Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Right to Life is an UNALIENABLE right granted to us by God

Posted on 10/28/2007 3:07:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

The purpose of Free Republic is to fight for our freedom, for the constitution, for conservatism and for our traditional American heritage. We recognize that the domestic enemy of freedom is liberalism and big government socialism.

We recognize that our unalienable rights come from God not man or government and, no, they are NOT open to debate or subject to negotiation or compromise.

Sorry, RINOS, but the right to Life is our first unalienable right. This is not just a conservative political "principle" that stubborn right wing fringe nuts refuse to give up. It's an UNALIENABLE right granted to all men by GOD and no man or government can deprive us of same! Not without one hell of a fight!! Compromisers be damned!!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: fredthompson; moralabsolutes; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-311 next last
To: xzins

I think that would depend on who the candidate is as well...do you have anyone in mind? I could see perhaps a Tancredo, since he’s not going to run for re-election and is a bit maverick, or perhaps John McCain, maverick at large. Definitely not Duncan Hunter, who seems Republican to the end.


221 posted on 10/29/2007 7:21:17 PM PDT by jonathanmo (So many phobes, so little time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: jonathanmo

While Hunter is my preferred candidate, I agree that Tancredo is the man who has indicated a willingness to break with the republican leadership.


222 posted on 10/29/2007 7:27:46 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I agree with you. My main point is that attacking the right to privacy is a poor approach to overturning Roe. I believe that was intentional, and that conservatives are banging their heads against a wall uselessly by getting endlessly sucked into that losing strategy. Because, the real issue at the heart of Roe is not privacy anyway, but the Fourteenth Amendment-protected personhood of the unborn. As I’ve pointed out more times than I can count, Blackmun admitted as much in the majority decision in Roe.


223 posted on 10/29/2007 7:39:26 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like this, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thank you Jim! It’s impossible to have liberty along with the pursuit of happiness without first having life. God gave us those rights and if we stop claiming those are GOD given rights vs Government given rights, there will be no rock to stand on for us to claim our rights! What government gives, government can take away. But thankfully God is the same today, yesterday and forever!


224 posted on 10/29/2007 7:39:29 PM PDT by missanne (If we lost the war in Iraq, who won?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; genxer; PatriotEdition; Simul iustus et peccator; Disgusted in Texas; B Knotts; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

225 posted on 10/29/2007 8:31:24 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harrowup

Your silly diatribe suggests your circular reasoning has so thoroughly warped your mind, you can’t really think anymore. You just pound out a mantra of ignorance and zealotry which will defeat you.
***That’s all you have is insults? It means you’re out of ammunition. As I said, you are conducting yourself like a pasquinade. Look at what you wrote, it doesn’t even make sense.

You brought up the Republican Party platform because it agrees with the RTL argument. Don’t pretend otherwise. This thread is about RTL.
***I didn’t bring up the platform, another Freeper did. So this accusatory tone about “not pretending otherwise” is completely vaporous nonsense. Again, it is easy to see you are out of ammunition. You can’t argue on either side, whether it’s the platform or the RTL issue. You yourself just don’t like the reality. Tough. You need to work extra harder to knock some sense into us deluded pro-lifers.


226 posted on 10/29/2007 8:58:53 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Without life all other rights become moot, bereft of objective meaning.


227 posted on 10/29/2007 9:55:40 PM PDT by Elsiejay (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I do not even like to call it abortion because it is the planned murder of the most helpless!
228 posted on 10/30/2007 7:04:06 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: olde north church
I would venture a guess that more infants have been murdered since 1973 than in the preceding 200 years in the United States. That can be squarely laid on the doorstep of pro-lifers who refuse to win the battle incrementally.

That's a chicken/egg argument. I wouldn't be surprised if your supposition was true, but I would posit it was because our country has devalued life and that devaluation has caused an increase in callousness towards life, with attendant lack of regard for life.. Infants aren't being killed because of the Right-to-life movement. Period.

229 posted on 10/30/2007 7:12:50 AM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; All
CORRECTION:

Finding a right to kill our "posterity" does align with the purpose of establishing these rights for the benefit of our posterity.

Should read: Finding a right to kill our "posterity" does NOT align with the purpose of establishing these rights for the benefit of our posterity.

230 posted on 10/30/2007 7:38:56 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Slavery was not ended by politics.

Nor was it ended by "incrementalism."

231 posted on 10/30/2007 8:03:20 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Slavery was not ended by politics. Nor was it ended by "incrementalism."

As you know, I think the analogy is correct.

Are you callling for war?

232 posted on 10/30/2007 8:05:45 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Trails of trouble, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

No, I want to END the bloodshed.


233 posted on 10/30/2007 8:06:51 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Amen, Jim! I’d add that the stress on that word should be placed on, ‘lien’. No person or governing body has the authority to lay claim to, or usurp, what Almighty God has granted to men. Else, our “rights” would be something else; emanating from men and their capricious and ever-changing whims. God said, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). That’s an enduring and inexorable command, placed in our hearts (i.e., consciences) as well as written into various statutes. There’s no clearer truth in the world! Chris ><>


234 posted on 10/30/2007 8:13:03 AM PDT by VforVendetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
It’s ashame the writers of our Constitution didn’t include a recognition clause:

“Human Life” is recognized as at the moment of conception until natural death.

Because of the twisted logic of infanticide, post-birth “abortions” are a very real “choice” in their view.

235 posted on 10/30/2007 9:26:15 AM PDT by SaltyJoe (Lenin legalized abortion. Afterward, every life was fair game for Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the808bass; All

I didn’t say infants are being killed because of the right to life movement. I said, infants are being killed because of pro-life absolutism. There is a difference between the two. Don’t attempt to redefine my position.


236 posted on 10/30/2007 11:22:20 AM PDT by olde north church (Epitaph for America: We weren't humble enough to be pragmatic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: olde north church; the808bass; cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; 8mmMauser; Mr. Silverback; ...
I didn’t say infants are being killed because of the right to life movement. I said, infants are being killed because of pro-life absolutism. There is a difference between the two.

Then perhaps you can enlighten us with an example of a single abortion that has been performed because of pro-life "absolutism."

I suppose this is the opposite of the "incrementalism" that you advocate, where presumably the government would set "benchmarks" for how many infants they thought should be slaughtered in any given year.

The pro-life position is ALL OR NOTHING, there can be NO SITUATION under which the murder of innocent human beings is acceptable. 50 MILLION infants have been killed in the United States in less than 35 years, this needs to END. We are not interested in any plan of appeasing the culture of death.

237 posted on 10/30/2007 12:45:45 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Old North Church

Perhaps, just perhaps, what ONC is implying is that if the pro-lfe movement had compromised years ago, to get a ban on abortions after say the fourth month, many fewer children would have been slaughtered since such a compromise. ... Not siding with or opposing the ‘perhaps’, just trying to add clarity to a difficult discussion.


238 posted on 10/30/2007 12:52:37 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support. Defend life support for others in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: olde north church

Ping, sorry about misspelling your name.


239 posted on 10/30/2007 12:53:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support. Defend life support for others in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

We didn’t even have a court that would go along with a ban on partial birth abortions until THIS YEAR, there never was anything to negotiate because the abortionists had been given carte blanche to murder at will.


240 posted on 10/30/2007 12:55:40 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-311 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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