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.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"Most of those pro-life democrats will have to change their position to get any state-wide or national support from the demcratic voters."
I agree with you, that that is what they will have to do to get ahead. That's why I made the point that the local races are important, too.
But here's the thing, Jeff. There are life issues at the state level, too. There is Medicaid funding of abortion. There are parental notification laws. There are regulations of clinics, etc.
If the Republican Party can't figure out how, with the first majority President since 1988, with a 10-seat majority in the Senate, with an expanded majority in the House, with a comfortable presidential approval rating, if under these circumstances, the party can't avoid in the next two years appointing Justices who turn out to be pro-aborts, then I've been wasting my time.
At least, if I vote for pro-life Democrats for the state legislature, over moderately pro-abort Republicans (the irony is that in Maryland, a pro-life Democrat is more easily elected than a pro-life Republican), at least I can mitigate the harm of abortion in my own state.
sitetest
*APPLAUSE*
Dear JeffAtlanta,
Alan Keyes has more flaws as a candidate than I can count.
Having met the man on several occasions, I can vouch that in person, he is one of the most charming, intelligent, articulate, and voluble men I've ever met.
And one of the men least suited for elective office I've ever met.
As well, I haven't suggested that the Republican Party pronounce a legislative agenda 1) stripping jurisdiction from the courts over abortion and then 2) announcing legislation to ban every single abortion in America forthwith.
I've merely shown that the next intermediate step in recovering respect for and recognition of the right to life is to bring about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Which is a very, very moderate position, in all.
sitetest
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"This shows that you care nothing about property rights, income redistribution, American sovereignty or national defense. As long as abortion is under attack and in the news, everything else is just a nice to have."
No, I care about all those things. But I believe that not a one of them is secure as long as the right to life is not secure.
If I thought I had to, if I thought it would have some good effect, I would sacrifice them all in the short run to secure the right to life, Jeff. Because in the long run, I'm pretty sure I'll lose all the others if the right to life is not secure.
"This is why many of us want you guys to go ahead and leave. You don't care about the conservative cause - you only care about one issue, abortion. You'd be perfectly willing to accept socialism as long as abortions were illegal."
No, it's just that I remember my history. The Republican Party was founded by folks who found the abuse of human rights that slavery represented to be unacceptable in the long run.
The foundation of a just society is respect for fundamental human rights. For me, all politics is first and foremost about the protection of human rights.
The first of these is the right to life.
"Securing" a right to property doesn't really do much in the long run, if the principle has been established that this or that class of human beings is without even the most basic protection in law. If I can take your life, eventually, I'll get your property, as well.
"Securing" our national defense from external aggressors is a temporary fix, if we destroy ourselves and our fundamental rights from the inside out.
I would not be very willing at all to accept socialism under any circumstances. I'm not sure that you can create a socialist society that recognizes the fundamental right to life. That's part of why the Catholic Church has condemned socialism as an intrinsically evil system.
Nonetheless, I believe that societies with flawed recognition of property and other rights, but with a basic understanding and recognition of the right to life will more readily be led to greater recognition of other rights. Other rights flow naturally from the right to life.
However, the right to life doesn't flow from naturally from property rights. Water doesn't usually climb uphill.
In my own view, part of the reason why so many Republicans are willing to compromise on so many issues regarding so many fundamental rights is because so many Republicans have compromised first and foremost on the right to life.
It would be a shame if the Party of Lincoln, the party raised in reaction to slavery, abandoned the cause of fundamental human rights. Should the Republican Party abandon the pro-life cause, that is what it will have done.
sitetest
I think, deep down, even Keyes knows he's entirely unelectable.
Politics is the art of compromise. That's something Alan Keyes is incapable of.
There's value in that, just not as a public official. But he's still a forceful advocate for the unborn, and I appreciate everything he does on that front.
How about an 8 minute old single-celled zygote?
Does this single-celled zygote, left unmolested, progress to an 8 week old baby?
No, it lies frozen in a fertility clinic, while the parents decide what to do with it.
If they decide to donate it for research, should they suffer prosecution for murder?
Well said. I hope the folks I've pinged will examine your points and chime in.
Just for the sake of curiosity. Look up the voting records of your so-called pro-life dems and let me know how often they voted the party line on major issues involving the things you covet.
If your pro-life dems are the same as mine, I think you might change your mind about that idea.
Should its intentional destruction result in prosecution for murder?
Dear Cold Heat,
The pro-life Democrats in the state house in Maryland have moderated the pro-abort leanings of the left wing of the party.
Is it sweetness and light? Nope. Have we pro-lifers lost more than we've won. Yup.
Have the pro-life Dems in the state house in Maryland often stood up and been counted?
Yes.
But, you know, I kinda think we're all being too pessimistic.
I really believed the President when he said he would work to welcome children into life and protect them in law. I really believe that he will keep his promise, and that he will nominate folks for the Supreme Court who WILL overturn that horror, Roe v. Wade.
Everything else is just being morose.
sitetest
Yep. Next question.
Thanks.
My logic has no flaws; you are quoting someone else's posts. However, if one believes that human life begins at conception, then one must certainly equate the life of a new human to that of an old human. It has nothing to do with the person being murdered and everything to do with what kind of person one wishes to be. You are either a person who murders or not. A murderer who kills in such a way as to diminish pain and suffering is no better than one who murders with torture. It's about the person doing, not the person being done to.
Good grief!
Politics may be a great many things, but the protection of human rights is but an issue, not the purpose.
Politics is a function of democracy and governance. It is comprised of thousands of issues, both big and small that either resonate or are ignored.
Human rights were not given by government, nor can they be taken away by same.
We, each and every one of us is responsible for the care taking of our rights and no one can protect them for you.
God gave us rights, and government gives us privileges or takes them.
The last time I checked, politics did not have the face of God. It can't, because it is a game.
Nothing more and nothing less. A game of privileges, not human rights.
If there is any other entity that helps us protect human rights, then that duty falls to the gun.
Methinks you may be in the wrong political party.
Moses spoke Hebrew, not King James' English. Learn to read it and do your own translation.
We are arguing from a Biblical basis; therefore, following the commandments means that punishing the guilty is not murder. Murder is the willful taking of innocent life. If you want to argue about the possible errors made in trying and sentencing alleged criminals, then start another thread.
The word used in the bible referred to killing.
I'm just asking what you want. It's realistic to expect President Bush to appoint strict constructionist judges. It's not realistic to expect him or Congress to overturn RvW, because that isn't in their power.
If the laws can't be changed until RvW is overturned, I'm not sure what they can do - but since you are holding the President responsible, I thought you knew of other additional options.
But maybe it would be good for American politics if a bunch of us pro-life "nutjobs" went and infiltrated the Dems.
I think a 3rd party would do you more good, because I think the Dems are totally hopeless, but what do I know?
Dear Amelia,
If President Bush appoints three strict constructionists over the next four years, assuming that Justices Thomas and Scalia stay on the court, then Roe will go.
So that would be a happy ending! (Or, really, beginning.)
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.