PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[JeffAtlanta]

Dumping Roe is a unrealistic goal at this time.

Exactly. Yet we should have the party fall on its sword to placate the "the overturning of Roe is the #1 issue" crowd.

[streetpreacher]

"Stuff it Street!"

Pithy. Very Pithy. - O'Reilly

[Cold Heat]

Again, I'll tell you that Roe is the least of our judicial problems.

We now have a judicial created right to privacy that was done by the case in Texas.We have the courts telling our defense dept what rights terrorists have under our Constitution.(as if anyone ever saw that one coming)

There are many issues and Roe is but one!

Just one.

Screw the litmus test for abortion and get some judges who understand what is NOT in the Constitution.

Not what they can make of it.

[sitetest]

Dear JeffAtlanta,

"Organ stealing has always been a crime - abortion is legal."

Not very good reasoning, that.

Up until 1973, abortion in most places was illegal. In fact, the goal of the folks who took Roe to the Supreme Court were hoping that they would get some exceptions in Texas' then-current abortion law. Norma McCovey (Jane Roe) claimed to have been raped, and abortion was not permitted under Texas law, even for rape.

Go read on "model abortion laws" priot to 1973. The "liberal" side of the argument back then was to permit abortions under the exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, and extreme health needs of the mother (Not, "I wanna go to the prom and I don't wanna look fat.").

The Supremes came back with that and a whole lot, WHOLE LOT more.

"Again, if these large majorities really exist why not propose a specific amendment to overturn Roe V Wade? The amendment doesn't have to ban all abortions - it can just be specifically targeted at Roe V Wade. Why go through all of this work, uncertainty and disappointment if you indeed do have these large majorities?"

What, you're proposing we write an amendment that says, "We can ban PBA, we can ban third-trimester, we can ban this that and the other thing."

LOL!!

People complain about cluttering up the Constitution with the FMA!

Why not just overturn Roe and return the question to the people?

What are you afraid of? That the people might actually accept, in fact, demand significant restrictions on abortion?


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear JeffAtlanta,

You may be right, because the left has done a very good job of persuading people that Roe does not mandate abortion on demand in all three trimesters.

Nonetheless, when asked, large majorities support a ban on PBA. That's been declared against Roe by the Supreme Court.

So, it seems, regardless of what people BELIEVE about Roe, the facts of Roe prevent restrictions that the people support.


sitetest

[JeffAtlanta]

Either way, abortion has been cited as one of the highest risk procedures as it relates to breast cancer.

This is has been cited but not accepted. There are studies on both sides of this. Its certainly doesn't have enough scientific support to use as a argument for limiting abortion.

[streetpreacher]

"Preach on and start your own party if you want."

Oh yeah, well "Atlanta on to you!" Whatever the heck that means...

Start addressing issues rather than usernames.

Well at least you do attempt to answer objections unlike LukewarmHeat.

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

Supreme Court Justices are not bound by precedent. Lower court judges are, but not the Supremes.

Roe is not a "law." It is a judicial decision that has an effect on law. The Supreme Court, at any time, may overturn Roe. To state otherwise is to show real lack of knowledge about how things work in the United States.


sitetest

[JeffAtlanta]

Start addressing issues rather than usernames.

I have addressed the issues in detail.

[streetpreacher]

Good we agree on judges, we just disagree on whether they will overturn Roe v. Wade or not. We're on the same side. What a pointless, wasted conversation.

[cgk]

WPtG: Of the three choices, which one would those repondents who favor abortion only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother fall in to?

JA: Mostly "Should not be permitted". Those you listed are called "extreme circumstances", not merely "stricter limits". Stricter limits means parental notification, partial birth and third trimester abortions.

I suspect several people on this very thread who agree with that "3 exceptions rule" would disagree with your categorization of them as backing the "should not be permitted" answer in that poll. I may be wrong, but based on reading much of this thread "should not be permitted" is considered extreme, and does not include the 3 exceptions.

[sitetest]

Dear tpaine,

"States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby."

So long as it doesn't prevent a woman from procuring an abortion.

A distinction without a difference. The ultimate fig leaf of semantics.

I thought I had the last word between us? At least that's what you said several hundred posts ago.


sitetest

[Cold Heat]

The Supreme Court, at any time, may overturn Roe. To state otherwise is to show real lack of knowledge about how things work in the United States.

LOL!

Nevermind! LOL!

I gotta go......LOL!

[JeffAtlanta]

Nonetheless, when asked, large majorities support a ban on PBA. That's been declared against Roe by the Supreme Court.

That may be true but that doesn't mean that they want Roe overturned. They might not be crazy about some of late term abortions, but they're not willing to trade the blanket freedom that Roe gives them.

There are many areas where conservatives dissagree with Bush (border control, spending, etc) but that doesn't mean that they want him out of office.

Like I said, find a poll that simply asks "Do you want Roe overturned". See how much support it gets.

[JeffAtlanta]

I may be wrong, but based on reading much of this thread "should not be permitted" is considered extreme, and does not include the 3 exceptions.

Do you believe that 22% of the country beleives that abortions should be banned in all circumstances and another 40% believes they should be banned except for those three exceptions?

The poll was fatally flawed because it didn't explicitly state the 3 exception choice. It certainly can't be used to show support for overturning Roe V Wade.

[streetpreacher]

You show a remarkable level of childishness in your posts.

[Cold Heat]

What a pointless, wasted conversation

Again, we agree:-)

[DBeers]

"I am pro-life, but I'll not ram it down someone else's throat."

I would suggest IF you are truly pro-life & a truly Republican that the life & liberty of an innocent would be a paramount inalienable right -a right that may require a ramming down someone else's throat.

Some things non negotiable and require pursuit regardless of probabilty of success...

Lead, follow or get out of the way...

[JeffAtlanta]

Why not just overturn Roe and return the question to the people? What are you afraid of? That the people might actually accept, in fact, demand significant restrictions on abortion?

No, what scares me is that you guys are certain to fail and the republican party and the conservative movement will be destroyed in the process. I, along with most people, have more things to worry about than just abortion.

BTW, the amendment could just say "The federal government is prohibited from legislating the issue of abortion - this power is reserved for the states." What's so hard about that?

[Cold Heat]

You sir, are messing with the wrong dude.

I find your argument shallow, your hyperbole disgusting and your attitude even worse.

But who cares.........

You have the right to be vocal, but just don't get in my face with it.

I take things like that personally.