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

 

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

& waving hello Mia T (:

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I notice from the 30 plus posts here so far, that you are getting little more than the usual inanities I see regularly aimed at anyone who believes that Hillary is infinitely worse than any Republican candidate.

Perhaps you should re-read the mission statement of the website.

It is adamantly against abortion, and so are most of its members.

The "inanities" we are posting is the God-honest truth. Rudy is pro-abortion, all the cute little graphics that Mia T posts will not change this irrefutable fact.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The same old “usual suspects” who tried to debunk your argument went down on flames

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

You guys pushing for Rudy on a CONSERVATIVE website ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If I owned this site I'd zot all your asses.

[N3WBI3]

My positions aren’t etched in stone. That would be foolish.

Tell that to God. He put his positions into stone. What is good and right today will be good and right tomorrow.

Conditions change.

Typically heard out of a 'progressives' mouth when talking about why we need Homosexual marriage after thousands of years of Marriage being Man and Woman! Typically heard out of a progressives mouth when talking about idiotic Sexual Harassment and Gun Control Laws! Typically heard out of a 'progressives' mouth when talking about hate crimes.

The idea is to win so that the defective and dangerous clintons do not retake the White House, not that any particular R becomes president.

In winning at all cost we become the Clintons.

We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.

So if we could get John Skarry, The Goreacle, or Bubba himself to run as a R, and they had the best chance of beating Hillary you would vote for them?

[Gelato]

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
'08 Candidates: Consideration
ABC News/Washington Post poll

--------Definitely would NOT support--------

  54%    47%    45%     40%     36%    35%

Romney McCain Clinton Giuliani Obama Edwards

--------------------------------------------

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1036a4Election.pdf

Clinton is one of the weakest Democrat candidates to come along in recent memory. Why would we increase her chances of success by nominating an equally-weak candidate like Romney, McCain, or Giuliani?

[investigateworld]

Insane, even the thought of butchering a in situ infant.

And Mia T, I appreciate your work in keeping the FR world updated on Her Nastiness, but I won't vote for a pro-abort just to deny her getting the job of POTUS.

I even go so far as to remind hardcore lefties where the profits from Mena and other "off budget" funds went to.

Sometimes other FReepers will say (to the effect) of "We're gonna get an abortionist, one way or the other, so go with the one who will be easiest on your wallet".

Wrong

[Mia T]

If we don’t win, we will HAVE the clintons.

[N3WBI3]

So your choice is, Win By becoming the clintons or lose to the cintons. Sorry I avoid lose lose situations Expect me to back someone who would not say “most of my positions line up with hers (Hillary)”.

[Mia T]

Thanks for the expression of appreciation. :)

I don’t want to see any of our children—the living, the unborn, the not yet even imagined— ‘butchered’. But surely you understand that one will ‘butcher’ them more efficiently than hillary clinton.

To be clear, to avoid voting for Rudy, (who will appoint strict constructionist judges and prosecute the war with all he has-what more can a president functionally do?), you will, in fact, be placing your de facto vote for hillary clinton, inept, corrupt and seditious, who WILL SURELY NOT ONLY APPOINT PRO-ABORTION JUDGES, SHE WILL MAKE SURE ABORTION IS MORE READILY AVAILABLE THAN IT IS NOW. And that doesn’t even begin to explore all the other ways she will put our children’s lives in peril.

If this isn’t immoral, irrational and self-destructive, I don’t know what is.

[MHGinTN]

Their positions are very similar, their motives may be very different however.

[Mia T]

Isn’t that remark you all have been attributing to Rudy supposed to have been referencing MR. clinton?

Nothing reflects a president’s philosophy more than the justices he will appoint. Contrast Rudy Giuliani’s statements about Roberts and Alito with hillary clinton’s. (see above.) Nothing more need be said.

Hatred of Giuliani and years of looking at the issue of ‘life’ through the narrow lens of abortion can and has warped reality for some here.

Be careful. You can easily wind up with your worst nightmare.

[Mia T]

Should read: But surely you understand that no one will ‘butcher’ them more efficiently than hillary clinton.

[Mia T]

Another point: You really have only 2 choices in this de facto 2-party system of ours, R or D. If you vote 3rd party (or sit it out), you will be helping to elect the D.

[investigateworld]

If this isn’t immoral, irrational and self-destructive, I don’t know what is. Moi?

Sorry m'am, but Rudy's track record as to appointing judges etc, shows a 85%+/- in favor of "D" party members.

Then we add in his 'open borders' and anti Second Amendment attitudes ....

I can over look his draft dodging, hell we were all scared kids in those days, some found their manhood, other choose to act manly via chasing ladies (Little shot at Newt there too).

If this is the best the Republicans can do, then we (IMHO) deserve to lose.

Cold blooded surely, but if the Party has moved that far left, then I'm gone.

[Mia T]

Excellent. bump.

[N3WBI3]

Funny there were a ton of names on the 2004 Ballot

[Mia T]

Illusions. Mirages.

[MACVSOG68]

Perhaps you should re-read the mission statement of the website.

Oh, I don't need to re-read it. I have seen it posted here a hundred times by all those who fear reasoned debate and simply want all but the social right to disappear, much like what happens on DU.

It is adamantly against abortion, and so are most of its members.

I don't think I or anyone else on the side of reason has said otherwise.

The "inanities" we are posting is the God-honest truth. Rudy is pro-abortion, all the cute little graphics that Mia T posts will not change this irrefutable fact.

Oh, I know. My statements as well as those of the author are not for you. They are for the hundreds and thousands of lurkers who are afraid to challenge the far right and its agenda of political suicide.

Nor did I mention Rudy. I simply posited that any of the Republican candidates would be infinitely better for this Nation than would Hillary...and explained why.

For what it's worth, few Americans believe that any of the myriad of abortion related issues comes close to the real challenges facing the Country. It's unfortunate that those here who continually claim to be conservatives don't start acting conservative.

Insults and threats of banning are hardly conservative tactics.

[Gop1040]

“If I owned this site I’d zot all your asses.”

You really have a knack for words. Conservatives come in may different stripes. Social conservatives, economic conservatives, and a combination of both. I happen to be of the third kind. You don’t define me, I define myself on how I vote. I've voted for the Republican candidate in every single election. I'll support the Republican nominee no matter who it is. That's more than you can say. You few issues guys seem to think that it’s your way or no way. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

[IOWAfan]

Sorry m’am, but Rudy’s track record as to appointing judges etc, shows a 85%+/- in favor of “D” party members.

Then we add in his ‘open borders’ and anti Second Amendment attitudes ....

________________

wait wait wait... Rudy’s track record on judges was in NYC where he had to choose from a list, provided by a democratic group - unfair to judge on that.

I was just in Des Moines where he said he was for a wall between Mexico and the US - how is that open borders.

2nd amendment - again IMO unfair to say he’s a gun grabber because of what he did in NYC. He has said he knows there needs to be different guidelines in “montana verus nyc” for example.

I understand you guys hate him but I don’t think you’re noting is positions clearly.

Fiscal conservative, tough on GWoT and I believe he will make good judge choices - good enough for me.