Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Rice pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008 on Friday during an hour-long interview with reporters at WASHINGTON TIMES, top sources tell DRUDGE. Rice gave her most detailed explanation of a 'mildly pro-choice' stance on abortion, she would not want the government 'forcing its views' on abortion... She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... Developing late Friday for Saturday cycles... MORE...
Now that I cooled my jets...
Why did the left play this card now?
All the chit chat about the next presidential run is *only* chit chat now.
They know that as well as we do.
Condi's opinion now means nothing.
So...I'm wondering what is up?
Questions of abortion should be decided on facts and principles of right and wrong. If we are deciding as we should, gender doesn't matter.
And I think a lot of men care a great deal whether their children live or die. Let me speak a word for men! They are the fathers, and the children are theirs too, and any man worth anything loves his children.
Wouldn't you agree that being against terrorism is to be pro-life?
Is there any qualitative difference between defending the life of men, women and children from bombs and bullets and defending babes in the womb? The only difference is age, after all...
I agree, it was a generalization. Many, many men (dare I say most) feel deeply for their children before they are born. But I do think there is a divide in this issue. It doesn't make women more right, but maybe more able to feel both sides. That's the difference.
Well, I hope EV appreciates you calling his mother a potential murderer.
To provide us with entertainment on a Friday night!
Hmmm...I seem to remember that it was you who broached that subject.
You are pathetic.
What exactly is a pro choice Pubbie? Do I fit the label? Where exactly is the line drawn in your mind? Frankly I don't think Condi has really thought the issue through in all its combinations and permutations. She is not a regular at FR. :)
Possibly because it is the women that get raped and pregnant?
Possibly lots of things I can list...
Possibly because it should never have gotten into the level it has made.
Possibly because human body parts should never have become a comoodity.
Possibly stem cells should never have happened.
Possibly endless amounts of debate.
Why call Condi out on this now? She isn't running. Why call her out now?
come over here for wonderful entertainment!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1361116/posts
You know, that's about the poorest argument I've ever seen.
And it's almost as deseperate as gays saying that their fight is just like blacks and civil rights. They're trying to latch on to public sympathy, too.
>>>Yea right, how dare they think that I should abide by their rules like not killing tiny, defenseless, beautiful, innocent babies. Who do they think they are?>>>
How many people forcing you to have abortions?
Do you really want to say that to another human being?
So now the child is dying a lingering death?
Sandbar, the difference is clear. Simply, you don't kill the child. The child does not lose his life by your hand.
Let me give a more apt comparison. Someone has an fatal disease, beyond any possibility of cure. He will die a lingering death. Can you kill him, because he'll die anyway? Is there nothing wrong in taking an innocent's life, if the innocent will die anyway?
I have it on my desk right in front of me. President Reagan wrote a good book in 83 but he opened the flood gates for abortion in California while Governor. Do you deny that?
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.