Posted on 01/16/2010 9:36:41 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 01/16/2010 10:56:16 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Scott Brown says on his campaign website that the decision on abortion should ultimately be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. This is wrong. Her doctor is no substitute for God in matters of life and death of an innocent person. The goal of abortion is to end the God-given life of an innocent and helpless person before he is even born into this world.
Our nation was founded on the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the Rights to Life and Liberty.
Abortion is not a right. In fact it wrongly deprives an innocent person of HIS God-given unalienable RIGHTS to Life and Liberty.
Government sanctioned abortion is an abominable sin and a crime against mankind and against the constitution and against the very bedrock foundational principle establishing our nation under God, i.e., that our unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty are granted by God, not man and not government and neither man nor government can deprive us of same!
I can understand the willingness of conservatives to overlook or downplay Brown's stance on abortion to the larger goal of denying Obama and his murdering Marxist Democrats their 61st senate vote and possibly killing their evil abortionist agenda, but we can't just wash our hands of the issue and walk away any more than we could wash our hands and walk away from any other mass murdering tyrannical government operation.
The unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty MUST be resurrected and reasserted as the fundamental God-given rights to every innocent person in America, beginning with the most innocent of all, the unborn, or NO other of our rights can ever be protected.
They say that the only way we can do this is by changing one heart, one mind at a time. Okay, then I'd say the place to start would be with Scott Brown. If you are going to give him your support, your money or your vote then you should DEMAND that in return he immediately changes his stance on abortion. If he is to represent us as a U.S. Senator he MUST be required to uphold his oath to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, so help me God!
And this means he MUST be required to fully defend our unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty!
Support him if you must, but make the calls, write the letters, send the faxes, visit his office and make him realize that the unalienable Right to Life IS a constitutional right and abortion is NOT!!
Prayers for our nation and that we are understanding and abiding by God's will.
Yes. And if not, he will not get our support next time. I don’t much care what he says, in order to placate Mass. voters. But I’ll certainly watch what he does. As, I think, all of us will.
Baloney. Brown opposes the funding and supports restrictions on abortion. So Fred Thompson's libertarian abortion views are OK but Brown's isn't?
Also, Brown's position on abortion mirrors other Rinos like Schwarzenegger, Giuliani and Romney.
More BS
Throw in Brown's vote in favor of RomneyCare and you have another big government statist with an "R" after his name.
That was at the state level and Brown recognized how god-awful gov't run healthcare is and now opposes it at the federal level. I'm not defending Romneycare at all because it's Romney's baby - but Brown can't be blamed for voting for something in which he thought would benefit the state.
but electing Brown will not put the Senate seat in the hands of a conservative.
So vote his @ss out in 2012. C'mon RM we had this discussion already. This is a special election.
Whoever the voters of Massachusetts decide to elect, they'll be getting an abortion proponent. Candidates like Scott Brown are the enemy within and undermine conservatism.
Yep, keep believing that while the ultra-radical Marxist Dem Coakley gets sworn in and finishes Teddy's evil work.
If a candidate can't defend our most fundamental Constitutional right to life, then that candidate (he or she) isn't someone worth supporting or voting for.
If my money isn't being used for abortions, and if there are restrictions in place to prevent minors from seeking abortions, in addition to supporting judges that will protect life, then how is that not protecting life?
1. His position on abortion. (I’m a conservative, not a libertarian)
2. His defense of RomneyCare.
Brown is already against partial-birth abortion, so I’d say he would be open to moving further down the pro-life road. And when you consider the pro-death ramifications of health care deform, a Brown win that wrecks that legislation would have major pro-life ramifications.
Whereas Brown is against partial-birth abortion, so he has taken a first step down the pro-life road.
Here are our choices. 3 days before the election. There are no other alternatives.
I would respectfully suggest that 90% on our side is much much better then 100% in opposition
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
Scott Brown on Abortion
Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
Marta Coakley on Abortion
Supports Obama health care agenda which includes Govt funding for abortions with a “opt out” provision that states would be forced to choose or be required to pay for abortion on demand.
He is pro-life on all the abortion indicators: funding, judges, parental notification, gov't out of it. The statement that a woman should consult with her doctor is both a false premise & ambiguous, and is no indication that it represents a pro-abortion viewpoint. Doctors are not theologists.
Reality: You have two choices. You have Coakley who'll continue the pro-abortion status-quo, and you have Brown who's libertarian on the issue but could become conservative like Fred Thompson did during his term. You have the faux "Tea Party" candidate who's also pro-abortion and pro-homo marriage. Who are you going to support?
2. His defense of RomneyCare
If he voted for Romneycare but is now coming out against Obamacare, then I can forgive him. Like I said, he probably seen the destruction of RomneyCare to his state and changed his mind. I don't think he actually defended Romneycare considering his opposition against Obamacare.
Not only does Brown's website state the abortion "decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor..." Back in 2002 he stated, "Abortions should always be legally available." Brown's words are crystal clear. Brown's position is no different then Arnold's, Rudi's or Willard's. They all support the abortion rights of a woman and killing the unborn in the 99%-100% range.
Whether its a Special Election, a special Recall Election, or just a regular November election, abortion is not an issue to be ignored in favor of political expediency. I commend you for finally rejecting Ron Paul, but defending Scott Brown will not win you any kudos from me.
Extremely well said.
The majority of American believe abortion should be illegal except in the cases or rape, incest and mother's life being endangered. That isn't Brown's position.
He has come out, however, against same-sex marriage and seems to be principled on economic issues.
Baby steps in the right direction.
Without taxpayer funding, abortions would be drastically reduced.
I see your point but I believe monetary is also a contributing factor to philosophy on this issue.
Not only does Brown's website state the abortion "decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor..."
In which said doctor will likely provide alternatives to abortion, describes the dangers of abortion, and will refuse to perform one if the baby is near-term. Which means the woman may talk it over with friends and family - and yes her God if she's religious - and make the ultimate decision on choosing life after all.
Back in 2002 he stated, "Abortions should always be legally available." Brown's words are crystal clear. Brown's position is no different then Arnold's, Rudi's or Willard's.
I wasn't aware of his 2002 statements but it's hardly Rudy/Romney league, IMO. We all knew how flaming pro-abortion Rudy was, and Romney with his flip-flops. So Brown makes a statement saying 'abortions should be always legal.' In what scenario though? Was there a follow-up question to clarify his views? He still supported restrictions and no funding and no partial-birth support of it right?
Whether its a Special Election, a special Recall Election, or just a regular November election, abortion is not an issue to be ignored in favor of political expediency.
Look - I'm as pro-life as anyone here on FR and among conservatives. I can see if Brown was a flaming pro-abortionist but fiscally conservative, I still would encourage conservatives to stay home in disgust. You have a candidate who will provide a stop-gap and stop the agenda, then depending if he follows up supporting pro-life measures by 2012, he should be allowed to serve a term in his own right. I see Brown in the exact same position as Fred Thompson was in 1992. Thompson was libertarian on abortion, he then supported the pro-life agenda. I just find it hypocritical that the same rules don't apply for Brown as it did for Fred.
That's to say, if conservatives continue to make inroads on the abortion issue (abortion is now down in the US and it is not a primary issue anymore like health care, national security, taxes, etc.) Brown will go the way of the country and move right on the issue.
I can live with that. He'll be effective on many other issues and this is as good as Massachussets will offer at this point in time WHEN 1/6 OF OUR ECONOMY IS ABOUT TO BE SOCIALIZED...LET'S TAKE IT!!
Even you're former political hero, Ron Paul, opposes abortion and believes it would be best handled at the state level. Paul even introduced a Pro-Life Act in the House that would grant legal personhood to the unborn. You'd be better off promoting Paul's pro-life credentials. Brown is definitely in the liberal camp on abortion.
Jim Robinson NAILS IT HERE!
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Well said.
Perhaps if I had explained it as you did, I would not have been treated so harshly here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2429644/posts
Excellent.
I recommend that everyone call the current President by his first name, Barack.
It’s a horrible name and he knows it.
Ron Paul has done more for the pro-life movement than most Republicans.
However, because Ron Paul refuses to jump on the warmongering bandwagon, many pro-lifers turn their backs on him.
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.