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...
Technically a dalcon shield does exactly that.
No Compromise. Yet certain things are compromisable? Hmmm. Can you describe what can be compromised and what cannot be?
He endorsed the President for reelection probably earlier than just about anyone else. Otherwise, he was continuing to do the work he always does.
Point(s) well taken.
I know some people don't view abortion as murder, which is difficult for me to accept, let alone understand. I view abortion as no different from someone walking up to an innocent person on the street and stabbing him repeatedly with a knife until he's dead. Thus, my abhorrence for it.
I'm not sure how frequently *authentic* cases for "the life of the mother" come up. My guess is not very frequently at all.
With regards to abortion because of rape and incest, I view it as no different from someone walking up to an innocent person on the street and stabbing him repeatedly with a knife until he's dead "because" some *other* person wronged him.
So, I just have a major problem with murder. As FR is a conservative forum, I feel comfortable saying this. I do not accost random strangers on the street shouting in their faces over this issue.
If transcribed accurately in the original article, Rice's words speak for themselves. I don't really need to hear anything else unless she changes her opinion.
I'm not going after pro-lifers. I am pro-life.
I'm going after those among us who are holding back progress in this fight by their absolutist, thus losing, strategies.
Bill
It really seems to come down to the fact that some of us believe morality is absolute, and some of us don't.
I'm not sure such conflict will ever be resolved until Christ returns...
As you mentioned earlier, it's why we're in the mess we're in. He sat out the primary. Sniped the President a few times, but for the most part stayed low.
That's not the way it happened at all.
Leave the revisionist history to the libs, friend.
Same here. Same for IUDs.
When they insist that wearers of IUDs are "evil, murders" equivalent to partial-birth abortionist, they get tuned out.
You'd think they'd care, and work smarter if saving babies from being torn limb from limb were a higher priority than thiner ability to pontificate.
What if tommorrow, the GOP "faithful" are given a choice between two "anti-gun," anti-Second Amendment candidates?
Will you then cave in to the whims of your Party and say, "oh well"??
And what if your almighty GOP also held the position that U.S. Sovereign Borders aren't worth being defended? (oh that's right -- that's this President's position, isn't it?)
I think there is room for compromise on what is not, essentially, a moral issue. You can compromise on spending and taxes, but abortion is a question of killing the innocent. You shouldn't compromise on doing what is right - "right" having a moral, not practical, meaning.
Maybe a better way to say it is this: You shouldn't compromise on what God commands. God doesn't command, "You shall not have an income tax more than 30%." He does command, "You shall not murder." That's why I would compromise on taxes, and not on abortion.
I think I understand your 'strategy' pretty well.
It's called 'victory through compromise'.
Never works in the real world, though.
Evil takes every inch you give it, and never reciprocates. Any ground you want to gain back from it has to be gained through bloody battle.
Yours is the strategy of the naive, at best.
Or, it could be nothing more than a justification for you to pound on folks you resent. I have no doubt that that is the case for at least some on this thread and others like it.
Bush has done several other important things to help the pro-life cause. His first day in office, he restored Reagan's Mexico City policy, which clinton had reversed, and thus blocked support for third-world abortions. He installed a pro-life team at the UN which has strongly reversed clinton's policies there. So far he has not caved in on judicial appointments, as his predecessors did when the Democrats shot down their first nominations. He has addressed the national March on Life by phone, which even Reagan refrained from doing. He supported the unborn child protection act. And numerous other things.
IF he succeeds in appointing pro-life Supreme Court Justices, a matter that he was forced to delay into his second term, then there's a real chance to reverse Roe v. Wade.
Nobody's perfect, but Bush has actually DONE more to reverse the momentum toward abortion than even Reagan managed to do. Most importantly perhaps, he has presided over two elections that saw increasing numbers of pro-life senators elected. I'm very worried by the Specter business, but I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt for a while longer yet, until I see how judicial appointments go.
Well said!
Good post.
Black has nothing to do with it. Until I heard this, I was 100% for her as a candidate in 2008. However, one must draw the line somewhere.
Carolyn
Looks like you're suggesting the rest of us live by your set of rules.
Same argument put forth by the libs: "You can't legislate morality."
Of course, we legislate morality all the time. The only question is, who's morality are we going to legislate?
Thanks for the reply. I don't knock all libertarians by any means. My point was that even libertarians who favor abortion should be disturbed by Roe v. Wade because it was an unconstitutional decision.
I hope that as time goes on, libertarians will move from the pro-abortion to the pro-life camp. As I see it, a libertarian is someone who believes in individual freedom. If they see abortion as a freedom, then they will tend to favor it. But abortion is a bogus freedom. It's convenient to the mother, maybe, and cheaper for the father than getting married and raising a child. But unfortunately it involves taking a life.
For me, the Constitution is based on the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of the "inalienable" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means freedom for everyone, including slaves, and it means a right to life for everyone, including unborn children. What use is it to be free if you're dead? And what kind of freedom is it that depends on killing somebody else?
Exactly!
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.