Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Debate? – Hillary’s View of Life and Death Says it All
CANADA Free Press ^ | 09/25/16 | Rev. Michael Bresciani

Posted on 09/25/2016 9:26:15 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony

Yes, This Election is a Life and Death Matter – What to do? The answer is easy and it raises yet one further question – who is listening?

The thing about politics that is easy to disdain is that it more often than not uses words to cover and mask serious errors in judgment with more publicly acceptable rhetorical phrases and words.

Wickedness and immorality are clandestinely draped with words like, liberalism, inclusion, civil rights and safety.

It is only when we examine the product of a world view that we see what it really is – or do we?


TOPICS: Government; Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; debate; hillaryclinton; life

1 posted on 09/25/2016 9:26:15 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

The title is misleading. The article does not discuss Hillary’s view of death, but the deaths she has played a part in.


2 posted on 09/25/2016 9:34:59 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (Einstein: I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
The title is misleading. The article does not discuss Hillary’s view of death, but the deaths she has played a part in.

I have a certain view of death, which is why I made it to age 61 without ever playing a part in anyone's death.

3 posted on 09/25/2016 9:39:14 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Vote GOP: A Slower Handbasket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

What does it profit a woman to gain the whole world and to lose her soul? (paraphrased)


4 posted on 09/25/2016 9:50:37 AM PDT by georgiegirl (Count me in the half that's in the Deplorable Basket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

So many that it would probably take a full day to name each victim individually.


5 posted on 09/25/2016 9:51:53 AM PDT by uncitizen (JFK: The first victim of the New World Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony
On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Far Left's agenda on this matter, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.

6 posted on 09/25/2016 12:00:14 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson