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.
We both know that. The issue is that BY FIAT all laws restricting abortion were wiped out in Roe/Wade and Doe/Bolton. ALL of them. The educational efforts no longer include legislative debates as the court, BY FIAT, has precluded that.
Repeal Roe and Doe and watch the debate begin.
Explain the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll cited in #1370.
38 + 22 = ???????
Of the three choices, which one would those repondents who favor abortion only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother fall in to?
Well said !
Dear Amelia,
"I know you aren't going to like me pointing this out, but you could also interpret that to say that 77% of the population supports legalized abortion, while only 22% think it should be illegal."
I never said differently.
What I HAVE said is that a majority of folks favor much more restrictive abortion laws.
I have seen multiple polls that have asked this question, or something like it, "Do you favor abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother."
I've also seen the question with, "and in cases of severe fetal deformity."
Most folks believe that these three or four exception cases make up a large number of abortions currently procured.
But if you ask that question, large majorities (60+%) say, yes they would prefer that abortion be limited to those cases.
I guess that makes all those folks pro-choice!! LOL!
Of course, that would outlaw about 96% of abortions.
So, although it isn't as far as I would go, I ACCEPT! I will accept the will of the majority who are "pro-choice" who wish to make illegal 96% of all abortions!
The problem is, that if you ask folks whether they favor a complete ban on abortion (full disclosure - that's my preference), only about 20% of people go for that.
Amelia, I'll readily admit that most folks favor some limited allowance for abortion.
But most folks favor a legal regime of abortion law that is far more restrictive than what Roe permits. In overturning Roe, I have no illusions that we'll instantly go to a society that bans abortion, total and complete.
But in overturning Roe, I am confident that we will move to a society that makes illegal a large number of abortions currently committed.
sitetest
I still don't believe you asked it. It is incomprehensible.
I affirmed the wisdom of Clinton's statement regarding abortion in the run up to the election in his first term.
He won that election!
It was with no help from me, to be certain. But what he said resonated.
All your denials aside, you cannot equate my agreement with one statement with support of a rapist.
You are the one who is out of line, but it does not bother me.
Please continue..........You are not gaining any support that I can see, so please.........continue.
Dear Cold Heat,
Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion.
Yet, 22% prefer a ban, and 38% prefer greater restrictions on abortion.
Thus, 60%, in this poll, prefer abortion laws which are more restrictive than permitted by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
To implement those restrictions, wanted by at least 60% of the population, it will be necessary to overturn Roe and Doe.
sitetest
PS - I went to Catholic school. ;-)
Of the three choices ("Generally available" - "Available, but under stricter limits" - "Should not be permitted"), which one would those repondents who favor abortion only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother fall in to?
I don't think your comments are demonstrative of the evangelical Protestant Christian right (can't speak for the Catholics, though from what I've read, they are as non-wavering on this point as evangelicals) and therefore can be safely discarded.
Are you a part of that group or just the "pro-life movement" in general? Because you obviously don't know where the heart of the movement is at in this regard.
Just voting pro-life doesn't make you a reliable source on where the movement, activists, leaders, etc. are heading.
"Well said !"
It was indeed! But I did not write it, Freeper Vicomte13 did. I was just happy to post it.
That's it. I'm as "red-meat" as they come on traditional, conservative issues and I thought all of Keye's campaigns were unmitigated disasters. He'd be better off preaching hellfire and brimstone messages because that's the way he comes off when he speaks to audiences.
More than that, I consider him a scam artist.
Thanks for the ping.
Survival of us as a people and US as a country is more important, right now!
Absolutely!
It's nothing versus everything.
If the terrorists win everyone they don't kill will be converted to Islamic fundamentalists. They live to die for God. If they win, everyone losses.
On the other hand, if the terrorists are defeated we gain everything. Research scientists will continue advancing human longevity research and development at ever increasing pace until youth rejuvenating biological immortality is achieved and mass marketed.
Human death will be cured. In a few generations living forever will be the mindset -- the norm. Younger people will never really understand that in the past every person died. As readily as human death is accepted today, living forever will be readily accepted.
As with the war on terror -- either your with us or against us -- as with living forever either a person is for human life or for human death.
In the intern, similar to the mainstream media disparaging most everything that is good, many people will argue against mass marketed cures for human death. They'll do that while rationalizing that they are for life and against death.
Yeah, kind as bad as Rush preaching personal responsibility, Ha, ha!
Or Bill Bennett for that matter.
"Survival of us as a people and US as a country is more important, right now!"
40,000,000 dead and counting.
Dear narses,
I'd rather not serve as the semi-self-appointed arbiter between you and another poster.
I know that this thread is being monitored, since at least one comment by another poster was deleted. Therefore, it seems to me that in the judgment of the moderators, you have not given grave offense, as I don't see that any of your posts have been deleted.
From casual observation, I think the mods are right. I haven't examined your posts in detail, and don't plan to, but it seems you've been sticking pretty much to the subject at hand, if with an occasional bit of rhetorical flourish or hyperbole.
But heck, this IS a political discussion web forum. ;-)
sitetest
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"Stricter limits means parental notification, partial birth and third trimester abortions."
Roe, according to the Supreme Court, does not permit a ban on either partial birth abortions, or on third trimester abortions.
I guess "stricter limits" means overturning Roe.
Thanks for making that salient point.
sitetest
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.