Posted on 06/11/2012 9:17:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
"All officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, have as the first obligation of their sacred oath the protection of all innocent lives within their jurisdiction.
Should I be elected to the office of President of the United States, I will keep my oath.
Justice Blackmun, in Roe vs. Wade, admitted that “of course” the child in the womb is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, if they are a person.
Since it is self-evident that they are a person, my first act as President, after having sworn the oath, will be to publish a presidential finding to that effect.
My second act will be to ask for the resignation of anyone in the executive branch who will not act accordingly.
My third act will be to order the closing of every abortion facility in the country, as per the explicit, imperative requirement of the Supreme Law of the Land.
'No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.'
'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.'”
-- Tom Hoefling
Thanks.
Alrighty then.
I’ve had this thread bookmarked and am just getting around to reading it.
It is fascinating to hear from someone such as yourself, who has been so thoroughly brainwashed by the Marxists’ long march through our society. Your brain has become mush.
Allow me to help you pump back up those brain cells and get them working again.
1. A woman’s womb has no other rights than those afforded to the woman herself. It is not a free floating entity.
2. The woman does not have the right to murder another human being, nor does she have the right to enslave another human being.
3. At conception, a fully unique human being exists. There is no credible scientist who will deny this and no science that can dispute it.
4. To remove the human being who is formed at conception is to murder it. To hold it hostage to the will of the woman who hosts it, is to enslave this small human being.
Now...
If you want to talk about due process, let’s talk about the one committing a crime— the taker of life, the slave master using her womb as her slave quarters...”Do my bidding, child! You belong to me!” She shouts with indignation— and you listen... to her, not the defenseless child in her magic womb slave quarters.
Try telling women and men who want abortion as a means to eliminate the consequences of their foolishness, to try on responsibility instead.
In fact, try telling that to yourself as well...because you need to start taking responsibility for finding truth, not swilling down what gets fed to you by professors, the media, and those smart, enlightened women you surely hang out with.
I fear God.
So...we can go out and whole sale slaughter illegal aliens living in this country? They may be born, but they are not citizens. Therefore they do not deserve full protection under the law of our land.
Ia murdering a human being right or wrong?
Don’t hide behind words. That is a coward act. Declare yourself!
Is murdering a human being right or wrong?
EV— I applaud your principled stand and agree on the issue of abortion 100%. Earlier today I had a bit of a rant. You can read it at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2894918/posts?page=89#89
I have been praying for you and your family. These are nasty times, no doubt. If you create a ping list to discuss your various platform issues, please add me to the list! —Daisy
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the prayers, friend.
I’ve avoided having a ping list to date, but I think it’s finally time to start one.
You’re one of the first additions.
God help us.
Murdering people, of any citizenship status is wrong AND illegal.
But when making an argument for what a President should do, a coherent argument conveying knowledge of the law the Constitution and the limited power of the President would be expected by rational people.
Reagan didn’t lack the desire to end abortion in the USA. But he did lack the power. Eternal Ignorance doesn’t seem aware of the law or able to acknowledge Constitutional limitations.
“Murdering people, of any citizenship status is wrong AND illegal.”
So then, you agree. Abortion is murder. Correct?
Not according to the law.
“Not according to the law.”
So, by saying the law says, then you are saying that *you* say that abortion is not murder? Correct?
Am I understanding you to say the law is infallible? That the law is our God?
Or maybe you are saying the Supreme Court is infallible and they are our God?
If the law or the Supreme Court are not infallible, at what point do we contradict them in order to more perfectly craft the laws?
I can speak for myself just fine. No need to try to put words in my mouth.
The President has the duty to enforce the law. Not to invent the law.
Why do you think abortion was not shut down by President Reagan?
I can speak for myself just fine. No need to try to put words in my mouth.
The President has the duty to enforce the law. Not to invent the law.
Why do you think abortion was not shut down by President Reagan?
I can speak for myself just fine. No need to try to put words in my mouth.
The President has the duty to enforce the law. Not to invent the law.
Why do you think abortion was not shut down by President Reagan?
“I can speak for myself just fine.”
Then why aren’t you? Is abortion murder, yes or no?
“The President has the duty to enforce the law.”
What law? Natural law, or law of the land?
Another question:
Are you familiar with Pharisees?
That's wholly unconstitutional itself. The Constitution of the United States prohibits ex post facto laws or punishments. In this case that means you could never punish anyone for performing an abortion while abortion remained legal. Only abortions performed after criminalization could be punished. There can be no, "Between now and then".
So why didn’t Reagan outlaw abortion?
Your logic is almost perfectly circular. Murder is defined as the “unlawful” killing of one human by another, so what the law says is exactly to the point of whether or not abortion is murder.
Killing someone in justified self-defense is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.
Even if the law finally and fully acknowledged the humanity of the unborn, there would still be legal circumstances under which the killing of the unborn was not murder.
It is to "kill" that human being. "Murder" is a matter of law. While all murder is killing, not all killing is murder - just ask George Zimmerman.
But what about holding the woman who hosts it hostage to the requirements of that small human being? How do you propose to force a woman to serve the requirements of that small human being for as long as necessary? In Romania, they had quarterly pregnancy tests administered by the police, and criminal prosecutions if a woman didn't give birth on schedule.
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.