Posted on 11/13/2004 10:51:31 AM PST by churchillbuff
Edited on 11/13/2004 11:52:36 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The deluge of teeth-gnashing, hair-pulling grief-tormented hysteria washing over every liberal media outlet in the Milky Way Galaxy has reached a high-water mark with space-patrol talk about secession – as in the Kerry-voting "blue" states actually seceding from the United States. Here's Geraldine Ferraro fomenting on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" Nov. 6:
You know what? Just let me make one point. You were talking about the map before. If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those red states, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's on both sides, the Northeast corridor.
We can shake our heads in laughable wonder at this and gloat about BDDs – Brain Dead Democrats. But their maniacally empty threat is a gift, as it creates a marvelous "teachable moment" whereby the LibDems can learn a lesson about their moral values.
Recall that it was Democrats who seceded the last time from America, in 1861. They were in full righteous fury defending the morality of slavery. Throughout the Confederate States, slavery was known as "the peculiar institution," with the moral right to own human beings as personal property unquestioned and believed in with fanatical zeal. Just like abortion in the blue states today.
Shocked that "moral values" was the issue that defeated them and re-elected President Bush, the LibDems are bleating on every airwave they can ride that they have moral values, too. Yes, they certainly do – it's just that some of those values are immoral, but not all. Confederate Southerners held many decent values – but on slavery they were morally wrong. No relativistic morals here, no "that's just your opinion" situational ethics, no wiggles, hesitations or qualifiers. Slavery is immoral, period – even the LibDems agree.
Thus the teachable moment – for abortion is morally no different than slavery, the claim that one human being may own another as personal property to be disposed of if the owner so chooses.
Thus we need to refer to abortion as "the peculiar institution," and Roe v. Wade as disgracefully unconstitutional as Dred Scott. Watch for this to happen. Watch for abortion advocates to be increasingly on the defensive as they are made to understand the moral equivalence between abortion and slavery.
This is a struggle that is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better. It will not, however, lead to any sort of secession or civil war. It requires no violence, just relentless repetition of this moral equivalence, as it finally begins to dawn on liberals that history will come to view advocacy of abortion as morally repugnant as advocacy of slavery.
Conservatives are on the verge of seizing the high ground of history on abortion. Arlen Specter -- Arrogant Arlen -- is groveling before them. Clarence Thomas will be the next chief justice. More and more politicians will see it safe to jump on the abortion=slavery bandwagon. Soon, the blood seeping from a wounded Roe v. Wade will be in the water, the feeding frenzy will be on and the constitutionally non-existent "right to privacy" chewed to shreds. The day is not that far off when school kids will be asking their history teacher puzzled questions as to how there was a time in America when people passionately defended the morality of a mother killing her own baby.
The dark chapter of America's peculiar institution of abortion is coming to an end.
Baby-butchering has no defense, only defenders...
"If Roe is overturned, you'll see a switch."
Agreed. No laws will ever stop abortion. Anyone who wants one will always be able to obtain one. Would be a boon for the democrat party.
And to the rest of you, hope you don't mind me pinging you, I'm not ping happy so I promise not to make a habit of it, but in light of the discussion we were all a part of earlier, I thought you might find it a good read too.
BTTT
(((PING)))
"Geraldine Ferraro said this? Amazing and right on the money"
No, Geraldine only said what was included in the early indented paragraph. Jack Wheeler wrote all the rest.
Don't you think the Peterson verdict 2nd degree murder on his unborn son may set a precedent we can refer to in arguments against abortion?
It does not matter. There are tons of Republicans who support choice within reason (e.g. within the first half of a pregnancy) and who would be adamantly opposed to outlawing abortion altogether. Most of the Republicans I know are like this, actually.
As long as the Republicans continue to need to pander to pro-choice demographics even within their own party (never mind the moderates), the pro-life position is never going to be a platform. They do not give a crap about your litmus test vote if they can pick up three times your number in the middle. And there is no evidence that this will ever change as a practical matter. Fight the fight, but don't expect anyone to care.
Isn't it obvious? The little blue counties would have to take the whole state with them in any support of a secession movement. They would have a definate problem in some places.
DISAGREED. Hope you're not resigned to this being an unwinnable issue for the Pro-Lifers. If Roe is overturned, future elections may or may not see major political party shifts...we have seen the polarization already....Bush WON....future voting behavior largely depends on how well the Pro-Life side does with getting free/low-cost sonograms available to Jr. High and older girls...how successful are the increasing efforts to thwart advocacy of homosexual marriage, multiculturalism, infanticide, evolution and Marxism in school textbooks (GO, TEXAS! GO LOUISIANA!)....and how successful are the voters in demanding objective coverage of school performance and teaching of the true historical horrors of Marxism/Socialism....
Why should they riot? If Roe were reversed, and abortion really did return to the state legislatures, it's pretty obvious that there would be some states that would be "abortion meccas" - obviously NY, MA, IL, CA, WA, OR and probably the rest of the Northeast coast. Just like now, abortion clinics would be concentrated in the major cities.
There would be some states like MO where abortion would largely be illegal. Women in those states would drive or fly to an abortion "mecca" city.
Anything else is going to require a Human Life Amendment to the US Constitution, and given that over 1/4 of the states will probably have legalized abortion, it's difficult to imagine such an amendment passing.
The Dred Scott decision was dreadful, reprehensible, immoral - but NOT unconstitutional. Remember, it was decided while slavery was illegal, and found NO constitutional provision forbidding slavery or allowing for the *legal* personhood (i.e. ability to file suit) status of the slave. Given the constitution *as it existed* in the 1850s, Dred Scott was FAR more constitutionally consistent than Roe.
Unfortunately what makes it difficult for the pro-life position is that before Roe, abortion was *already fully legal* in NY, CO, KS and HI. It was partially legal in many other states (where a hospital review board could OK it for all sorts of maternal-health reasons.) These states *had* the "debate" and decided in favor of legalized abortion.
Had Roe not occurred, most of the states would have had some kind of "therapeutic" abortion that would have included killing of the handicapped unborn as well; about 1/4 of the states would have had completely liberal laws like NY, and probably another quarter would have forbidden it except for life of the mother (like TX before Roe.)
The elder tribesgirls say that this is because the chickadees have always had the 'right', and don't appreciate what it was like not to have the convenience, er, I mean right. The chickadees response is basically, like no, it's like, murder, Mom!
Wouldn't it be something if the direct decendants of the Roers were to overturn it?
They'll be back when their food runs out.
ping for later read
Sorry, I must disagree. There are many Democrats who have consciences and senses of right and wrong. We must take back our schools and teach them the facts of life, as the Bible teaches them. Utmost respect for human life and the protection of the weak and frail, whether the unborn or the elderly is a cornerstone of righteousness. Democrats are the conflicted ones about abortion. Give them enough information, enough emotionally-validated arguments about the core principles they are violating.....and they will vote their hearts. Right now they are deluding themselves. Remember that Dems are in fact more inclined to vote and act on an emotional basis. That's why the media and Planned Parenthood are so quick to quash exposure of aborted baby pictures and don't publish much about sonograms....
Let them eat talent, and keep warm burning books!
"Nothing" in the Red States? Nothing except their food, water and power.
Where does California get its power? Where does its natural gas come from? Where does a lot of Southern California's water come from?
How much of the NE's power is generated in the Midwest? Who refines most of the NE's precious fuel oil, gasoline, and diesel? Who grows the corn and distills the alcohol for their E85 and 'winterized' gasolines? Who digs the coal for their power plants?
Go ahead and secede; make my day.
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.