Posted 3 months, 2 days ago in 
Loading ...
Reversing Roe v. Wade should be easy. But it’s not. How do we recover thousands of lives that were extinguished before birth?
Democrats are running up the red flag afraid of losing the right to kill their unborn. Well, maybe that one should never have become a right in the first place. Just maybe reversing Roe v. Wade is not such a bad idea! It wouldn’t be the first time the supreme wisdom of the U.S. Supreme Court got it all wrong. And this one has cost us countless American lives.
So, despite all the fear mongering of the Democrats about losing a right that they never should have had in the first place, it really is high time to put this issue to bed. Let’s go ahead and abolish the Roe v. Wade decision, and get on with giving respect and honor to all human beings — born and unborn!
Next let’s talk about birth control. If you don’t want to have children, then don’t get in bed – don’t have sex. Wow! Now that one is revolutionary. Basically, responsibility begins before the act. Let’s put our efforts there and focus on responsibility, rather than trying to clean up the mess with abortions.
It’s good to see candidates who are willing to take the heat on reversing Roe v. Wade. It’s been a long time coming, and hopefully we will be able to completely end abortions and put this issue to bed.
JERRY R. NINE
Rifle
6 Responses to “Reversing Roe v. Wade should be done”
Posted September 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But Jerry, killing unborn babies is a very profitable business to be in.
They make enough money to buy nothing but the highest elected public officials in this country to do their bidding.
You can’t curtail private enterprise, it’s unAmerican, unless it’s a conservative business like big oil, or the auto makers, then all hell breaks loose.
Posted September 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Nine apparently believes that upholding Roe v. Wade is done because people are in favor of abortions. He might care to tell us where he got that idea. The fact that one is not for something; i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade, does not mean that one is for something else. That displays a lack of thinking and faulty reasoning on the individuals’ part. It is like saying that if something is not red, it then has to be purple.
As to Mr. Johnson’s critique that people support abortions because it is profitable, as usual the gentleman is applying his own standard and why HE would be doing it which, given his obsession with materialism, I have few doubts that he would if he could.
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have read the U.S. Constitution, studied the Constitution, and taught the Constitution, and nowhere, let me repeat nowhere, have I found the right to kill an unborn child, or in the view of Comrade Obama, the right not only to kill an unborn child, but the right to kill a child that survives an abortion.
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mom2Five… I haven’t heard anything RE: this part of your post: “in the view of Comrade Obama, the right not only to kill an unborn child, but the right to kill a child that survives an abortion”. Can you share?
That view, if it means what it sounds like it means, in my opinion, should be shouted from the rooftops and makes him an even scarier choice.
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Supreme Court has ruled that abortions in the first trimester are legal because the fetus at this stage has no neural connections, no brain, no feelings, no senses, etc. In every respect biologically speaking it is just a mass of tissue like a kidney. The fetus is a fetus-not an unborn child. A child is a human being existing on its own. The fetus has the potential to develop into a human being but as cloning has proved, so does nearly every other cell in the human body have the potential to become an independent human being. What is it about the biology of this situation that you do not understand Sue and Momo2five?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well classless, since the Supreme Court is the determining authority of whether or not a law is Constitutional.
And you are such a well know authority on all things Constitutional, as well as an expert resource on the Supreme Court and the decisions made by that august body.
Would you please be so kind as to point out how the Supreme Court came to this determination, and the relevant portions of the Constitution used in their findings?
Thank you ever so much for your valued expertise on this matter.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.