WaPo on SCOTUS: Abortion Ban Is ‘Paternalistic’ Vs Hand Gun Ban “Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits”
Got that? The WaPo seems to think that
The Second Amendment, while ensconced in the Bill of Rights among provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, is different. Words can be offensive; bullets can be lethal. Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits. If the justices recognize an individual right, they can and should allow lawmakers maximum flexibility to enact reasonable regulation. In our view, that flexibility should include the District’s law, which is aimed at taking the most dangerous guns off the streets of what was once one of the nation’s most dangerous cities. Anything short of this would promote perverse ideological purity over the legitimate interests of lawmakers to protect public safety.
Vs
In an April 19, 2007 editorial slamming the Court for upholding a federal partial-birth abortion ban, the Post’s editorial board lambasted (emphasis mine) “the majority’s paternalistic pretense that the law can be justified by Congress’s interest ‘in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession’ and in protecting pregnant women from making a choice they may come to regret.”
Are you following? Words hurt, guns kill..but abortion?
March 17, 2008 - 06:08 PM on March 17th, 2008
[...] Freedom wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Got that? The WaPo seems to think that The Second Amendment, while ensconced in the Bill of Rights among provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, is different. Words can be offensive; bullets can be lethal. Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits. If the justices recognize an individual right, they can and should allow lawmakers maximum flexibility to enact reasonable regulation. In our view, that flexibility should include the Dis [...]
March 17, 2008 - 08:23 PM on March 17th, 2008
Since when is DC NOT the nation’s most dangerous city? It has only gotten SUBSTANTIALLY worse since the passage of the gun bill, not better. Criminals and Democrats love unarmed victims.
March 18, 2008 - 06:33 AM on March 18th, 2008
[...] WaPo on SCOTUS: Abortion Ban Is ‘Paternalistic’ Vs Hand Gun Ban “Every right, no m… [...]
March 18, 2008 - 03:06 PM on March 18th, 2008
As usial the WASHINGTON COMPOST favors gun bans and the right to kill the unborn while always supporting some crazy SAVE THE REDWOOD POPPYCOCK
September 26, 2008 - 02:22 PM on September 26th, 2008
those picture are fuckin sad
October 27, 2008 - 07:25 PM on October 27th, 2008
The images above are in fact old and outdated, the partial birth system is no longer in use. I do stand by the Pro-life and will stand up for it, but its the extremely biased pics that this one that give the pro-life a bad name. The right to pro-choice is a farce because the women who do get these abortions took the risk of having unprotected sex, and not taking responsibility for their actions. Unless the mothers life is at risk or its rape it should be illegal
November 6, 2008 - 09:46 AM on November 6th, 2008
uh, well, yes, um, you know, uh Obama does not believe in the second amendment and we’ve already seen what the Left thinks of the First Amendment. And of course unborn babies have no rights.
But no doubt some rights are sacred to them: The right to be a degenerate, and to attack others who choose not to live that way for whatever reason is the first one that comes to mind.
November 18, 2008 - 11:38 AM on November 18th, 2008
SHMAJAY- The pictures showing the procedure are factual, not old or outdated, however there is yet another method for partial birth abortion called Dilation and extraction in which the fetus is basically quartered.. Cut into about six pieces, legs and arms, torso, than the head is the last to be removed. Is that recent enough for you? You should go to the National Right to Life’s website. ANYONE who performs any of these so-called procedures or has had one is pure evil as far as I’m concerned and I would hold them on a scale of evil equivalent to that of Jeffery Dahmer. Worse even because these victims are completely defenseless.
March 5, 2009 - 08:59 PM on March 5th, 2009
Abortion should be allowed legally without being looked down upon. For cases of rape and incest, adoption could be an answer. However, with rape, who on earth would want to wake up with something growing in them as a daily reminder to the trauma that the mother was forced to endure. With incest, the chances of the child being deformed are greatly increased, whether physically or emotionally deformed. With either of those circumstances and adoption being an option, you run the risk of that child never being adopted, never having a true home, and never feeling wanted or loved. For those reasons, I think abortion should be allowed. Only up to a certain point- nine weeks should be the cut off. Nine weeks is when the mass of cells actually forms a fetus; partial birth abortions should not be allowed.