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...
_________________________________
No, I am not. Everyone of the Saudi terror-charities that we shut down post 9.11 had members of the Saudi government in the directorate.
1. It isn't a generalization to say some are keeping the rest from winning as many hears and minds as they could for a mandate.
2. If even you wont assert that there is no problem, then we agree, and I hope you will now give it a rest. lol
Have a good day. : )
That doesn't mean that they were implementing government policy nor were the charities part of the Saudi Government.
I guess I just disagree with that, sitetest.
This goes even deeper than the thrust of this thread - people refusing to vote for Condoleezza Rice because she isn't a hard-core pro-lifer (and potentially giving all of us a President Hillary Clinton in the process).
I've read threads on FreeRepublic with hard-core pro-lifers posting their refusal to condemn the killer of an abortion clinic doctor. Maybe the movement - referring to the entire movement here, not simply your circle of real-life friends and acquaintances - contains a broader range of attitudes than you believe it does. I don't think Trinity_Tx is mistaken for recognizing that, and I would hope you wouldn't take such personal offense to it.
Look around you on FR. There are a lot of people here who don't have the slightest intent of compromising on anything where this issue is concerned. Just because you don't know them personally doesn't mean they're not out there. Clearly, they are, and there are many of them.
There's your reality, right there.
It's reprehensible that you and many others here are backing a pro-choice candidate and risking the Oval Office being lost to the Democrats, quite possibly even Hillary Clinton.
Replace the word "abortion" with "genocide" or "child abuse" and watch where the logic leads.
-A8
Dear Trinity_Tx,
Hey, if you want to back down from your previous false assertions, don't let me stop you.
However, you still are having trouble getting it right:
"1. It isn't a generalization to say some are keeping the rest from winning as many hears and minds as they could for a mandate."
First, regarding a mandate. If you've been paying attention over the years, you're aware that:
1. The numbers of Americans holding increasingly pro-life positions is rising, especially among college-educated younger folks (I guess all the mean pro-lifers aren't having quite the expected effect);
2. Large majorities (typically 60% or more, depending on phrasing of the questions), when asked, "Would you restrict abortion to cases of life of the mother, rape, incest, and severe fetal deformity?" answer, "yes."
As these represent over 95% of all abortions, that means that the mandate exists RIGHT NOW to reduce abortions to a small trickle.
The mandate exists. You just missed it.
But, that isn't quite what you originally said, anyway.
As I said, if you want to back down from your previous assertions, don't let me stop you.
But I'll remind you of your inconsistencies.
You said:
"It is your 'strategy' of dogmatism and rudely offending everyone who you even think veers even slightly away from your position that hasn't even been able to get rid of partial birth abortion - which would be easy to outlaw if the fight against it weren't bogged down by the heavy-handed, 'no compromise' baggage."
And, you said:
"If pro-lifers worked to elect politicians who respected the constitution, rather than blowing them off because they didn't toe the whole moment of conception, no compromise line, that wouldn't be a problem."
Both of these statements have no contact points with reality.
They are both demonstrated as false, see previous posts.
But if you now want to back down to something more like this:
"Well, if pro-lifers were to make more nicey-nice, then perhaps a few more people might join our cause,"
then have at it. The change is noted and accepted, if not agreed-to.
While you're at it, why don't you apologize to all the millions of pro-lifers you've unfairly smeared who:
- work in pregnancy aid and crisis pregnancy centers;
- have devised all manner of clever compromises to at least mitigate the evils of abortion, including parental notification, waiting periods, PBA ban, informed consent, and others;
- have written and petitioned elected representatives to pass these COMPROMISES, and who have SUCCEEDED in many cases, frustrated only by the anti-democratic, fascists who comprise the majority of the current Supreme Court;
- support the pro-life resources nationally and in their local communities with fundraisers, publicity, and in-kind donations;
- work for politicians who are often badly-flawed from the pro-life perspective, but with whom we COMPROMISE to advance the goal of protecting all children, born and unborn, in law.
Then, perhaps you might give it a rest. ;-)
sitetest
-A8
Bingo.
Do you understand why killing a new-born infant is immoral? If so, then you also now know why killing a human being at earlier stages of its existence is immoral.
-A8
You: That doesn't mean that they were implementing government policy nor were the charities part of the Saudi Government.
Two questions.....Do you get dizzy with all the spinning?
And, what about the 28 pages concerning Saudi Arabian complicity that were redacted from the congressional study?
-A8
And therein lies your problem: you're guided by your feelings.
If late-term abortion is murder, then why not second-trimester abortions?
-A8
"Are all of you in this thread really closed minded to a black woman President?"
Are you saying her political position shouldn't matter only the fact that she's a black woman?
Well said.
Dear DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet,
"I guess I just disagree with that, sitetest."
Okay, I can see that you might disagree. But it is my perspective, so perhaps you need to reconsider the lectures on "attitude," and so on. The poster's posts were false, and in my view, insulting. I did my best to restrain my own responses.
Bottom line - it isn't intransigent pro-lifers, as represented by some posters at FR, that have stymied the efforts of the pro-life movement. To say otherwise is to offer insult to all the dedicated pro-lifers who give so much for the cause of the innocent.
"This goes even deeper than the thrust of this thread - people refusing to vote for Condoleezza Rice because she isn't a hard-core pro-lifer (and potentially giving all of us a President Hillary Clinton in the process)."
There is a wide diversity of opinion among pro-lifers about Ms. Rice.
However, I hang with a lot of pro-lifers. Folks who are just active supporters, like me, and folks who work full-time in the arena.
First, about me and my crowd. We're pretty much all devout Catholics who accept the whole Catholic thing. Even on questions like contraception. On the life issues - abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc., we're pretty much "extremists" in our ultimate goals.
Now, this is what we think pretty much uniformly about the candidacy of Ms. Rice.
Ms. Rice is an acceptable candidate to pro-lifers if she merely agrees that Roe must go, and that she will do her best to appoint judges and justices who respect the Constitution sufficiently to see that Roe must go.
We will support her even if she follows up that statement with one that says something like, "I think abortion should be legal in many circumstances, but that it should be a question that is decided by the elected representatives of the people, not the courts."
She doesn't have to be pro-life to win our support. But she must understand that Roe is bad constitutional law, and must go.
But if Ms. Rice thinks that the general framework of Roe should stay indefinitely, then we will not support her. In that case, she is not a politician who respects the Constitution.
This, from us Catholic "extremists."
"I've read threads on FreeRepublic with hard-core pro-lifers posting their refusal to condemn the killer of an abortion clinic doctor."
Big deal. A majority of folks in the United States believe that 95% of abortions should be illegal. That's well over a hundred million folks. Among their number, I'm sure we can find a few fruitcakes here and there.
I'll break a sweat about this just about the time I see the destruction of two pregnancy aid centers here in Maryland, in less than a year, make the national news. Or heck, even if it makes the local CBSABCNBC news affiliate. The last one did get a favorable story on the local Fox affiliate. I almost had a heart attack. What is it that Denny Crane says about truth, God, and Fox?
Until then, I'm sorry, I'm not going to get too worked over some folks who talk a lot on an Internet forum.
Let's not slur the entire movement with a handful of nuts. That's a Dan Rather move.
"Maybe the movement - referring to the entire movement here, not simply your circle of real-life friends and acquaintances - contains a broader range of attitudes than you believe it does."
I don't question for a minute that there are eight or nine lunatics running around who want to cut down abortionists.
Heck, they've done it maybe 10 times over the last 32 years.
But it's hardly a popular opinion in the movement.
On the other hand, there are hundreds of violent actions taken against pro-lifers every year. The ratio of violent acts by pro-aborts to violent acts by pro-lifers is about 100 to 1. You may wish to consider doing a little research in this area.
I've been involved formally on and off, at the fringes, with the pro-life movement for 15 years. I have a pretty good idea of the parameters of the movement. Like I said, don't fall for the lamestream media move of smearing the whole movement because there are a few squirrelly folks among us.
Especially while the perpetrators of serious crimes against the pro-life movement go unsolved, largely uninvestigated.
"I don't think Trinity_Tx is mistaken for recognizing that, and I would hope you wouldn't take such personal offense to it."
If his or her belief is that there are any significant number of pro-lifers who sanction violence, Trinity_Tx would be quite mistaken, as you would be, too.
And I would take extreme personal offense to such an over-the-top libel. As I said, the ratio of pro-abort violence against pro-lifers to the converse is about 100 to 1(and I'm not even talking about over a million murders per year in the abortuaries).
"Look around you on FR. There are a lot of people here who don't have the slightest intent of compromising on anything..."
First, my posts to Trinity_Tx were in response to the poster's assertion that such views had prevented the banning of partial birth abortion, or the support by pro-lifers of candidates who respect the Constitution.
Whether such posters exist on FR or not isn't the point. I haven't made it the point.
As bans on partial birth abortion have actually been passed, and as pro-lifers regularly endorse candidates who respect the Constitution, there can be no cause and effect between FR posters and these phenomena, cited by Trinity_Tx, because the phenomena are falsely reported by Trinity_Tx.
"Just because you don't know them personally doesn't mean they're not out there."
How often should I repeat this? I didn't say such posters don't exist. I said that the effects cited by Trinity_Tx allegedly caused by folks like these don't actually exist, and thus couldn't have been caused by folks like this.
THERE'S your reality.
sitetest
-A8
I've been reading this, and several other threads on the same topic yesterday and today...and something really bugs me. We seem to have a small, vocal contingent that says in essence, "Every conception MUST result in a full-term, live birth. If it doesn't then by God someone is going to jail..." and that anyone that does not subscribe that point of view is branded "pro-abortion", and that pro-choice is a synonym for baby killer. It makes me sick. Abortion as a means of post coital contraception is wrong. I am also in favor of parental notification & consent for minors. However, I am not so closed-minded to realize that there are certain medical situations where termination of a pregnancy is a reasonable option. And I think that this point of view does not alienate the squishy middle of the political spectrum, which any candidate needs to capture the majority of in order to get elected. What really scares the hell out of me is the contingent here that would rather see a "President Hillary" than support a candidate with whom they disagree on one issue. God help us.
Mildly Pro Choice?
By: Keith A. Fournier
© Third Millennium, LLC
On March 12, 2005 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by the Washington Times. The interview has fueled the growing speculation that she may be entertaining a bid for the Presidency in 2008. Not because she acknowledged such an intention but simply because she refused to “rule it out”. The speculation has been fueled by a torrent of articles and is the continual banter of talk radio and blogs. It was begun by Dick Morris, the seemingly ever present political speculator.
The Washington D.C. chatter culture is spinning over a possible woman to woman match in 2008 for the Presidency of the United States.
In the blue corner is Senator Hillary Clinton who has been making all the moves that clearly signify her intention to run. She has also begun a bizarre effort to make herself sound as if she somehow sympathizes with the pro-life position while her rhetoric and record are unapologetically in favor of abortion on demand.
In the red corner is Secretary Rice who has captured the attention of many in both parties through her presence, her political savvy and her excellent communication skills. Otherwise clearly pro-life members of her own party seem willing to give her a pass on this issue for reasons I simply do not understand.
Oh, I know, we are repeatedly told that it is too early to speculate about the 2008 race. But is it? The horses are already lining up at the gate. The money is beginning to flow. The fact is that the race is already underway. That is why it is so vital that engaged pro-life people begin to work now to assure that the momentum toward building a culture of life continues. For millions of Americans this issue is not a “single issue” but rather the lens through which the entirety of policy and politics is viewed. The dignity of every human person, at every age and stage, from the first home of the whole human race, a mother’s womb, through and including the sanctuary of the death bed, is the polestar of every economic and public policy issue.
While it is true that there are an array of vitally important issues that must also be considered, there is also a hierarchy of values to be applied in the political and policy arena. How one views our obligations to the ones who Mother Theresa rightly called the “poorest of the poor”, children in the womb who have no voice, speaks loudly of how one views the dignity of life itself. The race reveals a serious dearth of concern, in both major parties, for the right to life and the freedom to be born.
Much has been made about the fact that Secretary Rice was the daughter of a preacher, a Presbyterian minister. Yet, in this interview while explaining love for fashion, she made an interesting admission. She said that while her father was preparing for his sermons, she and her mother would shop. One wishes now that she had considered the content of the both the Bible and the unbroken Christian tradition concerning the inviolable dignity of every human person, more than the latest styles.
In the interview she, like Senator Clinton has on several occasions done recently, spoke of her "deep religious faith." Persons of faith must live a unity of life. Religious faith is not “private” in the sense of keeping its influence outside of our daily life. The truths of faith should inform everything that we do. When directly asked about abortion, Secretary Rice sounded very similar to the Senator from new York, saying that abortion should be “as rare a circumstance as possible," and adding "We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other….So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it."
It gets murkier. She spoke of pro-lifers as "the other side" and tried to carve herself a niche as being "in effect kind of libertarian on this issue." Then she used the phrase that I have chosen as the title of this article. She spoke of herself as a "mildly pro-choice" Republican. Let me be clear, she also said that she is “….a strong proponent of parental notification.” That is good. She referred to herself as “….a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion”, the procedure more akin to infanticide wherein a child is partially delivered so that just the head is accessible only to have his or her brains sucked out. That is simply not enough.
Abortion is the intentional execution of an innocent human person in the first home of the whole human race. Innocent human life must always be defended against this kind of aggression! The claim of being “mildly” pro-choice is like the claim of being a “little bit pregnant”. Every procured abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human person. For example, why do we say that a woman “lost her baby when she miscarries? Yet, in the case of a procured abortion, we call it “a choice” and a “right.” Or worse, why do we allow politicians to continually refer to it as a “difficult moral issue” as the Secretary did in this interview. Leaders need to lead. This issue is not difficult. It is absolutely clear. This issue is also not simply “religious” in the sense that only religious people feel a certain way about it. Rather, it concerns a fundamental human right. The child in the womb is a human person. Medical science has confirmed what our consciences have long known – what is affirmed by the Natural Law written on every human heart - abortion is killing the innocent.
Like most Americans, I would love to see a talented woman become our President. Perhaps it would finally put behind us a history of discrimination against women. In the case of Secretary Rice, her holding the position would also put another sad fact of our past behind us, discrimination against people of color. However, just as during the last election cycle, when John Kerry tried to run as “a Catholic”, I will make my decision on who to support based upon their positions on the fundamental issues of our age. Choosing someone who claimed to be a Catholic, while he opposed the infallible teaching of his own Church concerning this issue, was not an option for me. Similarly, supporting a woman who is wrong on this issue, simply because she is a woman, is wrong.
There are several dangers emerging in this political plot. Let me discuss just a few.
Secretary Rice has referred to herself as being “libertarian” on this issue. By that she means that she is not pro-life. One cannot believe it is ever right to give someone a choice to do what is always and everywhere wrong. This is one of the areas where the role of Government, to protect innocent human beings against unjust aggression, is eminently clear. Though I believe, as a Catholic Christian, that libertarianism is antithetical to the Christian vision of the human person, the family and the human community, I must point out that even some “libertarians”, such as “libertarians for life”, oppose abortion. The growing “libertarian” impulse in Republican politics may mark a decided turn in the party that will make it increasingly difficult to support, even though between the two parties, it at least has a pro-life platform.
Then there is the tired label, “conservative.” Many faithful Christians, Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox, who have stood faithful to the clear and unbroken tradition of Christianity that procured abortion is always wrong and can never be justified, have been painted into a corner by letting themselves be “labeled” as conservatives. The arguments are already being made that a “conservative” should want issues decided by the States and not favor a big Federal Government. Based on the Christian ordering principle of subsidiarity, I share the desire to keep good governance at the lowest practical level. However, my opposition to abortion is rooted in my opposition to murder. It is a legitimate role of government to protect its citizens from unjust aggression. Abortion is unjust aggression against an innocent victim who is incapable of defending himself or herself. Sending it “back to the Sates” is no solution. Just as slavery was wrong and rightly required a National policy to oppose it and to undo its harm, abortion is wrong and requires the same approach at every level of government.
Here come the “pro-choice” Republicans. Like the “pro-choice” Democrats, they are beginning to spout the platitudes of people who simply have no courage. It is in how we respond to this issue that the soul and future of our Nation will be revealed. The very nature of freedom lies at the heart of the entire discussion. In his monumental encyclical letter entitled the “Gospel of Life”, Pope John Paul II warned of a “counterfeit notion of freedom” as a raw power over others who are weaker. He also wrote about the possible the “death of true freedom” resulting from unmooring our freedom to choose from reference to unchanging truths such as the right to life.
This interview with Secretary Rice should rouse every champion of true freedom to begin to act for the 2008 race now. We need candidates, be they Democrat or Republican, whose position on the right to life is absolutely clear. Not people who claim to be “mildly pro-choice.”
___________________________________________________________
Keith A. Fournier is a human rights lawyer and public policy advocate.
So you're willing to pin it all on that, terrorism, the economy, the Supreme Court?
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.