Senator Allen is pro-life, and not just mildly so.
And he wouldn't allow a liberal like Hillary Clinton to win the White House.
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...
And let a higher authority do the judging.
We judge that infanticide is wrong. We don't wipe infanticide laws off the books and say "let a higher authority do the judging". Only people who didn't realize how wrong infanticide is would even think of wiping such laws off the books and leaving the judging up to a higher power. If you realized that abortion was equivalent to infanticide, you would never suggest simply letting a higher authority judge.
-A8
So you're willing to pin it all on that, terrorism, the economy, the Supreme Court?
Think about the goods at stake. Over 1,000,000 children a year murdered. It is hard to see the economy, for example, as anywhere near commensurate.
The reason I jumped in here in the first place was that you were condescending to someone who was in no way condescending to you.
Probing further, your position seems to be that you and your friends are the quintessential, mainstream, model pro-life advocates, and that the behavior of other types of pro-life advocates is to be dismissed completely. Therefore, any criticism of those people or acknowledgment of their influence in the movement is invalid.
You also don't appear to believe anyone has a right to disagree with you about that.
Having said that, I'll go back to the reason I jumped in:
If you don't think pro-lifers treating other (often pro-life, or fence-sitting) people condescendingly is a problem, I strongly disagree - but I recognize that you are certainly welcome to your views.
I suspect all we will agree on is the last seven words of the paragraph above. I'm content to leave it at that.
-A8
Don't be ashamed of the pro-life label, if indeed you embrace that position. It's a winning issue. And Republicans will get a candidate they like in 2008, whether it's Rice with a clearer and stronger position, or someone else.
Bickering at this point on this issue is premature.
I'm not backing down from my position.
I'm
a) denying the position you want to impose upon me WRT generalizing and insulting them all. I have friends who are also pro-life, who work in our crisis pregnancy center, and I'm saying nothing more than they say themselves all the time.
b) disagreeing with your contention that there has been no serious problem with, or consequence of, turning off so many of those who would otherwise join the fight to ban the most egregious abortions.
Answering a poll is not the same as active support.
My point from the beginning has been that, if the pro-life movement had had more of those people actively supporting them, then there would have been a mandate long ago.
I will "back down" to the extent that I can't be positive those black-robed maggots would still be on the bench. But, you can't be any more positive they would, and I think it is misguided to blow that off and continue the behavior we see here.
You say the behavior we see here is an anomaly, and that it hasn't hindered change, and you apparently think sarcastically insulting me for saying otherwise is more worth your time than criticizing their behavior.
I think you are wrong, and in over-reacting and focusing your sarcastic and insulting ire on me, rather than those who give the cause a bad image, you just make things worse.
Anyway, we disagree. That doesn't mean we had to knock heads or should continue. Mine hurts now, lol so I'm going to go do something more productive and fun... like laundry! ; )
I just pointed out your words.
Why should we follow the Democrats' example on anything?
We agree to disagree.
Senator Allen is pro-life, and not just mildly so.
And he wouldn't allow a liberal like Hillary Clinton to win the White House.
Dear DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet,
"The reason I jumped in here in the first place was that you were condescending to someone who was in no way condescending to you."
As I explained, my experience was one of amazement at such a distorted view of reality.
And disgust at the insult offered to the pro-life movement in general.
And I wasn't keen on Trinity_Tx's taunting of others with false premises.
"Therefore, any criticism of those people or acknowledgment of their influence in the movement is invalid."
Well, not quite. You should go back and read what I wrote. What I actually said, repeatedly, is that the effects that Trinity_Tx claims don't actually exist.
The fact is, that Trinity_Tx taunted others with the alleged failure to pass a ban on partial birth abortions due to the inability of the pro-life movement to compromise. Well, it's true that these laws have been held in abeyance by the courts, but the fact is that pro-life actually HAS achieved compromise, and actually HAS passed the ban in many states and the federal government, contrary to Trinity_Tx's false assertions.
Thus, Trinity_Tx's contention that the ban hasn't passed because of the intransigence of the pro-life movement (whether in the entirety or in part) is false. Not because the presumed cause is false (though it is) but because the named effect doesn't actually exist.
If you say, "The sun didn't rise today because the rooster didn't crow," the problem isn't that you've made the logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The problem is that the premise - the sun didn't rise today - is false. Thus, we can't get to the remaining errors in the statement.
The poster also insisted that pro-lifers don't support candidates who respect the Constitution. We do nothing but. Certainly, if Ms. Rice can't bring herself to declare that Roe must go, then our failure to support her is an example of REFUSING to support a candidate who DISRESPECTS the Constitution.
As well, I pointed out that we pro-lifers support many flawed candidates, out of the willingness to seek compromise. And that many of these candidates win. Because of, in part, pro-life backing.
Thus, what may be true in small numbers, in some individual cases, is proven untrue generally, by the actual facts.
"If you don't think pro-lifers treating other (often pro-life, or fence-sitting) people condescendingly is a problem, I strongly disagree - but I recognize that you are certainly welcome to your views."
Well, I haven't offered much of an opinion about that, now have I?
However, I think that Trinity_Tx's actual complaint was more oriented toward our failure to compromise, and our failure to support candidates who respect the Constitution, as in:
"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
"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."
It seems that she didn't mention our awful "condescension" until later in the discussion.
I merely pointed out Trinity_Tx's egregious insults offered to the whole of the pro-life movement through the poster's failure to accurately identify the actual course of history over the last 32 years.
As well, your attempt to smear the entire pro-life movement with the violent actions of a few nutcakes, and their sympathizers, isn't attractive, either.
Or perhaps you didn't realize that violence in the dispute over abortion is a hundred times more likely to come from the pro-death side. In this, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Very few people know this, because the pro-abortion elites in our country have no desire to tell the truth about it.
But perhaps in the future, you could check your facts before smearing millions of good people.
If Trinity_Tx, or you, want to complain about some unruly or surly posters at FR, be my guest.
But don't smear an entire movement with complaints that don't actually track with reality.
sitetest
Dear Trinity_Tx,
Certainly you've backed down.
You initially blamed the failure to pass a partial birth abortion ban on the instransigence of pro-lifers. Whether in small numbers or large, it just isn't true. The bans have been passed.
When I pointed out they only failed in effect because of the courts, you then changed the goal posts and said it's because of the justices we have because pro-lifers won't support candidates who respect the Constitution.
After my eyes nearly fell out over that ridiculous canard, I pointed out that pro-lifers were vital parts of the coalitions that have elected every Republican president post-Roe as well as hosts of conservative Republicans. And even some RINOs - for the cause of party unity.
I also pointed out that the ONLY time that Republicans haven't been elected president since then were when OTHER PARTS of the Republican coalition left the fold.
If you wanna blame Clinton on someone, it's not the pro-lifers. It was the country-club Republicans who voted for Mr. Clinton or Mr. Perot, and folks for whom supply-side economics, or not raising taxes is the most important issue. For those of us for whom life is the paramount issue, we hung tough. We voted for President Bush in 1992 and Sen. Dole in 1996.
"My point from the beginning has been that, if the pro-life movement had had more of those people actively supporting them, then there would have been a mandate long ago."
No, that was your third or fourth position. I lost count. You keep changing the goal posts.
Even so, I've shown you that the mandate exists. And has for many years.
What stops things are the pro-abortion elites in the judiciary, the media, academia, medicine, and elsewhere.
Large majorities of ordinary, average Americans support significant, real restrictions on abortion that would outlaw the vast majority of abortions.
But the elites of our country are mostly diametrically opposed to that view of things.
And guess who wields the power in the short term?
When the power elites all firmly hold to a position, it can take generations to change courses.
When doctors go in front of Congress and lie about partial birth abortion, and the lamestream media do nothing to expose it, when courts refuse laws to take effect that were passed with OVERWHELMING support in Congress, when these elites see their version of America threatened, it's an uphill battle.
Nonetheless, I think we'll eventually get to the top of the mountain.
"I will 'back down' to the extent that I can't be positive those black-robed maggots would still be on the bench. But, you can't be any more positive they would, and I think it is misguided to blow that off and continue the behavior we see here."
Well, I'm pretty certain that if even all the pro-lifers who are mean and nasty were all sweetness and light, Judge Bork would not have been confirmed, Sandra Day O'Connor would have been confirmed, David Souter would have been confirmed, Anthony Kennedy would have been confirmed, and Bill Clinton would have been elected - twice - and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would be on the court.
Bottom line - Bork was "borked" by liars in the Senate and their henchmen in the media. Do you forget the lengths to which they went to try to discredit this man? Do you remember that they illegally uncovered his LIBRARY RECORDS??
Do you remember Dan Blather or Brokaw or the Communist Pig Jennings calling for any investigations over the violation of Judge Bork's civil rights? No? Me neither.
Was THAT the fault of the pro-life movement?
Give me a break.
And sadly, Justice Kennedy was pro-life when he went to the court, but the influence of the power elites appears to have swayed him. Kinda sad. He will answer on the Last Day.
"You say the behavior we see here is an anomaly, and that it hasn't hindered change,..."
No, that isn't what I said at all. In fact, in a sense, I said the opposite. I said, this is typical INTERNET behavior, but that INTERNET behavior is different from behavior off the Internet. Please don't further misrepresent what I say.
"...and you apparently think sarcastically insulting me for saying otherwise is more worth your time than criticizing their behavior."
I have not written one word in sarcasm, Trinity_Tx. I've meant straight up every word I've written. I've even kept to a bare minimum words that are hyperbolic or especially rhetorical.
As to what folks have said here, I've told you, I discount a lot of Internet trash talk.
But I don't generally let falsehoods about the pro-life movement go unanswered.
"I think you are wrong, and in over-reacting and focusing your sarcastic and insulting ire on me, rather than those who give the cause a bad image, you just make things worse."
Again, I haven't said anything in sarcasm. I meant everything I've written, pretty much straight up.
As well, although I'm offended by your posting and slurs against the pro-life movement, and do think you ought to apologize for them, I don't have any ire toward you.
"Anyway, we disagree. That doesn't mean we had to knock heads or should continue. Mine hurts now, lol so I'm going to go do something more productive and fun... like laundry! ; )"
Enjoy your laundry.
sitetest
I'm going to be as polite as I can in the face of this absurd charge.
I have done nothing more than to describe some things I have read here. If you interpreted my dispensing of that information as an intended reflection of every individual in the pro-life movement, then whether deliberately or unintentionally, you misunderstood me.
I have "smeared" no one (but you sure love using that word, don'tcha?). The suggestion that I have is wrong, and it offends me deeply.
And if it's all the same to you, I won't rely on your version of "reality" to determine whether or not I actually witnessed something, and the impression it made on me. As sure of yourself as you apparently are, I still have more confidence in myself than I have in you, sitetest.
Not exactly what I was doing. I just seemed kind of ironically fitting at the moment, considering how strongly we all were behind her to fill a job for which she is well qualified, and how hard it would be to support her for the presidency, considering her desire at this early date to voice her support of this insane idea of a "right" to abortion.
Really don't know whether we agree or disagree.
Having tried to engage in a reasonable discussion and finding myself insulted, angry, and alienated in the process, I must say I wholeheartedly agree at this point.
It's no use. He can't see the problem or the consequences, because in his reality, this sort of offensive behavior is just fine.
Abortion is a mortal sin, Ms. Rice. The daughter of friends just died. She wa a mentally challenged young woman who loved everyone, but she had a special place in her heart for newborn bablies. She had an ample bosom on which the tiny ones found comfort and peace in our church
nursery. We think God had a job for her in Heaven, cuddling all the wee aborted babies there. I like to think she is very happy, and that all the unwanted babies are now being well loved.
Probably just makes you ignorant of the facts: more women die from taking RU486 than die from pregnancy complications, but then, more women die from the complications of abortion than die from complications of pregnancy. (starting with breast cancer)
"I have 'smeared' no one..."
"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."
I don't know, looks like a smear to me. I have argued that these sorts of people are on the very fringe, are not at all common, and thus, aren't very meaningful to the discussion. You seem to disagree.
Instead of agreeing that folks like this are the extreme exception, you appear to be generalizing them to a much larger part of the movement.
But we can agree to disagree. ;-)
sitetest
"I have 'smeared' no one..."
"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."
I don't know, looks like a smear to me. I have argued that these sorts of people are on the very fringe, are not at all common, and thus, aren't very meaningful to the discussion. You seem to disagree.
Instead of agreeing that folks like this are the extreme exception, you appear to be generalizing them to a much larger part of the movement.
But we can agree to disagree. ;-)
sitetest
Dear Trinity_Tx,
"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."
That looks like a taunt to me. Operative words: "hasn't even been able" to get rid of such an outrage. You are pointing out the extreme impotence of these folks, blaming the folks with whom you disagree. That's taunting in my book.
You interpret my words as insults, I interpret this as a taunt.
"'Trinity_Tx's egregious insults offered to the whole of the pro-life movement'"
"They do not, and I have made that repeatedly clear."
No - you've insulted the pro-life movement by saying that it, or some component of the movement is responsible for the failure to ban partial birth abortion.
When it isn't true.
You've insulted the pro-life movement, pretty much in general, as a whole, when you said this:
"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."
At least in your previous quote, one could interpret the "you" of the sentence as referring only to your correspondent, and not the entire movement.
With this quote, there doesn't appear to be any qualifiers. You state, "If pro-lifers" without qualification. That's a pretty general insult.
No one who demands a candidate favor overturning Roe is failing to elect politicians who respect the Constitution.
"It's no wonder you don't see the problem - you are part of it."
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
I think the problems lay elsewhere among some who call themselves pro-life.
sitetest
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.