Replies

When you listen to Dems now, the FIRST thing mentioned is abortion. They have made it plain that they want as many children dead as they can get. They want to kill all children even if it means not telling the father or the mother's parents. If you press them past the "Right to Choose", crap, then you get into the real reason they want your children dead. They use precious resourses and destroy the planet. They believe that by killing all children they can save the planet. Who would want to live here with no children?

If you press them past the "Right to Choose", crap, then you get into the real reason they want your children dead.

First of all, they are VERY careful not to go past the "right to choose" very often. The press ignores it and the rank and file don't hear it. We have been so sucessfully demonized that if WE try to articulate their agenda, we are summarily dismissed as being delusional.

The people DON'T want us in charge of this decision. They've been convinced that we want absolutely NO abortions ever, and most people aren't there yet.

Contrary to an above post, I don't believe this election was a referendum on abortion. We are pro-life and voted in droves and simply outnumbered everyone else. The rank and file non-ideologues who voted with us found an issue more immediate to their lives than abortion...terrorism and the war.

We have the opportunity to show them the direction we want to go. We have enough time for some of those results to come through and prove that we know what we're doing. We've gotten their attention, now we can start to teach.

When you listen to Dems now, the FIRST thing mentioned is abortion. They have made it plain that they want as many children dead as they can get. They want to kill all children even if it means not telling the father or the mother's parents. It is this sort of extreme nonsense that siezes the possibility for reasonable debate and trashes. This sort of nonsensical accusation marginalizes the pro-life position, by default. Democrats aren't making a conscious effort to kill as many of your children as possible. They aren't on the side of saving all the unborn who can be saved, either. Abortion on demand is a wedge issue for the democrat party and their supporting constituencies. Diana is on the right track for a way to defuse the power this issue has in political venues, but more thought must be applied to what stance is most coherent while not giving away the farm, so to speak.

Abortion on demand is a heinous malignancy growing and alternately shrinking (barely), I think, based upon the voices speaking out to condemn whimsical abortion. [Trends follow the permissions implied by society; when voices speak out coherently against abortion on demand, abortions go down, when voices speak out defending the slaughter as some enlightened policy that 'should' be the 'American way', abortions go up. It is time to have a national dialog which addresses the wrong while not marginalizing the voices debating the issues. Keeping abortion sanctioned by laws defending 'a woman's right to choose a serial killer to off the unborn' is not an alternative any longer, for the preciousness of the unborn, their humanity now proven through scientific means, must be addressed and protection afforded to them. There are rare conditions for which a credible physician will prescribe aborting the nascent life in the womb. But abortion is currently being used to prevent acceptance of responsibility for new individual human life (societal and individual responsibility), conceived and on life support. That is the perspective which holds greatest promise for raising the debate to a higher level, applying the already existing precedents in our society.

Men are required by the courts to extend life support for the products of their conception, to the child conceived and implanted into the womb of a woman and delivered into the community. That is precedent which should be applied more evenly to the female involved in the conceived and life support-needing individual human life.