Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
fine, your answer is the honest one.
But don’t doubt for a minute that there are alot of people, who will be looking for a federal ban on first trimester abortions after Roe is tossed. They won’t be satisfied with the progress the States making on banning it (few will) - South Dakota couldn’t even pass a non-binding law on it.
They will be looking either for judicial activism on their side of the issue (the same thing the left is guilty of), or a constitutional amendment (which would be the only legitimate way of addressing the issue federally).
Can President Fred Thompson do anything about gay civil unions in the States? yes or no. Here’s a tip - if he tells you yes - he’s pandering.
Perhaps you are arguing on the wrong forum. Freepers are not anti-choice, we are pro-life and against abortion. The whole term pro-choice was inveted by liberal because the couldn’t stand to hear they were pro-abortion.
Keep typing. Your true issues with conservatives continue to expose themselves.
You are just starting to babble now. You tried to make us look stupid for being pro-life and make Rudy look so wonderful for giving women a choice. Your post was just a bust because it wasn’t as clever as you thought it was, so just give it up.
That hasn't happened even once. It's amazing how many times that has been posted. Tell a lie enough and people will believe it. A liberal tactic.
“That means making deals.”
And yet democrats don’t ‘make deals’ to forward their agenda’s.
They push it for all it’s worth and get the RINO’s in Congress to come over to their side.
Sorry. But deal time is over is the conservative party is going to survive at all.
Sometimes you have to fight back no matter what the outcome.
Because you can't unring a bell and you can't unstart a life.
It seems that the reason to oppose abortion as it stands is life, Once again i will state I agree with that position.
Then, you agree that the choice of abortion AS IT IS TODAY should be banned?
If life is maintained, where then is the opposition? It seems that the reason would then change and become that an unborn must remain and be carried to term where it began.
What you are describing is not an abortion. To abort something is to terminate it. What you are describing is more akin to a high tech caesarian birth.
is = if
A number of months back, in a thread, I was told by a poster that due my dissenting view from his/hers, I was now on "his/her list". That my name just made the "list". And this "list" jazz cropped up in threads/debates.
I made sarcastic reference to "the list" in another thread, in my belief that this "list" was a "bluster" by the poster -- that he/she was using to simply write off my comments, and not debate my points.
Do you know anything about this "list" stuff?
It’s important to be able to make deals, however the GOP congress people spent too much. They were more interested in getting reelected by delivering pork to their districts / states.
There were other factors in why we lost congress:
— Inability to articulate why we should be in Iraq.
— Losing the swing vote 2-1.
— Stay at home “conservatives”
no, I didn’t say Thompson was pro-choice. He isn’t. I simply said, he isn’t going to be as vehemently pro-life as some of the people on this thread are. And he isn’t going to promise to be able to wipe out gay civil unions as decided by the States - because can’t. And what’s going to happen once he’s vetted in the primaries, and that becomes clear? Are folks here going to bail on him too?
Well, sure. Scott Peterson is a good example. He is where he belongs. Were the idea I take on as my position were available today, every woman having an abortion as they are performed today could join him as far as I am concerned.
Did it ever occur to you that most by far just don’t want to be pregnant and that abortion is the only way out they have today? Maybe that they would much rather not be pregnant without losing a life?
You ding Fred Thompson for having cancer but you appear to forget that the other front-runners have had cancer.
In concert with the Congress, he certainly could, if he was disposed to do so.
After all, if the national legislature and executive had nothing to say about these matters, they couldn't have forced Utah and several other Western states to forever forsake plural marriage as one of the main criteria for entering the Union in the first place.
How can you say death of the child is the desired result?
Why is it not that the desired result is just not to be pregnant? A life need not be taken to accomplish the “not be pregnant part” were we to advance science.
Your premise may need to be revised.
Nope.
and another part of the answer to your question is - let’s get Thompson into the race NOW so this vetting (soundbites aside) can take place. GET IN NOW! This delay doesn’t help at all, it hurts actually.
“Did it ever occur to you that most by far just don’t want to be pregnant and that abortion is the only way out they have today?”
That comment is absolutely silly and untrue.
You mean birth control doesn’t work?
How about ABSTINENCE!
There are other CHOICES that can be made.
Thanks, Charles!
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.