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

Skip to comments.

Pro-Life Measure Voted Down in Colo.
Christian Post ^ | Nov. 3, 2010 | Nathan Black

Posted on 11/03/2010 6:12:22 AM PDT by Colofornian

Colorado voters on Tuesday rejected what was said to be the nation's only pro-life amendment.

Personhood Amendment 62, which would have given human rights to the unborn, was defeated by a nearly 3-to-1 margin. This is the second time the pro-life measure was voted down.

"Tonight’s victory sends a strong message that Colorado is a pro-choice state," Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Monica McCafferty told The Colorado Independent.

After a failed attempt in 2008, "pro-life missionaries" and volunteers were optimistic this time around as they mobilized churches and the pro-life faithful. Language was also altered to define "person" to include "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being" as opposed to "any human being from the moment of fertilization."

Opponents criticized the amendment, saying it would not only outlaw abortions but also ban emergency contraception that interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg as well as embryonic stem cell research.

But proponents of Amendment 62 pointed to the approximately 20,000 deaths through surgical abortion that occur every year in Colorado. Tens of thousands more are killed through chemical abortions and research, said Personhood Colorado Director Gualberto Garcia Jones.

"Twenty-thousand people is enough to fill the Pepsi Center. Twenty-thousand people with little arms and legs, eyes and ears, eyelashes and fingernails, and rapidly beating hearts are exterminated," he wrote in an earlier commentary.

"Amendment 62 stands for the revolutionary ... proposition that all human beings are created equal and are endowed by their Creator, not the government or the Supreme Court, with inalienable rights such as the right to life, due process of law, and equality of justice," he said. "Amendment 62 loves all human life with a wild abandon; the opposition loves power of the developed over the developing human being with a fierce defiance of science, reason and humanitarianism."

The measure was endorsed by Pam Tebow, mother of NFL rookie quarterback Tim Tebow.

"A child's right to life begins at conception, not at birth," stated Pam, who had been pressured to have an abortion by her doctor when she was pregnant with Tim.

Amendment 62 was the only pro-life law on the 2010 ballot in the nation, according to Personhood Colorado. Meanwhile, signatures are being collected in other states, including Florida, to get a personhood measure on a future ballot.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: 2010midterms; abortion; amendment62; co2010; culturewars; personhood; prolife; prolifevote
Well, Colorado was one of the first states to liberalize abortion laws (along with Hawaii and NY). Some things don't change.
1 posted on 11/03/2010 6:12:23 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

How sad....but don’t give up folks. Keep working for this!


2 posted on 11/03/2010 6:19:17 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

How the hell can you even think of killing babies in the womb is beyond me. There’s a special place in hell for these people.


3 posted on 11/03/2010 6:23:02 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

was the measure poorly written? funded? what? Hate this happenend.


4 posted on 11/03/2010 6:24:35 AM PDT by rrrod (at home in Medellin Colombia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The left simply cannot kill enough, their lust for innocent blood is unquenchable...evil exists folks and he lives in the minds of the liberals.


5 posted on 11/03/2010 6:32:15 AM PDT by Wpin ("I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Either these "social conservatives" are too stupid to ever learn, or they are Democrat plants. Every time they stick one of their single-issue ultimatums on the ballot, the commies show up to vote in record numbers, and every conservative candidate suffers. Below is part of a discussion from several days ago of this same idiotic practice.

Were this election strictly about "social" issues, I don't believe we would be faring so well.

That's correct.

While a great majority of citizens believe in God and support "social" issues, the vast majority believe (rightfully) that it is not the place of government to legislate morality. The past fifty years or so of attempting to make "social" issues into political issues has been detrimental to both our society and politics. That's a fact. Otherwise, our politics would be Constitution based, our economy would be fiscally sound, and our culture would be morally sound. "Social" conservative politics has been a disaster all around.

Ironically, when our Constitutional republican form of government is upheld, and when the Constitution is used as the base for political debate, the moral health of the society is promoted by default. Without a nanny state, Uncle Sugar, government as father and caretaker, without lifestyles and government business conducted under a train load of debt, citizens are pressed to adhere to some semblance of civilized behavior and fiscal prudence within their communities, in order to survive and prosper within those communities.

6 posted on 11/03/2010 6:34:19 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
"Tonight’s victory sends a strong message that Colorado is a pro-choice death state," Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Monica McCafferty told The Colorado Independent.

Call it what is really is, Monica.

7 posted on 11/03/2010 6:35:16 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Same result as last time with this same amendment here in Colorado. The problem is that this is a very bad legal approach and it should now be seen that continuing to approach this issue from this angle is simple tilting at windmills.


8 posted on 11/03/2010 6:46:15 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from The Right Stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The vast majority of Americans do not want abortions for convenience, or late-term abortions for any reason.

But 90% of Americans, if their teen daughter was raped, would send her for a first-trimester abortion in a nanosecond.

The pro-life movement - nationally, and here on FR - is in complete denial about this.

9 posted on 11/03/2010 7:29:38 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The official state deity of CO is Moloch.

Judgment is coming.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

10 posted on 11/03/2010 7:56:54 AM PDT by The Comedian (I really missed you. Next time, I'll adjust for windage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
You are correct. No matter how morally corrupt the idea of abortion is, most Americans wish to retain that option if it is in their interest.
11 posted on 11/03/2010 8:04:43 AM PDT by eastforker (Visit me at http://www.eastforker.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
""Tonight’s victory sends a strong message that Colorado is a pro-choice death MURDER state," Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Monica McCafferty told The Colorado Independent."

Call it what it really, TRULY is...

12 posted on 11/03/2010 8:07:24 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Mantra of the left: 'It's only okay when WE do it.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
The Freepers who are most vocal on pro-life issues seem to be firmly in the "all or nothing" camp.

I respect their consistency, but a demand for all or nothing in this case seems to produce, in every case, the "nothing" alternative.

13 posted on 11/03/2010 8:11:06 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"But 90% of Americans, if their teen daughter was raped, would send her for a first-trimester abortion in a nanosecond."

According to church teaching, abortion is wrong under any pretext. Playing devil's advocate here, but how is the pregnancy in any way, shape, or form the BABY'S fault? Isn't the BABY the one which has no voice/DEFENSE against anything?

Just sayin'...

14 posted on 11/03/2010 8:35:08 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Mantra of the left: 'It's only okay when WE do it.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"But 90% of Americans, if their teen daughter was raped, would send her for a first-trimester abortion in a nanosecond."

According to church teaching, abortion is wrong under any pretext (with the exception of saving the mother's life in cases where childbirth will cause certain death). Playing devil's advocate here, but how is the pregnancy in any way, shape, or form the BABY'S fault? Isn't the BABY the one which has no voice/DEFENSE against anything?

Just sayin'...

15 posted on 11/03/2010 8:36:26 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Mantra of the left: 'It's only okay when WE do it.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Strike the “Devil’s advocate” part...lol. Not working on all cylinders this morning, I guess! :-)


16 posted on 11/03/2010 8:38:01 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Mantra of the left: 'It's only okay when WE do it.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
What would be better:

A referendum that saves 90% of unborn lives, and passes, or a referendum that saves 100% of unborn lives, and fails by a 3-1 margin??

17 posted on 11/03/2010 9:04:46 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
The pro-life movement - nationally, and here on FR - is in complete denial about this.

Not really. Pro-life leaders like Gregg Cunningham have been saying that for a long time (20 years!). He would quote a pro-abortion leader saying something similar, and then say that was true.

George Grant wrote a book about Planned Parenthood in the 1980s...he mentioned when abortion records were found in a dumpster outside an abortuary (TX, I believe)...they did a random sampling of the records and found a high % of women who had listed some affiliation to a specific church & pastor.

So the pro-life movement has known this for the past 25 years at least that a high % of women/girls who were getting abortions were members of various Christian and non-Christian counterfeit churches. I've heard a number of speakers reference all this in the early to mid-90s.

One clarification, though...I'd say the % you claim is more in the upper 60s...NOT 90% as you said...although I have no doubt that such a % climbs another 20% in many cities.

Also...to belie your claim that the pro-life movement is in denial about this as it pertains to personhood amendments like this...the LA Times a very long time ago had a poll where a majority of people conceded abortion was murder, but they wanted it legalized, anyway.

Once the frontline groups came along and started putting pictures of aborted babies in political campaign TV commercials (circa 1989-1990) people in this country could no longer claim stupidity or ignorance re: NOT knowing abortions kill baby PERSONS.

Now how is this last polling data relevant to this?

For 21 years people have been comfortable calling abortion murder but still wanting it legal. (They haven't been in denial about that at all; they've been forthright enough to speak it into polling questions when asked)

So this vote reflects the same thing...I would surmise, based upon other polling data, over 1/3rd of Colorado voters who voted against the personhood amendment, if asked, would tell you abortion is murder. IOW, they'll tell you the amendment they voted against does indeed effect living persons...they just want the right to be able to dismember those living persons if it comes down to that.

The pro-life movement indeed recognizes this. People are indeed ethically utilitarian, even when murder is being discussed.

18 posted on 11/03/2010 10:40:55 AM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Knowing that a majority of the general electorate (as well as perhaps a sizable number of Christians) are utilitarians in the privacy of the voting booth, and nevertheless spending significant time and effort on this ballot campaign, strikes me as at least "knowing futility" if not denial.

It sounds as if there are many more hearts that have to be won over at the retail level.

19 posted on 11/03/2010 2:11:26 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Knowing that a majority of the general electorate (as well as perhaps a sizable number of Christians) are utilitarians in the privacy of the voting booth, and nevertheless spending significant time and effort on this ballot campaign, strikes me as at least "knowing futility"...

Ah, now that's a better way of saying it...although you still added "if not denial."

Hey, if God told you that 1% of those on death row were innocent -- and if He was specific in naming names...and if you got a bunch of others to do everything they could to lobby, and cajole, and expose, and investigate, etc...anything to get those specific men off of death row -- and you failed -- how would you feel if somebody accused you of a great exercise in futility?

It sounds as if there are many more hearts that have to be won over at the retail level.

Good analogy.

Imagine if marketers only tried to sale their products with words...no images...no commercials...no billboards...no ads...except just words in commercials...billboards...printed pages.

Think they would sell as much?

Well, we're only about 20 years overdue in showing the reality of abortion -- real aborted babies...real pictures -- more than what's been done...in a couple of political races...or tracts...or a few not well circulated DVDs...or the truth squads that make the rounds on college campuses.

20 posted on 11/03/2010 2:34:45 PM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
Either these "social conservatives" are too stupid to ever learn, or they are Democrat plants. Every time they stick one of their single-issue ultimatums on the ballot, the commies show up to vote in record numbers, and every conservative candidate suffers.

So you're saying legal abortion is a commie practice which shouldn't be opposed? Which side are you on?

I'm not positive the data back up your claim. On the national level, strict pro-lifers are twice as numerous as strict pro-choicers as far as likely voter polls tell us. Personhood also does relatively well in Dem strongholds like Pueblo.

The past fifty years or so of attempting to make "social" issues into political issues has been detrimental to both our society and politics. That's a fact. Otherwise, our politics would be Constitution based, our economy would be fiscally sound, and our culture would be morally sound. "Social" conservative politics has been a disaster all around.

No morally sound culture allows legal abortion. Fifty years ago, abortion was illegal. It is left-wingers who have made this a political fight. You're advocating surrender to a leftist agenda that warps the constitution to invent a right for a doctor to kill an unborn baby.

Perhaps social conservatism is only a disaster because it keeps allying itself with false friends and saboteurs instead of taking the battle to the enemy within the Democratic Party.

The Personhood backers in Colorado don't play well with others and get annoyingly purist. But I'll side with them over anybody who rants about how stupid their positions are.

21 posted on 11/03/2010 4:28:50 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
So you're saying legal abortion is a commie practice which shouldn't be opposed? Which side are you on?

No, that is not what I said. Single issue ultimatums or referendums during a hotly contested election are counter-productive to the proclaimed cause of "social conservatives", precisely because these referenda bring out larger numbers of opponents, who also vote against conservative candidates who would have moved the "social conservative" issues forward, had they been given a chance to win politically. When I lived in Colorado, I watched this happen several times with anti-gay, anti-abortion, and parental sovereignty amendments, all of which I supported, but which turned out to create a backlash against conservative candidates, candidates who would have moved these issues forward had they been elected. The proper avenue would have been to get the conservatives elected first. Now, for instance, you have the open borders, gay mayor becoming governor, and the Obama rubber-stamper continuing as US Senator.

Perhaps social conservatism is only a disaster because it keeps allying itself with false friends and saboteurs instead of taking the battle to the enemy within the Democratic Party.

No, social conservatism is a disaster because its proponents continually put the cart before the horse, getting their issues shot down along with good conservative candidates, instead of getting good conservative candidates elected first, and letting those candidates legislate, instead of trying to change state constitutions or legislate by ballot referendum. (Yes, I recognize that such referenda are legal in some states, Colorado being one.)

In these recent elections, TEA party conservatives won coast to coast (except in Colorado and a very few other places), by confining their campaign message to appeal to the widest majority of the population on the issues that affect that wide majority, such as the financial disaster our country is currently in. Ballot referenda to change a state constitution are going to get massive resistance, and rightly so, regardless of the topic.

I'm not arguing against pro-life or any other "social conservative" issues. I'm arguing against attempted methods of political change that have repeatedly proven to be counter-productive to stated objectives.

22 posted on 11/03/2010 5:47:09 PM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox; meadsjn
The Personhood backers in Colorado don't play well with others and get annoyingly purist.

(Yeah, personally I prefer the Solomon approach...let's de-puricize this "issue" by justing cutting the pre-born babies in half...acknowledge the personhood of the pre-borns to the pro-lifers and allow them to hold a real funeral service for that pre-born...and then allow the pro-aborts to continue reference the "evidence" as a "mom's choice".../sarc)

23 posted on 11/03/2010 9:31:19 PM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; eastforker
I respect their consistency, but a demand for all or nothing in this case seems to produce, in every case, the "nothing" alternative.

Post #23 applies to your rhetoric as well, NS...

24 posted on 11/03/2010 9:32:45 PM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
While a great majority of citizens believe in God and support "social" issues, the vast majority believe (rightfully) that it is not the place of government to legislate morality.

Utter ignorance on your part. The government regulates morality every day.

Laws on the books for...
...murder
...theft
...fraud
...bigamy
...robbery
...etc.
...all reflect somebody's morality...
...unless you think murder, theft, etc. are amoral -- and you can simply "take it" or "leave it" whether you engage in that behavior.

The past fifty years or so of attempting to make "social" issues into political issues has been detrimental to both our society and politics. That's a fact.

That's just your opinion. The "fact" is that everything these days is politicized by somebody -- and most often it's the other side that has politicized the social dimension ...haven't you realized that? or do you have your head in some beach sand somewhere?

Let me give you an example: Corporate bathrooms have become an issue with transgenders and transexuals. Now who politicized that? Conservatives? (No way)

Who politicized the womb? Conservatives? (No way) The womb is suppose to be the most basic private sanctuary on this planet. But when a group of blood-thirsty, $-making, and feminists overwhelm publicly attempt to overwhelm the womb, we have two choices: We can either let the pre-born babies absorb the onslaught all by themselves, or we can become their advocates. It's that simple.

11 Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. 12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done? (Prov. 24:11-12)

Every time they stick one of their single-issue ultimatums on the ballot, the commies show up to vote in record numbers, and every conservative candidate suffers.

Let's say for a moment this is so. If conservatives can't get more excited and passionate and zealous about protecting those most vulnerable in our society, and turn out in record numbers exceeding those "commies show[ing] up in record numbers" because of their blood-thirstiness over the womb, then I could easily see God saying, "Hey, these conservatives deserve what they get."

25 posted on 11/03/2010 9:46:14 PM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

You are right, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, kill everyone on board because I have an agenda, and none will escape, I have spoken!!!


26 posted on 11/03/2010 10:53:20 PM PDT by eastforker (Visit me at http://www.eastforker.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

BTW, all the crimes you mentioned, are not covered by the constitution,those are state crimes,. as they should be, Quit being a nanny elitist by telling other folks how to lead thier lives


27 posted on 11/03/2010 11:03:27 PM PDT by eastforker (Visit me at http://www.eastforker.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wpin

The left simply cannot kill enough, their lust for innocent blood is unquenchable...evil exists folks and he lives in the minds of the liberals.


They are going to get to kills lots of people with Obamacare. The eldery and handicapped are the next on their chopping block through the denial of care. They use a formula to decide if you are worth the treatment to the economy. If you are retired or handicapped...too bad.


28 posted on 11/03/2010 11:24:31 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
You are right, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, kill everyone on board because I have an agenda, and none will escape, I have spoken!!!

(Oh, I didn't consider that. Well, then. You, Eastforker are right! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! Kill everyone on board, including all babies on board within their moms! Because YOU have an obvious agenda! And none will escape, including no baby within the womb! YOU have spoken!)

29 posted on 11/04/2010 4:24:54 AM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: eastforker; All
Quit being a nanny elitist by telling other folks how to lead thier lives

Do you ALWAYS go around refuting yourself in one fell phrase?

Have you actually NEVER stopped to analyze your worldview?

(It doesn't appear that you have...so allow me to do so...so others can avoid your sheer folly)

ALL: Eastforker's definition of a "nanny elitist" is: "Telling other folks how to lead thier" [sic] "lives"
Eastforker thinks that's a primary "no-no"
The "topper" here is that he tells me (I qualify as one of those "other folks") how to lead my Internet-posting life by directing me to "quit" telling others how to lead their Internet posting lives.

Hmmm....and you see no contradiction here how?

Eastforker, you have just qualified yourself as a "nanny elitist." Congrats!

BTW, here's another self-refuting statement so that you can compare your own to:
The only absolute is there are no absolutes [except the absolute that there are no absolutes...oh, I guess that means there is at least one absolute, after all...but you know, that doesn't stop a person from believing there are no absolutes...as long as you realize there is at least one absolute...ad infinitum]

From here on hence, we shall call your similar contribution the "Eastforker Freeper Principle," which I restate for all thusly:

"The primary absolute
is that you shouldn't tell others how to live their lives;
and should others break that Primary Commandment,
then I'm going to have to tell that 'other' that he/she shouldn't live his/her life that way."

30 posted on 11/04/2010 4:46:36 AM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: eastforker; All
No matter how morally corrupt the idea of abortion is, most Americans wish to retain that option if it is in their interest.

ALL: Allow me to "translate" this for you:

No matter how morally corrupt the idea of abortion is =

#1 "Hey, well, I don't think it's 'corrupt' if I postulate this as an up-for-grabs premise...I mean, come on, had I really thought this was corrupt, I'd tell them to 'quit' doing this like I did in post #27."

#2 "Note how cleverly I reduced 'abortion' to a mere 'idea' here -- as if it was some abstract impersonal issue. I have now taken the reality of 4,000 dismembered pre-borns each day and have abstracted them into the mental debate of arguing 'ideas.' Why the next thing ya know, I might on one of these threads describe my eyewitness experience of seeing an 18-wheeler drag a man and his scooter in a local intersection as just an 'idea'!"

most Americans wish to retain that option

#3 "Why see how clever I am. Planned Parenthood talks about 'choice' without ever discussing what they are choosing upon whom. Like Planned Parenthood, I have used a free-floating intransitive verb of being 'pro-option' without really delineating the realities of what that 'option' is...and, of course, I'm quite clever because I was able to use a parallel word to the pro-aborts' fave euphemism for abortion ('choice') without anybody on this thread calling me for it."

"if it is in their interest."

#4 "Why, see how casually I have pulled this off? I float into usage of the word 'interest' as if we're talking about a book club interest, or a chess club interest. Why you'd never guess we were talking about flesh, blood, and guts by the way I deftly stated that."

31 posted on 11/04/2010 5:09:00 AM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: meadsjn

Your post is a steaming pile of bovine excrement.


33 posted on 11/04/2010 6:52:56 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The credit goes to the citizens. So does the blame. That's the price of being the sovereign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
which would have given human rights to the unborn

Such a silly sentence from the "Christian Post" exposes the inexcusable ignorance of those who should be on "our side."

In America, the right to life of every innocent person is recognized as being God-given, and therefore unalienable.

The right to life does not come from man, it comes from our Creator.

It is not given by Constitutions, or amendments, or human laws.

And any Constitution, or amendment, or law, or court ruling, that violates unalienable rights is itself lawless, and destructive of our form of government and our liberty.

34 posted on 11/04/2010 6:57:33 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The credit goes to the citizens. So does the blame. That's the price of being the sovereign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

OH, and BTW, for you information, I am not pro abortion.


35 posted on 11/04/2010 7:06:21 AM PDT by eastforker (Visit me at http://www.eastforker.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
From the article: which would have given human rights to the unborn

Such a silly sentence from the "Christian Post" exposes the inexcusable ignorance of those who should be on "our side." In America, the right to life of every innocent person is recognized as being God-given, and therefore unalienable. The right to life does not come from man, it comes from our Creator.

Excellent point/distinction.

36 posted on 11/04/2010 7:07:46 AM PDT by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

It’s a fact. And you are as obtuse as ever.


37 posted on 11/04/2010 9:52:54 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ping.


38 posted on 11/04/2010 9:55:41 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
BTW, all the crimes you mentioned, are not covered by the constitution,those are state crimes,. as they should be,

And this was a STATE initiative. So what's your point?

Quit being a nanny elitist by telling other folks how to lead thier lives

So tell me, just how is granting humanity to the unborn telling people how to live their lives?

39 posted on 11/04/2010 10:03:12 AM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Pinged from Terri Dailies


40 posted on 11/07/2010 12:33:26 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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