Skip to comments.
Joseph Farah Questions "Bush and Abortion"
WND.com ^
| 10-30-03
| Farah, Joseph
Posted on 10/30/2003 5:46:38 AM PST by Theodore R.
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: Theodore R.
We can all agree with most everything in this article, except for the attack on Bush.
There is only so much that can be done at one time. Look how long it took for the PBA to get passed.
Even Kennedy and Hitlery are willing to take the incremental approach to socialized medicine.
Why aren't "conservatives" willing to do the same on abortion?
To: 11th Earl of Mar
Why aren't "conservatives" willing to do the same on abortion? Good question. You can substitute a number of issues for abortion in your question and it would still be a good question.
Now, would you like an honest answer to it?
3
posted on
10/30/2003 6:10:55 AM PST
by
rdb3
(We're all gonna go, but I hate to go fast. Then again, it won't be fun to stick around and go last.)
To: Theodore R.
Bush is the leader of the entire country, whether they like it or not. He is in the fight of his life to get reelected and probably to keep the republican party from being marginalized. That is the real world.
4
posted on
10/30/2003 6:22:24 AM PST
by
tkathy
(The islamofascists and the democrats are trying to destroy this country)
To: 11th Earl of Mar
Conservatives aren't even willing to publicly question liberal positions on abortion, they aren't about to challenge them. How many times have you heard a liberal "leader" proclaim the belief that abortions be safe, legal and rare? Did you ever wonder why the necessity for rarity?
If the liberal position, that abortions do no harm to any living person, was believed by it's holder, why the need for rarity? If a fetus is simply a undifferentiated mass of cells, how is it different from a polyp, or cyst or tumor? In fact, with that frame of reference, an abortion is nothing more than an elective medical procedure. We don't wish for fewer, mole removals, fewer tooth extractions or even fewer face lifts.
The answer, of course, is that liberals know most folks believe that a fetus is a person, and if such a callous attitude as I describe above was uttered, the liberal extremity would be unmasked. But conservatives won't take to the fight, because it really isn't worth the battle, even incrementally.
To: Sgt_Schultze
But conservatives won't take to the fight, because it really isn't worth the battle, even incrementally.
Yes, conservatives have been led to believe that they lose elections (Dole,Lungren,McCollum in FL) because "pro-choice" people simply overwhelm them. The conservatives do not often philosophically make the case against abortion. Many feel that the issue is "lose-lose" for them.
To: Sgt_Schultze
Sadly, Joe's argument breaks down at the point where he quotes the term 'person'. The specious fiat SCOTUS of 1973 disenfranchised the alive unborn, then laid claim to the notion that unless the high court conveys personhood upon the preborn they cannot enjoy the protections of the Constitution. I've had that spittled out at me numerous times when discussing the fiat nature of the Roe and Doe decisions. ... an unborn child, though alive and sensing her environment, is not a 'person born in'. It's kind of like a court's 'finding of facts' ... the truth is what the court says it is, regardless of reality or morality.
7
posted on
10/30/2003 6:39:14 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: Theodore R.
Farah needs to reposition his head in acknowledgement of the fact that the detection of prostate and colon cancer is best left to qualified medical professionals.
8
posted on
10/30/2003 6:39:16 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: Theodore R.
"In fact, there's precious little real leadership anywhere in the United States today."
Sums it up in one sentence.
SSDD
9
posted on
10/30/2003 6:42:08 AM PST
by
WhiteGuy
(Constitutionally limited Government now!)
To: 11th Earl of Mar
There is only so much that can be done at one time.Of course---but why did Bush go out of his way to dismiss the possibility of doing more than banning partial-birth abortion?
10
posted on
10/30/2003 6:46:27 AM PST
by
MrLeRoy
(The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
To: Sgt_Schultze
But where do you see Hillary or Ted Kennedy calling for socialized medicine?
You don't. You only see them talking about the next baby step.
And if conservatives learned the same lesson, we would be farther ahead right now.
To: 11th Earl of Mar
And if conservatives learned the same lesson, we would be farther ahead right now. Politically speaking, conservatives are just plum dumb. I'm talking about the officials and the grassroots. They're stupid, and they more often than not fail to put their money where their mouths are.
12
posted on
10/30/2003 6:59:21 AM PST
by
rdb3
(We're all gonna go, but I hate to go fast. Then again, it won't be fun to stick around and go last.)
To: 11th Earl of Mar
They are calling for socialized medicine. Most liberals recognize a "right" to medical care. Imputed in that position is a result in unified availability. The left simply realizes that the only way to get there is incrementally.
To: Sgt_Schultze
They are not calling for socialized medicine. They are only talking about the next "small" step... government mandated healthcare benefits for all employees, etc.
Hillary, even at the height of her popularity, never called for an outright socialist medical system.
Yes, they want it. But they know enough to keep their mouths shut as to what their end game is.
Conservatives on the other hand, constantly talk about the ultimate objective [prolifers are guilty, Newt was guilty, etc.] and all they do is provide fodder for the enemy and energize voters from the other side.
To: 11th Earl of Mar
Conservatives on the other hand, constantly talk about the ultimate objective [prolifers are guilty, Newt was guilty, etc.] and all they do is provide fodder for the enemy and energize voters from the other side.Which conservatives would these be? Not the ones who are actually in power, and that is indeed why they fail conservatism.
The conservative politicians who were most successful at advancing the cause - I'm particularly thinking of Goldwater and Reagan - most certainly did not talk around the subject. They weren't afraid of criticism, and so they were able to stare it down. The nice guys won't get anywhere.
15
posted on
10/30/2003 8:09:55 AM PST
by
inquest
("Where else do gun owners have to go?" - Lee Atwater)
To: inquest
I was thinking in particular of the conservatives who write the planks for the GOP.
Every election cycle, conservatives are forced to answer why they support abortion in the case of rape and incest.
Liberals are much smarter than conservatives. They would never have a plank in their platform calling for socialized medicine, gay marriage or higher taxes.
They simply move America in that direction each year step by step.
To: Theodore R.
"Joseph Farah Questions?" [chuckle]
17
posted on
10/30/2003 9:28:19 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: Theodore R.
[ "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ]
I see.....
^snide^ FIRST deport the creator and then attack them pesky inalinable thingys.... ^/snide^
Really, quite simple Watson...-S. Holmes..
18
posted on
10/30/2003 9:36:24 AM PST
by
hosepipe
To: Theodore R.
President Bush says the United States is not ready for a total abortion ban. I figure God is ready for America to enact a total ban on abortion...regardless of how Rove and his herd of RINOs feel about it...
19
posted on
10/30/2003 12:49:45 PM PST
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: Everybody; Theodore R.
No matter what the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973 or in subsequent rulings, abortion is illegal and unconstitutional, and I will prove it to you in this column. Joe, you only prove yourself wrong, by not addressing who is a person.
"Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
A fiat prohibitional law decreeing early term abortion to be murder would violate a womans right to a grand jury indictment.
nor shall any person ------------- be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ----- ."
Again, it is the pregnant woman, a legal person, whos rights would be violated, not those of an undeveloped child, -- not yet a viable person.
Clearly, the Fifth Amendment establishes that our posterity those yet unborn shall not be deprived of life without due process. Bingo!
Not so, it ~is~ clear that those unborn cannot be persons until viability. Till they are capable of being born.
The 14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"All persons born" ----------- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Pregant women shall not be deprived of life or liberty.
Thus, - Joseph Farah proves nothing.
20
posted on
10/30/2003 1:55:55 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & politics as usual lost. Yo!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson