Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Brookhaven
I appreciate your pro-life beliefs. But bashing other pro-lifers like this is extremely counter-productive.

You can't just trash the Constitution and the concept of limited government every time some urgent agenda item comes along. I agree, abortion is a life-or-death urgent issue. But you can either handle it within the framework of the rule of law, or you become lawless yourself. Dr. Paul is quite correct in being pro-life (with a LONG track record of personal evidence in support), WITHIN the context of the U.S. Constitution.

By your logic if I can rally 51% support to establish death camps and kill everyone who disagrees with me, then it is OK to do so, so far as the Constitution is concerned. I suggest you take another look at the 9th and 10th Amendments.

12 posted on 12/16/2011 10:36:09 AM PST by Liberty1970 (Skepticism and Close-mindedness are two very different things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Liberty1970

The ninth and tenth amendments in no way countenance the alienation of the unalienable right to life. You’re very much mistaken.

Every stated principle upon which this republic was founded, every stated purpose of our Constitution, and the explicit, imperative requirements of that Constitution are that every innocent life be provided with equal protection. There is no deviation from that to be found.


15 posted on 12/16/2011 10:43:56 AM PST by EternalVigilance (With God Obama can't hurt us. Without God, George Washington couldn't save us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Liberty1970

The 14th Amendment gives equal protection and due process to all “persons” so that states cannot deny either equal protection or due process to any “person”.

Do you believe that the Constitution should give equal protection and due process to every biological person, or do you believe that some states should be able to decide which biological persons to give protections to and which to deny protections to?

Roe v Wade said that only *legal* persons count as “persons”, and nobody can be a *legal* person before birth.

At this point any state could MANDATE abortion just like they mandate immunizations, and the only Constitutional “rights” that would possibly be violated are the “property rights” of the parents who claimed to “own” the child in the womb, because the Roe v Wade court ruled that states cannot give legal status to pre-born children.

Their only rationale for allowing government involvement in abortion at all is what they claimed was a vested state interest in “potential life”. IOW, they consider the government to be part-owners of any potential life.


17 posted on 12/16/2011 10:52:04 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Liberty1970
By your logic if I can rally 51% support to establish death camps and kill everyone who disagrees with me, then it is OK to do so, so far as the Constitution is concerned. I suggest you take another look at the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Actually, that's the Ron Paul position.

Since the Constitution is silent on death camps, the federal government has no role in regulating them.

Since the states have rights reserved to them under the 10th amendment, it's up to the states to decide the legality of death camps.

That's Ron Paul's logic on abortion applied to death camps.

26 posted on 12/16/2011 12:05:55 PM PST by Brookhaven (Mitt Romney has been consistent since he changed his mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson