Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Rice pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008 on Friday during an hour-long interview with reporters at WASHINGTON TIMES, top sources tell DRUDGE. Rice gave her most detailed explanation of a 'mildly pro-choice' stance on abortion, she would not want the government 'forcing its views' on abortion... She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... Developing late Friday for Saturday cycles... MORE...
Exactly.
ONE of the beliefs of the GOP is pro-life; one of them. And it's not even the first one.
Why did you post that to me?
I'd donate a lot of $ to Jim to code us a bozo filter here.
Good Gawd....what a pompous observation....pure RINOspeak.
When the fallopian tube has burst, there is no abortion. There is removal of the ruptured and hemorrhaging tube. If there is no rupture yet, the most conservative - and most likely to preserve future fertility if the other tube is intact - is to remove the affected tube. (some doctors use methotrexate to kill the embryo in the tube or try to open the affected area and surgically remove the embryo. I believe that this is justifiable in that the embryo is the equivalent of a loaded gun pointed at the mom. But the resultant scarring increases the risk of a future tubal pregnancy, so it's better for the mom in most cases to have the more conservative surgery) The baby is usually removed along with the damaged tube, because there is no way to save him or her. The child dies because the tube dies.
This is not the intent of the procedure, however. For instance, if the docs were to discover that there is not actually a tubal pregnancy, but a burst appendix or ovarian cyst or aneurysm, they would address the actual problem and leave the baby in the uterus alone.
We ALL (all the various factions) tolerate a lot from each other I think.
Wow, that was quite a comeback.
Actually, the most common cause is car wrecks. Then comes homicide, then comes medical causes.
Unfortunately for my two friends,both had what some here called an abortion...i.e. the removal of a tube with a baby in it and one had a the exploding tube on the way to the hospital.For some sad reason,neither ever had a baby in her womb,but outside of it...TWICE.
Dismiss us prolifers at your own peril - and I was one of those who did vote for the pro-choicer in 98 because of Stabenow. Others, such as my mom are not so forgiving, and I'm a lot less forgiving on that issue now than I used to be.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050311-115948-2015r.htm
I doubt it. The reason being is the use of the term "the other side". The other was that she was extremely vague in her comments. There were a lot of words without a straight forward answer. I shouldn't be surpried since she's a diplomat.
IMO she's trying to do a "John Dingell"(pro-choice outside of partial birth, tries to sound pro-life) or "David Bonior"(wind in the air) or even "Granholm"(talks almost pro-life but is hardline pro-abort) and try and have it both ways on the issue.
I was very unimpressed. I can respect and disagree with "I'm pro-choice in the first trimester" or "Pro-choice outside of partial birth abortion". If she wants any chance of support from me - she needs to stop the vagueness.
I hope she stays at state dept. She does a good job there, but campaigns are a whole different world.
Well, I don't intend to hang around. I just took a pill, and I am going to bed to digest my bowl of cereal.
G'nite all.
Tell me what, other than being a BUSH lickspittle, you think is important on this thread.
What did you think I should hang my head for? Opposing murder?
He has been a stalwart defender of the sanctity of life, of the inestimable worth of an unborn child. He has nothing to hang his head for.
Dan your vote really isn't in play in a general election, since the Dem will almost always be more pro abortion than the Pubbie, certainly in a presidential race, and given the other issues in play, your ballot is a given. It is cross conflicted voters that matter on this issue, not you.
I think religious right or culture right like myself have been asked to tolerate more and more as the Pubbies begin to resemble more and more Dems from 30 years ago and the Dems begin to resemble Mensheviks.
Social liberalism has sure infiltrated the loudest voices around here. I don't know about W.
Good firm war leader. Has hit some good base hits domestically. Has gone beyond centrist on some. Seems to be slipping domestically so far this year except on Torts.
I think talk of Rice for POTUS is nuts and PC pandering.
I think W is way out to lunch on one important issue that I won't bring up here since it's just not worth it.
I think I've tolerated enough. I have watched libertarians and others yelp about 3rd party viability for 5 years here. What I have seen here since W's victory leads me to think that if the Pubs are going to become what the loud bunch here proposes then folks like me are going to lose interest. I have not supported Pubs since 80 simply because I wanted lower taxes.
Conservative first. Pubbie by default.
Fortunately, nearly all the Pubs I know active here in Nashville do not support this watered down version either.
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.