LIFE AT CONCEPTION/ STOCKMAN/ RATZINGER

 LIFE AT CONCEPTION/ STOCKMAN/ RATZINGER

In pursuit of the truth - http://www.cinopsbegoneblogspot.com - Saturday, Feb. 20, 2016 

From Congressman Steve Stockman - Feb. 7, 2016

Subject: Support for the Life At Conception Act - Excerpts -

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right. INSTEAD  THE SUPREME COURT SAID: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins ... the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

THEN THE HIGHT COURT MADE A KEY ADMISSION: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case ("Roe" who sought an abortion,) of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment."

THE FACT IS, THE 14TH AMENDMENT COULDN'T BE CLEARER: "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

FURTHERMORE, THE 14TH AMENDMENT SAYS: "Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT WOULD DO.

The Supreme Court itself admitted, "If Congress declares unborn children "persons" under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand collapses.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN: PHONE:

Senator Dianne Feinstein                 Senator Barbara Boxer        Representative Ed Royce (39 Distr)

202-224-3841                                      202-224-0454                          714-255-0101 or fax 714-744-4056

+++++++++++

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, "Co-Workers of the Truth" Meditation, Feb. 15. (excerpts)

    When the murder of innocent life is called a right, then injustice has become justice. When the law can no longer protect human life, it is suspect as law. Saying this does not mean wanting to impose specifically Christian morality on all members of a pluralistic society.

    What is in question now here is human nature, the humanity of a person who cannot make the trampling on a created being a means of self-liberation without profoundly deceiving himself. The vehemence of the dispute over this question is due to the profundity of the question that is being discussed.

    Do we become free only when we cut ourselves loose from creation and have cast it off as an enslavement... In the anxious attempt to obstruct the path of new human life as silently and as surely as possible, can we not detect a deep anxiety about the future? Two answers seem to suggest themselves here.

    On one hand, this anxiety emanates, no doubt, from the fact that the free gift of life does not seem meaningful to us because we have lost the free gift of its meaning; there is evident a despair of one's own life that makes us unwilling to impose on others the dark way of humanity.

    On the other hand, we see exemplified here clearly and simply a fear of competition, a fear of curtailment the other may invariably be for me. The other, he who is to come, becomes a threat. True love is death, an obliteration of oneself before for the other. But we have no desire for death.

    We want only to be ourselves and to lead lives as free as possible from sharing and disturbance. We do not realize and we do not want to realize that, by our avidity for life, we are actually our own future, that we risk having our own lives fall into the hands of death.  (1977)

George H. Kubeck