Posted on 05/10/2008 10:08:41 PM PDT by cdchik123
The general election is nothing more than a DEMOCRAT PRIMARY between two factions of the socialist communist big government Democrat Party. The only difference between the two being the War in Iraq. McCain is for staying a little longer and there by possibly claiming a little honor, while Barry cuts and runs with all the dishonor of traditional Democrats. Otherwise their ain’t no difference. If McCain is smart and really wants to win, he just as well give in to the baby killers. He ain’t getting my vote no matter where he stands on babykilling. I would also recommend to the dislikable crossdressing old geezer, that he pick Joe Loserman as his vice-president, since he is running on a primarily Democrat platform, he could secure some Jewish votes and some Hillary voters that will not vote for Barry. McCain is what he is, and he the Keating Five Guy who tried to sell what little was left of his soul to Puff Daschle and the Democrats only to be grossly underbid for his treachery by the dolt Jimmy Jeffords.
If he picked Hillary as his Veep, the old geezer has a death wish. She would spike his prune juice and make it look like natural causes.
Did I somehow offend you? Which statement offended you most, the statement I made that the sins of the father should not be visited on his progeny, the statement that unborn human beings are guilty of nothing or the last statement which acknowledged that mothers who give birth after being raped are very special mothers?
Children do not have the legal right to say "no" to this situation in most cases.
False on the law and the facts as they currently stand in the United States of America.
The parents (and you folks are among this group jwalsh) effectively force the teen child to live with the remembered trauma of rape for 9 additional months and to also suffer all the very real physical problems of pregnancy (including those unique to female teens).
Again false on the law and the facts. I think you can do better.
You call this "principled" thinking, but in order to believe that you also must be opposed to all forms of capital punishment and indeed even the use of lethal force by law enforcement and the military.
The principled thinking part I have already described. The principle is this:
"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
How do you propose to change that platform language?
You must be absolutely, 100 percent Ghandian in your opposition to violence, and you must apply that principle in all cases and not just abortion cases.
Now let's see where have I heard this putrid argument before? Oh yeah, from putrid left wingers who equate innocent human life to the scum who are wont to murder Innocent human life for the hell of it. Again, you can do better.
Do you? Are you?
Stupid questions based on asinine premises. I think I'll pass.
That's the only moral pass you get. Anything else is naked and staggering hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy abounds.
Rape victims are currently routinely treated with the morning after pill. Do I have a problem with that? Not so much. I know that the morning after pill can, in certain cases, act as an abortofacient but I think the concern for the child's health outweighs that small risk.
I also think that folks arguing the abortion issue based on one hundredth of one percent of the cases are sophists and sometimes drama queens. Like you.
The overwhelming number of abortions are elective for no reason other than convenience. So you tell me how convenience squares with the right to life as described in the Republican platform. And then tell me that it is OK for you to pay the penalty for the sins of your parents. And then you can convince me that killing unborn babies equates to killing in self defense or executing a convicted murderer.
Good luck.
>>>In the final analysis, which is worse:
>>>1. Death (or Murder in this case).
>>>2. Or having to endure the pain, suffering, and ignominy of Rape or Incest.
So you are also opposed to the death penalty, to military actions of all kinds (including for self-defense), and the use of deadly force by law enforcement?
As you say, “He gives no exceptions to that rule.
Bear in mind that we are not discussing whethere life begins at conception, or not. That’s a different argument that you should have with other people. I fully accept that the fetus conceived in a rape on a teen girl is a life nonetheless.
I’ll even concede that it’s murder to abort the fetus of a rapist from a teen victim.
Where we depart is here: I would bite the bullet and recognize that this is a fetus conceived in violence and that it is therefore an affront to God. It certainly is an affront to the victim. Every moment that fetus remains in the teen’s womb is not merely an unpleasant reminder of the original rape, but literally a continuation of it.
Rape? Incest? A factor in less than 2% of abortions. A false excuse.
Don't believe the pro-abort’s propaganda & lies.
McCain will, but he is not trustworthy on ANY issue other than the war on terror.
The baby is innocent of any crime, but the criminal has been coddled for twenty years of intense examination and protection for his guilt of murder.
Rape (incest) is a false argument - 98% of abortions are for the convenience of the mother.
Killing the baby is not cruel?
In the mean time, I'll be working as hard as I can to see the McCain is not elected. I am all to familiar with the results of electing a liberal Republican to the executive.
Then you are a liberal. After all the years of Republicans supporting conservatives, you turn around and stab us in the back. Where is your loyalty to the Republican Party?
ROFL
The Antonio C account is either on the wrong forum or forgot the </sarcasm> tag.
The thread is about changing the party platform. I posted the principle in the platform vis a vis abortion/the right to life. You were offended by that principle. I asked you how you would change that. I’m still waiting for an answer.
Ha! I've never been absolutely correct. Ask my bride of 38 years. ;-}
I have always thought McCain just went along for the prolife idea of the party because he felt it was safe that nothing would ever be done to change the status quo.
He went all the way to the SCOTUS to take Wisconsin Right To Life to protect his precious McCain-Feingold “no Free speech” bill. He sought to deny them the right to speak out prior to an election. I am sure it was also because Russ Feingold is one of his peeps.
Samuel Alito wrote the decision which McCain and his band of liberals lost. This is probably the reason McCain dissed Alito later. He isn’t known as McNasty for nothing.
McCain also is for embryonic stem cell research. These two thing alone should be a big red flag to how serious MCLame really is about the Right to Life.
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.