Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrat Zell Miller Recounts His Change From Pro-Abortion to Pro-Life
LIFENEWS.com ^ | 9/01/04 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 09/02/2004 3:10:26 AM PDT by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: kjenerette

...for your issues.


21 posted on 09/02/2004 6:32:25 AM PDT by Van Jenerette (US Army(1967-1991) - Infantry OCS Hall of Fame, Ft. Benning (2001 Inductee))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

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


22 posted on 09/02/2004 6:49:04 AM PDT by sitetest (Spitball Kerry for Collaborator-in-Chief!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

God bless him! Gosh I just like him more and more every day!


23 posted on 09/02/2004 8:51:31 AM PDT by Awestruck (The artist formerly known as Goodie D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sargon

H*!l, I just wish there were more REPUBLICANS in the senate like him.


24 posted on 09/02/2004 9:10:09 AM PDT by mywholebodyisaweapon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thingumbob

Is it too late for republicans to ask Zell to run again as a Republican?


25 posted on 09/02/2004 1:25:48 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

Another reason the Democrats hate him - bless his heart. God works in mysterious ways.

26 posted on 09/02/2004 4:52:13 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (Kerry's testimony before the Senate was instrumental to America's defeat in the Vietnam War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thingumbob

Roe, Roe, Roe v Wade, fifty million lost. End abortion on demand, stop the holocaust!


27 posted on 09/09/2004 11:21:44 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ableChair

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.


28 posted on 09/09/2004 11:29:15 PM PDT by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

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.


29 posted on 09/10/2004 10:12:34 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
Actually the regular birth control pills that are prescribed by plan parenthood also stop implantation of a fertilized egg to the uterus. Always have from my understanding. So a constitutional amendment banning abortion and stating life begins at conception would also make oral contraceptives illegal. Which is what the ultra-conservative catholics want. I have spoke to some ultra-conservative catholics and some believe that we need to go back to the days of the "Comstock laws". NO THANKS.

As far as the slippery slope you mentioned I have worked it out like this. The 14th amendment says that all person's born or naturalized are citizens of the USA and the states wherein they reside. So as far as I am concerned you have a fully legal citizen (a woman) and a non-legal entity (the fetus). As soon as it is born it is a citizen entitled to all the rights as any other citizen. Until then it is up to the woman (and her conscience) to decide what to do.
30 posted on 09/11/2004 2:07:58 AM PDT by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

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.


31 posted on 09/11/2004 2:13:23 AM PDT by maro (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: armordog99
So overturning Roe v Wade will not end all abortions.

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.

32 posted on 09/11/2004 2:19:16 AM PDT by stands2reason (Limousine Liberal--a man who has his cake, eats his cake, and complains that other people have cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: maro
Of course and illegal immigrant is still a citizen of another country and therefore cannot be murdered. The question is however what legal status does a fetus have. In my humble view, according to the 14th amendment, none.

Now and constitutional amendment saying life begins at conception, giving the fetus the full protection of the law, would change that. It would, however, also outlaw all oral contraceptives.
33 posted on 09/11/2004 2:58:17 AM PDT by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: armordog99
So as far as I am concerned you have a fully legal citizen (a woman) and a non-legal entity (the fetus). As soon as it is born it is a citizen entitled to all the rights as any other citizen. Until then it is up to the woman (and her conscience) to decide what to do.

That's the part I'm not as sure about. It seems somewhat arbitrary. I mean, why pick birth as that point of entitlement to legal protection? It seems more sound to err on the side of life and pick conception. Granted, either way it's arbitrary, but I would rather err on the side of life.
34 posted on 09/11/2004 9:49:14 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson