Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
We believe that abortion is infanticide, and that a holocaust of infants is taking place. We do not believe that there is any other issue on Earth that compares with abortion in moral import. And therefore, there is no policy or combination of policies you Republicans can offer, including perfect tax policies, tort reform, and every other thing that is near and dear to Republican hearts, that matters a damn if abortion is overlooked and allowed to slide by.
We know that this issue has to be settled in the Supreme Court, nowhere else. And we know that the opportunity to put new justices on the court comes once in a decade, maybe, and that the current opportunity to alter the complexion of the court is not going to come again for a generation. Therefore, the real possibility exists that abortion can finally be seriously curtailed, soon, by the Supreme Court changing Roe v. Wade or eliminating it...IF, and ONLY IF, we can get pro-life judges on that court.
To do that, we have trusted the Republicans for years. We just came out and voted for you again this time, in unprecedented numbers, because we are not stupid and we know what is at stake. Not just evangelicals either. The religious CATHOLIC vote went Republican in 2004, and they didn't do it because of trade policy or even gay marriage. Their issue is abortion.
And the overriding issue is abortion.
So, if the Republicans allow Senator Specter to get the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and he blocks pro-life nominees, or if the Republicans do not use the nuclear option to override Democrat filibusters of pro-life nominees, THIS TIME there is no place for Republicans to hide. WE KNOW that you have the power, now, because WE just voted to give it to you. We understand that you can block Specter. And we understand the nuclear option.
And therefore, we most certainly will understand that if you allow the pro-life judges to be blocked, that it will be your political CHOICE to have done so. You CAN put pro-life judges on the bench, if you expend a lot of political capital. This will offend some people - a lot of people. And that is the price you HAVE to pay to get our votes next time. You have to be willing to bet the whole house to end infanticide.
If not, we will not vote for you. We won't go running to vote for the Democrats: they're pro-abortion. We won't go out and form a third party: we're not stupid and know that won't work. We'll just stay home, just like we did in 2000. Except that in 2000 it was out of frustration and neglect, and the lack of belief that anything will change. There was no organized campaign to keep the pro-life vote home in 2000.
This time, it's different. We understand the system, and we know that you have the power. And we demand that you use the power straight down the line to fill the high court and the appellate courts with judges who will protect the lives of babies. Period. This is not negotiable. At all. This is why we voted for you. You have nothing with which to bargain with us, and if you screw us, we will stay organized and we will stay home purposely to destroy the Republican party. Because if you do not protect the babies when you have the power to do it, you are no better than the Democrats...and worse, you will have lied to us.
This means, in effect, that all of those things YOU care most about: taxation, immigration, trade and business policy, deregulation - all of those core issues that come as an economic package, are held hostage to our issue: babies. If you will not protect the babies, we will stay home and let the Democrats destroy everything that YOU believe in.
This is called "Chicken". It is called a "Mexican Standoff". And since we are fired up by the certitude that we are doing God's work in defending babies, we cannot be bought, and you cannot win so much as an election for dog catcher in this country without us.
Therefore, the solution is simple and obvious: give us what we voted for you to do. Give us pro-life judges. Use all of your power to do it. Sweep Specter out of the way: is he worth losing all the rest of your agenda? - because we really will stay home and throw the country to the Democrats if you're no better than they are on abortion, just to punish YOU for having betrayed us. When the filibusters come, and they will come, use the nuclear option to override them. That will poison the Senate, yes. So what? We are talking about babies here. And with our votes, militantly mobilized because we are winning, alongside of yours, in 2006 and 2008 and beyond, even if the Senate is poisoned, you will be able to replace it with a more Republican one.
That there is even a debate going on as to what to do with Specter is alarming, but we have had our hearts broken before, so we'll sit and pray and trust President Bush and Senator Frist and the Republicans to do the right thing.
Screw us, though, and we will turn on you and your whole agenda will go down the drain with the blood of the babies you wouldn't put your power on the line to save.
The easy solution, the win-win solution, is to BE as pro-life as you campaigned as being. Just do it.
I apologize for the length of this post. But it needed to be said. The Republicans do not seem to get it. They need to understand that we are more committed to saving babies than we are to the fortunes of the Republican Party. That Specter is still in play demonstrates that too many of them do not take this seriously.
Rather than test us, what you guys should do is simply cave, now, and give us what we want. Do that, and you wont hear from us again - there will be no creeping theocracy in America - because this is about the only religious issue that Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals AGREE on.
Byeltsin?
Dear Amelia,
"Yes, again I think you are correct - and in the long run, I think this is more important than law."
But law is, nonetheless, vitally important. Many, many people, especially in an increasingly secular society, especially when many people have loosened or cut their ties to organized religion, rely on the civil law to teach them what is right and what is wrong.
That may not be a desirable thing, but it is as things are.
sitetest
Do you give them reasons to change that impression of you, or do your words and actions confirm their stereotype?
You can change hearts and minds. You won't change them all, but you can change some.
This may depend on your theology. I know in the Catholic church there are heirarchies of sins, with some worse than others, and many Protestant denominations assert that all sin is deadly.
Dear WhistlingPastTheGraveyard,
My strategy is to bring this stuff up in casual conversation, as an answer to the sort of thing like, "So, what've you been up to lately?"
"Well, our Ladies Auxiliary of our KofC Council raised a thousand dollars to help the Gabriel Project help women in crisis pregnancies."
"Well, our KofC Council's vehicle donation program to help women in crisis pregancies got another car donated last week - made $1500 for women who need help."
"Well, some pro-choice folks broke into Gabriel Project headquarters, destroyed furniture and equipment, and basically ruined the place, so folks are helping out so that women who need help will continue to get the help they need."
I know. I'm bad. Very, very bad.
sitetest
Good advice.
You and your cronies that regularly attack as a pack ought to look into that.
Every chance I get.
It does not resonate with MANY in this forum, and on this thread.
Perhaps YOU should ask YOURSELF what commitment YOU have to life, as the GOP is the only viable vehicle available to further the pro-life agenda.
I'd pay good money to see their look on their face after hearing that...
Mmmm...sounds like a Alan Keyes follower, insult and demean those who do not agree with you. That's a great way to advance your cause.
"We each have different abilities."
Exactly...from the looks of this thread, yours seem to be insults and tantrums, while mine is logic and persuasion.
Which would then of course mean leaving the Party, and standing as an opposition party and paving the way for victory after victory by the pro choice forces...intelligence isn't your strong suit.
Thank you for illustrating my point so well.
You reiterated the Obama/media talking points very succinctly, just as the Illinois GOP 'leadership' did throughout the campaign.
It amazes me that such a group can lead so many naive Illinois Republicans astray, and then turn right around and blame those they had just sabotaged.
Thank God for those 1.37 million Illinoisans who aren't susceptible. They are the hope of the Land of Lincoln.
All significant sin is deadly, hence the label 'mortal'. That is a theological issue. Abortion is a matter of Natural Law, intrinsically evil regardless of your religion, or lack thereof - just like murder, rape, arson and the like.
I'm pinging the Catholic List to ask those better read than I to explain the difference between Natural Law and religion. I do know that our country was founded on a bedrock of Natural Law.
"Man...your posts are harder to follow than an old friend of mine who used to hang out in FR, and was fond of word salad."
The insults have been flying on all sides Luis. My question to you was straightforward and honest. You ought not complain when I point out that YOU found my simple question 'hard to follow'. If your own admitted problems comprehending simple english insult you, well, you need help.
Dear WhistlingPastTheGraveyard,
"I'd pay good money to see their look on their face after hearing that..."
The operative remark here has to do with rivers in Egypt.
sitetest
Insult and demean those who do not agree with you. That's a great way to advance your cause.
And around and around it goes...
It has no meaning or effect.
Bush will protect life to the limits that he has. He cannot and did not advocate overturning Roe.
This is a social problem, and not a governance or constitutional issue. Most rational people can understand how it came to be and that it will take internal changes in social norms to effect change in this behavior.
Roe protections exist because of public demands for it.
Those demands are still there. Roe will not go away until the need for it is long gone, and even then it will likely remain for some time to come.
Social moray's on life are beginning to exhibit some changes, but we are far from a solution.
It would be my expectation that Roe and the death penalty might see a situation where the law remains, but the use of these practices gradually fade away without fanfare.
You cannot change these things through political or constituency battles. These things are interlaced into our social fabric.
Roe is not going anywhere for some time. However, additional restrictions and changes can be made at both fed and state levels with Roe still in effect.
Roe was bad law to begin with, but this fact will not eliminate it. It will stand for a very long time. The emphasis of change should be directed at the use of abortion as a option.
The fact it may be legal should not stop the eventual demise of this option as social changes catch up with reality.
I can run with anyone...did you correct the individual who fired the first volley?
I didn't think so...
You pointed to another poster's post, and asked me to answer their question...they had asked no question.
You are 100% responsible for getting your point across, and you failed to do so.
If you wanted me to answer YOUR question, then you should have made that clear.
"He cannot and did not advocate overturning Roe."
Really? The GOP has advocated a Constitutional Ammendment banning abortion, right? He ran as a GOP candidate, right?
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?
BUSH: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.
McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.
BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party.
McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000
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.