In a message dated 7/23/2005 2:28:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, it
is not a child, it is a fetus.
And fetus, you see, is derived from latin, and means, "little one."
This begs the question that follows, "little one" what?
In a recent thread, it was
In a message dated 7/23/2005 2:28:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Keep you
laws off my body. Your religious views are not the same as mine, and
you have no right to impose them on me against my will. I am more
important than the contents of my womb, and FYI,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of
the United States */_and of the State wherein they reside_/*. Suppose
that a young mother of an unborn baby resides in Maryland. Does the
interest of Maryland, in the health and safety of its
Title: Re: inJohn Roberts' America.
I share Jean Dudley's views,,
but isn't the legal problem that overruling Roe would be justified by the
compelling interest in protecting fetal life--I assume, especially after
Lawrence, that the Court would concede that a liberty interest
In a message dated 7/23/2005 2:35:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So long as Casey remains on the books, even if
it is narrowed, it would, presumably, make impossible the kind of totalitarian
system that Jean Dudley may rightly fear.
Totalitarian system.
With our moderator gone, I'll go ahead and be the one to suggest this.
We've had the salvos and counter-salvo on this issue now. It's
really outside the scope of this list. Can we end it here, or take
further discussion off list?
Sam Ventola
Denver, Colorado
On 7/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 7/23/2005 7:13:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jean can and should do with her body whatever she likes, but she ought to
be prevented from taking the life of a child even if, by the acts of others,
it finds itself in so hostile a land.
I
In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:33:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not sure about this.
Change the hypo a bit. Imagine no contrary federal law. Surely a
state with a speed limit of 60 MPH cannot ban state citizens from going 70 MPH
on out-of-state
The fact that I'm agreeing with Jim Henderson will doubtless be occasion
for agonized soul-searching, prayer and fasting. I'm appalled by
the idea of extraterritorial abortion bans. But there is a
substantial argument that your home jurisdiction may have a right to
govern your behavior even when
