Posted on 10/28/2007 3:07:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The purpose of Free Republic is to fight for our freedom, for the constitution, for conservatism and for our traditional American heritage. We recognize that the domestic enemy of freedom is liberalism and big government socialism.
We recognize that our unalienable rights come from God not man or government and, no, they are NOT open to debate or subject to negotiation or compromise.
Sorry, RINOS, but the right to Life is our first unalienable right. This is not just a conservative political "principle" that stubborn right wing fringe nuts refuse to give up. It's an UNALIENABLE right granted to all men by GOD and no man or government can deprive us of same! Not without one hell of a fight!! Compromisers be damned!!
The BOR was passed so that states would sign! Eh?
We would definitely vote for Hunter without any doubt
We would most assuredly vote for Thompson without doubt
We would vote for Romney, but not feel good about it
We could vote for McCain, but feel betrayed
We could vote for Hucklebee, but feel tricked
We could not vote for Rudy. We’d vote but leave the president unchecked. Our morals could not allow us to vote for someone that would probably increase the number or acceptance of abortion.
My feelings exactly.
“Senator Thompson has said that the federal government should not be involved in the issue of abortion.”
That is because he believes (correctly) that it ought to be a state issue, not a federal one.
There is no Federal law against murder. The Federal government should not be involved in abortion at all.
Now, since murder is against the law in every state, and the Constitution in the fourteenth amendment declares that the state shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, abortion should be outlawed in every state by state law.
Now, if after Roe V. Wade is overturned and the matter of abortion goes back to the states as it should, and if then any state is found to be denying equal protection of the law, the Federal governmemt could then step in regards to the equal protection issue.
1973 United States Supreme Court
“The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.”
C. S. Lewis
You, and Fred, are at odds with the Declaration of Independence, then.
It says that the very purpose of human government is the protection of the God-given and therefore unalienable right to life. Calls it "self-evident," or beyond dispute.
You are also at variance with the Constititution. It says that its very purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, ie those not yet born. It also says that the human life cannot be taken without a fair trial, and that no state can allow innocent human life to be taken.
You're also crossways with the Reagan pro-life platform, which proclaims the personhood of the unborn, and their resultant protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Do you also believe that states can allow slavery, outlaw free speech, free assembly, free association, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.? You'd have to to remain consistent.
Are you claiming that a state could legalize murder if it wanted to?
It says that the very purpose of human government is the protection of the God-given and therefore unalienable right to life. Calls it “self-evident,” or beyond dispute.
So states do not have governments?
The Bill of Rights was a Demand before signing on. Period.
C.S. Lewis is the greatest example of atheist turned Christian. Thanks for that. :^)
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.
What part of that do you not understand?
The only way around it in the case of abortion is to argue that the unborn are not PERSONS, as Justice Blackmun did in Roe. But even he did not go as far as you do. He admitted that IF THE UNBORN ARE PERSONS, THEY ARE THEREFORE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Blackmun, in the majority Roe opinion:
"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."
And so, your opinion is even more radical than that of Blackmun.
They do. And they have no right to alienate the God-given right to life and liberty.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
I believe the unborn person is still a person entitled to equal protection of the law.
Of course the State cannot deny any person life, liberty or property without due process of the law. That’s not really the issue here. I don’t know of any states that are going around aborting people. Of course I’m against all government funding of abortions, if that’s your question. Government funding of abortion is unconstitutional since in that case it is the government invoved in depriving one of his life.
Now as I’ve already stated, since every state has laws against murder, and the unborn are entitled to equal protection under those laws, abortions should be illegal under state law.
In other words, I’m 100% Pro-Life. What part of that do you not understand?
“And they have no right to alienate the God-given right to life and liberty.”
Neither does the federal government.
But it sure did when it found a “right” to murder the unborn in the USSC. The big roll back on abortion comes when Roe is overturned. That does what to the issue? It sends it back to state governments, where we will have probably half the states vote to keep it, half not. We’ll have about 25 mini-fights on the issue in the state legislatures, but we WILL win.
To say that Thompson is pro-abortion is silly or a flat out lie. He just has a different way to go about doing away with it. Granted there may be quicker ways, but not if you believe that the fedgov over reached to “find” a “right” to abortion in the first place. Because then you are saying that you hate an over reaching government, unless of course they are over reaching in a way that you approve.
True. The Supreme Law of the Land is the Bill of Rights/Constitution. I list the BOR first because the rest of the Constitution, apart from the clarifications and enumerations pertaining to rights was written PRIMARILY to SECURE unalienable rights, both enumerated and non-enumerated, and most assuredly to secure and maintain a safe geographic and legal environment to practice them.
Otherwise the document would hold no more importance than a set of rules for organizing and managing just another men's club.
The protection of the self-evident, God-given, unalienable, rights to life and liberty is never “over-reaching.” It is, as the Declaration says, the very reason for government’s existence.
This may come as a surprise to you but there are many kinds of Republicans just as there are many kinds of Democrats.
A Democrat is not a Liberal is not a Republican is not a Conservative.
Whether we like the two party system or not, it is what we have and do our best to work with.
Frankly it would be a good idea to have a viable third party.
Even if we had a Liberal, Moderate and Conservative Party, my Democrat Party would contribute very few moderates while the Republican Party would provide a few liberals but far more moderates than conservatives. This has always made it easier for Democrats to maintain a majority and it is only under rare circumstances that the balance is shifted.
You can not under any circumstance consider yourself or Free Republic a meaningful vehicle to discuss the Republican Primary when you dismiss 80% of the Republican Party which probably does not welcome suicide advice.
This is page one of what Free Republic is all about. If you are not with us on page one, I doubt you’ll be with us on any of the following pages. If you are not 100% pro unalienable rights, you are no conservative. If you do not understand the most basic foundations of life & liberty, if you are unwilling to fight for these rights, if you are willing to compromise away our unalienable rights for political expediency, then you have no idea what we’re even fighting for. In the never ending battle against evil, you are like a lost soul.
Your comment about RINOs destroyed any influence in the Republican Party and your insistence on one issue being the guide for discourse abdicates any role in any political discussion unless you choose to resurrect the Right to Life Party.
That would be a legitimate option for you to take rather than presume to hector Republicans about whom to select because you consider yourself to be purer.
Well, that is silly. You are not. You are not a Republican and you are not a Democrat even though the Republicans will make room for you at the table and no one in the Democrat Party will ever support your positions.
Assuming you will continue your slide into mindless mediocrity and political irrelevance there will be no Republican of stature who will dare be associated with you or the Free Republic Forum.
Of course you have the right to take this forum in any direction you desire and I will miss reading the pockets of sanity which still exist.
I respect your passion for a cause, but it will fail to make a positive contribution to the selection of the next POTUS.
I learn something new every day. All my life I’ve always heard that murder is always tried in State Courts because it is not a Federal Crime. So I’ve been misinformed.
That means that if the personage of the unborn were recognized by the Federal Government, then abortion would be against Federal Law. In that case, even if a State did not outlaw abortion, the Federal government could still bring a charge of murder against the abortionist.
The issue then is getting the Federal Government to recognize the unborn as a person entitled to equal protection under the law. If Congress voted on this, could the Supreme Court reverse it?
Can any legal experts here weigh in on the accuracy of all this?
Yes, there is.
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.