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

Skip to comments.

From Obama to an Irish courtroom: what makes a child a person?
DailyMail online (UK) ^ | 08 October 2012 | M E Synon

Posted on 10/10/2012 2:32:17 PM PDT by Albion Wilde

I’m beginning to wonder if Mr Romney’s gentle Mormonism won’t let him go in for the kill... ‘Kill’ being the right word... What the Republicans have is a tape made at the time Mr Obama voted repeatedly in the Illinois State Senate to deny rights of basic medical care to any child born alive in a botched abortion. Mr Obama is on tape referring to the victim as ‘a foetus outside the womb.’

[snip]

Mr Obama takes the position that, even when a child who is the target of an abortion attempt makes it as far as lying on a table and struggling to breathe, medical staff should be legally free to walk out of the room and let him gasp until he’s dead.

The party strategists know they aren’t going to win the swing-state undecided voters with that position. Which is why Mr Obama’s history of abortion extremism is being kept very quiet by the Democrats. But why is it being kept very quiet by the Republicans? ...

(Excerpt) Read more at synonblog.dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; afterbirthabortion; feticide; moralabsolutes; obama
OK, I'll bite... why?
1 posted on 10/10/2012 2:32:24 PM PDT by Albion Wilde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Because Romney is pro-abortion?

He's certainly said so, repeatedly, and made public policy on this basis (ref: the $50 Romneycare abortion) when he wasn't saying the opposite.

Nevertheless... (See tagline)

2 posted on 10/10/2012 2:45:55 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stop Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Because Romney is pro-abortion?

He's certainly said so, repeatedly, and made public policy on this basis (ref: the $50 Romneycare abortion) when he wasn't saying the opposite.

Nevertheless... (See tagline)

3 posted on 10/10/2012 2:46:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stop Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2Jedismom; 3D-JOY; abb; afraidfortherepublic; Alamo-Girl; AliVeritas; Amelia; AnAmericanMother; ...

Ping!


4 posted on 10/10/2012 2:59:14 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare. -- Dennis Miller re debate 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Because Romney is pro-abortion?

You most certainly have a point. * sigh *

5 posted on 10/10/2012 3:00:58 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare. -- Dennis Miller re debate 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
On the other hand, here is Romney's postion as of today (wink, wink: election year):

Romney: I Will Be a Pro-Life President, De-Fund Planned Parenthood

6 posted on 10/10/2012 3:04:19 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare. -- Dennis Miller re debate 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Maybe they don’t believe it would make any difference. If people don’t care about “punished with a baby” or the statement that government funding of Planned Parenthood must continue so the Obama daughters can get subsidized abortions, why should this matter? Senators who opposed the partial-birth abortion ban at the Federal level are still in office.

A lot of people just don’t care. They’ve got a president who is aggressively, gleefully pro-death, and they just don’t care.


7 posted on 10/10/2012 3:07:53 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Una bruja.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
I know. The more I learn about Romney's actual tenure of office as Mass. governor, the less I want to vote for him.

But the more I hear from Obama, the more I realize I'd vote for a goddamn rattlesnake to get him out of office.

I "prefer" Romney only in the sense that I "prefer" smashing into a tree rather than going over a cliff.

8 posted on 10/10/2012 3:09:29 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stop Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Perhaps, BUT, lets not forget that RINOs are also balless wonders, and the wonder IS that they can still stand erect, given they are also without backbones.
9 posted on 10/10/2012 3:14:24 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I "prefer" Romney only in the sense that I "prefer" smashing into a tree rather than going over a cliff.

Pretty much. I "prefer" Charlie Sheen to BananaFanaBoBana-Bama.

10 posted on 10/10/2012 3:20:47 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare. -- Dennis Miller re debate 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

According to Chief Justice Taney (a Democrat), slaves were not people either.


11 posted on 10/10/2012 3:25:27 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Moment of Conception, period!


12 posted on 10/10/2012 3:44:54 PM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
At the division of the first cell, the new life is expressing its will to live. The process is now well documented, however there are still billions of our fellow humans who have no understadning of the process nor do you or I have a way to prove to anyone that the individual spirit of the person is present at any specific moment.

This supposed ambiguous state is exploited to support the wholesale slaughter of alive humans while they are in the water world.

I personally believe it is demonic effort to prevent more souls from coming to the full personhood God intends for the system He initiated. I can read John chapter three and see Jesus telling Nicodemus that except one be born of water (the water world of the womb) and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.

I also personally believe that satan is working feverishly to develop his child through cloning and genetic manipulation. This will not goin on much longer ... and America has much to answer for, appointing a dead soul drug degenerate who has endorsed murder by abandonment/neglect and is working to institute similar methodology for the elderly 'burden' his dead soul ghouls wish to erase for utilitarian purposes.

13 posted on 10/10/2012 4:13:36 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reg45

Actually, the US Constitution made it a fact that slaves were not citizens, even after being freed, CJ Taney was the mouthpiece for the SCOTUS since at that time only one opinion was made-the winning one, and the finding was written by the CJ, like it or not. This prompted the 14th Amendment, which was written to correct that and grant former slaves US Citizenship and thier children the same. No reference to the humanhood of slaves/former slaves/children of the same was made in either document....

We know that the US Constitution as ratified was a compromise to strengthen the confederation, and that all southern/slave states were at risk of balking and walking away from any form of union (federation or confederation) unless the slave issue was punted...

Best;


14 posted on 10/10/2012 5:09:29 PM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally correct!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reg45
According to Chief Justice Taney (a Democrat), slaves were not people either.

That was a most unfortunate compromise and unfortunately ambiguous wording. Slaveholding States were trying to get their slaves counted to increase their representation in Congress, which non-slave States opposed. Slaves were not legally citizens, which would not happen until after emancipation; so they could not be termed "citizens" for purposes of representation. Hence the misleading legal terms "person" or persons under the law" -- not "people", which denoted more than one human being, or "a people", which meant an ethnic group or nation.

A "person under the law" is an abstraction, It can also be a corporation.

That said, I am in no way endorsing slavery, then or any other time. Just a discussion of the different point of view then, when the Court still tried to stick to dry legal interpretations, not social engineering. Their wording was clumsy and naïve in light of the explosive consequences.

15 posted on 10/10/2012 6:03:10 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare. -- Dennis Miller re debate 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

I agree that slaves were not counted as citizens prior to the abolition of slavery. But were they persons? The constitution counted them as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of taxation and for reapportionment, prior to the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.


16 posted on 10/10/2012 6:11:38 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Maybe because they fear being called “extremists” or “racists” over pointing out a TRULY EXTREME position taken by Obamao on abortion.

Or maybe they fear that people will be disgusted by such a “low blow” as talking about a truly LOW, VILE position taken by the White House occupant.

Or maybe it’s simply because some in the GOP-E are pro-choice, although I would like to think even they would distinguish their position, bad enough as it is, from Obamao’s. Surely the GOP-E does not want to be seen as those who would leave abortion survivors dying on an operating table?


17 posted on 10/10/2012 6:46:04 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Albion Wilde

Hmmm, shoulda put “choice” in quote marks there . . .


18 posted on 10/10/2012 6:46:55 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Thanks for the ping!


19 posted on 10/10/2012 8:06:48 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

I am pro-life and will vote for Romney, because he is far better than Obama. Romney isn’t for post abortion murder like Romney.

As Dennis Prager states, this isn’t an election, it is a referendum on everything the Obama stands for. We need everyone to pledge to vote.

We need to look at the big picture. Obama and the Dems are destroying the military. Supporting terrorists. Betraying allies like Israel. Putting more restrictions, and taxes on all of us, especially the business owners. We can not take 4 more years of Obama. Period.


20 posted on 10/11/2012 5:53:16 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reg45

Sure, they were considered persons by the Constitution, but maybe not by some indiviuduals (north or south), but not citizens. Recall that the south demanded the 3/5ths rule to insure they held a significant amount of political power, elsewise they would not agree to the constitution, let alone ratifiy it. 60% of the slaves/Indians not taxed added population towards seats in the US House, to the advantage of the Southern states, those same persons had no vote or voice as to how they were represented.

Recall, that Dread Scott resulted in the decision that we are discussing- Dread Scott, as a slave born in one state, could not claim freedom/citizenship in any other state, since as by condition of birth he was constitutioanlly recognized as such, and that the Fugivtive Slave Act required the return of such persons back to their owners-in all states, slave or free; so there was no method of becoming free except at the hand of the lawful slave owner... Perverse, huh?. Folks will argue that point, but that is what the SCOTUS determined based on the constitutional wording and the politics of the day. The Court treated the issue as it was written (although it was an immoral and inhuman fact), which is a far cry from we all too often see today!

No one ever said the document was perfect; and the intent of the issue in question was to form a union. Jefferson and Adams and Franklin and many others hoped and expected the slavery issue to resolve itself based on economics, population and not war/disolution of the union. They sacrificed the issue of slavery to form a “more perfect” union, not a “perfect” union.

Only socialists/communists dare to declare themselves capable of that lofty, heavenly goal (sarc)-by making evryone a slave IMO...

Good discussion.

If you wish to learn more about these topics- go to cato.org and then to the cato university home study courses-download to CD and get background from Locke, Smith, the US Constitution and BOR/Amendments to Mieses and everything of note in between. While a decidedly libertarian site, I find almost nothing in the context of historical fact to argue with in reference to the founding ideology of this nation, and our way of life.

Best;


21 posted on 10/15/2012 8:18:18 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally correct!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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