Posted on 07/07/2013 5:20:04 PM PDT by Morgana
Your way has been tried before. It didn’t work. So what do you do? Do you keep trying something that didn’t work?
Do you stop what you are doing and wait for favourable winds?
Or do you get cracking and get to work with what we have today?
I hear you. The legislation is not ideal. Absolutely I agree with you here. However, it is an opportunity to reach out to a whole horde of hurting people who believe that abortion is their best option. We can reach out to these folks and convince them of the absolute truth that the unborn is a human person.
Some will not turn. Some will. I was one of those folks 10 years ago when someone shoved graphic pictures in my face and showed me the truth about abortion. And I try to do what I can, *today* to go save some babies.
I am going to be sitting out on the legislature steps all day tomorrow. And hopefully helping out on Tuesday and on Wednesday. Why? Because I believe this bill will save babies. Today. Not some far off time when the winds are favourable. Today.
Would you support a bill that explicitly granted positive “legal” permission to shoot paraplegics in the chest?
They won’t feel a thing, right?
Isn’t that the “reasoning” in the current Perry bill?
“Besides, right and wrong are not determined by temporary success or failure.”
“Whatsoever you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me.”
We are not called to be successful. We are called to try. And that means making the best we can with what we have here.
You’re not going to convince folks by giving up the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against abortion. That’s a mirage.
But you're trying something that has failed over and over again for forty years. As it had to, because it was not morally, constitutionally, or legally sound.
Sorry, I mis-interpreted what you were saying. It seemed as though you meant a woman should be able to kill her child and and any law preventing such is "immoral". My mistake, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
If it meant shutting down a substantial portion of the paraplegic euthanasia clinics, absolutely, yes I would.
And then tomorrow I’d be right out there calling to end the killing. Same as I was yesterday, except now there’s fewer people dying.
It’s not either/or, EternalVigilence. Just because one supports Perry’s bill doesn’t mean that I cannot support a bill banning abortion tomorrow.
“You’re not going to convince folks by giving up the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against abortion. That’s a mirage.”
Again, it’s not either/or. How we go about eliminating abortion is a prudential judgement and while you are permitted to disagree, you are not permitted to actively work against those who are choosing to help here.
End stop.
Are you going to be on the steps of the legislature first thing tomorrow morning? Yes or no? If no, then you have no say into what is being done here. You can either get on the train or you can choose not to board. That is your decision, not mine.
As for me, I’ve made my choice. I’m standing with Perry here. These are substantial restrictions and they will result in fewer children dying. A successful vote today will save babies. It won’t save all, but it will save some.
When you're talking about life and about equal protection, it is "either/or," intrinsically. That's what you don't get.
If you're not alive, you're dead. If the laws treat certain classes of persons unequally, there is no equal protection.
There are no gray areas in these most crucially important areas that the founders of this free republic placed before anything else, and described as the very raison d'etre, or reason for being, of government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
That, sir, is the foundation of American constitutional, republican self-government. Without it, the whole edifice of American law and civilization will inevitably collapse.
That's a lot to sacrifice for a bill that is nothing more than political theater in the first place.
“That’s a lot to sacrifice for a bill that is nothing more than political theater in the first place.”
I see. I take it you voted for Romney then?
Let's be clear. You're standing with a politician who is in breach of his sacred oath to provide equal protection to every person in his state's jurisdiction.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
-- Article VI, the United States Constitution
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
-- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No. I don't support politicians who refuse to provide equal protection for every person, as the oath requires.
So what do you propose be done? Keep doing something which doesn’t work over and over again until it does work?
Or wait until the winds are favourable, do nothing and then try again?
I’ve already spelled it out earlier in the thread: Strike Texas Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19, Sec. 19.06., which Perry put there ten years ago, which authorizes the killing of innocent little boys and girls.
Badabing. Abortion is now illegal in the great State of Texas. Shut down the killing centers immediately.
Texas Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19, Sec. 19.06.
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
“which Perry put there ten years ago, which authorizes the killing of innocent little boys and girls.”
Ok, so we do that next. See you at the Capitol building tomorrow.
You will already have surrendered, and made the Texas Code even worse. I learned some time ago not to put confidence in those who will compromise today to do the right thing "someday over the rainbow."
I won’t be there tomorrow. I don’t support either “side” in this faux fight over exactly how and when to “legally” murder children.
“I won’t be there tomorrow.”
“A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.” - Patton.
Your plan isn’t ready and we are going to war again tomorrow. We don’t have time for your plan, sir.
Quit pretending that violating the most important aspects of the sacred oath of office is somehow a “good plan.”
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.