Posted on 08/29/2011 1:56:16 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Frankly, most of the “pro-life” Republicans these days are worse than Blackmun. They admit to the personhood of the child, and then participate in codifying lawless “laws” that allow their killing anyway.
Even Blackmun admitted that if they are persons OF COURSE they must ALL be protected.
The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
Wait, wait why are you lumping suicide in with abortion? While I don’t think physicians should be in the practice of helping patients die, surely you would agree that people have a right to die. While I don’t think suicide is an answer, I recognize their right to end their own lives without assistance
The right to life is unalienable. That’s why suicide has always been illegal in this country.
Self-murder is still murder.
But perhaps you’ve never looked up the dictionary meaning of the word unalienable...
“incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”
There is no such "right."
How do you propose to enforce laws against self-murder?
I’m not aware of any state that has a law on the books outlawing suicide. Please point to one. Providing assistance is a crime, however.
Those laws always existed in America until the modern era, until those like yourself - who pay no mind to the nature of the right to life, its source, or the true purpose of government - gained the ascendency.
Perhaps they realized that legislating against suicide is not very effective. Would you advocate charging someone who survives their suicide attempt with attempted murder or attempted suicide?
Such a question presupposes that the only purpose for the existence of laws is prosecution, which is false.
-- Galatians 3:24"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster..."
See my previous post.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
I never figured Scalia for an "ends justify the means" type of guy.
I respect Scalia, but he could not be more wrong in this case.
Fair enough. I still distinguish abortion, which is the murder of an innocent, from suicide, which involves no innocent victims (unless you count the grieving family members, but they are indirect victims). I can respect your position. What I can’t respect are agencies like the DEA and state drug boards that go after doctors who seek to give patients adequate pain relief from opiates and/or marijuana. There have been studies done that showed many terminally ill patients committed suicide because they were suffering from pain. Doesn’t the right to life include the right to be free from severe physical pain, to the greatest extent possible? How do you feel about that?
The difference between the “right to die” view of the world and the UNALIENABLE right to life view is God.
Those who see the self-evident nature of the latter know that every human life belongs to Him, solely.
Those who believe the former think they can play God. They think they are a law unto themselves.
You are right on target.
The case involved a woman using marijuana grown in her home for medical purposes. Anyone who supports federal prosecution of such an act is not a conservative, nor do they understand or support liberty. I don't what's more jaw dropping; that the 'enlightened' progressives on the court supported the government's position, or that Scalia agreed with them.
There’s nothing morally wrong with medicine to alleviate pain.
Until the dosage becomes high enough to kill.
Which is happening, more and more, sadly, as our culture moves further and further away from the cornerstone principles of our republic.
Good night.
It just provides further proof that Scalia substitutes his moral judgments in place of bedrock constitutional principles.
I’m sure the court liberals were sympathetic to her plight but their leftist agenda requires them to support a perverted and vastly expanded notion of interstate commerce. If Raich had prevailed, that could have led to the Court striking down the entire Controlled Substances Act, which would have horrified liberals and so-called conservatives alike.
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.