Posted on 12/08/2008 7:19:22 AM PST by sitetest
Ping.
ROSS ASSHAT
One should never “compromise” with evil. However, we can still spread the truth and prevent those who still possess a vestige of humanity from participating in abortion. Those born developing inside of inhuman wombs are without hope.
“Compromise, rather than absolutism, has been the watchword of anti-abortion efforts for some time now. “
Should we have compromised on slavery?
I don’t care if our position is unpopular. We’re talking about a human life.
If the Republicans don’t like it, they can go off on their own and win without us. Opps, they CAN’T win without us.
I remember the Dems saying Bush won both elections based on “morals”. Obama stayed away from the theme even giving a totally stupid answer regarding “conception”. Everything was about socialism...the gift that keeps on giving.
I don't usually like this writer, but upon reading the column in full, I found little with which to disagree.
sitetest
Read the column in fall. The “compromises” of which the writer speaks relate to doing more than just trying to overturn Roe, things like running and financing crisis pregnancy center, providing post-abortion counseling, etc.
The writer is saying that many of the criticisms aimed at the pro-life community - that all we care about is vindictively changing the law, and not about women and their babies - are false, that indeed, the pro-life community has dramatically changed over the last 35 years, and does many of the things that our critics criticize us for not doing.
Those are the "compromises" of which he speaks.
sitetest
Over the past few decades, Americans have increasingly become pro-life. Look at some polls.
The world for that matter has becoming increasingly conservative. Mexico, Canada, and France all have conservative leaders (France more of a moderate perhaps, but a big difference from that clown Chirac), and looks like Likud is going to win Israel’s next election. We, on the other hand, apparently prefer to vote for someone who blabbers about Hope and Change and has cute billboards of himself.
It doesn’t matter what the law is. Until you get little girls and young women to hold their Virtue valuable. Until this is instilled in them by loving fathers, they will give themselves to men that use them for pleasure.
There could be an immediate end to abortion if women counted their chastity valuable. There could be an immediate end if men respected that position and ....
Man is the only creature that has supremacy over his instinct. We choose not to use it.
God Bless you all.
Panzer
Nope....he’s wrong.
Abortion should not be discussed in election campaigns by republicans.....period. It a guaranteed loser. Just like guns and democRATS. democRATS talk about guns and they get shelled (pardon the pun). Did you see democRATS talk about guns this year? I didn’t All I heard from them is “ we support the second amendment” and they moved on.
Republicans should follow the same playbook. Don’t discuss abortion in the campaign under any circumstances. Pro-life, choice is not the issue. Should be topic forbidden while campaigning. Let the candidate’s record on the issue speak for itself.
Wrong.
The law is a moral teacher, and helps shape the culture in which it exists.
The number of abortions in the United States jumped by a multiple after Roe made abortion on demand the law in all 50 states. Most of the statistics I've seen indicate that about 100,000 abortions were performed yearly prior to Roe. Afterwards, abortions quickly climbed to about 1.5 million per year. Obviously, the law had some effect.
As well, even the very modest restrictions that can be placed on abortion have saved many lives. Abortions commited per year have dropped to perhaps under 1.25 million, even as the population grew by nearly 50%. And abortion has fallen the furthest where the laws are most restrictive.
The law matters, and restrictive abortion laws save babies, even the most modest of restrictions that in no way undo the current legal regime of abortion on demand.
Although it is good to address the “minds and hearts” of people, it is also important to address the law, too.
As well, the author of this column points out that there are many legal regimes between total and complete abortion on demand (which is pretty much what we have now), and a 100% ban on any abortions whatsoever throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Unfortunately, Roe militates that the current legal regime of abortion on demand is the only acceptable one.
Thus, it isn't even possible, currently, for the law to change, either on a state level or on a federal level, to reflect the change of the hearts and minds of Americans.
sitetest
Agree.
Be pro-life, support life causes but for f’s sake can we not make that the central theme of why we should be elected?
“Abortion should not be discussed in election campaigns by republicans.....period.”
Yeah, just like Sen. McCain did this year! That worked so well! We really stomped ‘em by shutting up on abortion, didn't we?
Republicans should be low-tax conservatives, fiscal-restraint conservatives, and social conservatives. That's the winning coalition. And Republican presidential candidates should hit every one of these three legs of the Republican coalition hard, every election.
Let the Democrats defend high taxes, irresponsible spending, gun confiscation, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, and the rest.
GK Chesterton said of Christianity that it is not that it has failed but that it has not been tried.
To all the critics and would-be advisors to the Republican Party, I answer in kind - it isn't that this complete, three-legged conservatism has failed but rather that for at least the last dozen years, it hasn't been tried.
sitetest
Hope that you enjoy being permanently in the minority, because that is where abortion centered campaigns lead.
“Be pro-life, support life causes but for f’s sake can we not make that the central theme of why we should be elected?”
There is a bit of space between making any issue the “central theme of why we should be elected,” and nearly failing to mention it at all.
As part of a social conservative agenda, abortion should play a prominent place in Republican presidential politics. And the social conservative agenda is one of the three legs of complete conservatism.
As the author of the column noted, “John McCain probably mentioned earmarks about a thousand times more often than he let the word 'abortion' slip his lips.”
I don't know if you realize it or not, buy many pro-lifers actually voted for the anti-Christ Obama. Many voted for him not because they thought, what the heck, why bother voting pro-life, but because they weren't sufficiently informed that John McCain was the pro-life candidate, and the anti-Christ Obama was the most pro-baby-butchery candidate in American history.
To have failed to campaign harder, in part, on the issue of abortion, and other social issues was gross and criminal stupidity on the part of Sen. McCain.
sitetest
McCain lost because the conservative base didn’t trust him. He tried to mouth the platitudes about lower taxes etc...and we knew better. He repeated over and over that he was pro-life. And that’s great, but it was a loser issue. The base knew that McCain couldn’t be trusted except for being pro-life.
I’m pro-life too. Don’t think that I’m not. But I am more into victory than being pro-life. Because without a majority being pro-life in the minority doesn’t cut it.
Read Amazing Grace by Eric Metaxas.
He’ll be our March for Life speaker in Colorado January 22, 09
BTW, the majority rarely do the right thing.
“He repeated over and over that he was pro-life.”
That's counterfactual.
The campaign deep-sixed the issue. Douthat is right - Sen. McCain probably mentioned “earmarks” a thousand times more than “abortion.”
“And that’s great, but it was a loser issue.”
I saw many, many ads on TV for Sen. McCain in the closing days of the campaign. Not a single one mentioned abortion in anyway, shape or form. It was not a standard speech of Sen. McCain's stump speech, either.
“The base knew that McCain couldn’t be trusted except for being pro-life.”
Actually, the INFORMED based knew that abortion is one of the issues on which Sen. McCain likely was not trustworthy, as in 1999, he clearly made pro-abortion pronouncements, and anyone with a brain knew that the chance of Sen. McCain going fuzzy on Supreme Court nominations was quite high. Sen. McCain has spent the last 10 years bashing religious and social conservatives. Few REAL pro-lifers really trust John McCain.
But we took what we had and ran with it, anyway.
“Because without a majority being pro-life in the minority doesn’t cut it.”
Every poll that asks this question shows a majority in favor:
“Should abortion only be legal in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother, and severe genetic deformity?”
As the author points out, it is absolutely impossible for laws that come anywhere close to restricting abortion thusly to be implemented, as Roe bans them.
Look even at the particular issue of partial abortion. Banning this procedure enjoys HUGE popular support, but initial attempts to pass these laws were struck down by the courts, including the Supreme Court, because the initial attempts were seen by the courts as attacks on Roe.
I seldom agree much with Mr. Douthat, but in this case, he is right.
sitetest
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.