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

Skip to comments.

2012 America's Party Platform ratified in convention [Feb. 18, 2012]
America's Party ^ | Feb. 18, 2012

Posted on 02/19/2012 3:53:59 AM PST by EternalVigilance

America's Party ratified its 2012 Platform in national convention yesterday, making an already-great conservative document even better, with the expansion of its solid property rights plank and the addition of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution as its primary pro-life language. Text included below for your consideration.


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2012election; americasparty; ap; election2012; elections; platform; thirdparty; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 next last
To: EternalVigilance

“protect” should have been “protection.”


51 posted on 02/25/2012 8:56:33 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: OHelix
You seem to be taking the position that because these "fetal pain" laws, only prevent SOME abortions, but not ALL abortions, that they are WORSE than Roe v Wade because you believe that by failing to ban all abortions, that they are positively asserting that some abortions are legitimate, and by extension, those who support such laws are pro-abortion.

A gross distortion of what I've said over and over again, by the way.

These sorts of bills, which have been codified by "pro-life" Republicans across the land over the last decade, define the child in the womb as a person, and then spell out how and when these persons can be killed. Again, immoral, and blatantly unconstitutional.

52 posted on 02/25/2012 9:01:09 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: OHelix
You seem to be taking the position that because these "fetal pain" laws, only prevent SOME abortions,

Again, dead wrong. These bills prevent no abortions whatsoever. Quite the contrary is true. They help assure that the child-killing holocaust will continue right up until the time God's righteous judgment falls on our national head.

"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." -- Thomas Jefferson

53 posted on 02/25/2012 9:05:01 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"All of the current Republican candidates for president have promised to sign legislation which violates that sacred imperative right out of the gate, ie “fetal pain” legislation that defines babes in the womb as persons, and then allows them to be killed."

I have to assume (since you did not provide it) you mean the Susan B Anthony List Pledge, which by the way was apparently not signed by Romney. Not that it matters to me, but you should modify your claim for the sake of accuracy.

Further, I have to assume the promise you refer to is this: "...advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion."

You've stated explicitly that the legislation "defines babes in the womb as persons, and then allows them to be killed"

Can you show me where in the legislation this definition occurs? Have you even read what they promised to advance and sign?

If you haven't read it, is it even possible for you to make the claims you you have regarding what it defines, what it allows, and what it would prevent?

"They don't prevent any abortions. That's one of the fatal flaw in your assumptions.

It seems to me it is YOUR assumption that they don't. It also seems to me that the only fatal flaw in this discussion is in your logic. Somehow you've equated codifying the protection of some-but-not-all unborn with "codifying the killing" of others. That is INSANELY distorted.

You further defend your position stating that "You don't stop abortion by sacrificing every moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion from the get-go. It just plain doesn't work. We have forty years of such stupid, unprincipled tactics from the "pro-life" industry to prove it. "

What you fail to notice is that "every moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion" you claim has been sacrificed, has in fact been around the whole time and has no more succeeded than what you characterize as the stupid, unprincipled tactics from the "pro-life" industry. In your own words, "It just doesn't work.

54 posted on 02/25/2012 10:03:18 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

Wrong. Romney also supports the same “fetal pain” legislation. It’s on his website.


55 posted on 02/26/2012 4:39:43 AM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

You’re deluding yourself if you think the “pro-life” industry has been making the arguments I’m making for the last forty years.

And Romney supports the “fetal pain” legislation, even though he didn’t sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge. My comments were accurate. It’s right on his website. Go look.

You know, your real problem is that you refuse to truly face up to what the only moral, constitutional and legal arguments are against abortion. That’s why you’re having a hard time tracking.

Even the pro-abort lawyers arguing in Roe admitted that their case would fall apart if the “fetus” or child is a person. So did the pro-abort majority, in the written opinion. Everything turns on that question.

Is the child a person, or not? What say you? If you say NO, you agree with Blackmun, and I’m not sure you’re on the right website. If you say YES, the questions get really simple, really fast. Every civilized person will admit that it is immoral to murder innocents. Everyone who can read can figure out that such an injustice is blatantly unconstitutional. And if it ain’t constitutional, it ain’t legitimate, or legal.

Read the legislation yourself. Read the similar “heartbeat” legislation that is being pushed by the same crowd. Read the Texas Code, which almost a decade ago explicitly recognized the personhood of the child, and then in the next breath allows the abortionists to kill said persons. Read the 2005 “Lacey Peterson” law which was passed by a “pro-life” Congress and signed by a “pro-life” president. Again, it recognizes the personhood of the child, from its biological beginning, and then explains how you can “legally” butcher them.


56 posted on 02/26/2012 4:59:37 AM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You are straining at gnats to perceive a spec in your brothers' eyes that IS NOT THERE! You are doing mental gymnastics just justify IDIOCY and accusing others of being deluded.

If what you say is true:

"Even the pro-abort lawyers arguing in Roe admitted that their case would fall apart if the “fetus” or child is a person. So did the pro-abort majority, in the written opinion."

and the legislation, as you say "defines babes in the womb as persons" then by your own assertion, Roe's case should fall apart.

But you would argue that I'm missing your point, specifically that the law codifies the definition of a person, then allows those in that definition to be killed... YOUR ENTIRE POSITION "turns on that".

BUT YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE the very foundation of your assertion, namely that the legislation defines ANYTHING, much less that it "allows" killing of the "persons" that it's defined.

Can you show me where in this legislation (1) ANYTHING is defined, and where or how it (2) "Allows the killing" of those defined as Persons?

Further, can you explain to me how YOUR ENTIRE POSITION on this matter does not "turn on" those two objectively verifiable issues, and why you should not be expected to offer SOMETHING in terms of documentation to back up those two, so far, absolutely baseless assertions?

Also, I would really love to hear your explanation of how a law that makes some abortions illegal, doesn't prevent any abortions.

57 posted on 02/26/2012 8:20:11 AM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Wrong.

From http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge:

"The following candidates refused to sign the pledge: Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Jon Huntsman, Gov. Gary Johnson."

Romney also supports the same “fetal pain” legislation. It’s on his website.

So post the URL.

58 posted on 02/26/2012 8:55:01 AM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: OHelix; EternalVigilance
So post the URL.

Incidentally, I've looked and been unable to find it myself.

59 posted on 02/26/2012 10:27:40 AM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: OHelix
Took about ten seconds to find using Google.

"I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion." -- Mitt Romney, NRO, June 18, 2011

Which, as I said, is also on his own campaign website:

http://mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/06/my-pro-life-pledge

60 posted on 02/26/2012 12:14:51 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Thank you, I had looked through his ISSUES menu and been unable to find it.


61 posted on 02/26/2012 12:21:22 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

You’re still making Utilitarian arguments, not moral or constitutional arguments. And I’ve already said, even if you somehow manage to save a few via these lawless laws, such laws remain grossly immoral and completely unconstitutional.

If you make an abortion “illegal” at twenty weeks, but codify permission for the child to be killed before that, the child can still be killed at nineteen weeks and 6 days. Every child remains vulnerable, not protected. All they have to do to butcher them is to get to the baby-killer on time.

But our Constitution demands that every person be equally protected, based on the absolute fact that they are a human person, not on the calendar, not on geographical location.

That’s for starters.

Add in the fact that these legislators are a bunch of judicial supremacists, as evidenced by the way this particular legislation is written, among many other evidences, and you have assured that that all will continue to be killed anyhow. You’ve sacrificed, as I’ve said to you multiple times, the only real moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion. Therefore, you’ve surrendered the battle before it has even been joined.

The Planned Parenthood ghouls laugh at the people pushing this stuff.

They don’t laugh at the assertion of the personhood of the child and their resulting explicit, imperative protection by the Constitution.

For very good reasons.


62 posted on 02/26/2012 12:35:52 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

BUT YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE the very foundation of your assertion, namely that the legislation defines ANYTHING, much less that it “allows” killing of the “persons” that it’s defined.

Can you show me where in this legislation (1) ANYTHING is defined, and where or how it (2) “Allows the killing” of those defined as Persons?

Further, can you explain to me how YOUR ENTIRE POSITION on this matter does not “turn on” those two objectively verifiable issues, and why you should not be expected to offer SOMETHING in terms of documentation to back up those two, so far, absolutely baseless assertions?

Also, I would really love to hear your explanation of how a law that makes some abortions illegal, doesn’t prevent any abortions.


63 posted on 02/26/2012 12:40:48 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

The first example that I’m aware of that did exactly what I say - define the child in the womb as a person, and then codify permission for the abortionists to kill them - was the 2003 Prenatal Protection Act, which was passed by a “pro-life” Republican Texas legislature, and signed into “law” by a “pro-life” Republican Governor, Rick Perry.

The Texas Penal Code §1.07, says that a “person” “means an individual, corporation, or association.” (§1.07.38) An “individual” “means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” (§1.07.26)

Chapter 19 of the Texas Code deals with criminal homicide. Texas Penal Code §19.02 clearly states that a person commits the offense of murder if he “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.”

Sadly, that same act also created Texas Penal Code §19.06, which states that:

This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;

In 2005, a “pro-life” majority in Congress did almost exactly the same thing in passing the “Lacey Peterson Law.” And a “pro-life” president, George W. Bush, signed it into “law.” Go look it up in the U.S. Code and you’ll see that I’m correct.

All of these “fetal pain” and “heartbeat” bills that are being pushed by the “pro-life” industry types are cut from exactly the same immoral, unconstitutional cloth.

They are the codification of permission to kill innocent persons.

The U.S. Constitution:

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“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.”


64 posted on 02/26/2012 12:59:12 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/101/PDF/Intro/LB1103.pdf


65 posted on 02/26/2012 1:05:58 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB1285


66 posted on 02/26/2012 1:07:34 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb1888


67 posted on 02/26/2012 1:10:35 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62396652/S-1148-Bill-Text-Idaho-State-Legislature-via-MyGov365-com


68 posted on 02/26/2012 1:11:54 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

There are others. You can check the “heartbeat” bills like the one pushed in Ohio. They’re pretty much the same. They define the child in the womb as a person, and then allow certain disfavored classes of those persons to be killed by the abortionists.

The usual definition they use is: “”Unborn child” or “fetus” means an individual organism of the species homo-sapiens, from fertilization until live birth.”


69 posted on 02/26/2012 1:16:35 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OHelix; wagglebee

At this point, I have to ask you, would a “law” that allowed the murder of paraplegics, based on the fact that they wouldn’t feel a thing, be moral or constitutional?

Do you think it would be okay to kill Grandma if you gave her enough morphine? After all, she wouldn’t feel any pain, right?

If you say NO, that wouldn’t be moral or constitutional, please explain to me the difference between the child in utero and the paraplegic or elderly person. Be specific.


70 posted on 02/26/2012 1:21:47 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The first example that I’m aware of that did exactly what I say...

Absolutely evasive! Show me where the legislation the current candidates have promised to support does what you say... not some law from Texas... specifically the one that YOU SAY procludes you from supporting any Republican candidate because they promised to advance it and it "defines babes in the womb as persons, and then allows them to be killed".

"Go look it up in the U.S. Code and you’ll see that I’m correct."

Don't tell me search for the evidence to back up your unsupported claims. If it's there and so easy to find it then YOU should find it, quote it, and reference the URL. By your own example it should take you all of ten seconds.

YOU STILL HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE the very foundation of your assertion, namely that the legislation defines ANYTHING, much less that it “allows” killing of the “persons” that it’s defined.

Can you show me where in this legislation (1) ANYTHING is defined, and where or how it (2) “Allows the killing” of those defined as Persons?

Further, can you explain to me how YOUR ENTIRE POSITION on this matter does not “turn on” those two objectively verifiable issues, and why you should not be expected to offer SOMETHING in terms of documentation to back up those two, so far, absolutely baseless assertions?

Also, I would really love to hear your explanation of how a law that makes some abortions illegal, doesn’t prevent any abortions.

71 posted on 02/26/2012 1:22:33 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

I’ve pointed you to all of the right places to learn for yourself that what I’ve been saying all along is accurate. But I can’t make you read or think. You’ll have to do that for yourself.


72 posted on 02/26/2012 1:34:56 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

By the way, when officials with the Susan B. Anthony List were questioned about the exact wording of the “Pain Capable” legislation the Republican candidates had signed off on, they said they didn’t have any. But whatever it would be would be modeled after the Nebraska “fetal pain” legislation, which I linked for you above. And which, again, defines the child in the womb as a human person, but allows certain classes of those persons to be killed by the abortionists.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/unconstitutionally-pro-life/

“Both SBA List and Operation Rescue confirmed to The Iowa Republican (TIR) that the federal Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act does not yet exist. Steve Valentine, the interim Legislative Outreach Director at SBA List, told TIR that they did not have any model legislation publicly available, but that the bill would roughly follow the fetal pain legislation passed by Nebraska in 2010.”


73 posted on 02/26/2012 1:44:32 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Nebraska: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.

Virginia: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.

Oklahoma: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.

Idaho: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.


74 posted on 02/26/2012 1:48:20 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: OHelix
I fail to find...

Very strange.

I'm reading it again, for the hundredth time, and everything I've been saying is right there. They repeatedly call the being we're talking about an "unborn child." They talk of "gestational age." Of the unborn child. They say "Unborn child or fetus each mean an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth..." And then they allow the abortionists to kill those not blessed with meeting their arbitrary, immoral, unconstitutional criteria for protection by the laws.

75 posted on 02/26/2012 2:02:57 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

Let me ask you again, but rephrase:

Do you think it would be moral, or legal, or constitutional to pass laws which said you could put a forty-five slug in the heart of a paraplegic? After all, they wouldn’t feel a thing!

Do you think it would be moral, or legal, or constitutional to pass laws which said you could bludgeon Grandma to death if you had given her enough morphine first. After all, they wouldn’t feel a thing!

Right?


76 posted on 02/26/2012 2:06:34 PM PST by EternalVigilance (They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: OHelix; EternalVigilance; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; ...
Perhaps you would answer a few questions OHelix and just tell us what YOU THINK, not what a law says:

1. Do you believe that an unborn baby is a person? YES or NO

2. Do you believe that it is constitutional to enact a law that permits the killing of an innocent person? YES or NO

3. Do you believe that it is constitutional to enact a law that defines a person as a "non-person"? YES or NO

77 posted on 02/26/2012 2:10:57 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

New tagline ...


78 posted on 02/26/2012 2:16:29 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
By the way, when officials with the Susan B. Anthony List were questioned about the exact wording of the “Pain Capable” legislation the Republican candidates had signed off on, they said they didn’t have any.

Which brings us back to me asking you this:

Have you even read what they promised to advance and sign?

EVERY RESPONSE YOU HAVE MADE TO ME SINCE I ORIGINALLY ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN AN EXERCISE IN DECEPTIVE EVASION.

If you haven't read it, is it even possible for you to make the claims you you have regarding what it defines, what it allows, and what it would prevent?

"They don't prevent any abortions. That's one of the fatal flaw in your assumptions.

It seems to me it is YOUR assumption that they don't. It also seems to me that the only fatal flaw in this discussion is in your logic. Somehow you've equated codifying the protection of some-but-not-all unborn with "codifying the killing" of others. That is INSANELY distorted.

But whatever it would be would be modeled after the Nebraska “fetal pain” legislation, which I linked for you above. And which, again, defines the child in the womb as a human person, but allows certain classes of those persons to be killed by the abortionists.

The term "person" is not defined as you claim.

79 posted on 02/26/2012 2:21:28 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

Okay. It’s obvious you don’t want to know the truth of this matter.


80 posted on 02/26/2012 2:25:37 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Well done. I still support Newt Gingrich, but it may be that at some time in the near or more distant future that I will consider voting for the America’s Party candidate.


81 posted on 02/26/2012 2:26:07 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OHelix
The term "person" is not defined as you claim.

Are you now claiming that some "individual organism[s] of the species homo sapiens" are not human persons?

Because that would be the Justice Blackmun majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

82 posted on 02/26/2012 2:32:55 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Thanks.

Gingrich supports these lawless “laws” too, by the way.


83 posted on 02/26/2012 2:34:17 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Rebel; Absolutely Nobama

So if cannot for any of the three you mentioned, I assume you are Paul supporter?

Or someone else?


84 posted on 02/26/2012 2:34:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Rebel; Absolutely Nobama

Oops, he’s gone already! Retread probably - oops, typo’ed “retard” at first.


85 posted on 02/26/2012 2:35:14 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"I'm reading it again, for the hundredth time, and everything I've been saying is right there."

I looked at every occurrence of the word "person" and I looked at all of the other definitions. They do not define the word "person" as you have emphasized throughout this exchange (until now that the laws prove otherwise) and do not support your insane legal theory which is disturbingly fixated on that one point... Your claims that such laws are "worse than Roe" are INSANELY distorted.

86 posted on 02/26/2012 2:37:05 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OHelix; EternalVigilance; wagglebee
EVERY RESPONSE YOU HAVE MADE TO ME SINCE I ORIGINALLY ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN AN EXERCISE IN DECEPTIVE EVASION.

**********************************

How odd that you would accuse someone else of "deceptive evasion".

87 posted on 02/26/2012 2:38:35 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’ll have to look into that. I don’t doubt you, but I need to see exactly what he has said.


88 posted on 02/26/2012 2:40:27 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

Let me repeat, again: Even arguing on your Utilitarian grounds, instead of on moral and constitutional grounds, they don’t save any babies, because in the whole context of the fight over this genocide of more than fifty million little boys and girls, they are helping destroy every decent moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion when they allow, under the color of “law,” the killing of innocent persons.

Exceptions opened the door to abortion on demand, and exceptions are what keeps that door to the pits of hell open.

And yet, the Constitution of the United States explicitly and imperatively REQUIRES the equal protection of ALL PERSONS, on every square inch of American territory.

“NO PERSON shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“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.”

Please point out the exceptions in that language, because I fail to see any.


89 posted on 02/26/2012 2:42:15 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person

As ever, you're nothing but an anti-Republican shill, carrying water for the Democrats and the MSM.

90 posted on 02/26/2012 2:45:57 PM PST by Chunga (Ron Paul is a fruitcakey jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: trisham

http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/newt_gingrich_signed_pledge.pdf

Look at point number four.


91 posted on 02/26/2012 2:46:12 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“I’m going with Newt Gingrich.”

I already did. Voted for him in the Florida Primary.

No unringing that bell, nor would I want to.


92 posted on 02/26/2012 2:49:16 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (NO COMPROMISE! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! I AM A CONSERVATIVE! CASE CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“I’m going with Newt Gingrich.”

I already did. Voted for him in the Florida Primary.

No unringing that bell, nor would I want to.


93 posted on 02/26/2012 2:49:28 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (NO COMPROMISE! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! I AM A CONSERVATIVE! CASE CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Chunga

What are you talking about? I love Republicans. At least those Republicans who are committed to keeping the first obligation of the oath of office, which is to provide equal protection for the life of the innocent individual person.

As for being a “shill” for the MSM and the Democrats, that’s simply laughable. Especially in light of the facts about how many Republican “leaders” today have their lips firmly affixed to the derrieres of both.


94 posted on 02/26/2012 2:50:01 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Thank you. I am very sorry to see that, and I have bookmarked that link.


95 posted on 02/26/2012 2:51:13 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: trisham

You’re welcome.


96 posted on 02/26/2012 2:56:17 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Chunga

Are you a Republican? I’m not.


97 posted on 02/26/2012 2:57:27 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; TheOldLady

Paultard ZOT!


98 posted on 02/26/2012 3:03:13 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (NO COMPROMISE! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! I AM A CONSERVATIVE! CASE CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; TheOldLady

Paultard ZOT!


99 posted on 02/26/2012 3:03:32 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (NO COMPROMISE! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! I AM A CONSERVATIVE! CASE CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Are you a Republican? I’m not.

Yeah, I'm a Republican. I'm also a conservative. I know the language of the left...I'm surrounded by it in my professional life. Anyone who uses the mantra of corporations being considered "persons" in the eyes of the law in order to make any point is shilling for the left. It's a default giveaway.

Here's the clue: Why doesn't EV use the phrase "We're living in a country in which the AFL-CIO is considered a person, but a baby isn't" instead of "We're living in a country in which General Motors is considered a person, but a baby isn't"?

The applicable law extends to both entities. Conservatives attack liberal institutions and entities, not the engines of capitalism...liberals and socialists do that. Liberals also attack Republicans and the Republican Party. Check out CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC if you need help understanding this.

I'll soon forget that you're not a Republican. If I'm ever interested in your party affiliation I'll be sure to ask you about it.

100 posted on 02/26/2012 3:19:53 PM PST by Chunga (Ron Paul is a fruitcakey jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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