Posted on 01/26/2005 5:29:50 PM PST by Rummyfan
I have, and there are alot of them.
I would remind people, that before giving an opinion on this, ask a pro-life doctor about it.
I know one doctor who supports abortion, and, in conversation, couldn't think of anything off the back of his head where abortion would somehow saves a womans life over say a "C section" or such.
Granted, he was sure there was something, he just couldn't think of it then.
Ha, ha. Yeah, Hillary is so smart. Ann made Hillary look like an idiot and she did it with half her brain tied behind her back. So much for your phoney pandering words Hillary. You could care less about 6 month old preborns, 6 month old postborns, 6 year olds, or 66 year olds. What a shameless b*tch.
Ann Coulter with a gun. WOW! Do liberals get nervous when they see this picture?
I think this is a bit silly, which is unusual for Ann.
In the first place, GW Bush is the first president ever to directly address the annual pro-life march on Washington. Even President Reagan refrained from doing that, although his pro-life stance was undoubted. Bush has addressed the rally every year and has not allowed the press to intimidate him.
In the second place, GW Bush has been part of the process of changing hearts and minds. No, he didn't do it directly himself, but he has helped. The last three elections, over which he has presided, have more and more clearly shown that people are moving into the pro-life camp. Even the liberal press recognized it last November, and their hearts are filled with fear. Why else is Hillary pretending to want to compromise on abortion issues now?
In the third place, I believe GW Bush does intend to appoint good judges. That remains to be seen, but so far we have no major reason to doubt it. Specter is cause for grave concern, but we should wait a few months to see how the judicial appointments start to play out before withdrawing our support from Bush.
There was no way that Roe v. Wade could be overturned until the voters supported it and we had a president in a position to change the court. I believe the majority of the voters now do support it, or can be persuaded to do so over the next four years.
Usually Bush is a man of deeds rather than words. When it comes time to change the laws, he will say so. But he would be foolish to say such a thing BEFORE he has gotten new appointees onto the Court. Why give the leftist media ammunition to start a fight now, before the debate over new justices actually starts?
First things first. Nominate and confirm the judges. Then urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Ann's job is to talk. Bush's job is to act.
I don't like the "win their hearts and minds" garbage either. Someone to a radio show said, "Grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". Now that's the approach I want our government to take.
Ms. Coulter is absolutely correct: Most Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. What's blown the cover from this barbaric practice are the advances in medical technology over the past 30 years. The superstitious delusion that "it" is not a baby can no longer be maintained. There's a simple logic to it: if it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant.
It's long past time that we took off the gloves by changing a lot of judges and return to writing our own laws.
The most egregious blasphemy in it is when people call it a "constitutional" right. We acknowledge in our Founding Documents that our rights come from God and are guaranteed by our Constitution. Calling abortion a "constitutional" right is saying that God approves of it.
No, that's not true. The most fanatic abortion rights supportors are women who have had an abortion.
It's very difficult to change a heart when your government is not only condoning an action (abortion), but has pronounced it a precious 'constitutional right'. Kind of cuts the legs out from under the pro-life argument, doesn't it?"
Yep.
The President has a nice vision but I have to agree with Ann.It will be very difficult to change the law, but It is even harder to change that many hearts.
So true. I always make it a point to avoid an abortion debate with someone who's had an abortion. It's a tough sell arguing with a guilty conscience.
Ironic isn't it that San Francisco outlaws smoking even outside in the parks, but I bet it has more pro-abortion people per capita than most other cities in the US.
Who would have thought 20-25 years ago that smoking would become as socially UNacceptble as it has.
That means (hopefully) that abortion will become a LOT more unacceptable in the future. One thing that might help is too call it what it is --- pro-baby killing!!!
Don't worry. He'll get real religious before pushing through immigration reform. He always starts playing the religious card when he wants to distract people.
Exactly. It's like a drunk - they don't know that they are not addicts, they just know that they better not be.
It's oft been said that "womens' lib" is really "mens' lib," because it absolves them of all responsibility.
That may be the reason that the Playboy empire donates so much money to the feminist organizations.
Killing a baby.... well, that's ok. But second-hand smoke? Ohmigawd! Call the police! Sometimes I think San Francisco is deliberately tempting God.....
It's an old saying made popular among the troops in the Nam as an ironic response to the General's "Hearts and Minds" policy of pacification in country.
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.