Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Limbaugh: Rush Answers Abortion Question ^ | 7/8/05 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 07/08/2005 6:06:03 PM PDT by wagglebee

I've saved this and the response to it for today, Open Line Friday, to share with you. This woman is a subscriber at She said, "Rush..." Her name is Anita. "Rush, I'm a die-hard fan. Though I was raised to support a woman's right to choose, since becoming a mother and listening to you over these many years, I've come to strongly believe that abortion is wrong. But because I'm conservative and believe in property rights, I can't reconcile the government's involvement in the ultimate property right to your own body. Can you help me?"

So I thought about this, and I wrote her back. I said: Dear Anita, perhaps I can. Our Declaration of Independence states that as free human beings, we are entitled to LIFE," and I put that in all caps, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration also says that these rights are "inalienable" and "granted by our Creator," God. If our government does not stand for and protect these basic rights, which are the essence of our creation and humanity, then it will not protect any others. In our history, we've had human beings, members of the Supreme Court, give us the disastrous Dred Scott decision, which established that we as human beings could consider certain of our fellow human beings as our property.

Dred Scott permitted whites in this country to own black slaves and eventually this decision was struck down. So, Anita, your child is not your personal property. Your body may be, but your child isn't. Your child is a distinct and individual human being that you helped to create and produce -- and no one owns that child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So she wrote back and she thanked me, said she "hadn't looked at it that way;" she "appreciated that perspective." So I wanted to share that with you. One of the reasons why is because here we've had these Supreme Court decisions on property rights, private property rights, and you can see how some people interpret all of these, and extrapolate them to other issues in what may be the beginning of their education process. So I thought it was a great question that she asked and I was happy to be able to answer it for her.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; cary; dhpl; dittoheads; dredscott; inalienablerights; prolife; roevwade; rush; rushlimbaugh; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: paulat

Friend, what's sick is telling a bruised, traumatized young lady that brutally ripping out and killing the little person growing inside her will make everything well.

61 posted on 07/08/2005 10:21:15 PM PDT by Lexinom (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

You are completely missing the point...I am in no more in favor of killing babies WHATEVER their conception.

It was his implication that women were responsible for rape or incest because they "made their wombs."

We are no more responsible than he is for creating his d* matter how small it may be.

I would NEVER abort a matte what it's conception.

It's his Islamic thinking that has me steamed.

62 posted on 07/08/2005 10:30:23 PM PDT by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It's also 'endowed by their Creator', not 'granted by our Creator'. Very sloppy piece of work.

63 posted on 07/08/2005 10:30:52 PM PDT by toadthesecond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Fruitbat

excellent remarks both yours and the preceding.

"Verbal Preemption"; commandeering of the language, defining the discussion... tried, tested and unfortunately very effective tactics of the left. Thomas Sowell magnificently displays this sophistry in his book, "VISION OF THE SELF-ANOINTED".

The irony of it all, the left - in setting it's foundation upon the cornerstone of the death-culture (abortion and euthanasia) - literally and figuratively "sows the seeds" of it's own destruction (pun intended) with their beliefs. And their declining numbers (fastest growing states/counties are voting republican) bears this out.

Sort of an internal version of the demographic crisis that dooms Europe - and no surprise either, considering the secular/socialist stamp of that continent.

For my part, I've no problem with proponents of the death-cult continueing their chosen path... in the end, it means less leftists, less dhimmicrats (not like the good, Zell-Miller Democrats; we need those...). They choose their fate, they reap the rewards of what they sow.

In the end, the Bell Tolls for us All... but for your lurkers/DUers reading this mini-rant, I gladly say, "you first!".

64 posted on 07/08/2005 11:29:42 PM PDT by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CGVet58

boy, uncharacteristic grammatical/spelling errors in my last. It's late; go to sleep.

65 posted on 07/08/2005 11:36:34 PM PDT by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: paulat
Mea culpa, I misunderstood. I think, if I read his response aright, he was speaking in merely scientific terms, ergo the body generates this, that, and the other to accomodate pregnancy. Obviously there is no way an innocent lady can be ethically culpable for an act of violence committed against her person, such as rape.
66 posted on 07/09/2005 12:46:24 AM PDT by Lexinom (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: paulat

"He's" a she.

And, if you read the post in question, I never said or implied that the rape was the responsibility of the mother, but she naturally has something to do with creating the child.

67 posted on 07/09/2005 12:55:20 AM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: paulat

As an aside, I think we (pro-lifers) ought to choose our battles wisely. The "rape/incest" argument is a red-herring thrown out by the Left which, in reality, is responsible for a very small percentage (I cannot find the number but I think it's <= 3%). The vast majority are first trimester and for purely elective reasons.

68 posted on 07/09/2005 1:00:18 AM PDT by Lexinom (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: The Phantom FReeper
"Not to mention that the body inside the woman is not actually her body. Therefore, as the child is merely within her temporarily and not part of her, she has no right to destroy it."

I completely agree. If you believe in the Bible, you know that your body is not even your own.

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- I Corinthians 6:19-20

69 posted on 07/09/2005 2:08:31 AM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender ("It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." -- Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

A couple quotes as a PING:

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority ... to defend the lives of the innocent ... among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates ... do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors and others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven" (Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii No. 67).

"Every human being, even the infant in the mother's womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic , social, economic or moral "indication" that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life - which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit in itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit..." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Italian Midwives, October 29, 1951)

70 posted on 07/09/2005 5:22:10 AM PDT by (Abortion is the Choice of Satan, the father of lies and a MURDERER from the beginning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Life is the standard of all value.

Abortion is the horrific culmination to a series of irrational choices.

71 posted on 07/09/2005 5:46:14 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

"And the answer is, the baby didn't "invade" you. You in effect invited the baby to come, by allowing somebody to deposit 100 million live sperm into your genital tract. (News Flash: Now known to be the leading cause of pregnancy.) Even if you tried contracpetion, you knew, or should hve known, the risk, and so there's strict liability here."

You say one thing here which I think causes women to "circle the wagons" when it comes to abortion. We as men have a duty to be fathers when it comes to that. We've abrogated that responsibility lately. When I was a little boy the unwanted pregnancy usually meant disaster for little Suzy, but it also meant her sex partner little Johney could forget all about his bright future as well. (Since he had to forget about that football scholarship now and settle down to his life in the windshield wiper factory to support Suzy and baby Johney or Jeannie).

We need to see a revival of strong dominant honorable men again. That will go along way to solving the abortion fiasco. And that without a lot of socialistic laws.

72 posted on 07/09/2005 6:04:57 AM PDT by samm1148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I've repeated that clause for years to those who supported abortion.

So how did they get around this. They decided to re classify a human baby into a fetus. In other words it's not alive yet therefore it has no rights.

73 posted on 07/09/2005 6:06:16 AM PDT by hope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


I'm glad I'm on your ping list. FRegards....

74 posted on 07/09/2005 8:07:03 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (<<< Ad Campaign for Durbin the Turban in profile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: The Phantom FReeper

Yep. The whole "it's just a piece of flesh" argument is ridiculous. If it's just a piece of her flesh, why does it have different DNA?

75 posted on 07/09/2005 8:08:34 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Thanks. Good article.

76 posted on 07/09/2005 8:10:53 AM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: The Phantom FReeper

Correct you only have 2 arms 2 legs. Not 4 arms 4 legs.

77 posted on 07/09/2005 8:36:58 AM PDT by since1868
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Indeed. And "incest" is really just padding the excuses. Non-consensual incest is "rape" and should be classified as such. Consensual incest is as consensual as non-incestuous relations. Heaven forbid a baby is destroyed for the sins of one or both parents.
78 posted on 07/09/2005 8:42:45 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (Abortion is a weapon of mass destruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Yes, of course we understand that this is both Biblical and historically orthodox doctrine. My point is that very often I read such gross ridicule of Biblical Christian doctrine and thought on Free Republic. It does seem that there are more a-moral Libertarians than Bible-respecting Conservatives that comment on Free Republic
79 posted on 07/09/2005 8:54:29 AM PDT by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wingman1
"There are some who would follow up with the question, "Well, granted that the baby is not part of my body, still my womb definitely is: so why can't I eject an embryo or fetus from my womb, just as I would eject an invader from my property?"

You know, I've never heard it phrased like this before. Are there really people who think along these lines?

Yeah. there sure are. They are generally professional philosophers or medical ethicists.

As George Orwell once noted, some things are so preposterous that only "intellectuals" could believe in them.

Here's another Orwell quote I like: "We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

80 posted on 07/09/2005 9:15:33 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Play fair, play hard, nobody hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last

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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson