All Comments for: Partial Reversal | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > June

Christianity Today, June, 2007 |

TIDINGS

Partial Reversal

The Supreme Court's abortion decision shows that the arguments have changed.

Ted Olsen | posted 5/14/2007 08:42AM

Criticisms of Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court's decision to allow a ban on partial-birth abortion, sound awfully familiar. But surprisingly, they're coming from the pro-choice side.

When Congress ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

katielady

Posted: May 14, 2007 11:47 PM


there is no such thing as a fetus, it is a BABY from the day of conception, and God will deal with those People who think it isn't a baby until the child comes out,God help us save lives not kill them,why do we have no one to fill the skills positions in our country, because of abortions......

George

Posted: May 14, 2007 12:35 PM

"it has already changed the conversation about abortion, horrifying even the pro-Roe Kennedy with the procedure's near equivalence to infanticide" - my concern with the act and the decision is that it suggests that "right to life" is a question of position in the birth canal, rather than the infinite worth of the life being terminated. If we truly believe this to be a life, it is infanticide regardless of the abortion technique; otherwise, perhaps we do not truly believe this to be a life after all (Roe noted that the penalty for abortion in the overturned statute was nowhere close to that for murder; this act proscribes penalty for the mother, not customary for an accessory to a murder). To permit the taking of a life as long as the technique does not horrify us hardly seems a high moral stance. Ultimately, we allow the killing but prohibit a technique which might (however rarely) benefit the mother, again, hardly a high moral stance.

James T

Posted: May 14, 2007 12:27 PM


Jane: I am against abortion but don't blame abortions on men. The ultimate choice always go to the women. Who has to pay after a child is born? The men. They don't have a choice not to pay. There are hundred of thousands of men who are paying child support for children not their.

Mike	Posted: May 14, 2007 12:23 PM

Based on the arbitrariness of the pro-abortion movement's devaluing of the right of the conceived child to live, to not be destroyed at its mother's whim, will we not begin more and more to argue for the right of destroying the life of the elderly and infirmed when the children feel overly burdened (financially, emotionally, psychologically) at having to provide care? The abortion rationale is utterly incompatible with any reasonable and rational ethic of respecting humans. In many cases it is a selfish and cowardly way out, not merely for the woman who kills her unborn child, but for ALL who ought to be acting as a responsible support system, and for society as a whole for being so vapid and licentious in its social ethical expectations. I pray future generations look with utter disdain on the moral depravity of especially the last 40 years.

Linda St. Amand

Posted: May 14, 2007 12:19 PM

If we must, rest on resolution of statements in documents forwarded by (D) Senator Dianne Feinstein and Clinton appointee, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton (San Francisco). Where, "S 3 BAN" was rejected due to "no exception of health for mother" -signatured documented rejection, (D) Sen. Dianne Feinstein. And OC Register Newspaper report: June 2004, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton rejected BAN on Partial Birth Abortions and reasoned "Women's choice is paramount and the unborn's pain is irrelevant" The same BAN was rejected on two counts: 1. No exception of health for mother 2. Women's choice is paramount. At what point does the Constitution of these United States recognize the flaw in the rejections above?? We either have "no exception of health for mother" or Women's choice is paramount no matter what circumstance whatsoever>> Let's look at: "Unborn Victim's Protection Act" -In California, Scott Peterson was found guilty by jury-two murders: Laci & Connor

Jane	Posted: May 14, 2007 11:55 AM


I agree it is a helpful shift. Everytime I read an article about the abortion battle, I wonder who will dare write about the decisions of men and boys of all ages who expect an abortion culture. Elaborate on their responsibility. From Pregancy Resource Center info I deduct that a lot of deadbeat dads and boyfriends are behind the abortion decisions. The desire for autonomy comes first from them.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment