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.

[cpforlife.org]

You're projecting again, Hildy.

[Paridel]

Hey, I'm pro-life and pro-death(penalty). Why? For the same reason that I'm pro-life and pro-miltary, or why I work for the government in a weapons lab (not currently, time off for school right now).

In my pre-grad school days (when I had free time!, and by the way, I really shouldn't be posting now, I should be doing research...) I often liked to think about the origin of government, that is, why and by what right does it exist?

Of course I always like reading the classics, like John Locke's 2nd treatise, because they were pretty easily understandable. He basically argued that we voluntarily give up some rights to the government so that the governmental body could prevent one individual from imposing himself on the rights of another. Gross oversimplification, but as a libertarian I suppose you would partially agree? Government stays out of your life except to the extent needed to make sure other individuals stay out of your life?

Anyway, so that brings us to crime and punishment. Which seems to be the basic reason that governmental bodies exist. Now I believe the reason that punishments for crime exist is not to seek vengeance, but rather as a disincentive for future crimes. (well, and for crimes such as theft, if possible to seek restitution for the victim. but obviously this is not the case with murder). To enforce punishments the governmental body will have to obviously step on freedoms of the culprit, but this should be done only to a reasonable extent depending on the crime. However in the case of a life being taken we want to provide the maximum disincentive to prevent future murders. Ideally we want to give up the minimal personal freedoms to the government while still gaining the necessary amount of protection from others.

The death penalty works far better than other punishments in my humble opinion. It (in an ideal world without all the litigious appeals we have added in this culture) is the minimization of the oppression of personal rights by the government for the protection of life (a personal right) from other individuals. That's my opinion anyway. Which incidentally should make it ideal from a libertarian viewpoint. (note: I am not strictly a libertarian myself)

So here as a libertarian you should question whether or not my statement is valid. (that is, is the death penalty really the minimization of personal rights given to government for the protection of my personal rights from others). If not, then I am giving up personal rights to the government for nothing.

To be perfectly clear these are the reasons I believe it is:
1. It is a much much stronger deterrent
2. The state would (ideally) not have to pay for living expenses for the lifetime of the criminal.

Ok, so the 2nd point doesn't hold valid in today's society, but I believe the 1st is still enough to make it valid. I think a book which has some interesting insight into this is The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Don't agree with all of the book, but it is an interesting read. It is not solely about this issue, but it covers it as well as many others.

-paridel

[ApesForEvolution]

WADR, you're due process argument is about the most idiotic position I've seen in the whole 'debate'...

It's like you're carrying a hole around that has a bucket...

[pharmamom]

The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," if you read Hebrew. Killing was done all the time in the OT--in fact the penalty for breaking some laws was death. Killing those guilty of a capital crime is not murder. Aborting babies is.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Gay marriage was ONE of the issues that brought out the voters, we had no gay marriage issue in the Florida ballot, and we had a record turnout here as well.

The issues were Iraq, the war on terror, national security, Kerry's liberal Senate record, his betrayal of Vietnam vets, and morality. All these issues contributed to the record turnout. What some are now trying to do, is lay claim to the victory in order to use that claim as political capital.

What truly brought out record numbers of voters was a rejection of the Democratic Party's liberal, anti-American agenda.

[ScholarWarrior]

You're wasting your breath with kjvail.
This person believes in overthrowing our government and replacing it with a Catholic monarchy. I'm sure you are a "modernist", since their argument is stuck in the 13th century.

[ApesForEvolution]

NEVER WILL WE LIGHTEN UP ON SPECTER, NEVER-EVER-NEVER! And the fire to his feet will be felt until good people prevail, people siding with the light and not the darkness.

Never...

If you trust King Arlen, then YOU sincerely can not be trusted yourself, IMO. But then, I've been tracking King Arlen for a LONG, LONG time and I know exactly what that man is.

[AlbionGirl]

You're right, of course. You only have to choose abortion, pregnancy proceeds apace with or without one's consent.

During or prior to the Civil War, Lincoln stated that to talk about choice at the expense of the object of choice was untenable. What I don't understand is how anyone can say that killing an 8 week old baby isn't the same as killing an 8 year old child. The only reason the 8 week old isn't or won't ever reach 8 years old is because you made sure that wouldn't happen.

They need a new language. Perhaps clingon or romulan. They probably should go for the romulan, IIRC they were the first to successfully implement a cloaking device.

[sinkspur]

More ranting and raving from the unappeaseable sandbox.

You guys are verging on disgusting.

[Howlin]

Now shame is something that we need to bring back.

[AndyJackson]

I keep taking vows to stay off of abortion threads, and then I see someone threatening to nuke the Republican party and go home if he doesn't get what he wants like right now, and anger overcomes sense.

Thanks for taking up the cudgel. How's it going?

[JeffAtlanta]

Reagan understood that pressing the abortion issue loses elections. The reality is that there are 30 million women in this country that will vote against an abortion ban. There aren't enough rabid pro-lifers voting one issue to counter that.

This is what the rabid one-issue pro-lifers don't understand. If ending abortion is so important to so many Americans, how do the Democrats get virtually 50% of the votes every presidential election and how do they control almost half of the senate and congress? Without the pro-choice Republicans, would the Republicans even control the senate?

Also, I doubt that even a majority of Republicans put abortion as their #1 issue. If the Republican party became pro-choice, most would still stay in the party because they oppose the Democratic positions on foreign policy, American sovereignty and income redistribution.

Realistically, the only hope of banning abortion is with a constitutional amendment. If the banning of abortion is such a popular issue it should be no problem.

[unsycophant]

It's not a government issues...it's not a legal issue....it's a sanctity of life issue that has to be decided by the individual.

Society doesn't live with the shame of legal abortion--the individual lives with the choice of having an abortion at all. Denying women the right to choose, won't prevent them from choosing to have abortions.

The RRs can win the argument against, without making abortions illegal. They just don't seem to understand that.

The faux-power the RR (and faux rr) thinks it has suddenly gained, is absurd. The numbers show that they did not contribute any more to GW's reelection this time, than they did last time. I suspect they never did help my side. They've been thorns in my side's side, for years. This is a perfect example of how.

ps: Hi!

[Howlin]

Well, so far I've been damned to hell; you know, the usual.

Oh, and told my sister lived long enough and shouldn't have had stem cell replacement.

That kind of stuff.

[tpaine]

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the unenumerated liberties which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
[See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.]

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

     "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .

[cpforlife.org]

"You need to lighten up on Specter; he took his remarks back and he's not going to be appointed unless he agrees to their demands."

So you would trust him as if he were Sen. Kyl? not me. I want anyone but specter--preferably Kyl.

Live with it. We'll all live with it, we're Pro-Life.

[Former Fetus]

Actually, you are dead wrong! A nationwide post-election poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldview showed a 12% advantage for pro-life candidates. But you don't have to take my word for it, you can read about it here:

Wirthlin Poll

[ApesForEvolution]

AFE: "Do you agree with the Constitutional Amendment move (or jive) stipulating marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman?"

tp: "Show me where our government has the power to enforce such an 'Amendment'.."

Is that your answer?

[AlbionGirl]

Prior to RvW abortion was legal in 19 (I think) States. Roe federalized it, and I think in 1967 in NYS it was legal. And if it wasn't, she could have always gone out of state. It is as sitetest attested, she sleeps the sleep of the just.

[AndyJackson]

Lincoln stated ...I have a real problem with right to life folks citing Lincoln with approval. Whatever you want to say about him, he deliberately chose a course that lead to a lot of innocent lives being lost.