Posted on 03/13/2005 6:05:44 AM PST by kevin fortuna
'Mildly Pro-Choice' Rice Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid
By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 13, 2005; Page A05
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described herself Friday as "mildly pro-choice" and "kind of libertarian" on abortion, and left the door open for a presidential race in 2008.
Rice, who took office Jan. 26 after four years as President Bush's national security adviser, said she "can't imagine" running to succeed her boss and that she is "not trying to be elected." But she said she knows people are talking about the possibility, and did not rule it out when pressed repeatedly. She spoke in an interview with reporters and editors from the Washington Times, and the State Department released a transcript yesterday.
The Republican platform is strongly antiabortion, and abortion opponents play a big role in many primaries. Rice explicated her views when a questioner from the newspaper told her that the written record was murky.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Interesting, interesting... And when God demanded of Joshua that he have his army slaughter every man, woman, and child in the course of conquest, should they have refused on the grounds it was "injustice"?
But that is a side issue, not relevant to the discussion, as no government edict shall force American citizens to abort pregnancies and kill fetuses.
The crux, here, is that RvW, by the fiat of five people, usurped the proper powers of the various legislatures; defining a whole class of humanity as non-persons and outside of the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment and arrogating unto the SCOTUS the authority to declare a class of homicide licit, thus making all abortion (including what is in effect "at whim") legal.
Those who enacted this travesty, and those who support it, believe in the morality, the goodness and justice, of what they support.
It seems to me that you are arguing in favor of criminalizing all abortion by the fiat of ONE person: the President.
Those who would enact this travesty, and those who support it, believe in the morality, the goodness and justice, of what they support.
Neither is constitutionally sound.
It appears to me that you hold your view very strongly, as do many on the extremes of both sides of this issue. I see no possibility of profitable discourse with you on this issue, so I shall retire from the current iteration of the debate, and bid you a good day.
The Christians gave us our margin of victory in the last 3 elections. Kiss them good-bye if you nominate Condi.
Addressing a hypothetical and then applying it to a particular case does not constitute "trying to distance [myself] from [my] original reply". My motives are not the issue here anyway. (Bringing in my motives is a red herring and an ad hominem; it avoids directly addressing the truth-value of what I said, and instead focuses attention on me). I stand by everything I have said. If anything I have said is false, refute it.
-A8
If you ever come up with a good argument or good reasons to believe that abortion is not murder, please let me know. I would change my position right away if someone could show me that a child only gains its right to life when it exits the womb, or if its mother wants it, or that a fetus becomes a human when it exits the womb or at some particular point in gestation. The best defense of abortion I have seen is Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion", but that article does not successfully refute the pro-life position. (I assign that article to my ethics students, and they have no problem pulling it to pieces.)
-A8
The chosen one will arrive at in New Hampshire with all the money and support in place as per Karl Rowe just like in 2000. There is nothing you can do to change this process. Why is this not clear?
I am Mildly amused at the emotions wasted in this argument.
If I were interested in attempting to weaken your conviction that all human life is "sacred" from conception, I would point out that roughly 30% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort, suggesting that God might not be as concerned as you may think.
But I'm not particularly interested in making an attempt, foredoomed to failure, to weaken a view I find admirable.
Now, if you would be so kind as to find any rational reason to support extraconstitutional creation of law-by-fiat, for any reason (no matter how moral), I'd be much obliged.
This is nothing new from her. She stated right from the start that she is "reluctantly" pro choice. I don't know what she means by reluctantly but I would hazard a guess that she supports it under some conditions.
I would still vote for her because the evil of putting another demo into office, especially Hillary, is too much to contemplate. Besides, if you are stuck on only one issue then our party is in trouble.
We can splinter into hundreds of groups that are each stuck on their one issue! This is ridiculus.
I have no idea to what you are objecting.
This is simply not true. The reasons people voted for Bush were many, even if JK had come out stronly military, as he tried to do but failed, he would have lost on other principles, mainly he lacked the values people want to see reinstated into this country.
This would have been true of any Dem candidate that they had chosen to run.
The main fact of life is this: The MSM did their best to trash Bush, if they had been even 20 percent more toward Bush their would have been a landslide election for Bush.
Most people still get their news from the MSM, if that ever stops you will see more and more conservatives elected as people learn the truth about liberals(progressives, communists, whatever).
that much seems certain.
Ah, yes, a morally right single issue "non" voter who thinks that by not voting for Condi would make a stand and support their moral beliefs.
Yes, letting a republican lose and letting hillary the baby killer into office will make you morally correct. What an idiot. Don't you see that by not doing anything to keep Hillary, or some other Dem, who is strongly for abortion, out of office you are guilty of murder yourself. Hillary or some other Dem will load the courts with activist judges and abortion will continue thanks to people like you.
Go ahead and stand by your pricinpals and your right to not vote, this is what happens in countries that end up with tyrants in office and totalitarian governments. The non voters, the sit on your hands type of person that you are causes most of the problems in this world.
How many Dems do you think would win any office if ALL the people who were eligible to vote actually did vote? Were you aware that conservatives out number liberals in this country? It is the ones who don't vote because of single issues and other idiotic reasons that cause the problems and then wail when things don't go the way they wanted them too.
No wonder the present day political theater is not playing well. The plot is all too familiar and remains so. Even amoral, political opportunists are allowed to build fences wide enough at the top they can run on them without falling off.
Wonder when this show will be cancelled for lack of interest?
bump
Condi/Ah-nuld or Ah-nuld/Condi would make an interesting ticket...;-)...
*knows it would take an Amendment lol*
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.