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

To: EternalVigilance
"She’s “pro-life” in exactly the same way that Stephen A. Douglas was “anti-slavery.” Personally against it, thought it was bad, but thought the states could allow it if they wanted."

Do you believe your wrangling trumps the saving of lives? The simple overturning of Roe would do that. As you know the SCOTUS can reverse prior decisions. That is within their Constitutional powers is it not?

137 posted on 06/05/2011 12:50:18 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: GonzoII

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.


142 posted on 06/05/2011 12:57:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | 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