WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

hillary clinton, Hannity & Colmes, YouTube ^ | 4.19.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

by Mia T, 4.18.07

 

HILLARY TAKES VILLAGE: teen abortion / no parent notification (YouTube)

From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC -- 4/18/2007 "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION

HANNITY: Partial birth? GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done. HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion. GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support.... GIULIANI: I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously. HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito. GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it. Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.

IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this.

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support.

Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.

But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late.


POSTSCRIPT

MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.

They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 320,931
PLEASE FReep

YouTube (First Month) Honors for VOTE SMART:
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - English
#33 - Top Rated - News & Politics - All
#30 - Top Rated - News & Politics - English
#7 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - English
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - All
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - English

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[dforest]

My response to you is short, unlike your long winded response that is the typical response that those for Rudy repeat endlessly.

NO TO RUDY.

And do not expect people to accept Rudy as the candidate and then insult them when they refuse Rudy.

On this side of the argument people finally got tough. They were tired of having their religion insulted, tired of being called names, tired of having Rudy painted as a good candidate when he is not.

People are not going to look the other way about Rudys record and sleazy personal life. It is too much to ask.

I, myself, do not think Rudy will ever get the nomination.

If you want Hillary or Obama as President, keep wasting your time pushing Rudy.

[Mia T]

thank you, PGalt. :)

[Mia T]

Cogently stated. Thank you.

[fewz]

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. If paleo-conservatives don’t drop their candidates whom the “center” won’t support because they disagree with their positions and support a candidate whose positions we don’t agree with, we will be responsible for the Clintons election. But, the “center” won’t be responsible if they refuse to vote for our candidate should our candidate win the nomination. We will be responsible if we either nominate a non-center candidate or refuse to support a center candidate should said center candidate win the nomination. Okay, I think I’ve got the picture.

[Mia T]

thx again, PG.

[Mia T]

You actually got the following things wrong:

1- This problem is not ‘center’ v right. It is not immoral (or amoral) vs moral. It is rational vs irrational.

2- Unlike the Rudy haters, most, if not all, of those supporting Rudy will support WHICHEVER Republican is nominated.

Unlike the Rudy haters, we understand that the alternative to ANY Republican is a danger to ALL our babies, the living, the unborn, the not yet even imagined. Unlike the Rudy haters, we are the ones who are TRULY PRO-LIFE.

[Mia T]

As I said, we must get rid of all the professional pols and replace them with citizen politicians. (The professional pol is mediocre, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition.)

[Preachin']

“You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.”

It’s not really crossover when you ask one rather large part of the base to let go of their most important issue.

Rather, it’s thumbing your nose in the face of the pro-lifers.

There are not enough “moderates” to compensate for the pro-lifers who simply will not vote for Rudy.

On top of that, he will absolutely destroy the party on a national level.

If I remember right, you pushed for Jeanine Pirro against Hillary with the same persistence. Remind us of how successful that was.

[Mia T]

I think Mia is, and I say this with all due respect, so petrified of another Clinton in the Whitehouse, she cannot think straight.

That, my friend, is called 'projection.'

A little less fear of Rudy (and more fear of the clintons) would quickly cure what ails the Rudy haters.

[dforest]

"Unlike the Rudy haters, we understand that the alternative to ANY Republican is a danger to ALL our babies, the living, the unborn, the not yet even imagined. Unlike the Rudy haters, we are the ones who are TRULY PRO-LIFE."

Rudy has a 100% approval rating with NARAL, his rating is even higher than Hillary Clinton's. It is totally disingenuous and pure spin, to say that a vote for Rudy is Pro Life.

Babies in New York were never safe under Rudy and they will not be safe now. Rudy goes even farther by wanting taxpayer funded abortions.

Fear of Hillary is more like panic for some. So much so, people are willing to vote for someone who has claimed his policies are like that of Bill Clintons.

Rudy will divide and bring down the GOP, those that pushed him will be most responsible if a Democrat wins.

[fewz]

All kidding aside, there are at least 3 people that I like better than Rudy but if Rudy ends up with the nomination, I will vote for him. I just think it’s a bit early to be making the arguments that you are making.

[Mia T]

I concede Pirro was a disappointment. She ultimately chose political viability over mounting a real challenge to clinton.

But OTOH, what did Spencer get us? What could be mischaracterized by the clinton agitprop machine as a 'landslide.' (A HILLARY 'LANDSLIDE'??? NOT SO FAST, MISSUS CLINTON....)

We need someone who has the street smarts and organization to take on the clintons.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Interview: Rudy Giuliani On Iraq, Taxes, Mistakes

***...Why do you think you can win over Christian conservatives?

Because Republicans, however people describe them, respect people who tell them who they are and don't pretend that they're going to agree on everything. Ronald Reagan is kind of my model, and his approach was: "If you're my 80% friend, you're not my 20% enemy." I think I'll do well with conservative voters because they will see that I'm one of the most fiscally conservative candidates in the race. I'm the one who has just about the strongest record on tax cuts. And I think they will be in pretty close to total agreement with me on how to handle homeland security and deal with terrorism. On social issues, they're going to find that the area of disagreement is not as great as some of my opponents have told them.

But so much has been made of your decidedly unconservative positions on gay rights, gun control, and abortion. How big a factor will those positions, your personal history, and Judith's personal history be in the campaign and Presidency?

Ultimately, the election will be about who the American people think will be the most effective leader. And they have every right to examine all aspects of my public life and my private life. Because I've had such a long career in so many different areas—probably the most diverse of anybody running—they can look to the success that I've had even though I've made mistakes and things went wrong, which I think kind of makes me human. When I was mayor, various things going on in my private life did not stop me from reducing crime by 57%, reducing homicides by 67%, turning a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion-dollar surplus. It didn't stop me from reducing the welfare rolls by 660,000. Then I had to deal with the worst attack in the history of the city, maybe the country. Sure, I've made mistakes, both privately and publicly, but what's the balance? The balance is that I've been able to have success. So I think they can be pretty confident that that's what would happen as President.

.....You said your wife, Judith, could sit in on Cabinet meetings if she wanted to. What role would she play?

The preface to that, Maria, was a question by Barbara Walters about what Judith would be interested in as First Lady. And her answer was: "I'm a nurse...and what I think I would be good at is educating people about the things they have to do to remain healthy." So then Barbara asked me: "Would you be comfortable with Judith sitting in on Cabinet meetings?" And I said: "I would if it was in areas that she's interested in or in areas where she has expertise." But she has no interest in being part of the Cabinet.....

[Preachin']

“But OTOH, what did Spencer get us?”

The real issue is NYC, isn’t it?

[kevkrom]

To be clear, to avoid voting for Rudy, (who will appoint strict constructionist judges and prosecute the war with all he has-what more can a president functionally do?), you will, in fact, be placing your de facto vote for hillary clinton

See, there's that false dichotomy again. I will not give in to your invalid assumptions that supporting someone other than Guiliani in the GOP primaries is "giving" the election to Clinton.

Such position is asinine, insulting, and would accept the permanent defeat of conservatism.

[dirtboy]

. You seem to be the AUTHORITARIAN around here, pushing your beliefs on everyone.

This is a political forum. You have the same opportunity to make your case as I do. So quit whining.

[kevkrom]

I’m satisfied that Rudy will appoint pro-Constitution judges like Roberts and Scalia.

I'm not. Not by a long shot.

No President has ever willingly appointed a USSC justice who disagreed with him on basic philosophy, and Guiliani won't be the first to so so. (If I have anything to say about it, he won;t get the chance in the first place.)

[kevkrom]

You really have only 2 choices in this de facto 2-party system of ours, R or D. If you vote 3rd party (or sit it out), you will be helping to elect the D.

Yeah, well you're skipping WAY ahead in presuming that those particular "R" and "D" candidates are anywhere near decided.

I will do whatever it takes to stop Guiliani getting the GOP nomination. Not only is he GUARANTEED to lose the general election, it would be the final signal to the conservative wing of the party that they're no longer wanted.

[yoe]

"Life in LA

The Los Angeles Times has a rule that the phrase "pro-life" will not appear on its pages because it might offend the pro-abortion crowd, reports Reuters, something a witless opera reviewer found out the hard way.

A music critic for the paper wrote that a Richard Strauss opera was "pro-life," intending to mean that it was a celebration of life. But he had his story changed by a copy editor to read "anti-abortion."

"It's about children who aren't born yet screaming to be born — not abortion," said the critic, Mark Swed. "Somebody who didn't quite get it got a little bit too politically correct ... and we had a little breakdown in communications."

The ban apparently doesn't extend to the phrase "pro-choice."

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN

Partial-birth abortion, as defined by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is a procedure in which a physician:

"[D]eliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;..."

[kevkrom]

We won’t solve our problems unless and until we purge DC of the professional pols and replace them with citizen politicians, people of high character and achievement who will lend their expertise for a term or two and then return to their day jobs.

So, you'll be voting for Fred Thompson then? First sensible thing you've posted on this thread.