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 04, 2008 at 10:25 am
Iraq is not a valid part of this discussion so the question is irrelevant. What is relevant is questioning the intentional termination of a viable child, which you have chose to ignore and divert the conversation and questions.
My opinion on the war: It sucks. I dont like the war. There are always casualties of war. There are in afganistan. There were in WWI and WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the civil war, the american revolution and there are casualties from general lawlessnes. I personally believe if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murdered should be charged with a double murder but then how can we do this when our country says that a child is not a life until after it is birthed ? How can you agree to let a rapist take your 11 year old daughter across state lines so she can have an abortion to cover his crimes ? If you are pro abortion in the US, you accept these kind of rules along with late term abortions of viable children. THAT is Relevant discussion to this thread.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 04, 2008 at 7:55 am
Barnun,
For all your bluster ranting and raving on two back-to-back posts you still didn’t answer my question. Let me re-ask it.
How can you be completely opposed to abortion as an issue of right-to-life of an unborn child, but approve of our war on Iraq where possibly hundreds of thousands of pregnant civilian women have been killed along with their fetus?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on June 03, 2008 at 5:33 pm
First, I agree with RonC that liberals do not casually dismiss life, but understand other freedoms are impacted by this issue. I have no problem opposing late-term abortions, after the seed has grown into a being. As a practical person, I also do not have a problem with mandatory sterilizations for welfare moms after a limit of two or three kids nor having a judge impose a vasectomy as a part of a sentence. Option 20 years with no parole or 10 years suspended with a “snip”. Yes, someones ‘rights’ may be trampled, but as someone keeps saying, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. I am also right on with Ron that how can you support killing of innocent people in Iraq but have horrors over a woman making a choice? And the death penalty? Impose it where fitting!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 03, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I do agree that a woman should have the right to make choices about her body but I also think by allowing herself to get pregnant she has somewhat forfeited that right and it should then be the rights of the child. Women have the rights, the means, and the power of prevention. We ALL stand the chance of forfeiting our rights in one way or another, based on our actions. you have the right to own and shoot a gun, but you do not have the right to commit a felony. IF you commit a felony, you forfeit your rights. you seem to disregard the rights of the child. “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Abortion laws are completely hypocritical. If the child is not a life then mandatory abortions should be legal. If the child is a life, then what is the termination ? Judy can terminate her childs life at anytime if she chooses. The child is not a life. If joe kills judy who is pregnant, he can be charged with double homicide. but wait, that tumor isn’t a life, right ? What about father’s rights? If a father has no rights then he should have no obligations, right ? If a father has obligations, then he should have rights, right ? Is the father any more or less of a parent than the mother ? The mom’s like to say “hey, it takes two to tango” but it only takes one to terminate. What happened to two ?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 03, 2008 at 2:57 pm
This thread is about our country and our children. You bring an entirely different discussion into play as a smoke and mirrors affect. there are many ways to prevent pregnancy Ron that do not include terminating the life of a child, Especially a late term, viable child. And yes, the pro abortion group loudly states and unborn child has no value if they allow termination. to permit termination you have to veiw the fetus as just a growth, not a human child. What is a tumor ? just a tissue growth. How could you possibly terminate a valuable “life”? You can’t, therefor it has to be deemed as being not a life, not a child. Why stop at 9 months pregnant. lets give another 9 months post birth for termination, that way the father can help decide if it’s going to bother his life as well. Gary probably forgot to tell you that after Roe had her abortion, she spent the rest of her life helping to reverse that court decision. ron, what do you think about the fact that the pro abortion group has been able to manipulate the laws in such a way that they could take YOUR 11 yr old daughter out of state to get an abortion and conceal from you the fact that she may have been raped, there by protecting the rapist. Ron, Gary ? Can you imagine what that 11 yr old girl must go through at night after that ? Like it or not, that is part of the pro abortion package as well as late term abortion, terminating healthy viable children, which by the way was NOT part of the roe v wade decision. Yes Ron, I believe i’ve thought it thru quite well thank you.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 03, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Do You Know Barnun,
You should really be careful and think through what you’re posting, before you click the “Submit Comment” button.
I know of no “liberal” who’s ever claimed that an unborn child has no value - or compared an unborn child to a tumor. That talk all comes from the “forced motherhood” side of the aisle talking about how they view the “Liberals” opinions’.
The issue is a women’s right to make choices about her body and her health, in private consultation with whomever she choses; which may include a doctor, religious person, and family. She should not be forced into making decisions about her her life gaining permission from police, lawyers, judges, politicians, news reporters, and screaming hordes of raving lunatics lining a city street chanting and waving pictures of dead babies.
As Gary Jacobsen noted, all the people on this thread screaming about the horrors of abortion appear to be men.
I also note the irony that people on this thread screaming about the horrors of a woman’s right to chose are also the ones cheerleading our war in Iraq. Some independent NGO’s have estimated Iraqi civilian casualties at well over 1 million people, with an addtion 2+ million refugees. Among those Iraqi civilians killed must be lots of pregnant women.
Why no uproar over the horrors of killing all those unborn Iraqi babies from the “Right to Life Crowd?
Inquiring minds do want to know.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 03, 2008 at 9:24 am
Ray,
I still dont “agree” that first trimester is a womans choice alone but I wouldn’t fight to end that peice of law. I like that law, it reduces the number of the poor in our country. I dont really see much difference between this and execution really. It’s funny, in here the ones that are pro abortion are also pro illegal. So I guesss the same crowd that feels an unborn child has no value would not be opposed if we passed a federal law making abortion mandatory for all pregnant illegals in our country. If a woman can choose it, the government should be allowed to mandate it. The little tumor has no value anyway, right ?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 01, 2008 at 6:30 am
Paul Ross quote: “the Taliban also believe that goals can be achieved through the destruction of innocent life.“
Sounds a lot like what we’re doing over in Iraq.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Paul Ross ) on May 31, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Jacobsen’s analogy of the Taliban would apply better to the abortion industry: the Taliban also believe that goals can be achieved through the destruction of innocent life. Similar methods as well: dismemberment, decapitation…
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on May 30, 2008 at 4:42 pm
barnun, I’ll go with you on the partial birth abortion if you’ll agree first trimester remains a woman’s choice.
Report Inappropriate Comment