Tea Party Activists Tell Republicans to Avoid Abortion

LifeNews.com ^ | November 15, 2010 | Steven Ertelt

[julieee]

Tea Party Activists Tell Republicans to Avoid Abortion

Washington, DC -- The fiscally conservative tea party activists were crucial to electing pro-life candidates in the 2010 mid-term elections, but now they are calling on Republicans in Congress to avoid social issues like abortion.

http://LifeNews.com/nat-6849

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[grey_whiskers]

Hell of way to opus out.

Jim --

Given domenad's earlier statements, I guess we can extend them, eh?

If someone really *WANTS* the ZOT, no amount of fair warnings will stop them!

Good shooting Jim -- I've never seen someone call you a redneck like that before.

g_w

[Darkwolf377]

Poor logic on your part. It’s a LOT easier to prevent a mother from killing her born infant, than preventing her from somehow ending a pregnancy. That’s why very country I know of prevents parents from abusing or killing their (born) kids.

So you create laws based not on the morality or ethics of the situation, but by ease of enforcement?

Labelling something as demonstrating "poor logic" is a poor tactic, btw. If you have the facts and logic, you don't need to try to label the other position--simply describe it.

You just described a good law as one that's easy to enforce. By your "logic" we shouldn't have any laws--no effort required at all to enforce them.

The poor logic, sad to say, is your own because your position was that we can't police abortions effectively--THAT is the basis of your dream system. So when someone takes YOUR proposition to the next step, it indeed does reveal the poor logic of the original position.

Ask not for whom the bell of illogic tolls; it tolls for thee.

Again, I’m all for leaving the pro-life plank in the GOP platform, but to really change the USA into a pro-life country will take a change of heart, of opinion, not just 5/4s of the Supreme Court.

Of course it will take a change of heart, etc. According to some polls I've seen on the subject, young people are more pro-life now than ever in my lifetime. Not conclusive by any means, but surely you'd agree an indicator that the war for hearts and minds is being won?

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/01/28/Marist-Poll-56-percent-against-abortion/UPI-79971264662086/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

The headline for the Gallup survey: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

So I guess being in the majority for the first time means we should...stop enforcing that pro-life plank, and just ignore it.

Why?

I support making abortion illegal—just that should not be the highest priority of all, as a fascist government is far more dangerous to all of us. Don’t forget, in Romania abortion was illegal—and it was under a nightmare dictatorship too. Get rid of dictatorial government first, then we can work on ridding America of abortionists.

I guess we should just stop enforcing laws involving murder, theft, drunk driving, illegal immigration--none of which are more important than having a fascist government, right? We should just stop everything until we get rid of Obama in 2012--and then we can talk about abortion.

Except, we won't. And if you're honest, you'll admit that. Because in 2012, the democrats aren't going to be gone. Obama may win re-election, but even if not, there will be democrats in DC, and laws still on the books. Well, gotta get rid of those, too, and folks like you will be saying 'OK, we're making progress, can't divide the coalition NOW.'

And then in the midterms, who knows what'll happen--will it THEN be time, a few million dead later, to stop worrying about the tender sensibilities of social liberals?

P.S. I'm not really sure what kind of point you're trying to make about Romania. Under Ceausecue abortion was criminalized from 1966 until 1989. During those years, in a population in the 20 million area, abortions ranged from a low of 182,000 (1987) to a high of 468,000 (1982), so they were never ended by the government. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make there.

[Darkwolf377]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-romania.html

Data on Romanian abortions.

[Smokin' Joe]

There isn't ANY good reason not to move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and to ban any Federal funding of abortion. That pushes both a fiscal and social agenda.

I agree. It sickens me that even one fungible cent of my tax money might to go to murder a baby in the womb, especially when I have given up any chance for comfortable retirement raising grandchildren and providing for their needs. (All else is 'stuff' and meaningless when I am gone, anyway.)

But I must also question the Conservatism of anyone who places a dollar ahead of an innocent human life.

[Shimmer1]

It’s an absolute wonder and miracle that your brother lived (or my son) back then. My son was born in 87. One of the earliest to ever survive, at that gestational age, at that time. Your brother must’ve been too.

[Reagan69]

Put the ZOT stuff away.

I am totally pro-life. Baptist PK.

I just know we’ll NEVER EVER get legislation to forbid abortion. Those who want to murder their babies, will find a way but for goodness sake, do NOT use my money to pay for it.

I say 6 mo. only because the baby could live on it’s own.
Make it 4 months.

Geeze, pretty soon we will be fighting to keep our senior citizens alive. This administration is a return to Naziism.

[narses]

Ignore the abortuaries, be deaf to the silent screams of thousands of murdered babies a day, pretend that killing babies is not being funded with your tax dollars. But remember, God’s Justice is not ignored. He will prevail.

[Smokin' Joe]

In ancient Rome, a father could murder anyone in his household (wife, kids, slaves) with impunity--as it was HIS house. Christians didn't try to first reverse that ancient pagan law....they worked around it, and eventually humane behavior won out.

Ancient Rome wasn't founded on anything close to Judeo-Christian principles, the 'conversion' of Rome was the first. We, as a nation, started with the concept that certain unalienable rights exist, including Life. With that as a founding principle, we have strayed from our original concept. It isn't a question of reversing beliefs (including religious beliefs) which already existed, it is a question of sticking to our founding principles.

The TEA party movement is a movement which seeks to return to those founding principles, the unalienable nature of the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and to get government's sticky and overreaching fingers out of the aspects of our lives it was never intended to meddle in, much less dominate.

The idea that government can decree that it is okay to murder someone who is 'too young to count' leads, logically, to murdering those who are 'too old to count', or 'too infirm', or 'not mentally competent enough', or 'too brown', or 'too white', or 'too big' or 'too small'--it literally knows no bounds but the caprice of those who state the criteria.

This sort of power, whether it be over life or over money, property, or servitude, flies in the face of the concept of a Republic in which government power is limited and derived from the consent of the governed.

There is no way to limit the power of government in the one area (material things) without limiting the power of government in all things, else prosperity will be meaningless when 'the government' decides to take your life and all else you posess.

There is no doubt in my mind the founders and anyone who gives the concept thought could understand how the ability to decide who lives and dies could be readily corrupted by the desire to sieze the assets of the person(s) condemned, and to permit such condemnation for any but the most dire crimes against humanity opens the door to that corruption.

The issues ultimately, cannot be adequately addressed without addressing them all.

[mckenzie7]

My first look into the Democrat agenda was on the abortion issue. Their house of cards came tumbling down in my mind, with hurricane Katrina and how dependent some people were on having the government solve all of their problems. They couldn't even take initiative to save themselves with all kinds of warnings. I live in California and I knew the hurricane was coming a week before it hit.

There was enough time to even walk out for all of the able bodied persons!

[DBeers]

It is obvious to myself what is going on here with these 'messages' from the establishment powers that be that the Tea Party should avoid "moral issues"...

It is no coincidence the the pro homosexual agenda and pro abortion activists are afraid -VERY AFRAID!

In this theater as I look upon the stage I do not see conservatives attempting to co-opt conservatives NO -maybe we see RINOs attempting to centrally control the message; however, primarily it is leftists -leftists that are very afraid...

Tea Party candidates will represent their districts and their states -the only theme is ENOUGH BIG GOVERNMENT mandates, central, planning, central control etcetera. NOTHING is off the table including the "moral" issues.

The Tea Party does not come to Washington with hat in hand kneeling before the establishment powers that be -THEY represent the true powers that be coming to reclaim government by and for the people...

To those suggesting moral issues are off limits -what are you afraid of? Quit your whining...

Lead, Follow, or GET OUT OF THE WAY!

[jafojeffsurf]

This is tripe. True Tea Parties are individual groups where some may have stronger feeling on specific subjects, but I know for SURE our group has this as a top rank issue, which needs to be addressed.