Should The Question How Best To Kill A Child Be A Decided By The Supreme Court?

The courts will be hearing the case challenging the ban on partial birth abortion, I ask how much riskier for a woman’s health is it to completely give birth to their child instead of partially giving birth to the boy/girl and then have the doctor kill him/her. In short it sounds like the health of the mother is never in question which is the only reason for a third trimester abortion of the child I remember according Roe v. Wade.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

This phase potentiality of human life is incorrect as human life is known to begin at conception according to science. It is only when you get to theological/philosophical arguments that there is any debate. Viability is the point of which a child can survive outside his/her mother’s womb and occurs at the point where the child has lived 22 weeks or shortly thereafter. The only point in the human life cycle when there is a potential for human life is the gametes as they are not a homo sapient life form though they are living.

In law according to Roe v. Wade this is irrelevant. All that cares is who the law states is a person, and not who is actually a person. .In their argument the deciding judges used prior court decisions to determine what the law was. Court decision are not the law they are merely the interpretation of the law and may be changed at a later date without changing the law. Only the legislators have the power to make or remove laws and therefore a statue law holds precedent over a court decision every time.

The potential hang up in the court for the partial birth abortion ban will be the words “appropriate medical judgment”. The courts decided in Doe v. Bolton than one medical opinion is all that was necessary since they stated the second was unnecessary. If the federal attorneys can present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt there is no health reason for this procedure to be performed then the Justices should decide the law is constitutional. The federal attorneys have an advantage over state attorneys in that Congress can regulate the federal courts and the Seventeenth Amendment removed the states ability to influence the federal government. This makes the judiciary think twice before overturning the a law passed by Congress.

Source 1 is article about Supreme Court hearing case on Partial Birth Abortion.

Source 2 is the majority decision in Roe v Wade

The Repercussions Of Choices

I am getting tired of hearing the excuse I am an alcoholic from our Congressional representatives. It is probably true as far as it goes but if you know alcoholism affects you by reducing your inhabitations then why are you drinking in the first place. I find it hard to believe anyone does not know. It could also be a lie as he can get his sentence reduced by a year if he completes a alcohol treatment program.

Representative Bob Ney of Ohio has finally resigned after being convicted of corruption. The prosecutor wants him to do 27 months but that is not enough as he abused the public trust.

State Senator Joy Padgett who was hand picked by him as a successor has bagged him to resign as his presence in office and her personal business dealing was hurting her chances of victory. She is strong on protecting our border and a strong on protecting the life of all human beings whether they are born again but is loosing in the polls to Democrat Zack Space 35% to 45%. Zack Space is also for a strong border but may be pro choice to commit murder as he supports chopping up children in a early stage of their life and using the pieces for research.

This possible loss may be because the cultural conservatives have lost faith in the Republican Party to win the battle. Their mistake is to think the Republican party is united. The Republican party is filled with libertarians who are cultural liberals. There is also disagreement among the cultural conservatives. For ethics to win then the cultural conservatives need to agree to disagree with others on the other points and set their goal on winning in the area of pro life. If they can not win that fight then the rest are already lost. The pro choice to commit murder faction is happy that so many of those that would stand for life are not going to vote.

Source 1 is about Mr. Ney resigning.

The American Problem: Money Is More Important Than Ethics

My source is about Black conservatives that disagree with the Democrat party agenda and still vote Democrat because what they believe the Democrat party has done for them. The fact do not bare out what they believe since it was Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights marches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seems to have been non partisan but his father was a lifelong Republican that began to side with the Democrats after one faction of that party responded to his son being locked up in Birmingham jail. It was the Democrats and not the Republicans that opposed even to the point of filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 though a number of Republican Senators including libertarian Senator Barry Goldwater who would later loose a run for President. Mr. Goldwater’s comment was that “you can’t legislate morality”.

Arthur Hammons summed up the real reason for the voting and it covers Whites as well as Blacks when he said "Our community votes for the Democrats because they are seen as the party for the middle class and poor people. We see the Republicans as the party of the rich,"

The Republican Party has managed to shake that image to some degree but when look at the tax breaks they give it tends to favor those with money. The Democrats are more slick but the also favor a different faction of the rich in the medical and education fields. They also favor union who’s higher-ups are far from poor. The apparent advantage is that the poor and middle class seem to reap benefits from the Democrat positions.

Personally I believe we need a new party who will embrace some of the economic policies of the Democrat party and the ethical policies of the Republican conservatives,. I am not sure if such a party would be feasible in our system because money seems to be needed and what moneyed special interests would they appeal to even if they appeal to the majority of the People of the United States.

This is my Source about Black conservative voting.

The Religious Right V The Religious Left

Reverend Al Sharpton who happens to be an American of the Black racial group came out with a message from the religious left criticizing the religious right by stating that their efforts should be aimed at fighting poverty, insuring equal access to education, and fighting other social injustices instead of being against homosexual marriage and abortion.

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson who also happens to be an American of the Black racial group responded by stating that the breakdown of marriage is what cause these social injustices and that they will be remedied when families united again.

This is opposed to the Democrat message of no fault divorce and cohabitation which probably means Mr. Sharpton does not want to hear it. Legalized abortion which is also supported by the Democrat party results in the deaths of three times as many Blacks as non Hispanic Whites.

I am convinced Mr. Sharpton has the wrong priorities. I am not stating that Mr. Patterson is 100% correct and that Mr. Sharpton is 100% wrong but the idea is to go back to the pattern of the 1950’s before the breakdown of marriage and the legalization of abortion and take a new path on both of those issue. The federal court has been the largest enemy of the Black people with unconstitutionally legalizing a number of practices that have proven destructive of the institution of marriage. One of those is pornography and the other seems to be contraception. Both of these contributed to the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s.

Even before the liberal attack on the institution of marriage there was a disparity between the marriage rate of Blacks and that of Whites but some of the issues have been addressed since then but do no aid in remedying the situation. From what I have heard the government has also managed to award single women for not getting married in their program of help for needy families which adversely effects the poor which Blacks tend to be. This strangely enough will ensure that such women remain poor as having a second person making an income relieves some of the financial burden from the woman.

Are TASERs A Threat To The Natural Human Right To Life?

I am actually a supporter of TASERs but from what I see they tend to be overused because they are branded as non lethal. They are a tool for law enforcement to use and one side effect of that use is the possible death of the target.

Taser International Inc, who sells TASERs, claims that 9000 lives have been saved while Amnesty International claims that 156 have been killed by them in five years. I believe both figures are inflated. Taser’s claim depends on police using a TASER instead of a gun which is not the case where a teenager was yelling “I want Jesus” and when confronted by officers who tried to calm him became combative so they TASERed him. They shot him a second time when he continued to struggle.

The question I have to ask and this article does not answer is how would of this type of confrontation been resolved before TASERs were introduced. In what ways is the new method better/worse than the old way. Since I do not have this in other information to adequately evaluate the situation I can not say whether this was a unfortunate death that is the result of better law enforcement or whether it was a death that could have been avoided by restrained use of TASERs.

Source 1 is an article about a death attributed to TASER.

Is It Truth Or Fiction? Immigration Reports

Two reports the appear to record improvements in border security are being covered by the media. The first reports that border arrests of illegal aliens are down despite an increase in border control agents. The second is a report about the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) breaking up an a human smuggling ring. The initial source of both reports is the government so it is not implausible that they have spun either or both stories to their advantage.

We have no idea what the 1900 new border agents will be doing as they may be support staff instead of boots on the ground. There is also supposed to be increased security measures. This should increase the number of arrest per those getting through. Since the report indicates the opposite it would seem clear that other factors not reported in this article account for the fewer arrests. One possibility is the unrest and elections that are taking place in Mexico this year.

There is also a report of 13% more marijuana being seized. This could indicate that a higher percentage is being seized or that more is being shipped or even a combination of the two. The reasonable assumption is that the tightened security is making it risky to ship marijuana into the U.S. I do not believe that is the case as it would cause an increase in the street cost and I have not heard of that happening. If you have heard different then provide me with evidence of it.

ICE did a good job breaking the smuggling ring which had been operating for years. The question is what is going to happen to the participants and it this just a cameo bust for public consumption. There is reports of the U.S. returning more illegals to there home country this year but I question how effective that is when we have an fairly open border on both our North and South so the can easily return.

Source 1 is report of heightened arrests on the border

Source 2 is about smuggling ring being busted in Arizona.

Science Without Ethics And The Slipper Slope Of America

Women are going to go crazy over this new advancement using adult stem cells. Using stem cells from a woman’s own fat researchers believe the will be able to construct new breast. This article states it is only for cancer patients but if I can see the potential of it being used for plastic surgery then so can other people.

This article shows a consistent media bias for research on stem cells made by cutting a baby in its first days of life up and using the body parts to do research on possible cures for other humans later in life. The designation stem cell though true is also a euphemism that hides what is actually occurring. Those who support the right to life of all human beings should avoid using it because it is deceptive. The media is even more deceptive as they refuse to make a distinction between those stem cell obtained from killing a human being in his or her early stage of life and those that are harvested form a human being but do not kill or significantly injure him or her.

For this reason the stem cell debate is on area in which the liberal bias of the main stream media is obvious.

The study I mention above is still in the animal testing phase and is farther advanced than embryonic which is in its hypothetical stage. I believe they have created a male gamete out of a cell from a chopped up baby early in its lifespan.

There is no reason that scientist could not be performing these studies using stem cells from chopped up animal babies instead of stem cells from chopped up human babies. If they succeed then they can get permission from the American people to kill human beings so they can heal other human beings. If the people gave them it would be a clear violation of the law of Nature and Nature’s God but our system allows for to tolerance of such tyranny.

The only reason I can believe that scientist have chosen a path of greater resistance is that they are challenging those that believe that all human beings have the right to life. Researchers have also proposed fusing a human child and a chimpanzee child which are both in the blastocyst stage of life thus killing both children to create a new offspring that was a combination of both known as a chimera. This would be unethical but some scientist do not believe ethics apply to them which pits them against what is called the religious right even though it contains Atheists in its numbers.

Source 1 Is about discovery in adult stem cells the could change the nature of plastic surgery involving human breasts.

Source 2 is about human chimpanzee chimera.

Source 3 mentions some interesting items about the nature of chimeras and our laws.