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

 

[areafiftyone]

Somehow they do not understand that Americans shun the extremes of both parties, and sincerely want a leader who will work with both parties to bring about the legislative initiatives promised by the 109th Congress, but that achieved little more than corruption and sleaze. The party that fails to appeal to the independents and moderates of both sides will lose the next election.

BINGO!!! You hit the nail on the head. If 2006 didn't convince them then they are going to lose in 2008.

[KATIE-O]

“.... If she is bad for her liberalism, why is Rudy good for his liberalism?....”

Hillary is a corrupt, lying, power hungry Socialist/Marxist. Rudy Giuliani is a fiscally conservative, tax cutting, law and order LEADER who happens to believe in a woman’s right to choose, even though he loathes abortion, and who is not opposed to equal rights, under the law, for tax paying citizens who happen to be gay. This does not mean GAY MARRIAGE. President George Bush is also for civil unions and, if he were alive today, I can almost guarantee you President Reagan would be too. I had rather have a candidate who can win the election than one who agrees with me 100% on all issues, but cannot win.

[nopardons]

bttt

[Gop1040]

That you for the great post. You hit the nail on head squarely. The same old “usual suspects” who tried to debunk your argument went down on flames. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi....”winning (against the Clintons) isn’t everything, it’s the only thing....”
Thank you again.

[Ciexyz]

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

[MHGinTN]

Congratulations, you missed my point almost entirely. The primaries are where we get the people out to vote for what our party stands for. If you people want to change what our party stands for, get ‘er done, but your plea to nominate someone who doesn’t agree with the planks is as absurd as Rudy’s pandering is. You, apparently, are incapable of recognizing the pandering of a liberal in conservative skins, not too covered in those skins, but trying to cover his liberalism. Congratulations on serving the liberal agenda. When I read crap like you posted, I suspect you claim to be a Rudyfile but are in fact a Rodham-rodent agitprop. Hatellary’s goons recognized years ago that Rudy would be easily defeated ... remember the senate run she made and got elected by the liberals of New York? Yeah, you remember, and now you’ll no doubt try to spin that confrontation deferred.

[Gracey]

How can Rudy be flawed when most Republicans support him by a HUGE majority over the second popular candidate. Your logic is FLAWED.

The reason, IMO, that Ronald Reagan was elected twice has more to do with his appeal. He made me and people believe in themselves, in the future of America, he made us feel positive about the future of our country. He was a positive man. Americans love that charisma about their president. It had little to do with pro life, anti gay, social issues. Federal government should keep their noses out of most of these issues, IMO. They belong at the STATE level.

IMO, Mia is one of the brightest, smartest, astute people on this forum. Her goal, as is mine.... is to DEFEAT the MARXIST/Socialist/Hitler/ candidate Hillary Clinton....or Obama/Osama/Hussein. There is no other candidate at this moment that shows an ability to win. If and when that candidate shows up, I’ll be supporting that R candidate. To do anything else is plain IDIOTIC and Suicidal politically speaking.

Go MIA..... we love you and what you’ve done for FR.

[Gracey]

I’m glad to see there are many GREAT freepers who have a sane perception this election year. Thanks for all you’ve done.

[dirtboy]

How can Rudy be flawed when most Republicans support him by a HUGE majority over the second popular candidate. Your logic is FLAWED.

Your premises are flawed. It's still a long ways to the primaries, and Rudy's support is slipping. And it will continue to slip as Rudy commits gaffe after gaffe.

Rudy's only hope is that the conservative vote splits. However, that is no way to win the general election. He will not hold the party.

[Gracey]

I agree with you that Rudy is not perfect, but neither is Fred Thompson, who I like a lot. My favorite is Duncan Hunter, an honest, decent man .... with views that I totally agree. However, he’s a 1@ candidate with little appeal. We need someone THIS ELECTION that has the ability to win the moderates, independents, to BEAT THE MARXIST. Do you understand what life will be like in American with Hitlary in there for 8 YEARS. We will never be able to survive an UNAmerican president. She wants to make this Europe Socialism.

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

[dirtboy]

I agree with you that Rudy is not perfect, but neither is Fred Thompson, who I like a lot

Fred is a lot more conservative than Rudy. He's from the center of the party, and that is a position where he can hold the party together.

We can survive Giuliani, we cannot survive HILLARY.

I'm not so sure we can survive either, given Rudy's authoritarian tendencies and his willingness to disregard the law when it suits him.

[trisham]

This is a joke question, right?

[KATIE-O]

“....Congratulations on serving the liberal agenda. When I read crap like you posted, I suspect you claim to be a Rudyfile but are in fact a Rodham-rodent agitprop....”

Congratulations on your making my Ignore List with a few other namecallers who cannot debate the issues but resort to cheap shots.

[Eric Blair 2084]

To the FReepers in attendance and the millions watching around the world on Pay Per View…Ladies and Gentleman...

LLLLLLLets Get Ready to RRRumblllllllle!!!!

“LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!"® is a registered Trademark of Michael Buffer, all rights reserved.

1,500,000,000 rounds of posts, arguments, insults, cheesy graphics, name calling, and ad hominem personal attacks that pass as debate for the FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

"Introducing first, to my right, fighting out of the red corner, wearing their Sunday best with a gold crucifix...weighing in at 810 and 1/4 pounds...the social conservatives, the religious right, the champions of family values...from the Southern States...The Evangelicals!" (wild applause)

"And in the blue corner, wearing an off the rack suit, Goldwater ’64 lapel pin and a belt 2 sizes too small...weighing in at 141 pounds soaking wet...the fiscal conservatives, the last champions of limited government...from the Western States...The Libertarians!" (wild applause)

Chapter 1: Live From the Reagan Building

[Eric Blair 2084]

You obviously took a long time to post this, and it needs to be aired. Thank you.

[B Knotts]

Uh...no.

The dispute is not between “evangelicals” and “libertarians.”

The people supporting Giuliani are not libertarians. Giuliani is pretty much the polar opposite of a liberatarian.

[Jim Noble]

Why is it you cannot see how similar Rudy is to the Rodham-rodent?

Because he isn't.

Do you seriously believe that if HRC had followed David Dinkens as mayor of NY in 1993, that all of the crime and pathology that characterized NY in the 70s and 80s would not have gotten worse, instead of better?

Does HRC believe criminals are at fault for their crimes, and should be punished? Does HRC believe welfare recipients do not have a right to the money and should be made to work? Does HRC believe blasphemy should not be paid for with public money? Does HRC believe pornography and prostitution laws should be vigorously enforced, and that families and children should be protected from both?

Would HRC have ordered Arafat to be confined to his hotel in NYC, or would she have welcomed Yassir and Suha to Gracie Mansion? Would HRC have told the Saudi price to shove ten million dollares up his toches, or would she have kissed him there?

You people who think Rudy and Hillary are the same are delusional.

[Wolverine]

bump

[Eric Blair 2084]

First of all, let me just say that the idea that human beings are even asking for the right to kill their own children is baffling.

Why are we even having this debate? Not even Rats (and I mean real rats not Democrats) would do this to their own unborn offspring.

I was reading the liberal NE newspapers today talking about the SCOTUS decision and some of them saw fit to place pictures of what looked like Bible thumpers hunched over in prayer on the sidewalk for dramatic effect.(tell me why, or I will) I don’t care if you believe in Jesus, Muhammed, Moses, Vishnu, Buddha, Mark Messier or any other God or deity.

The idea of sticking a sharp object into a human beings head to deliberately kill them is reprehensible and inhuman. You don’t need to be born again (and I don’t need to be since my mother got it right the first time) to know that. It’s immoral, inhumane and disgusting.

What the hell was I talking about? I forgot the whole topic of the thread? Oh yeah, Rudy. I do have a problem with somebody who ever at any time approved of Gubmint sanctioning of killing viable human beings.

I’m going to go watch the South Park episode I TiVo’d last night. I’ll be back in 20 minutes to hear everyone.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Like I said in a previous post. Her and Registered have really sunk in credibility.