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

 

[Registered]

I am not shilling for anyone. I am trying to discuss politics in a reasonable manner, with seemingly unreasonable people.

You don’t know me and you also don’t know who I support politically. That’s the facts jack.

[dirtboy]

I am not shilling for anyone. I am trying to discuss politics in a reasonable manner, with seemingly unreasonable people.

Well, my definition of unreasonable is someone who tries to define the concepts of pro-life downwards on a pro-life, conservative website.

[Old_Mil]

WAKE UP AMERICA. We can survive Giuliani, we cannot survive HILLARY. Take your pick.

That's your opinion, and certainly far from fact. To quote Tom Tancredo, This next election isn't about "who we will elect as president, but about what sort of nation we will be." Hillary's and Rudy's answers to that question are identical, and if the next president is going to be someone who gives this Republic a lethal injection, they can do that without my support. You say you like Duncan Hunter? Fine. Vote for him. Give him money. The only reason he isn't getting media attention is because so-called "realists" such as yourself keep running your mouths about Rudy Giuliani.

[TommyDale]

It’s more about what is NOT on the thread. Note the missing posts.

[jla]

my definition of unreasonable is someone who tries to define the concepts of pro-life downwards on a pro-life, conservative website.

You just couldn't comprehend what Mia was saying. I know for a fact that the young lady is pro-life, as much as myself.
And you, or anyone else here, are not any more pro-life than I am.

In my opinion, Mia frustrated you. Because she wouldn't allow herself to sink to your puerile level of 'debate'.
In other words, Mia was and is head 'n shoulders above you, Dirtboy. An apt moniker, by the way.

[firewalk]

Thanks for letting me know jla
Mia T is (was) one of my favorite posters here
I'm sure she knows that...

[MACVSOG68]

She also managed to try to define the basic concept of pro-life downwards, and also tried to imply that Fred was in the race just to draw votes away from Rudy.

I disagree. She pointed out that pro-life means different things to different people, and that pro-life issues should not prevent a Republican victory in 2008. In fact, most Republicans are pro-life to varying degrees. Some absolute; some with exceptions.

As for Fred drawing off votes to bring McCain higher, I've seen the same analysis on other sites. I'm not ready to believe it yet, but so what? I don't think a lot of Fred's positions have been clarified yet, and in fact, I saw one analysis putting him in the moderate to right category. If he is going to run, then, I'm sure he will be looked at much more carefully.

Rudy booster nonsensical attacks on Fred have become hazardous to one's posting privs on FR. Especially when they support a guy with far, far more liberal warts than Fred and have no problem with that.

Well, not counting Fred, there are exactly 3 candidates who can possibly win the election against Hillary, and all three of them have been excoriated in this forum time and again. If those who support Rudy are banned for taking aim at Fred, why are not the others banned who have taken aim at the three leaders?

Perhaps the rules should be clarified here that only certain social right positions can be taken, and only certain candidates can be supported. That would help those of us who until now believed that this forum encouraged open intellectual debate.

This kind of treatment of such a devoted conservative and great Freeper does not speak well of the health of the forum, especially when so many good, intelligent and articulate Freepers have simply moved on rather than be subjected to the kinds of insults and tirades that are regular features now.

[rdb3]

There have been Linux/Windows threads hundreds of times more boisterous than this thread.

Well, I can give you that, you Windoze lover. ;-)

I hope it's a cooling off period and I definitely hope Mia's not CGEB!

[Miss Didi]

Today, one of the great Freepers of all time was banned simply for her support of a Republican candidate and for her eloquence and keen ability to articulate why we as Republicans should all come together to defeat Hillary.

My "bravo" was meant for you.

[dirtboy]

You just couldn't comprehend what Mia was saying.

Bullcrap. I understood just fine what Mia was saying. She was trying to say if pro-lifers don't vote for Rudy, they are responsible for the deaths caused by Hillary.

Which is rubbish. She is unwilling to examine her own culpability in pushing a pro-abort candidate for the nomination of the pro-life party. What she is doing is aking to blaming the victim for rape.

Oh, and for good measure, she sure got in her regularly (or what used to be regularly) scheduled trashing of Fred (all the while oblivious to her own ironies):

Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs. This isn't Fred Thompson. Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.

A MiaT classic. FRED LEFT AFTER ONE AND ONE-THIRD TERMS - exactly what she was saying citizen politicians should do. And he returned to his day job.

What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy?

Oh, a candidate is helping McCain, all right. But it's Rudy - Rudy is so bad that he's making McCain palatable. Something I thought impossible. It's probably Rudy's most impressive achievement to date, other than his discovery that public funding of abortion is a Constitutional right.

[dirtboy]

She pointed out that pro-life means different things to different people

I'm sorry, but her attempts to blame pro-lifers who could not vote for a pro-abort pubbie were truly despicable. Rudy boosters will only have themselves to blame for pushing the most pro-abort candidate in the history of the GOP.

As for Fred drawing off votes to bring McCain higher, I've seen the same analysis on other sites. I'm not ready to believe it yet, but so what?

It's pathetic no matter where it is. And disingenous as well.

Well, not counting Fred, there are exactly 3 candidates who can possibly win the election against Hillary, and all three of them have been excoriated in this forum time and again.

Oh, from what I have seen, this forum is not the only place that is underwhelmed by the three current front-runners. All have serious warts. And all three will be, IMO, unable to hold the GOP together in the general if they win the nomination.

Perhaps the rules should be clarified here that only certain social right positions can be taken, and only certain candidates can be supported

JimRob's made a rather simple rule. If you are going to support Rudy, don't turn around and use FR to engage in unprincipled attacks on actual conservative candidates. But some folks just aren't getting that message, as simple as it is.

[Registered]

The only reason he isn't getting media attention is because so-called "realists" such as yourself keep running your mouths about Rudy Giuliani.

The reason Duncan Hunter hasn't garnered any media activity is because he lacks charisma and has no governing experience outside of his service in the Congress. Most people look at him (the ones that have actually heard about him) as only a career politician with little to no chance of building a national campaign to become the GOP candidate. He has the credentials yes, but he just doesn't have what it takes. I know that hurts your feelings or something, you can call me names too for speaking the truth. I, like almost EVERYONE that is a conservative, wish there was a candidate ANYWHERE that would enter this race that could win the nomination so we can have firm confidence in having a strong Conservative in the White House. Why do you think so many people, especially Hunter supporters, are looking at Fred Thompson? This election has left most of us here crawling in the desert thirsty for a candidate that can put together a national campaign based on a Conservative platform, and a candidate that has the momentum to win the White House.

[dirtboy]

In my opinion, Mia frustrated you. Because she wouldn't allow herself to sink to your puerile level of 'debate'. In other words, Mia was and is head 'n shoulders above you, Dirtboy. An apt moniker, by the way.

Oh, yes, MiaT is the embodiment of intellect and sophistication. Such as her attack her on Fred:

Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs. This isn't Fred Thompson. Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.

You call this being head and shoulders above ANYONE?Fred left the Senate after one and one-third terms. In other words, he left it PRECISELY within the time frame she specified. Oh, and returned to his old job as well.

Some skillful debate there. He lived up to the guidelines she tried to use to attack him.

[MACVSOG68]

So to MiaT, if someone refuses to vote for pro-abort Rudy, they are responsible for pro-abort Hillary.

Not in the primaries. In the general election, every good conservative and Republican should support the Republican candidate whoever that is. There are several I don't care much for including one of the front runners. But he, like the others in our Party are infinitely better than Hillary. My reasons may be different from MiaT, but I feel that no one should shirk their responsibility next year.

As opposed to the Rudy supporters being responsible for pushing a pro-abort candidate for the nomination in a pro-life party. It's a complete cop-out on their part, so they try to blame those who are aghast at what they are trying to do for being unwilling to be complicit in such an action.

Well, MiaT is hardly the only one supportive of Rudy or the other two who are unacceptable here. In fact some 70+ percent of Republicans support one of those three, none of whom will put abortion up as a major campaign issue. As I said earlier, most of us are pro-life to varying degrees, but there are a host of major issues facing this Nation that we need strong leadership for. Most of the social issues are simply not ripe for the campaign next year. Perhaps later or for the congressional races, but definitely not for the presidency.

After all, every day in this country, abortion kills as many Americans as the 9-11 attacks did.

I dare not say what would happen under a Hillary presidency then, as that fact cannot be discussed apparently.

You take care.

[jla]

Bullcrap. I understood just fine what Mia was saying. She was trying to say if pro-lifers don't vote for Rudy, they are responsible for the deaths caused by Hillary.

Then you obviously did not understand what she was trying to convey. Yes, she said this, and I disagreed with her. But, you failed in proving why this makes her any less pro-life than yourself, or I.

The girl thinks logically, sans emotion, most all of the time when politics is the issue at hand. This does not mean that she is without feeling, it just means that she looks at a problem from an entirely differently perspective and angle than most would.

[MACVSOG68]

Thank you.

[jla]

I'm a Reagan-Conservative and I agree 100% with Mia on F. Thompson.
Go ahead and nominate him, and the G.O.P. will lose.

[Registered]

Wasted keystrokes.

[dirtboy]

In the general election, every good conservative and Republican should support the Republican candidate whoever that is.

Once again, you miss the point.

If the Rudy boosters succeed in getting pro-abort Rudy the nomination, they will only have themselves to blame if pro-lifers stay home. Pro-life pubbies will be faced with two pro-abort candidates. And abortion kills as many Americans every day as who died in the 9-11 attacks. So in many ways, it is a very critical issue, just as critical as the WOT.

In fact some 70+ percent of Republicans support one of those three, none of whom will put abortion up as a major campaign issue.

That seventy percent will change in a hurry once Fred enters the race.

I dare not say what would happen under a Hillary presidency then, as that fact cannot be discussed apparently.

It can be discussed. JimRob actually has issued a rather simple rule. If you choose to support Rudy, don't turn around and try to use FR as a platform to either tear down core conservative values such as pro-life, or try to tear down conservative candidates.

Mia did both.