President Bush Shows Strong Pro-Life Beliefs in Private Meetings

LifeNews.com ^ | November 7, 2003 | Steven Ertelt

[Burkeman1]

Perhaps.

[WillRain]

State rights STARTS with the 10th amemdment. That is, they have the right to everything not specificly covered in the Constitution.
Since a persons right to not be unjustly deprived of life IS in the Constitution, it is therefore not a STATE'S right.

Anyone so reverant of the Constitution should have no problem with that.

Now, if we say that Oregon legalizes marajuina and the feds don't like it then I'm with you - though. States have that right.

But constitutionally, they do NOT have the right to deprive a person of life. Now, it's true that the law does not currently recognize the pre-born as a "person" consistantly, but you can bet your sweet bippy that Thomas and Scalia do.

[WillRain]

Sir, your ignorent stereotypes of even "some" evangelicals is abrasive and do you a disservice.

There is a TINY radical fringe who entertain such nnotions but they are almost infentisimal. The almost unanomus majority of those of us who support Israel do so because we recognize that they are still God's chosen beloved possesion whom he will redemm in the end, not so bigoted anti-semetic gleeful desire to see them die. To claim that is the case is blatant slander on your part.

It is akin to saying that all of us including Catholics who oppose homosexuality agree with the rantings of Fred Phelps.

I charge you sir, that when you are so obviously ignorent about a subject you refrain from comment on it lest you give the impression you entertain a hateful bigotry towards Evangelicals.

[Burkeman1]

Perhaps I had my "Irish" up and spoke out of turn. I apologize. I generalized about an entire sect of Christianity. Sorry.

[Burkeman1]

I will agree to that. I got a little too excited and misread Falwells words.

[WillRain]

Aknowledged and accepted.

My reaction may have been too harsh as well, but on other, less enlightened boards, I have to deal with this sort of thing alot and I've developed a "nip it in the bud" sort of attitude about it.

[Concentrate]

You got that right! Thanks for the response.

[Concentrate]

At one time I was indifferent on this issue, but when I took my daughter in for her first Sonigram(sp?), I saw a tiny living human being, full of life wiggling around in her stomach, and then several months later I saw her give birth to that same living baby. There is no doubt when I think life begins.

Thanks for the powerful testimony. I can only agree, and have experienced the same.

[Wallace T.]

All of the representatives who met with Bush were evangelicals, representing evangelical denominations or parachurch ministries. There were no Catholics, mainline Protestants, or Eastern Orthodox in the meeting. Hence, non-evangelicals were not represented. With representatives of the National Association of Evangelicals, the conservative counterpart to the National Council of Churches and the Southern Baptist Convention present, it would be fair to say that a cross-section of evangelicals were represented at the meeting. I cannot vouch for Dr. Falwell's numbers, however.

Falwell did not say nor imply that non-evangelicals were non-Christians.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.