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

To: tpaine; MHGinTN; Alamo-Girl; marron; PatrickHenry; Diamond; Thermopylae
It IS MADE a dilemma by attempting to make an abortion an act of murder.

Is this really how you see the issue, tpaine? Gosh, but I just don't see it that way.

The way I see it is: If it's alive, and it's human, and it lives in America, then it is entitled to the equal protection of the Constitution of its right to life and liberty.

The woman's "right" to "control her body" becomes a secondary issue. For life is the preeminent right protected by the Constitution. All other rights flow from just that one right. This isn't a narrowly "religious" question per se. It is a Constitutional question. And given what the Constitution requires, there is only one valid answer: And it must be in favor of life.

I may be a "simple-minded" person; but this question is actually starkly simple. If you wish to argue that somehow a person has a constitutional right to induce the death of any other (innocent) human being, then I am all ears.

219 posted on 06/13/2004 3:51:27 PM PDT by betty boop (The purpose of marriage is to civilize men, protect women, and raise children. -- William Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop
It IS MADE a dilemma by attempting to make an abortion an act of murder.

Is this really how you see the issue, tpaine? Gosh, but I just don't see it that way. The way I see it is:
If it's alive, and it's human,

Eggs & sperm are alive, - as are embryos, -- but they are not persons yet, thus their deaths are not murder.

and it lives in America, then it is entitled to the equal protection of the Constitution of its right to life and liberty.

Persons are entitled to protection, not unformed, unviable beginnings of persons.

The woman's "right" to "control her body" becomes a secondary issue.

Not for the the woman.

For life is the preeminent right protected by the Constitution.

Many people would rather be dead than be a slave, Betty - Perhaps even a slave for nine months. - Liberty may be our preeminent right.

All other rights flow from just that one right. This isn't a narrowly "religious" question per se. It is a Constitutional question. And given what the Constitution requires, there is only one valid answer: And it must be in favor of life.

And our Constitution definitely favors the existing life of the mother, over the possibility of one for an embryo.

I may be a "simple-minded" person; but this question is actually starkly simple. If you wish to argue that somehow a person has a constitutional right to induce the death of any other (innocent) human being, then I am all ears.

I don't want to argue.
Too bad you can't 'hear' that embryos are not persons, --- in the eyes of our constitutional rule of law.

220 posted on 06/13/2004 4:42:20 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | 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