I ♥ Marco Rubio

I ♥ Marco Rubio - For more reasons than this, but this is a great start.

Tallahassee, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio has a message for his opponent, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist: real pro-life advocates oppose Roe v. Wade. Rubio appeared at the Christian Family Coalition candidate forum in Miami this weekend.

“If you don't believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, you are not pro-life. Everyone says they're pro-life, but I am pro-life because I want to protect the rights of everyone, including unborn children who can't speak for themselves," he said. “Some say they're pro-life but don't want to change laws, only hearts. However, senators can't change hearts. Only God can. Senators make laws and make decisions about the judges that interpret those laws.”

During his 2006 campaign for governor, Crist said he was "pro-life" but was not for changing abortion laws. But Rubio told an audience last week that he "won't dance around the issue." Rubio said that the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion, Roe V. Wade, is wrong. Rubio has also been touting votes he made against spending taxpayer money on stem cell research as well as a bill requiring abortion centers to show women an ultrasound of their unborn child with the hopes some will not have an abortion.

It should not be a surprise that an administration that stands so steadfast to protect the rights of those that seeks to kill innocent citizens does so little to protect the rights of innocent babies.

We protect presumed "innocent" terrorists and systematically destroy innocent babies. NICE!!

It's not an argument of legalism vs. theism because both are lawyers by training as well as professed men of faith. So how does a Marco Rubio come to his position and a Barack Obama come to his?

I just love some of the pro-choice crowds arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo.

- "It's the Law of the Land"

From Ronald Reagan:

Regarding abortion:
"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...

"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."
[Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1984. pp 15-18)]

The Supreme Court ratification simply means it's the law of the land for the time being.

The Supreme Court once ratified slavery with the Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision as well. They were wrong then, they are wrong now with Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. It's going to take time for them to admit they were wrong.

Of course, they never institutionally admitted they were wrong about slavery and reversed themselves, we had to go through the Civil Way to correct their mistake back then.

Today, we just discard fetuses like chord-wood in medical dumpsters or sell it for profit in the name of research. AGAIN, NICE!!!

Interesting parallel as well in that the Supremes used the justification that slaves were not citizens and therefore were not entitled to have their rights protected. They were not considered viable persons in the eyes of the court. Just like the unborn today.

The pro-choice stance is also similar in logic to the failed argument of the South, proclaiming it was their choice (states rights) to decide on slavery within their borders.

- It's my choice (states rights argument).
We restrict lot's of activities that people would "choose" to do. It's not that simple.

- It's my body (borders), I can do what I want
See above.

- It's not a baby, it's not viable.
Neither would you if you were in a car accident and found yourself on life-support. Wouldn't you want your rights protected in your absence of viability?

- We don't want to go back to the days of back-alley abortions.
We never lived in such a day. Abortions back then were done in clinics the same as today. By doctors and everything.

- What about for cases like rape and incest or to protect the life of the mother?
I'm with you on the life of the mother. And I was even there in the other two cases, but to see how the abortion industry has now grown to protect the perpetrators of rape and incest and morphed into a form of back-up birth control, was that the original intent of Roe v. Wade? REALLY?!?

Have't we stretched the definition of protect the life of the mother too far so that we're now protecting the "mental health" of the mother to mean "I don't want to deal with stretch marks" or "I'm just not ready to be a mom." REALLY?!? And this puts your very life at risk?

Morally, ethically, spiritually on the same side of history as slavery, eugenics and ethnic /racial cleansing IMO.

What, you say "It's just a few bad apples that give the barrel a bad name"?
Right, Hitler and his fellow henchman were just a couple of bad apples as well. History tell us what kind of damage they were able to do.

I'm glad some (like Rubio) are standing up forcefully against this scourge of abortion and so-called "respectable" organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Do they promote infanticide? - Of course, they do. And worse.

The "choice" is simple. Choose Life.
-------
But wait there's more:

Rubio became well known after publishing his book 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future. The book was put together with primarily from input Rubio received from Florida citizens. This was done through what Rubio calls "Idearaisers".

A politician who listens to his constituents, acts in their best interests and understands the boundaries and limitations of government?

NOW THAT IS THE KIND OF CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!