Posted on 10/14/2010 8:17:15 AM PDT by GonzoII
It is dismaying to hear some pro-life politicians calling for a "truce" on social issues like abortion - possible White House contenders Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour among them. Their suggestion is that it's more important to do whatever is necessary to get elected than to worry about issues that appear to be intractable.
This tactic is akin to the pro-life and pro-abortion movements agreeing to disagree, an option often considered a reasonable one. It does not require that either side change its views, but simply agrees to allow the different views, and the practices that flow from them.
Sorry, but this is a proposal we in the pro-life movement can't accept. There can be no truce.
First of all, to ask us to "agree to disagree" about abortion is to ask us to change our position on it. Why do we disagree in the first place? When we oppose abortion, we disagree with the notion that it is even negotiable. We do not only claim that we cannot practice abortion, but that nobody can practice it, precisely because it violates the most fundamental human right, the right to life. To "agree to disagree" means that we no longer see abortion for what it is - a violation of a right so fundamental that disagreement cannot be allowed to tamper with it.
To "agree to disagree" is to foster the notion that the baby is a baby only if the mother thinks it is, that the child has value only if the mother says it does and that we have responsibility only for those we choose to have responsibility for.
Certainly, there are many disputes in our nation about which we can "agree to disagree." Various proposals, programs
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Ping.
That argument doesn't fly when human lives and civil rights are considered.
A woman's body ends at the umbilical cord. At the end are one or more living individuals each deserving of their OWN rights.
God bless Father Pavone.
This reminds me of the end of most discussions with libs, on any topic -
well, you have the facts and logic on your side to prove your point,
but I don’t [want to] and won’t believe your take on the issue.
Muslims are willing to let non-muslims "agree to disagree" on matters of faith. So long as you concede rule to them as their inferiors and don't want equal rights in court and don't want to posess a non-muslim religious text, and don't want to publicly practice your faith...
If you are willing to sit down, shut up, and let them run the show, that is if you are willing to keep your dissent to yourself and let their agenda rule, then you can live... for now. Same attitude being served up by the pro-death liberals.
bump!
“If you don’t want a gun, don’t own one.”
Well that impacts EVERYONE we are told.
Except it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as an inalienable right. And the criminals are going to engage in crime anyway.
They use guns to commit crimes. They are already committing crimes that are illegal. Obtaining a gun illegally is but one more transgression for them to commit.
We’ve legalized abortion and yet legal clincs are still maiming and killing women and children with botched abortions. Shouldn’t they be using cleaner wire hangers by now?
Why not? Didn’t obama ask for us all to find a middle ground in his Notre Shame commencement address last year?
No truce on abortion...
However, When asked by the media about their views on abortion, I REALLY want to see an elected official/candidate in a debate/press conference look right at the media and explain why they are pro-life while showing various photographs of the END result of the so-called reproductive rights of women.
Let the left winged media and politicians cringe at the grisly pictures while trying to defend this eugenics process they claim to champion.
When good compromises with evil, evil wins.
I wish the National Council of Bishops would adopt this attitude. We could stop abortion in this country right away if only they would tell all Catholics that they cannot vote for any candidate who favors (or even tolerates) abortion. I cannot believe that they are not doing this. That point should be hammered home continuously from the pulpit.
It is the 5th Commandment! We were directed by God to not do this horrendous sin. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the law charges the criminal with two counts of murder, but if a doctor aborts a child, he is not charged. This alone, shows the lunacy of the stance on abortion. A doctor can murder a child and that’s okay? No, it’s not! And it’s about time we all call it what it is.
The bad news is that it's only going to happen after the U.S. is filled with Mexican Muslims.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
All these people who supposedly want a "truce" on social issues such as abortion and the homosexual agenda - why don't you want a truce on smaller government and fiscal issues? Hmm? Because they're vitally important, right? Well, the right to life is also vitally important. If not more so. Can't fight against big government and insane taxes if you got aborted.
It is dismaying to hear some pro-life politicians calling for a “truce” on social issues like abortion
__________________________________________________
It’s also dismaying to hear the libs on FR calling for us pro-lifers to shut up about abortion. That we should realize it’s not a Constitutional issue, and that it’s up to the states to decide and blah, blah, blah.
Look. The SC created this (bleep) with Roe v. Wade. They need to overturn it. And anyone on a local, state or National level who calls for a “truce” is useless as a conservative.
/rant off
Thanks for the ping.
Indeed there is no common ground on abortion excluding the realization from all that unexpected pregnancies can be an extremely stressful responsibility.
“Reproductive Rights”, “Choice”, “Mother’s Health”, ...
Let’s not mince words. Abortion today is the legal barbaric, killing of nascent human life regardless of the rationale used to dispatch the little ones.
And no it doesn't mean we must stop discussing social issues. No need for a truce.
Much agreed.
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.