Posted on 10/03/2002 8:30:17 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Colmes Left Speechless Trying To Argue Against Pro-Life Supermodel
NEW YORK, October 3, 2002 (LSN.ca) – Former supermodel Kathy Ireland and Emmy- award winning actress Patricia Heaton of “Everybody Loves Raymond” appeared on talk shows Monday and Tuesday where both were pressed on their pro-life beliefs.
Appearing Monday Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes," Kathy Ireland was unbeatable in arguing down resident liberal Alan Colmes. An excerpt from the transcript follows:
COLMES: We played a little clip from last time you were on the show. And I asked you if you had a liberal position. And for those who didn't see it earlier, you said yes, I'm liberal about the rights of the unborn child.
Now I think I'm conservative on abortion because I think the government should not be involved. And that this is not a governmental issue. It's a personal issue. So wouldn't I then have the conservative position here?
IRELAND: Is it all right for the government to allow the murder of an innocent human being? The evidence I see tells me the unborn is a human being. From the moment of conception, a new life comes into being with a complete genetic blueprint. The sex is determined. The blood type is determined.
Colmes relentlessly attempted to interrupt Ireland as she spoke, however Ireland was stronger and won her right to finish her points despite the intimidation. Eventually Colmes was able to get in the following but only to his eventual defeat:
COLMES: Well, we have a system of laws and a Supreme Court decision that does not define life the way you do. So legally, that's not how it would be defined. If you want to define it that way for your personal -- that's how you want to do it, that's fine, but that's not the standing law of this country.
IRELAND: If you can, Alan, if you can show me evidence that the unborn is not a human being, I will gladly join the pro-choice side. If you can show me any evidence. It's very clear and simple.
Last time I was on, you said we're not going to resolve this right now but it's very simple. The bottom line is this. If the unborn is not a human being, have as many abortions as you want, whenever you want. It doesn't matter. No justification is necessary. If, on the other hand, the unborn is a human being, no justification is adequate unless another human life, that being the mother, is in danger.
HANNITY: Kathy, welcome back. Sean Hannity here. You know, since the last time you were on, we had an enormous amount of e-mail from people that were frankly shocked that somebody as famous, well known as yourself, take such a strong pro- life position. Are there more of these famous people that are just not willing to state these things publicly?
IRELAND: I know it's not a popular issue. And I was always pro- choice. I'm a person who always has and always will fight for the rights of women. And even though I became a Christian at age 18, I remained pro- choice because I believed it was a woman's choice. But the moment that I learned that the unborn was a human being, not part of the woman's body..
HANNITY: Yes.
IRELAND: ...but its own individual human being, I have no choice but to defend the most vulnerable among us.
HANNITY: Well, it's admirable, because I agree with you on the position. And especially with what modern technology now offers in terms of our ability to see inside a woman's womb.
IRELAND: Absolutely.
HANNITY: And the heart beating and the fingers and the toes.
IRELAND: You really can't argue with it. Technology has come a long way since Roe vs. Wade.
HANNITY: I can't.
IRELAND: And Alan, I welcome you to please refute my claim.
HANNITY: There's no hope.
IRELAND: Not to dismiss it, but refute it.
HANNITY: No hope for him, Kathy.
IRELAND: I welcome it, or if any of your viewers can.
On Tuesday Patricia Heaton appeared on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor." Almost immediately host Bill O’Reilly turned the discussion to Heaton’ s pro-life views. An excerpt follows:
O'REILLY: All right. A couple of interesting things in your book, and we -- put it this way, ladies and gentlemen. If we have somebody on here, the book's not going to be a dog. If the book's bad, we're not going to have them on here.
So you are pro-life in a town...
HEATON: That's right.
O'REILLY: ... that is almost 100 percent pro-choice. How does that impact on you?
HEATON: Well, you know, I'm a chairman of Feminists for Life, and so I think that, because of that, we have an interesting stand that most people don't -- haven't heard before, which is being pro-life can be a feminist issue.
The early feminists were pro-life. And really abortion is a huge disservice to women, and it hasn't been presented that way. So -- so it's a -- there's a sort of an in for me because of that take on it.
O'REILLY: Do you take any heat from your peers out there?
HEATON: I did. I mean, I did originally. I vote Republican because of my pro- life stance, and, of course, that was a real hot-button issue when Bill Clinton was first elected.
I mean, people really -- I wore a Quayle-Bush button, and literally people would stop and look at the button the and look at me and give me dirty looks and, you know, say nasty things to me.
I think, since 9/11, a lot of that has calmed down a little bit.
O'REILLY: But, still, I mean, if Susan Sarandon or Barbra Streisand were here, I mean, they wouldn't talk to you. They would turn their back on you.
HEATON: You know what? It's not that polarized. I mean, people know me first as an actress and friend.
O'REILLY: But if they knew. If they knew, they...
HEATON: Some people have had that reaction, but I wouldn't say all of them.
O'REILLY: The reason I'm saying it is it's a very emotional issue, as you know.
HEATON: Yes.
O'REILLY: Tremendously emotionally charged.
HEATON: Yes, yes.
O'REILLY: And I believe it's been exploited by politicians. I think it's a human-rights issue.
HEATON: Yes.
O'REILLY: Would you ban abortion?
HEATON: As -- Feminists for Life -- what we're trying to do is support women, and so what we want to do is for -- reach women on campus -- college campuses so that, when they get pregnant, they can find housing. They can find money they need to stay in school.
O'REILLY: So you're giving -- you're putting an alternative track out there.
HEATON: Yes. I think pro-choice is a ridiculous -- you know...
O'REILLY: But it all comes down to...
HEATON: ... name.
O'REILLY: ... would you ban it if you were a Supreme Court justice? Would you vote to ban it?
HEATON: Yes.
O'REILLY: You would?
HEATON: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. Now that, obviously, takes guts in Hollywood because, in Hollywood, there's a subtext that, if you don't play the game, you know, you could lose jobs.
HEATON: Yes.
O'REILLY: Did you ever think of it?
HEATON: Yes, I've thought about it. On a personal level, as a Christian, it will not be Barbra Streisand I'm standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life.
HEATON: Yes, I've thought about it. On a personal level, as a Christian, it will not be Barbra Streisand I'm standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life.
"Refute me ..."
And no one can.
She's got it all!
I've heard her on the issue before. She's definitely an intelligent lady. When she starts pondering what defines the end of a human life, and why she considers a person on life support whose brain is completely dead but whose body is still alive from the neck down is not a "living person" but is in fact a "dead body", and what that implies about the beginning of a person's life, she is going to be in for quite a shock! At that point I have faith that she'll accept that she has just refuted herself. (at least partially.)"Refute me ..."
And no one can.
And I have faith her objectivity will become more consistent and she will apply the strictest of scientific proofs and refuse to base her thoughts on the artificial realities which have come about by virtue of predators' and profiteers' playing on the desperation of the dying and the hopes of their loved ones where the artificial and inhuman prolonging of life and preventing of natural death are concerned.
(Which "humanitarian" life-saving attempts are going to become extremely rare extremely soon -- save for the very rich -- now that we've milked the situation for all it's worth and stand at the threshhold of creating and cloning human life strictly for parts and other "destructive" research purposes.)
Personally, I see no point in ARTIFICIALLY prolonging life just so one can point at the ARTIFICIALLY sustained body and use it to found one's arguments about brain death ... which arguments will pave the way for using the dying as human mulch every bit as callously as we use the unborn.
I find it just as duplicitous and morally offensive as the use of ARTIFICIAL conception and the use of the inevitable "Excess" ARTIFICIALLY conceived lives as foundation for the argument that we must make "best use" of these "Excess" human lives that are fit only for the garbage otherwise.
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.