Posted on 06/21/2008 5:42:33 PM PDT by Noumenon
It won't be pretty. Personally, I prefer a Unintended Consequences scenario to an all out Civil War, but who will start it. Not me. I know that. I may join in in my own simple ways. But I have neither the knowledge, ability the courage to begin it.
That doesn't change the original intent of existing law.
I'll support a constitutional amendment outlawing the medical practice of abortion as a matter of convenience.
I will not support changing the current legal definition of a "person", and establishing government authority over them under all current laws starting from the moment of conception without any consideration of discussion of what the unintended consequences of that are going to be.
“The original intent of existing law?”
Abortion was illegal in this country throughout most of its history.
Do you really believe the founders thought butchering tens of millions of babies was a-okay?
You’re not supporting the original intent of existing law. You’re supporting the Left’s barbaric modern abandonment of basic human decency and all natural law. Quit fooling yourself.
bingo
i just found out today in the sunday los angeles times that
ayn rand is a
“crypto fascist”.
And the legal definition of a "person" has been defined as beginning at birth for all of it.
That is exactly what I am doing. And I intend to keep right on doing it.
Which is worse, in your estimation, someone who has an abortion, or someone who refuses to accept Christ as their savior? In the case of abortion, the child ends up in heaven because it is innocent, and the person who has the abortion can, if they become a Christian, be forgiven and end up in heaven too. But a person who rejects Christ ends up in hell, no matter what they do or don't do. Is that your view?
Now if not being a Christian is worse than having an abortion, and you want the government to prevent abortions, shouldn't you want the government to make it illegal to reject Christ, which is far worse and has far worse consequences?
If you say, that would be a strictly religious matter, I point out to you, for most part it is only religious people from religious motives that want the government to prevent abortions.
I am an atheist, but happen to think in most cases abortion is a terrible mistake, and am opposed to it in all cases except the most extreme, such as when it is the only way to prevent the mother's death. Even then it should be her choice. But I don't think it is any of the government's business, because it is a religious issue, and no government can rightly shove anyone’s religious views down other people's throats.
Hank
Leave it to the LA Times to make that kind of dumbass association. Just like an incorrigible poop-eating dog - they’ll do it every time.
There is a lot more detail about this article here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2034824/posts?page=3
Hank
Then all your other words mean nothing. You de facto support abortion on demand.
Thanks for coming in and illustrating my original point so vividly. I doubt anyone could have done it as effectively as you did.
Declare victory, and run away.
I haven’t gone anywhere.
You haven’t changed anybody’s mind, either.
I never expected to, really. I've found that most politically-minded people in America today have no interest in building their political philosophy on the godly foundations of our liberty. They've cut themselves loose from "the ringbolt to the chain of our nation's destiny," and are therefore constantly being tossed about on the waves of circumstance like lost ships.
"The Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny...the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost." - Fredrick Douglass
But, you never know, there might be a reader or two who will be motivated to look to the sources of America's past greatness.
From George Washington's Farewell Address
Then amend the Constitution to get rid of that pesky language about the rights of posterity, and the protections for innocent persons contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Where in the Constitution is that?
People call it the Preamble, but the Constitution doesn't.
The crowning purpose of the document?
"...to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
There's that pesky God-talk again, too. Gotta have a Blesser to have Blessings.
The Founders knew the truth of this verse:
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
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.