POLL: Pro-Life OR Pro-Abortion

FreedomFriend | 02/02/02 | FreedomFriend

[FreedomFriend]

This is a simple question in which I want to gain insight. At least in terms of the opinions of the FreeRepublic population.

I'll tabulate the responses.

So what are you? Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion.

[GeronL]

pro-life

[GeronL]

There are a LOT of loving foster homes out there, you assume they are hell. why? Because you have a negative view of humanity. I thought you were a libertarian? You think the Constitution gives the federal government the power to force the states to allow abortion? would this not be a state issue? this was federal interference

[GeronL]

238-bump

[I_Love_My_Husband]

If the repubs pursue this issue it will sink the party. Period. People will walk away. There is only a small minority, even here, that is pro-life. That's the way it goes.

I think those in charge of the party know this and understand the implications of this. It sunk the party before, and Clinton was elected. It *will* sink the party again if the pro-life lobby has it's way and leads the party around. You might not like what I'm writing, but it is the cold hard truth and it may be hard for you pro-lifers to understand.

There are currently bigger issues, and repubs need to be elected. Pro-life vigorousness will sink the entire party. It is seen as too extreme by most Americans.

[A CA Guy]

Pro Life 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the time unless the life of the mother would for sure be lost or there is a rape.

[Judith Anne]

Don't worry about the Republicans sinking because of the pro-lifers, it won't happen.

The majority of Americans support serious restrictions on abortion, including parental notification, abortion only in cases of rape or incest, and to save the life of the mother. That comprises less than 5% of all abortions.

[Judith Anne]

Thank you.

[GeronL]

Pro-Life did not elect Clinton, Bush lying about raising taxes did, and Dole was a weak candidate to begin with- he DID NOT make abortion an issue and was wobbly.

[One More Time]

On the national Level the way for the GOP to deal with this issue is to make it a State’s rights issue. The Constitution as originally written and interpreted has nothing to say about the abortion question.

After that the trick is for State legislators to craft a compromise that seems reasonable to the majority. Ban partial birth abortions, late term abortion while allowing abortions where the Mom’s life is at risk or in cases of rape. Very few people would support banning all abortions even when both mother and unborn baby will die but the mothers life could be saved. Very few people would support aborting a viable normal unborn child in the last weeks of pregnancy. Some where in the middle is where the laws of various States’ will wind up.

[Judith Anne]

And most people support parental notification laws.

[One More Time]

And most people support parental notification laws.

Yes I knew I left something out.

[BillyBoy]

I am pro-life with the ONLY exceptions being to save the life of the mother, or if the mother was raped (and even in the latter case, I would still STRONGLY recommend that the woman carry the baby to term)

In ANY other circumstance, abortion should be ILLEGAL.

Any freeper who supports abortion-on-demand should consider another forum. We believe in traditional values here.

[BillyBoy]

>> If the repubs pursue this issue it will sink the party. Period. People will walk away. There is only a small minority, even here, that is pro-life. That's the way it goes. I think those in charge of the party know this and understand the implications of this. It sunk the party before, and Clinton was elected. It *will* sink the party again if the pro-life lobby has it's way and leads the party around. You might not like what I'm writing, but it is the cold hard truth and it may be hard for you pro-lifers to understand. There are currently bigger issues, and repubs need to be elected. Pro-life vigorousness will sink the entire party. It is seen as too extreme by most Americans. <<

1860 logic :

If the repubs pursue this "end slavery" issue it will sink the party. Period. People will walk away. There is only a small minority, even here in the north, that is pro-life abolitionist. That's the way it goes.
I think those in charge of the party know this and understand the implications of this. It sunk the party before, and Clinton James Buchanan was elected. It *will* sink the party again if the pro-life anti-slavery lobby has it's way and leads the party around. You might not like what I'm writing, but it is the cold hard truth and it may be hard for you pro-lifers abolitionists to understand.
There are currently bigger issues, and repubs need to be elected. Pro-life Anti-slavery vigorousness will sink the entire party. It is seen as too extreme by most Americans.

[Judith Anne]

Nice post. I noticed this line, that you quoted from that reply:

There are currently bigger issues, and repubs need to be elected. Pro-life vigorousness will sink the entire party. It is seen as too extreme by most Americans.

Bigger issues than 1.3 million dead unborn babies EVERY YEAR?????

[Vicki]

Thanks for the post. I copied the quote and sent it to my daughter who is attending an ultra-liberal college.

[NCSEADOG]

Pro-Life

[BillyBoy]

>> Has anyone noticed that every baby/child photo posted on this thread is caucasian? Why is that? << <<

I noticed the newborn babies that Mother Theresa was holding in one of the posts were NOT white, but obviously you failed to see that one. I guess you find it surprising that 70% of the baby photos would be white when probably 70% of the population is white. Why that amazes you I don't know.

However, you'll be happy to know that over a 1/3rd of all ABORTED babies are black, so white Supremacists tend to be pro-abortion because it helps "eliminate" the black population (and liberal sellouts like Jesse Jackson are more than helpful by encouraging young, native, mothers to abort the kids RATHER than offering help to raise the child). There was a white supremacist candidate running for Congress here in Illinois (on the DEMOCRATIC ticket, no less), toting his support for funding abortions for minority groups. Go figure.

Maybe you should take your pro-abortion views to DemocraticUnderground.com instead of trying to force them on people here. We don't want to hear pro-death, anti-morality beliefs. Try someone else, and if you want to see your views put to use, give a check to that wacko for congress. You seem to like his views about race and abortion so much.

[LloydofDSS]

>>If we make it socially unacceptable to have kids before you're married, then the problems will eventually go away. <<

Actually I think you have it backwards. It was "because" having a child out of wedlock was "socially unnacceptable" that many abortions were performed. This stigma has been put to rest for the most part, so one of the most intractable reasons women had to have abortions is gone. This is progress.

For the poll, I am pro-choice. But it is only because the government has no business getting involved in private matters between a women and her doctor.

[Judith Anne]

You must be a young person. There weren't 1.3 million abortions a year when it was socially unacceptable to be pregnant and unmarried. Now, it's socially just fine to be unmarried and pregnant--yet there are 1.3 million abortions a year. Birth control is legal, cheap, easy to get, reliable and yet there are 1.3 million dead unborn babies a year.

Looks like your conclusions are mistaken.

[wwjdn]

Pro-life, always!