Posted on 11/28/2002 8:02:12 AM PST by Greg Swann
Where, anywhere, did I say I was a one-issue voter? But are there not single issues that are "trump" issues for you? Let me try you on a few.
Would you vote for a GOP candidate who was economically tight, governmentally small, pro-second-amendment, tough on crime, for tougher borders, Constitutionalist... but felt that rape should be legal?
How about a GOP candidate who was economically tight, governmentally small, pro-second-amendment, tough on crime, for tougher borders, Constitutionalist... but felt that child molesting should be legal?
Or a GOP candidate who was economically tight, governmentally small, pro-second-amendment, tough on crime, for tougher borders, Constitutionalist... but felt that slavery should be legal?
Okay now, one more.
If you said "No" to each of the previous, then you are going to have to explain something to me. How is the position that government has a role in preventing the poisoning, butchering, dismemberment of living children whose greatest crime is that they are imperfect or inconvenient ethically less clear or imperative than the other "single-issue" concerns (rape, child molesting, slavery) that I mentioned above?
Please think it through, and give a thoughtful answer. I am interested and will listen. Otherwise, no need to bother.
Dan
She could count on a lot of us staying home if Condi does not have a change of heart. It can be even a conscious rational change that does not involve her emotionally, just a realization that the people who care about morality and civilized living will not give up on the abortion issue. I'm sure that she realizes that pro lifers are not in it to control other people's lives but rether it is because they deem abortion to be murder. She has to expand her concept of the crime of murder. Bush Sr. did this.
Where, anywhere, did I say I was a one-issue voter? But are there not single issues that are "trump" issues for you? Let me try you on a few.
I have agreed and disagreed with you in the past, to the best of my recollection, but we haven't had that many exchanges. Perhaps I only bother to respond when we disagree.
Since you said that Rice's position on abortion would eliminated her as someone you would vote for, that seemed to me to be a single issue position. Perhaps you disagree with her in other areas but just didn't state them. However, you then list a series of absurd single issues, mixed with some normal ones, and ask how I would respond to candidates with those positions. The whole exercise seems to concentrate on single issues while denying they are such.
I detest abortion just as you do. However, just as murder has always been left to the states to deal with as they see fit, only recently becoming a federal crime in certain cases, I think it should continue to be that way. I see no federal role for it and I think the Supreme Court was wrong in Roe versus Wade, even though that did not federalize murder.
I have not recently seen Condaleeza Rice's stand on abortion but I thought it was the same as mine. Therefore, a candidates position on abortion should be a concern for us when voting in state elections but of no concern in national elections, unless they are attempting to further erode states' rights.
Second: but you did sort of get around to it in your discussion of abortion. It isn't a single issue to you at the federal level because you don't think it should be decided at that level. Do you oppose all federal laws? Isn't murder a federal offense? Why shouldn't abortion be?
Third: what Rice has said I can quote almost verbatim. She says that she is "mildly pro-choice." Now, if you'll re-read my initial posting, what I demanded was clarification and sense. I don't know what "mildly pro-choice" means; it's a little like being mildly pro-rape, or mildly pro-child-abuse. How can you be? It's a coy choice of words, and she must clarify, if she wants my vote. Fair enough?
Fourth: are you not aware that, even within your guidelines, a president's position on abortion has MANY repercussions? We've seen it in issues of support for abortion on military bases, supporting abortion-advocacy groups abroad, signing bills such as banning live-birth infanticide. What about the all-important issue of appointment of judges? Look, there is a difference between your position (I hate it, it's wrong as the day is long, it should be banned -- but at a state level) and being "pro-choice" (it is neutral, up to the individual, should be a protected right). A person of the latter position will not appoint judges who will eventually get the issue handled at the state-level, as you wish.
Dan
Well, I am sorry. I attempted to respond to that and I thought I did. It is confusing to me to try to follow your position. Perhaps I am just dumb. First you said you would not vote for Rice because of her position on abortion. To me that meant that regardless of any other position she may have, that issue alone, that SINGLE issue, would cause her to lose your vote. Isn't that what you said? Then you replied to my response saying you never said you were a single issue voter. You then went on to list many single issues and asked if those single issues would cause me not to vote for a candidate. Now you are saying that you are a single issue voter and are suggesting, by the previous post and your examples that I am too if the issue is important enough. I can't keep jumping the fence trying to figure out which side you are on so my responses will probably never please you.
Second: but you did sort of get around to it in your discussion of abortion. It isn't a single issue to you at the federal level because you don't think it should be decided at that level. Do you oppose all federal laws? Isn't murder a federal offense? Why shouldn't abortion be?
That paragraph is an excellent example of what I mean. Why do you ask if I oppose all federal laws because I oppose one? Isn't that quite a reach? I told you I think that they recently made murder a federal crime in certain cases and you come right back and ask me if murder is a federal crime and, if so, shouldn't abortion be? No, in general, murder is not a federal crime. That is the reason there is this big debate over capital punishment. Different states have different laws because murder is a state crime. If it were federal the punishment would be uniform. If murder were a federal crime, generally, yes abortion should be also because abortion is murder. They should be governed by the same rules.
Third: ......what I demanded was clarification and sense. ......and she must clarify, if she wants my vote. Fair enough?
Demanding will get you little. Why do you think anyone should accede to your demands? Who are you to demand? Oh, your one little vote is at stake? Talk to the Democrats, they are the ones that insist that every vote must count. Unfortunately they are also the ones complaining that their voters don't turn out.
Fourth: are you not aware that, even within your guidelines, a president's position on abortion has MANY repercussions? We've seen it in issues of support for abortion on military bases, supporting abortion-advocacy groups abroad, signing bills such as banning live-birth infanticide. What about the all-important issue of appointment of judges? Look, there is a difference between your position (I hate it, it's wrong as the day is long, it should be banned -- but at a state level) and being "pro-choice" (it is neutral, up to the individual, should be a protected right). A person of the latter position will not appoint judges who will eventually get the issue handled at the state-level, as you wish.
These are excellent points that I agree with. However, given the choice of voting for Rice or Hillary I would joyfully cast my vote for Rice. You?
First, I apologize for doing what I resent in others: reading too hastily. You're absolutely right, of course; you had mentioned murder, and I hadn't reflected thoughtfully enough on it. So... do you ultimately think murder should be a federal crime, though? Doesn't saying "No" open the door,theoretically, to it possibly being legal in some states? (Now, there's a premise for a sci-fi novel if ever I heard one.) And if it is, you already grant that abortion might follow.
I grant you have good reason for being confused about what I mean when I say I'm not single-issue, yet single out abortion as an issue. Let me try to clarify my position, and my thoughts!
Here's what I mean: I mean that abortion isn't The One and Only Issue I care about. I did not support Alan Keyes, for a number of reasons, and he certainly has been the most articulate and passionate candidate on that issue for a long time. So I mean that my stance is not, "Is he pro-life? Then say no more: he has my vote!"
On the other hand... this is hard to put into words. I am horrified and appalled to my very soul at the practice, defense, almost sacralization of this hideous practice in our culture. Millions and millions are slaughtered barbarically each decade, and why? Nearly 100% of them die because they were imperfect (the fewest) or simply inconvenient (the most).
And this in the richest, most affluent country in the entire history of the world. (Yes, I do think this is a legitimate connection to bring that up.) What possible excuse can we claim? Ignorance of the fact that this is a human being from conception on? Science has ruled that out. Unavailability of alternatives? No, in no way.
And yet we are at a near vapor lock on the issue, unable to move one way or the other. Those who realize the, to me, ethically DUH! reality that it is an abomination which must stop instantly, are timid and apologetic. Those who prop up the case for the killing are bold and cultic, and they hold the reigns of power.
So what small part can I play? When I can, I protest, I write, I persuade, I give... and I vote. I let it play a part in whom I select. I think, if they haven't thought this position through and figured out that kids should be protected by law, they're Not Ready for Prime Time.
That's basically where I am. Now, do I demand that a candidate reflect my virtually 100%-opposed stance? Will I oppose him if he allows exceptions for killing the child if the father was a criminal (i.e. rape)? No; I want to move the ball in the right direction, and even that position would eliminate nearly 100% of all abortions.
Then you seem to twit me, puzzlingly, for "demanding" clarification of her position. Well, what do you want me to do, MnR? Be a sheeple, but just a sheeple for the GOP? You want me to say, "Golly, it's just such a privilege to be able to vote for a (1) smart (2) pretty (3) black (4) woman that I just won't even ask any questions before slamming down my primary vote!"?
No, of course Condi doesn't go to bed each night asking herself, "What does Dan Phillips think of my positions?" But I think it, when it comes to placing my vote. Shouldn't I?
Dan
You still think, then, that I have no right to demand that Rice clarify her position on this literally life and death issue?
Dan
I think demand is probably the wrong word. I am not sure any of us may, effectively, demand anything of anyone. Do you have a right to know her position, exactly what it is, before you decide whether or not you should support her if she were to ever run for something? Sure. (Remember, she is not running for anything, yet.)
One other point I meant to mention about your last response, the question of why such avid support for abortion by some. (Again, I got the ideas from Alan Keyes.) He says he thinks the push for legal, free and easy abortion, by the left primarily, is part of the total scheme to blur and eventually destroy our values. Other parts of that effort are moral relativism, political correctness, anti relgion, anti death penalty, feminism, gay rights, etc., as well as the push to level the playing field so that we are all equally mediocre. At the very crux of the whole effort is abortion. Abortion devalues life, making the unborn a thing rather than a child. Once we can easily and cavalierly discard life itself then the rest of the transformation is much easier. To the left, life is secondary, even irrelevant, in the march toward power.
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.