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...
Thank you, toots.
freepmail
No. If people are here constantly attacking pro-lifers, and always trying to muddy the philosophical waters on this most important of issues, I consider any of their protestations of being pro-life themselves to be pure BS.
Somebody needs to say it.
Bush Sr was personally pro-choice, but he agreed to lay his views aside on the issue - like you said, he just left it alone. Still, he gave us Clarence Thomas, and judges like him are critical to ending Roe vs Wade.
I think the #1 question to ask any candidate is for their idea of the model SC justice. If they firmly say strict constructionist, they're halfway there, IMHO.
I have reservations with Condi, but due to other things. Besides, I think it's unwise to start putting our focus on one person so soon. We need to have at least 4 people in line.
There are paid opinion shapers from both sides on this forum. And both sides opinion shapers are being paid to post on this forum. That's why I've always been a little leary of the nome de plums allowed to identify who we are. But then I, like you, hide behind mine.
Well, I think if FR required "real names" in order to post, it wouldn't be a very popular place.
right back 'atcha... incoming :)
Since this is a conservative web site, IF conservatives are being paid to come here (and I hardly know why anyone would feel THAT need), then I don't have a problem with it because they are SUPPORTING the cause of the site itself.
It's the leftists who are paid to come here and stir dissent that I have a problem with.
Oh, and of course, the so-called Christians who attack anyone who supports abortion for women and girls who have been raped or if their lives are in danger.
There's no form of Christianity I know of that supports calling people fascists and evil because they hold a position that is supported by MY mainstream churches.
"...Most of the people on this thread thinking that ... are men and would NEVER have to face that decision. So easy for all of you." ~ Peach
"...as a man and not nearly as fanatical as some on FR ... I won't argue you the point much...I'll work it out in heaven if need be." ~ NorCalRep
I think this is the perfect thread to post this in. You two might appreciate reading what this man has to say on this subject [this is a quintessential example of why he is my favorite Bible teacher]:
Steve's Letter March 2005
...our attraction to self-righteousness!
When my friend, Randy Pope, the senior pastor at Perimeter Church in Atlanta, asked me to come to Perimeter to be on the teaching staff there (one of the "preaching pastors"), I asked him how many meetings I would have to attend. He said there would be no meetings. I asked him how many pastoral visits I would have to make. He said that the job description didn't include any pastoral visits. I asked him how many people I would have to be "nice" to and he said I didn't have to be nice.
All I had to do was come to Atlanta, preach and teach. Then I could leave.
Is that cool or what?
Of course I accepted. Do I have "stupid" written all over my forehead?
The last time I was at Perimeter (January 23) was "Sanctity of Life Sunday." I was sort of glad because I was angry. I consider the issue of abortion to be the most significant social issue of our time and, not only that, I believe Christians must get involved. Being involved means being angry enough at the "culture of death" to do something. Besides abortion is not my sin and (with the possible exception of booze) it is perhaps the only place where I can "preach pure."
I wrote the sermon with relish...righteous indignation dripping from every word. How could they do that? Where was their morality? God, I wrote in my sermon, was a good God but we were trying His patience with our culture of death. It was high time that God's people did something.
I was so into the writing of the sermon that I didn't notice Jesus had left the building. When I finally did notice, I went asking for Him. He told me that I could preach that sermon if I wanted to but, if I did, He wouldn't come to church. He said that He had gone to a lot of trouble to teach me truth and love, and then He reminded me how easy it was for me to forget.
In Matthew 16, the disciples were worried about food. Jesus had just fed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, and had fed another 4,000 with seven loaves and a few fish. That's 9,000 people fed without a McDonalds and no cook. That is a lot of unexpected guests and they were all full, with food to spare.
Jesus heard the disciples talking about not having food and, among other things, He said, "Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand...or the seven loaves for the four thousand...?" (vs. 9-10).
How easy it is for us to forget.
That's why Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper. He knew our proclivity to forget. He said that we were to remember to remember. The world says, "Have a drink and forget." Jesus says, "Take, eat, drink...and remember."
Martin Luther once said that he had to preach the Gospel to the people of his church every day because they forgot every day. He also could have said that he had to preach the Gospel to them every day because he, Martin Luther, would forget every day if he didn't.
Do you know what I believe is the clearest indication of the fall of Adam and therefore the greatest danger to Christians? I don't believe it is a lack of obedience or commitment nor do I believe it is a bad theology or the violation of the commands of God. That's why Jesus died for us and that is covered.
I believe that the sin of the fall is found primarily in our attraction to self-righteousness. I believe that our need to be right, to appear to be good and to correct the sin of the world, is the clearest sign of our sin nature. It wasn't the prostitutes or the winos who received Jesus' harsh words. Instead, it was the religious people whose sole purpose was to be good and to be perceived as good.
Jesus said to them in Matthew 23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (vs. 27-28).
It's so easy to forget where He found us. "Once you were not a people," Peter wrote, "but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy" (1 Peter 2:10). In other words, don't forget.
I remember standing on the porch of our apartment near Boston. I could see the ocean on my left and the bay on my right. I had everything. Anna was pregnant with our first child; I was one of the youngest men in radio in Boston and I had every reason to look forward to a successful career in broadcasting. But instead of laughing, I stood on that porch and wept. I wept because I was so empty and so without any meaning in my life. I wept because I was scared and I wept because I had a hole in my heart.
Sometimes I ask God to remind me of the way I felt then. When He does that for me, I'm not so angry with the woman who had the abortion or who is thinking about having one. Not only that. When I remember, it takes the arrogance away. Instead of issues, I see people and sometimes I cry for them. Sin isn't sin because it is nasty. Sin is sin because it breaks your heart and, when it breaks your heart, it breaks the heart of a God who loves you. The cross isn't a sign of God's judgment. It is a sign of His broken heart.
It is also so easy to forget sometimes how He loves us. "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are" (1 John 3:1).
I don't believe you can lose your salvation because, if you could lose it, I would have on several occasions. When my sin is overwhelming (no, not past sin...but stuff right now), I get angry and put on the armor because I don't want people to know. But when I remember that I'm not an orphan anymore and am loved without exception or reservation, I find that it gentles me when I preach to others.
Not only do we forget where He found us and how He loves us...we also forget what He wants from us. "I am the chief of sinners," Paul wrote to Timothy. And then his astounding confession in Romans 7, "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but do the very thing I hate...For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (vs. 15,19).
They think we are good. (The wise ones think that we think we are good.) In the issue of abortion (and a thousand others) they think that we speak because we are good and want them to be good. Maybe it was us or maybe it was them, I don't know. But, for some reason, we are perceived by the sinful, the needy and the fearful to be good people condemning their sin, ignoring their need and scoffing at their fear.
And, frankly, I don't know how to disabuse them of that spurious belief except to confess my sins to them. I know, I know. I don't like it either. But unless we are willing to confess our sins to the woman who gets the abortion, to the abortionist who does it and to the man who was the cause of the abortion, they will never know the truth. And I don't know how we can confess our sins unless we no longer have the need to be right and the need to appear to be good. And only Jesus can give us that kind of security.
No, I haven't changed my views on the issue of abortion and, if anything, they are stronger. But, in case you were wondering, I didn't preach the first sermon I was working on. I preached another one...one where Jesus creates a safe place for women (and men and children) who are scared, sinful, needy and broken. I told them that His tears mingled with our tears. I told them to run to Him.
In case you, like me, sometimes forgot...
...He asked me to remind you.
In His Grip,
Steve
http://www.gospelcom.net/kln/stevesletter.html
Alright, alright, fine I'll start..... Hey everybody, my name's Donald Rumsfeld...
I disagree with your position. However, what I have learned in my years here is that you stand on the courage of your convictions unless it's against group think. You can be Ann Coulterish with your comments as long as you dont' do it against the group think and those who are the group thinkers. You can deride moderation and censoring on a forum until you have one of your own and the kooks are taking over of a group of people is advocating something you are against. See my post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1360479/posts?page=365#365
With all due respect, it's this kind of attitude that plays right into the hands of the liberals who rant that the pro-life side is made up of nothing but fanatics. You have no clue what Dr. Rice means when she says she's mildly pro-choice. Choosing leaders based on just one issue is not just idiotic, it's suicidal.
*LOL*!!
That's OK with me. I don't ask WHY politicians do what they do, as long as they stick to their promises. On the other side, plenty of Democrats were pro-life before they ran for president, and they too changed their positions for political convenience. It's not attractive, but at least the Democrat voters could be satisfied that they stuck with their new pledges.
In point of fact, I have several times said recently that I would be willing to vote for Condi if she changed her position on abortion. I said that she is a woman of her word, and if she changed her position, she would probably keep her word.
That's why this latest statement is so VERY disappointing. her earlier statements were vague, and they were not made in the context of running for president. This statement is another matter entirely. Among other things, it also tells me that Karl Rove is still stupid, stupid, stupid on the issue of abortion, because Condi would not have granted this interview without administration approval.
You are always so picked on and it's always so personal with you.
Can't you just debate the issues without resorting to name calling and attacking?
You didn't like it when it was being done to during the Keyes campaign and you even called for the banning of people.
Chill out a bit and remember it's just an online debate.
Getting extreme like that only gives a bad name to your cause.
Whether you realize it or not, you have erected a strawman with that statement. Proper, natural cancer treatment will not result in an abortion, or any harm to the child. Anona Muricata, which is the most potent cytotoxin known, is not harmful to the unborn child. It is a tragedy that the $$ hungry oncologists push treatments that kill the patient almost as fast as they kill the tumor, simply because they make more money that way. Abortion is never necessary.
In addition, as you have seen from the borders debate, conservatives are not in lock step, so there is a need from both of those constituencies to manipulate opinion among the flock. Wouldn't you like to know who those people are.
There are good conservatives who disagree with the President on many issues. There are many good conservatives who agree almost entirely with the President and his issues. Wouldn't you like to know who is a paid shill for either of these positions?
There are good republicans who are pro life and their are good repupublicans who are pro choice. Some are paid to come here to advance their cause. Wouldn't you want to know who they are?
Thre will be times when the administration has pulled a boner and will try to minimize it (especially to the faithful) through forums such as this. Wouldn't you want to know when something is nothing but facts and when something may be fact light and spin heavy?
What?? What's so funny?? You can call me Rummy if you'd like or even Don, "Big D", The Donal...., oops no ya can't do that...... "D Rum" is cool maybe... :)
If this was just a regular forum to discuss politics in general, I'd agree with you.
But it's a conservative forum. So I really don't care if Rush Limbaugh himself is coming here to shape public opinion. As long as it advances the conservative cause.
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.