Posted on 10/20/2007 2:08:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
"I speak for at least half the people here, including the Founder Jim Robinson, who has stated he will not vote for Giuliani under any circumstance."
Agree.
Don't Cut and Run, vote pro-life every time. It's the way you always win.
‘We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life.’ —Ronald Reagan
Nominating a candidate who goes against not just a few but almost every principle of the Republican party would be a demonstration to everyone that Republicans stand for nothing. Such a party could not continue to exist as any effective form of opposition to the Democrats.
***Well said.
The majority has allowed the murder of nearly 45 million American babies. I can not help if people have their priorities and hearts out of whack. There wrong in no way justifies pro-life American’s setting their values aside just so we don’t have to live with Hillary.
Rudy, or any pro-abort politician, does not get my vote. Not now. not ever.
Are you off your meds,,,AGAIN ??
Out in that Hot Sun without your hat,,,AGAIN ??
Why do you want to MURDER BABIES ?!?!?!??
From what I have seen of your posts,in the time I’ve been here,FR is not “beloved” by you as it is to me and others on this thread,,,
I’m 52 and remember it well. See post #591 and #594.
Funny, the "moderate" Democrats that I know are mostly "moderate" because they are pro-life. Do you think they will vote for pro-abortion Rudy over pro-abortion Hillary?
From the wikipedia link you posted:
The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state’s legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health”, and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable (”except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).
***It appears that the Life of the Mother clause is not discussed for states prior to Roe v. Wade in that article.
There can be no "grey area" on the issue of life.
Republicans/Conservatives, do not have to sacrifice the pro-life cause (and other social conservative issues), to win the war on terror, when there are viable candidates willing to take on both.
“Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate? ^
Posted by Hildy to Jim Robinson
On News/Activism ^ 04/26/2007 5:04:58 PM PDT · 11,382 of 18,393 ^
You will “KEEP” me around as an example - that’s rich. FR has become one big circle jerk. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. I mourn the great site this once was.
Goodbye Jim. It was a great decade and it’s been an interesting ride. I wish you and your family nothing but happiness. Life is too short for this kind of nonsense. Please close my account.”
Hildy...
...go back to WA, or wherever you hang out now.
File your report...
Amen.
Well, I’m 56, female, was of age at that time, and remember things a bit differently.
I hope you saw Kevmo’s post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914017/posts?page=606#606
I have no idea what you see differently. You haven’t clearly said. Kevmo’s post confirms what I said, that abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother was legal in all fifty states before Roe v. Wade. If you have information that refutes that let’s see it. Otherwise I have no idea what you are taking exception to.
I was not referring to state law prior to Roe v. Wade, I was referring to the attitude of a significant number of people on FR, who DO NOT believe in an exemption for the life of the mother. I have had that argument here before -- I will look to see if I can find the thread in which many said "no exceptions." As a member of several pro-life organizations, I find that kind of wing-nut thinking from some on this site, or anywhere else, impossible to take and ultimately harmful to the pro-life cause.
That would seem to further support my statement. Thanks, I haven’t explored those links since I first assembled them about four years ago.
That was going to be the next thing I was gonna check on. I thought there had been an exchange like that with Hildy.
It does appear Hildy makes good target practice.
“And it will never be outlawed here.”
Yes, it will. Many of us remember when baby-killing was illegal, and it will be again.
I think you’re talking about a small minority and it doesn’t significantly effect the debate. The question here is whether Republicans can stomach voting Pro-Choice. I can’t. Until Roe v. Wade is struck down specific state legislation is a moot point. If I live to see the day I will decide then whether to support or oppose specific legislation in my state.
“I have no idea what you see differently.”
After thinking a bit, you are probably right in that the life of the mother took precedence.
However, since then (the early 70s), that now includes not only her life, but her psychology, and her mental state.
The mother can claim to be depressed over the situation and have an abortion.
That is the difference.
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.