Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
I'm glad to hear it. There was indeed a lot of bad science as well as bad morality in what people were told back then.
There are two reasons that Roe v. Wade is reprehensible. The first is of most concern to those who value human life: It legalized abortion and led to the deaths of more than 40 million unborn children.
The second should be of concern even to pro-abortion libertarians. It broke the Constitution by reading into it things that simply weren't there, made personal opinion into law, legislated arbitrarily from the bench. Even if some conservatives think that abortion is a good idea, they should not want to see it proclaimed by nine unelected justices. If abortion is a good idea, then it should have been put into place by the actions of state legislatures.
Of course, I think abortion is a terrible idea. It's the taking of innocent human lives. What I'm saying, however, is that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision from just about any conservative point of view, and that it ought to be opposed for both these reasons.
Wrong. Iraq was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department for more than a decade prior to 9/11. The Bush Doctrine was formulated after 9/11. It stated that we would go after the terrorists and the states that supported them.
It would have been foolish to allow Saddam to stay in power and provide sanctuary and resources in support of AQ, including WMD. Prior to 9/11, as the 9/11 Commission documented, there were contacts between Iraq's intelligence service and AQ. There were also 17 UN resolutions against Iraq and its failure to comply with the truce agreement ending the first Gulf War.
It is also worth noting that the US and the UK had been bombing Iraq daily for almost ten years to enforce the Northern and Southern no-fly zones. Leaving Saddam around while fighting the War on Terrorism was not an acceptable option.
Dear Cicero,
George H.W. Bush was pro-abort before being selected by President Reagan to be his vice president. He "saw the light" to get the vice presidential nomination. He never wavered after that, but his was a political conversion of convenience.
I haven't found any direct quotes from him, but some googling reveals the general knowledge that prior to his selection for the No. 2 spot on the Republican ticket, he was pro-abortion. Here are a couple of links:
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Church_pays_cost_of_abortion_absolutism.htm
http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2004/fall2004/
sitetest
Ashcroft is an eccentric, and probably unelectable. But if by some strange chain of events he were nominated, I would vote for him. He has political experience, and a good record. I can think of many better candidates, but if he were one of the choices, I'd vote for him.
I do certainly think we could do better.
You never have understood the war on terror. Sad.
Whatever you're paid as an opinion shaper for the left, you're overpaid.
IN ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT!!!! For crying out loud people, give the "I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home" attitude a rest. Go ahead, sit it out and then Monday morning quarterback the hell out of a losing election. Don't vote for her in the primary when she goes up against a "pro-life" candidate, that's fine! But, to give up everything and sit it out if she is the nominee of our party is MORONIC!!!
Churchillbuff is the terrorist's best friend. He has no problem with the following (which is just the tip of the iceberg):
The Senate Intelligence Report contained over 60 detailed pages of Hussein's direct connections to Al Qaeda including:
78 reports from different sources provided information that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraqi intelligence soldiers for terrorist attacks against America.
Iraq provided Al Qaeda with bomb making, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training.
Direct meetings took place between senior Iraqi military officers and top Al Qaeda operatives for over 10 years.
But Neville Chamberlain has NO problem with any of that. Nope. None.
In other words, you'd bolt if Condi Rice gets the nomination.
When you actually manage to work on a winning Senate campaign, come back and tell us how it's done.
... You are either for abortion or against it, or you are just plain confused.
Many of us have agreed to the compromise of the first trimmest. The conflict of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' vs. life reduced to a definition. The definition of life. The compromise is defining the first trimester as a 'thing'. It isn't, and I know it, but if we can focus we can win, and if we can win we can effect change for the better.
... Also, I find myself getting really ticked at President Bush setting her up to run for president ...
This blather makes me suspect your purpose here
One final zinger - even remotely suggesting she holds "libertarian" views makes her obnoxious to me.
Your post is obnoxious to me. I suspect she would never receive your vote, and I suspect that W didn't receive your last vote. Take your non-abidence and either move to a mountantop, or shove it!
Millions of pro-lifers will bolt the GOP if it abandons its prolife core.
A pro-abortion Republican Party would very quickly be a dead party.
If you want a pro-abortion party, go over to the Dems, Poohbah.
Good post. Accurate.
HAHAHA
Thats cold man!
This Iowan will not support her.
This pro-lifer couldn't agree with you more.
-------------------------------------
That's news to me. There was no talk of invading Iraq until after the Trade Towers were taken out.
-----------------------------------
_______________________________________________________
I guess it is news to you, that doesn't make ir any less true. How one can intelligently discuss Iraq and the WOT without fully understanding the Bush doctrine is beyond me.
Thanks great-grandma.....
Unfortunately, I don't have a great-grandma anymore... can I consider you a surrogate? :)
Sorry, you're the one inventing facts. Please give me a single cite where Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Powell publicly suggested invading Iraq, before Sept 11, 2001. It was the hit on the World Trade Center that they claimed to be responding to, when they invaded Iraq -- yet Osama is the one who did that. And if you're so concerned about the WOT, why aren't you concerned that we haven't caught Osama, who is the most lethal terrorist ever to hit America?
"Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11, or WMD, or GW1, or GHWB."
uhh, no?
Bush's advisors are neo-cons. His doctrine is the neo-con doctrine. Irag as a base from which we can project power was always a keystone of that doctrine.
No. Read the Neo-Con policies. Saudi Arabia and Iran were bigger sponsors of terror than Saddam was. The Bush policy has been openly stated often enough for it to surprise me that so many people are still without a clue.
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.