: May 28, 2008
As a military officer and Iraq veteran sworn to defend the Constitution, I was disgusted with Mr. Gary Jacobsen’s convoluted defense of the “constitutional right” to kill unborn children, in the May 27 column, “Questions and answers about abortion rights.”
It added nothing but hubris to Roe v. Wade’s already twisted constitutional logic (creating rights to “privacy” and abortion under the Constitution where none exists).
Moreover, the column completely sidestepped the issue of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to overturn the Virginia ban on partial-birth infanticide — materially indistinguishable from the federal
Partial Birth Abortion Act, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
How ironic that Roe v. Wade used the 14th Amendment to decide that unborn children are not “persons” — the same amendment which overturned the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision that declared slaves and freed slaves were not “citizens.”
And how bizarre that two liberal activist judges are able to thwart the will of the democratically elected legislature and governor of Virginia to ban a gruesome, medically unnecessary procedure wherein the
baby is mostly delivered, only to have its skull punctured and brains sucked out, in order to deliver a dead baby. Some constitutional right.
PAUL ROSS
Montclair
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 08, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Ron,
I do not vote for the government in other countries or the laws they live by. ron, I dont like when any innocent man, woman or woman with child, or child is killed during times of war or random violence including the young hispanic male that was just recently shot in manassas. you can’t say that you think an unborn child is a life but then allow intentional termination. that would be no different that terminating a 6 month old already born child. I think your point of veiw on this arguement is off and you have picked and chosen the points you’d like to argue, ignored the rest and used a war in another country as some kind of validation. I offered great comprimise on this issue, you have not. you want women to have the right to termiate children as often as they choose and for any reason while never offering rights to the father of the children or the children themselves. you offer no rights of protection to the young girls eihter. You seem to think all women are completely mindless and incapable of handling this situation in any way other than repetitive termination. I happen to think women are smarter than that and will act according to the options available to them. I’m glad you are not a congressman, we’d get even less accomplished in washington than we do now.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 07, 2008 at 8:33 am
barnum,
I heartily agree with your suggestion of DNA tests. I would expand it to unmarried females, 18 & under.
We are doing an excellent job of protecting the predators, with help from the Catholic church, the courts & the legislatures of those states that refuse to pass Jessica’s Law. I have a 7-year old granddaughter named Jessica & a great granddaughter who will soon be 3-years old.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 06, 2008 at 10:09 pm
willow, ron, how about abortions for girls 15 and under be subject to mandatory dna testing to make sure they are not a victim of rape or incest ? or do we continue to protect the predators ?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 06, 2008 at 10:04 pm
willow, i would consider your example of incest as rape and the rapist should not be protected. I’m not a down the line pro lifer. I’ve pretty much always conceded to the roe v wade 1st trimester as a neccesary evil. I just think the entire process has been abused way beyond humane levels. I also have issues with this being exclusively women’s rights vs equal rights. pregnancy involves 3 lives. the mother, the father and the child.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 06, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Barnun,
Once again, your statement “I agree that a child in the womb of a woman that is killed is another life. You dont.“ shows you’re not reading what I write. If you did read, you’ll see that I accept that an unborn child is a life.
My issue is that you’re picking and choosing when it’s acceptable to take a life. You don’t have a problem if the life happens to be a pregnant woman living in Iraq, caught in the crossfire of our war of choice.
You do apparently have a - big - problem if a woman living in America is put into a situation where she feels an abortion is her best option, for reasons all her own and unique to that particular situation.
My point that you are so deftly avoiding is that you’re attempting to apply your “right-to-life” rules to every woman in this country; while simultaneously completely ignoring the “right to life” of women in another country we are directly impacting.
Your right-to-life” philosophy is completely inconsistent.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 06, 2008 at 9:36 am
I’ll offer comprimises to my opinions, after all that is the only way anything would ever get accomplished anyway. Roll the abortion laws back to first trimester only unless the mothers life is in “physical danger”. Start a registry. Women have the rights to 1 abortion, after that the children should have rights. Abortion is not birth control and I Personally think women are very intelligent and fully capable of knowing what they want or dont want and how to prevent going thru this a second time. Now, fathers rights. a man should be allowed to pay a one time fee equal to the amount of an abortion procedure and then walk away. This would end the entrapment game. Now we’ve established equal rights, First for the mother and then secondary for the child and the father.
I’m sure the pro abortion crowd would be fully against equal rights though.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 05, 2008 at 9:07 pm
barnum,
You say the morning-after pill works fine
for victims of rape. How about incest? And have you forgotten that most pro-lifers see it as just another form of contraception which they are vehemently opposed to for any reason. If child abuse, kidnapping & illegal detention are crimes, why is it legal to lock a child in a room, shackle her to a delivery table and force the birth of the result of rape or incest?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 05, 2008 at 4:05 pm
How can our laws prevent the kvorkian method for those in pain and suffering but allow abortion ? how can our laws prevent capitol punishment for murders but allow abortion ? how can our laws charge some one with double murder of a pregnant woman but then allow partial birth abortions ?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 05, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Yes, it is obvious that we have different points of veiw. I agree that a child in the womb of a woman that is killed is another life. You dont. I dont know why you keep bringing Iraq into this as if that somehow justifies it. I’ve stated over and over that I dont like the Iraq ordeal. I did not send us there. congress did. Should we discuss darfur and rawanda where several millions have been killed over the past few decades ? Or past wars as well ? you say there are thousands of different scenarios why a woman might want to terminate her child. I’d guess it could fit into a handful of categories, some of them being very shallow. my point and my veiw is that it should not be allowed unless the woman was raped, in which case the morning after pill works fine, the child is deformed and yes many pro lifers would disgree with this, or the mother was in real danger of physically not surviving the pregnancy which then rules out partial birth abortion because that actually is child birth. You do not wish to acknowledge all of the reasons why the current abortion laws are wrong such as another person taking your 11 yr old daughter to another state for an abortion without your knowing. This is not made up. This has and does really happen and this is a major arguement with the planned parent hood organization. Roe v Wade permits abortions in the first trimester. I’ve already conceded to that although I dont personally agree with it. Everything I’ve actually argued goes well beyond the rights allowed by roe v wade. Even Ray agrees and I think if that were put to a national election by the people, my stance would easily win. you’ve also never responded to the concept of a fathers rights. Why is the woman allowed the right to have a child against a fathers wish and yet hold him responsible while at the same time can terminate the child against the fathers wish and he has no rights, no say? I thought our country was about equal rights ? I do realize the arguement about a fathers rights are a seperate issue and should not be mixed up with the foundational arguements. you also did not comment on the statement “LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Who defends the children ? 2 inches and 2 seconds are the difference between procedure and life based on your arguements. I dont think a child changes from a procedure to a life in 2 seconds but under your rules it does. I think abortion is a neccesary evil that should be kept under strict limitations. Over 45 million abortions have been performed in our country since roe v wade. Say that out loud. 45 MILLION children terminated. funny, divorce rates have gone up since that time too so it obviously is not preventing a bad marriage. I think our society in general has morally declined since that time as well. Kids in Jr high are having sex. Are you ok with this too? This is probably the single biggest factor that divides our two political parties and our country.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 04, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Barnun,
I don’t see any FAQs here that define what is relevant on any given thread, or who gets to decide what is relevant.
Creating your rapist scenario is considered engaging in a tactic called “Straw men.“ Making up a situation, then using that situation to prove that the other person is wrong in what they are saying.
I am asking you to justify your opposition to abortion on the basis of “right to life” with your support for our war in Iraq which is killing unborn children. From the tone of your bluster, I believe you can not.
Your “right to life” credo is a smokescreen. An unborn child carried by an Iraqi mother has has much “right to life” under your definition as an unborn child carried by an American mother.
If you accept that there is ever justification for taking another innocent life - which you just have, by accepting the necessity of civilian casualties in a war of choice - then the only issues are:
- Under what circumstances is it acceptable to take another life?
- Who gets to decide?
It’s apparent that we have wildly different views on these two questions.
There are thousands upon thousands of scenarios where a woman may be faced with the the issue of terminating her unborn baby. Every case is different. In every case, like it or not, the woman carrying the unborn child gets to be the final arbitrator of whether or not she carries that child to term. The only issue is whether she gets the benefit of proper medical attention (when the laws are not restricting her choice) or not (when the laws restrict her freedom of choice).
Report Inappropriate Comment