WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

hillary clinton, Hannity & Colmes, YouTube ^ | 4.19.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

by Mia T, 4.18.07

 

HILLARY TAKES VILLAGE: teen abortion / no parent notification (YouTube)

From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC -- 4/18/2007 "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION

HANNITY: Partial birth? GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done. HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion. GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support.... GIULIANI: I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously. HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito. GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it. Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.

IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this.

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support.

Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.

But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late.


POSTSCRIPT

MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.

They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 320,931
PLEASE FReep

YouTube (First Month) Honors for VOTE SMART:
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - English
#33 - Top Rated - News & Politics - All
#30 - Top Rated - News & Politics - English
#7 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - English
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - All
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - English

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[kevkrom]

Boy, you’re fast on the trigger. :)

Yeah, when I get in "the zone" I'm quick on the draw sometime. ;)

It probably would have been better to have just posted an "oops" than to have had the messages deleted, though.

[TommyDale]

"I truly hope you folks can once again come into the mainstream of the Party, push the candidate of your choice, and in the end help propel our Party to victory."

Almost everyone here at FreeRepublic are already in the mainstream of the GOP, because the GOP is comprised of several elements: Religious Right Conservatives, Pro-Life Conservatives, Pro-2nd Amendment Conservatives, etc. These elements always have voted Republican in past elections, and we have always had candidates who unite the party.

Rudy Giuliani, his handlers and his supporters who have never "thought outside the New York box" are wrongly assuming that those conservative elements will abandon their principles in order to win. No, you must run a candidate that can unite ALL Republicans. The fact that Rudy says "If you don't like my positions, don't vote for me" will be taken literally, both in the primaries and in the November general election.

Here's the key: America is not a "bigger version of New York". New York is a caricature of politics. It represents everything that most family-values oriented Republicans cannot accept.

[Mia T]

It requires wisdom to legislate against generic inclination--S& L deregulation was débacle waiting to happen--and character and political courage to legislate against self-interest.

In any case, Thompson is hardly a 'citizen politician.' He is very much a part of the DC power structure.

As for his winning attributes, listen to Lamar Alexander: EARTH TO LAMAR: FRED THOMPSON LOOKING THE PART AIN'T ENOUGH (41-second video FLUB)

What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy? (NB: gross is net, i.e., McCain has no conservative support to lose.) FRED'S GREATEST ROLE?: an alternative theory of Senator Thompson's not-yet candidacy

[kevkrom]

It requires wisdom to legislate against generic inclination--S& L deregulation was débacle waiting to happen--and character and political courage to legislate against self-interest.

Easy enough to say with 20/20 hindsight. Every major deregulation is preceded by dire warnings of disasters, from those who benefit from the power of being able to control via regulation.

I also take strong exception to your implication that Thompson doesn't have the "character and political courage to legislate against self-interest" -- in fact, his Senate record shows he consistently voted in favor of limiting Congress' power in matters best left to states. On the other hand, an authoritarian like Guiliani has a record of pressing for laws, and manipulating the system for his own agenda and purposes.

In any case, Thompson is hardly a 'citizen politician.' He is very much a part of the DC power structure.

Depends on your point of view. He has a life and a career outside of DC, but he has some measure of influence within.

What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy?

I could just as well ask if Guiliani's sole purpose is to split the GOP to guarantee Clinton the election should she win the nomination? Lord knows he's pretty much just like them anyway...

[kevkrom]

What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy?

Also on this ridiculous point -- one of Thompson's most admirable traits is that is is patently honest and plainly spoken, despite having a brilliant legal mind. The man says what he means, and means what he says. If he says he's thinking about running for President, then that's what he's going to do. He's not anybody's proxy or "stalking horse". He's not a "politician" in the modern sense. If he's in, he's in it to win it.

[MACVSOG68]

Almost everyone here at FreeRepublic are already in the mainstream of the GOP, because the GOP is comprised of several elements: Religious Right Conservatives, Pro-Life Conservatives, Pro-2nd Amendment Conservatives, etc. These elements always have voted Republican in past elections, and we have always had candidates who unite the party.

Well, if so, why are 70+% of Republicans in favor of one of the top 3 candidates, none of whom garner any support from the social right? In fact, in one recent survey, a large number of the RR said they would vote for Giuliani if he were nominated.

But then most conservatives are pro-life to a varying degree. Many would make exceptions, while most of those here wouldn't. Most conservatives are pro-2d Amendment, but understand that it doesn't mean an F-18 in every driveway.

The difference is that these issues, while important to many of the conservatives in the Party, are not what is driving this election, and they understand that.

Rudy Giuliani, his handlers and his supporters who have never "thought outside the New York box" are wrongly assuming that those conservative elements will abandon their principles in order to win.

To the contrary, all of the top three candidates, not just Rudy, understand that conservatives want a safe Nation first and foremost. They understand that conservatives want a sane fiscal policy, and they want a leader who can bring together both the Party and the conservatives from the Democrat Party as well as the independents. Most of those folks have social values, but do not put them before the security of this Nation.

No, you must run a candidate that can unite ALL Republicans. The fact that Rudy says "If you don't like my positions, don't vote for me" will be taken literally, both in the primaries and in the November general election.

I doubt it very much. But for those who do not vote to bring a Republican into office, they can gleefully take credit for anything done by Hillary, including 2 or 3 USSC justices, a complete reversal of our leadership in the war on terror, an increase in income taxes and a substantial increase in the socialist policies she believes in.

But for those who don't really care if they can't get their one percenter nominated, I say again, don't let the screen door hit you in the a$$!

You take care.

[fullchroma]

Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.

Bears repeating. I would add electing Rudy Guiliani to the self-destructive things we want to avoid.

[fullchroma]

You’re right, of course, should Giuliani win the nomination we must support him. Any democratic alternative is much, much, worse.

[Liz]

America is not a "bigger version of New York." New York is a caricature of politics. It represents everything that most family-values oriented Republicans cannot accept.

Amen and amen.

Must be a riot at Giuliani Campaign Central, going through the list, deciding who Roto-Rooty puckers up to next.

Must have an aide just to keep Rooty's kneepads in ship-shape condition for constantly kneeling in obeisance.

[TommyDale]

"America is not a "bigger version of New York." New York is a caricature of politics. It represents everything that most family-values oriented Republicans cannot accept."

One of the more profound statements of the day, and worth repeating, if I do say so myself!

[jla]

Mia T is no longer allowed to post on FR. She asked me to express her regrets that she cannot answer your thoughtful comments.

She would like to thank everyone who has extended support and kindness to her over the years.

If you cannot do this, I will understand.

thanx~mia :)

[Liz]

One of the more profound statements of the day, and worth repeating:

America is not a "bigger version of New York." New York is a caricature of politics. It represents everything that most family-values oriented Republicans cannot accept."

[MHGinTN]

Oh no! This is ... too much.

[rdb3]

Mia T is no longer allowed to post on FR.

What happened with that?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Miss Didi]

WHAT???

[Screamname]

WHAT??? What do you mean she isn`t allowed to post? Wow, she was one of my favorite Freepers! What happened? I hope you don`t mean she is unable to post meaning she is ill? I can`t understand why she wouldn`t be allowed, please not at this time when Hellary is running for POTUS!

[KATIE-O]

What a loss! Mia T is one of the most articulate, intelligent, talented anti-Liberal posters here. She, like many of us, recognizes that Hillary Clinton will be a disaster for this country, if she is allowed to win the White House, bringing the Horndog with her!

Unbelievable!

[steveo]

Mia gone? the shark just jumped.

[MHGinTN]

You left out creative ... she is one of the creative minds at FR. I cannot imagine what could cause this turn of fortunes.