Posted on 08/01/2011 7:12:48 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
When you're talking about life and death, there is no other reasonable approach, since people are either alive, or they're dead.
...nothing but a cynical attempt to keep the issue alive without ever having anything actually get done about, so that you can continue to beat the drum and get donations or whatever.
A perfect description of the organizations that are pushing immoral, unconstitutional "fetal pain" legislation. Every one of them. But inaccurate when directed at me, since not a single one of the pro-life efforts I'm involved with takes donations. They're all completely volunteer and grassroots in nature.
By your approach, abortion never actually gets limited or reduced, so you don't have to worry about your breadwagon running empty.
The folks pushing "fetal pain" legislation have been in control of the pro-life strategy for the last forty years, almost. They have collected billions of dollars in donations. Their strategy, which Michele Bachmann is still following after, is failed and corrupt.
Don’t you feel ashamed to be a pro-abortionist?
“Look, I dont like the deal, but its the best we can hope for so long as Typhoid Barry is potus.”
I have to agree with you. This bill bothers me a great deal but the since the GOP doesn’t control the Senate or the White House, this bill is the best we can do.
And the fact that we don’t control the Senate or the White House should motivate the rest of us to make sure we control either one come November of 2012.
Excellent post.
So basically, you're willing to see nothing at all get done about abortion unless we can destroy it in one fell swoop - which is about as likely to happen in the foreseeable future as the sun is to explode?
That approach means more babies will die in the womb than if we followed the SBAL/Bachmann way.
That's not pro-life.
That's just talking the talk, but purposefully trying to get nothing substantive done.
Let me repeat this slowly, so you will understand - your approach will allow more babies to die than otherwise would happen. Your approach is a pro-abortion, pro-death, entirely disgusting and cynical tactic.
The first principle of this free repubic, stated in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is that the equal protection of the life of every person is the very reason for the existence of government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
The framers of our Constitution put the rights of those who are not yet born, or even yet conceived, on an equal plane with their own rights, and yours, when they stated the ultimate purpose of that document:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And two Amendments, the Fifth and the Fourteenth, explicitly and imperatively demand that every single innocent person be protected:
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Every officer of government in this country, at every level, in every branch, swears to support the United States Constitution, as written. They are required to do so by the provisions of Article VI.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
It couldn't be clearer: legislation that denies the personhood of the child, or admits the personhood of the child, but allows them to be killed, is a clear violation of the oath of office.
Why do you support a gross breach of the supreme responsibility that is involved with the oath?
Why do you not support the equal protection of the supreme God-given, unalienable right, the right to life, for every person?
Why do you think we should support any politician, for any office, who does not even understand these supremely important fundamental principles of our republic?
Answer this question: Do you believe that we will be able to see it clarified that the 14th amendment actually does indeed apply to the unborn children, by some means like a personhood amendment or some similar method, any time in the foreseeable future? I’m not asking if you *want* it to happen, but whether you actually think it *will* happen.
I’m working diligently to clarify it. That’s the only reason it’s worthwhile to endure the sort of personal abuse you’ve dealt out on this thread every day.
If someone wants to pass an amendment, I say go for it. But we already have several personhood amendments in our Constitution now, and all of the state constitutions say pretty much the same thing, generally using a mix of language from the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration.
My interest is more in getting people into office who understand that, and who are completely committed to fulfilling the sacred obligations that go with it.
As to whether it will happen? It is my firm belief that if it doesn’t happen, that this republic will not survive. I agree fully with what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html
The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
That’s all well and good - but it doesn’t answer the question.
Do you think that the 14th amendment will be clarified in this manner at any time in the foreseeable future?
Clarified by whom?
Clarified by whomever is needed to get it clarified.
It must first be clarified in the minds of the people.
So they’ll quit following false flags carried by folks who have absolutely no intention of stopping the daily butchering of thousands of little helpless, defenseless persons.
Nice try at getting around the question. Why don’t you just answer it? Do you believe that the 14th amendment will be clarified in the foreseeable future, by whatever means, so that it is legally understood that it applies to the unborn?
Ah, finally.
In addition to the evils of the dehumanization of the child in the womb, and the denial of the sacred sworn obligation to protect every innocent person in this country, our political and legal elites are rotten with the judicial supremacist lie.
And so, the answer to your question is that we cannot expect the courts to recognize the personhood of the child, and to adjudicate cases accordingly, until we force them to, via the legitimate powers of the legislative and the executive departments, working together to check and balance them as they were designed to do.
Probably even to the extent of beginning to impeach and remove any judge who will not provide equal protection for all as his oath requires.
That *still* doesn’t answer the question, bubba!
I didn’t ask you *how* you thought the 14th amendment would finally be accepted for what it says on this point, but if you think it will happen anytime in the foreseeable future. That is a *when* question, not a *how*.
I don’t see why it’s so difficult to provide a straight answer to it?
From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain, broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day-cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight." -- Fredrick Douglass, JULY 5TH, 1852"I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the RINGBOLT to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in. all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.
So you’re really bound and determined to not answer a simple yes or no question?
That’s really odd.
You asked if and when we would. I said I don’t know. Reading comprehension problems?
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."-- Winston Churchill
No, but apparently you do, since that's not the question I asked. I asked if you *thought* we would see that clarification to the 14th amendment any time soon, not whether you knew when it would happen. An opinion question, which should be easily answerable with a "yes" or a "no." Why do you keep ducking the question?
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.