Tea Party Activists Tell Republicans to Avoid Abortion

LifeNews.com ^ | November 15, 2010 | Steven Ertelt

[julieee]

Tea Party Activists Tell Republicans to Avoid Abortion

Washington, DC -- The fiscally conservative tea party activists were crucial to electing pro-life candidates in the 2010 mid-term elections, but now they are calling on Republicans in Congress to avoid social issues like abortion.

http://LifeNews.com/nat-6849

[Ol' Sparky]

Keep your powder dry on the social issues, until you hold the whole government again.

There isn't ANY good reason not to move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and to ban any Federal funding of abortion. That pushes both a fiscal and social agenda.

[wagglebee]

Here’s a question, and it’s a real question not a question that is supposed to be a statement: Can you really see a woman who wants to abort her child saying “Oh well it’s illegal, so I won’t abort my kid.”

Here's a question, and it's a real question, not a question that is supposted to be a statement:

Can you really see a person who wants to muerder a person saying saying “Oh well it’s illegal, so I won’t murder them”?

Does legality stop ALL murders? Of course not, but it stops a lot.

I just don’t think prison time is going to dissuade them,

No, there are people who will NEVER be dissuaded by prison, but most are.

[Alamo-Girl]

Anyone who takes power to take life in one area will eventually extend it to others.

That's why paraplegics, elderly, ill, mentally deficient, etc., are all in danger.

If they can kill babies, then they can kill you.

Oh so very, very true!

[Ol' Sparky]

Abortion is a moral issue that individuals need to deal with on their own.

That is like saying murder is moral issues that people need to deal with on their own.

It is the proper function of government to determine when personhood begins and to protect the right to life of innocent human beings. And, judges nor individuals should be determining those issues.

[wagglebee]

Damn Jim, he only called me "Mr. Douchebag," he must really hate you!

[Responsibility2nd]

Another one bit the dust over here.

[Grunthor]

I can agree with that, I was refferring only to trying a wholesale outlawing of abortion with the baby butchers still controlling two-thirds of the government.

[xzins]

Damn Jim, he only called me "Mr. Douchebag," he must really hate you!

He just met Big Jim Thompson!

LOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Before abortion became legal, being unmarried and pregnant was a horrible stigma. Now not so much.

So I think making abortion illegal would increase the number of children available for adoption.

[Responsibility2nd]

Just Damn.

Hell of way to opus out.

[xzins]

First, it says that the Constitution applies to us and to our posterity. Our posterity is the unborn. This is in the preamble, the purpose statement, of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no opinion that can be rendered that contradicts the preamble. If a judge says, "abortion is OK" and the Constitution says "posterity" is covered, then...

I'm interested in your take on the "Preamble...posterity" argument. It's becoming common. I buy into it, because I do consider the Preamble to be the Constitution's "purpose statement."

Do you have any thoughts?

[wagglebee]

It's interesting that the left loves to talk about how adoption is on the rise in America. What they don't mention is that essentially all children being adopted in the United States are from Eastern Europe, China and Third World countries. For all intents and purposes babies born in America aren't put up for adoption.

[Responsibility2nd]

This just added to the top-of page?

Free Republic is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty constitutional conservative activist web site. Those who cannot live with that should simply stay away!!

Nice.

[50mm]

Two pro-abortion trolls, domenad and phobia-dude, get the ZOT in posts 79 and 66.

To be added or removed from the VK list, FReepmail Darkwing104.

[wagglebee]

I'm interested in your take on the "Preamble...posterity" argument. It's becoming common. I buy into it, because I do consider the Preamble to be the Constitution's "purpose statement."

Do you have any thoughts?

A-G, I would also love to read what you have to say about this, please ping me.

[Alamo-Girl]

I fully agree with your position on the posterity clause of the Preamble to the Constitution, dear brother in Christ!

IMHO, it is a stronger case than relying on the "inalienable rights" clause of the Declaration of Independence - simply because the Supreme Court (and all who take the oath of office) are sworn to defend the Constitution.

Since abortion (ala right to privacy) became a "right" by judicial activism, it seems to me the Supreme Court must lay that decision aside. And to do that, they need a foundation argument in the Constitution, i.e. the Preamble.

I pray that all of the conservative justices will enjoy good health during this administration and that the liberal justices will have a change of heart.

[Alamo-Girl]

Aha! Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Ping to 96 per your request.

[xzins]

And to do that, they need a foundation argument in the Constitution, i.e. the Preamble.

I reject the one argument I've heard against it, that the word "posterity" is intended as an amorphous literary convention, and not as a specific attempt to address progeny.

It seems to me that argument would only hold weight IF the authors of the Constitution believed the Republic would quickly fail. If they did not, and truly hoped not, then they would have specifically desired to secure blessings that had substance for the very real posterity who would succeed them and their generation.

[metmom]

Laws only stop crime if the people care. And people who care, likely wouldn’t be committing the crime in the first place.

People who don’t care about the legality of something will commit the crime anyway.

What the laws do is give the government the teeth to deal with it when it does happen, and sometimes that will sway people.

If abortion were illegal, there wouldn’t be as easy access to it and lives would be saved and perhaps, just perhaps, it might convince someone to not have an abortion due to the consequences.

There are other options available to women who don’t want their children than to butcher them.