Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Rice pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008 on Friday during an hour-long interview with reporters at WASHINGTON TIMES, top sources tell DRUDGE. Rice gave her most detailed explanation of a 'mildly pro-choice' stance on abortion, she would not want the government 'forcing its views' on abortion... She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... Developing late Friday for Saturday cycles... MORE...
People aren't going to switch from Hillary to Condi because Condi supports abortion.
Over at DU they agree with the FRINOs that Condi is totally unsuitable for the job.
Will not get mine.
I'm a realist. No one is going to put the "Roe" genie back in the bottle. What we can do is get sensible about it and steadily reduce both the areas in which it's "acceptable" and the moral climate that would even tolerate it. From that perspective, I'm with zencat that it should be "legal" and never happen, because I just don't ever see any judicial or legislative repeal of Roe.
Don't use big words....you will fluster the roundheads.
"That sounds so nasty when you say it, but you want to deny women the right to have an abortion if they are raped or dying or screwed by their daddy."
When we are ready to execute the rapist or father who impregnates his minor daughter, only then do I think we should consider executing the innocent child. Why should the child die for the crimes of his/her father? Let's kill the perp instead, huh?
Well, there's the rub. It's a matter of language, really. To some people, the word "abortion" implies an intention to kill the child. So, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, it is better, IMO, not to call the surgery an abortion, because it isn't one.
Being one of those nasty Catholic extremists myself, it helps me to use precise language. We say procured abortion is always gravely wrong, but in so doing, we do not mean that a surgery of the type you describe would be wrong.
I would point out, though, that many people that hold to this position really are sincere about it, and don't take the position just to beat up on you, or on women generally. We really think that a procured abortion is the taking of a human life, and is therefore immoral. At the same time, we understand that many women, for various reasons, and not always with sufficient information, have had abortions, and they are suffering emotionally as a result. That's why there are many programs, like Project Rachael set up to help them.
You are the only one to mention her gender or race, yet you project that on to others. Why?
Discriminationist: sure. Anti-life: definitely not.
Perhaps, but as I try to explain in #1230, that is not a precise use of language, and leads to misunderstandings.
The difference is in a procured abortion, you intend to kill the child. In a surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, you intend to save the mother's life (by removing part of the fallopian tube), the child dies as an unintended (but obviously anticipated) result.
Condi will be a tremendous plus for the Republican ticket, more likely as veep than president. Her election will create a major longlasting change in the way blacks perceive the Republican party. It would be a sharp, possibly decisive, blow to the Democrats.
It doesn't always work.
Same here. But then I feel the same way about any member of the president's cabinet.
Abortion is now, since Roe, a "national" issue. That genie of making it national was unbottled long ago. The Supremes vote however they feel...so yes, Roe could be reversed, if 5 of those guys and gals were conservatives (with guts).
Remember how 15 years ago, execution of minors was not cruel and unusual, now as of last week, the same court says it is...(or 5 of them do). Clearly we have a court who feels unconstrained by the Constitution.
I do think we should work incrementally, trying to build a moral consensus that abortion is wrong, along with concomitant laws. However, secular law must follow (or lead) the moral consensus--because there are always a few who will definitely want to commit infanticide--and the state should not enable it with loose, liberal laws about it. Short of heaven, there will never be a time when abortion is legal, but unheard of.
As long as Roe stands (which was decided at a time when the moral consensus through the legislatures of the states was that it was wrong), abortion will be a national issue. Revoke Roe, and it will go back to the states, where other forms of laws against murder have always been. Without the revocation of Roe, it will never be a state issue.
I believe that unless and until the judicial tyranny we now are under has its back broken, we will not be free to enact moral laws. Judicial review itself, though with a long tradition, doesn't have the constitutional backing that its strict adherents imagine. For the first 150 years of its usage (with the major exception of Dred Scott) the justices were cautious, and kept their power under control, now they think they can nullify whatever they want for their perverted vision of the good of society. This is NOT at all what the Framers had in mind by the constitutional balance of power.
The moral issues behind the Civil War were at least as momentous. One side of this issue not only allows but promotes the very murder of infants! Our previous conflict was over kidnapping, bondage and forced labor...this one is about bald-faced bloody murder (hidden in the oh-so-respectable world of medicine)--which conflict is worse? I honestly expect to see another blood-soaked conflict in America, perhaps in my lifetime, over so called "social issues" such as abortion. If it isn't a civil war, it will be an invasive war. The blood of the 45,000,000 cries out for justice.
Very cute and creative - did you come up with that one all on your own?
No i'm not. I just favor concentrating our military efforts on targets that constitute a genuine threat to our nation. I would have supported a massive operation against Afghanistan - even in Pakistan - to crush the Taliban and get Osama "Dead or alive". He was the 9-11 culprit - and we still haven't caught him. Why don't you accuse our policymakers of being "doves" because they've let Osama continue to roam free? It's as if, instead of hunting down the Atlanta killer of yesterday, police deployed all their forces against some bookies on the city's southside. Because I think Iraq was an unncessary diversion doesn't make me a dove.
"No one should ever have the "choice" to legally comment infanticide."
anencephaly n: a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. A congenital absence of the brain and cranial vault, with the cerebral hemispheres completely missing or greatly reduced in size.
Is this an infant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.