Posted on 08/23/2008 12:38:29 PM PDT by wagglebee
This needs to be repeated EVERYWHERE!
Pro-Life Ping
Democrat answer: When it can vote.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
..depends on who’s asking and when (BHO)
When he learns to speak English?
That's the leader I want: somebody who is so moved by his own children that he'll go out there and fight for everyone else's.
Ladies Home Journal - September, 2008
“The whole mistake of the pro-abortion people from the start, he said to himself, was the arbitrary line they drew. An embryo is not entitled to American Constitutional rights and can be killed, legally, by a doctor. But a fetus was a “person”, with rights, at least for a while; and then the pro-abortion crowd decided that even a seven month fetus was not “human” and could be killed, legally, by a licensed doctor. And, one day, a newborn baby - it is a vegetable; it can’t focus its eyes, it understands nothing, not talks… the pro-abortion lobby argued in court, and won, with their contention that a newborn baby was only a fetus expelled by accident or organic processes from the womb. But, even then, where was the line to be drawn finally? When the baby smiled its first smile? When it spoke its first word or reached for its initial time for a toy it enjoyed? The legal line was pushed back and back. And now the most savage and arbitrary definition of all: when it could perform ‘higher math’.” (at age 12)
At age 18 : )
Obortion
You want to know the government answer to this......
ask the IRS.
You and I know it’s at conception but not the IRS.
Lets see, in Obama's mind maybe after the baby turns 18 and only if the BABY joined the DEMOCRATS or COMMUNIST party.
“depends on who’s asking and when (BHO)”
He’s going to be asked this question during the debates and hopefully in a way worded not to let him avoid the issue. This needs to be highlighted and spotlighted by the opposing side as often as possible.
What many citizens today fail to reason through is that the so-called "right to choose," is an invented euphemism of recent decades designed to mask the ugly act of "destroying" the life and liberty of the child in the womb. So was the use of the word, "fetus," which is so much less personal than the word, "baby." By those euphemisms, an artificial right was bestowed by unelected justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on only one class of citizens (women) to destroy the Creator-endowed, therefore "unalienable" life and liberty of an as-yet-unborn citizen.
This question is the most important one to be considered in the 2008 election of a President.
Consider the logic utilized by those who say they personally oppose taking the life of the child in the womb, but believes in the trite and tired old phrase of "a woman's right to choose."
Why could a 70-year-old daughter not use the same reasoning to apply to a "right to choose" to get rid of an elderly mother whose care is threatening her own health? (And don't say it is not realistic to claim the health risk that many face!)
Or, why should the nation's law not provide that same "right to choose" to both men and women who consider another individual to be a threat to their personal health or wellbeing, an inconvenience to their lifestyle, or merely a burden they cannot take care of?
Clearly, America's laws against the taking of life do not allow for a citizen's "right to choose" murder as an optional way of solving a personal dilemma, no matter how perplexing or burdensome.
Unmask the faulty logic of the fence sitters, and let them articulate what is their real reason for favoring the taking of a life in the womb! Is it not possibly because they do not see children in the womb as beings "endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
The candidate who is most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand this basic principle underlying our liberty and the American Constitution is the only logical choice to lead this nation, in this voter's humble opinion!
For later.
When Michelle was carrying.....as her stomach grew, did nobama wonder if she was carrying a fetus-puppy, fetus-homosepien, or what? If someone had hit her with a car which would have forced the loss of what she was carrying in her stomach, would nobama call the loss of it,a “what”? Would he have sued for the loss of a “what”?
“When he learns to speak English?” Or when he gets his green card?
Fertilization or implantation, depending on your view. Those are the valid ones imho.
Apparently, when it survives the murderous onslaught of caring and feeling abortionists, liberals, do-gooders, and general-all-around-thinking-and-caring-humanists.
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.