Posted on 06/14/2008 9:58:14 AM PDT by wagglebee
If McCain is honest, he will prove this by selecting someone who conservatives approve of.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I'm looking forward to conservatives in Congress "borking" President Obama's liberal nominees. We now have the Internet to put some backbone in them, we really didn't have it when Ginsburg was interviewing for the job.
There is no "Right to Life" in the US Constution, neither implied or explicit.
If the reference is to "...that among these are Life, Liberty, and..." that's in the Declaration of Independence, which, I believe, was not predicated on the issue of human reproduction.
There is also no right to kill an unborn child in the Constitution either.
Yes, there is.
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.
From Dictionary.com:
PosterityPos*ter"i*ty\, n. [L. posteritas: cf. F. post['e]rit['e]. See Posterior.]
1. The race that proceeds from a progenitor; offspring to the furthest generation; the aggregate number of persons who are descended from an ancestor of a generation; descendants; -- contrasted with ancestry; as, the posterity of Abraham.
If [the crown] should not stand in thy posterity. --Shak.
2. Succeeding generations; future times. --Shak.
Their names shall be transmitted to posterity. --Shak.
Their names shall be transmitted to posterity. --Smalridge.
| Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. |
One of the "blessings of liberty" is obviously life, we fought the Revolution for this right. "To ourselves and our posterity" can ONLY mean that the Founding Fathers wanted to secure this right not only for themselves, but for those not yet born.
Amendment XIV: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
How much more explicit do you want it?
See, #7. The right to life is there.
"...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,..."
So it's in the Declaration of Independence.........you write:
If the reference is to "...that among these are Life, Liberty, and..." that's in the Declaration of Independence, which, I believe, was not predicated on the issue of human reproduction.
Really?
It says that LIFE is an UNALIENABLE RIGHT. What part of that would exclude a living baby inside the womb?
We should all save your post! And send it to the SCOTUS -
Perfect and "unalienable"
And those who dispute it can go suck an egg.
Thanks.
I wish the people who say there is no difference between McCain and Obama dare to make that claim on this thread.
My remarks are based on President Reagan's words in his essay/book, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation". Which I'm sure you're familiar with.
"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."
I know, I was just pointing out that not only is there not even a hint of a "right" to murder the unborn, there is an implicit prohibition against it.
Huge difference. One is an effete metro-sexual, the other a pschotic fart.
While there is little or no ambiguity in the minds of pro-lifers. Its clear that in order to facilitate ending Roe v Wade, there must be a Right to Life or Human Rights amendment added to the Constitution that protects the unborn. Until such an amendment is passed into law, overturning RvW and returning the responsibility to the states is our next best option. And getting that fifth pro-life justice on the SCOTUS should be our paramount concern.
All talk McCain. Where was he defending the unborn when Ginsberg was up for SCOTUS???? Why doesnt he defend this postion in front of Kennedy and Schumer when the talk about the super precedent for SCOTUS nominees??????
If this placates some of you fine - but judge a man by his actions not his words. Only when it is convienient will McCain stand by the unborn.
I agree completely. Politicians will generally say just about everything to get elected; however, in McCain's case it is not really in line with his past record. That is why I think his running mate is so important.
“I wish the people who say there is no difference between McCain and Obama dare to make that claim on this thread.”
Wish granted.
There is no meaningful difference. Both candidates are socialist in their outlook. The rhetoric is of course different, but the underlying philosophy is pretty much the same. In addition, Sen. McCain will say pretty much anything to obtain power. He’s a lot like President Nixon in that respect.
With regards to life issues, you have to look at what a politician is actually willing to do vice what sweet nothings they whisper in Catholic ears. In Sen. McCain’s case, that has been precious little. You can expect more of the same. That is to say, expect lots of lofty platitudes about life, but zero action. I mean let’s face it. If the GOP and it’s leadership were actually to “do” something about infanticide, it would rob them of one of their issues to rally the troops around.
Expect zero positive progress on infanticide on the political front for the next four years. In the mean time, I’ll be voting for a third party candidate whose rhetoric might actually match their deeds. I urge others to do the same.
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.