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

To: EternalVigilance

And Eternal Vigilance bashes prolifers once again! :)

Always on the case, aren’t you?


8 posted on 07/13/2013 3:11:18 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: JCBreckenridge

I didn’t bash pro-lifers. I gave an accurate description of this lawless law.

Which you can’t refute, because like a liberal, you’re going on emotion, not reason. You’re simply following the leaders you’ve devoted yourself to, and letting them do your thinking for you.


11 posted on 07/13/2013 3:16:02 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: JCBreckenridge; EternalVigilance

EternalVigilance is eternally vigilant that no abortion restrictions ever get passed, since such laws never ban 100% of abortions, and he thinks that until such a law does (not that it would be upheld by SCOTUS) that pro-lifers should oppose every other anti-abortion law. That’s why EV and NARAL are always on the same side on every abortion restriction.

Had EternalVigilance been a “gay-rights” activist in the 1980s and 1990s, he would have opposed state laws that allowed same-sex couples to adopt, eliminated orohibitios against homosexual sodomy or banned “discrimination” against gays, since “anything short of a right to same-sex marriage is immoral and hurts our cause.” And had he been a British abolitionist in the 1790s, he would have opposed William Wilberforce’s efforts to ban the slave trade, and would have called Wilberforce a slavetrader after Parliament banned tbe slave trade but exempted a few British colonies from the ban. The fact that the gay lobby’s victories in the 1980s and 1990s paved the way to the legislative and judicial victories that same-sex-marriage zealots have had of late (the argument that “same-sex couples already raise children—aren’t those kids entitled to have their parents [sic] married to each other?”, has been used by legislators, voters and Justice Kennedy), and that Wilberforce’s banning of the slave trade eventually led to slavery being banned by Great Britain altogether (soon after Wilberforce’s death), means nothing to EternalVigilance. He is convinced that he is the modern Wilberforce, as if Wilberforce ever would have been stupid enough to accept a bill that would take us from abortion-on-demand until the moment of birth to a system that at least would ban almost all sbortions after 20 weeks and could lead to Roe being overturned.

But it’s a waste of time trying to talk sense into EternalVigilance, since he’s busy preparing his 2016 presidential run, because, keeping with his mindset of making the perfect the enemy of the good and of throwing away diamonds that are only 99% flawless, he would rather run for the presidency and get 0.001% of the vote than to run for an office where he actually could win and make a dufference.


101 posted on 07/13/2013 7:35:26 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | 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