Posted on 01/16/2010 9:36:41 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 01/16/2010 10:56:16 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Scott Brown says on his campaign website that the decision on abortion should ultimately be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. This is wrong. Her doctor is no substitute for God in matters of life and death of an innocent person. The goal of abortion is to end the God-given life of an innocent and helpless person before he is even born into this world.
Our nation was founded on the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the Rights to Life and Liberty.
Abortion is not a right. In fact it wrongly deprives an innocent person of HIS God-given unalienable RIGHTS to Life and Liberty.
Government sanctioned abortion is an abominable sin and a crime against mankind and against the constitution and against the very bedrock foundational principle establishing our nation under God, i.e., that our unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty are granted by God, not man and not government and neither man nor government can deprive us of same!
I can understand the willingness of conservatives to overlook or downplay Brown's stance on abortion to the larger goal of denying Obama and his murdering Marxist Democrats their 61st senate vote and possibly killing their evil abortionist agenda, but we can't just wash our hands of the issue and walk away any more than we could wash our hands and walk away from any other mass murdering tyrannical government operation.
The unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty MUST be resurrected and reasserted as the fundamental God-given rights to every innocent person in America, beginning with the most innocent of all, the unborn, or NO other of our rights can ever be protected.
They say that the only way we can do this is by changing one heart, one mind at a time. Okay, then I'd say the place to start would be with Scott Brown. If you are going to give him your support, your money or your vote then you should DEMAND that in return he immediately changes his stance on abortion. If he is to represent us as a U.S. Senator he MUST be required to uphold his oath to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, so help me God!
And this means he MUST be required to fully defend our unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty!
Support him if you must, but make the calls, write the letters, send the faxes, visit his office and make him realize that the unalienable Right to Life IS a constitutional right and abortion is NOT!!
Prayers for our nation and that we are understanding and abiding by God's will.
I’m a Jim Demint conservative.....but Brown is the best we’re getting in MA....also this is all about stopping this disaster of a healthcare bill, which includes pro-abortion provisions in it.
Jim, I ask this question in all innocence, not trying to provoke a quarrel but just to get an answer to a real question:
Would Brown have a snowball’s chance of getting elected in a state like Massachusetts if he did state openly that he hates abortion? Is there any possibility that the people of Massachusetts would elect someone who was decidedly anti-abortion like us?
I wonder what his real beliefs are.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Well stated Jim. I hope Brown wins, but I am no fan of many of his political stances anymore than I am of John McCain or his ilk.
As one who is active in the Pro-Life movement I would hard pressed to vote for him if I were a Massachusetts resident, but given the choice to push back against the tyranny going on in DC now I would end up voting for Brown.
Thanks for the well thought out posting. This bothers me that I must look past this issue to gain a victory next tuesday. But I struggled with his stance on abortion. Now I know the words to use to try and reach out and try and change the heart of Scott Brown, without sounding like an angry a.. Thanks friend!
Me too. This is a battle of the bulge. They stopped Hitler so the Allies could finish him off. Same with Obama. Note..Allies. The only way to stop the Commies is by uniting for the battle.
This is something I posted on another thread about the strategic implications of Brown’s victory in the abortion issue.
The question was posed, what could the Senate really do as a body and how does Brown play into this?
At this point, the Senate has several things they can do that will impact abortion-
1, vote for originalist judges. Of course, we won’t get any originalist judge nominees until Zero is out of office so this special election doesn’t touch that.
2, vote for laws that limit abortion. Brown is actually pro-life on many of these laws (such as parental notification, opposing partial birth abortion) so this is a win for us with Brown.
3, IF a Constitutional convention comes up that gives an opportunity for a definition of life amendment, obviously every vote will count. However, even if you started today, that could take years to put together.
4, Kill the health care bill which funds abortions and makes them more available, again, another win with a Brown victory.
5, If by some odd chance, the SCOTUS does overturn Roe v Wade, then the State legislatures would have first crack at outlawing, followed by a federal ban possibly.
The two most realistic impacts to abortion, healthcare and laws restricting it, both are a victory for us with a Brown win. Being a purist in the mold of a Keyes only makes a major difference in #3 or #5- which are the most remote possibilities.
Where people need to demand purity is on the Presidential level as that will impact judges, on party platforms to guide the ship, and in local races as those have direct impacts on if abortion providers can set up shop.
Other than that, our next best thing is to personally be involved with each and every person who is facing that decision, offering yourself up as an adoptive parent (as we are trying to do), funding groups that provide adoption services, or personally helping those who choose life.
Yes.
The same rational posed by the Romney supporters.
Massachusetts is still a Communist Commonwealth, afterall.
I'm hoping to be presently suprised come Tuesday, but I'll hold any premature celebrations.
Maybe Scott Brown would still have a chance if he talked along the lines of Roe v Wade being bad law and pointing out that its repeal would not ban abortion (it would be decided by the states as it should be).
Agreed. If this is true, then Martha Coakley is an abortion extremist, and Scott Brown is more quiet on the subject. We know what she would do; we don’t yet know what he will do.
If he is willing to shut up about abortion and follow the leadership on key votes, fine. Certainly one way to do this is to break the still-too-common delusion that the voters favor abortion. A majority of them don’t. So it would be good for him to know that the people who are supporting him don’t approve of abortion. If he can’t get on board, then at least he can shut up and obey the leadership.
It’s not what I’d say if this were a conservative state. But even a liberal state like Massachusetts is far from unanimous about “abortion rights.” The Republican Party has a good right-to-life plank, but their pros keep looking anxiously over their shoulders, eager to placate the pro-aborts. They need to learn that that is not only wrong, it’s politically foolish. Why do they think the Democrats have invented such an elaborate language to conceal what they are really doing, if the vast majority favored abortion?
“If he is to represent us as a U.S. Senator...”
One quibble here...he doesn’t represent “us” in that most of us are not from Massachusetts.
I would respectfully suggest that 90% on our side is much much better then 100% in opposition
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
Scott Brown on Abortion
Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
Marta Coakley on Abortion
Supports Obama health care agenda which includes Govt funding for abortions with a “opt out” provision that states would be forced to choose or be required to pay for abortion on demand.
A vote for Brown is a vote to stop Obamacare, the funding of the slaughter of unborn children and, hopefully, a means of slowing down the far left-agenda of the Democrats until the 2010 elections.
If Brown can kill this monster of a health care bill then he will have killed government funded abortion. It’s a start.
In a word, NO.
Brown is less wrong on this than his opponent who would make us pay for abortions and force medical personnel to preform them. Until November he is all that stands between us and unchecked tyranny. The Lord took away Ted at just the right time to give us this last shot at defending freedom , it must not be wasted.
Ultimately, though, it’s not the politicians that will need to be convinced.
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.