Skip to comments.Ronald Reagan Endorses Personhood
Posted on 01/13/2011 2:24:44 PM PST by EternalVigilance
Watch this powerful video HERE.
These “intelligent” lefties are SO afraid that if Governor Palin gets into a position of national power, she will go after their precious abortion. IF President Reagan wasn’t able to get that law struck down, they worry needlessly. However, those of us who hate abortion should not be taxed to pay for free abortions for the heifers who use it as a method of birth control.
Common snese. A person begins at conception.
With all due respect, Governor Palin is not a personhood prolifer. She is pro-choice for states.
I’ve never heard of “personhood pro-lifer”. I would be surpised if she were anything but a champion of states’ rights. The term “pro-choice” has put this country on a slippery slope of anything goes, even murder of full term babies.
If certain women want to have abortions, I can’t stop them; but I do not want to be forced by government to pay for them because they allegedly can’t “afford” abortions. I’ll bet these same women who whine they can’t afford abortions can easily spring for elaborate corn row hairdos and expensive manicures and pedicures. I have to live a practical life, and I expect the same of everybody else.
Oh, and with all due respect, the mere presence of Sarah Palin with Trigg (her Downs Syndrome child whom she chose to carry) she is a silent rebuke to the culture of death that are the Leftists.
Sorry, not killing your child is not a pro-life credential. The idea that it is is offensive, frankly. Do you think Obama is pro-life? After all, he has two living children, right?
Sarah Palin takes the Gerald R. Ford position on abortion, not the Ronald Reagan position.
Reagan believed the child to be a person and therefore protected by the clear provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. That view was enshrined in the GOP platform 27 years ago.
Ford, and Palin, and Paul, and McCain, and Romney Republicans say that it’s up to the states whether or not to allow abortion.
In other words, they’re pro-choice for states.
That is not a truly pro-life position. Their position is the destruction of the cornerstone principle of our free republic: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the right to life...and that the reason for the existence of government, all government, is to secure that right.
I’m surprised that pro-life people haven’t been able to make a dent in the wide open “right” that abortion has become. Even back in the day when abortions were illegal, some women still got them anyway, though I doubt there was quite the number of coat hanger butcher shops in that day as the left claims.
On the contrary, Sarah Palin knew that Trigg had a retardation issue, but still chose to honor him as a God given life rather than to abort him as “defective”. I call that putting your money where your mouth is, and quite an example. One that DUer’s ridicule.
Don’t worry. I doubt that Sarah Palin will run. - Who do you suggest as a good candidate; understanding that he won’t be able to reverse abortion either? If it could have been, Reagan would have done it. I wish it could be; and perhaps conservative appointments to the Supreme Court could roll things back a bit.
Even Blackmun, in Roe, admitted that if the fetus is a person they are OF COURSE protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And that means that constitutionally they are protected on every square inch of American territory, not just in any old state that chooses to protect innocent human life.
So, what say you? Is the child in the womb a person?
Of course, it’s a person. It’s certainly not a kittie cat or a puppy dog. That’s just common sense, as you know.
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.