A Little Rice With Your Fetus?

the Proctoscope (my blog) ^ | 03/12/2005 | Don Procto

[donprocto]

I read, with just a little more than disappointment, today's Washington Times article about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, her political ambitions, and her "mildly pro-choice" stance on abortion.

In this, and numerous other interviews, she describes herself as "deeply religious". She points out that she is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. In this interview with the Presbyterian Layman, she describes herself as an, “all-over-the-map Republican” and “almost shockingly libertarian” on other issues.

Lest the reader be misled, there is more than one Presbyterian church. The one which claims Dr. Rice as one of it's own is none other than the Presbyterian Church (USA), which makes the following statement about abortion:

". . . There is [both] agreement and disagreement on the basic issue of abortion. The committee [on problem pregnancies and abortion] agreed that there are no biblical texts that speak expressly to the topic of abortion, but that taken in their totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with messages that advocate respect for the woman and child before and after birth. Therefore the Presbyterian Church (USA) encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion."

In other words, they are pro-choice. They are also embroiled in a controversy over whether or not they should ordain active, practicing homosexuals to ministry. In this article, they state that the Bible has errors in it.

As to her quote about being shockingly "libertarian", here's the definition of that word, "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. One who believes in free will."

So now we know that, upon further inspection, Dr. Rice's 'deeply religious' beliefs are grounded in one of the most liberal protestant denominations, one which doesn't even believe that it's own guidebook (the Bible) is infallible. We also know that she believes in individual rights.

Unless you're an unborn child.

Needless to say, the Republicans are afraid of Hillary Clinton, already shape shifting as she re-invents herself for her 2008 presidential campaign. This is a party which has allowed itself to be pulled over to the left, state by state, and now has little more to offer than the hope of better Supreme Court nominees.

Almost every liberal candidate has talent, personality, intellect, and energy. Until fairly recently, conservatives in this country recognized that, without a strong moral foundation, these things are not enough. Miss Rice's brand of religiosity seems to have something in common with modern day abortion clinics, "They look beautiful on the outside. But on the inside they are full of the bones of the dead."

Is this what you really want?

[Fenris6]

You're lying again Fenris. I never labeled her as pro abortion. I quoted her attributed words. She claims to be "mildly pro choice". Bush uses the words "pro life" to self desrcibe. You see those as equivalent. They aren't. You are a dishonest fellow, I think we've gone as far as we can. Perhaps some day when you grow up and stow the "fanatic" crap in the hold, wee can have another go

You misrepresent my comments and then run away? How pathetic.

[snugs]

As an English person my views on this are partial irrelevant but from an outsider looking in.

1) I get the impression GWB is pro life but would never come out and state this 100% because of the ramifications this would cause. Even saying this he would never say it would be wrong in the cases of rape, incest or where life of the mother is at stake as a previous poster pointed out.

2) Whether McCain or Rice is elected abortion will not be banned and on one level I am in favour of this the thought of back street abortion clinics or women self aborting is surely not something you want to go back to. Partial birth abortion is another thing entirely if someone has carried that far I believe they should have to go full term adoption can then be arranged but in many cases I am certain the mother would change her mind. If she does then the pro life supporters should actively help her because the chances are there are problems within the family for her to have considered abortion in the first place.

3) Unfortunately times and morals have changed. Because it is legal to live together and have children out of wedlock does not mean you have to do it or promote it. On one level this is similar with abortion. What the target should be is to outlaw partial birth abortion and try to educate that all abortion is abhorrent but to ban it or make the banning of it part of a candidate's manifesto would IMHO be counter productive and a certain vote looser.

[snugs]

She's not Pro-Abortion [unless you are a fanatic]

I agree she is a realist and also stated she is anti partial birth abortion. There is a world of difference between not wanting an outright ban and promoting abortion.