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 ...
Ask the millions who have been killed under "Republican" government and "Republican" appointed judges if they agree. Oh, that's right. You can't ask them, can you...
Diversion.
You wrote: You’ll never protect any until you protect all, but prolife laws do save lives.
Then why can't you accept an act within their competence that would save lives?
I want every innocent person protected by the full force of the law and government, as the explicit requirements of our Constitution dictate.
If you lived in the 1920s and 30s would you have offered excuses for "laws" that regulated how prisoners could be killed in concentration camps, but that codified permission for those killings to take place?
I can. It’s just not necessary. Just because one individual, or group of individuals, made an unconstitutional decision doesn’t mean anyone else has leave to violate their own oaths. Killing innocent persons is still illegal in this country, and every state is still required to provide equal protection of the laws for every person within their jurisdiction.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Constitutionally, Abortion should be treated the same way other types of homicide are decided: by the States.
(I’m still waiting for an apology, by the way.)
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
Why is the definition of and punishment for other various forms of homicide left to the States?
Try the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Ah, but they cannot "decide" not to protect innocent life. It's not optional. That's what this is all about.
"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."
Once you use the word "decide" when discussing unalienable rights, at least in any context that suggests that men have any choice in the matter, you have negated the most important principles upon which our form of government and our claim to liberty rest. You have, in fact assured the final destruction of this free republic, should such ideas about human choice prevail. No building can stand indefinitely if it has been shorn of its chief cornerstone.
"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..."
No government has legitimate power to alienate unalienable rights. All they have are duties in this most important regard.
In fact, if you actually understand what the word unalienable means, you realize that the individual also doesn't even have any legitimate right to alienate innocent life, even if it is his own.
unalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
Why? Because it really isn't his own. It is only lent to him by the One Who created him.
To reiterate: Legitimate power to alienate the God-given, unalienable right to life does not reside in the United States, nor in the several states, nor in the people.
And so, you're just wrong. The Tenth Amendment, read according to the clear meaning of its words, does absolutely nothing to bolster the Ford, McCain, Paul, Romney, Palin idea that states can alienate the right to life if they want to.
And who or what body is it that your quotes are referencing? Who or what is carrying out the act of “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws?”
You just gave one example of an exception: “without due process of law.”
The States define and determine things such as self-defense.
How about the Texas law that allows a homeowner to shoot someone who is in the act of stealing or invading his property?
So you personally know everyone at American Right to Life? Wow, you’re a popular guy.
We have a systemic failure of government at all levels to protect the rights of children in the womb that they are entitled to by virtue of their personhood. That we have established.
Obviously, the approach that much of the Pro-Life movement has been trying for - taking gains where they can be made, with the hope of eventually repealing Roe v. Wade and pushing the abortion issue to the states (then repeating the process at that level) - is not acceptable to you or to the ARTL.
Given this situation, by what means do you propose to fix it? You want the perfect without taking any intermediate steps - so what is the plan to accomplish it?
Ahem... his shining star is Alan Keyes.
I'm pro life and would to eliminate abortion with the exceptions of life of the mother, rape and incest.
However, the Constitution has never yet been construed to protect those who are not yet born. All precedence and current interpretation starts at birth. That's why I contend it would require a Constitutional Amendment to extend those protections to the unborn.
And, that's why I contend overturning Roe is the shortest, fastest path to saving some.
How about the part of the Texas code, passed eight years ago by “pro-life” “Republicans,” which recognizes the personhood of the child from its creation, but then grants permission for abortionists to kill them, in obvious violation of the explicit requirements of the U.S. Constitution?
Don’t you think that question is much more appropriate to this conversation than trying to muddy the waters with questions about what may or may not constitute justifiable homicide?
Well, then you must agree with Blackmun that the child in utero is not a person.
Because, if, as science has proved beyond any shadow of doubt, the fetus is a person, they are explicitly protected by our existing Constitution, whether you like it or not.
Y’all are the ones with a thing about Alan Keyes. I never mentioned him.
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.