Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shaking up the Republican primary abortion-style (MUST READ!)
Arkansas News Bureau ^ | November 18, 2007 | David Sanders

Posted on 11/18/2007 6:55:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-217 next last
To: EternalVigilance

Do you truly want to save ANY babies, or do you just want to whine that the candidates, and the premier Right to Life organization in this country are not living up to your vaunted ideals?


161 posted on 11/18/2007 4:25:22 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; EternalVigilance
Repeating the same actions and expecting different results in the same conditions?

Classic definition of insanity.

162 posted on 11/18/2007 4:27:37 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

I want to preserve and enforce the Republican platform.

How about you?


163 posted on 11/18/2007 4:33:15 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

We’ve gone through this before. Abortion WAS legal. Laws against it didn’t appear until the 1820’s and those were NOT against early abortion.

Laws banning abortion were in effect in every state by 1965, until the Federal Government struck them down.

So you want to hand the reins to the group that is responsible for millions of deaths, and you call those of us with different strategies names.


164 posted on 11/18/2007 4:34:55 PM PST by Politicalmom (Of the potential GOP front runners, FT has one of the better records on immigration.- NumbersUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Classic definition of insanity.

That would define following the "stategy" of NRTL, who have had all the money and power in this movement now for decades, and who are now so thoroughly compromised that they are worse than useless. They're almost totally unmoored from principle.

165 posted on 11/18/2007 4:35:00 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Correction: “strategy.”


166 posted on 11/18/2007 4:35:25 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The HLA has become nothing more than an excuse for cynical, unprincipled politicians to do nothing.

If you believe that, then why are you so ticked off when Fred doesn't push for it, preferring an alternative that will actually WORK?

167 posted on 11/18/2007 4:37:45 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

I have no idea what that means. The states began to erode away the rights of the innocent unborn, and instead of upholding the Constitution as their oath obligated them to do, the SCOTUS swept away thousands of years of civilization’s morays against killing children.

And now you want a situation in which the equal protection of the laws no longer applies in this country. You want a situation in which Utah babies have a right to live, but California babies do not.

This is the destruction of our Union.

If the United States is not united around the principle that our rights to life and liberty come from the One Who created us, and are therefore unalienable, this formerly free republic is dead. All we’re waiting for is the funeral.


168 posted on 11/18/2007 4:40:23 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Again, you’re the one using the HLA as an excuse to do nothing. I’m focusing on the real issue: the Fourteenth Amendment personhood of the unborn as described in the Republican platform.


169 posted on 11/18/2007 4:41:57 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
preferring an alternative that will actually WORK?

Giving up the primary reason for opposing abortion in the first place cannot be described as something that "will work."

Once you give away the Constitutional personhood argument, you have nothing left with which to even oppose Roe, much less end the practice of abortion in the states.

You people have everything backwards.

170 posted on 11/18/2007 4:44:50 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Coldwater Creek

I’m not wrong. If you’re truly ‘following’ all the candidates, then you KNOW that Fred isn’t assuming he’ll be nominated. He’s out there meeting primary voters and building support. Again, if you don’t support him that’s fine, but I WILL challenge you if you make statements that are false.


171 posted on 11/18/2007 4:57:03 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You are delusional. “Thousands of years of morays(It’s mores.) against killing children” was for the BORN.

You lie about what historical views on abortion actually were, and what the actual timeline of abortion laws was, and expect us to listen to you.


172 posted on 11/18/2007 5:04:42 PM PST by Politicalmom (Of the potential GOP front runners, FT has one of the better records on immigration.- NumbersUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

So, you think abortion was acceptable in this country, or throughout Western Civilization, before the nineteen sixties?


173 posted on 11/18/2007 5:06:36 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

*I* don’t think it is acceptable.

It WAS NOT ILLEGAL in the U.S. until the 1820s, and even then was not illegal in the first four months.


174 posted on 11/18/2007 5:09:50 PM PST by Politicalmom (Of the potential GOP front runners, FT has one of the better records on immigration.- NumbersUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
*I* don’t think it is acceptable.

Then don't offer it any support.

175 posted on 11/18/2007 5:13:40 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I could give a rat’s rear end about the Republican platform, because political ideas come and go. You keep mentioning the 14th Amendment, but unless there is a majority of people to agree that the unborn child should be protected under it, it is just another academic exercise.


176 posted on 11/18/2007 5:16:04 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
I could give a rat’s rear end about the Republican platform, because political ideas come and go.

In this case, because of the portion of the platform we're discussing, which deals with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for the innocent unborn, you're saying that you could care less about the Constitution, or the very founding principle of America as found in the Declaration of Independence.

177 posted on 11/18/2007 5:19:27 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
You keep mentioning the 14th Amendment, but unless there is a majority of people to agree that the unborn child should be protected under it, it is just another academic exercise.

Why do you think it's been in the platform since 1984?

178 posted on 11/18/2007 5:21:19 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Why do you think it's been in the platform since 1984?

Because the Republicans wanted to differentiate themselves from the Democrats. Been there, done that. Everyone knows that most Democrats are for abortion, and most Republicans are not. Now that that has been established, and we've seen that we STILL don't have a majority to either recognize the unborn under the 14th Amendment OR pass the HLA, let's see what we can actually do, in TODAY'S political climate to reduce abortions.

179 posted on 11/18/2007 5:37:55 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Just smiling here friend. Thanks again. Twas not my intent at all to convert you to becoming a Fred Dalton Thompson supporter. And I still appreciate your passion.


180 posted on 11/18/2007 5:39:09 PM PST by ImpBill ("America ... Where are you now?" --Greg Adams--Brownsville, TX --On the other Front Line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-217 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson