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

To: MHGinTN

Ther error seems to be Obama thinking that the constitutional right to life of a child is contingent upon whether the mother itended the child to be born or aborted.
Once the child is “born alive” his or her status, rights, and humanity have nothing to do with whether the mother wanted the child aborted. For Obama to allude to the original decision or intent of the mother at that point is bizarre. It has nothing to do with whether a living child deserves rights and medical care. The abortion is over at that point and the child is no longer in the mother’s body.
He can’t argue that the mother has a right for the child to die by being denied food, water, and medical care at that point simply because she wanted an abortion which failed.


30 posted on 08/21/2008 6:32:40 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

“The error seems to be Obama thinking that the constitutional right to life of a child is contingent upon whether the mother itended the child to be born or aborted.” And that is why Obama is rightly accused of defending INFANTICIDE. The sick, constantly interrupting, rdue freak Alan Colmes tries to make it sound like pointing out Obama’s defense of denying these born alive children their Constitutional rights is accusing him of killing children himself. Well, the realty is Obam’s protection of this evil makes him complicit in it. HE IS GUILTY of protecting infanticide!


31 posted on 08/21/2008 6:48:25 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

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