Posted on 12/04/2011 7:50:15 PM PST by Notwithstanding
Hi Carbine,
I appreciate your post. I often have similar thoughts along the lines you expressed. Currently, I’m not tied to any particular candidate. Like many I suppose I’ve done the candidate dance: first Palin then Cain and now Gingrich.
I often ask myself though, have we gone too far to make that 180 turn? is our only recourse to let the whole thing crash and rebuild from the pieces that are left?
I remember almost sitting out 2008 then late in the day saying I can’t and heading over to my polling place and pulling the lever for McCain. Fear of Obama is what made me do it. I wonder how many will be gripped by that same fear and will pull the lever for the GOP candidate next year?
Best Regards
All over the place on many issues. Here's another.
Anything less than requiring people who are working here illegally to return home to apply for a worker visa is amnesty.
~Newt Gingrich 2006
I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties are so deeply into America that it would truly be tragic to try and rip their family apart."
~Newt Gingrich 2011
It should also be mentioned that advocates of amnesty should not be taken seriously if they claim to be also in favor of tougher border control. It is simply not credible that advocates of amnesty will be reliably tough on controlling the borders.
~Newt Gingrich 2006
"The United States must control its border. It is a national security imperative,"
~Newt Gingrich 2011
Ahhhh, Flip-Floppin’ just like Myth Romney. Again.
Ping to Gingrich statement at #1.
As I said earlier, my personal transition to full pro-life at conception went through stages from pro-abortion, to pro-choice, to pro-rape/incest/life of mother, to pro-life at implantation, to life at conception. It was gradual over the years. I believe if someone really had the time and energy, they could find me arguing for rape/incest/life of the mother as recently as 5-7 years ago.
If others have done the same thing, then perhaps there’s a common bit of logic that gets applied. As I said, the most convincing to me has been the pro-life Catholics here and in my family. They have always been the most out-spoken and the best-versed on the subject.
“..I’d vote for Newt instead of Slick Mitt even though I’m not thrilled with either of them.”
Take a another look a Santorum and Bachmann. If Mark Levin likes them best, they must be pretty solid conservatives.
in the General if it is Newt....I would pull the lever with my head high ....consider the opponent.
my primaries are in April...by then the candidate is usually locked in. Also by then the guy I would pick has dropped out....
a constitutional amendment making all the state primaries on the same day is needed in America...
Hmmmmm....I would still vote for Gingrich over Romney....but WHY did he say what he did to Jake Tapper and WHY did he support abortion for victims of rape/incest on the Right to Life questionnaire?
Follow up question for Newt: What is conception?
This week congress is taking up an abortion ban - pick the best option:
A) I will campaign against a bill that is likely to pass that will outlaw 99.8% of all abortions because the bill is not perfect
B) I will campaign for a bill that is likely to pass that will outlaw 99.8% of all abortions because there are not enough votes to ban 100% of them
I have to agree with newt there. Holding the proof in my arms in the dark right here. Thank you, newt. Every embryo is sacred. It kills me to think that my child could have been “donated to research.”
So if an ectopic pregnancy presents..what is the answer?
An embryo growing outside the uterus would kill the mother if not removed. It has zero chance of growing to the second trimester. Its host would be deceased. This is no “choice.”. Thank G-d we can do what is necessary to save the mother.
That is very different a scenario from an inconvenient pregnancy.
If there becomes ever a law to prevent human embryo use in science, it will be worded csuch that a mother with an ectopic or other life-threatening pregnancy can be saved.
Indeed!
Today’s nazis have redefined basic words to manipulate people.
Conception is fertilization (nazis say its not until implantation).
Pregnancy begins at fertilization (nazis say its not until implantation).
Of course when the nazis started playing at being God with IVF they created artificial situations in which fertilization occurs where the implantation cannot happen (because the embryo is in a test tube).
But such evil artifices are no reason to redefine natural processes - but the nazis like to play at being God.
OK...Was this his explanation?
I ask because the Right to Life questionnaire is very clear. It asks:
Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that abortion should be legal?
The questionnaire was NOT about what is the best strategy to use in Congress to reduce abortions in this country.
By the way, thank you for your post regarding the conception/implantation statement made by the press. I did not actually see a video of the entire interview...but will definitely look for it now. I would not be surprised if the media has attempted to mislead this on us.
IVF is evil. Rape is evil.
That does not mean that a person who results from IVF or rape is any less a wonderful miracle than a morally conceived child.
Today’s nazis have preyed upon the powerful desires of people who can’t conceive naturally; such people are vulnerable and self-centered at the same time - and the nazis come in and offer the perfect “solution”.
I don’t expect you to take kindly to my remarks because our culture has adopted the if-I-want-it-I-deserve-it mentality, and we have applied that to babies.
IVF is beautiful if done according to guidelines that respect the sanctity of human life.
The only thing wrong with IVF where Life is concerned is that families are given the chance to have their extra embryos destroyed. If they are allowed a chance at life, those “extra” embryos make an adoptive family happier than anything. If there were no abortions and no “donating embryos to science” IVF would only be a beautiful thing.
None of these losers give a rat's ass about the dangerous border with Mexico, and none of these losers will do anything to promote the Conservative values that we believe in.
Several things going on here:
A) Manipulative and clueless press is only interested in simple sound bites and has no interest in the details of the life issues (its always “mean people with traditional morals” vs. “kind progressives who put people before rigid morality”)
B) Manipulative purist pro-life groups who are so worried about the real erosion of moral truth that they try to trap candidates into adopting the purist position such that they are painted as sell-outs if they make real progress toward protecting life by supporting imperfect legislation
C) a pro-life candidate who actually understands the moral issue fully and won’t allow himself to be manipulated by either group A or group B.
Life is a black and white issue of fact. But the besy to protect life is an issue filled with important nuances based on political and practical realities. It is pure deceit to claim otherwise.
Complete 180% flip-flop from what he said just 24 hours ago. But a lot of folks around here are OK with that these days.
listen, Newt is a smart as they come, he is more than capible of explaining his position.
The media isn’t going to get Newt with “gotcha” questions.
besy = best way
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.