It wasn't the Dems who made the deal (think: 7 RINOs).
Posted on 07/29/2005 12:15:49 PM PDT by AFPhys
We have wandered (or have been led) so far away from the philosophical premises of our liberty, laid out in our Declaration, incorporated in our Constitution's limitations on government power, and articulated in the massive writings of America's Founders, that we cannot easily identify the basic premises the Senator's position violates.
How about pulling out just 2 strands as a start?
1. "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."- Jefferson. A "first principle" of our liberty is incorporated in the Declaration's assertion of "Creator-endowed" life, liberty, and rights, one of the "self-evident" truths Jefferson claimed reflected what he called "the American mind" of 1776. JFK said it differently: "The world is different now....And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
The Founders' declaration, if it is to mean anything, must mean that no person or collection of persons--not an overlord in a fiefdom; not a king; not a dictator; not a Priest, nor a President; not a Supreme Court or a Congress; not even a parent--can arrogate to him(her)self(ves) power to either grant or deny what is "Creator-endowed." President John Quincy Adams called the Declaration's assertions, "the only legitimate foundation of civil government."
If the foundation is eroded or abandoned, then where is the security for liberty for any person of any age?
2. "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."- Jefferson
These words should guide the President and the Congress in considering public funding for purposes that conflict with the deeply-held beliefs of a large segment of the population of citizens. Senator Frist can hold whatever personal position he wishes on embryonic stem cells and their uses. So can the Reagan family and all families who are struggling with illnesses. Under current law, all privately can contribute funds for research.
The Founders' Constitution, however, provided no mechanism by which government possessed a legitimate right to "compel a man" or to "take" from a citizen his/her hard-earned money to support the spread of ideas that were "abhorrent" to him/her. The talking heads of the Left loves to quote Jefferson when they wish to "exclude" the use of public funds for "religious" purposes. They should be equally fond of his recognition of the danger of "tyrannical" use of the funds of religious citizens for purposes they consider to be threatening to the liberty of all citizens.
Though we are faced with difficult questions, many of them rooted in scientific discovery, science and technology also have provided us with advancements which allow us to "see" and observe human life in its earliest stages (making it less likely for ignorance to lead us to buy into the "antics with semantics" that devalue life in the womb). Technology also has made it possible for us to have easy access to the writings of the Framers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and to the wisdom of the ages that preceded them. Armed with that knowledge, we can be better prepared to refute "counterfeit ideas" that might lead us to erroneous conclusions.
President Jefferson's First Inaugural contained these words:
"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --1st Inaugural Address, 1801
I saw Frist's speech yesterday and read his speech twice, and for the life of me, that oversight is the ONLY reason I could find that he uses to rationalize using Federal funds...
I just don't like this at all. The House should be ashamed.
I am as dismayed at you are...I thought, I heard Hatch say that they still needed enough votes in the Senate to ensure it to be veto-proof...
BUT, I am afraid that other than Brownback, Santorum, Osborne (ob/gyn), Sessions, maybe Cornyn, maybe MCConnell, I just don't think there are enough Senators that would vote against it....sigh...
My other fear about this, other than the killing of those little babies, is that this will make any legislation regarding abortion that much harder to tamp down...
IF the Senate votes for THIS, then how can they say any fetus is off limits...even in partial-birth abortion...
I just KNOW that NARAL and Planned Parenthood are gearing up to use this legislation some how!
My gosh, Mitt Romney is having difficulty keeping "mother" and "father" on Mass. Birth Certificates because of the hugh gay lobby!
Tony Snow is discussing this on Fox RIGHT NOW
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" — Thomas Jefferson
By whatever mechanism or semantic confusion employed, the "removal" of the "firm basis" of liberty as a "conviction in the minds of the people" is dangerous to the liberty and rights of all.
I know, and it's dissapointing.
May God continue to bless your granddaughter and your family.
It's been a bad week for me with my mother's last sister and two friends passing away.
Maybe I've become too cynical, but I believe Frist may have calculated his stem cell comments to alleviate the effect of his efforts to thwart "poison pill" amendments to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms bill.
It wasn't the Dems who made the deal (think: 7 RINOs).
I predict: Some veto proof bill is certain to pass.
Let's try to make it the best bill we can.
Maybe we can get Frist and others to mollify us to a certain extent.
As I've said, I WOULD SUPPORT a ban on IVF. That's not going to happen, though to me it is the most ethical position.
We have to do the best we can here.
Good points.
I would love to ban IVF altogether, and remove this situation.
What can we do short of that? It seems we have to do the best we can to protect as much as possible.
I'm so sorry about you and your family's troubles. I can't imagine losing so many people at once. I hope you're getting extra sleep and that you always get your way with the Admin Moderator in the future.
Roni's chart is about 4 inches thick (even just the copies I got from the hematologist), and hers is the first karyotype of someone that I actually know, that I've seen.
She's one reason that I'm working on my own website, in order to counter act the disinformation that even docs and scientists receive through our own media and journals and to try to build a community for all those we leave out of the ethical ethics organizations when we insist on religious or degreed affiliation.
Besides, I want to get my two cents worth in, too.
I can't believe those Senators are so afraid of a constitutional confrontation that they'd give the Liberal/Leftists something like Stem Cell Research which they were gaining ground toward anyway, in exchange for less hasseling over Supreme Court Nominees. I guess I'm too stupid to see the benefit to the Dems, unless they are demoralized over the unions lack of unity...
It just doesn't add up to my considerate conservative mind. I can't figure what the 7 RINO's would be winning with this that's really going to help with the constitutional option, or anything else, other than they just want SCR and the devil take the hindmost!!! What am I missing, oh great sage of political scenarios???
What you are "missing" is the gore that makes political sausage. Sen. Frist traded SCR for 4 SC justices. OK, that sux. President Bush will veto SCR. OK, that's cool.
After the dust settles, no *human* SCR (animal SCR has always been legal) and 4 new originalist SC Justices.
Pro-life wins. Conservatives win. RINOs get to be praised by the liberal talking heads for backing SCR. Dems get to portray Conservatives as anti-science.
Everybody wins, just at different levels.
If they were... what an Achilles Heel!!! If they sucked into this scenario hook, line and sinker... That would be stupendous!!! Hey! Rove is good, but nobody is this good!!! (grin)(you got me wonderin, however, but I sure am skeptical)
What you're really sayin is that there really is NO predictability in D.C. politics and our whole system is designed around feinting sell-outs and such... right? (I'm growing from skepticism to cynicism as I type this)
Did you happen to catch the McLaughlin Group on PBS this weekend? Those people are gettin spookier than Art Bell!!! They touched on this subject, too. I guess one could go to PBS.org and review the program if one even wanted to. It's actually getting quite amusing! I like to refer to it as "The Political Gong Show!"
"Robert Klein II, chairman of the state's stem cell institute, said he feared Frist would allow the Senate to approve restrictions that would "handicap or destroy" stem cell studies showing promise in treating and curing disease."
I can't tell you how much I hope that is real.
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.