Posted on 09/02/2004 3:10:26 AM PDT by kattracks
New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Democratic senator Zell Miller is the featured keynote speaker at the third night of the Republican Party convention. His speech concludes a remarkable change from a pro-abortion governor who nominated abortion advocate Bill Clinton for president to a pro-life senator who supports pro-life President George W. Bush.Miller writes in his book, "A National Party No More," that he begin to change his mind on abortion with the birth of his great grandchildren.
"I believe the thinking of many Americans is changing on this subject," he writes.
"New science and technology can now show the heart of the unborn baby beating in the mother's womb," Miller says. "I saw it on the front page of Newsweek, no less."
The Georgia lawmakers says he remembers his twenty-year old grandson carrying a sonogram of his "yet unborn, but so alive daughter."
"It gave new meaning to the old Roberta Flack song 'The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face,'" Miller explains.
"I began to seriously wrestle with where I was on the real question," he writes. "I began to pray earnestly for God's guidance."
In fact, Miller dedicates an entire chapter in his book to describe his conversion on the abortion issue.
In an interview with Human Events editor Terence Jeffrey in January, Miller said he had come full circle and was definitely pro-life.
"I watched the demonstrators as they came to Washington, and the advocates for life, and the number of 42 million human beings having been killed because of Roe vs. Wade," Miller explained, "and it just grabbed ahold of me very strongly that what if one of my four great-grandchildren or four grandchildren had been one of those that never did get to enjoy the life that they have now."
The clincher for Miller may have been from women who have had abortions and wish they could undo their decisions.
"The most poignant sight for me at this year's annual pro-life march and demonstration in Washington, D.C.," wrote Miller, "was the large number of women holding signs saying they regretted their abortions."
Miller says he regrets the years he supported abortion. During his career as governor, he supported legal abortion but allowed for some exceptions -- such as when he signed a ban on partial-birth abortions in 1997.
"I know it is wrong to take these lives. For me it is no longer a political issue but a moral one, as it should have been from the beginning. I hope someday Roe v. Wade will be reversed," Miller wrote.
Miller believes that it will and points to polls showing that Americans are becoming increasingly pro-life, especially young adults.
Instead of nominating the newly-minted Democratic presidential candidate, Miller has criticized John Kerry for opposing a ban on partial birth abortion. Tonight, he pledges his support for President Bush.
In 1992, a pro-abortion Zell Miller offered the nomination address for presidential candidate Bill Clinton -- who eventually became the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.
Today's Zell Miller is a different man, though still a Democrat. He says he has lost faith in his party though he and many other pro-life Democrats remain members of it.
...for your issues.
Dear kattracks,
"You mean the party of Kennedy, clinton, Kerry, Daschle, Pelosi? His voice would have been drowned out by the majority."
This is a reason to be pro-abort?
Then why are we critical of all the pro-abort Catholic politicians? Especially the Democrat ones? After all, it isn't as if their voice would be heard if they were pro-life. Isn't that the calculation Dennis Kucinich made this year? To be a viable national Democrat, he had to trade in his pro-life beliefs for a pro-abort stance?
Isn't that what Ted Kennedy did back in the 1970s? Why criticize poor old Chappaquiddick Ted, then? He's just doing what he had to do to be viable in the Democrat Party.
John Kerry, too. Why do we want the bishops to give him a bad time? This is just what he has to do to be heard in Democrat Party politics.
Sorry, I have infinitely more admiration for the late Gov. Casey, a pro-life Democrat, than I do for Mr. Miller, a pro-abort Democrat through nearly his entire political career. I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that Mr. Casey likely had less explaining to do at his Particular Judgment than Mr. Miller will have at his.
But I am happy that Mr. Miller finally listened to his conscience. Better late than never.
sitetest
God bless him! Gosh I just like him more and more every day!
H*!l, I just wish there were more REPUBLICANS in the senate like him.
Is it too late for republicans to ask Zell to run again as a Republican?
Another reason the Democrats hate him - bless his heart. God works in mysterious ways.
Do many of the pro-life people realize that some states had already legalized abortion prior to Roe v Wade and some were close to doing so. So overturning Roe v Wade will not end all abortions.
Another point to be made is that if life begins at conception and this is made the law of the land that many methods of birth control will be outlawed.
This may go over fine with conservative catholics, but all of the people I have discussed this issue with do not want to lose the pill.
Well, I'm not that extreme on the issue. I think one can make a purely legal (as opposed to religious) argument for assuming that life begins at conception. Basically, if we can abort a child at the second trimester, then why can't we abort a 2 year old? What's the difference? I know it may sound silly on the face of it, but some wacko will eventually end up arguing that somehow a 2 year old is not 'as conscious' as an adult, and therefore is something like a fetus. I just think there's no end to this kind of thinking. The minute you assume a fetus is somehow ethically different from an adult, you go down a slippery slope of fallacious reasoning. I accept certain provisions to the anti-abortion/pro-life stance. I think birth control is essential and I would point out that most forms of birth control pill are preventive in that they PREVENT conception; as opposed to 'after the fact' pills that kill the fetus (these are relatively new pills - RU 486). Finally, I would argue that abortion for the physical health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, should be legal. The key is that we need to stop abortion on demand; not necessarily all abortions. You are quite correct about the law prior to Roe v. Wade. That's why there should be a FEDERAL law illegalizing abortion except in the cases outlined above.
Umm, can a California housewife murder her illegal alien gardener whenever she likes? The citizen/noncitizen argument doesn't work. The real moral outrage is that we accord dogs more rights than the human fetus.
That is a liberal myth. I don't know any pro-lifer who thinks so. Roe v Wade is only the first step.
We need to tell those who believe in some abortion restrictions (i.e. the MAJORITY) that we will get NONE until Roe v Wade is repealed and then each can be passed through legislature.
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.