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

To: Reagan Man

I don’t know why you keep confusing the constitution and rights. But since you do, I don’t see how a rational discussion is possible.


105 posted on 11/16/2007 2:31:49 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
Unalienable rights exist. They are undeniable. However, the Constitution also exists, as do sovereign states and our separation of powers that is at the core of federalism.

>>>>>Of course, now I'm confused as to what Fred's position is.

You always seem somewhat confused. And you're perpetual rants lead me to believe, you're out to confuse the world. LOL

>>>>>That is incorrect. I understand and respect the Constitution. Our disagreement is on whether the preborn is a person.

Sorry. You haven't convinced me yet. Like you said. The Founders did not have the knowledge we have today. You can't read something into the Constitution that isn't there. That is called Constitutional activism and the reason why we have Roe v Wade today. In the days of the Founders, a fetus didn't have any rights and with few exceptions, the fetus still has little protection under law. The unborn fetus definitely doesn't have the rights accorded a born person.

Thats why like Reagan, I support a HLA added to the Constitution that would protect the unborn. Even though it remains a long shot.

>>>>>This is an argument about what is right, not about what the constitution says.

In your mind. That is why the Constitution has such little meaning to you. You don't have enough respect to even capitalize it. Freudian slip?

111 posted on 11/16/2007 3:27:03 PM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

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