In article <6f9e1b49.0308101503.24f4eda@posting.google.com>,
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:

"...The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTs, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.

ents_1-10.html

Me wrote:
... it was designed to prevent government from intruding on

individuals'

naturally occurring rights.

Papa Jack asked:
Now, please tell us where you found ANY reference in the
Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or any other historical
document which makes any reference to a "naturally occurring
RIGHT" for a pregnant woman to kill her unborn child.

There clearly is no such thing except perhaps in your imagination.

Don't you read what you post? Try reading Amendment IX.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Then if you had bothered to read further (beyond the Bill of Rights):

Amendment XIII

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction."

The point in Amendment IX is that we have rights unless the Constitution
denies them.

So tell me, where in the Constitution does it deny women
the right to an abortion?

=====================================================
"...The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTs, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
===========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
Now, please tell us where you found ANY reference in the
Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or any other historical
document which makes any reference to a "naturally occurring
RIGHT" for a pregnant woman to kill her unborn child.

On 7 Aug 2003 15:45:18 -0700,

A reminder:

http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html

_________________________________________________________
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
by Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth president of the United
States, sent us this article shortly after the tenth anniversary of Roe
v. Wade; we printed it with pride in our Spring, 1983 issue, and
reprint it now, after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as proudly.

[snip...

Is this the same Ronald Reagan who, as governor of California, signed
the law legalizing abortion before Roe v. Wade?


Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email

papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:

A reminder:

______________________________________________
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
by Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth
president of the United States, sent us this
article shortly after the tenth anniversary
of Roe v. Wade; we printed it with pride in
our Spring, 1983 issue, and reprint it now,
after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as
proudly.

[snip...

Is this the same Ronald Reagan who, as governor
of California, signed the law legalizing abortion
before Roe v. Wade?

On 7 Aug 2003 15:45:18 -0700,

A reminder:

that Papa Jack mindlessly repeats Pro-Life lies.

"...Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all
nine months of pregnancy ....

There is no such policy.

...not a single state had such
unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to
be national policy in 1973.....

Not a single state had *any* restriction on abortion prior to the
AMA's lobbying for control over the business in the early 1800's.
This nation was founded upon 'abortion on demand.'

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message > news:<bh83a5$c6b$1@bolt.sonic.net>...

Papa Jack <papajack@stic.net> wrote:

Papa Jack cited:
A reminder:

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
by Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth president of the United
States, sent us this article shortly after the tenth anniversary of Roe
v. Wade; we printed it with pride in our Spring, 1983 issue, and
reprint it now, after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as proudly.

Excerpts:
"...Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all
nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people
nor enacted by our legislators — not a single state had such
unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to
be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial
decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million
unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized
abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost
in all our nation's wars.
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted
by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed
to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of
the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after
the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of
Stanford Law School, wrote the opinion "is not constitutional
law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a
"right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the
child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.
As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White's biting
phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v.
Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court's decision
has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has
become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every
one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ". . . any man's
death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls
for thee."
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life —
the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. We
saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts
allowed the starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington
because the child had Down's Syndrome.
[...]
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose
heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided
by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain
human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not over-
turned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only
a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral
crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black
brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision
and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts
and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity
under God. From their example, we know that respect for
the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the
hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the
great majority of the American people have not yet made
their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any
more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the
issue is clearly framed and presented.
[...]
The real question today is not when human life begins, but,
What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reas-
sembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all
its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly
doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for
him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a
God-given right to be protected by the law — the same
right we have.
[...]
The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life
brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before.
The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified
disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence
that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or
is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the
value question, whether to give value to a human life at its
early and most vulnerable stages of existence.
Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not
value all human life. They want to pick and choose which
individuals have value. Some have said that only those
individuals with "consciousness of self" are human beings.
One such writer has followed this deadly logic and
concluded that "shocking as it may seem, a newly born
infant is not a human being."
[...]
Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to
recognize the real issue is whether to affirm and protect
the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic
where some human lives are valued and others are not. As
a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic
and the "quality of life" ethic.
I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has
always given to this basic question, and the answer that
I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was
founded by men and women who shared a vision of
the value of each and every individual. They stated this
vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of
Independence, using words that every schoolboy and
schoolgirl can recite:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
[...]
When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the
Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the rights of life,
liberty, and property to all human beings, he explained
that all are "entitled to the protection of American
law, because its divine spirit of equality declares all
men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed by
the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being."
Justice William Brennan, writing in another case decided
only the year before Roe v. Wade, referred to our society
as one that "strongly affirms the sanctity of life."
[...]

Ray Fischer wrote:
The biggest non-news item of the 20th century had to have been
when it was announced that Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's.
An entire nation said: Yeah? So?