We already had a sample:
And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of these creatures in this country.
Living here:
Pretty cool. Huh?
Have a nice day.
Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said on Fox News Sunday.
The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was surprised by the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson.
"But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life," said Huckabee, a conservative who is challenging Thompson's claim to the title.
"Fred's never had a 100 percent record on right to life in his Senate career. The records reflect that. And he doesn't support the human life amendment which is most amazing because that's been a part of the Republican platform since 1980," Huckabee said.
In a pre-recorded interview on ABC's "This Week," Thompson said Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion, should be overturned, with states allowed to decide individually whether to permit abortions.
"We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade," Thompson said in the interview, taped Friday.
Huckabee also previewed his first television ad of the campaign on the program. The 60-second spot stars actor Chuck Norris, and is scheduled to begin running in Iowa on Monday.
"My plan to secure the border. Two words: Chuck. Norris," says Huckabee, who stares into the camera before it cuts away to show Norris standing beside him.
"Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter, who'll protect our Second Amendment rights," says the tough-guy actor, who takes turns addressing viewers.
"There's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard, only another fist," Huckabee says.
"Mike Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business," Norris adds.
"When Chuck Norris does a push-up, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the earth down," Huckabee says.
"Mike's a principled, authentic conservative," says Norris.
In closing, Huckabee says: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse. He tells America how it's going to be. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approved this message. So did Chuck."
Huckabee acknowledged that the ad probably won't change a lot of minds.
"But what it does do is exactly what it's doing this morning," he said. "Getting a lot of attention, driving people to our Web site, giving them an opportunity to find out who is this guy that would come out with Chuck Norris in a commercial."
All states must adhere to the basic protections of the God-given rights to life and liberty.
For any state to begin to legalize murder, or rape, or theft, or any number of other crimes which abrogate the unalienable rights of any of the poeple of this country, is to make the Constitution meaningless, a dead letter.
By the way, the only way you can believe that is if you agree with the author of the Roe vs. Wade decision, Justice Blackman, that unborn babies are not persons.
The problem is that abortion is not defned as murder; if it was it could be stopped and prosecuted.
In reading the US Constitution, which of the following more closely connects with something actually FOUND in that Constitution?
Choice A - Abortion should be available on demand due to privacy issues (as ruled in Roe vs. Wade).
Choice B - Abortion should be illegal in the US because of the 14th Amendment - the right to due process (and possibly the right of representation).
One involves something completely unrelated to the supposed Constitutional grounds used to decide, the other might be at least partially opened up to aligning with existing Amendment.
What screwed up courts we have.
We already had a sample:
And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of these creatures in this country.
Living here:
Pretty cool. Huh?
Have a nice day.
See post #91.
The right to life is not absolute. Think death penalty, for example, in addition to murder by self-defense. But in those cases, we don’t call it murder.
The states were starting to make it legal.
Can you please explain to us the moral difference between a terrorist killing an innocent American citizen, and the abortionist brutally killing the unborn child?
The terrorists would have to blow up most of our major cities to approach the numbers of Americans killed since 1973 by the Planned Barrenhood ghouls and their enablers.
Yep, old Chuck Norris is going to single handily "secure the border". Great plan, Mike..
Goes to show how serious he takes this issue...NOT!
sw
As long as the states provide due process, then the feds leave it to the states, for the most part. The Constitution only addresses losing the right to life in the context of due process.
See post #91.
Bump again.
And, His protection of America can always be withdrawn.
"We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword to future ages. And what is worse, Mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth Prayers, imploring Assistance in Heaven and Its Blessing on our deliverations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business; and that one or more clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service." - Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, 1787. "
That already happens as “child endangerment” -
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DE1639F932A15754C0A960958260
If you say instead 'the homicide of unborn children', you are committing an egregious rhetorical fallacy, specifically, the assumption of your own conclusion. Until there is a determination, in law, of the 'start' of life -- not just differing opinions -- the term 'homicide', denoting as it does 'killing of a man (or human being)' is also inaccurate.
You are correct only in that the Framers could not possibly have anticipated the depths to which Americans of later days would sink.
You are perfectly welcome to your views on this or any subject. What is unwelcome is your, perhaps unwitting, effort to infuse your emotional viewpoint into law, and, frankly, your attempt to lecture (''you must understand'', as if I do not, for example).
There's little positive use for zealots of any stripe, particularly those who, just like the Left, pervert language to their own ends.
Ta-ta.
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.