GOP Platform Cmte OKs Pro-Life Platform Condemning Abortion

LifeNews.com ^ | August 20, 2008 | Steven Ertelt

[julieee]

Minneapolis, MN -- The Republican Party's platform committee has put the finishing touches on a new party platform that contains some of the strongest language ever condemning abortion and supporting legal protections for unborn children. The platform stands in stark contrast to the pro-abortion plank Democrats approved Monday.

The platform draws on the nation's founding documents as expressing the earliest support for human life but backs a Constitutional amendment to make those protections clear.

[diamond6]

Hallelujah!!!

[Blood of Tyrants]

There was discussion otherwise?

[loveliberty2]

This platform is consistent with our nation's founding philosophy.

According to America's Founders, life, and the liberty to enjoy it, are unalienable. The word, "unalienable," implies the great truth of Thomas Jefferson's summation that, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

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!