You realize that the ISSUE of abortion is far too valuable to let go of easily.
You're spot on in your post. ^5!
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Posted on 07/12/2009 9:15:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
The Founders never stated that in the law that I am aware of. Do you have backing for your claim? Outside of supporting documents? I mean, something that they actually voted on or signed as law?
Yes!
And if we let the nose of that camel get under the tent, then that precedent will let some very bad "scripture" come in with that camel.
Except for making treason a crime, the Founding Fathers left it to the States to define what is and what isn’t a crime. The Founding Fathers did not make murder a federal crime.
The federal government has usurped most of the States’ powers but to this day there is no federal law against murder except in SPECIFIC cases like killing a federal government employee. It wasn’t even against federal law to kill the President until after Kennedy got killed. As of today there is no federal law against you killing me or me killing you.
The States vary greatly in defining when it is permissible to kill another person. In Texas you can kill someone you reasonably believe is a danger to your life. In New York you have to retreat until you are unable to retreat before killing him. States differ greatly on what is murder and what is manslaughter and degrees of each.
The Founding Fathers didn’t forget to make murder a federal crime. It was their intention to leave the general police powers and the criminal law writing to the states.
If no federal law protects a new born baby or a two-year-old or a sixty-year-old, why should one protect a pre-birth baby? If it’s not a federal offence to kill you, why should it be a federal offence to kill an unborn baby?
If you want a federal law defining when it is permissible to kill a person and when it’s a crime, should we use New York’s laws or Texas’ laws as the model? Is today’s crop of politicians more qualified than the Founding Fathers to decide what should be federal law?
The States should ban abortion. The federal government should go back to taking care of their enumerated responsibilities and go back to being restricted from taking more than their enumerated powers.
Yeah. The founders of America called it "self-evident truth" actually.
I’m sorry that you don’t believe in equal rights for all Americans.
bttt
Not in the law, they didn’t. Again, I could quote something from the Federalist Papers or something else but it doesn’t make it law.
Again, show support in a legal document that has basis in the US. Otherwise, it is a historical ‘opinion’ and they are all over the board. Do you really want to rely on Pelosi’s opinion as law? Or should we take a vote?
You’re making less and less sense.
Oh, come on, it is a simple thing. Your argument is that abortion is the "killing of an innocent person" and therefore is subject to Federal authority via the Declaration and the Constitution. However, most murders are the "killing of an innocent person" and yet they are most assuredly and absolutely not subject to the Federal government. Such matters are most definitely reserved to the States, and yet you don't seem to be on a tirade about the evils of such a situation. But, either all such homicides are actually not a matter for the States, and rather are Federal, or you are saying that all of the people murdered in this nation (outside of abortion) are in fact not PERSONS.
Which is it? Are all of these murder victims PERSONS or aren't they? It is a simple question. If you say they are persons, then allowing the States to legislate, enforce and prosecute their murders is to "deny their protection under our Constitution," to use your own language. That certainly has been your position regarding abortion, and so either it applies to all murder, or it doesn't. So, I ask, are these people PERSONS?
You didn’t read my post #104.
The Federalist Papers, as wonderful and useful as they are, are not part of the organic law of the United States. The Declaration of Independence is.
You’re not listening. If a state is not protecting the unalienable rights of the people, the officers of the federal government have a sworn duty to secure the people and their rights. This is not complicated.
Moved and seconded. It's a genuine toss-up as to whether "dishonest" or "just plain sad" is the more apt description in this particular instance, as both are equally applicable. Instant replay may be needed for the final call.
I guess it’s too hard for you to click on my screen name and read my home page, eh?
Hey. EV.
Let me tell you very clearly why other Pro-Lifers seem so hell-bent on standing against your argument (and Keyes) of “recognize the unborn are persons are nothing!”, to the point of disregarding even those who are for overturning Roe v. Wade.
Let’s look at door #1:
1) The argument for overturning Roe v. Wade DOES NOT mean that pursuing your argument is no longer viable. By all means, your argument will only have more steam!
Now for door #2:
2) Pursuing your argument discounts any and all other measures at lessening abortions, including putting the issue out of the hands of the feds and into those of the states.
In other words, beyond door #2 lies this maxim: “Good has been made an enemy of Perfect.”
Even when ‘Good’ would be vastly preferable to the current situation we have now. Nope, can’t have it whatsoever...
I’m sorry, but this is what I keep hearing when you post.
EV: You want to overturn Roe v. Wade? HERESY! My way or the highway!
Even if your method has no chance of working right now. Even if your argument has a much better chance of changing the hearts and minds of the people (where this battle must be fought) once abortion is a state matter and not a federal matter. Nope, can’t have that.
As you know, its not about "equal rights", its about what is moral and what is clearly immoral.
In our system, morality gets worked into law by a process that is clearly defined. People argue with one another, persuade one another, and the argument goes on year after year, all over the United States, at the state and at the federal level. Endlessly.
If the lawmakers pass a law that is immoral, does it become moral? No, of course not. Is the argument over? No, of course not. If we win the argument, is the argument over? No, of course not, nor is it over if we lose the argument. The argument never ends.
Palin and Keyes are on the same side in this argument, and they both know it. Keyes picked on her to make a point, and its not a bad point, which is that changing the law or changing the constitution doesn't make abortion moral. Of course, she knows that and he knows she knows that. He's just trying to make a point. If he picked on someone who was actually pro-abortion, like any Democrat, the argument wouldn't have attracted nearly as much attention. But a conservative going after Palin because, supposedly, she isn't pro-life enough, well that gets people's attention. Its like, man bites dog. Thats all.
But she is pro-life, everyone knows it including Keyes.
It’s you who doesn’t believe in equal rights for everyone.
You realize that the ISSUE of abortion is far too valuable to let go of easily.
You're spot on in your post. ^5!
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
You’re not listening. If a state is not protecting the unalienable rights of the people, the officers of the federal government have a sworn duty to secure the people and their rights. This is not complicated.
Your position is impossible. Abortion is murder. That is plain fact. And murder is most definitely reserved to the People and the States by the Constitution. If Alan Keyes does not understand this then I greatly overestimated him when I voted for him. You are twisting the Constitution in extremely absurd ways which would render it meaningless, just like those on the left do everyday.
You're representing your candidate -- badly, in this particular instance, if the only response to your having been called out on a fundamental aspect of online posting honesty is a feeble, half-hearted "meh." Rethink that.
When ever I think of Key’s I think of Mosh pits, and crowd diving.
In fact, my position is the only hope there is of ever overturning Roe vs. Wade.
The neglect of these indispensable principles by Christians, by the pro-life movement, by conservatives, by Republicans, is why it hasn’t been overturned already.
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.