Posted on 06/05/2011 10:07:28 AM PDT by jobim
As a Candidate whom Many Pro-lifers Would Like to Support: her actual abortion record and rhetoric is shocking to the conscience in that Sarah Palin:
- happily appointed in 2009 a Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court
- indicates that chemical abortifacients that kill the youngest children should be legal
- distinguishes between her "personal" and public pro-life views (personally pro-life means officially pro-choice)
- rather than fighting for protection, Sarah indicates support even for public funding to kill some unborn children - whitewashes other candidates misleading millions to believe that pro-choice politicians are pro-life
- allows her name to be used in ads promoting even tax-funded embryonic stem cell "research"
- harms personhood by holding that "equal protection" should not apply to unborn children
- has never announced support for any state's personhood amendment nor the Federal Human Personhood Amendment
- opposes personhood by claiming that the majority can decide to legalize the killing of children.
In her vice-presidential acceptance speech Sarah said, "there is a time for politics and a time for leadership."1 During the above, which time was it for her? Sources below document Sarah Palin's tragic record and political rhetoric.
Summary:
Sarah Palin claims to be personally pro-life but her words and actions prove that she is officially pro-choice and stands against the God-given right to life of the unborn. Even if Roe v. Wade were reversed, Palin says she would still leave the decision to kill children to others.
(Excerpt) Read more at prolifeprofiles.com ...
It would appear that you made your mind up based on the pack of lies in the article you posted and since you haven't made another post on your thread you aren't interested in a discussion about it. Whether you support Sarah Palin or not that kind of trolling behavior is bad for the forum IMO.
What you don’t understand, obviously, is that Palin’s position gives away the only principles that could ever “overturn” Roe.
Roe turned on whether or not the fetus is a person. Blackmun and Co. dehumanized the child, while admitting that if this was a person, they would obviously be protected by the explicit imperative requirement of the Constitution.
Modern “pro-life” “Republicans” like Palin do something more egregious: they admit the fetus is a person, but say that under certain specified circumstances they can be killed. You know, if a state thinks baby butchery is okay. Or if their father was a criminal.
I have no intention of getting into that with you as you use it solely to attack Palin. You have no other use for the Constitution or abortion. You’ve refused to answer legitimate questions put to you by others. I will use the same method in dealing with you. You don’t deserve a discussion with me. I’ll no longer lower myself.
Nonsense.
Well, that's one way to admit that you can't answer my arguments.
Thank you, Smoothsailing! You have said it ALL! (Post #40)
Your method of mischaracterizing Sarah Palin’s position is duly noted. If you, from your highest and loftiest perch ever find a perfect candidate, please do fly down amongst us ‘uninformed’ and let us in on your shining star. Until then, you will get the ginore button for being too righteous for the rest of us.
“American Right to Life,” is the sponsor of this pack of lies. http://prolifeprofiles.com/about
This group opposes all abortion regulations and condemns the ban on partial birth abortion. http://americanrtl.org/abortion-regs-dont-work
How am I mischaracterizing it? She thinks the protection of unalienable rights is optional for states. It’s even in the text her own supporters have posted on this thread.
Do you think the protection of God-given, unalienable rights, including the right to live, is optional?
You didn't answer the question...
Run along, angel. You know when you post hyperbole to mischaracterize. Your effort now to defelect from your mischief will get no further response ... so go jump in your righteous lake.
This isn’t National RTL — it’s a group created by Alan Keyes’ former running mate, Brian Rohrbough.
http://americanrtl.org/us
This twits claim the Heritage foundation and National RTL aren’t pro life enough for them! http://americanrtl.org/abortion-regs-dont-work
You know where abortion regulations have gotten us? To the point that the U.S. code, and many state codes, explicitly identify the fetus as a human person while allowing them to be killed.
This is an obvious constitutional breach, brought to you courtesy of “pro-lifers.”
So, I stand with American Right to Life in that regard.
You’ll never protect any until you protect all, as the cornerstone principles of this free republic require.
Thanks for the ping. We now have over 150 posts and he still doesn’t want to comment.
National Right to Life sold out years ago.
“This isn’t National RTL — it’s a group created by Alan Keyes’ former running mate, Brian Rohrbough.”
That makes more sense. Alan Keyes is the only politician they put in Tier 1.
It is within the constitutional powers of SCOTUS to reverse its prior decisions right? And I mean black on white none of this `well its a bad reversal because this and that and what naught.´ You are a Constitutional purist, I should see you then with no problem accepting a legitimate constitutional act by SCOTUS
So it follows that your respect for the Constitution and life will have been met with a reversal of Roe.
Ask the kids whose mothers were influenced by prolife laws not to abort them if they agree.
“Come to think of it, that’s a PROPER reading of the Constitution.”
I think it was with regard to the Alaskan Justice thing, and the pro-life folks were saying that as Governor she could veto them and put up a fight. Perhaps. But her reply I thought was good, something like “Well - that is how the state’s Constitution does it, and I’m going to go by the Constitution”. Some conservatives have used that as “she isn’t willing to fight”. I don’t.
Sure. They can and must make every ruling in defense of innocent human life, on every square inch of American territory, as their oath requires.
However, their failure to keep their oath in any particular case does not excuse any other officer of government, at any level, or in any branch from adhering to the requirements of their own oaths.
The Constitution is supreme, not the courts.
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.