Pro-life is not the Same as Pro-GOP

The Newark Star Ledger ^ | 11.17.02 | Paul Mulshine

[Coleus]

Every time there's an election in New Jersey these days, the Republican Party finds itself caught in the middle of a loud and very public battle between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. The result is pro-Democrat.

Is there any chance of this ending soon? I doubt it. The problem here is that many people mistakenly assume that the pro-life movement is a natural outgrowth of conservative philosophy and that it therefore belongs in the Republican Party.

[Coleus]

Although I am usually in agreement with Paul, one of the few conservative columnists in the State of NJ, I disagree with him this time. I think what he is explaining is a part of the Libertarian Platform and not the Republican or Conservative platforms.

The platform of the republican party is pro life. Life is a conservative and a republican issue. It's mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the 14th amendment.

http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."

If it were not for the Rupublican Party, who then, would be the advocate for the unborn?

[Coleus]

Pro-Life Platform of the Republican Party

http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm

Marie Tasy's Report

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/758810/posts?page=19#19

Why Doug Forrester Lost

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784734/posts

[RJCogburn]

The fact is that for some, regardless of what they say or do on other issues, it really is all about abortion. That's just the way it is.

[RAT Patrol]

If and when that platform changes, there will be a mass exodus from the GOP party.

[Afronaut]

I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion

It's not about you, it's the child you want to kill.

[dogbyte12]

I disagree. Many union card holding, tax and morally conservative democrats switched parties over the abortion issue. They have not changed their positions on anything. They are just anti-abortion.

It is part of the quirky nature of our two party system. Gary Bauer is a good example of this. He is actually pretty well on the left economically. Talk about abortion, homosexuality, though... and it is a different matter.

Does the republican party want to keep this big tent though is the question. Do you have to be both pro small government and pro-life to run for office? Or can ya just be one of the two. If this was European parliamentary style democracy... the issue would be moot as the ties that bind people to the democrats and republicans would be loosened.

[Polycarp]

"LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

In that order.

The way the Founders knew it must be.

If you can't get it right on the first of the three, there's not much chance you'll get it right on anything else. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, et al.

Never trust a politician who cannot get the first thing right. Never vote for a politician who cannot get the first thing right.

A foundational respect for human life is a necessity if we desire to maintain any semblance of the Freedoms that made this country great.

[Polycarp]

If and when that platform changes, there will be a mass exodus from the GOP party.

Unfortunately, indications from some of the party leadership are that this is a chance they are not only willing to take, but gleefully anticipating.

I hope there is a viable third party fully to take the refugees when (not if...its a given) this occurs.

[EllaMinnow]

"If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion. I already have the power to keep myself from having an abortion. When the government employs people to stop abortion, it is taking my tax dollars but providing me with no useful service in return."

Since I am an adult Republican woman, I'll say it in my own words. "When the government takes my money and subsidizes clinics and doctors who I believe are committing murder, it is providing me with the sick knowledge that I am being forced to support the unsupportable."

[cebadams]

I once lived in David Bonior's district. Not many knew of his pro-life position but he did support the cause. Voting was always a stressful time because I disagreed so much with every other position he took. Luckily I was able to vote for pro-life candidates in other parties (including Republican) at election time.

[Coleus]

Yes, but life isn't a platform of the Democrat Party, it is for the republicans, that's why the Reagan Dems switch over.

If the republicans drop the life issue, as I think Paul wants us to do, we would not have those Democrats voting for us and many Repubs. would leave the party for the Conservative and Constitutional parties.

I think that if you want to run as a Republican you should be pro life as the party dictates. Doug Forrester may have won if he hadn't waffled on the life issue. He also refused to fill out the questionnaire for the NRA and lost that endorsement too.

[Coleus]

Did anyone see the Senate Candidate from LA on MEET the PRESS today, she made a very forceful statement: I'm Catholic and pro life. She shut Tim Russert right up. No waffling from her!

Catholics should send her a donation marked Catholics for Terrell. She is pro-life and would be a pro-life woman US Senator.
http://www.suzieterrell.com/

Here is a copy of the score card for the runoff.

http://www.lafamilyforum.org/dynaweb/1001014/docs/runoff_scorecard.pdf

[Reactionary]

"If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion."

Let me get this straight: He's actually saying that government provides women with a "service" called abortion and that since they pay taxes a denial of this "service" would be... a breach of contract.

That's an interesting take, I guess. But it has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be a "service," let along whether ot not government should provide it.

[Reactionary]

Let alone, rather.

[jocon307]

"If and when that platform changes, there will be a mass exodus from the GOP party."

Yes, yes, and yes, there will. Which is why it wont' happen. Forrester screwed this up, he was NOT pro-life and he tried to have it both ways. That really doesn't work on the abortion issue. Coleman won, and he was pro-life. The real moral of the 2002 elections is "be true to your views". After 8 years of obfuscating, and 3000 murdered people, we've come down to earth. Think what you like, but say what you think, and mean what you say. That alone will carry the day.

[MoralSense]

When the government employs people to stop abortion, it is taking my tax dollars but providing me with no useful service in return.

He's arguing backwards, probably out of frustration. Federalism solves this, as it solves most issues. Roe vs. Wade was a terrible decision, based on a non-existent "right to privacy" provision in the Constitution ("emanations and penumbras," as the court wrote). It extended federal government power willy-nilly everywhere, thereby creating endless arguments over actually funding abortion. Banning various aspects of abortion doesn't cost much of anything.

And if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, it would not outlaw abortion. It would simply return abortion law to the states, where it belongs. Some states would ban it. Some states would restrict it. And some states would allow it.

[Happygal]

I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion

I guess by banning abortion the government allows you to pay taxes to support unmarried mothers without WHINING ABOUT IT (as you do all the time, eh? *S*)

I'm being sarcastic here. As a 30 year old unmarried Catholic woman, I don't ever plan to have an abortion (no matter what the circumstances)..but then again, I can afford to bring up a child on my own. I'm not sure how many others can make the moral choice, without my luxury. And I'm not confident about how many pro-Lifers are moral people supporting the children they have already (pre-divorce etc) or the ones their wives don't know about. Eh? i would never have an abortion. I happily, am in the financial position, never to have to.

[MadIvan]

Darling, the last time I saw figures on this, the vast majority of abortions in the United States were had, not by people who were "deprived", but middle and upper class women, mostly white, in urban areas.

It's not only being used as a form of birth control, it's being used by people who could afford to do otherwise - yes, it would involve sacrifice for some, perhaps even some hardship, but sacrifice is part and parcel of having children.

Love, Ivan

[Happygal]

I absolutely abhor abortion as a form of contraception.

Having that said, a very good friend (aged 40) told me recently that she'd had an abortion.
I went through a moral crisis about it.
I love this person like a mother. She has seen me through many calamities in my life..not least being the death of my own mother last year.
So what should I have done? Hit her with a big stick?

I don't think so.
I hugged her.
And listened to her cry.
For weeks.
And weeks.
And weeks.