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

To: jwalsh07
So, it is moral to take innocent life because of the sins of the father? Can the state hold you responsible for crimes committed by your father? That is not consistent with a pro life position nor is it consistent with the constitution.

Again, an innocent life is not so innocent, when it attaches itself to another's body and claims that body for a term of service and/or labor, instead of relying on its own capabilities, to sustain its own life.

A socialist is one who says we all have a right to live at each other's expense. A baby claims the right, until about 5 months after conception, to live at the mother's expense - the exact amount of time is debatable, and as you say, federalism and States can sort that out. Radical anti-abortionists - who say that a life becomes unalienably protectable from the moment of fertilization, regardless of the burden it places on other's lives and liberties, remind me of socialists. I regard my position as more of an individualist, in this instance. Individuals need to stand on their own, as early as possible. It should please you to know I think they can stand on their own earlier than birth, and that Roe V. Wade should be overtunred, and that third trimester abortions should be outlawed, in my State.

186 posted on 03/16/2002 7:36:20 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]


To: H.Akston
We are going nowhere. I would like you to answer the question I posed regarding a state euthanizing people over 70 who are on feeding tubes (umbilical cords) without informed consent and/or due process. Would the federal government be correct in stepping in and preventing that?
196 posted on 03/16/2002 10:53:43 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | 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