'Mildly Pro-Choice' Rice Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid

wash post ^ | March 13, 2005 | Mike Allen

[zarf]

Why did the pro-lifers vote for Bush? He believes in exceptions for rape and incest or protecting the life of the mother.

He's a murderer.

[JustAnAmerican]

"Why did the pro-lifers vote for Bush? He believes in exceptions for rape and incest or protecting the life of the mother."

What most don't realize is that Bush did not win because Americans voted for him, Bush won because Americans voted against Kerry. If the Dem candidate had been Pro-Military Bush would have lost.

[hiredhand]

It just galls me when our "conservative" leaders don't take a hard FAST stand on things like this. It's "wishy washy". In a similar vein, I'd like to hear GWB identify Islam as the demonic, hate driven, murderous "religion" that it is.

Sheesh...and just last night I was talking to my 14 year old about issues that have no middle ground.

Mildly pro-choice. What sort of crap is that?! I hope she knows what a mistake she made with that statement....because it was a BIG one and won't be soon forgotten.

[adiaireton8]

Saving the [biological] life of the mother is not murder, even if it results in the death of the child.

Just because a child results from rape or incest, does not make it ethical to murder the child, whether the child is in or outside of the womb, without or without the parents' permission. If President Bush thinks otherwise, then he is, unfortunately, philosophically inconsistent. Politicians tend to make exceptions for such cases mostly for political, not ethical, reasons.

-A8

[King Prout]

"mildly pro-choice" could mean: Tepidly in favor of retaining the legal availability of heavily restricted forms of early-term abortion, requiring parental consent, the man's consent, not allowing "at-whim" mid-term abortions and outright banning late-term abortions, etc... while at the same time finding RvW to be a grotesque usurpation of power by the SCOTUS which should be overturned, returning the matter to where it belongs: the legislatures of the several states.

[adiaireton8]

Should the principles by which a country is governed be determined by what is interesting, or what is true, good, and just?

-A8

[King Prout]

see #25

[verity]

What if the only viable choice is between the greater evil and the lesser evil?

[sitetest]

If she cannot find a way to come out and say clearly that she will work to overturn Roe v. Wade, then it is clear that she doesn't respect the Constitution, at least not sufficiently to gain my support.

If she does ultimately clarify that she believes that Roe is not valid constitutional jurisprudence, and should go, then I will support her, should she get the nomination.

If she wishes to then add that once Roe is overturned, she hopes that the individual states will still permit, in law, some legal abortions, even though that is not my own view, I would still support her.

But at a minimum, she must support the eventual dismantling or overturning of Roe.

[DesertSapper]

If you see those who won't vote for a "mildy pro-choice" candidate as "single issue" and heading "over the cliff", you'd better call your reps and let them know: Hillary will probably be President.

I WILL NOT vote for anyone of any party who condones the murder of unborn children. You, however, are more than welcome to do so if other domestic/foreign policy issues are more important to you than the life of a large percentage of the next generation.

As for your question of who would be more likely to stuff the judiciary with activist judges . . . we might soon find out.

The Republican party is my current party because it most closely aligns itself with my political beliefs. This can change.

[digitalbrownshirt]

If the choice is between a greater evil and a lesser evil I will have to choose neither. I don't play situational ethics. My moral compass won't allow me to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under any circumstance. She might end up in the oval office, but it won't be with my vote.

[King Prout]

actually, the principles by which this country is governed are stipulated by a document called the US Constitution.

That document defines all of our government as republican, relying on legislatures and executives elected by the people as representatives, with the task of creating and administering Law.

are you willing to abide by Law so enacted, or no?

[King Prout]

agreed.

[verity]

The absence of your vote could place the greater evil in office.

[adiaireton8]

If indeed those are our only two options, then "lesser", of course. Those conservatives, however, who dismiss "one-issue" thinking as boring do not seem to understand that ethical issues, and the politics consequent upon them, are not in the least determined by their degree of interest, but by principle. The sanctity of human life is of such great worth, and our duty to uphold and defend the lives of unborn children so great, that most other issues pale in comparison. "Boring" is thus a red herring.

-A8

[motzman]

If the choice is between a greater evil and a lesser evil I will have to choose neither. I don't play situational ethics. My moral compass won't allow me to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under any circumstance. She might end up in the oval office, but it won't be with my vote.

I, I, My, me, my.

Presedential voting is always a choice of the lesser of two evils--on both sides.

Should voting be an affirmation of your own personal "moral compass"? Hope not, because NO human could stand up to that.

YOU cannot stand up to it either (although you try your best, and ask for forgiveness when you come up short). Every candidate has flaws.

You just go with the one that most closely adheres to what you think is best for the country.

Or, you hold your nose and vote AGAINST the one you know is a danger.

[verity]

You are far too sensitive.

One note refers to any single issue that sways the decision of a voter and neglects the bigger picture.

[adiaireton8]

Positive law and natural law are not identical. Natural law cannot be reduced to positive law. The natural law principles inscribed in our nation's official documents do not have their origin in those documents. The principles of justice, for example, do not have their origin in the US Constitution.

Each participant in any government must govern according to the principles of natural law, not according to what is interesting or boring.

-A8

[Clock King]

Single-issue voters are fools. Period. To the American people, abortion is way too personal an issue for the government or anybody to tell an individual what to do. And you better think hard: if Hillary wins and Bill becomes UN secretary, you can kiss the sovereignty of the US goodbye. What will the nation be like then?