PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[H.Akston]

"The child is totally her own person."

That is the falsehood that the radical (i.e. unreasonable) anti-abortion argument is built upon, and falls apart because of. The child is NOT totally her own person. Very early on, she is Totally dependent on another person! In order for her to live, she must violate the mother's right to be secure in HER person.
No one has the right to borrow your person, without consent. The right of stopping the seizure is a 4th (and 9th and 13th) Amendment right.

[Ed Current]

Your post fails the common sense test. In other words, it is false on first inspection and is in no way self-evident; however, those lacking common sense can have it provided by the following four:

1. Beckwith005
2. Stephen Schwartz -- Body
3. Doris Gordon -- Thomson
4. Kaczor

Also, you have no idea what the 13^th Amendment was about.

13th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Most of the States had abortion laws on the books at the time all those amendments were adopted. Once again, your post fails the plain common sense test.

[derheimwill]

If, by "unreasonable," you mean that we refuse, under any circumstances, to rationalize murder, then color me loopy.

[H.Akston]

If anything fails the common sense test, it is:

"The child is totally her own person."

In other words, it is false on first inspection and is in no way self-evident; however, those lacking the common sense to first see it, could avail themselves of a wisdom donation by re-reading my post.

The child has to borrow another person. That means the child is not her own person.

Ever heard of "involuntary servitude"? You quoted the amendment, but you don't seem to realize the point I was making. It is that without legal abortion at some point during the pregnancy, the rape victim is being forced to involuntarily serve the rapist's spawn, by carrying it to term against her will.

Slavery is also forced "labor", but I don't need a double entendre to win this argument. In fact, just the 4th Amendment alone, will do.

You have a happy new year, ya hear? When you drink, if you drink, you won't have to worry about harming another person, if you're not pregnant, because if you're not pregnant there is no one inside you who is not their own person who will end up drinking what you drink.

Isn't it funny how the child inside a pregnant person is not their own person? She has a drink if the host person takes a drink. How absurd it would be, to say of an unborn child that "The child is totally her own person." Absolutely absurd.

[H.Akston]

No I didn't mean by "unreasonable," that you refuse, under any circumstances, to rationalize murder. I'm not asking you to rationalize murder. That's a bit of a cheap shot and you probably know it. I'm asking you to balance two unalienable rights - liberty and life.


We all have a right to life as long as it doesn't infringe on another's liberty.
The liberty I'm refering to in this case is that of a raped woman to be secure in her own person. This is protected by the 4th Amendment.

By "unreasonable", I meant "unable to be reasoned with". Blind. What right do any of us have to use another's person (i.e. their physical bodies), absent their consent, to survive? Why grant the pre-born superior rights instead of equal rights?

If we can't survive without another's person, and we die because of it, no one has committed murder.

I can't believe that a reasonable person would fight against allowing a woman to stop another's seizure of her person under ANY circumstances.

[derheimwill]

We all have a right to life as long as it doesn't infringe on another's liberty.

This statement is at least imprecise. Liberty does not always take precedence over life. Furthermore, if a mother can be convinced to lower her value of life, her liberty will be permanently constrained.

P. S. Any easy shot is not always a cheap shot ;)

[Ed Current]

• The laws of the 30 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. ^{State Unborn Victim Laws}
• State: Homicide laws of all 50 states protect human life and the dignity of every human being--especially the vulnerable; laws of many states already specifically protect vulnerable embryonic human beings outside the womb; most prohibit destructive human embryo and human fetal research. National: The present Congressional ban on federally-funded human embryo research explicitly excludes "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death"; existing laws requiring separation between the death of an unborn child in abortion and research objectives using the unborn child's tissues preclude the destruction of human embryos as a means of achieving research objectives. International: Documents such as the Nuremburg Code, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reject the use of human beings in experimental research without their informed consent and permit research on incompetent subjects only if there is a legal surrogate, minimal risk, and therapeutic benefit for the human subject. ^{stemcellresearch.org - Founding Statement}
• It may strike some as surprising that legal protection of embryonic human beings can co-exist with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 legalization of abortion.²⁹ However, the Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal life outside the abortion context,³⁰ and public sentiment also seems even more opposed to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of abortion.³¹ The laws of a number of states-including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah-specifically protect embryonic human beings outside the womb. Most of these provisions prohibit experiments on embryos outside the womb.^{32 CBHD: On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research}

[Tarpaulin]

Jim got me to peek under the hood here at FR a bit closer with the Sean Hannity fiasco. I don't like what I've found.

I'll see you in Valhalla.

[k2blader]

Excellent post which I happened upon a little late in the game.

It's sad but not surprising to see so-called conservatives calling pro-Lifers "communist" and "fascist" because we abhor and oppose the murder of babies.

All of this will someday be answered for.

[H.Akston]

What right do any of us have to use another's person (i.e. their physical bodies), absent their consent, to survive? Why grant the pre-born superior rights instead of equal rights?

[Jim Robinson]

BTTT

[cpforlife.org]

Hello Vicomte13,

Have you seen these posts from our fearless FReeper Founder:

Move on from abortion? Not on your life!

Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement

Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

With these in mind would you consider a new PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY in regards to Pro-Abort Rudy?

We simply cannot afford Rudy and you have a very persuasive way of writing that would help get the message out that Jim has already so eloquently begun with the threads above and of course his great forum in general.

Please consider a thread on Rudy. I offer any assistance I can and guarantee that all the Pro-Life PING lists will be on there.