Posted on 02/18/2016 3:19:08 PM PST by Kazan
This guy will say anything to get elected... He’ll support both of the Corinthians he knows to over turn the decision....
Yep... he'll say ANYTHING to get elected. He'll even claim that he's gonna deport all the illegals and build a wall.
Wagglebee (probably also "sick, twisted, etc) has suggested elsewhere that a truly pro-life POTUS would end the controversy at law by signing an executive order defining 14th Amendment "persons" as including the unborn from conception. The prolem with that is that the next time the US is foolish enough to elect some Muzzie smooching Stalinist anti-American wingnut as POTUS, that Executive Order would be reversed and other near equally evil policies would also become "law" by the same means. The Founding Fathers created Congress for many reasons and a primary one is the enactment of actually constitutional laws and policies. Congress should define the unborn as persons for 14th Amendment purposes. POTUS should sign off on such legislation without reservation and, if necessary, remove fedcourt jurisdiction over abortion as the constitution allows.
You are a better man and a better Christian and a better American than I. My deviation from the highest moral ground arises from my service to pro-lifers as a lawyer. Some certainly agreed with your position and some with mine. What I could never get out of my head is that a lack of authority to approve the murder of any innocent baby in utero works in two directions: against imperfect legislation that does not prohibit every abortion and OTOH against ignoring a substantial number of babies who would be saved by imperfect legislation.
If the babykillers, on the last day of the legislative session, credibly tell the pro-life legislators that a law will be enacted that will prohibit each and every abortion after week thirteen of a pregnancy but be silent as to babies in weeks 1-13 of other pregnancies, voting no means refusing to save the babies that can be saved? Is it not morally acceptable to address the legislature, announcing one's vote for the legislation while vowing to return. as often as necessary to take away the "legal" status of the remaining abortions? Save those who can be saved, always so long as one NEVER concedes the legitimacy of ANY abortion.
We cannot support anesthesia for those about to be aborted or any other law that facilitates abortion by making it seem less hideous. Personally, I join the late Henry Hyde in imagining that the aborted are in heaven, waiting for their champions to arrive and besieging God on behalf of those champions.
I spent my legal career as Teddy Roosevelt's man in the arena, dusty, bloodied but getting up again and again to achieve what could be achieved, however imperfectly. I knew the sting of battle and survived it as did many babies who were never aborted because of the heroic direct action sacrifices of my clients. I have seen you in that arena too and Wagglebee and Dr. Sivana as well.
Sitting idly by is something I will not do. Watching those who never knew you call you sick, twisted, etc. is, as Winston Churchill once observed in another context, something "up with which I shall not put."
I’m not sure that you quite understand my position, though I don’t appreciate what seems like an attempt to gang up on me.
My position is that I will take any and every (morally justified) means possible to save the lives of the unborn. Perfect or imperfect, I will take every option on the table to do it, and that includes what you are proposing. Try for perfection, but if perfection is impossible, save as many lives as I can.
What it seems to me that you’re all saying is that if you can’t have perfection, you will refuse to save any lives at all. What I’m hearing is that if you can’t get a total and immediate ban on abortion, that you will outright reject and fight against any kind of restriction on abortions.
Is that what you’re trying to tell me? Because that’s what it sounds like.
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/the-equal-protection-for-posterity-resolution.html
My preference would obviously be for Congress to pass a law having babies recognized under the 14th Amendment. However, I believe that an executive order would also work. While Obama, et al. might not believe that babies are unborn, they would almost certainly recognize that it is politically untenable to declare so publicly. In other words, the public would "get used" to seeing babies as persons and that would be hard to undo.
In any event, the courts need to be out of it and I've long believed that Blackmun suggested as much in his opinion.
If the babykillers, on the last day of the legislative session, credibly tell the pro-life legislators that a law will be enacted that will prohibit each and every abortion after week thirteen of a pregnancy but be silent as to babies in weeks 1-13 of other pregnancies, voting no means refusing to save the babies that can be saved? Is it not morally acceptable to address the legislature, announcing one's vote for the legislation while vowing to return. as often as necessary to take away the "legal" status of the remaining abortions? Save those who can be saved, always so long as one NEVER concedes the legitimacy of ANY abortion.
In THEORY that sounds fine, in REALITY we are all aware that these laws don't stop abortions because they ALWAYS contain an "and then you can kill the baby" clause a mile wide.
What people need to understand is that there is nothing wrong with incrementalism, per se.
The problem is with immoral incrementalism.
Virtually every piece of “pro-life” legislation offered these days falls into the latter category. They surrender the only real moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion, and codify permission to kill all of the babies, as long as they are killed on schedule, and by an arbitrary set of man-made rules. This doesn’t “save some,” as the mostly naive supporters of these bills suppose. In fact, along with the judicial supremacist fallacy that the same folks suffer under, it guarantees the continuation of abortion on demand.
Here’s an interesting essay on the subject that I think is very good:
http://americanrtl.org/good-vs-bad-abortion-incrementalism
In 1984 I saw up close and personally the humanity of what it meant to be an 8 week old “Fetusafter a tragic miscarriage. From that time forward, I could only believe that the pre born are human beings worthy of dignity, respect, and protection. I came to believe that the deliberate termination of that life was murder. Roe v Wade had,of course, decided that the pre born were not persons; and therefor ineligible for Constitutional protection, but their termination could be administered by a State's interest based on the trimester standard. It became clearer to me that, as a Christian, what the Court had found for, was in opposition to God's law not to murder. Many argued to me that Christians had a duty to support all laws of the Land--including Roe. I knew in my mind and heart this was wrong; and in fact Roe's permission to murder was against God's Law. The Court simply did not have the Moral authority to change the unlawful act of murder by abortion in 1972, to an act legitimized and protected by the power of the government in 1973. It was undeniable in Rom 13 that we are to obey lawful authority; but officials are appointed by God " to do good" for the people. Nowhere in scripture does God set up another standard of law apart from Him that requires us to obey the State and disobey God. Since the Authorities are appointed by God as His servants to do good, the MUST call good what God calls good and evil what God calls evil. Through most of history it has been dangerous to be a Christian determined to obey God first, last, and always. Many have been martyred because they lived and died by the simple principle that: When the State Requires what God forbids, or Forbids what God requires, then we obey God. For this reason we can never accept Roe. Murder was understood and punished in all cultures long before it was incorporated into a code of law. Long before our legal system existed it would later become informed by Judaeo-Christian values discipling what became Western Civilization. The Prime Directive that came out of all this was/is that every human life has intrinsic value. If even ONE human child can be saved your action is worthwhile. If a nations laws can be changed so that either all, or even some can be saved, both acts have great Moral value; and the three should NEVER be thought to be mutually exclusive. All pro life people should always support any activity to save the child's life, short of breaking the laws of God. Victory over this holocaust of murdered pre born babies will be God's, and dedicated to Him, as he makes all manner of persons His fingertips and inspires them to different actions. Whether it is praying at home, or prayerfully blockading, creating a Abortion Free Zone in your community; all manner of social and political action that will save lives, will honor God. Respect our Brothers calling. It is true that often our action will come at a cost and we were told by Jesus to consider it. I quickly discovered why; as I worked with dozens of churches and hundreds of others to make our region Abortion Free. I then went on to organize Operation Rescue blockades with sidewalk counselling in my three state region. Smear, lawsuit, threats, arrests, jail time, pressure on my business made that caution by Jesus to "count the cost" very real to me; but we were having and impact on the abortion profiteers. Most important lives were being saved. I will end by encouraging all to keep the faith and fight the battle. To save even one child's life is rewarding beyond expression. God will bless you with this. The death of millions has no personal meaning; but the death of a single child is a personal tragedy, their life saved is a victory one person can understand. Thank you all for your good work!
God bless you for participating in the most effective method to save the babies at a cost known to you and to God!
OK. But, based on what ?
I do not believe Trump believes it was decided wrongly.
Do you think he doesn't know about the case and it's illegality ?
Would you mind answering my question about the principal in the case, Jane Roe ?
It wasn't JUST LIKE Kelo.
The whole Roe vs. Wade case was a farce. The claim of "ROE" was fake, totally false.
I asked you before, yet you dodged the question. If you know so much about Roe vs. Wade, who was JANE ROE ? She claimed she was raped and wanted an abortion (for free). Who raped her ? When did she get the abortion ?
Based on the right to life spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
As for Trump, he was not only pro-choice, he was VERY pro choice. Now he has political motive to say otherwise. He claims it was about a friend’s kid. Well, hey, he has had children. He is no spring chicken. This issue has been debated to death. Yet this near 70 year old just now, conveniently got some conviction on the matter? I don’t think so. I’ve seen this sort of campaign conservatism before. I no long cheer for campaign positions that cannot be clearly presented as authentic, that are without roots. His do not pass the smell test. Also, no truly pro-life person can STAND Planned Parenthood. The fact that he wants to still fund them because “they do good things” is evidence that his pro-life stance is just one of political opportunism. Not genuine. Not to be trusted.
He's not. He addressed this before. It even says so in the article.
Okay. I did not remember the before part. But not much before. Not much before at all. Even in the past year since I have been listening to him he has waffled back and forth on this and other issues. I flat out do not find him authentic. I know you do. I’m glad you are paying attention and doing your duty participating in the process. My mind is made up. I’m voting Cruz.
I would agree with you, had the case been real. But it wasn't. It was 'wrong' because it was based on a falsehood and should never even have come up to the Supreme Court.
As for the rest of your comment, you seem to want to vent about Trump, and I'm only interested in the facts (which were that the Roe vs. Wade case was illegal and falsified, and the Trump had complained about the legality of the case prior to his comment the other day).
Remember? It was the last sentence of the brief excerpt at the beginning of this thread.
I flat out do not find him authentic. I know you do.
You don't know what I 'find'. You don't know what I think. I'm only debating your claim that Trump did NOT make references to the Roe vs. Wade decision prior to his recent comment. If you had said Cruz lied about something that he didn't, I was argue with you over that as well.
I'm glad you are paying attention and doing your duty participating in the process.
I'm just trying to keep the facts straight, no matter who the facts support or do not support.
My mind is made up. I'm voting Cruz.
I never suggested you shouldn't. What I was debating had nothing to do with Cruz.
Norma McCorvey. She wasn’t raped. She didn’t have an abortion. And yes, the reasoning behind Kelo was similar to the reasoning behind Roe, because in each case, the Constitution was ignored. Justices legislated from the bench instead of interpreting written law.
I agree with you, but would like to add that in the case of Roe vs. Wade, the Constitution, Law, Common sense, and the TRUTH were ignored.
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.