Posted on 09/01/2012 1:13:56 PM PDT by presidio9
When it comes to abortion, which political party’s views are more extreme?
Unless you’ve spent the past week as a stowaway on NASA’s new Mars rover, the approved media answer is obvious: Republicans are the abortion fanatics. Between the furor over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” gaffe and the GOP platform language calling for a constitutional amendment to undo Roe v. Wade, the Republicans have revealed themselves to be — as The New York Times editorialized on
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.boston.com ...
“The party’s former chairman, Michael Steele, told an interviewer that omitting rape and incest exceptions from an abortion ban would be “way outside [the] mainstream of American thought.””
To me, the problem is that once you start down this road, “great minds” like Kathleen Sebelius, John Holdren, or whatever other “enlightened” lackey will end up deciding whose life is or is not worth saving. Progressives are naturally drawn to this scenario. In fact that’s what they have been all about for more than 100 years. The more nuanced wing of the progressive movement pulled in its horns between 1933 and 1945, when they became embarrassed by the undo enthusiasm with which some German progressives went about their work. Alright, we’re all human and prone to step on our schwantz now and then.
Experience shows once bureaucrat have the arbitrary power he is going to use it promiscuously, whether his targets are deformed babies, senile old men, or inevitably, some “distasteful” ethnic group, or “wrong thinking” citizens. Let the parents, relatives, or Sisters of Mercy, or even my tax money take care of the less fortunate. No good can come from legalized homicide.
You want a live birth justified by having guaranteed financing in place.
What an idiotic way of defending abortion.
Look, this is as much an emotional issue for me as it is for you, but I want to be clear that I am not in any way "promoting" Mitt Romney. As a matter of fact, I will cast my vote for the man with great distaste. What I am actively promoting is that Barak Obama not be elected with several senators riding his coat tails. Repealing Roe is only the first step to ending abortion in this country. And the only way to get to that point is to control not just the executive branch, but also the Senate. And a tepidly pro-life Executive (or even a stealth pro-choicer, if you prefer) is powerless to implement his personal preferrences without the consent of the Senate.
BTW, you really need to understand how your constant accusations that I am pro-choice or sympathize with the position end up weakiing your argument.
You are promoting the first officially, openly, aggressively, pro abortion republican presidential candidate in history, who is officially rejecting the republican Party Platform on abortion.
To top it off, you fight for him and defend him and promote him, and then deny that you are doing it, on the very thread that you are doing it on.
Either your mind is a mush or your honesty is nonexistent.
You cannot promote a candidate and at the same time claim that you aren’t.
I don't know how much clearer I can be than my last post, so I guess I'll just repost what I said:
Look, this is as much an emotional issue for me as it is for you, but I want to be clear that I am not in any way "promoting" Mitt Romney. As a matter of fact, I will cast my vote for the man with great distaste. What I am actively promoting is that Barak Obama not be elected with several senators riding his coat tails.
I will try to rephrase and repeat the advice I gave you in my last post, in the hope that some of it gets through to you: There are lurkers here. Many of them do not care about this issue as much as you and I do. I respect your "no compromises" position. But when you mischarcterize what people say it looks to those lurkers like you are being dishonest in your arguments and that weakens everything else you have to say.
You are promoting Mitt Romney.
You cannot be so childish as to deny something while doing it.
You are fighting for the election of your candidate, Mitt Romney.
Or as you would say ‘no I’m not fighting for the election of Mitt Romney.... I, I, I, am fighting for the election of Mitt Romney instead of the other guy’.
Five days ago, Mitt Romney formally returned to his pro-abortion position.
This appears to be “the life of the mother” exception. You are putting up a straw dog.
NO ONE doesn’t accept “the life of the mother” exception. It’s when you add the word “health” to the equation that you lose people, because the left has defined “health” as being ANYTHING they want it to be, such as stress. Just “claim” stress and you meet the health exception.
And here I was thinking I was fighting for the overturn of Roe V. Wade. What are you fighting for, btw?
“It brings tears 30 yrs later.”
MANY women have tears 30 years after an elective abortion. Most of those only involved the life of the baby.
He has 5 healthy looking sons, obviously they didn’t abort. You wouldn’t abort and I lay flat on my back for 4 months to keep from losing a baby.
I’m fighting to keep you and your man Mitt from making the republican party pro-abortion.
You are fighting for the first officially, openly, aggressively, pro abortion republican presidential candidate in history, one who is officially rejecting the republican Party Platform on abortion.
Romney is officially pro-abortion, do you think that all pro-abortion leaders are childless?
He can’t make anyone who’s against abortion abort, and I’m not going to get into one of your little ‘back and forth’ quibbles that solve nothing.
In the movie The Cardinal the future cardinal's sister gets pregnant out of wedlock. When it is time for the baby to be born the doctors say its head is too big and they need to crush the baby's skull to save the mother. The future cardinal, following Catholic teaching, refuses to give his approval. Later in the movie you see a little girl who is alive because of his decision--but her mother is dead.
You support pro-abortion politicians because they can’t force people to have abortions, even a presidential candidate that only revealed five days ago that he had been lying during the primaries, and that he was really pro-abortion, and says it on TV, as a position statement announcing that he disagrees with the party’s platform?
What is going on here? Has there been a tectonic shift at freerepublic that I missed?
What have I missed during my years here?
This entire thread is ponderous. Please go back and re-read the thread and don't make false accusations. In the (probably bs) scenario I was commenting on, The choice appeared to be "Baby won't survive regardless. Mother may survive if we remove it now." Such a proceedure is permitted by the Catholic Church.
In the movie The Cardinal the future cardinal's sister gets pregnant out of wedlock. When it is time for the baby to be born the doctors say its head is too big and they need to crush the baby's skull to save the mother. The future cardinal, following Catholic teaching, refuses to give his approval. Later in the movie you see a little girl who is alive because of his decision--but her mother is dead.
Never saw it, but apparently the producer never heard of Julius Ceasar, who was born (not-coincidentally) by ceasarian section some 600 years before the first Catholic Cardinal.
Actually that is not true.
I'm assuming that your continued personal attacks (I had also assumed that you are Catholic, or at least Christian, right?) are based on my willingness (not to be confused with eagerness) to provide exceptions for the life of the mother. This is not the same thing as supporting Mitt Romney. If you want to continue this conversation, I am asking you as a Christian to tone it down a bit. Getting rid of abortion is my #1 personal goal, and I am as emotional about it as you appear to be. Our differences are based on strategy. From my perspective, your rhetoric may make you feel morally superior, but it accomplishes nothing.
As an example: If abolishionists in the mid 19th century had been able to get behind a law that made all children born to slaves free men at that 18th birthday, might that have prevented the Civil War and accomplished their goal in a generation? Would they have been willing to make this concession? Would they have been able to convince a majority of the American people to accept this compromise?
Now apply it to the current situation? Strong words have accomplished nothing in three decades. A supermajority supports overturning Roe tomorrow with provisions for the life of the mother. Will a sizeable percentage of women suddenly present with mental health complaints. Undoubtedly. But the important point is that the debate will return to the states. And the health qualifications won't be the same in Utah as they are in Massachusettes. As a result millions of lives could be saved. So, again, if it helps your personal ego to continue making childish accusations it is your right to do so, but I'm done with you.
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.