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
“Your logic is almost perfectly circular.”
Your logic is almost perfectly progressive.
“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.”
So then you understand that abortion is lawful murder? Because it is of course, one human being killing another.
“Killing someone in justified self-defense is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.”
Or, are you instead saying that the human implanted inside the woman’s womb due to her own chosen actions (statistically, in all likelihood) has now become a person seeking to bring her harm? Or are you saying that mothers are people who often must defend themselves against their children by justifiably killing them?
And if I was a father who wanted to bring a court case against a woman who aborted my child in her womb, and I charged her with murder, are you saying she would claim it was a justifiable homicide?
Because there is absolutely no scientific way to say that a child is not human at the point of conception.
“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.”
Well, we don’t know that, do we? Because as you have pointed out, the law of the land is currently wrong on the identification of what is human, although natural law has never been vague.
Question for you: which law would you feel more comfortable putting your life in the hands of— the law of the land, or Nature’s Law?
I take it you would like to end this conversation because you cannot answer my questions?
We are electing a President not a PriestKing.
Who do you think has the power to determine what natural law is?
Why do you think Reagan never outlawed abortion?
“Murder” is a matter of law.
Yes. I heard you the first time, when you gave this definition....
“Murder is defined as the “unlawful” killing of one human by another.”
When giving me this definition, it suited your purposed to emphasize the word, “unlawful”, but now you are switching your argument to the word “murder.”
When we are specifically discussing the word “murder” abortion is unjustly taking another human’s life, as defined and understood by Nature’s Law.
The law of our land has conveniently installed the word “unlawful” which has allowed people like you to use that word to say since a child in the womb has not been legally defined as a human it cannot be deemed to be unlawful to kill it. Jim Crow ring a bell?
Emphasize the word “unlawful” and you put your argument on par with Jim Crow, emphasize the word “murder” and you cannot reconcile with Natural Law.
“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.”
So now you admit the science is settled and we are talking about a human being? And your concern now is for the convenience of the woman who is a 50% contributor to the existence of that human being?
I don’t give a wit what they do in Romania. In America we are killing kids by the millions for women’s convenience. Why stop with the womb? How about our teens? They can be quit a drag with their braces and iphones and ipads and new cars. Big drag. Seems pretty inconvenient to me! You agree, of course.
“We are electing a President not a PriestKing.”
Please spare me the drama. It is so...yesterday.
You said you could speak for yourself, and yet you aren’t.
Question: Is abortion murder, yes or no?
Question: Which law would you feel more comfortable putting your life in the hands of— the law of the land, or Nature’s Law?
Question: Are you familiar with Pharisees?
Now to answer your questions:
“Who do you think has the power to determine what natural law is?”
Nature’s God, the Creator, I AM.
“Why do you think Reagan never outlawed abortion?”
How could I possibly know? I cannot live in another person’s mind.
Now there, I was the bigger person, and went first. Your turn. Answer my questions.
You are quite apparently unaware of the difference between a President and a PriestKing.
Reagan didn’t outlaw abortion because he knew he didn’t have the power to do so. Something the Eternally Ignorant are unaware of.
Abortion is not murder under the law.
We elect a President to enforce the law not to speak for God ir to enforce God’s laws.
So right.
“You are quite apparently unaware of the difference between a President and a PriestKing.” Cute.
“Reagan didn’t outlaw abortion because he knew he didn’t have the power to do so.” So you are a mind reader?
And a coward because this is how you answered one of my questions—
“Abortion is not murder under the law.”
You cannot bring yourself to say what you know...abortion is murder and you support the law that supports this murder.
“We elect a President to enforce the law not to speak for God or to enforce God’s laws.” We elect a President to uphold the constitution. It is based on the Declaration of Independence, which is based on Nature’s Law. Do you want to break this link?
I wouldn’t expect an abortion supporter to answer this: Which law you would prefer your life depending on— the law of the land or Nature’s Law?
Oh....well....I just realized....YOU didn’t answer that. Hum.
Nor did you answer whether or not you are familiar with what a Pharisee is. My guess is you are intimately familiar.
I am as against abortion as Reagan was, yet like him I recognize the limits of the office rather than being delusional.
As you seem incapable of understanding or addressing the argument I am making, it is small wonder that you keep trying to put words in my mouth.
I am not at all incapable of addressing or understanding your argument. You make the false assumption that your argument is the only relevant one, and that I should somehow cower before it.
You also make the false assumption that you somehow think like Reagan. All you know is what history reports. You have no way of knowing what he actually felt or actually believed or what his actual motives were. You wish to be on the same page with what you think was Reagan to justify your support of abortion.
I find your argument to be outdated and cowardly. You may be able to justify your support of abortion by using carefully turned words put in a just-so exact order, but you are still accomplishing only one thing...
You are justifying murder of innocent humans.
But you do correctly recognize that you have gotten no where with me, and likewise, I recognize, that you seem to close your mind to truth— absolute truth, not man-crafted truth to suit a purpose.
I am comforted in the knowledge that you are indeed wrong. And one day you will know it for certain.
Regarding the Office of the President, I expect from that branch of government, the same thing that I expect from all branches, and that is that they all recognize the importance of our founding documents and the rational government which was created on the basis of a clear understanding of what Natural Law means to a truly civil and modern society.
We have become a well-trained, entertained, mildly-literate nation of barbarians, simply because we have abandoned those original thoughts.
What a deranged and ignorant twit you are. I don’t support abortion.
What a deranged and ignorant twit you are. I don’t support abortion.
One need not have to be a mindreader (although you have certainly attempted your best Karnak impression on me) to know why Reagan didn't outlaw abortion during his eight years in office. He didn't “need to get his mind right”. It wasn't a matter of what was in his mind - but what was the power of the office he was elected to.
Our founders made for us a Constitutional government of limited and defined powers - they did not give the President an unlimited mandate to do whatever they felt was in accord with natural law. We elect a President not a Priest-King.
I know that is disappointing to fanatics. Sorry.
Finally!!!!! And I am not a twit.
Or deranged. Just because I am open to considering an argument from angles that may seem unconventional does not make me crazy.
Agree - agree - agree!
Stirring words, no doubt. I love Ronald Reagan. He was an inspiring and principled man. Nevertheless....not infallible.
Did he really understand the powers of his office, or did he really just not want to tackle this particular issue with a bigger concern breathing down his neck in Russia? Reagan was mindful of his legacy, just like any President. He was a product of his time, and affected by those who filled his circle of influence, as all men are. While he clearly understood how important the issue was to some, it is not clear that it weighed heavy on his heart.
I would like to see a President who has “evolved” (or devolved back to) a position of understanding the basic concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence, specifically related to the issue of life.
And in this area in particular, I really do think the thinking must “evolve”, because, while our founding fathers were incredibly insightful, they were still tolerant of slavery. Again, men responding to their time and place in history.
We are at a new time and place, now, and with a treasure trove of history behind us! The issue needs to be considered with more expansion and circumspection. That has not happened to this point, and if we made a determined effort to do so, America, above all other nations, would be moving into a realm of civilization that would be more holistic than what we have known in present times.
The conversation needs to center around the idea of stewardship....stewardship of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....with the youth of our country, and the minority groups of our country fully participating in the dialog.
We see today, in BHO, the final conclusion of the Marxist ideal and where it will eventually lead a society. Barbarism is really all you can say about it. But he and his ilk cannot be faulted in one area...they refuse to yield one inch on their forward momentum! I think there is a lesson to be learned in that determination.
I do not know if EV is exactly right, because honestly (as I know you have already discerned), I really haven’t studied to the point of deconstruction. But I am glad that he and others are attempting to go beyond the traditional thinking, and considering that there may be options that have not been previously understood or explored.
And that is what I have been asking you to do, as well. Although I can see clearly it is not a step you are willing to take. So unfortunate, as a person so obviously studied would be a great contributor to a conversation about the expanded understanding of the powers of each branch of gov’t, when there is a predisposition to think past current tradition. NOTICE: I said expanded UNDERSTANDING not expanded POWERS.
I will concede—try not to dance a jig!—that it is not at all desirable to me for the Executive branch to abuse its powers and for the President to become a Priest King! Alternately, I am sure that I am not a fanatic for questioning the “way it has always been done”!
Our conversation has been of benefit to me, but I really see no point in continuing, if indeed you are unwilling to go beyond the current point you make. But, I do thank you for diligently remaining in the fray until we reached this point. It has been interesting.
About Reagan you asked “Did he really understand the power of his office”? Yes, yes he did.
In this case “traditional thinking” is the Constitutional limits of an office with defined and limited powers - and to “go beyond” it is to abandon the wisdom of our founding fathers.
The President is elected to (among other things) enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branch and as interpreted by the Judicial branch. That is, in this Republic, “the way it has always been done” - and inasmuch as we still follow our Constitution - it has worked out pretty well - MUCH BETTER than a system where one man is the final arbiter of what is or is not ‘God’s law’.
John Brown’s way is not the way of the Constitution.
I am allowing you to have the last word. Thank you for this discussion.
Have you had a chance to read additional comments on this thread? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
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.