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]

Claiming that other posters are serial liars incapable of telling the truth is exactly the sort of incivility that will destroy this country. How can anybody have a civil conversation on the issues if the two sides can’t stop from calling each others liars and worse?

[CharlesWayneCT]

It is true that some posters get away with things other posters do not. We never let liberals get away with anything. And for now, it appears that Rudy supporters need to make sure they keep to the facts.

I haven’t seen any booted except those who made outrageous claims about conservatives. writeblock, Mia T, and FairOpinion are gone. Are there any others? The biggest pro-rudy people still seem to be here, and posting pro-rudy stuff and attacking other candidates, so it’s not a general purge.

The unique thing about those booted is that, in the threads where they were booted, they made claims that were so bad they had to be retracted by the poster.

[nutmeg]

Mia T has been banned from FR? Why???

[Peach]

Banned and called an abortionist troll. And I have no idea why she was banned since she’s clearly not an abortion supporter or a troll.

[nutmeg]

Banned and called an abortionist troll. And I have no idea why she was banned since she’s clearly not an abortion supporter or a troll.

Whaaa? That makes no sense! When did this happen?

[Peach]

Last night.

[rdb3]

It’s quite the little echo chamber that is being created here, primarily by a group of people who thought that Alan Keyes should be our nominee in 2000.

You could be right...

[Politicalmom]

VERY arrogant....but funny as all get out. :)

[Al Simmons]

"airborne wrote: And more importantly, why have the Mods seen fit to actually suspend or ban many Rudy supporters? They clearly have legitimate reasons."

Yeah, they do. Its called the "ideological purity test."

Is that conservative? Or does it smack of fascism?

99% of the below-the-belt vitriol in these threads has been directed by a self-appointed "goon squad" at anyone expressing support for Giuliani in any way shape or form. I could go on and list them, but check the threads, the same 4-5 names pop up and they know who they are.

They have been let loose like rabid dogs (ie the rules of FRetiquette that apply to everyone else magically disappear when they start their baying), and now it seems, people who dare to oppose them are getting banned.

Pathetic.

Its pretty clear why the FR visit stats are in a free-fall. Some folks around here want to stifle all free debate. Or perhaps JimRob is turning this into a one-issue site (didn't MiaT's banishment have to do something with the abortion issue?)

One-issue politics, yeah that's the way to win elections....NOT.

I don't think that there are many pro-aborts around here, and I don't think MiaT was one of them, but apparently it is now verbotten to make the logical argument that doing anything that lets the 'Rat candidate win will result in more abortions than if we support whoever the GOP nominates.

Well, the "goon squad" can enjoy their little day in the sun, oblivious to the fact that these types of debates on FR will have ZERO effect on either the primaries or the general election.

We are well on the way to self-marginalization (or is it self-immolation?) and frankly I am pretty disgusted by it.

So I am taking a little self-imposed break from posting around here. I am quite saddened at the sight of FR eating its own ever since last November (because some folks refuse to learn the lesson of that election and are hell-bent on multiplying it in 2008).

It really is pathetic. Politics can go to hell. I have better things to do with my spare time.

[pollyannaish]

I’m sorry you’re gone Mia. You are doing exactly what you set out to do...appeal to GenX and younger—especially those who might not take time to look behind the Hillary mask and take another look at conservatism .

May God bless and keep you.

[dirtboy]

Since the ‘thon has gone relatively well, although I’ve been told it’s going slower than previous fund raisers, I do believe it’s likely that anyone supporting Rudy too vocally will be banned.

You lie like a rug.

Like you always do.

You both push Rudy and denigrate conservatives.

And you're still posting here.

[dirtboy]

I have better things to do with my spare time.

Spare us.

[jla]

You are misrepresenting what Mia T said. What she said is this:

1- Mia T said Thompson has no EXECUTIVE experience, not no experience. (playing president onstage doesn't count.)

2- Mia T said Fred is part of DC power structure because in addition to serving as Sen. for 8 yrs. he was a WASHINGTON LOBBYIST FOR 18 YRS.

3- Mia T didn't CLAIM he was running to take conservatives from Rudy, she said that it was A PLAUSIBLE THEORY AND THAT THE RECENT POLL RESULTS SUPPORT THAT EFFECT.

4- Mia t didn't bring up Thompson on this thread. kevkrom did. kevkrom suggested Thompson was an example of a citizen politician. Mia T's answer refuted kevkrom's erroneous claim.

kevkrom pinged per FR's posting rules.

[ellery]

Fine. Vote for whomsoever you want. If Hillary can provide that freedom you seek, go for it. The purpose of the primaries is for you to support the Republican candidate you feel best meets your standards. I'm not defending nor denigrating any of the Republican candidates. I am only concerned about the general election and keeping Hillary out of office.

From what I can tell from your absolutely baseless implication that I support Hillary (???), is that I am every bit as concerned as you are about the general election and keeping the 'toons out of office. What I have said repeatedly is that if you nominate Giuliani, the 'toons will almost certainly win!

Set aside transient polls for the moment, and let's look at fundamentals:

1. Large numbers of people from two significant GOP constituencies (social conservatives and libertarian conservatives) have told you pont-blank that they cannot vote for him in the general. However angry that may make you, and however much you may rail about it, it is a fact. It is a near-certainty that if Giuliani gets the nomination, a third party candidate will emerge and will siphon off GOP votes.

2. The electorate is very closely divided, and has been for years. From where is Giuliani going to get the votes to make up for the significant numbers of GOP voters who can't support him, plus some more to put him over the top?

3. You may choose to disregard these two facts and gamble on Giuliani (because maybe you believe that people aren't deadly serious when they tell you they can't support him in the general; or maybe because you're somehow counting on a lot of dems to support a pro-war candidate, even though most dems are champing at the bit to win back the presidency for a dem). If you do that, though, at the very least take some personal responsibility for your own poor decision.

Because this business I hear now about how YOU'RE bound and determined to nominate a candidate that I am convinced cannot win, and if MY prediction turns out to be correct somehow it's MY fault that YOU nominated him? It's empty, absurd and comes off as pretty cowardly, to boot.

[scratcher]

Ditto!

Take care Mia. I will miss your excellent posts.

[MACVSOG68]

From what I can tell from your absolutely baseless implication that I support Hillary (???), is that I am every bit as concerned as you are about the general election and keeping the 'toons out of office.

I responded to your statement that you simply will not vote for Rudy. So as far as I can see, if he wins the nomination, that leaves only one other.

1. Large numbers of people from two significant GOP constituencies (social conservatives and libertarian conservatives) have told you pont-blank that they cannot vote for him in the general. However angry that may make you, and however much you may rail about it, it is a fact. It is a near-certainty that if Giuliani gets the nomination, a third party candidate will emerge and will siphon off GOP votes.

You also need to understand something. What you see here on FR does not represent either so called social conservatives nor Libertarians in general. Polls of both belie that statement. Most even from the RR said they could vote for any of the current top three. So in November, given what is at stake, almost all will be there to vote Republican. Talk is cheap!

2. The electorate is very closely divided, and has been for years. From where is Giuliani going to get the votes to make up for the significant numbers of GOP voters who can't support him, plus some more to put him over the top?

I would guess if Rudy is the nominee, not only will most of the GOP vote for him, since most are conservatives and understand the distinction between him and Hillary, but also from the conservative and moderate Democrats and the independents, all of whom believe that the security of our Nation is important and the left offers nothing.

Because this business I hear now about how YOU'RE bound and determined to nominate a candidate that I am convinced cannot win, and if MY prediction turns out to be correct somehow it's MY fault that YOU nominated him? It's empty, absurd and comes off as pretty cowardly, to boot.

I generally try and post in a respectful manner, but that last statement of yours reeked of absurdity. First, I have never stated any support for Rudy or any other candidate. I have said that there are currently three candidates in the race who can win against Hillary for the GOP, and they happen to be the top three currently. And second, I have said that if anyone refuses to support the Republican candidate no matter who he is, that person is no conservative, as conservatives by their very nature, understand the big picture. So keep you stupid and inane "coward" remarks to yourself or share them with your extremist friends, not me.

You take care.

[ellery]

I responded to your statement that you simply will not vote for Rudy. So as far as I can see, if he wins the nomination, that leaves only one other.

Nope, there will undoubtedly be a third party candidate in the race that will allow me to register my opinion of the Giuliani and Clinton candidacies.

You also need to understand something. What you see here on FR does not represent either so called social conservatives nor Libertarians in general. Polls of both belie that statement. Most even from the RR said they could vote for any of the current top three. So in November, given what is at stake, almost all will be there to vote Republican. Talk is cheap!

If the beliefs here at FR don't have any relation to the opionions of the general electorate, then what's the problem? If you're correct, then Giuliani doesn't need our votes, and all this vitriol for those who oppose him is unnecessary. You may be right -- no one has a crystal ball. However, I have noticed that the major media has been holding its fire about some of Giuliani's stranger proposals -- it's interesting to me that we haven't seen headlines such as "Republican Frontrunner Supported DNA Collection from all Newborns," splashed from coast to coast, for example. I strongly believe that they're holding their fire, and will absolutely savage him post-nomination. At that point the polls will change, but it will be too late.

I would guess if Rudy is the nominee, not only will most of the GOP vote for him, since most are conservatives and understand the distinction between him and Hillary, but also from the conservative and moderate Democrats and the independents, all of whom believe that the security of our Nation is important and the left offers nothing.

Rudy's record on national security is a decidedly mixed bag.

I generally try and post in a respectful manner, but that last statement of yours reeked of absurdity. First, I have never stated any support for Rudy or any other candidate. I have said that there are currently three candidates in the race who can win against Hillary for the GOP, and they happen to be the top three currently. And second, I have said that if anyone refuses to support the Republican candidate no matter who he is, that person is no conservative, as conservatives by their very nature, understand the big picture. So keep you stupid and inane "coward" remarks to yourself or share them with your extremist friends, not me.

You telling me that I am a Hillary supporter was the opposite of respectful. I have worked hard not to indulge in flamewars over this issue, but that was insulting to the extreme. I have also avoided discussion of the "conservative" label, since there's no commonly accepted definition, and I'm not going to start with that now -- if you don't think I'm a conservative, that's up to you. Now you call me an extremist for not being able to vote for a candidate who actively opposes 9 of the 10 items in the Bill of Rights and isn't that hot on national security, either.

Sorry, but you're the one here who is name-calling, and I don't appreciate it. I have problems with Giuliani, but I have no problems with those who support him...unless they abdicate their responsibility for their choices by pre-emptively blaming me for their own choices and his eventual loss. Everyone's going to do what they believe is in the best interest of the party and country, even if we disagree what that is. You take care as well.

[MACVSOG68]

You telling me that I am a Hillary supporter was the opposite of respectful.

Oh please! Stop whining. I didn't call you a Hillary supporter. When you said that you would never vote for Rudy, I said that Hillary was your other choice and if she pleases you, go for it. That's a far cry from what you charged.

If the beliefs here at FR don't have any relation to the opionions of the general electorate, then what's the problem?

Because of the thousands of lurkers out there, it is important for the few of us left who represent conservatism to let them know that this forum no longer represents either reasoned debate (a conservative foundation) nor what the Republican Party offers the Nation.

I have worked hard not to indulge in flamewars over this issue, but that was insulting to the extreme.

Then quote me correctly and don't charge me with cowardice and we can avoid such wars.

I have also avoided discussion of the "conservative" label, since there's no commonly accepted definition,

Now if only those voices here representing the extreme right would use that wisdom this forum might over time return to greatness.

Now you call me an extremist for not being able to vote for a candidate who actively opposes 9 of the 10 items in the Bill of Rights and isn't that hot on national security, either.

I guess it's that very rhetoric that pins the extremist label on you. I have no particular candidate as of yet, but such a charge is pathetic. An extremist is one whose value system permits such outrageous statements as that in pursuit of the destruction of his own Party if he cannot get his particular candidate nominated.

Everyone's going to do what they believe is in the best interest of the party and country, even if we disagree what that is.

And no true conservative would ever give up two USSC appointments when only one is needed for a conservative majority regardless of the candidate's particular social values.

[fullchroma]

Phooey! Might this be a temporary suspension rather than a permanent ban?

[airborne]

It really is pathetic. Politics can go to hell. I have better things to do with my spare time.

And yet here you are.