Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
We believe that abortion is infanticide, and that a holocaust of infants is taking place. We do not believe that there is any other issue on Earth that compares with abortion in moral import. And therefore, there is no policy or combination of policies you Republicans can offer, including perfect tax policies, tort reform, and every other thing that is near and dear to Republican hearts, that matters a damn if abortion is overlooked and allowed to slide by.
We know that this issue has to be settled in the Supreme Court, nowhere else. And we know that the opportunity to put new justices on the court comes once in a decade, maybe, and that the current opportunity to alter the complexion of the court is not going to come again for a generation. Therefore, the real possibility exists that abortion can finally be seriously curtailed, soon, by the Supreme Court changing Roe v. Wade or eliminating it...IF, and ONLY IF, we can get pro-life judges on that court.
To do that, we have trusted the Republicans for years. We just came out and voted for you again this time, in unprecedented numbers, because we are not stupid and we know what is at stake. Not just evangelicals either. The religious CATHOLIC vote went Republican in 2004, and they didn't do it because of trade policy or even gay marriage. Their issue is abortion.
And the overriding issue is abortion.
So, if the Republicans allow Senator Specter to get the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and he blocks pro-life nominees, or if the Republicans do not use the nuclear option to override Democrat filibusters of pro-life nominees, THIS TIME there is no place for Republicans to hide. WE KNOW that you have the power, now, because WE just voted to give it to you. We understand that you can block Specter. And we understand the nuclear option.
And therefore, we most certainly will understand that if you allow the pro-life judges to be blocked, that it will be your political CHOICE to have done so. You CAN put pro-life judges on the bench, if you expend a lot of political capital. This will offend some people - a lot of people. And that is the price you HAVE to pay to get our votes next time. You have to be willing to bet the whole house to end infanticide.
If not, we will not vote for you. We won't go running to vote for the Democrats: they're pro-abortion. We won't go out and form a third party: we're not stupid and know that won't work. We'll just stay home, just like we did in 2000. Except that in 2000 it was out of frustration and neglect, and the lack of belief that anything will change. There was no organized campaign to keep the pro-life vote home in 2000.
This time, it's different. We understand the system, and we know that you have the power. And we demand that you use the power straight down the line to fill the high court and the appellate courts with judges who will protect the lives of babies. Period. This is not negotiable. At all. This is why we voted for you. You have nothing with which to bargain with us, and if you screw us, we will stay organized and we will stay home purposely to destroy the Republican party. Because if you do not protect the babies when you have the power to do it, you are no better than the Democrats...and worse, you will have lied to us.
This means, in effect, that all of those things YOU care most about: taxation, immigration, trade and business policy, deregulation - all of those core issues that come as an economic package, are held hostage to our issue: babies. If you will not protect the babies, we will stay home and let the Democrats destroy everything that YOU believe in.
This is called "Chicken". It is called a "Mexican Standoff". And since we are fired up by the certitude that we are doing God's work in defending babies, we cannot be bought, and you cannot win so much as an election for dog catcher in this country without us.
Therefore, the solution is simple and obvious: give us what we voted for you to do. Give us pro-life judges. Use all of your power to do it. Sweep Specter out of the way: is he worth losing all the rest of your agenda? - because we really will stay home and throw the country to the Democrats if you're no better than they are on abortion, just to punish YOU for having betrayed us. When the filibusters come, and they will come, use the nuclear option to override them. That will poison the Senate, yes. So what? We are talking about babies here. And with our votes, militantly mobilized because we are winning, alongside of yours, in 2006 and 2008 and beyond, even if the Senate is poisoned, you will be able to replace it with a more Republican one.
That there is even a debate going on as to what to do with Specter is alarming, but we have had our hearts broken before, so we'll sit and pray and trust President Bush and Senator Frist and the Republicans to do the right thing.
Screw us, though, and we will turn on you and your whole agenda will go down the drain with the blood of the babies you wouldn't put your power on the line to save.
The easy solution, the win-win solution, is to BE as pro-life as you campaigned as being. Just do it.
I apologize for the length of this post. But it needed to be said. The Republicans do not seem to get it. They need to understand that we are more committed to saving babies than we are to the fortunes of the Republican Party. That Specter is still in play demonstrates that too many of them do not take this seriously.
Rather than test us, what you guys should do is simply cave, now, and give us what we want. Do that, and you wont hear from us again - there will be no creeping theocracy in America - because this is about the only religious issue that Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals AGREE on.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
Please cite for me where I quoted the Bible or feared the wrath of God.
Thanks,
sitetest
"I am not against the overturning of Roe."
Really?
Here's you in post #1538:
Abortion straddles these lines and it makes it so difficult for States, who are responsible for making and enforcing much of our law to deal with.
That is why Roe was brought to the "nine" years ago for a decision that would put an end to the distress.
Sounds like you think Roe was needed to put an end to the "distress." Why would you want to overturn what was necessary?
From #1479:
It is the health clause that needs court limitations, and I believe that can be done without violating Roe.
You don't sound eager to overturn Roe, but rather to preserve it as best as it can be.
From #1313:
This is why Roe evolved and why it will remain as settled law.
Just because there may be no speed limit on a highway, is not direct cause for people to travel at over 100MPH.
With the same logic employed, Roe can remain law while abortions decline to a rarity.
Doesn't sound like you're eager to overturn Roe. You call it settled law. Most folks do actually wish to avoid overturning settled law. Especially folks who say they are against judicial activist, as you have claimed.
You just don't sound very eager for Roe to be overturned. ;-)
Here's something from #1256:
Roe protections exist because of public demands for it.
Those demands are still there. Roe will not go away until the need for it is long gone, and even then it will likely remain for some time to come.
I was starting to think that maybe you thought Roe was needed in the PAST. But I was wrong. You think that Roe will be needed for some time to come.
You're not against overturning Roe, even though it will be needed for some time to come?? Hmm... that's confusing.
Oh, I get it. It's that politics "is a game. Nothing more and nothing less."
But heck, I'll chalk it all up to inexactitude on your part.
So you're okay if the next set of Supremes overturns Roe?
Great, glad we agree that Roe ought to be overturned. ;-)
"I said it was not going to happen."
That's certainly a possibility, but I will remain hopeful. You should, too! It would do wonders for your outlook!
"As to your even believing for a split second that you have it in your power to somehow damage the Republican party, all I can say is that you truly are nuts!"
Oh, heck, I didn't say that. I don't think it. I didn't even suggest it.
I did say that the failure to name strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, and assure that they are confirmed, who would then overturn Roe (because that is what strict constructionists like Justices Scalia and Thomas would do) will cause many in the pro-life community to rethink our political allegiances.
That's not me.
That's some millions of folks.
And it isn't a threat.
It's an observation.
Now, does it have the ability to change the dynamics of future politics in the United States? Certainly. Will it? I don't have any idea.
But part of the art of politics is not having to find out answers to questions like that. Which is why President Bush will do the right thing, and Roe will go. ;-)
"Just tired of it. It is not based in reality. It is wishful thinking combined with a some sort of grandiose idea that you have some sort of political power that cannot be denied."
Me? I ain't got no political power. Not by myself.
But blocs of voters have political power. Otherwise, politicians wouldn't court them. Sometimes that power is only respected when it's used.
Will that happen this time? I don't know. That's speculation. I'm still lookin' for W to do the right thing.
"Rights are not given by any government,..."
Where did I assert they were?
"...therefore they have no interest in protecting them, they only want to make sure that you can freely claim them."
All you've done is paraphrased what I stated. If the government assures that I can freely claim my right to free speech, then the government has protected my right to free speech.
"The Constitution does not give rights, it recognizes them."
Gee, I hear an echo. I already said that governments recognize rights, don't give 'em. Several times. You owe me a quarter. Copyrights and all. ;-)
"Politics therefore, as an extension of democracy should do the same."
Well, politics isn't always an extension of democracy, as not all states are democratic, and thus, neither are all politics.
But YOU said politics is a "game. Nothing more and nothing less."
Now politics is involved in recognizing rights? Hey, glad to hear it! That's what I told YOU after you insisted that politics is a "game. Nothing more nothing less."
Great to see I helped you see the light!
"Now, you can call in all the ping buddies you like, but they can't fault what I said."
Not from your last post. Why would I? At least as it relates to political theory, in that you've paraphrased what I already wrote.
"The rest of your statements only parsed what I said and made issue of the straw-man arguments that you created on your own, which is precisely what you have done all day long on this thread."
Uh, no. Besides bordering on incoherence, your statements here don't track reality. Just like your statements that Justices Scalia and Thomas would not vote to overturn Roe.
Or that the Supreme Court cannot overturn Roe.
Or that Roe "evolved."
It is nice that you picked up some of the formal logic lingo, like "straw man argument."
;-)
Have a great night!
sitetest
"For many of us, the major difference between the parties has been LIFE and related moral issues. Betray us and we will bolt. No stock dividen exclusion, no tax break comes close to LIFE as an issue. Either accept that or test it. But let me assure you, you 'test it' at the peril of governance."
That says to ME and many others that you'd vote for a comitted socialist who advocated a total ban on abortion for any reason. You'd willingly and gladly sacrifice not only the Republican majorities, but our overall liberty as Americans to boot to service your one-issue obsessions. You'd vote for the Hildebeast tomorrow if she parroted your party lines sincerely enough for long enough.
In two recent elections closely followed on FR, I watched the extreme prolifers ride candidates they considered "perfect" to devastating defeat...the California recall election (McLintock) and Illinois (Keyes). Because of them, we gave up that illinois Senate seat without even a real fight. And no, the voters didn't lose that one...the maniacal Keyes did. He, that is, and his shrill, strident supporters who likened any dissent to an attack by Satan himself.
If all the Right gets from you guys is threats, whining, and shifting alliegences based on ONE issue (and I thought the gun folks I run with were strict! At least the NRA has mastered the art of politics to the point where they GET something) then why should we ever put any trust at all in you, or give you some kind of power to affect policy?
Given your highly flexible "loyalty", you've a LOT of cojones making demands. The GOP would be crazy to expect you to keep up your end, especially when you've expressly said you won't.
And they are giving me a bad taste. This is the first abortion thread I have been on, and I am just biting my tongue to keep from getting banned! :-)
I said exactly what I meant.
Roe was decided for reasons I will not again go into.
The culture currently will not allow for the overturning.
I, on the other hand, wish that some changes might occur to our culture in the future that will allow for the overturning of Roe and I sincerely hope that one fine F'n day it will occur.
In the interim I remain quite realistic and if you can't deal with it without trying over and over again to insult my relatively decent intelligence, then I wish you would at least try to understand a paltry small percentage of what I say.
In lieu of that, there is nothing more to say.
Except that this thread may die and fade into the blackness from whence it came.
You believe incorrectly. Otherwise God would have been ordering Joshua to break His own commandment when He ordered him to kill the pagan Canaanite tribes to the last man, woman, and child when he led the Israelis into their new national homeland. In fact, throughout most of the OT God is recorded as ordering the killing of many people, including Jews who broke the Mosaic laws against such crimes as murder, incest, homosexual acts, bestiality, demon-worship, etc.
Capital punishment for certain crimes was instituted by God, according to the Apostle Paul in chapter 13 of his epistle to the Romans. Therefore it cannot be sin when carried out by the proper authority, i.e. a legitimately established government.
Heck, one of them is PROUD to be a monarchist and to dislike our system of government!
Like I said, thias is one reason among many I don't care for them or, by extension, what they are selling. It smacks too closely to an attempt at seizing power over others. For a "good cause", of course...
It is as clear a day to myself, at least, and some others that there is absolutely NO depth of loyalty to the conservative movement or the Right as a whole from such as Narse. They have said as much.
Although, now I expect you'll go to great lengths to make it SEEM otherwise. Do us both a favor and save it, okay? I'm done for the night.
Roe is incoherent and is one justice frombeing overturned.
But more to the point Roe is being overturned on a piecemeal basis. Any state, California specifically, that has passed laws making the killing of the unborn an act of murder has already eviscerated Roe because the basis of Roe is that the unborn are not persons.
Yet one can be found guilty of murder unless one has killed a person.
Whats more, there is no basis in the Constitution for the federal government to intercede with states who wish to expand individual rights.
So, your analysis is not only faulty, it is quite wrong.
If we kept to the old testament we would have killed each other long ago.
I reject it!
Don't even begin to lecture me about what God wants.
I came to this thread to discuss politically related issues, not religion. I do not discuss my religion or my spirituality with those I do not know well.
Lets try this exercise Jeff. Why don't you tell us the moral basis for making criminal the act of murdering the innocent, at any stage of life.
Dear Cold Heat,
"Your parsing skills have not waned."
Ahh... flattery will get you everywhere. ;-)
"The culture currently will not allow for the overturning."
Hmm.. I have news for you. If five of those folks in black up there at the Supreme Court overturn it, it is overturned. The culture doesn't actually get a vote.
But you told me that the Supreme Court COULDN'T overturn Roe v. Wade. LOL.
"In the interim I remain quite realistic and if you can't deal with it without trying over and over again to insult my relatively decent intelligence, then I wish you would at least try to understand a paltry small percentage of what I say."
I can deal with reality, CH. I've had to deal with it for a long time. It is certainly possible, as I've said a bunch of times, that Roe may not be overturned even after President Bush gets to make some appointments to the Court.
But I remain hopeful.
You, on the other hand, have made clear that Roe is still NEEDED. Thus, it seems unlikely that you aren't against overturning it, at least right now. It's needed, after all. Right?
But wait, you said that you're not against overturning Roe. But it's needed, right? Are you for overturning something that's needed? And it's settled law, right? (Where have I heard that before??? - ARLEN SPECTER!!! LOL. Are you Arlen Specter, CH???)
But if it's settled law, and you're against judicial activism, then, you must be against overturning Roe! Right? Because folks who are against judicial activism are against overturning settled law, right, CH?
But you said that you're not opposed to overturning Roe, CH! Which is it??
LOL.
I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm pointing out the contradictions, flaws, errors, logical inconsistencies, and flip-flops in your posts. If your intelligence feels insulted, it should take that up with the part of you that posts.
Have a nice night. ;-)
sitetest
Dear jwalsh07,
"But more to the point Roe is being overturned on a piecemeal basis. Any state, California specifically, that has passed laws making the killing of the unborn an act of murder has already eviscerated Roe because the basis of Roe is that the unborn are not persons.
"Yet one can be found guilty of murder unless one has killed a person."
There you go again, using logic.
In abortionspeak, logic is impermissible, and certainly inadmissible.
The fetus is a thing unless the mommy wants it. Then it becomes a he or a she, and is a baby.
The fetus is a blob of tissue, an extension of the woman suffering from the malady of pregnancy, a parasite, a bug, unless the mommy wants it.
Then it becomes a human being, a patient, a person with a name for whom you can play Mozart and she or he will develop to be a very special person.
If the woman wishes to kill the fetus, and someone kills the fetus, the fetus meets its end as the pregnancy is terminated. That is legal and proper. That is an abortion.
If the woman doesn't wish to kill the baby, and someone kills the baby, then that's murder.
Just ask the black-robed asses.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
sitetest
Roe is not any longer one justice from going down. But, it has eroded to a degree that some modifications may be made to it that could not have been made before.
But the resistance is still quite stiff for even that much.
The basis of Roe, the so called right to choose has actually strengthened over the years.
The more the religious right becomes involved in it's demise, the stronger the support for the right to choose appears to get.
My point is to leave it alone and it will die on it's own.
But here you are, planning how you will use your new found (false impressions) power to make the Republicans do your bidding.(the gist of this thread and why I am here)
My contention is that it is the wrong thing to do and will result in a backlash and a loss of ground.
But please, go ahead and prove me right. Or wrong, as the future will tell.
Judging by the dwindling echo you produce, I'd say you were 'done' long ago but just haven't realized it yet. Sleep well ...
Blackmun, the author of the abortion known as Roe, said that if the unborn were persons they were entitled to 14th Amendment protection.
Well, guess what? The states have codified the unborn as persons.
I understand that you don't understand the significance of these facts but thats not my problem. The country has moved considerably toward protections for the unborn and to codify that Roe and Doe have to be overturned. It's coming, you just don't see it.
The first volley was fired way back before I entered the thread.
Hypocrisy runs rampant in this forum nowadays.
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.