Posted on 08/12/2007 5:48:50 PM PDT by Delacon
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
False dilemma. The left clamors to control the federal government so that Federal judges can impose elitist-left-wing amorals on society. The right clamors to do so to appoint judges who will return the issue to the states.
It’s surprising how conservative “blue states” like mine become when things are left to the people of the states.
Here in Michigan we have concealed carry with lots of no retreat talk. We opposed gay marraige by a wide margin and got rid of affirmative action in government funded schools and agencies.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Life is not negotiable.
Defending our rights, first of which is LIFE, is the responsibility of government at the national, state, and local levels.
The Declaration of Independence is very clear about what the founders viewed as rights.
Biologically, scientifically, medically, genetically, a preborn human being IS a human being.
The Constitution set out the framework of the government and specified responsibilities in some areas, and reserved responsiilities in other areas to the states.
Protecting human life is the JOB of every government official.
Only people who view the dismemberment of little babies as a liberty dare to hide behind federalism to defend this brutality, and to suggest it can be delegated to the states to decide if and when they will defend innocent human life.
It is very telling that so many of Fred’s supporters take great pains to assure their audience that they are not “prolife hardliner”s.
‘Reason is libertarian. Incidentally, that’s the same argument of the GOP front-runner and of Fred Thompson as well. Let the states decide.’
Yes, I know Reason is libertarian. My point was that of all the “kinds” of conservatives out there, religious conservatives/social conservative/traditional conservatives, who hold this issue most dear, are the least likely to turn to a libertarian magazine or federalist(or small goverment) solutions.
“The Left will never agree to having abortion returned to the States, so its a really moot argument.”
Not really. If we can get just one more republican president, we are pretty much guaranteed two more conservatives on SCOTUS. Then Roe is gone.
I agree. Many people argued that slavery and desegregation were also states rights issues. If you are in the federal branch you have the moral duty to save the babies. You can’t just let other states to allow abortions.
Yes, they use it when it is convenient-like Pontius Pilate.
Not my job, man. I’ll go wash my hands.
it’s a good first start, but eventually it will have to be outlawed at the national level. Otherwise it will never be ended in liberal states like Mass and NY.
“And while Hendershott regrets that pro-choicers have federalized the abortion debate, she is conspicuously silent on, for example, the conservative push for a pro-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution (a key plank in the Republican Party’s 2004 platform) or efforts by the GOP-controlled Congress to restrict abortion.
The author is disingenuous or just stupid if he doesn’t see the difference between what the left did in Roe and what pro-lifers would be doing with a constitutional amendment.
In the first, nine black-robed tyrants swept away the ability of the people to govern themselves.
In the second, to be successful would requre passage of the amendment by two-thirds of each house of Congress, and then passage by the state legislatures of 38 states.
If that were to happen, it would only happen as a result of the ability to achieve a far-ranging consensus in the United States that unborn human persons should be protected in law.
That is the very OPPOSITE of the pro-death murderers did in Roe.
In the Roe versus Wade decision, INJustice Blackmun admitted he was aware of the “well-known facts of fetal development,” but the court intentionally ignored those facts because, according to Blackmun, if they acknowledged the personhood of the unborn child, the
Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution would cover preborn babies.
So, they knew then and know even better now and they ignored the facts in order to foist this barbarism upon the country.
As for the cowards who hide behind federalism, it is very clear to anyone with an ounce of objectivity that at the very least, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution extends to the unborn.
The plaintiffs were used and exploited and the facts of the case were lies. So, from top to bottom, it was a very cruel hoax.
Wonder how Fred ruminates on that one.
HA! 'True conservatives' don't let sticky things like federalism or intended powers of the federal government get in the way. Not when there's a social issue they can harp about. (Note as a states rights kind of guy I agree with the article and am 100% pro-life as well)
I know what you are saying. Better that there had never been a Roe V Wade which is loosely based on the right to privacy which is in and of itself not clear in the constitution. Better that SCOTUS had had the guts to define what is a living human being and what is not. After that they would have to expand on when a living human being can be deprived of that life. Surely you agree that the constitution did allow for denying some the right to life. These though are deep philosophical, moral, and religious questons that nobody can agree on. Maybe since they are, they should be left to the states to work out until there is a consensus and then SCOTUS or congress can make it the law of the land.
“HA! ‘True conservatives’ don’t let sticky things like federalism or intended powers of the federal government get in the way. Not when there’s a social issue they can harp about.”
“HA!” what? No I am pretty consistent on this. Give me an issue that is not expressly defined in the constitution and my immediate reaction is to let the states solve it in those “many laboratories”. BTW my first post should have ginen you an idea that I dont harp on social issues. I posted it because I am a federalist NOT a pro lifer or pro choicer.
“As for the cowards who hide behind federalism, it is very clear to anyone with an ounce of objectivity that at the very least, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution extends to the unborn.”
No it is not clear that the 14th amendment extends to the unborn. At least not SCOTUS. Not yet anyway. Bite my federalist ass btw if you think I am a coward. Federalism is so great that the founders, who were great themselves, saw that there were issues so devisive that it was best left to the state to solve them amongst themselves.
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands....they should
DECLARE THE CAUSES WHICH IMPEL THEM TO THE SEPARATION.
We declare 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...”
Dec. of Independence-1776
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish JUSTICE,INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, 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.”
US Constitution-1787
Federalism is simply the belief that some responsisbilities/privileges are shared between the states- like defending life,
while some duties, like police duties, are reserved to the states.
Federalism does not suggest that God-given rights may be passed off to the states.
I’m not opposed to incrementalism as a way to turn back the tide of child-murder - sure, there exist superior alternatives (unborn child protection amendment, or simply an explicit amendment recognizing the personhood of the unborn), but, IMO, the political gulf from here to there is too wide to clear in a single jump.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would extend the bridge a great deal, and save millions. I count anyone supporting that goal as an ally in this regard.
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.