Posted on 10/20/2007 2:08:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
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.
In case you don't know how to find a dictionary, let me inform you that the word "posterity" refers to those who are not yet born.
Posterity is not limited to those who become citizens by birth. It could also be defined as those who become citizen at a later date through immigration as well.
The Fifth Amendment (the heart of the original Bill of Rights):
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... That means charged, tried, and convicted on a capital offense. How is it possible for a child in the womb to be guilty of a capital offense?
It could also be interpreted that due process of law could mean the state's right to pass a law to allow for abortion.
The Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Do you agree with Blackmun that a child in the womb is not a "person"? Even he, in the text of Roe, admitted that if the babe in the womb were a person, that they were therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment:
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
You presume that I don't believe an embryo is a person, although your reference to a "fetus" is quite telling.
Tens of millions of American children have been brutally done to death because of the stupid lie that a child in the womb is not a person. And the slaughter continues every day because of the gross ignorance of ignoramus' like you.
Your again presume to know my position regarding the matter. Your comments are indicative of your basic lack reading comprehension skills. It is you who is the ignorant one.
Perhaps you should go back and read my initial post. Then again, I'm sure your knee wouldn't know what to do.
Read my initial post again, CAREFULLY!!!
Here is the critical difference, Extremely Extreme Extremist DID NOT say he would vote for Stalin, YOU WOULD VOTE FOR STALIN if he had an “R” after his name.
I have a feeling it distresses you to no end that Hitlery is a ‘Rat, because I’m sure you would love to vote for her. After all, you both share the opinion that men are “fanatics” who want to “control” women by not allowing them to commit infanticide.
Your entire post was that NONE of the posts had been based on the Constitution, but rather on Biblical principles.
You stated, “As abhorrent as abortion is, there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit it.” Many of us have shown otherwise, you still disagree.
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear.
I have no intention on supporting a pro-abortionist, pro-homosexual rights, cross-dressing, draft-dodger, twice-divorced, pro-gun control, authoritarian, big-city liberal Mayor who has profited off of 9/11 and is embroiled in his own corruption scandals and didn't have the guts to challenge Hillary in the 2000 & 2006 Senate races where he would have won. If the race boils down to Hillary vs Rudy, I will vote 3rd party. If Hillary wins, then we can get this show on the road, if you know what I mean.
That cleared it up for you?
The proclamation proves that person is not a conservative, but a pro-life single issue voter.
Only when the LIFE position is based upon Constitutional grounds and not moral grounds, new ground and new defenders can be added. When it becomes a CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and not a religious issue a sea change can be affected. Joe and Jean Citizen don't like to be preached to but they are open to education.
When it becomes a CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and not a religious issue, then the finger can be pointed at the ACLU and other groups and questioned, "where were you?"
Consider this, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did more to affect the position on slavery than quite possibly any other medium. John Brown at Harper's Ferry did more to set it back.
I'm not sure how. That was a quote from the majority decision in Roe vs. Wade, written by Justice Blackmun.
What part of the word "person" is it that you don't understand?
Would YOU vote for Stalin if he had an "R" after his name? YES or NO?
Because EEE NEVER indicated that he would vote for Stalin under any circumstances.
I think you and the other Rooty Rooters are so immersed in typical liberal projection that you are incapable of basic reading comprehension.
Yeah, it could. If you're a flippin' idiot.
Which third party? The last third party to have any meaningful result was the Reform party, which was pro-choice. As is the Independent party and the Green party. Maybe the Constitution party which got 145,000 votes total in 2004. Or perhaps the Christian Freedom party which in 2004 receved an earth shattering 2,387 votes.
I read your post. Answered it. Crushed it. Now you're just whining.
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" was taken DIRECTLY from the Declaration of Independence. It was clearly reaffirmed in the Preamble to the Constitution.
this one was ever loopier:
Last I checked only one of the candidates is a physician (and an obstetrician at that), therefore likely to have performed an abortion - and Dr. Ron Paul claims to be pro life. The rest of the candidates, even the radial leftist pro abortion Democrats have likely never performed an abortion. Now it is possible that Hillery Clinton has had an abortion, but she has not ever claimed to have had one.
That said, radical right to lifers are doing their own cause more harm than good by alienating candidates and their supporters that are not as militant about the issue as they are. I hope that no babies were aborted, but until the law makes it illegal, it is a hard moral choice for the mother to make. Hopefully she decides to at least put it up for adoption, if she feels she can’t take care of it properly. If she does abort the baby, it is an emotional scar that she (not us) will have to live with.
If we abort freedom by staying home or voting for a losing 3rd party candidate, thus letting the radical left elect Hillery Clinton by default, we guarantee that legal abortions will continue at least another 4 years, if not much longer if Clinton gets to appoint more liberals to the Supreme Court.
Clearly you misunderstood what EEE wrote, because he NEVER said that he would vote for Stalin.
If you want insane, irrational and idiotic, you should examine THIS post by one of your fellow FRiberal anti-FReepers:
It's not going to be DNC Lite; it's going to be a more moderate conservative party though; you all have had your foot on our necks for too long.
This country has to be governed in the middle; the world has moved on from the 50's.
The Contract with America will unite this party again. But we're not going to let you make abortion and guns the big issues this time around.
Hey Bucko...I didn’t say that EEE would vote FOR Stalin...but any FANATIC that says they wouldn’t vote for Giuliani, even to STOP Stalin from winning is insane. Totally utterly frickin’ insane.
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.