Posted on 06/17/2007 9:14:40 PM PDT by monomaniac
No they can't. They have guardianship duties, while the child is a minor, but they can't kill them, enslave them, or rob them of their lawful inheritance rights under any circumstances. Even children in the womb have always had inheritance rights.
But, in any case, are you arguing that parents have the right to kill their offspring?
What you call "pie in the sky" America's Founders called "self-evident."
I guess you are not my countryman! I believe in letting people decide their own fate and make their own choices regardless of where that choice will take them. You offer nothing more than the old communist alternative which is, there is no alternative.....That “join us or die” attitude is more divisive than any other approach that can be taken. In essence you are calling everyone to arms to defend their own personal choice whether you want to agree with that or not. I would go to war if someone infringed on my right and choice to bear arms. I view them as the same fiber....choice over ones own destiny. GOODNIGHT
I guess you are not my countryman! I believe in letting people decide their own fate and make their own choices regardless of where that choice will take them. You offer nothing more than the old communist alternative which is, there is no alternative.....That “join us or die” attitude is more divisive than any other approach that can be taken. In essence you are calling everyone to arms to defend their own personal choice whether you want to agree with that or not. I would go to war if someone infringed on my right and choice to bear arms. I view them as the same fiber....choice over ones own destiny. GOODNIGHT
I guess you are not my countryman! I believe in letting people decide their own fate and make their own choices regardless of where that choice will take them. You offer nothing more than the old communist alternative which is, there is no alternative.....That “join us or die” attitude is more divisive than any other approach that can be taken. In essence you are calling everyone to arms to defend their own personal choice whether you want to agree with that or not. I would go to war if someone infringed on my right and choice to bear arms. I view them as the same fiber....choice over ones own destiny. GOODNIGHT
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -- preamble to the US Constitution.
Doesn't say anything in there about protecting lives.
Actually, the fact is, it is your position, and Fred's, that defends the status quo.
saving SOME babies
Another thing you don't seem to realize is that the above words show that you have no understanding of what the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees in regards to the equal protection of the laws.
I call it the Orwellian "some animals are more equal than others" fallacy.
Welcome to "Animal Farm."
I have a fine understanding. I happen to believe that life should be guaranteed. But you have NO HOPE of doing what you want. None. So you are fine with ALL the babies dying instead of saving the ones who can be saved by overturning Roe V Wade, because the method we want to use doesn’t fit your airy-fairy
idealistic views.
I don’t CARE how they are saved. I just want to save as many as possible.
Fred Thompson could be the most conservative President ever, and it wouldn't matter. The President simply does not have the power to make wholesale changes. And they shouldn't be forced from the top, down, anyway. That's the whole problem with Roe v Wade. It was forced down our throats by activist judges bent on molding society to their own views. Since one of the President direct duties is to appoint judges, this is ONE of the more important situations where a President's personal views can be indulged.
Abortion laws, even if they're sent back to the states won't be changed until folks believe they have a personal stake in the decision. They just don't have that right now. We also need to work harder to convince people that the right to life of the unborn is paramount. The best way to do that is with good cheer, and with a loving heart. As my Mama used to say, "You catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar."
That's like saying the way to end Islamic Terorism is for EVERY SINGLE Muslim in the world to stand up and denounce jihad. I don't think you can get there from here.
Doesn't say anything in there about protecting lives.
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
I guess you missed that part.
pos·ter·i·ty(p-str-t)
n.
1. Future generations: "Everything he writes is consigned to posterity" Joyce Carol Oates.
2. All of a person's descendants.
"Posterity" not only includes the unborn, it includes generations that are still unconceived.
The founders put the unborn, and future generations, on the same plane as themselves when it comes to the right to the blessings of liberty.
Abortion is genocide, and under the original founding principles of America, it is insane to say that there is a right to commit genocide against Americans.
A child's inheritance can be taken by the parent cutting him from the will. Children can be forced to work -- that's "involuntary servitude". Children can't be legally murdered but we are talking about unborn children. By the way, technically a child can be legally killed, but the states have the right to decide the circumstances.
But, in any case, are you arguing that parents have the right to kill their offspring?
No they shouldn't. Nor do I think Thad they should have unrestricted right of abortion. I'm just saying that the states, not the Federal Government has the authority to regulate or prohibit such things.
We certainly don't if folks who call themselves "pro-life" don't have their story straight. And this thread is one more example of how far off the mark many are.
Well, functionally, you’re arguing that Utah babies have a right to life, while California babies do not. That is the death of the republic.
Excuse me?
Babies don't have a choice in this matter, now do they.
I think that's a stretch. This is why they call Democrats, "liberals". They want a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution. Reading it that way gives them the authority to do just about anything. Posterity? How about a federal ban on condoms or even the rhythm method of birth control.
The preamble states the intent of the Constitution. It does not even begin to dispense authority to the states or Congress.
I’m not giving you my opinion. I’m giving you the literal meaning of the word “posterity.”
A meaning you’re totally ignoring, and which is backed up by the clear meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and which was preceded by the clear words (self-evident ones) of the Declaration.
It's called justifiable homicide. For example, if a teenage child is trying to kill you, you have the right to self-defense. Some states even have capital punishment for minors. But again, the states have the right to decide the circumstances.
Words mean things, Dan.
It is liberals who ignore the clear meanings of words in our founding documents.
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.