Posted on 03/19/2017 3:41:00 PM PDT by drewh
True. Criminal law is the province of the States except on Federal reservations and in DC. And it does NOT provide that the states must allow and promote the murder of some particular class of persons.
Well said.
I don’t mind her being pro-choice, but if she’s on the Blaze, then she’s probably not conservative on other issues also.
Most so-called 'conservatives' are in complete denial about the last sentence. The usurper obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and little Marco Rubio are proof of that.
Abortion is never ok. Never. If you call this “eating your own”, then so be it. I will always protect and stand up for the unborn. We all should.
Have lost all respect for her.
I agree.
Abortion is murder, imo. And, it’s legal (fact). Our side has to stop playing to the narrative of the Left. I enjoy Tomi Lahren’s blog/videos, etc. and she speaks to our youth. Her saying what she said on The View reached more people than all the posters here preaching to choir. We’re not going to roll back time. The government should have never got involved in abortion/”pro choice” just as it should not be trying to limit any of our other rights (RKBA).
She was making the case that the government should stay out of these things and speaking to those who can’t understand that philosophy.
I also agree that the government can’t legislate morality and that our moral compass has to change for any real change to take place. Just like our moral compass changed and brought about all the current moral changes we see now.
I wouldn’t want to go back in time to make that happen because there’s pros and cons with everything.
What we need is the government/liberal agenda out of our publicly funded areas. Our side trashing her helps the Left agenda.
No, being an apologist for the abortionists helps the left's agenda.
I haven’t seen FReepers claim that outlawing abortion will stop it. Most in the pro-life movement are not that naiive. But at nearly 3,000 abortions a day, it’s reasonable to say that outlawing abortion will save some lives.
As far as your “underground clinics”, spare me that argument that back alley abortionists will suddenly be a menace to women’s health in the face of an abortion ban. We already have irrefutable proof that doctors who make their living by killing innocent children are the unscrupulous type who don’t give a fig about the safety of the women in their “care”.
I got news for you, FRiend: murder is already illegal. Does that stop it from occurring? No. But I bet in some cases it does. And I also know that because of such a law, we are a society that does not condone the taking of another human life. Except in cases of abortion. You see, we do legally allow human beings, the most innocent and vulnerable among us, to be ripped apart in an unspeakably brutal fashion. It happened in 1973 when we legalized abortion. And look at the impact it has had on our societal norms: people no longer respect each other’s person or property, sex has no consequences or responsibilites, and women are exploited at an alarming & unprecedented rate. Do we really want to be a country that condones such an evil? Legalizing abortion did change the moral compass of our country. Banning it will have the same effect.
As far as your comments about foster care etc, again, you lose. Many, many “pro-lifers”, the ones you claim think their job ends at getting Roe overturned, staff and privately fund crisis pregnancy centers that help women with medical expenses and supplies so that they can have their babies with dignity. And they also provide adoption placement services. I am not for big government social programs, but the truth is many programs exist that can help these women: food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, tuition assistance & job training, energy assistance, Medicaid, and on & on.
Abortion is not acceptable for any reason. It is not a privacy issue, it’s not a limited government issue, and its not a women’s rights issue. Your arguments are flawed. Try again
Oh and I have yet to meet a pro-life person who stops caring once the baby is born.
Most laws do dictate morality, so your argument there is moot.
Who listens to the Blaze? I don’t have anything to do with that outfit since Loony Glenn Beck went off the rails.
“Pro choice” is just a poor euphemism for “OK with me that you can murder your baby,” (if you CHOOSE to.)
I’m not going to jump on her over this and call her this or that.
I’m just going to say that she seems lie a smart young lady who obviously has more learning to do.
And I hope that she does that learning before she makes a mistake that cannot ever be taken back, because once it’s done, she will carry it with her for the rest of her life, and it is a very heavy burden.
Some advice for you, Tomi.
If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex, because the purpose of sex is to produce another human being.
The purpose of sex is not to express your love for another, although yes that can and does occur during the process if the sex is between two people that love each other.
The purpose of sex is not to get your rocks off, or pass time, or relax, or entertain yourself, although those things can and do also occur during the process.
The purpose of sex is to produce another human being. That is the successful outcome of sexual relations between a man and a woman. So if you do not want that outcome, if you are not ready for that to occur in your life, don’t do it.
Once you create another life, that is the ultimate responsibility of a human being in this world. I think that is the greatest thing we can achieve in this world. and if you duck that responsibility by killing that life, you will regret it every day for the rest of your life. Trust me, I know.
And do not delude yourself, Tomi, by saying that it isn’t a life yet while it is in your body, because it most certainly is.
The exact moment the seed and egg join is the exact moment it becomes life, because a life begins at the exact time that someone else can take it away.
True. I don’t think she was being an apologist for abortionists, though. She was being limited government/laws. I don’t have to agree with everything she says yet still find her an important part of our cause.
Last time I checked I was allowed to support those on our side and she is. She’s like Ann Coulter for me, agree with most but not all of what she says and HOW she says it. She’s still on on my side.
She was never one of our own
An independent is just a liberal who doesn’t know it.
“I am a constitutional (conservative),” Lahren said. “I am someone that loves the constitution and someone for limited government, so I can’t stand here and be a hypocrite and say I am for limited government but tell women what to do with their bodies.”
Evil moron.
If your position were correct, then a federal ban on slavery is also Constitutionally incorrect.
The federal government is charged with requiring that each state remain a republic. A state in which people are allowed to murder their children is not a republic.
If you were correct, then abortion should not have increased after Roe and Doe. In fact, it exploded.
There will always be SOME abortions. But as long as it is “legal,” we have no Constitution and no civilization.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers have outnumbered abortion mills by THOUSANDS for decades.
You’re just a pro-abort parrotting the same old catty lies about pro-lifers.
I like that Maria Bartiromo on FBN wears pants most of the time.
Nor does the Constitution forbid it, either, which means that it is a power left to the States, or the People, respectively.
Every state has always had its own definitions for the permissible use of deadly force, and for determining when a person is no longer alive. Until 1974, every state also had its own definition of when a person began his life. That is the correct Constitutional position. Under our system, there is no other sensible legal entity with the authority to make that definition.
Claiming that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over forbidding abortions is every bit as ridiculous as claiming it has jurisdiction over permitting them.
It doesn't. It never did. The reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut, is laughable and anti-Constitutional, and it is what made Roe inevitable.
Yeah, worked great for slavery when they "sent it back to the states to decide". Things went just peachy in Bleeding Kansas. The 13th amendment was out of line!
< /sarcasm>
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.