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

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have an almost identical position in this regard, one that matches that of Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, and Jerry Ford in 1976, which is anathema to the Reagan pro-life GOP platform.

I cannot, and will not, support someone who is completely unmoored from an understanding that no individual, no state, has the right to alienate the unalienable rights to life and liberty.


36 posted on 11/16/2007 10:16:37 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: EternalVigilance
I cannot, and will not, support someone who is completely unmoored from an understanding that no individual, no state, has the right to alienate the unalienable rights to life and liberty.

But the Federal government does? No, actually, the Federal government doesn’t because the Constitution does not enumerate that power to the Federal government. That is why a Constitutional amendment would be needed. But while supporters of such an effort are busy throwing themselves against the brick wall that is the US Senate, the states, through the individuals who populate those states, already have the right to decide that life is precious and sacrosanct.

Who is the more foolish? He who wages a constantly losing campaign to change a law or one who wins the war with the laws already in place? If you truly care about life you must think every life is precious and that means that waiting for another 60 years to change the Constitution is unacceptable.

42 posted on 11/16/2007 10:26:49 AM PST by brothers4thID (Fred Thompson for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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