[EveningStar]

An old article that is now quite timely and deserving of a re-post. Old thread

[EveningStar]

Even back then some of our people realized that this guy was a nut.

[wideawake]

This article reaffirms that Horowitz is strong on geopolitical issues and as weak on moral issues as he was when he was a leftist.

To imply that the Founding Fathers may have been neutral on abortion? Please.

The reason why it wasn't discussed in the Constitution is simply because it was considered a moral outrage. The Constitution doesn't specifically ban wife-beating or child molestation either.

[Keyes2000mt]

Some thoughts: 4 years later, the article is as arrogant, misleading, and pompous as it was in 2000. Horowitz had the absolute NERVE to invite Keyes to leave a party when Horowitz just joined it in 1984 while Keyes had gone through Hell in college and been fighting for American values in the Cold War since Horowitz was busy leading student radicals. As the Old thread points out, Keyes didn't have a problem with McCain going to the concert, he had a problem with McCain saying such a band was his favorite.

[EternalVigilance]

Keyes' audience does contain a cohort of moral zealots, but his main constituency consists of pale-faced conservatives so desperate for a black face to defend them against radical attacks that they don't seem to appreciate the way in which their candidate himself is a radical.

Translation:

David Horowitz believes that conservatives are all a bunch of closet racists.

[EternalVigilance]

Keyes' audience does contain a cohort of moral zealots, but his main constituency consists of pale-faced conservatives so desperate for a black face to defend them against radical attacks that they don't seem to appreciate the way in which their candidate himself is a radical.

Translation:

David Horowitz believes that conservatives are all a bunch of closet racists.

[EternalVigilance]

Unfortunately, they were pushed to the right in New Hampshire by Keyes and his minions...

Awwwww....poor baby...

[EternalVigilance]

The Founders whom Keyes is so found of quoting did not outlaw abortion.

They also didn't outlaw ritual human sacrifice by name, since such things were covered under the murder statutes, were unacceptable in a civilized country from time immemorial, and because the Founders probably didn't think that in a nation of Christian folk, ripping tiny babies to pieces or burning them to death in saline solution would be a problem.

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks for reminding me once again how hostile David Horowitz still is to conservatism. I had forgotten.

[ckilmer]

"There will be no abortion on demand in a Gary Bauer administration," Gary Bauer has pompously promised. What administration can he be thinking of? He has never had the slightest chance of gaining the party's nomination or of winning any truly contested federal office in any electoral district in the entire United States. Nor has Keyes or Forbes.

But thanks to the absurdities of the primary process, all of them have the opportunity to pretend that they represent an important constituency in the Republican Party.
////////////////////
horowitz shows himself to be a complete pig here. the conservatives are the hot heart of the republican party in precisely the same sense as the homosexual acivitists are all that's left heat in the democratic party. horowitz is the one out in left field

horowitz shows himself to be conserned only about power here and not about justice.

finally horowitz has no understanding of the electorial process. electorial processes are all about electors and the electorate thinking out loud about what public policies serve the polity best.

as to Keys, I wouldn't vote for him but I love for him to run. He says great things on the campaign trail. for example in 2000 he said the way to bring down the homosexuals was to ban abortion. he's one of the few people in public life to understand the connection. likely because he has read the bible.

[DMZFrank]

"Not to mention the men who impregnated them and went along with their decisions"?

Horowitz ignores the fact that a man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. In this respect, men are totally out of the loop. The only reproductive right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".

I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. He doesn't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.

I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.

Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.