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

 

[dirtboy]

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.

Oh, that's a good one.

Rudy couldn't even outpoll Hillary in the 2000 NY Senate race when he was mayor and she was a carpetbagger.

Rudy can't even keep on his own talking points regarding his attempts to present himself as pro-life. Just wait until he trips over gun control.

Fred, on the meantime, is from the center of the party, has pro-life and pro-gun credentials that will attract Reagan Dems, and has respect from many Dems from his work as minority counsel during Watergate.

And Rudy makes Fred look better every time Rudy opens his mouth and trips over his tongue.

[jla]

Maybe not, you never know. Besides, another reading the exchange may benefit from it.

[dirtboy]

But, you failed in proving why this makes her any less pro-life than yourself, or I.

The simple fact that she is willing to push a guy with a 100 percent NARAL rating, a guy who thinks both abortion and public funding of such are a Constitutional right, and who would pay for his own granddaughter to get an abortion, seriously calls into question just how pro-life she is.

[MACVSOG68]

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

So, comeback and say it to her. Fred's not even a declared candidate. Why the hands off? Surely you can't believe that every anti-Rudy statement, or anti-Romney statement is completely true and accurate, can you? I simply don't understand why Fred is suddenly off limits to the same treatment regularly visited on the top 3.

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.

Sure, I understand that's your opinion, and the opinion of a lot of very vocal Freepers here. But without Fred T in the race, 70+ percent of Republicans want one of those 3. There's no one else who could possibly bring together the Party, and at the same time bring into the Party for the election the conservative Democrats and independents needed for a victory.

In fact, a recent survey of the RR shows a large number of them would actually vote for Rudy if he is the nominee. Surely you don't see another other than Fred, whom we know precious little about, who could do that, do you? If so, please name names!

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.

Personally, I don't like attacks on any Republican. But when it comes time for me to actually pick one, I will certainly not be quiet about it, nor afraid to discuss their faults. This forum would be a lot more civil if the same rules applied to all. But do those rules include not referring to Rudy supporters as treasonous cretins? Apparently not.

[jla]

She was not supporting Giuliani because he was pro-abort. She was supporting him because in her opinion he is the candidate that could win the nomination and defeat HRC.
I disagree with her notion but understood her reasoning.

Mia IS pro-life, I know this for a fact. So cease with maligning her.
Argument is good within our ranks. Character assassination is not.

[dirtboy]

She was not supporting Giuliani because he was pro-abort

You miss the point. If you are willing to overlook Rudy's 100 percent NARAL rating, then pro-life just ain't that big an issue for you.

And Fred is a highly viable candidate with 0 NARAL rating. She is too busy trying to trash Fred to think for a moment who and what she is trashing.

So cease with maligning her.

I'll malign her all I want. Her attempts to blame post-election abortion deaths on pro-lifers who wouldn't vote for pro-abort Rudy was truly despicable. So were her attacks on Fred that were absurd and unprincipled.

[dirtboy]

So, comeback and say it to her. Fred's not even a declared candidate. Why the hands off?

Uh, gee. Maybe this is a conservative website and JimRob and most freepers don't want it used as a springboard for attacks on conservative candidates by supporters of the most liberal pubbie ever to seek the GOP nomination?

This forum would be a lot more civil if the same rules applied to all. But do those rules include not referring to Rudy supporters as treasonous cretins?

First of all, the Rudy boosters have no problem dishing it out.

And second, FR historically has tended to bash liberals. So if you don't want to get bashed on a conservative website, try supporting a conservative.

[jla]

I'm not overlooking anything. I have stated that I will not vote for Giuliani.
Can you not see why your arguments fall by the wayside so often?

[dirtboy]

I'm not overlooking anything. I have stated that I will not vote for Giuliani.

My use of "you" in this case was generic. Sorry that escaped you (in this case, I mean "you" specifically.)

[jla]

I'll malign her all I want...

I've no doubt that you won't stop with her.

[johnny7]

It’s too bad she had to go... but I could see a month ago that she had a fatal dose of Rudyitis. I never cared that much for her design... but when you could draw her out from behind all that artwork... she had a first-rate mind.

[MACVSOG68]

If the Rudy boosters succeed in getting pro-abort Rudy the nomination, they will only have themselves to blame if pro-lifers stay home.

Well, as I said earlier, most of us are pro-life to varying degrees. I feel confident that with what is facing this Nation, few will let the next election go to Hillary if they can cast a vote. There may not be many broken glass Republicans as in 2000, but they'll be there.

So in many ways, it is a very critical issue, just as critical as the WOT.

You will find few who feel that way either in the Party or outside of it. It is simply not going to be the issue you wish it to be. Most will be content with the kind of USSC decisions like we saw this week, and wait for the challenge to Roe. And just as Roberts and Alito were critical to the USSC, so too will be the next 2 or 3 justices chosen by the next president. Few Republicans will give up that kind of opportunity.

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

Of course it will. But Fred is going to have to be as thoroughly vetted as the rest have been. Many of us may well like what he has to say, but support for him will depend on his take on the issues of importance to America, and how he plans to bring back the Reagan Democrats. He can do it, if he passes muster. Still, I am curious as to his motives, but we may soon find out.

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.

And that chilling fact says where we are today...as conservatives, who claim to decry the leftist tactics of shutting up any who don't walk the PC line. I sense this was a far greater loss to Free Republic than it was to MiaT.

[dirtboy]

I've no doubt that you won't stop with her.

If I see Rudy boosters trying to trash conservatives over issues where Rudy is far, far worse, but that doesn't stop them from supporting Rudy, then I will call them on their hypocrisy.

And if I see them trying to redefine conservative values to make Rudy seem conservative where he is not, I will call them on that as well.

And if they trash conservative icons to make Rudy somehow look bigger, I'll rip into them.

Now, if they just want to make their case that Rudy is a liberal but they still luv him, that's their business.

[wagglebee]

Personally, I don't like attacks on any Republican. But when it comes time for me to actually pick one, I will certainly not be quiet about it, nor afraid to discuss their faults. This forum would be a lot more civil if the same rules applied to all. But do those rules include not referring to Rudy supporters as treasonous cretins? Apparently not.

A lot of the Rudy Rooters are fond of talking about Reagan's edict of "not speaking ill of other Republicans." However, they overlook the fact that Ronald Reagan was the only Republican in modern times to challenge an incumbent GOP president for the nomination. He attacked Ford's record as a moderate and came within 117 votes of winning the nomination.

The Rudy Rooters need to get used to the fact that he will be called to task on his record, not just by conservative Republicans but also by the 'Rats if he stays in the race. Posting verifiable FACTS is not smearing, it's a legitimate part of every political campaign in history.

[epow]

A deceptive title for a pro-Rudy vanity thread is not only deceptive, it's counterproductive to your "cause". Nobody likes to be fooled by a misleading title. If you want to promote your candidate on FR do it with honest titles and rational arguments.

We all know that Giuliani was and still is firmly pro-abortion, and has not changed his true position but only tries to disguise it to mislead the millions of pro-life Republican primary voters. Millions of us who are truly serious about our pro-life beliefs will not vote for him in the primary, and a lot of us won't vote for him in the general election either if he is the GOP nominee.

There are several pro-lifeconservative Republicans who are either candidates or soon will be, there is no reason to abandon the conservative pro-life platform and principles of the Republican party just to cater to Rudyites who will settle for anyone with an R after his name because he promises to be a "leader". Personally, I don't want my nation to go where Rudy wants to lead it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If pro-life republicans nominate a pro-life candidate and it causes pro-choice people to stay home and a democrat wins, it’s the pro-lifers fault.

If pro-life republicans stay home because the republican candidate is pro-choice, and a democrat wins, it’s the pro-lifers fault.

The strong conservatives are supposed to give their votes to the moderates, because if they don’t the moderate candidate can’t win. And we are suppose to vote for the moderate, becuase if was vote for a conservative the moderates won’t support the conservative.

It all makes perfect sense to a person who thinks Rudy would be the best choice for a republican for President, I guess.

I’m sorry Mia is gone, because I’d love to have rebutted her points to her face. Now I don’t know if it’s worth it.

[dirtboy]

And just as Roberts and Alito were critical to the USSC, so too will be the next 2 or 3 justices chosen by the next president. Few Republicans will give up that kind of opportunity.

Except that Rudy has redefined strict constructionism to allow a judge to uphold Roe as precedent.

So Rudy offers NOTHING here.

And he supported Clinton's veto of a PBA ban. So he offers NOTHING there.

That's the point. He's worse than a nothing to pro-lifers - he's got a friggin' 100 percent NARAL rating, for cryin' out loud. He'd be poised to undo the gains under Bush.

Of course it will. But Fred is going to have to be as thoroughly vetted as the rest have been.

Oh, Fred will be thoroughly vetted. But Rudy boosters are nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. I really don't give a fig about their critiques of Fred on areas where they've sold out to support Rudy.

And that chilling fact says where we are today...as conservatives, who claim to decry the leftist tactics of shutting up any who don't walk the PC line

Oh, that's rich. So the conservative site FR is now PC in your opinion for rejecting liberal viewpoints and attacks on conservative candidates? Woof. Talk about redefining terms.

[MACVSOG68]

And second, FR historically has tended to bash liberals. So if you don't want to get bashed on a conservative website, try supporting a conservative.

Those who use such insults as treasonous cretins as well as those who support such tactics are anything but conservative. Well you've certainly set forth the position you and the founder want. It leaves nothing more than a couple of hundred ditto threads a day. Some here can dish it out, but certainly can't take it one bit.

You take care.

[dirtboy]

Now I don’t know if it’s worth it.

Amen to that. In the end, it would be little different from debating most liberals. As the saying goes, you cannot use reason to get someone out of a position that they did not use reason to get into.

Trying to blame pro-lifers for rejecting the fact that you are trying pushing a pro-abort candidate as an alternative to another pro-abort candidate is absurd.

[Jet Jaguar]

Well put.