PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

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

[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.

[Howlin]

"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....

YOU: Well Howlin, I think I can prove you are on the Wrong Board. You belong on DUms.

Well, you have now said you can prove it: why not copy or link ANY post I've made in the last six years that proves -- your word, not mine -- that I don't agree with every word of that.

We can all wait; now put up or shut up.

[Cold Heat]

Lead, follow or get out of the way...

LOL! More venting!

Or is it just more threats.

[Howlin]

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

You prove over and over how unknowledgeable you are; the people who get suspended get suspended because the militant people on this thread can't argue, so they hit abuse.

For instance, narses.

[Howlin]

Somewhere deep inside this 1200+ post thread was a comment about FRiend Howlin getting suspended once

It was NOT on an abortion thread.

[Henchman]

I wasn't citing the breast cancer studies, "doctor", as a position to minimize abortion from my perspective; just from your position. Given that your statements may or may not be correct, citing breast cancer is still a viable reason. Or do you want that kept quiet along with the women who have life long regrets, become sterile etc? I guess, you choose to ignore the cancer link, in the same fashion as the tobacco companies had their own studies disproving the link to cancer.

Defining abortion as murder is good enough for me. People, even the unborn are guaranteed the right to life; there is no right to an abortion, murder etc.; it is an aberration of the legal system.

[Howlin]

I'll miss all the insults and profanity.

Let's all pretend that I'm the ONLY one who questions your credibility around here, okay? I've seen your posts, too.

[tpaine]

sitetest wrote:

Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion.

Not true. Read the courts opinion. States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby.

[The Roe decision also stopped States from prosecuting only ~early term~ abortions as murder.]
Peterson was just convicted in CA of [late term] murder of an unborn baby.

Obviously, you have little regard for the truth of this issue, s-test. Why is that?

You need to read what I wrote before responding to it. States may permit the prosecution of folks OTHER THAN THE MOTHER who harm unborn children.

Specious claim. States have always had the power to prosecute criminal acts.
Are you really this illogical?

What I said was, "Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion." I will expand, if you did not catch my meaning, "Roe permits no real restrictions on induced abortions procured by the mother."

That is not true. States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.

What Mr. Peterson did does not fall under "abortion procured by the mother."

Gee, who would have guessed..

In fact, in approving the most mild regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, etc.), Justice O'Connor has pointed out that any regulation that had the effect of actually denying a woman of any abortion at any time during pregnancy would not pass Roe's scrutiny. sitetest.

Justice O'Connors opinions can be challenged by any State. Feel free to get your State to do so.

sitetest rebuts:
"States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby."
So long as it doesn't prevent a woman from procuring an abortion. A distinction without a difference. The ultimate fig leaf of semantics.

That's it? You answer all my arguments above with a bit of 'semantic' bull?

Typical. -- You spout off reams of quasi-legal BS in nearly every post, but when factually challenged you cave.
Whatta joke.

[Howlin]

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.

Utter tripe. Every word of that is just plain crap.

[Henchman]

I guess you can't read. Try again, or get better glasses.

[sitetest]

Dear JeffAtlanta,

As I've already stated, if folks think that overturning Roe means "all abortions are instantly banned," I agree that most folks will say no. In fact, most folks are led to believe just that.

I've read that many polls that ask about support for Roe actually refer to Roe as protecting a right to abortion in the first trimester.

Here are a few pieces discussing polls on abortion with links.

This one is from 2003:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/osteen.html

I'll quote a bit from it:

"A nationwide Zogby poll last November found that 61% thought abortion should never be allowed or allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the mother's life. Only 36% thought abortion should be allowed for other reasons or always."

Here's a quote from this piece that deals with folks' misapprehensions about abortion:

"A January ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted by TNS Intersearch found apparently contradictory results with 57% saying abortion should be illegal to end an 'unwanted pregnancy'if 'the woman is unmarried and does not want the baby,' but 57% also saying abortion should be legal in all or most 'cases.' This indicates that a significant percentage of those polled do not realize that abortion is done in most 'cases' only because the pregnancy was 'unwanted.'"

Here's another:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL07/more_signs_of_a_pro.htm

"Most recently, a Gallup poll of May 5-7, 2003, demonstrated that the shift in the pro-life direction has persisted. Only 23% want abortion to be 'legal in all circumstances.' In addition, 15% want abortion 'legal under most circumstances'; 42% want it to be 'legal only in a few circumstances'; and 19% would make it 'illegal in all circumstances.'"

From this article, we also learn of Planned Parenthood's 2003 polling results:

"Regarding the legality of abortion, 30% (34% in 2001) of women hold that 'abortion should generally be available to those who want it' and 17% (19% in 2001) say that 'abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now' (emphasis added). But 34% (31% in 2001) of women say that "abortion should be against the law except in case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother;' and 17% (14% in 2001) hold that 'abortion should not be permitted at all.'"

Look at those numbers, JeffAtlanta:

30% - generally available
17% - stricter limits than is now
34% - rape, incest, life of mother
17% - total ban

Add the numbers, JeffAtlanta. 51% would outright ban or limit to the three exception cases, and another 17% would restrict abortion more than it is now.

That's from Planned Parenthood.

Most folks think that overturning Roe is about the immediate ban of all abortions. You know it isn't. I know it isn't.

It's time to do the right thing. It's time to appoint Justices and judges who will read the Constitution objectively and clearly, and who will thus throw out Roe, just as Plessy v. Ferguson was thrown out.

Roe's gotta go.


sitetest

[Howlin]

I can read; and I don't see anywhere you've "proved" what you said you could.

Link?

[Henchman]

Evidently you cannot read your own posts and put them in the context of this WWW site & rules. LINK - Look in your own PING page.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

the people who get suspended get suspended because the militant people on this thread can't argue, so they hit abuse.

So all it takes is for a "militant" (why not call them "terrorists"?) to hit abuse and someone gets suspended?

If that were the case, this forum would not be able to flourish as it has.

[sitetest]

Dear JeffAtlanta,

In principle, I don't have a fundamental constitutional objection to the federal Congress legislating in the arena of abortion, so I don't like your amendment. ;-)

Perhaps an amendment might read, "The federal and state courts have no jurisdiction over the question of the legality of abortion, or bans thereof."

It's not very lawyerly, but you get the idea. After all, I'm not a lawyer. ;-)

But the bottom line is, politically, if folks are going to go after some sort of pro-life amendment, you're not going to get a significant portion of us "nutjobs" on board for anything less than a ban.

Why go through all the trouble of a constitutional amendment just so we can then hash it all out in the legislatures? If we have to go that route, let's get the whole nine yards.

We could use an act of Congress to take it away from the courts. If the Republican Congress had any significant amount of backbone.


sitetest

[Howlin]

No, it takes somebody who doesn't like to be disagreed with; want proof? Click on ANY Alan Keyes thread on this forum and see the blank spots.

[streetpreacher]

Well I read your profile to see what kind of a "dude" I am messing with. :-)

I see that your one of those peeved off Vietnam vets (good for you and thank you for your service to this country and to our freedom).

I apologize for some of my over-the-top statements and especially when I made it personal.

I do think you have lumped me together with some of the other posters here when it comes to hyperbole. For instance, I never made the statement, "arms running down with blood" and other such things (some of that I would consider tasteless, not to mention gross). I never personalized abortion in such a way but made it clear that the sins were upon "we as a nation". I am a part of this nation and share in her sins. I identify with the sins of this nation whether I have personally participated in the specific act or not.

I think there are a lot of emotions running high on this thread and maybe people should just take a step back and try to collect themselves.

As a Christian, I recognize that I am not at war with you or liberals or any human agent.

As far as taking things personally, whadda 'ya gonna do about it? Hit me?

Seriously, I do ask your forgivness if I crossed the line with you.

[Howlin]

You are completely and utterly a fraudulent poster; you made an accusation about me and, even after being asked twice, haven't produced ONE iota of evidence that it's true.

Just like we all figured.

[Henchman]

How many are "WE"? You should be able to count on your thumb.

[Cold Heat]

Good point.

The politicization of issues regarding morality in this country is often very confusing.

People of faith know what is right and what is wrong, but they resist, or should resist enforcing moral choices on everyone else unless it is or becomes a matter that affects everyone equally, such as murder, rape, incest and other social ills.

Abortion straddles these lines and it makes it so difficult for States, who are responsible for making and enforcing much of our law to deal with.

That is why Roe was brought to the "nine" years ago for a decision that would put an end to the distress.

Agree with it or not, the protections in it do not have to be taken advantage of, and most thoughtful Christians that I know see it this way.

In other words, they view the rights as something necessary for some, but never intend to take advantage of them, not do they ever want to. But on the other hand, they are not willing to allow anyone to decide for them or give up those rights to anyone.

This is the way I see it now, and the way I see the future, as far as I can see it.

Could that change?......Yes. But I do not see it anytime soon.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

That's why its sensible to group them with the "Should not be permitted" crowd.

Sensible only to someone with an interest in spinning the numbers into pro-Roe sentiment.

I choose not to spin the poll in either direction. Without a three-exception option, the poll is fatally flawed.

That's why I have twice pointed out to you the Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice Opinion Dynamics poll from April, 2004 to counter your assertion of 60+% support for Roe.