Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: jwalsh07

The question isn’t “tough” at all. Why would you even be in a room during a sterile procedure? Are you part of the doctor’s team? The way to change the law is to change the law not break the law by murdering someone. We are not living in a totalitarian state ( yet) so use the methods that will be the most powerful over time. Hate the doctor or his actions all you want, he was in church and NOTHING he did in his medical practise was against the law. Endangering others to satisfy one’s own blood lust is at best inadvisable.


69 posted on 06/01/2009 9:14:32 AM PDT by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: the long march
NOTHING he did in his medical practise was against the law

You expose your ignorance.

71 posted on 06/01/2009 9:17:02 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: the long march
The question isn’t “tough” at all.

Obviously not for those who answered it but evidently very difficult for those that won't.

Like you.

81 posted on 06/01/2009 9:26:17 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: the long march
America is at the same position it was under King George. The colonists had made their grievances known, but were rebuffed by George. They were left in a quandary of taxation without any say, housing the Kings troops in their homes, submitting to searches and seizures with no warrant, and on and on. It wasn't some perceived slight by the King that had aroused the population. It came from a long list of UNANSWERED abuses by the Sovereign.

We have waited 40 years for an answer to this seemingly "black and white" question, yet their is almost NO discussion of it and certainly no solution discussed. For 40 years, we are just told, "That is the way it is, and the way it will remain." The discussions happen in NARAL and the ACLU, and the other argument is only discussed in churches and conservative groups. Never the two should meet and discuss.

This is no different than the "Dred Scott" decision. When the Dred Scott decision came down, it became blatantly clear that state laws wouldn't be honored and the foundation of the Declaration of Independence was a sham, that all me are created equal, and the value of human life would rest in the hands of the courts to decide who's life is worth something and who else would be declared "non human". We have now devolved into starving women that are disabled, and now deciding abortions are warranted if it is a girl and you wanted a boy. What this decision allows is the wholesale slaughter of as many humans as needed to satisfy the courts that their idea of "person hood" is protected. This is the price we pay for leaving God out of our decisions.

We did this before in the Dred Scott decision and it led to the bloodiest conflict in our History. At some point a faulty law will become self evident, and the law will change, or the blood will flow, one way or another. The nation was divided on the Terri Schiavo decision, and somehow the women and children at Ruby Ridge and Waco were expendable to make the greater point that the government can infringe on the Second Amendment. This isn't so much a difference between how much power the law has, but the evidence that we have a bad law. It has become obvious by now that the next step on this slope, is deciding who is worthy of life saving treatments if the state is paying for your medical care. If Terri Schiavo can be starved to death, and we can't place a worm on a terrorist, then what has happened to the inalienable rights that so many have fought and died for? A black person that believes in abortion must now ask themselves, what if a simple majority decides that they are not human again and we can buy and sell people again? If abortion was favored by 95% of the people, that doesn't make it correct. The principles that founded this country demand that objects with DNA, their own brain waves, their own heart beat, their own blood type, their own fingerprints, and their own eye color, are in fact, a person, and are due the full rights and protections under the Constitution.

If we don't fix this soon, we will have the likes of Obama deciding that retarded and cripple people are useless eaters and need to be eliminated for the "good" of the "real" people.

111 posted on 06/01/2009 10:06:34 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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