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

To: WilliamReading
No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.

Oh really, Senator?

How about the children that are at the embryonic stage of their development, the ones you think are just fine to kill?

How about the children who are the product of rape or incest that you think should be killed for the sins of their fathers?

How about the children murdered with the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars YOU gave to Planned Parenthood?

How about the children unfortunate enough to reside in the womb of a mother who lives in a State that falls within your Stephen A. Douglas, Gerald R. Ford, Ron Paul, fake federalist position that State's rights trumps the unalienable right to life?

I thank God I was born. But I wasn't born yesterday.

56 posted on 08/23/2008 10:54:47 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (So, how does the new Whig fit??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: EternalVigilance
>> How about the children unfortunate enough to reside in the womb of a mother who lives in a State that falls within your Stephen A. Douglas, Gerald R. Ford, Ron Paul, fake federalist position that State's rights trumps the unalienable right to life? <<

I never understood these freepers and their "true conservative" candidates who think all the problems in this country would go away if we just punt every devisive issue "back to the states" to sort out. States Rights, States Rights, States Rights, blah blah blah. My state government already has enough "rights" to pass all kind of laws affecting the lives of its citizens (our Governor signed an executive order telling pharmacists they have to dispense abortion pills to any woman who requests one or they can have their license revoked), I don't want to give them any MORE power over my life. What about the right of individuals? What about the right to life that is GURANTEED by the Consitution? Is there some section that says "this constitution shall not be construed to guranteed life and liberty nationally, but rather shall be decided on a state-by-state basis" that I missed?

The way you cited Stephen Douglas is an excellent example and it seems many of these "true conservatives" like Fred Thompson would have been Douglas Democrats if they were alive in 1860 (awww, gee whiz, slavery's wrong, but we can't have the federal government intervene and actually pass some law to protect the guaranteed right to freedom in the Constitution) Did these people sit through the whole lesson on slavery in America in their history class? We sure as heck didn't get rid of slavery in America by "letting the states decide"

Do they really think if Roe v. Wade is overturned some socialist state like Mass. is going to say "oh, now that it's up to us, let's restrict abortion here". Seriously. Here in the people's Republic of Illinois, our legislature won't even pass parental notification laws.

What is wrong with some "conservatives"? They seem to have no problem with tyrannical government and abriging the rights of life, liberty, and property as long as it's done at the state level.

58 posted on 08/23/2008 11:08:03 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Support Operation Chaos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: EternalVigilance

Stephen A. Douglas ????

Of the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates ?????


66 posted on 08/23/2008 1:00:15 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

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