Posted on 11/15/2010 8:45:56 AM PST by julieee
Blackmun bought the argument that unborn babies are not persons; however, there is NOTHING to stop a future Court decision from reversing this.
The reality is that there have been incredible advances in pre-natal medicine and the care of premature babies. The definition of a "viable" fetus is completely different than it was in 1973 and there is every reason to believe that there will be even more advances in the years to come.
Glad to see he rode the lightning!
” Two pro-abortion trolls, domenad and phobia-dude, get the ZOT in posts 79 and 66.”
Good ZOT! If I am fanatical about anything in this life, it is protection of the unborn.
If there was ever good zot material, that was it...
As one pro-life, bible-clinging redneck to another:
Yeah!
Which is even more absurd than the suggestion that the Preamble isn't really "part" of the Constitution (then again, I'm sure it makes total sense to those who think that a baby isn't really "alive" until it can eat and breathe on it's own).
It seems to me that argument would only hold weight IF the authors of the Constitution believed the Republic would quickly fail. If they did not, and truly hoped not, then they would have specifically desired to secure blessings that had substance for the very real posterity who would succeed them and their generation.
And this is even more impossible.
The Preamble speaks of a "more perfect Union" and this is a direct reference to the "perpetual Union" referenced in the Articles of Confederation, the Fathers wanted a more perfect AND perpetual Union(this is also the main argument against the thirteen states that signed the Articles being allowed to secede from the Union), not something that would terminate. The Founding Fathers risked so much personally, it is unthinkable that they wouldn't have envisioned the Republic lasting in perpetuity.
FR is in danger of moving to a model similar to DU where voices of reason are stomped on.
Voices of reason? You mean like pro-abortion ones like domenad who just went down in flames?
You like to live dangerously, I see.
Excellent, fact-based argument.
Did the Founders envision "posterity" endowed with rights prior to their birth?
They established language that would "secure" those rights for that posterity, so my argument would be that they saw that posterity ALREADY endowed with rights, and that prior to their birth.
ALL of the Founding Fathers (even Jefferson and Franklin) believed in Creation as described in Genesis, there is NOTHING to suggest otherwise (keep in mind that the term "Creator" in the Declaration was actually Jefferson's idea).
Furthermore, they understood that rights came from God and now government.
The only logical reference they would have had to WHEN each individual was endowed with these rights would have been Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.
What the HEY!!
Was that guy stupid, or what?
Hadn’t he been around long enough to know who runs this show?
You were a lot mor patient than I would have been, Jim.
Whoa, that domenad dude committed sepuku big time. Mercy!
Voices of reason? It’s unreasonable to expect that conservative voices demand our representatives fight against abortion? Do you have any clue as to what you’re saying?
If you think it’s more important to sell our souls to achieve super majority status in the Senate, than to live by our beliefs, then you’re a collaborator in all the worst sense of that word.
}:-)4
Suicide by zot. It’s never pretty. Well, OK, the flashing lightning is kind of pretty.
}:-)4
People seem to forget that the GOP had control of the House for over a decade and the Senate for most of that time. During much of this period we even had a GOP president.
What happened, government still grew out of control and an innocent American baby was still killed EVERY 24 SECONDS.
People who refuse to stand up for innocent life do not have the right to complain about what government does.
I find it interesting that these two ZOTS came within a day of Jim posting his statement on abortion. Either these people decided to make this thread their swan song, or they didn’t take Jim seriously.
But, if you’re ambivalent about holding to moral, God-given, rights, then you’re not the sharpest knives in the set...
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.