Obama-bashing ads by abortion foe Ran...

Obama-bashing ads by abortion foe Randall Terry to air in Iowa

There are 102 comments on the Des Moines Register story from Jun 8, 2011, titled Obama-bashing ads by abortion foe Randall Terry to air in Iowa. In it, Des Moines Register reports that:

An abortion foe who is challenging Democratic President Barack Obama said today he will air television advertisements in Iowa starting tomorrow.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Des Moines Register.

Since: May 11

Houston, TX

#21 Jun 19, 2011
On the religious restriction of the 1st the primary purpose was to insure that the federal government (since extended to state and local governments by the 14th Amendment) did not coerce individuals into any particular religion and to allow all citizens to have complete religious freedom. It certainly was not to prohibit individuals from expressing views influenced by their personal religious beliefs on issues of public debate.

The Constitution has been imperfectly enforced as all laws are.
hornback12

AOL

#22 Jun 19, 2011
but by enacting laws based on religious beliefs, that is exactly what they are doing. if a person does not have the belief that abortion is wrong, they are being forced to

“Dancing Lights”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#23 Jun 19, 2011
hornback12 wrote:
but by enacting laws based on religious beliefs, that is exactly what they are doing. if a person does not have the belief that abortion is wrong, they are being forced to
Good point. Some religions believe a fetus doesn't become fully human and attain a soul until the first breath. Why are these people being forced to adhere to "laws" that don't pertain to THEIR religion.

Since: May 11

Houston, TX

#24 Jun 19, 2011
We all bring our sense of morality to the voting booth. At least I hope we do. One purpose of the Constitution is to prevent a tyrannical majority from crushing individual liberty. Roe v. Wade correctly limited the power of governments to restrict abortions. The Constitution limits the tyranny any majority can impose on others.

Let me add religious leaders were a key force in both the anti-slavery and civil rights movement. Those voting their morality, based on religious principles, have done much good.

The fact is that every action of government puts a liability on someone and no laws are universally respected.To paraphrase GW (George Washington) government is force, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
hornback12

Corbin, KY

#25 Jun 20, 2011
keithd1 wrote:
We all bring our sense of morality to the voting booth. At least I hope we do. One purpose of the Constitution is to prevent a tyrannical majority from crushing individual liberty. Roe v. Wade correctly limited the power of governments to restrict abortions. The Constitution limits the tyranny any majority can impose on others.
Let me add religious leaders were a key force in both the anti-slavery and civil rights movement. Those voting their morality, based on religious principles, have done much good.
The fact is that every action of government puts a liability on someone and no laws are universally respected.To paraphrase GW (George Washington) government is force, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
because they do it does not make it correct. were there to be end around run to restrict where you go to church on sunday, i would bet that you would be screaming
keithd1

United States

#26 Jun 20, 2011
hornback12 wrote:
<quoted text>because they do it does not make it correct. were there to be end around run to restrict where you go to church on sunday, i would bet that you would be screaming
That is exactly what I have been saying. The Constitution properly limits majority tyranny. I have not been to church in three or four years. I am a nominal Catholic whose libertarian political leanings is in direct contrast with the Catholic church's economically liberal and socially conservative positions. I am exposed to good people who are in the right-to-life movement and understand their position even though I do not agree with it.
The fact is the religious and the irreligious alike will bring their moral positions into the voting booth. It is the duty of the courts to prevent the voters and their representatives from overstepping their boundary between legitimate affairs of government and those that are not.
keithd1

United States

#27 Jun 20, 2011
Let me add that the decision on Roe v. Wade was primarily based on the 14th Amendment, not the 1st.

From the Roe v. Wade decision

"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164."

The fact that a person holds a position whether it be anti-death penalty, anti-abortion or pro public charity, etc. partially due to his religious convictions does not in itself make it a 1st Amendment issue. Clearly restricting what church you went to would be a direct violation of the 1st.
keithd1

United States

#28 Jun 20, 2011
A bit on the right to privacy from usconstitution.net

The Right To Privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.
hornback12

Corbin, KY

#29 Jun 20, 2011
keithd1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly what I have been saying. The Constitution properly limits majority tyranny. I have not been to church in three or four years. I am a nominal Catholic whose libertarian political leanings is in direct contrast with the Catholic church's economically liberal and socially conservative positions. I am exposed to good people who are in the right-to-life movement and understand their position even though I do not agree with it.
The fact is the religious and the irreligious alike will bring their moral positions into the voting booth. It is the duty of the courts to prevent the voters and their representatives from overstepping their boundary between legitimate affairs of government and those that are not.
actually it is the lawmakers that know that laws are illegal but pass them anyway. there are laws in indiana now that were ment to defund clinics even though abortions are not being paid for with government money. indiana right now is facing the loss of 5 billion dollars because of it

Since: Oct 06

Location hidden

#30 Jun 21, 2011
keithd1 wrote:
We all bring our sense of morality to the voting booth. At least I hope we do. One purpose of the Constitution is to prevent a tyrannical majority from crushing individual liberty. Roe v. Wade correctly limited the power of governments to restrict abortions. The Constitution limits the tyranny any majority can impose on others.
Let me add religious leaders were a key force in both the anti-slavery and civil rights movement. Those voting their morality, based on religious principles, have done much good.
The fact is that every action of government puts a liability on someone and no laws are universally respected.To paraphrase GW (George Washington) government is force, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Agreed. The danger is when extremists try to eliminate the Constitutional controls.
Julie

Cordova, TN

#32 Jan 9, 2013
If you believe certain life does not have rights in America, than not understanding the fight for rights for all makes sense.

I happen to believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that all life, no matter where it is in development or age, as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (protected by the constitution).

I think this tumps anyones wishes to live as they wish, without consequences and killing others... that means us, girls. Take responsibly for your actions and be an American.
hornback12

Louisville, KY

#33 Jan 9, 2013
Julie wrote:
If you believe certain life does not have rights in America, than not understanding the fight for rights for all makes sense.
I happen to believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that all life, no matter where it is in development or age, as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (protected by the constitution).
I think this tumps anyones wishes to live as they wish, without consequences and killing others... that means us, girls. Take responsibly for your actions and be an American.
sorry that your view is not the law. i believe that churches should be taxed like everyone else but that is my opinion and not the law
Ocean56

AOL

#34 Jan 10, 2013
Julie wrote:
If you believe certain life does not have rights in America, than not understanding the fight for rights for all makes sense.
I happen to believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that all life, no matter where it is in development or age, as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (protected by the constitution).
I think this tumps anyones wishes to live as they wish, without consequences and killing others... that means us, girls. Take responsibly for your actions and be an American.
Personally, I couldn't care less what Ronnie Raygun believed. The ONLY person who decides whether to continue a pregnancy or not is the WOMAN who is pregnant.

NO woman has to get or stay pregnant if she doesn't WANT to do so. And you don't get to determine what is responsible for anyone but yourself. If it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision, simple as that.

Since: May 11

Houston, TX

#35 Aug 28, 2013
I actually believe that women should have the right to post-birth abortions up until the child reaches 18 months of age. This would require a constitutional amendment.
hornback12

Ft Mitchell, KY

#36 Aug 30, 2013
keithd1 wrote:
I actually believe that women should have the right to post-birth abortions up until the child reaches 18 months of age. This would require a constitutional amendment.
i would expect that from a christian
Svaha

Tampa, FL

#37 Aug 30, 2013
hornback12 wrote:
<quoted text>i would expect that from a christian
any of the abrahamic religions
kadamson

San Angelo, TX

#39 Jul 17, 2014
ChooChoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Better yet, how bout if each of the prolifers adopt one of the babies that they "save". Let's see who takes the first crack baby, or child with severe fetal alcohol syndrome. Lets see how many of them adopt the child born without a brain and accept financial and physical responsibility for it. Or perhaps those who will not or cannot adopt should take complete financial responsibility for each child that they "save". I imagine that would get the majority of the right to life bunch out of the picket lines. They need to stop bothering the people who have already made a decision and mind their own business.
There is a shortage of U.S.babies to adopt. People are more than willing to welcome a newborn or even young children. Counrless families adopt overseas because there are not babies here.
kadamson

San Angelo, TX

#40 Jul 17, 2014
hornback12 wrote:
<quoted text>because they do it does not make it correct. were there to be end around run to restrict where you go to church on sunday, i would bet that you would be screaming
You mean you think religious Christians have the power to pass a law violating the 2nd amendment?
Karma

United States

#41 Jul 18, 2014
Scriptures for America wrote:
It is our primary obligation to save unborn lives from being killed in their mothers womb. That ought to be the safest place in the world. Abortion is dirty business. Goverment needs to quit subsidizing it. Groups like Planned Parenthood have no business in schools and they should not get any public funds. A long time ago I used to listen to Randall Terry on his own radio show he aired on WWCR, a Christian shortwave radio station in Nashville, TN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =hrjbTr_XXekXX
Come back and talk after you have adopted about 10 kids needing a home.
hornback12

Louisville, KY

#42 Jul 18, 2014
kadamson wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you think religious Christians have the power to pass a law violating the 2nd amendment?
tghere are all religious laws that are illegal. take for example the blue laws of the 50'. they said that you could not sell anything on sunday but bread or milk. this was based on the fact that sunday was a holy day to some and they wanted to force others to believe as they do. the laws baring gay marriage is the latest example.. religious nuts saying because i believe something you have to too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) 5 hr Sweetwater_ 6,022
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 hr zef 311,907
9 reasons abortion MUST remain legal. (Sep '07) 20 hr ffj 1,449
News State to begin audit of abortion-alternative group Sep 26 cpeter1313 1
Miss Jenny Abortion Procedure (Apr '14) Sep 26 asha 69
News Feds push back on states targeting Planned Pare... Sep 25 cpeter1313 1
News Florida Abolitionists Petition to Outlaw Aborti... Sep 25 cpeter1313 1
More from around the web