Posted on 04/28/2006 5:58:15 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Dear Gelato,
"Yet slavery was abolished.
"That fact alone gives those of us on the side of life hope that abortion will be outlawed."
I hope for an end to legal abortion, too. I also hope that it can be accomplished without another civil war.
Of course, to avoid that fate, it requires hard and diligent work, in the social and cultural spheres, as well as the political sphere. In the political sphere, because of the obstacles set before us, we have to achieve our victories one step at a time, one piece at a time.
sitetest
Indeed. Which is why Allen must be exposed now for his pro-choice leanings, or a human life amendment will be unnecessarily harder to obtain if he is elected.
But suppose some of our fellow pro-lifers knowlingly compromise for an Allen presidency, and feel that if he would merely pledge to overturn Roe with the right appointees to the bench (a promise he has yet to make), then they would vote for him.
Yet the fact is, even once Roe is overturned, we can't trust that Allen would refrain from influencing to the states to his views. Already, Allen has criticized the South Dakota ban as too strict, because it lacked "an exemption for rape and incest."
We have to be firm, or the window of opportunity to outlaw abortion will suffer incalculable setbacks.
Sorry, I need to proofread. By guy, I meant the reporter. In NOVA they use English saddles.
They find "reasons" to oppose achievable limits on abortion, they've got to keep the "movement" going for emotional or monetary reasons.
"Abortion hustlers" are very rare in the pro-life movement because they actually cause innocent deaths and that is disgusting to any sane person.
But there are a few.
Okay. Mea culpa. I was wrong. You aren't 'better than that'.
Heh...and here I got all worked up fer nothin'...
The weasel words are always in the fine print.
But when he loses he media will make it out to be because of his religion.
Exactly.
Without slogging through all that for the moment (I may read it in the morning), if the New Republic doesn't like him, he's probably a reasonable candidate. Unlike, say, McCain.
At least with that theory of incrementalism, you must accept that progress, even if it's baby steps in the right direction, is essential.
Unfortunately, a George Allen presidency would do the opposite. It would set us back, not take us toward the goal. It is therefore illogical for a pro-lifer to support his candidacy.
We can (and must) do better.
Which is why George Allen:
~banned government funding for employee abortions when he was Governor.
~championed Parental Notification in Virginia and refused to sign it until he got the right (not watered down) version
~voted to ban Partial Birth Abortion
~and Gets 100% from National Right to Life and 0% from Planned Parenthood.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your hysteria.
That's why a George Allen presidency is unacceptable. He would leave it to the states to battle it out.
We might as well have a Confederacy.
The exact same people will refer to "Southern Governor" Mark Warner.
So long as it caters to his personal views.
Thankfully, we did not have such a dearth of leadership in the mid-19th century, or slavery would be a state's right.
"Do you agree with the Senator that abortion is 'okay' up until 'viability'? Brainwaves? What is it? Tell us what you believe, not the Senator's poll-tested talking points."
No, I don't completely agree with Sen. Allen's postition on abortion. I don't know when the soul enters the body, and neither does anyone else, except for God Almighty. I do know that brainwaves can be detected as early as 6 weeks. I also believe that since the U.S. Constitution does not address the issue, the matter of abortion is in the purview of the states. Much as I would not favor liberal states continuing to allow abortions, I believe the Constitution should be followed. I also berlieve it is far easier for citizens to affect changes in policy when issue are closer to them, and state government is closer to the citizens than Washington D.C. is.
-----
"Care to tell us why you're so interested in the Senator's fortunes? You know him? Work for him?"
I don't know him personally. I do intend to work for his nomination as the GOP candidate for president and in the general election against the Hildabeast or whatever socialist the Dems run for the White House.
Why?
Because I believe Sen. Allen represents the best chance for the Republican Party to get a conservative elected in 2008.
On the issues accross the board, from national security to the judiciary, I think he's a conservative's best hope to keep the Dems from winning the White House and completing the job of destroying this nation that Jimmy Carter and the Clintons got so far on.
His views on abortion are far more acceptable to me than those of Rudy, and McCain's voting record is much less conservative than Allen's. Brownback doesn't have a chance of winning the general, even if he could somehow manage to get the nomination, which looks doubtful. Frist is a proven failure as a leader, and Romney's health care bill dooms him to the same fate as his father- never winning the GOP nomination.
I've told you who I'm supporting for president and why I'm for him. Now, who do you want to see in the White House?
There is a pro-abortion confederacy, It consists of the northeastern states and the Pacific Coast and they largely control media and education in this country.
It includes George Allen.
America can do better.
Don't forget that Lincoln was not a radical. The radicals hated him. The real question is how he would act if money were on the line. Hard to guess that in advance.
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.