Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro-Abortion Film Continues to Rack Up Awards, Golden Globe Nomination
LifeNews.com ^ | December 13, 2004 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 12/13/2004 1:42:14 PM PST by Ed Current

Los Angeles, CA (LifeNews.com) -- A film that celebrates a cleaning lady who helps women obtain illegal abortions continues to rack up film critic awards and nominations for others.

"Vera Drake" took home awards from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association over the weekend as top acting honors went to Imelda Staunton, who plays the lead role in the pro-abortion film.

Staunton was also honored at the 17th European Film Awards where the British actress also captured the best actress award.

Meanwhile, contenders for the prestigious Golden Globe awards have been announced and Staunton has been nominated for the best dramatic lead actress award.

Golden Globes are handed out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, a small group of about 90 reports for foreign news outlets. However, the awards are often a good indicator for who will be top prospects to receive Academy Awards and Oscars.


Vera Drake, named best film at the Venice Film Festival of 2004, is set in the 1950s. Vera is a cleaning lady who "helps girls out" when they are pregnant and considering an illegal abortion.

One woman who has a covert abortion is a mother of seven who says she can't afford another child, another is fearful of telling her husband she had an affair.

Vera believes it is her duty to help the women have abortions, but hides her actions from her family. She visits women in their homes and helps them obtain secret abortions she performs at hospitals -- until she is jailed when one of the women is injured as a result.

Staunton is reportedly being considered for an Oscar for her role in the film.

In October, producer Mike Leigh told Ananova press that he is proud of the film and the pro-abortion message it conveys.

"I'm pro-choice but I hope this is a film that does not bludgeon the audience in black and white. It's a moral dilemma," Leigh said.

Vera Drake also swept the British Independent Film Awards taking six top honors and Imelda Staunton snatched another Best Actress honor.

Staunton has admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that she worries about abortion becoming illegal again in the United States.

"Everyone is pro- or anti-, but it's not going to go away. (But) if the laws change and it becomes illegal, it could go back to how it was in the film," Staunton said.

In addition to capturing the Golden Lion prize at Venice, Vera Drake also garnered the Best Actress award.

The film had been rejected earlier in the year by the Cannes festival.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: awards; goldenglobes; moviereview; proaborts; veradrake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time

"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.

The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).

1 posted on 12/13/2004 1:42:14 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

Sounds just like Hollyweird to celebrate an abortionist.


2 posted on 12/13/2004 1:43:05 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists and international criminals than they ever captured or killed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

They're telling a story. The fact is that if abortion is illegal there will always be women who will seek it out no matter what. That's just the facts. Abortion will never be illegal in the US.


3 posted on 12/13/2004 1:47:18 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
Of course it's going to rack up film critic awards! Did anyone think any of them would diss the movie even if it stunk to high heaven? These people protect their own, that's for sure.

The question I have is just how many people have PAID their hard earned dollars to go see this movie?

4 posted on 12/13/2004 1:47:38 PM PST by SuziQ (W: STILL the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
The question I have is just how many people have PAID their hard earned dollars to go see this movie?

Coming soon to a public school near you!

5 posted on 12/13/2004 1:50:43 PM PST by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Hollywood celebrates abortion! Everyone should have one! And homosexuality and lesbianism! If the title character, Vera Drake, were a lesbian abortionist the film would be a shoe-in for Best Picture! Michael Caine won an Oscar for playing the warm, friendly, heart-of-gold abortionist in THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.


6 posted on 12/13/2004 1:56:22 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Judge Jones cited evidence showing that neonatal and medical science "now graphically portrays, as science was unable to do 31 years ago, how a baby develops sensitivity to external stimuli and to pain much earlier than was then believed." The evidence reviewed by Judge Jones on the issue of fetal pain was similar to that produced by the federal government in recent trials on the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion. There, an Oxford-educated specialist in neonatal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeeet Anand, testified that unborn children are likely to feel pain in the womb by 20 weeks of gestation — perhaps even earlier — and that abortion could therefore cause excruciating pain for an unborn child. Reviewing similar evidence before her, Judge Jones concluded that "if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe court knew."

One need only pick up a newspaper to know that Judge Jones is correct — and that knowledge presents the biggest threat to the abortion movement today. Recent advances in ultrasound technology show in utero babies walking or smiling in the womb much earlier than once thought possible. The National Abortion Federation's main response to claims that partial-birth abortion caused severe pain to the unborn has been to note that most other abortions do too. But that sort of candor is in short supply among abortion advocates. It's little wonder that doctors and hospitals that supported the recent challenge to the federal partial-birth-abortion ban fought so hard to keep their medical records from seeing the light of day. The more the truth of their practices is exposed to sunlight, the less public support they can claim. — Shannen W. Coffin is a former deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. A Tough Boat to Roe, National Review Online, September 16, 2004

 

7 posted on 12/13/2004 1:56:38 PM PST by Ed Current (U.S. Constitution, Article 3 has no constituency to break federal judicial tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

more women die today from abortion than before roe vs. wade.


8 posted on 12/13/2004 2:11:01 PM PST by beansox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: beansox

More people are getting abortions. It would only stand to reason.


9 posted on 12/13/2004 2:19:36 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Sounds just like Hollyweird to celebrate an abortionist.

I can't think of any industry that relies more heavily on abortion than the entertainment industry. These beautiful people have figures to watch, don'tcha know.

10 posted on 12/13/2004 2:26:29 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
The question I have is just how many people have PAID their hard earned dollars to go see this movie?
Not many at all. Flick's been out for two months and so far:
 
 
Domestic:
 $1,993,121
   70.3%
+ Overseas:
 $841,528
   29.7%

= Worldwide:
 $2,834,649
 

11 posted on 12/13/2004 2:35:06 PM PST by AnnaZ (JESUS is the reason for the season... Merry CHRISTmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

true, but they like to perpetuate the myth that roe vs. wade put and end to women being hurt by back alley butchers. its simply a misrepresntation of the facts. they are still being hurt, its just now legal to do so.

i also read that most abortionist do not tell the mother the sex of the child. however those who do, the mothers will keep the child if they find out the baby is a boy. you have women killing women and they are calling it womens rights.

dirty little secrets lobbyists like to keep hush hush


12 posted on 12/13/2004 2:39:20 PM PST by beansox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: randog
Re # 5...The question I have is just how many people have PAID their hard earned dollars to go see this movie?

My question is: Why do reasonable people pay to see ANY movie?

Stop vicarious living and get into real life!!!

;-)

13 posted on 12/13/2004 2:48:25 PM PST by squirt-gun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: beansox

I still don't understand your point. With any medical procedure, there is going go be a small percentage that die. Everyone knows this going in. That's why you always have to sign a consent form. Ever read the small print of one of these?


14 posted on 12/13/2004 2:48:31 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: beansox
The "back alley butchers" angle was completely fabricated at the time anyway, according the founder of NARAL. They cited 10,000 cases of women dying annually from back alley abortions, when in reality, they couldn't find more than 200 cases over a period of several years. They weren't even forced to prove the figures they cited. They just said them enough until they became fact.

Of course, that is what liars and killers do, so there's no reason to be surprised by it.

15 posted on 12/13/2004 2:53:48 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Hollywood also likes to present the worst case scenarios when supporting their pro-abort position. In Cider House it was the ever present rape/incest. You cannot only have laws to deal with the worst case scenario. Abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother will die or they are charges pressed for a sexual assualt.


16 posted on 12/13/2004 2:54:08 PM PST by xcullen (DC Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xcullen
Abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother will die or they are charges pressed for a sexual assualt.

Couldn't agree more.

17 posted on 12/13/2004 2:55:42 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Posted on 10/14/2004 10:03:55 AM PDT by No Surrender Monkey


An appeals court on Wednesday rejected a state law that would require doctors to tell women about the risks of abortion before performing the procedure.

The law, also known as the ''Women's Right to Know Act,'' also would have compelled doctors to give patients a state-produced flier on alternatives to abortion, including information about medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care. The materials also would include a description of the fetus.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and ''runs afoul'' of Florida law for several reasons, including violating a woman's right to privacy.

''The Act is unconstitutional because, on its face, it imposes significant obstacles and burdens upon the pregnant woman which improperly intrude upon the exercise of her choice between abortion and childbirth,'' wrote Judge W. Matthew Stevenson in the unanimous, three-justice opinion.

The Legislature passed the informed-consent law in 1997 but it was stalled, pending legal challenges from a coalition of abortion-rights advocates and providers.

Marshall Osofsky, a West Palm Beach attorney and co-counsel in the case, called it ''heartless'' to force a rape or incest survivor to discuss with her doctor the option of carrying her pregnancy to term.

''It was the state trying to set up roadblocks between a patient and her doctor,'' he said in a phone interview Wednesday.

Jackie DiPietre, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health, said late Wednesday afternoon that the state is reviewing the ruling and had not decided whether to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

Bebe Anderson, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights and a co-counsel in the case, called the law ``part of an ongoing campaign by the anti-choice movement to mislead women.''

Anderson said 21 states currently have ''some sort of bias counseling laws'' for informed consent on the books.

Lynda Bell, spokeswoman for Florida Right to Life, had a different view.

''It really is sad that the courts are upholding this,'' she said. ``No matter what side of the issue you're on, women have a right to know all of the ramifications of abortion.

``It's purely and simply information. Abortion is the one decision you can never take back.''


18 posted on 12/13/2004 2:58:56 PM PST by beansox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

those cases make up for less than 2% of abortions performed.


19 posted on 12/13/2004 2:59:36 PM PST by beansox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: squirt-gun
>My question is: Why do reasonable people pay to see ANY movie? Stop vicarious living and get into real life!!!

Damn straight! Who has time
for movies when TV has
three CSI shows?!

If I hit a show,
I'll miss what's going on in
Las Vegas, New York

and Miami! Geesh!
People need to sort out their
life priorities!

20 posted on 12/13/2004 3:00:55 PM PST by theFIRMbss (;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

Does the movie deal with the post abortion trauma that causes an increase in drug abuse, depression and suicide for women who realize it was a baby??

Pray for W and The Victims of Abortion


21 posted on 12/13/2004 3:02:08 PM PST by bray (Keep Christ in the Manger!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beansox

That's a higher percentage than I thought.

So 98% of all abortions should be illegal. I can live with that.


22 posted on 12/13/2004 3:05:06 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: beansox

Obviously, that ruling is just plain ridiculous. Everyone should know the risks of every medical procedure done to them. (For that matter, every medication too. (My husband past out last week because of a medication reaction last week so don't even get me started!) The reason I keep responding to you is that this in and of itself is not a good enough reason to outlaw abortion. It's just not. When seeing the statistics, most women will take the chance.


23 posted on 12/13/2004 4:24:34 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

no a good reason to outlaw abortion is because its MURDER.
You can say its your body and its your choice, but your not killing your own body. keep telling yourself that its a choice, i guarantee you, your aborted children will be standing at the gates of heaven when you try and enter. God have mercy on your soul.


24 posted on 12/13/2004 4:28:46 PM PST by beansox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: beansox

I respect your viewpoint. And I know because it's such a personal, religous one, that you feel strongly about it. I believe it is a woman's choice. I pray it will be to have the baby. But I also pray that abortion will never be outlawed.


25 posted on 12/13/2004 5:00:12 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ

So that's why the critics are hailing the movie; they're trying to drum up business for it!


26 posted on 12/13/2004 5:06:50 PM PST by SuziQ (W: STILL the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

Just think of the irony. We are condemning scott Petersen for doing to Conner what his mother could have done by hiring a medical hitman, and there does not seem to be overmuch consternation abouthe paradox.


27 posted on 12/13/2004 5:11:12 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

The purpose of criminalizing it is not to stop it, although that would be a welcome incidental benefit. Criminalizing murder has never and will never stop it. It simply provides criminal sanctions for those who request and perform it. It would probably deter many, if not most of the women considering it, and thereby save thousands of innocent lives, which should be one of a government's highest priorities. Criminalizing this disgusting procedure (if purely elective) is a statement of society's antipathy toward it expressed in law.


28 posted on 12/13/2004 5:18:39 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

It's never going to happen. I just think that you guys should take all of your passion and use it for education and family planning instead.


29 posted on 12/13/2004 5:19:43 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

You may be right. This is another example as to how relativism has trumped objective morality in favor of the protection of innocent life. Society and civillization is not well served by this trend.


30 posted on 12/13/2004 5:23:00 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

It's just reality.


31 posted on 12/13/2004 5:27:15 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Reality can and should be altered those people who realize that law should reflect the time honored precepts of Judeao Christian beliefs and the best of the Western philosophical tradition that serves to protect innocent life. Law is enacted by human beings who hopefully recognize those truths that are best crystalized in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the US constitution.


32 posted on 12/13/2004 5:36:40 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
"Everyone is pro- or anti-, ..."

No matter how you package it... murder is still murder.

33 posted on 12/13/2004 5:39:58 PM PST by Luke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Well..that being said..it's never going ot happen.


34 posted on 12/13/2004 6:06:31 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

As of this point in time I am sadly forced to agree with you, but more and more people are realizing that the foundation of this current regime is Roe vs Wade, the worst Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States, and I DO believe that this constitutional abomination CAN be reversed. Each individual state could than use it's police power rubric to establish it's own abortion law, as a proper Federalist structure would dictate.


35 posted on 12/13/2004 6:22:07 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Frank, use your passion in other ways. You're wasting your time.


36 posted on 12/13/2004 6:23:10 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; firebrand

ping


37 posted on 12/13/2004 6:23:36 PM PST by nutmeg ("Let the UN investigate itself." - Juan Williams (Fox News) 12/10/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

It is never a waste of time to employ passion in the defense of innocent life and the constitution. One day when this nation enters a more enlighted age, I hope that it will collectively look back on a national regime of often state funded on demand abortion in the same spirit as today we look back on those who exercised their "choice" to own slaves or the Nazi's to "choose" to round up Jews for extermination.


38 posted on 12/13/2004 6:40:23 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

It is never a waste of time to employ passion in the defense of innocent life and the constitution. One day when this nation enters a more enlighted age, I hope that it will collectively look back on a national regime of often state funded on demand abortion in the same spirit as today we look back on those who exercised their "choice" to own slaves or the Nazi's to "choose" to round up Jews for extermination.


39 posted on 12/13/2004 6:40:55 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

As a Jew, I truly don't care for the comparison, thank you.


40 posted on 12/13/2004 6:46:58 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Ans as a descendant of African slaves, I think the comparison is particularly apt. Political correctness cannot be allowed to trump the truth.


41 posted on 12/13/2004 6:54:26 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Legal abortion and the forced extermination of Jews is a far stretch. It's a reach, and not a very good one at that, and better than I'm sure you can do.


42 posted on 12/13/2004 6:58:37 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
The reason I keep responding to you is that this in and of itself is not a good enough reason to outlaw abortion.

The only reason to outlaw abortion is because you are inflicting pain and death on another human being.

43 posted on 12/13/2004 7:01:12 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
Here is a "wonderful little book for children -- pro-life!

Angel in the Waters -- New Pro-Life book for children [Tissue Alert]

44 posted on 12/13/2004 7:02:34 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Well..that being said..it's never going ot happen.

Do you want it to happen?

45 posted on 12/13/2004 7:02:58 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

I've already stated, unabashedly, no. I don't want abortion to be illegal.


46 posted on 12/13/2004 7:04:56 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
Ans as a descendant of African slaves, I think the comparison is particularly apt. Political correctness cannot be allowed to trump the truth.

Indeed, why should ones personal right to "convenience" negate the rights of other people to the fundamental right to "life." Its even more an abomination when natural order dictates a responsibility for the first party to nurture that life.

47 posted on 12/13/2004 7:05:20 PM PST by WritableSpace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I've already stated, unabashedly, no. I don't want abortion to be illegal.

OK. So you who want the status quo are telling us who don't want the status quo shut up and go away. Can't say I'll take the advice.

48 posted on 12/13/2004 7:06:40 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Boiled down to it's essence it is very much akin. It is a matter of who has the POWER to determine how or even whether a human being should be allowed to live. I have the POWER to enslave you, or to exterminate you, or to hire a medical hitman to terminate you, and I will CHOOSE to exercise it. It simply requires that I deny you your humanity, in contravention of the principles of the Declaration, which reads "that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, amongst these are the right to LIFE", etc.

No, it is not much of a strech at all.


49 posted on 12/13/2004 7:08:18 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Oh, please. This is why your side will never win.


50 posted on 12/13/2004 7:11:18 PM PST by Hildy ( The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson