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


1 posted on 08/23/2008 6:18:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

BTTT


2 posted on 08/23/2008 6:25:26 AM PDT by noDixieCan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

hitler’s ovens were probably above oba mao 8’s pay grade too.

any doctor that would kill a baby that survived an abortion may not be a human.


3 posted on 08/23/2008 6:26:47 AM PDT by ken21 (people die and you never hear from them again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

mark


5 posted on 08/23/2008 8:57:33 AM PDT by Christian4Bush (About Obama: "Overinflated balloons pop suddenly and catastrophically." - Bill Dupray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
According to America's Founders, life, and the liberty to enjoy it, are unalienable. The word, "unalienable," implies the great truth of Thomas Jefferson's summation that, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

What many citizens today fail to reason through is that the so-called "right to choose," is an invented euphemism of recent decades designed to mask the ugly act of "destroying" the life and liberty of the child in the womb. By that euphemism, an artificial right was bestowed by unelected justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on only one class of citizens (women) to destroy the Creator-endowed, therefore "unalienable" life and liberty of an as-yet-unborn citizen.

This question is the most important one to be considered in the 2008 election of a President.

Consider the logic utilized by those who say they personally oppose taking the life of the child in the womb, but believes in the trite and tired old phrase of "a woman's right to choose."

Why could a 75-year-old daughter not use the same reasoning to apply to a "right to choose" to get rid of an elderly mother whose care is threatening her own health? (And don't say it is not realistic to claim the health risk that many face!)

Or, why should the nation's law not provide that same "right to choose" to both men and women who consider another individual to be a threat to their personal health or wellbeing, an inconvenience to their lifestyle, or merely a burden they cannot take care of?

Clearly, America's laws against the taking of life do not allow for a citizen's "right to choose" murder as an optional way of solving a personal dilemma, no matter how perplexing or burdensome.

Unmask the faulty logic of the fence sitters, and let them articulate what is their real reason for favoring the taking of a life in the womb! Is it not possibly because they do not see children in the womb as beings "endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Whichever candidate who's most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand this basic principle underlying our liberty and the American Constitution is the only logical choice to lead this nation, in this voter's humble opinion!

6 posted on 08/23/2008 10:41:36 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

7 posted on 08/23/2008 10:51:03 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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