Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MarkT
Agreed. Her claim of being a conservative Catholic, beyond being false, is clearly a rookie political mistake. You don't go on TV the day after being elected and tell a preposterous lie that is so easily refuted.

For those concerned that Pelosi was very liberal but nevertheless a skilled political warrior, she has shown herself to be very clumsy in her first foray.
19 posted on 11/15/2002 4:49:01 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: governsleastgovernsbest
Her claim of being a conservative Catholic, beyond being false, is clearly a rookie political mistake. You don't go on TV the day after being elected and tell a preposterous lie that is so easily refuted.

Yes, of course! And forget (for the moment) Catholicism and abortion. Ms Pelosi and her vile excuse for a political party support infanticide, a position opposed by I suspect 99% of the American population. Consider the official democrat policy as expounded by Frank LautenCadaver and Barbara Boxer:

"Now that one of the nation's finest universities (Princeton) has given a prestigious position to an advocate of infanticide (Peter Singer suggests that for perhaps a month after birth parents should be entitled to dispose of unwanted children), it is not surprising that the Senate has what deserves to be called an "Infanticide Caucus." The caucus has at least three members. "Two of them, Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersy, identified themselves when, during the Sept. 26, 1996 debate on partial-birth abortion, Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked: Suppose during such an abortion (during which a baby is delivered feed first until all but a portion of the skull is outside the mother, then its skull is punctured, its contents vacuumed, then collapsed) the baby slips all the way out of the birth canal. Should killing the baby even then be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say "no."

"During the Oct. 20, 1999, debate Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, joined the caucus:

"Santorum: 'You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?'

"Boxer: 'I think when you bring your baby home...'

"She said more. What she would not say was 'yes.'"

We have now reached a point in our culture where one can be arrested for plowing up an endangered species - a wild morning glory or a kangaroo rat, but can be applauded for one's wisdom in killing one's own unborn child, and even one's newborn - especially if that child is designated as "handicapped" and a possible burden."

That is clear enough: neither Feingold nor Lautenberg would say "no" to treating the killing of a newborn baby as a mere "choice." The point of contention has become, as abortion opponents have long warned that it would, not whether legally protectable life begins at conception but whether legally protectable life begins at birth. So, who are the extremists? (from George Will)

54 posted on 11/15/2002 5:10:59 AM PST by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson