PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[narses]

So reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Fair enough. We each have different abilities. Re-read the warning AGAIN. Recognize that it resonates across the comitted pro-life community. If it does NOT resonate with you, ask yourself what commitment you have to life. Do as you will, but if the GOP doesn't live up to the Platform, it is asking for serious trouble. As the D's lose power, and they are, the GOP is ripe for a schism. Moral issues are the Great Divide in the GOP. Hide your head in the sand, pretend that the Divide is just ONE person, but ignnore the warning at your peril. I will be a delegate to the Washington Convention in 2006 and 2008, God willing. I will fight for this issue. If the left wing wins, I will act.

[Cold Heat]

Telling the politicians that we will not vote for them if they do not act as we expect them to is not a "threat." It is the way a republic works.

I certainly agree with that principle hoc.

But that is not exactly what is happening here.

These folks are not telling the truth, in that they are painting lipstick on a pig.

Judicial temperament is what we want, not opinion!

You could easily end up with a Constitution rewriter in the form of a pro-life judge.

One of those folks who are the exact same copy of the current crop of believers that the Constitution Is a living, breathing document and it should be changed, interpreted and molded to todays social needs.

The judicial temperament we desire is strict constructionist. A temperament where personal opinion is not at all important. The Judge, should be neither pro-life not pro-choice in his judgments.

What is sought here is a judge who acts on personal opinion. This Judge would be wrong. How can you test this judge?

The question/demand/ requirement,should be one of temperament, not opinion on any issue except the Constitution.

What I am seeing here on this thread, is not a desire to get judges with proper judicial temperament, it is to get temperamental judges.

We do not want, need or desire activists of any cause, belief or deity. We want men/women that see the Constitution in it's true wisdom, who see the founder's desires as they were, and not as they should have been.

A judge with opinions on either side of issues and allows these opinions to shade his/her judgments is the worst kind of judge to be on our bench.

But this is what they are asking for, and that is why I profoundly disagree.

[narses]

You clearly had not followed the full exchange then. The vitriol poured against me and the Catholic Position on Life made it clear that a - he meant the type of research and treatment forbidden by Natural Law and b - was deliberately baiting people. He and others here want People of Faith OUT of the debate. They have said so here on this thread. Sorry, the meat eater has the exact same moral standing as the butcher. Killing a child, selling the body parts of that child or using those self same parts are ALL evil.

[Cold Heat]

Republican Party will have broken faith with a key constituency, and that constituency would then no longer owe any loyalty to the Republican Party.

Your constituency has never been loyal. You are a pain in the a$$. You whine, you complain and if you don't think you are getting your way you stay home on election day.

You are not considered part of the republican base by anyone except democrats, and they are always wrong. This election was not about you. It was not about abortion.

Your turnout numbers as a percentage were no greater than before. Nobody in the party held your hand this year. Nobody promised you anything out of the ordinary, and certainly no promise has been made to overturn Roe.

What Bush said, he meant.

[narses]

An observation -- "your side" (if you'll forgive the generalization") has attacked "my side" with similar vitriol. More, they've told us to LEAVE the GOP, they've said we have ought not participate in making public policy. Since none of know each other, it is our belief system that is being attacked (on both sides), hence the high emotion.

[Artist]

Good to know; since I don't want to "align" myself with you, I won't be posting to you anymore.

What a shame.

I'll miss all the insults and profanity.

[sitetest]

Dear Amelia,

Folks who are active in the pro-life movement haven't been forgetting about the cultural change. In fact, practically speaking, it is cultural change that takes up most of the time and energy and money & stuff the really committed pro-lifers spend.

For the really involved pro-lifers, "welcomed into life" isn't rhetoric. Folks work real hard to take care of women and their children who find themselves in crisis pregnancies. Although the abortion industry is lucrative and chokes on its own profits, nonetheless, there are several times as many crisis pregnancy and pregnancy aid centers as there are abortion mills. And the number of active folks out there working to welcome children into life, and support women in tough circumstances is at least an order of magnitude greater than the number of evildoers working hard to kill every baby before she can take her own breath.

But whether or not these things are true, if Roe is overturned, there will be legal consequences. Immediately.

A little googling revealed that of the 50 states, 16 still have unrepealed pre-Roe laws severely restricting abortion. Another 11 have laws on the books severely restricting abortion that were passed AFTER Roe, which say that if Roe is overturned, they take effect.

And 40 states have passed significant restrictions on late-term abortions that are currently inoperative due to Roe.

Thus, if Roe were to be overturned, the next day, most abortions would be illegal in most of the states, and at least a significant proportion of abortions would be illegal in 80% of the states.

What would happen then? I'd expect that in short order, the bluest of the blue states would move to an unrestricted abortion license, and the rest of the states would place significant restriction ranging from significant regulation of late-term abortions to nearly banning abortions even in the first trimester.

But I also suspect that many folks who right now think of themselves as "pro-choice" (but when closely queried reveal that they would prefer restrictions that would effectively ban most abortions) would start to think of themselves as "pro-life."

And that's because a significant portion of the population is really more than anything, "pro status quo."

You can see it in Mr. Bush's approval numbers. In the upper 40s throughout much of the summer, by election day, when most folks expected he'd win, he was at 51%. Now he's at 56%. In less than two weeks, 5% of the population has moved on job approval.

It creates cognitive dissonance to be in disagreement with "the way things are." Lots of folks deal with the cognitive dissonance by going with the flow, by viewing the status quo, whatever it is, as the right way for things to be.

The day after Roe was overturned, I'd expect this phenomenon to begin. Just as it is currently very, very difficult to get enough folks to support a Human Life Amendment, because it would change the status quo, the day after the overturning of Roe, it would become very hard to achieve a national consensus for a relatively unrestricted abortion license, because it would change the status quo.

"And realistically, even if Roe is gone, without the cultural change,..."

Really, Amelia, that train has already left the station. Culture is working against the death-mongers. Science is working against the death-mongers. Popular knowledge and belief are working against the death-mongers.

The only thing the death-mongers have left is lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money. But even money fails, at some point.


sitetest

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Yes, before long, people will start getting suspended.

I believe the term here is "power mad".

I knew this pro-choice cabal had some moderator muscle behind it.

[narses]

"Your constituency has never been loyal. You are a pain in the a$$. You whine, you complain and if you don't think you are getting your way you stay home on election day."

So when you support, say a Rudy Guliani or an Arlen Specter as the GOP candidate in the 2008 primaries, you do NOT want my support, right?

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"What Bush said, he meant."

When he said that he was working to have all children, born and unborn, protected in law, what did that mean?

Please explain to me how protecting unborn children in law can be done without undoing Roe, either through amendment to the Constitution, or through a decision of a differently-constituted Supreme Court, or through legislation (a speculative approach) that takes the abortion question out of the hands of the courts.

How can unborn children be proteced in law without undoing Roe?

As for loyalty, I have pulled a straight Republican Party ticket since I was old enough to vote, since 1978. I have voted in every federal and statewide election from 1978 on. I have even voted for Republicans who were iffy on the question of life, to strengthen the Republican Party, to get to the point where the party would be strong enough to take decisive action against Roe.

I have donated to the last several Republican presidential candidates.

I and my wife have performed volunteer work for Republican candidates and the Republican Party.

I did my small part to elect Gov. Bob Ehrlich in the state of Maryland, the first election of a Republican governor in 36 years. Even though he is officially pro-abortion.

I have done these things because the Republican Party has been the pro-life party.

Now, it is possible to take the first steps to reverse Roe. Now is the time. It is merely the fulfillment of part of the party platform.

Do you have a problem with President Bush keeping his promises?

Do you have a problem with the Republican Party executing a long-standing part of its platform?


sitetest

[narses]

Maybe. Somewhere deep inside this 1200+ post thread was a comment about FRiend Howlin getting suspended once, at least I think that was what the post meant.

[Amelia]

For the really involved pro-lifers, "welcomed into life" isn't rhetoric. Folks work real hard to take care of women and their children who find themselves in crisis pregnancies.

Yes, that's true, and I think those people don't get enough publicity - for which we can in part thank the MSM. And I don't think those people are anything but loving and compassionate to the young women they are trying to help.

Unfortunately, what most people "see" when they think of pro-lifers - and I'm talking Average Joe and Jane on the street, not FReepers - are judgemental mean people - the "Taliban wing" of Christianity, if you will. And I think we've seen some very good examples of that sort of behavior on this thread even.

I've had discussions with people who "wouldn't have an abortion but don't want to restrict another person's right to do so", who are convinced that those who want to stop abortion wouldn't lift a finger to help a teenager who found herself alone and pregnant, but would instead revile her for the sin that caused her to be in that position - and I know there are "Christians" out there who would behave in just that manner.

But I also suspect that many folks who right now think of themselves as "pro-choice" (but when closely queried reveal that they would prefer restrictions that would effectively ban most abortions) would start to think of themselves as "pro-life."

I think you are probably correct. Of course, I live in the Bible Belt South, and prevailing attitudes here are not necessarily the same as those in the rest of the country, and I can't speak for the rest of the country. Most people I know claim they wouldn't seek abortions themselves, but can see circumstances where other people might.

HOWEVER, they don't think abortion should be used for birth control, or performed after the age of viability (which is getting younger all the time).

Really, Amelia, that train has already left the station. Culture is working against the death-mongers. Science is working against the death-mongers. Popular knowledge and belief are working against the death-mongers.

Yes, again I think you are correct - and in the long run, I think this is more important than law. As I said earlier, there are plenty of things that are illegal, such as drugs, that are still being done. To really end them takes a change in hearts & minds.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

It seems as though the pro-choice women hit these threads in packs... never without a like-minded mod to back them up and throw around the inevitable "suspension" threats.

Just something I've noticed.

If pro-lifers aren't welcome here, Jim Rob needs to change his statement on the home page:

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.

Notice Pro-Life comes only after Pro-God?

[Henchman]

Well Howlin, I think I can prove you are on the Wrong Board. You belong on DUms. Here is the lead sentence from Jim Robertson, who owns this board. Bye, Bye.

Statement by the founder of Free Republic Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson Posted on 03/22/2004 9:22:17 PM EST by Jim Robinson "I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps....

[Amelia]

Lots of things are evil, and I'd bet that you've partaken of some of them.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I've had discussions with people who "wouldn't have an abortion but don't want to restrict another person's right to do so", who are convinced that those who want to stop abortion wouldn't lift a finger to help a teenager who found herself alone and pregnant, but would instead revile her for the sin that caused her to be in that position - and I know there are "Christians" out there who would behave in just that manner.

I've had many conversations with pro-choicers, and they never ask how much my family gives or donates to charities that help unwed mothers-to-be. They just assume we don't because it fits their argument that we're all repressive, heartless puritans who favor zygotes to real people.

They all make the same standard argument about us. They never ask questions that may contradict that sacred point of theirs.

[narses]

No question, I am a sinner. The question is degrees of evil and impact on others. Abortion = Murder. I've never murdered, God Willing I never will.

The LAW should not allow or encourage the murder of babies for any reason. For PROFIT especially using 'medicine' as the hook, well it is stomach turning.

[Amelia]

I don't think many of the people you label as pro-choice actually are. I'm not.

I think most merely take offense at the arguably childish "do it my way or I'll take my ball & go home" attitude expressed in the article this thread is based on.

[narses]

Exactly. When I remind a killer of the FACT that they are a KILLER, I am helping their conscience to work. If you support killers, you share in their blood debt.

[narses]

I don't know how this site is run or organized, but the Mission Statement is pretty darned clear.

Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family
Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family
Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family
Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family