Posted on 08/31/2010 4:17:24 PM PDT by wagglebee
Then, I take it that you're happy as a clam with our current government and it's espousal of the left's brand of morality. After all, it's morality... and it's coming from the government, it's just not the kind I approve of.
See what happens when you give the government enough power to espouse and enforce morality? Eventually, someone with a form of morality you don't approve of gets into power... and then uses that power *YOU* gave the government.
So I do not believe we can have functioning liberty without a fundamental respect for life and abortion is antithetical to Natural Law since it deprives the most innocent and helpless individual of all liberties.
Again, true. But again, a political movement's focus on limiting government in no way implies or causes a lack of "a fundamental respect for life."
SPOT ON!! Well stated.
Rome.
I disagree with you only in method.
First, we can’t even begin to truly impact the laws of our nation until we address the present emergency of limiting the federal government.
We have 2,000 page bills that NO ONE has read passed and imposed on us as if the process and result is no more important than chewing a piece of gum.
Working to address this constitutional emergency in no way denies or hinders anything you are talking about. Rather, it opens the way for Americans to have greater freedom to ensure that the laws under which we are governed actually reflect who we are.
Pro-Lifers are a tough foe. Just look at how Planned Parenthood has been outspending the pro-life crowd with not much to show for it these days except a number of recent losses to the pro-life folks!
In my view, the qualifier “when abortion was ignored” is so subjective as to be meaningless.
And Beck refused to take a stand on abortion on O’ Reilly..He said he was not about “social issues”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Rome? Fiscally conservative? The same empire that collapsed because the government couldn’t afford to pay for all the things it promised it’s citizenry?
The same Rome that had the government simply give out money to the citizenry? The same Rome that subsidized bread for the masses? (Though, I do see a lot of parallels with the US, but we ain’t all that fiscally conservative right now, now are we?)
Yeah, right... fiscally conservative. Pah!
Try again on that one.
Yep.
Exactly.
You are so very right.
Oops, sorry, “without” should be “within” our constitutional form of government.
I am solidly Pro-Life, but the Tea Party movement must be about Lower Taxes and Lower Deficits.
That means getting the federal government out of the business of subsidizing, encouraging and forcing the States to allow abortion.
After that it's a state issue, or a matter of constitutional amendment.
Can you live with that?
Um, no. Conservatism and avarice are not identical. You make a good point that avarice can produce desirable side effects, but that’s really not the same thing as actual conservatism.
I understand that it probably isn’t realistic the way I would go about things, if I were in charge.
I would just throw out everything and start as if I were creating a new country, only using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the blue print, which of course, is based on Natural Law Theory, which the Founders knew NEVER evolves. Common sense and reason would proceed from there.
That is a little too idealistic, I think :)
Rome, through their tyrannical collection of taxes and tribute under threat of death and destruction basically had the money to subsidize the masses. They collapsed only because they had become militarily weak and unable to continue to spread their tyranny throughout their empire.
Rome was fiscally conservative (in that they effectively lived withing their means) for hundreds of years longer than the United States. They managed to be "fiscally conservative" only because they were a tyranny. If they did not have the Roman Army at the ready to collect taxes and tributes, they would have collapsed hundreds of years before they did.
Tyrannies have an easier time being fiscally conservative than democracies. Democracies collapse because the people discover that they can vote themselves money from the Treasury. It is rare indeed that a democracy can remain fiscally conservative for even a single generation.
Sorry fightinJAG, you have it backwards. Government must defend life, or liberty means nothing. You aren’t counting the kids who never see the light of day when you pontificate about liberty. Where is their liberty? Who will defend it? How will it be guaranteed?
Furthermore, how do anti-abortion laws diminish your liberty? Or do you regard abortion as a liberty?
I emailed one of the Tea Party people and said they need to include the life issue.
It was gratifying to see so many pro-God people at Glen Beck’s rally. Maybe the West will be saved after all.
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.