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

 

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, I just meant it wouldn’t be fun arguing with her because she isn’t here so if I won it would be by default, and I’d rather have her crawl away to the next thread like most other rudy supporters do.

OK, that was a bit arrogant. Sorry.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If a candidate ain't very conservative, they and their boosters are gonna have tough sledding here

And by tough sledding, it means that there will be a lot more posters who will be arguing against them than normal, and the arguments might get more heated because it will feel like an infiltration. When I post at a liberal site, I expect 20 people to jump down my throat, and that's what pro-rudy people should expect here.

[wagglebee]

I will remember that Bush, who I certainly trusted on judges, nominated a woman who, while she might have well been OK, didn’t even have constututional knowledge sufficient to answer a written questionare.

I will always remember GHWB (who I trusted more than I will ever trust Rudy) saying, "Read my lips, no new taxes." And then breaking the promise the first chance he got.

I will never again believe a candidate who promises something that is totally inconsistent with statements they have made in the past (remember it was GHWB who had once ridiculed Reagan's economic campaign platform as "voodoo economics").

[dirtboy]

I will always remember GHWB (who I trusted more than I will ever trust Rudy) saying, "Read my lips, no new taxes." And then breaking the promise the first chance he got.

I also recall GWB promising to deliver "compassionate conservatism."

And then, unfortunately, keeping that promise. With a friggin' vengence.

So you have to look at where they depart from their past, but also where they are being all-too consistent with their past.

[CharlesWayneCT]

However, I question their station to challenge the pro-life views of others

I completely agree with you on that point -- it seems quite hypocritical to attack others for being pro-abortion when your candidate is more, or for attacking Thompson for being a "career politician" when your own candidate has the same record of multiple assignments in government AND lobbying.

(and their own commitment to being pro-life when they say they are)

I feel uncomfortable challenging others "commitment to being pro-life". I have no problem telling them they are failing their own cause by their actions, but I won't question their motives or commitment, only their ignorance and illogic. I'm not even saying that it is wrong to question their commitment or not -- I'm saying that arguing that an opponent lacks commitment doesn't seem like it will persuade that person, or anybody else reading, to my position, and it likely will garner sympathy for my opponent.

as a debate tactic, I find staying away from such questioning helps keep people listening to what I have to say. Strategy, yes, but in my case it's also just the way I am. I try to give everybody wide lattitude to have their own opinion of their motives, so long as I can still attack them for acting in opposition to their own principles.

Kind of like an extension of "love the sinner, hate the sin". Plus I kind of like the threads where we trash the policies of Rudy and show the vapidness of the supporters arguments much better than threads that turn into shouting matches and personal insults. I guess that's just my opinion.

[dirtboy]

I guess that's just my opinion.

Well, you do tend to be fairly civil.

But no one's perfect :^)

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think it is clear that, on a conservative site, you will have more lattitude to express as fact things that are less than factually accurate about liberals, because generally there won’t be liberals here to point out the errors and most people will be happy to hear bad things about the liberal.

When you make false statements about a conservative, you are much more likely to get yelled at, and if you do it multiple times you are more likely to get banned.

Frankly, I like it better when we tell the truth and only the truth about EVERY candidate, including liberals. I also don’t like the name-calling of liberal candidates. But that’s just me.

I certainly understand that nobody is going to leap to the defense of Hillary if someone like Mia treats Hillary like she would be worse than chosing the anti-christ for President, even though I don’t agree with that sentiment. But to think you can say whatever you like, regardless of the truth, about our conservative candidates for President, and not suffer consequences, is naive.

BTW, I think we are pretty good at policing false statements even about Rudy. And to the degree that we are not, I should think that such “smart” rudy supporters as Mia would be the FIRST to realise the harm in such attacks, and not turn around and engage in them about others. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if some posters don’t get punished for wrong, it doesn’t mean it is wrong to punish other posters for doing wrong.

If I speed, I deserve a ticket even if a hundred other people were speeding at the same time and didn’t get a ticket. “Everybody’s doing it” isn’t a good excuse.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t have a link to that, but it sounds like something an anti-rudy person might say about a pro-rudy supporter. I’m not saying they did, I’m just saying it is in the same vein as some of the statements I’ve read.

What amazed me about this thread was how little the supposed topic of this thread was discussed. The author of a VANITY titled “what does it mean to be pro-life” posted a comment that attacked another conservative politician for being an “establishment candidate”, thus hijacking her own thread.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>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.

He's fulla crap, db. I went around and around with him earlier this week for better then 24 hours. His politics are more moderate-centrist, maybe even liberal, with a dose of libertarianism thrown in. His politics aren't conservative. Don't waste your time with him. He'll hang himself soon enough.

[presently no screen name]

Yes, one who truly walked the talk with LOTS of hard work. Not one who threw out sarcasm, ill will or belittled anyone. She is one who truly stands on principle. Her gracious manner alone should be an education to some.

[presently no screen name]

I believe that God will punish America severely

Ya think? Maybe He's thinking - I gave ONE COMMAND - to go tell the Good News. If that was done our social ills wouldn't be so great. How come America has gone down morally in the past forty years? Where was the fear of God then? You think for one moment He doesn't know that 'my people' wants government to do what I told THEM to do. We all might be surprised just WHO God puts in office and then, maybe, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" might be understood better.

[FreeReign]

Mia T should not have gotten a ban for this. Everyone here has an opinion and facts to back it up. If not, they get nailed for it. Mia T had facts, she just differed from others here. Mia T should not be silenced for that.

The owner of this site can ban who he chooses.

That said, Mia T has been one of the better anti-Clinton posters here for many years.

This is good news for the Clintons.

[FreeReign]

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'm pro life and pro Fred.

Mia did nothing of the sort.

[AZLiberty]

Rush must have been reading FreeRepublic when he estimated that Hillary has an 80% chance of being the next President.

If he reads this thread, I'm sure he'll be revising that number -- upwards.

[ellery]

To the contrary, all of the top three candidates, not just Rudy, understand that conservatives want a safe Nation first and foremost.

Singapore is a safe nation(-state). First and foremost, I want a FREE nation.

This means one that is founded on the principles of Constitutionally limited government, which for me rules out Giuliani.

Without our Constitution, I see nothing to save. I'll trot out the Patrick Henry quote if I must. :)

Second, I want a secure nation. It appears that all of the GOP candidates have credentials in that area to one degree or another (and I would not rank Giuliani at the top).

[ellery]

Mia, I’m sorry to hear your account is suspended; I hope you’ll return. I like a good debate, but I also respect JimRob’s right to decide what he wants on FR.

If you don’t return, best of luck to you.

[Elyse]

I don’t know why everyone is acting so surprised that Mia T got suspended or banned. As soon as I saw the title before I even read her comments section, I knew she was headed for trouble. JimRob has been very clear on his position that he is against promoting a liberal pro-abortion candidate on his website. I don’t know how he could be any clearer.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Rudy's only hope is that the conservative vote splits.

The vote is already split.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The poster doesn't have a leg to stand on and her argument is flat-out wrong.

Where is it "flat-out wrong"?

[Al Simmons]

"Rush must have been reading FreeRepublic when he estimated that Hillary has an 80% chance of being the next President. If he reads this thread, I'm sure he'll be revising that number -- upwards."

1976 - REDUX