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

 

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[ElkGroveDan]

ping

[MHGinTN]

Mia, you are ... no, I'll start over, for the sake of peace.

Mia, nominating a person who represents the planks in the Republican party platform is what primary voting is all about. The effort to get more to participate in that process is far more important than pushing a person into the nomination who doesn't represent the planks in the party platform ... unless you want to change the planks and thus the representative reason for the party as it is currently defined.

Short response, get your butt busy turning out more conservatives to vote in the primaries instead of trying to pursuade conservatives to support a person who does not represent conservative principles.

Mia, you do such a great job exposing the liberalism of the Rodham-rodent. Why is it you cannot see how similar Rudy is to the Rodham-rodent? If she is bad for her liberalism, why is Rudy good for his liberalism?

[dirtboy]

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.

So why are you pushing Rudy? He's guaranteed to split the GOP.

[dirtboy]

someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution.

And that person is Rudy?

Rudy took guns away from law-abiding gun-owners while declaring Roe to be a Constitutional right.

How on EARTH is this guy the one to defend the Constitution when his actions indicate an abject misunderstanding of what the Constitution means?

[Spiff]

Rudy Giuliani Supports Partial Birth Abortion
Republicans Do Not!!!

Click HERE for Video of Giuliani in his own words.

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

---

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the exception for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[dirtboy]

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.

You really crossed a line here, Mia.

If the GOP nominates pro-abort Rudy, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BETWEEN THE GOP AND THE DEMS.

So your attempts to try and blame pro-lifers if it comes down to Rudy and Hillary and Hillary wins is absurd. And insulting. And an indication of just how far you've slid leftwards in your efforts to support Rudy.

[Spiff]

So why are you pushing Rudy? He's guaranteed to split the GOP.

Is that what she does?! I honestly don't know, most of the time, what the **** MiaT is talking about and comprehending the actual point of one of her posts or threads is about as rare as finding actual, empiracal evidence of Giuliani's alleged conservatism.

[ElkGroveDan]

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

No it's the definition of "can win" that is the point of contention. For the Rudy Tooters the definition of can win is only Rudy and no one else. They then go forth with that premise to start some very ugly and divisive debates.

Rudy in fact CAN'T win because there are prolife people across the country who are not political. They are religious, morally conservative but don't consider themselves to have any allegiance to any party. If there is no prolife candidate on the ballot, they simply throw their hands up and wait for the next election. I wouldn't suggest that, but that's the way it is.

If there is no prolife candidate for President, they skip the election, and in this day and age of razor thin political divisions, that will kill any Republicans chances. End of story. Rudy can't win.

[dirtboy]

Yep. Rudy is the one to save us from Clintonism, according to Mia.

[dirtboy]

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

The more I read this, the more arrogant it gets. And ignorant, for that matter.

Tell me, Mia - did Papa Bush lose in 1992 by running too far rightward? Did the GOP in 2006 lose by running too far rightward?

Sorry, but the opposite is the case. Rudy would split the GOP.

[Spiff]

empiracal = empirical

[Spiff]

empiracal = empirical

[xsmommy]

If there is no prolife candidate for President, they skip the election, and in this day and age of razor thin political divisions, that will kill any Republicans chances. End of story. Rudy can't win

that is it. in a nutshell.

[dirtboy]

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

In the latest FR poll, 71.4 percent of Freepers support Fred, while 6.2 percent support Rudy. So tell me, Mia - do you think nearly 3/4s of the forum members who voted are stupid? That they just don't grasp what is obvious to you?

Or does that major gap - that 6.2 percent support for Rudy - indicate he is no conservative?

[kevkrom]

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

Where we part company on this is the Guiliani camp's insistence on pushing the false dichotomy of "we must nominate Guiliani to defeat Clinton". It's false for two reasons:

1. It presumes to know, 18+ months before the election, what the results will be, before any serious campaigning even begins; and
2. It presumes that Clinton will even be the Democrat nominee. History says that especially for Democrats, the early "front runner" is virtually certain to NOT be the nominee. Also, her negatives outweigh her positives, and the support for the stuffed-shirt Obama shows the left bases' frustration with Clinton.

The fact is, I'm sick and tired of hearing that we must abandon conservatism just to "win". What kind of "win" is it when we sacrifice all we hold dear to get it? You can throw whatever "clarifying statements" you want around, the fact is that Guiliani is a 100% NARAL-supported politician.

He's also no friend to the pro-2A crowd; prior to his 9/11 fame, his record on "security" was to disarm the law-abiding. His supposed "fiscal conservative" record is mixed at best. He's supported illegal immigrants and their enablers. He's in favor of a big, intrusive, and authoritarian government. His personal morals and ethics are decidedly below par for the GOP.

Rudy is the wrong man, at the wrong time, running for the wrong office. If he wins the GOP nomination, conservatism in this country is DEAD -- it will prove that all one has to do is throw platitudes toward the right, provide them with a bogeyman, and then they'll blindly follow along.

I'll have no part of it.

[Mia T]

Your two errors, in my view:

(1) You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.

(2) Wanting a future for your kids isn’t ‘political’ or ‘religious.’ It’s instinctual.