[Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!

Tue Dec 8 13:39:11 CST 2009

The Courts?  

The courts decided that Dred Scott could not be a person granted natural rights, but was rather property.  Likewise, the court decided that that the fetus was the property of the mother subject to her private whims.  The error in Dred Scott and the error in Roe v. Wade are one and the same --- the erroneous designation of one sovereign person as the property of another, which suggests a reversion to the divine right of Kings --- a violation of the principles of Natural Law.

Previously we had discussed the mystification of the medical industry and the deification of doctors, even unto putting the power to kill into the hands of "doctors".   Note that the power to cause abortion was noted and denounced by Hippocrates, and the Hippocratic Oath of medical ethics included a ban on the use of abortifacients.

Another tottering segment of the pro-abortion ideologic house of cards is found in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
  Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

    (a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
      (2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
        (B) An offense under this section does not require proof that- 
          (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
          (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
        (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
        (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
Title 18, Section 1841, continues and recognizes that a child in utero is a human being.
      (d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

The portion of USC 18, 1841 that should, and must be struck down as absurd is the portion that gives inappropriate power to the woman (the child is property and therefore subject to the right of the mother to kill it) and to the medical industrial establishment ("doctor" is deified as one possessing the right to kill innocents as a public service).  In this case the "doctor" could be any person, even an untrained backalley butcher. 

  (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution- 
    (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
    (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
    (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brussel Morton K. 
  To: C. G. Estabrook 
  Cc: E. Wayne Johnson ; AWARE peace discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!

  On Dec 8, 2009, at 10:45 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

    Whereas those who hold that ending the life of a newborn is murder, but doing
    the same thing a month or so earlier is morally neutral, are just being illogical.  (And perhaps politically driven, to minimize undesirables.)

    The question is, Where in the life-cycle does ending human life becomes no longer acceptable.  Birth?  A month earlier? Three months?  Six?

  Yes, and courts (not the theological ones) have pronounced on this issue in considering the rights of the woman who would eventually bear the fetus. It's a human question. That there is a continuous evolution (bad word) in human and fetal development is then recognized and dealt with on reasonable, practical, humane  criteria.   --mkb

    Brussel Morton K. wrote:

      Those who even believe that a sperm having entered a human egg is equivalent

      to a developed human (in human rights, etc.), is theologically driven,

      ludicrous, and beyond ethics or reason.

      --mkb

      On Dec 8, 2009, at 10:08 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

        Mort, as usual, seems particularly interested in theology.  We're talking

        about ethics, which doesn't depend on theology.  That's why we all agree

        that our ending human lives in Afghanistan is wrong.

        Brussel Morton K. wrote:

          Jennifer, you are dealing with theologically frozen minds on this issue.

          The issue should have no place on the peace-discuss website, but fanatics

          will not be restrained. --mkb On Dec 7, 2009, at 8:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook

          wrote:

            It's a medical procedure that results in the death of a majority of

            those who undergo it.  That after all is the point of the procedure.

            --CGE Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

              There is only ONE pro-choice argument, so far as I'm concerned: ALL

              women should be able to choose whether to continue or terminate a

              pregnancy, and because it's a medical procedure, ALL women should

              have health insurance that covers termination, should they choose

              that...

      _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Peace-discuss mailing list
  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
  http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091208/22fd0ba9/attachment.htm