[Jim Robinson]

Thank God a pro-life Republican President backed by millions of staunchly pro-life Republican voters pushed for ending this barbaric practice in America!!

God Bless America!!

[alnick]

I would like someone to explain to me how killing a child after it's already gone through the birth canal could possibly save the life of the mother. By then the delivery is done and if it were going to threaten the mother's life, it would have already done so.

I'm serious. I would like someone to address this.

[My2Cents]

The PBA ban was the most significant progress made on the pro-life agenda in the past 30 years. Too bad the courts are still in need of a massive overhaul to let this will of the people be enacted.

[icwhatudo]

You must be one of those "purist" noobie posters the rudybots warned us about.

/sarcasm

[wagglebee]

Thank you very much Jim!

[JerseyDvl]

It is a grotesque and inhumane procedure that shows the true barbarity that unfortunately some medical advances bring.
I make sure to explain the procedure to my BIG LIB friends and relatives during dinner so they can try to choke down their food after having the full knowledge of what their representatives believe in.
My grandmother, God Bless her, was under the belief that the 'Rats represented Catholic morals until I explained such things as this to her.

[digger48]

The bill would permit use of the procedure if “necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

Problem being, the ones who claim the "mental health" of the mother, which perverts into "I just don't think I can handle having a baby"

Which also raises the question....how can one be a "mother" to something they don't consider to be a life?

[trisham]

You betcha.

[LibWhacker]

Oh, God... I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

Whatever possessed democrats that made them think this was okay? Oh... nevermind... I think I know.

[ArrogantBustard]

Americans kill more than one million American children every year.

The Democrat Party thinks that's a sacred right.

I think it's as great an evil as anything Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Hitler ever committed. Worse; it's done voluntarily by private citizens, not on government orders.

We need to end it, not pander to it.

[Spiff]

Rudy Giuliani opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban legislation in Congress as well as a Partial Birth Abortion Ban in his own state of New York City.

The Republican Party has never nominated a pro-abortion candidate as their presidential nominee. We have to make sure that it doesn't start doing so now.

[dmw]

Thanks Jim for having the courage to speak the truth and do what's right regardless of the consequences.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Thank you for posting that, JimRob. I hope FReepers realize that when Rudy Giuliani ran for the Senate in 2000 the Conservative Party of NY told him that they would look past his liberalism and give him the party's spot on the ballot if he did one thing and one thing only: come out in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. Rudy said no, that he would not favor banning partial-birth abortions, and had he not eventually dropped out of the Senate race he would have faced not only Hillary but also a Conservative Party nominee.

Rudy now says that he would support a ban if it included a "life of the mother" exception, but PBA is never necessary to save a woman's life---if the doctor can deliver half of the baby, he can surely deliver the other half instead of crushing his skull. In fact, the "exception" that opponents to the PBA Ban kept trying to add was for the "health of the mother" (which includes "mental health") and in fact would not ban a single abortion, since the abortionist can always say that it could affect the mother's "health" (including mental health) to give birth to a baby. Rudy hasn't turned a new leaf, he is simply talking the way that pro-aborts have been talking for years now.

If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008, it would be the equivalent of the Republican Party nominating a pro-slavery candidate for president in 1860. Our party was founded under the proposition that all human beings are created equal and are entitled to legal protection, and we can't drop that principle just because some men would rather have their girlfriends/hook-ups kill their unborn babies than deal with their responsibilities as fathers.

[ElPatriota]

The KEY WORD in Guliani's campaign is SEMANTICALLY = BS!... Otherwise known as "bait & Swith" (or the reverse, whatever! :) you get my point. It means they can move the little "ball" around and confuse you... So KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE BALL... Or should I say on the "BULL?" lol.

THOSE EXPENSIVE CONSULTANTS ARE DOING THEIR WORK RIGHT NOW. Let's see if they succeed... After all we Red Staters(?) are supposed to be stupid remember? :)

... Now, what about a climate — not to mention a Republican presidential candidate — that not only tolerates, but allows unelected judges to legalize the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains?

... What about a climate where same-sex couples are given the same legal status as married couples, whether the resulting arrangements are candidly called “same-sex marriages,” or are semantically papered-over with terms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?

... Apply the Giuliani Continuum to fundamental issues such as marriage and the right to life, and where does it lead?

... Not where conservatives want America to be.

... Rudy Giuliani’s observation about the “continuum” running from graffiti to murder was quoted in a piece in the winter edition of City Journal by Steven Malanga. The title of Malanga’s piece neatly encapsulates his argument: “Yes, Rudy is a Conservative — and an electable one at that.”

... I believe Malanga is wrong on both counts. Rudy is neither conservative, nor electable — at least, not as a Republican presidential candidate.

National Review article by Terence P. Jeffrey

[westmichman]

I understand that abortion has serious consequences in the later lives of those who have had them. So it basically destroys at least two lives each time it is performed.
This being the case, it is obviously much more than just a fetus, or blob as some would have us believe.

[xmission]

Unbelievable that God doesn't strike us down for allowing this to happen at all. I don't think there is anything more ghastly, and those that defend this are pure filth.

[BMIC]

The real shame is that none of the Republican candidates are saying anything about abortion or other life issues. They all seem to have other agendas that THEY feel are more important.

[Salvation]

Pro-life bump!

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[Salvation]

For the stout-hearted.

Priests for Life -- What an abortion looks like

[Beagle8U]

Thank you Jim, For explaining the butchery known as PBA and providing a forum for those that want it ended.

Sadly many in your own house wishing to promote candidates that think its no big deal will never read this thread.

Values and the honesty to express them are a reality they must avoid to keep their dream alive.

[madprof98]

This seems to me to be the third (were there more?) in a series of posts by #1 FReeper to address a very, very strange phenomenon on this forum--i.e., the willingness of so many self-described conservatives to support a social liberal on grounds that he could possibly defeat the much-hated Mrs. Clinton. Those FReepers have plenty of company these days. I turned off Sean Hannity on the radio this afternoon because I could not stand to hear him conceding defeat to liberalism. Jim Robinson has not conceded defeat, nor will he. THANK GOD!