Reader Mail
Republicans and Abortion
Jennifer Stockman vs. Jeffrey Lord: an exchange.
(Page 2 of 2)
Typical of this mindset is Ms. Stockman’s line that implies I have not spent time “thinking about the health and well being of American women.” Sigh. The obvious counterpoint of the pro-life activist (which, I should say, I am decidedly not) is to wonder whether Ms. Stockman spends any time thinking about the health and well-being of the millions of babies whose lives have been snuffed out because of Roe. Both lines are, well, out of line. Yet typical of the raw emotion that Roe brings to the surface, typical of its tendency to push good, rational people to extremes, one of which Ms. Stockman occupies. And for the record, I harbor no such unkind thoughts about Jennifer Stockman who, I believe, is the mother of, I’m sure, two wonderful daughters and doubtless loves babies.
A few points:
• The Big Tent argument. Sounds wonderful, infers broadmindedness. Really? In 2004 pro-life Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum had done the Big Tent thing and provided crucial support for pro-choice then-Republican Senator Arlen Specter in a tight primary fight with the conservative Pat Toomey. Specter won, and promptly thanked Santorum. In 2006 Ms. Stockman went out of her way to oppose Santorum, running ads against him and editorializing against him in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In effect, Ms. Stockman vividly demonstrated the real idea behind the Big Tent. Which is to say, the Big Tent is for me but not for thee. She in fact believes religiously in a litmus test on abortion for candidates, and vigorously demanded a litmus test for Santorum. She talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk.
• It startles to see that Jennifer Stockman says I “conveniently” ignored Brown v. Board of Education in my list of Supreme Court decisions that, as with Roe, deliberately violated the Constitution. I confess I simply believed that Ms. Stockman understood Brown and no explanation was needed. Obviously not so. Far from being an example of judicial activism, Brown was precisely the judicial antidote to the judicial activism that was Plessy v. Ferguson, which, in the style of Dred Scott and Roe, conjured a right for states to segregate, a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Robert Bork, famously pro-life and very much the originalist, called Brown a “great and correct decision,” which it was. Not because it was morally correct — which it also was. But because it righted the constitutional wrong that was Plessy, specifically violating the plain intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy, like Roe, was judicial activism. Brown is its opposite.
• To airily dismiss the idea that “legislatures and governors” — i.e., the people’s chosen representatives directly elected by those same people — should set abortion policy, while defending, Roger Taney-style, the right of judges to write in their own personal abortion policy prescriptions that deny choice to Americans, is morally wrong but more to the point constitutionally wrong. To update the essence of the quote from dissenting Justice Curtis in Dred Scott, one woman’s common sense is another woman’s nonsense. Which is why we have a Constitution and the rule of law. The law is not about Jennifer Stockman or Sarah Palin. It’s about — the law. Which both Jennifer Stockman and Sarah Palin — and all the rest of us — have the opportunity to write.
• The “conservative position” in 2010 America should be to let the American people chose the abortion policy they wish to have.
Last.
With the greatest of respect I think Jennifer Stockman should take a leadership role in resolving this issue for good while upholding her point of view. Let me suggest the following language for a proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution.
The right of a woman in the United States to have an abortion is unlimited.
Two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, and the abortion issue is resolved in a simple, quite plain Constitutional fashion, with the American people getting to chose the abortion consensus they prefer by supporting or not supporting it. Surely she could get the support of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and, I bet, even the pro-life Harry Reid, not to mention pro-choice Republicans who are, she insists, the Republican Majority.
No fuss, no muss. No government in the bedroom. No judges in the womb. True to the Constitution. Choice for all Americans, not just judges. Women free at last, as embedded specifically in the Constitution itself, to “consult with their doctors, their families and their own consciences — not a political party looking to round up votes in the next election.” And most attractive, surely, it would be the end of those irritating pro-lifers for good.
The problem? Ms. Stockman told Sean Hannity she opposed abortion at the very last stage of a pregnancy. Which makes her…drum roll please…not just an opponent of a Constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, but one of those irritating pro-lifers after all.
Over to you Jennifer.
Thanks for writing.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (205) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/05/republicans-and-abortion
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
- The Mole in Don Draper
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Debbie| 3.5.10 @ 7:55AM
Abortion. The truth about it would be welcome. Just the truth. Unlike virtually all other medical procedures which are readily aired on tv with an admonition to the viewers that the scenes are graphic -- no one will show an abortion. Why not?
Because the truth is problematic and it will end the debate.
Alan Brooks| 3.5.10 @ 10:19AM
"[...] support a Big Tent GOP, which focuses on common sense solutions -- not division. "
America is an overheated ethnic stewpot, a latter day Rome. How can it not be divided?
Jon B| 3.5.10 @ 12:58PM
I agree. The truth matters...
ttp://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm
1993: Repeal of the funding ban: President Clinton felt that private, foreign organizations should be able to receive USAID funding for that part of their programs that involved pregnancy prevention, even though they used their funds raised elsewhere to finance abortions or to appeal for abortion reform. On 1993-JAN-22, his second day in office, he rescinded the executive order.
2001: Reinstatement of the funding ban: On 2001-JAN-22, during his first day in office, President George W. Bush reinstated the funding ban for family planning programs run by agencies that also provide abortion services out of their own funds. His rationale was somewhat confusing. He wrote to the U.S. Agency for International Development: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." But no such funds have ever been granted. Existing legislation prevents foreign grants from being used to fund abortions or provide abortion counseling.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-05.htm
January 26, 2001: Family planning research groups, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, last year said that if US funding levels were restored to the $540 million (from $425 million), the following would happen: Nearly 12 million more couples in developing countries would gain access to modern methods of contraception.
There would be 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million fewer unintended births, 500,000 fewer miscarriages; 2.2 million fewer abortions each year; 8,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortions, 7,000 fewer deaths from other causes related to pregnancy and 92,000 fewer deaths of infants.
BU$H cut funding on 1-22-2001, then cut it some more in 2002, so it was roughly 1/2 or just over $200 million. However, some of it was restored because of his 2003 Africa/Aids program, which he didn't fully fund either.
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/200 ... _abortion/
Aid workers and experts say President Barack Obama's decision to allow aid money to flow again to international groups that offer abortion counseling will help restart programs desperately needed in Africa, the continent hardest hit by a so-called "gag rule."
For instance, she said, groups that could have helped distribute the condoms the U.S. was supplying to fight AIDS were denied funding because of their stance on abortion.
(When Bush cut funding) Clinics serving over 1.5 million women closed in Kenya, homeland of Obama's father, said Marie Stopes Kenya and Family Health Options Kenya...
John3| 3.5.10 @ 1:49PM
Championing the United States as a nation that spreads contraception and abortion just does not make any sense. Why do we have to tell the Kenyans and Peruvians that they should not have any more children? The fact of the matter is that the spread of this "contraceptive and abortion" mentality is leading Europe and most developed nations into economic decline. Why? Simply put, they do not have enough young people to work, pay taxes and buy their real estate and most importantly, they do not have enough caregivers to care for their elderly (they import caregivers from countries where there are people who can care for them). Africa does not need contraceptives and abortion--they need honest politicians and food (which developed nations have a lot of!)
John3| 3.5.10 @ 1:54PM
Look up www.pop.org. This website was started by a fellow who was a Stanford Scholar bent on proving that contraception and abortion was going to save the world. Boy, he went to China and saw the truth firsthand and seeing the raw truth about this, he changed his mind.
I challenge all of you who support "population control" to give me one example of a nation that became prosperous (over several generations) because of contraception and abortion.
Jon B| 3.5.10 @ 3:19PM
You should study up, John3: by funding contraception and sex education, we eliminated approximately 3 million abortions every year in the world's poorest countries costing us about $300 million a year. We DO NOT fund abortions overseas, and never have. I think this beats invading the wrong country for $3 trillion total costs when all is said and done.
John3| 3.5.10 @ 7:16PM
Mr. Jon B. I appreciate you math. But the United States does fund international abortions according to our beloved CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI......abortion/ It looks like you are the one who needs to study up. And please let the readers know where you got those numbers?
Jon B| 3.5.10 @ 7:31PM
Again, John3, you need to actually read even the article you posted. We fund PREGNANCY PREVENTION measures in 3rd world countries, not abortions. Bush banned giving funds to International organizations that may also provide abortions or abortion counseling in some countries, but none of our money is spent on that. And lets get back to the facts: Because of these cuts, abortions skyrocketed an additional 3 million more every year. Please read the articles you post before asserting something non-factual. Thank you in advance.
John3| 3.6.10 @ 10:12AM
I guess I will not be able to change your mind. You are entitled to your own opinion. The truth will eventually win out.
John3| 3.5.10 @ 7:22PM
This is what your "repeal of funding ban has caused:
WASHINGTON -- Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, Frank Loy, recently addressed a conference where he vowed to fight for the restoration of U.S. funding for the United Nations population program in China.
There are many, unreported human rights violations made in the name of family planning:
CHINA-- The frantic father pounded on the locked delivery room door shouting, "Don't kill my son, don't kill my son!" His tragic plea fell on deaf ears. The disheveled mother was struggling to sit up in bed. "Don't! Don't!" she screamed as the midwife began drawing iodine into a syringe. The healthy baby in his eighth month had survived the traumatic birth induced by an abortifacient drug, but now faced the grim specter of the iodine needle injection into the soft spot of his head - a deadly procedure. Why? This was the second child born under a one-child per couple policy. The baby's mother looked with pleading eyes. She knew what the needle meant. "Have mercy!" she cried. Mercy? Never! No permit - no baby.
IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE PROUD OF?
Think for a moment--what if you are wrong?
Jon B| 3.5.10 @ 7:33PM
Essentially here you promote a lie and using emotions to advance the lie so no one gives it any critical thought. You might recall that Bush sent over his own crew to look into it and found that none of our money was used for abortions. His own people. Debates lose their value when someone just makes stuff up like you are now.
Jon B| 3.5.10 @ 7:41PM
BTW, I'm anti-abortion except in cases of rape, mother's health, etc. The reason I posted the facts about the Mexico-City policy is because no Republican had the courage to be honest about what it actually does. They used it as a political tool and thereby increased abortion by about 3 million every year in the world's poorest countries. A little more math for you, funds were cut on 1-22-2001 and restored in late January 2008. 3 million more abortions every year X 8 years=24 million MORE abortions because Bush cut funding for pregnancy prevention measures. Think about the massive hypocrisy involved to pull that one off for a minute.
John3| 3.5.10 @ 8:00PM
Those 3 million foreigners might have discovered the cure for cancer, invented clean energy from water, created jobs in Mexico thereby stopping all the illegal immigration into the U.S., and think of all the work and taxes all these people would have given to their respective countries, not to mention the happiness that they bring to their mothers and fathers. They would end up buying condominiums in Florida, ending the real estate slump. You see: 1 abortion = 1 person = 1 taxpayer = 1 buyer = 1 nurse, and so on and so forth. Be careful, one of them could be the doctor who can save your life since nearly 20% of doctors here in the U.S. are foreigners.
Jon B| 3.5.10 @ 8:16PM
Yes, thanks. And of not for Bush, they would still be alive today. Let's rehash. It seems you misunderstood the premise. Because Bush cut funding for pregnancy prevention measures overseas, there were 3 million more abortions every year in the world's poorest countries, or 24 million more abortions in 8 years. Although Obama is not my guy, I'm glad that he restored funding the funding for pregnancy prevention in 3rd world countries. We have never funded abortions overseas. It's been illegal to do so since 1973. The Mexico-City policy is a farce, in other words since it increases abortions...
John3| 3.6.10 @ 10:19AM
This is the rhetoric that the administration uses to deny that they are funding abortions. You may want to study the "other side" and make your own conclusions--you can start with Dr. Mosher at www.pop.org---just like you, Dr. Mosher believed in all these and when he saw what was really happening (instead of what was being said), he had to rethink his head.
Jon B| 3.7.10 @ 9:55AM
The irony here is that you believe in Dr Mosher's rhetoric when numerous other and more credible sources found the opposite, including Mr Bush's own sources.
Liberal Reader| 3.5.10 @ 8:03AM
Defending abortion rights demands making so many concessions to unreason that I feel sorry for those compelled to undertake so difficult a task. Lord wins the day here, but it seems worth point out his opponent had a difficult task.
I do sympathize with those who are concerned about the power laws against abortion would give the government, and for many years that formed the basis of my very qualified, hesitant support of Roe. But the weight became too heavy to carry. Abortion is wrong. We don't need the dictates of the Church or divine revelation to know this: by the end of seventh grade, unless something has gone very wrong, we should know all the human biology necessary to conclude abortion is wrong.
bob alou| 3.5.10 @ 10:01AM
Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. The one given is that abortion destroys a life. When you weigh that fact in the balance, most other considerations fail the justification for ending it.
Margie| 3.5.10 @ 5:34PM
"Abortion is wrong. We don't need the dictates of the Church or divine revelation to know this: by the end of seventh grade, unless something has gone very wrong."
~God bless you, LibRead. I heartily agree with you here. God made us fully equipped with a conscience to know. That's why the argument is such an easy one. Good to hear that weight got too heavy to carry for, as it is the best of news.
Lindsey| 3.5.10 @ 8:32AM
Thomas Jefferson said that our type of government can't work without a moral populace. Abortion is a moral issue and we must ALWAYS be on the side of morality in this country!
Alan Brooks| 3.5.10 @ 12:45PM
The business of America is business-- not morality.
America is like ancient Rome; a large nation with no virtue.
Margie| 3.5.10 @ 5:29PM
"The business of America is business-- not morality."
But it isn't just business. At least it shouldn't be. America is made up of human beings. We have souls and consciences. You cannot separate a person from his very being. We're more than just physical bodies.
Are we really like ancient Rome? Mt. 24 does say it will become like Sodom and Gommorah in the last days and it IS no doubt taking place.
"and you will be hated by all for My Name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Mk. 13:13.
Bob| 3.5.10 @ 9:01AM
Jeffrey, that is really tortured logic. By your logic (?), if the people chose to reinstate slavery, you'd be fine with that? What about a women's right to vote? Let's face it, YOU and most of the other AmSpec readers are the extremists here, because you would limit our choice while we don't limit yours. Leave government out of our pockets, out of our bedrooms, and out of our personal decisions.
Stuart Koehl| 3.5.10 @ 11:22AM
Silly statement, Bob. Slavery and all forms of involuntary servitude were abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. To reestablish slavery, that Amendment would have to be abrogated by another amendment--of the same sort as Lord's proposed abortion amendment. Good luck with that--and that's not even considering why anyone would want to do so.
Your second argument is the Libertarian Fallacy: that government has no abiding interest in personal decisions, particularly those related to sexual matters. You are correct that on one hand these are intensely personal and private. On the other hand, these decisions have wide ranging societal implications. The family is not just a private contractual arrangement, but the fundamental social and economic unit of society. And society has, organically, over the course of millennia, arrived at a definition of the family which promotes social stability and ensures the creation of future generations of good, upright and productive citizens. The bedrock of the family is marriage, and government has rightly privileged marriage because of the benefits traditional marriage provides to the state. Anything which relativizes that privilege under mines marriage, which is (as those of us who are married know) a difficult form of relationship that requires a great deal of mutual sacrifice and delayed gratification.
Bob's third error is moral and philosophical, in assuming that "choice" with regard to abortion is not value-laden.
We can leave aside all religious arguments and just go back to some basic metaphysics. I oppose abortion because I believe that the fetus is endowed with a immortal soul and is therefore a full human being in every sense of the word. Bob, I assume, disagrees. He will say that my assertion is unprovable, and that is entirely correct. On the other hand, Bob's counter-assertion, that the fetus is not a person, therefore not worthy of legal protection, is also unprovable.
That said, simple moral prudence demands that the fetus be given the preferential option for life, on the basis of the disparate impact of either Bob or I being incorrect.
If I am incorrect (i.e., if the fetus is not a full human person), the the consequence of my error is a woman being required to bear her child to term--at which point her obligation to the child can end, if she desires: she need only give it up for adoption. Arguably, she is inconvenienced for nine months of her life, but that's all.
However, if Bob is wrong (i.e., if the fetus is a full human person), then Bob would allow that innocent person to be murdered. There is no other word for the action, which is the willful taking of an innocent human life.
Given the dichotomy of outcomes, shear moral prudence demands that fetus be spared, which is another way of saying that abortion should be illegal. One would not blow up a vacant building without first ensuring that it is indeed empty; failure to do so resulting in the death of a person inside the building would be considered negligent homicide. Procuring or performing an abortion before ensuring that the fetus is not a full human being (which cannot be done in any objective manner) is no different.
Bob| 3.5.10 @ 1:35PM
Please don't talk about the "family". We are not living in the 50's and half of all marriages end in divorce. You would not allow gays to marry and adopt some of these unwanted babies. Where is the dichotomy of outcomes there?
The problem is that you consider a group of cells to be a full human at the time of conception. By any stretch of science, that is a sheer fallacy. Where we can agree is that sometime during pregnancy, the group of cells grow into an almost functioning full human being. Would I allow third trimester abortions? No. Would I allow second trimester abortions where the there are circumstances? Perhaps on a case by case basis. Would I allow first trimester abortions? That is between a mother, her beliefs, and her doctor and is none of my, or your, business.
Stuart Koehl| 3.5.10 @ 3:14PM
Old Latin phrase: Abusus non tollit usus--the abuse does not invalidate the use. Beyond that, it is pretty clear that most of the social pathologies we experience today are due to the breakdown in the monogamous nuclear family.
As regards your attempt to dismiss the unborn child as a mere "clump of cells", the onus is actually upon you to define personhood in a manner that is something more than functional or utilitarian. Because here we get to the Big Question: what makes a human human? And any attempt to define humanity invariably results in arbitrary decisions that have uncomfortable implications. Is it based on appearance? If so, then what of the physically mishappen--those born without arms, or legs, or other gross deformities? Is it based on cognitive abilities? That's a slippery slope indeed, since we are soon verging upon "life not worth living". Been there, done that, don't want to see it again.
At the end of the day, the only moral choice (there are other choices, but they are not moral) is to assume that a child is human from the moment of conception, because, as I said--and as you assiduously avoided addressing--you can't prove that it is not. It is not, after all, a scientific but a metaphysical question.
Margie| 3.5.10 @ 3:31PM
Bob says:
"The problem is that you consider a group of cells to be a full human at the time of conception."
~Then what is it, a dinosaur? What were YOU at that same time in your "life's history" Bob?
lucky | 3.8.10 @ 8:03AM
Cut the sophistry. If you're going to "leave aside all religious arguments," then don't disingenuously and feebly try to spin the same BS as "basic metaphysics." It's a difference without a distinction. What you "believe" regarding "immortal souls" of fetuses is immaterial to public policy, which shouldn't be based on the whims of marginally-accepted religious beliefs when there are significant issues -- privacy and liberty -- at stake.
Among those issues is what you cavalierly dismiss: "...she is inconvenienced for nine months of her life, but that's all." How odd you find such an inconvenience as depriving someone of liberty a greater good in the interest of preserving your own private "faith" about a soul among the contents of her womb. Pregnancies aren't always nine months of absolute healthful bliss; they can entail myriad risks to the woman, which is why some women choose to not bear children -- not to mention that your position confines women to nine months of involuntary servitude even if there's knowledge that the fetus has abnormalities which would result in stillbirth or a brief and labored life. Regardless of the health of the fetus, it should remain the woman's right to decide if she wants to carry it to term.
I find it repugnant on every level that one would force women to bear children against their will under any circumstance, even if her reasons to abort only pertain to her own self-interests like education, employment, or even (seen by some less enlightened authoritarians as "trivial") being able to take a planned vacation or use the money needed to raise a child for a flashy sports car instead. The right of the individual to do *any* of those things free of government intrusions or of being peppered with meddlesome fundamentalists' views on "immortal souls" of zygotes shouldn't be restricted. Period. Your "sanctity of life" view collides with the personal freedom of other citizens; as in anything else, your rights end where someone else's start. Accordingly, fetuses don't have, and don't merit, rights or protections under law any more than animals do.
Women aren't property, and how dare you consider their wombs to come under some version of eminent domain laws, as if the State has an overriding interest above their own personal rights. Conservatives were rightly outraged by the Kelo decision about land use; they should be consistent when it comes to what people do with and within their own bodies. What you propose isn't a greater good with a minor "nine month" inconvenience, it's a greater wrong with way too much government intrusion into personal privacy and liberty.
Margie| 3.8.10 @ 1:37PM
A baby has the right to live. "Thou shalt not murder." God said it. He means it. No woman has the "right" to take away the Liberty of that baby just because it is unwanted by her.
Your so-called Liberty also belongs to the yet unborn child formed by God in the Mother's womb, whether you define it as such or not.
lucky | 3.8.10 @ 4:20PM
It's not a baby, at least in the earliest stages during which the overwhelming number of abortions occur. You've most likely eaten fertilized eggs at some point in your life. You weren't eating "chickens" at that stage of development (though some cultures do eat them at more advanced stages).
This isn't about theology. Fortunately, we have a separation of church and state in our nation to prevent fundamentalists and other religious zealots from forcing others to abide by peculiar interpretations of certain passages. I'll grant you benefit of the doubt that you're already aware that not everyone shares your interpretation of Biblical passages with respect to fetal development (or other scientific matters like geology, evolution, and the age of the universe).
Where two sets of competing rights may occur, I side with what I consider the least harm. In this case, I can't find a compelling interest in forcing women to have children they don't want for whatever reason. You can "want" every fetus you want, but until you offer your womb as a home -- and a means of paying to transfer the resident(s) of it -- you have no duty or right to stand between any woman and her doctor (or her God!). That womb is hers and hers alone, and she should be free to keep it free of anyone or anything else if she so chooses. It is not the State's womb. It is not the Church's womb. Keep out of it.
It's neither the State's or Church's vagina, either. Every woman is entitled to freedom to engage in sexual activity as she sees fit, just as many men do. Women shouldn't be slaves to fundamentalist or any other wacky religious ideology (hang ups) about sexual activity or reproduction and should be allowed to be as promiscuous as they want to be without reprisal of state-forced pregnancy. If they are piling sin atop of sin, that is between them and God -- not between you and them. Nanny-state mentality sucks when it comes from the extreme Left, and the pappy-state (particularly the "Big Pappy" strain arising from the most authoritarian evangelical quarters that thinks everything fundamentalists do to control others' behavior instead of their own somehow pleases God) mentality also sucks when it comes from the extreme Right.
Enough of it. Let freedom ring!
Margie| 3.8.10 @ 5:02PM
Uh, Lucy~ chicken eggs aren't human beings. Now I know you don't believe in what God says, but I do. He says chicken eggs are fine to eat. Babies are made in the image of God, and it is the right of no one to snuff out a human being's life.
Since you can't distinguish between the life of a chicken and the life of a child, all I can say is thank God there aren't enough of you Libertarians to effect the voting process. And as long as I am around to expose the utter hypocrisy of your belief system, I will be doing so.
And by the way Lucy, there IS no "separation of church and state." It doesn't exist. What it does say is that the GOVERNMENT shall make no law over the people. The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to force the PEOPLE into a STATE run RELIGION. Got that?
P.S.~ If a woman doesn't WANT her unborn child, then she shouldn't have spread her legs in the first place. Said woman has no RIGHT to snuff out the life of her "unwanted" and "inconvenient" baby. This FREEDOM you falsely proclaim is on the side of that unborn baby. NOT on the side of the immoral, selfish woman.
And yes, God will be the Judge!
lucky | 3.8.10 @ 7:35PM
OMG, are you really unable to comprehend analogies comparing different stages of the life cycle? I apologize for going over your head like that.
I don't care whose image you believe zygotes are created in, you don't get to foist your peculiar religious "beliefs" -- based on private interpretation of whatever Bible verses you happen to dwell on -- upon others as a matter of public policy. We don't have sharia law here, nor do we allow other religious zealots to set policy and curb civil liberties of our citizens.
As I wrote above, the womb AND the vagina are the free woman's. They're not yours (you have your own to do God-only-knows what with), not the State's. She is and should be free to use them as she alone desires, not according to the narrow dictates of your over-burdened conscience. The State has no right to force her to use them in a manner to which she objects.
Just because she chooses to spread her legs for whatever reason (sexual gratification is adequate reason alone; orgasms shouldn't have to come with "strings" -- like unwanted children -- attached) doesn't mean she should be consigned to nine months of pregnancy and a lifetime of caring for someone else in her life unless she actually wants that. You will answer for your own sins, she will answer for hers. You should leave her alone to "work out her own salvation" with or without fear and trembling, just as she leaves you alone to work out yours.
PS: Don't knock "immoral, selfish" women. They're a lot more fun to be around than uptight old bitties like you are. ;-)
Margie| 3.8.10 @ 8:32PM
Typical immoral woman. Who are you to point the finger at me when you promote the murder of the unborn baby?
And for your uninformed information, no scripture is a "matter of one's own interpretation, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 1 Pe. 1:20. So let me explain to you exactly what that means, since it is above your head.
IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. For example, when God says "Thou shalt not kill." He means exactly what He says.
It's just too bad that you don't happen to like what God has to say.
Good luck with that!
And I'd rather be on His side and an old bittie (according to you), than His enemy defending the murder of the unborn. (At whatever stage of life they may be at). ;^)
Toodles.
lucky | 3.9.10 @ 9:01AM
"Typical immoral woman"? I'm a man. I point the finger at you because you're the one who seeks to use the force of government to either coerce certain behavior (sexual intercourse outside of marriage?) or force women to have children they don't want by declaring the womb and its contents as State property.
I didn't write that scripture is open to interpretation, I wrote that you use "private interpretation" of it to reach your conclusions AND that you seek to use the force of government to make others obey what you personally believe with respect to what is "killed" or not killed in the course of a first trimester abortion. This is where I take issue with you; I couldn't care less how many snakes you pass around your odd little church or anything else so long as you leave others alone -- just as they should leave you alone to pass around snakes or whatever your sect does.
Am I God's enemy for allowing others freedom to do what their own consciences allow? Or are you God's enemy for getting between other people and him? When I read the book of Acts, I don't see where the disciples petitioned Rome to change school curricula to suit a peculiar agenda; nor do I see where they were planning "stealth" campaigns or concerned in any way with anything but "preaching Christ crucified." Termination was practiced in the world at that time and the patristic and subsequent church literature shows that there was a diversity of thought over time. Many leading theologians, including Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, were not opposed to abortion before "quickening."
I don't think deeply-held convictions require turning them into law. I also don't think people of faith give up anything when they're willing to compromise on public -- not church -- policy. The government is not a church, and elected officials aren't clergymen. We can render unto Caesar and render unto God, and this is in fact commanded. We're not commanded to make Caesar God or God Caesar, yet this is what you seek to do. Our founders recoiled at the notion of theocracy.
What do you do to help reduce unwanted pregnancy other than rail at "immoral women" who act on their natural urges? Have you been on the side that opposes comprehensive sex education or distribution of contraceptives? Where have you ever made compromises that accept that others don't share your religious opinions but still need education and assistance and medical care?
Margie| 3.9.10 @ 1:25PM
Liberal Reader,
You certainly sound the same though you take another handle. Am I right?
It would be one thing if just ONE thing you said was true, but you LIE repeatedly. Your idiotic assertions are all false.
FYI~ abortion used to be illegal in this country. The Supremely arrogant Court took it upon themselves to reverse that and make it legal. They were wrong for doing that and will stand before God and I sure wouldn't want to be them.
Abortion is murder. Murder is illegal, so should abortion be. That's the truth.
Your despicable and untrue descriptions of me and what I believe are just that. Despicable and untrue. You are a liar!
And I could care less what some famous names of old had to say about abortion. If they allowed it, they too were wrong, and you know it. I don't care a wit what their Religion happened to be, nor does God. He cares only if you love the Truth, and serve it.
You can't have it both ways, nor can you serve 2 Masters.
Jeffrey Lord| 3.5.10 @ 11:29AM
Bob...
"By your logic (?), if the people chose to reinstate slavery, you'd be fine with that? What about a women's right to vote?"
The genius of the American system Bob is embodied in the very first three words of the Constitution: "We the People". The American people did vote on slavery, Bob. They had a chance to approve it. They rejected it. They voted - say again - the voted, to end it. By approving the 13th Amendment. They also voted - again, they voted, they chose - to support the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. A woman's right to vote, Bob, was not a Supreme Court decision. It was a constitutional amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920.
The way you reach consensus is by allowing people to make choices. In supporting Roe, you believe in denying people choice on abortion to the American people - and that, my friend, is the extremist position. I am perfectly willing to abide by the decision of my fellow citizens on abortion - if only you will allow them to make it and get the government out of their way.
Bob| 3.5.10 @ 1:43PM
So, in other words, Jeffrey, you would allow slavery to be reinstated if the 13th amendment was repealed assuming it got a majority vote. Right? That is our difference. I would not allow slavery under any circumstances.
Again, you have a tortured definition of "choice". You define "choice" as a vote. That is not "choice", that is "decision". I defend the rights of the individual above the group -- that is what liberty is all about. Most of Germany supported Hitler's actions with Jews and minorities. That must be the people's choice, right?
Again, the difference between us is that I defend the rights of the individual and you defend the rights of the group, i.e., mob rule.
Again, your use of the word "choice" is tortured by any definition. Put another way, if the moral issue were not abortion, and let's say taking away the right of all persons over 65 to drive, would you accept that as willingly? I doubt it. In that case, you would say that the decision should be made on their INDIVIDUAL capabilities and would believe that decision was wrong.
You are also saying that if the 19th Amendment was not passed, it would be fine with you that women should not vote. Given your definition of "choice", I would also assume that you disagree with the filibuster as majority does not rule there. In fact, filibuster takes away "choice" by your definition. Right?????
Jeffrey Lord| 3.5.10 @ 2:11PM
Bob...
I am exactly defending the right of the individual to choose. No, slavery and denying women the right to vote would not be fine with me. Had I been around in 1865 and 1920 I would have - as did the GOP of the day - supported ending slavery and giving women the vote. But you have this curious attachment to telling others what they must do. Because you support abortion, the other person must do it your way and have no choice in the matter. Choice for you but not for the other guy. Time and again Lincoln - who opposed slavery - made the point that a moral consensus must be reached by the American people, something prohibited by Dred Scott. If we have learned anything in America it is that having the government force a minority view on anything on the American people never works. Ever. For, it seems to some of us, quite obvious reasons. You insist on forcing the government in the way of the ballot box and keeping individuals from expressing their choice on abortion.Just as others tried to force slavery and segregation through the Court. Your solution - which has failed miserably - is to have the government force a solution without "the consent of the governed." You have taken sides against individual rights and freedom. We disagree.
dhenri2| 3.5.10 @ 9:06AM
In re: "The consequence of Roe is that American lives have been saved and preserved. Legal abortions are safe abortions -- ..." Someone ALWAYS dies during an abortion.
KyMouse| 3.5.10 @ 9:37AM
Ms. Stockman, you say that "the consequence of Roe is that American lives have been saved and preserved." Are you really unaware that an estimated 52 million American babies have been killed through abortion? Or that mothers such as Synthia Dennard and Lou Ann Herron have died horrible deaths at the hands of "safe, legal" abortionists?
You mention "the ideal that families and individuals should make choices best for them, whether that be adoption, parenthood or abortion." What about what is best for the baby? We so often talk about rights, but we should talk at least as much about responsibilities. A mother's primary responsibility is to her helpless baby; and if she cannot raise the baby herself, it is her duty to find someone who can. There are plenty of agencies who stand ready to assist her.
Douglas| 3.5.10 @ 9:48AM
Bob, you don't seem to understand. We do not limit a person's choice except in the case of their ability to kill and innocent human being. We do not consider the baby to be a blob of human tissue. We realize it is a functioning human life. The woman, except in the case of rape, made the choice to become pregnant by their actions. That is their choice. Once the life is conceived, we now have two people to protect.
I am more liberal than most and would possibly be shunned for my stance on rape. A woman never had a choice and should not forced to deliver even though that choice will still lead to the death of an innocent baby.
The republican party must decide if it is going to be conservative socially. That would certainly mean no ''Big Tent".
Third parties stand no chance, so I will work with what I have and try to keep the pro-aborts marginalized. The pro-aborts can join the democrats and try to get them to reform into a more fiscally conservative party.
Stuart Koehl| 3.5.10 @ 11:32AM
The Rape and Incest Exception is morally fatuous. The unborn child is not complicit in the crime of his father, and has a right to be born, and to live his life, and perhaps thereby redeem the circumstances of his conception.
Bruce | 3.5.10 @ 12:17PM
So let me get this straight. It's your position that having already endured the mental anguish of being either raped or made pregnant by a family member (probably rape as well) - the woman should then be forced to endure carrying the fruits of that assault. And what about the husband of the woman, if there is one? Should such a thing happen in your family, God forbid, would you feel the same ... your wife/daughter carrying a baby to term created by a violent act of another man? You're good with that? Then you're a better man than I.
Face facts - this issue will never be resolved to the satisfaction of all, and will continue to be a divisive factor in our quest to regain the control of what's left of this Republic by so-called "progressives." If you and others support removal of parental rights from people, that's fine - live by that doctrine - but don't think you have the right to speak for others who don't agree.
Stuart Koehl| 3.5.10 @ 12:48PM
My dear Bruce,
Having talked the matter through, with my family (wife, two daughters), in rational and morally informed (as opposed to a purely emotional) manner, we would most certainly allow the child to live, because his life is not ours to take.
Hard concept, I know, but try to wrap your mind around it: the life of an unborn child is not ours to take, any more than the life of any other innocent person is ours to take.
Bruce | 3.5.10 @ 6:05PM
I truly pray you will never be faced with the prospect, because I think you're full of crap. With all respect, of course.
victor| 3.6.10 @ 4:58PM
Bruce:
"I truly pray you will never be faced with the prospect"
And we will pray that you will do the right thing and not the expedient thing if faced with such a "choice".
John3| 3.5.10 @ 7:51PM
Dear Mr. Bruce,
My reply to " Face facts - this issue will never be resolved to the satisfaction of all, and will continue to be a divisive factor in our quest to regain the control of what's left of this Republic by so-called "progressives."
The Abortion issue just needs to be seen in an OBJECTIVE light: Abortion is the killing of another person: you don't have to agree to this to make it a TRUTH. This is why the fight against abortion is not a divisive issue: IT UNITES PEOPLES FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Ivy League University professors, Wall Street Executives, poor people and rich people. Nasty people and nice people. Why does it unite? Because the moment they understand that Abortion Kills a Child---that child becomes their own.
And when did this movement to protect our children--our future-- become a weapon "on our quest to regain control"? Regain control of what? There would be nothing to control--because we will not have children! Abortion is a lie. It consumes itself. Abortion kills itself. It cannot be part of a prosperous nation.
lucky | 3.8.10 @ 11:17AM
You, Stuart, are morally fatuous and your moral compass is broken. First, it's not a "child," it's merely a developing fetus. I doubt you're so daft as to call eggs "chickens;" most rational people accept the qualitative and quantitative differences between scrambled eggs and roasted chicken, but I accept there are irrational PETA-type authoritarians who see no difference between egg and chicken, so perhaps the anti-choice forces have similar muddled thinkers in their midst (hence the rancid emotive hyperbole about millions of "dead babies").
Second, such a fetus is the product of a violent criminal act, and the victim in that situation -- the raped woman -- shouldn't be further victimized and having to bear a child for a rapist and for a bunch of authoritarian fundamentalists with fetal fetishes. Turn the issue around and ask yourself why a rapist merits paternity and whether other criminals should be allowed to benefit in any way from their crimes.
Finally, the zygote/fetus may not be complicit but the raped woman likewise isn't complicit in the crime of the RAPIST (*not* "the father" -- fatherhood stems from voluntary loving acts, not from forced violent criminal assaults). That alone should merit exemptions from the kind of sexual/reproductive totalitarianism you wackos seek to impose on everyone. She should have a right to clear her womb and conscience of *everything* resulting from a violent criminal act because she's not guilty of any crime.
I feel sorry for your wife and children even if they share your (bleep)ing warped view of the world.
Bob| 3.5.10 @ 1:45PM
A fetus is not a "functioning" human life -- it depends on being in the womb. When it becomes "functioning", I am in full agreement with you.
Stuart Koehl| 3.5.10 @ 3:18PM
So, what of people on life support, or who need mechanical assistance to stay alive? Are they not as dependent upon someone or something else as the fetus in the womb? How long would Stephen Hawking last without his ventilator and his feeding tube. But, if we use your definition, he's not a functioning human being.
To go to another level, do you favor terminating the lives of those who are in comas or persistent vegetative states because they are dependent on external support to live?
Your utilitarian definition of humanity is deficient.
John3| 3.5.10 @ 7:38PM
Mr. Koehl. I did not see your post but I totally agree with you.
John3| 3.5.10 @ 7:30PM
But Bob, YOU were once a fetus which is actually a Latin word that means: "baby." Just because the fetus is dependent on the womb does not negate its personhood. In the same line of thinking, does a 19 year old quadriplegic who is wholly dependent on others, also lose its personhood, and is therefore disposable? Your thinking does not hold water. It is utterly illogical.
Neo-libertarian| 3.5.10 @ 9:51AM
Just using the figures provided by the pro-life faction fifty million women have made a very serious decision and chosen abortion over raising an unwanted child. Considering that about half of the US population is female and that not all women since Roe vs. Wade have fallen into the child bearing window, it seems that we are approaching the reality that a number of women more than a third of the current population of the country has made this momentous decision. It is inarguable that less and less abortions are surgical, medical science has shown marked progress in facilitating this procedure with less medical and psychological impact on the woman, and that the methodology is pharmacy oriented as opposed to clinical. The trends are in place and are accelerating; less stigma for the woman seeking such a procedure will result, public focus will be obscured as the point source “clinic setting” decreases, and culturally women become more sympathetic to their “chosen” offspring who may regrettably have to make this decision themselves.
Despite what Lord, Stockman or the bloggers here contribute I would wager that few, if any, are pregnant. Here we stand in the period of the greatest government takeover in history yet most contributions here will bring the taint of hypocrisy, meddling and increased legislative intervention to the argument. The minuscule shift in opinion between life and choice has no real bearing on the real deciders, women faced with this dilemma. Despite the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments here at AS the pro-life movement is losing this issue, thoroughly and on virtually every quantifiable level.
victor| 3.6.10 @ 4:55PM
Neo-Lib:
"Just using the figures provided by the pro-life faction fifty million women have made a very serious decision and chosen abortion over raising an unwanted child."
You, as with other libs, and Planned Abortionhood, have conveniently taken adoption out of the equation.
There would be many couples willing to adopt these so-called "unwanted" babies.
"Despite what Lord, Stockman or the bloggers here contribute I would wager that few, if any, are pregnant."
And you, of course, have commited how many abortions? Or pulled the plug of life support on someone? What standing do you have in this debate? Many women who have had abortions now regret their "choice".
It's easy to spout on things you never have or never will do.
Libertarians and liberals have no qualms apparently about abortion or euthanasia or anything that requires a conscience.
According to Planned Non-Parenthood, approximately 95% of abortions are really retroactive birth control and are inconvenient for the people involved.
Despite what you say, the Pro-Life movement is gaining and that is why the abortion rate is going down.
phudson| 3.5.10 @ 9:52AM
The argument here for legalizing abortion is that the satte has no duty to use force to defend the weak an innocent agains murder. That argument would also call for legalizing infanticide and indeed all other murders.
3000 abortions a day, and this is the best case they can make? Pro abortion people seem unable to think very well.
Ted| 3.5.10 @ 10:10AM
I am a reasonable person; I am reasonably conservative on many things; and I can not see how supporting the murder of an innocent person constitutes in any way being reasonable.
TJ from Texas| 3.5.10 @ 10:50AM
So, now TAS has just scrapped the Reader's Mail page flat out? Hell, I didn't like it when it was out only once a week, now we have the whole kit and kaboodle taken over by yahoos?!?
People, lets tell RET we want our voices heard too. We want our Reader's Mail pages. Bring back Mimi, Bev, Mike, Ira, Doug and a whole lot of other fresh air.
Stephen Zierak| 3.5.10 @ 10:54AM
The libertarian view of limited government is that government's role is to protect individuals against the initiation of force or fraud--and nothing else. In this context, it is difficult to understand how any libertarian could possibly support abortion, which, after all, is the initiation of deadly force against innocent babies. The government is supposed to protect against such violence, not run (badly) post offices, schools, and now apparently the medical system.
Bob| 3.5.10 @ 1:50PM
Liberty demands that we protect an individual's ability to make his/her own decisions -- and that includes abortion and gay marriage. It might enlighten you to read the Libertarian Party's platform.
Margie| 3.5.10 @ 5:14PM
But screw the unborn baby, right?
IMKessel| 3.5.10 @ 11:03AM
Mr. Z,
Your position assumes that a definition of what a "baby" is has been established. The question of when life begins must first be established before "innocent babies" can be protect by the law.
Stuart Koehl| 3.5.10 @ 11:30AM
See my comments above. Since it is not possible to prove or disprove that a fetus is a full human person by any objective means, it is also impossible to prove that it is NOT a full human person by any objective means. Therefore, the only moral position is to assume the fetus is fully human, and to treat him accordingly.
Bruce | 3.5.10 @ 6:09PM
Nonsense - of course it's possible. Can a fetus survive on its own outside the womb? can a fetus at 26 weeks survive on its own? The point at which a fetus becomes a viable human being capable of survival outside the womb is the point it becomes a "person."
Margie| 3.5.10 @ 8:29PM
Hey Bruce,
Can you survive outside of a bar? Say if you were dead drunk and some S.O.B. beat you to a pulp and the only way for you to survive would be an ambulance and oxygen.
Are we to consider you a viable human being?
Are you a person?
You can't see because you're passed out.
You can't talk because you're passed out.
You can't even utter a sound.
If it weren't for how BIG you are we'd walk right by you.
Tough luck, eh?
axbucxdu| 3.5.10 @ 1:00PM
Let me get this straight. The law must now conjure up some definition to establish what a "baby" is? I'd prefer that the law first address the logical implications of statutes and procedures that already are on the books.
For example, our legal system is now very comfortable using DNA evidence to establish a unique human identity in numerous cases, yet when it comes to arguing the case for abortion, the law strangely ignores the fact that embryonic DNA is also human AND distinct from the parents' .
Existing law is also pretty clear on the subject of slavery: humans are not property.
So it seems to me the law already recognizes abortion as illegal, it simply needs to be more honest, and much less of an ass, about it.
Margie| 3.5.10 @ 5:12PM
This is the problem with haughty intellectuals. They have their noses so high in the air they can't see anything but the sky.
Put that together with the brainwashing mentality of the Libertarian platform of supposed freedom for all which isn't really freedom and you've got a case for disaster.
Not only is the Libertarian viewpoint dangerous for the unborn baby while they sit around and try to figure out if it's a baby or not, but it is also dangerous for the way this country would be run if one of these nut cases would get elected.
Make everything legal because it's "against the freedom of the high and mighty individual." Yeah that's the ticket~make drugs legal, prostitution legal, keep abortion legal, "Gay" Marriage, and what else am I forgetting? Oh yeah, no more war!
This is nothing more than a Leftist platform and way of belief. It's the hippie come new adult way of thinking. Just call it Libertarian and say we're for FREEDOM!
It is WRONG!!
Sam| 3.6.10 @ 1:33AM
Margie,
I think your still bitter about libertarians after that dude S.L. Toddard trashed you on the message board.
We will never agree on abortion or gay marriage, but prostitution? Do you believe that the government should regulate sex between two consenting adults?
Remember that we do not live in a Christian country today so do not base your arguments in biblical law.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 12:20PM
S.L. Toddard IS trash, my dear. And you seem to have some aspirations to that end yourself.
Sam| 3.7.10 @ 9:46PM
Why is that? Because my political viewpoints don't match up neatly with yours.?I thought that's why you hate the liberals so much.
Margie| 3.8.10 @ 11:20AM
It's called morally repugnant.
John3| 3.5.10 @ 7:34PM
IMKessel. When do you think life begins? Or since you are obviously alive right now, WHEN DID YOUR LIFE BEGIN? If you don't like these questions, let's talk about a house that burnt down. When did the fire begin? Did the fire begin when one whole room was burning or did it start burning when a single match was lit by the arsonist?
IMKessel| 3.6.10 @ 4:45PM
John3, you are a solid question. You deserve a thoughtful, if not solid answer.
The most extreme positions are diametrically opposed: one pole is based on moral/religious beliefs and the other on purely philosophical assumptions. At the Catholic (and some other Christian) pole is a moral/faith based assumption (belief) that life begins at conception; at the other pole is the atheistic/existential position of “first breath” definition of life. (A biological unit is not a baby until it draws it first breath.) I fall in between the two poles. I balance faith based/religious thinking against cold logic. I do not seek to impose my religiously held beliefs through the power of the state, but I do balance that non-interference position with the understanding that the state is obligated to protect all human life. This protection can be fairly applied only after a consensus of when life begins is met. To wit, your original question.
A group of organisms produced by human ovum and sperm (e.g., zygote, fetus) has the potential to be only one thing; a human being, but it is not a baby. It is potential life. At some point the organism goes from potential to actualized. No clear natural demarcation exists; the line is an intellectual construct. I draw the line where the organism becomes quick (a separate but dependent organism, i.e., baby). On a purely biological scale, this event happens at approximately the 22 week after conception. (If a woman is contemplating abortion, this allows her four to five months after becoming aware of the pregnancy to weigh her options.) After the 22 week, it is reasonable for the state to protect “an unborn life.” (This is not to say that abortions before this point are to be taken lightly; the organism is a part of the mother; it is no more sensible to cut off one’s hand than to have an abortion arbitrarily.) Further, if the mother’s intent is to carry the unborn to full term, and another agent causes sufficient harm to the mother that the fetus is not allowed to develop to term, the state has an obligation to treat the potential human being as having full human rights. (The slippery slope of allowing the unborn to be treated as human is one of the main reasons free choice advocates deny potential parents the right to seek prosecution for damage to the unborn.)
Thank you for your question.
Mike Lee| 3.5.10 @ 11:58AM
The Republican Majority for Choice is a radical group that can fit in a telephone booth. Its real purpose is to deny the Pro-Life movement any platform into the political forum from which the case for “life issues” can be advanced. Contrary to some, there is no better political party to advocate the defense of the weakest among us than the party that began as the one that opposed the blasphemy of slavery.
I remind all who will listen that the divisiveness didn’t come from any movement of our fellow countrymen. It was an over-reaching Supreme Court that issued Roe. With Roe, the laws of every single state—even the most liberal—was declared wrong. That also meant that no state—even the most liberal—had been right. Talk about “controversial”. Does anyone really think the Court always and everywhere has the last word?” I am sure there are those who believe it should; but the notion is clearly ahistorical. Justice Tanny may have his say for one day. Through the Civil War, the people "said" another.
If the people in each of the states were free to work out the abortion issue among themselves, it is entirely predictable that the results will not be totally “no” abortions allowed or “all” abortions permitted. The people will work out compromises favoring one direction or the other. These laws will reflect the moral discernment of the people--however imperfectly. But neither camp can reach out in compromise and moderate their views because WE CAN’T CHANGE. Roe will not permit it. No compromise can be made because any such compromise is meaningless.
LQQKY| 3.5.10 @ 12:23PM
In today's world, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. There are two pills readily available -- first the birth control pill, secondly the common aspirin HELD FIRMLY BETWEEN THE KNEES!
Anommynous| 3.5.10 @ 1:07PM
FEDERALISM, FEDERALISM, FEDERALISM!!!!
The question right now isn't whether you should support abortion rights or not; rather, the question is whether the Federal government should have any say at all. Prior to 1973, abortion policy was set by the states, as the Founders intended. Roe v. Wade has deprived the American people of the CHOICE to decide this policy for themselves. This runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It is at the state level that this battle should be fought, not dictated by Federal government elites. It is possible to be a pro-choice Republican within your own state, but there is no room for any Republican who supports the policy set by Roe v. Wade. Support of Roe v. Wade is tantamount to support for big government, and there is no room for supporters of big government in the Republican Party.
Cris Worth| 3.6.10 @ 7:30AM
At last the truth concerning the federal government usurping the constitution in its most unconstrained way ever. Abortion is a 10th amendment issue left up to the states and the people. Therefore overturn Roe v. Wade and stop all federal funding of abortions, including embryonic stem cell research both here and overseas. Let the PEOPLE for and against abortion fight it out in their respective STATE legislatures.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:00PM
Exactly. Ironic, isn't it, that so many "conservatives" who otherwise understand and support the 10th Amendment are quite willing to scream for Federal measures to ban abortion, their pet issue.
victor| 3.6.10 @ 7:23PM
"Kenneth":
'Ironic, isn't it, that so many "conservatives" who otherwise understand and support the 10th Amendment are quite willing to scream for Federal measures to ban abortion, their pet issue."
We Conservatives, not only support the Tenth Amendment, we support Pro-Life issues, one of many, as governed by the States.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 7:48PM
Sure sounds just like Toddy, doesn't it? Typical baiting and twisting in the wind.
Insult conservatives in an underhanded way by sneakily presenting a generality that is a lie. Oh so typical and filled with deceit.
Mitch| 3.5.10 @ 2:40PM
You should not make abortion illegal. Many believe sincerely believe very early abortions are not taking a human life. Let them and don't make them criminals with their own money.
You also should not use taxpayers' money to perform abortions. You can not force people to pay for what they believe is murder.
Thus the middle ground, which is what we have, what we should keep, and what must not be subverted by any new health care legislation.
Specifically this means early term abortions are allowed but must be paid for by the individual or the individual's health insurance. An open market- which we admittedly do not have yet - could allow people to choose plan's that cover or do not cover abortions.
What is the problem with this? Someone please explain.
Dean from Ohio| 3.7.10 @ 9:30PM
Mitch,
I don't claim more wisdom than the next guy, but here are a few thoughts...
Essentially what you're saying, as I understand it, is that the status quo is often the easiest approach to a contentious issue. Don't change anything; let's just keep the boundary line where it is and keep getting along as we have been.
That's fine, I think, except where a grave moral issue is involved. The problem is that the human conscience (and God, if you will) do not allow such things to rest forever.
Take for example three compromises from in the issue of slavery in the U.S.. Work with me a minute here; I'll explain at the end why slavery and abortion are a valid comparison here and is not just a means to end discussion.
First was the Missouri compromise. Made in 1820-21, it essentially codified the arrangement that slavery would be permitted in the south and prohibited in the north. Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state, and line was drawn westward to divide future free and slave states in north and south of the line, respectively.
Thirty years later, the Compromise of 1850 was made to allow New Mexico and Utah to choose for themselves whether they would be slave or free, to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Act (which forced northern governments to return runaway slaves) and to allow slavery but not the slave trade in Washington DC.
This lasted just four years, until the Kansas-Nebraska Act (proposed by Stephen Douglas to try to defuse the controversy) effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing those two states-to-be to choose slavery (north of the line previously drawn). The Supreme Court got into the act 1n 1857, declaring African American slaves not to be persons. Justice Taney wrote that black slaves had no rights that the white man needed to respect.
The Crittenden Compromise was debated in 1860 to double down on the Compromise of 1850, but was never adopted. Slavery would be permanent in the south and freedom would be permanent in the north, except for the fugitive slave laws, etc., the divided Congress and country, etc. It also threw a bone to the lawyers by allowing lawsuits for northerners who sheltered slaves.
Abraham Lincoln rejected the Crittenden Compromise. The South then rejected Abraham Lincoln, first as a candidate and then as the President, the the nation slid into civil war.
Here's my point: on a grave moral issue, compromise only puts off the day of resolution, and just adds fuel to the coming fire. The conscience does not rest. It pushes those who oppose evil to endure until the evil can be ended. As J. Budziszewski writes, a violated conscience becomes like a cell overtaken by cancer and becomes the machinery for more evil, as it propels those complicit in evil to remove all reminders the wrong that it refuses to right.
So what do slavery and abortion have in common? In a remarkable parallel between the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, two entire classes of humans were declared to be non-persons under the law, and had no rights that the white man, and then the woman, need respect. This is contrary to common sense, and violates the conscience. That is why neither issue will ever go away with compromise.
Abortion is a grave moral evil, and the great moral issue of our day. It has activated the consciences of those on both sides of it, calling some to steadfastness in good and propelling others to restlessness in evil. This question will not quietly disappear, nor forever be put off by endless compromises. The Congress cannot legislate it away; the Supreme Court cannot remove it from debate; the President cannot will it away or bury it in Executive Orders. Activists who want to remove the issue from political discourse, or from the platform of a party, cannot bury it forever either.
The pro-life side is slowly establishing a moral consensus across the country; more and more people every day are turning against abortion on demand. This is especially true among young people, the survivors of the Roe regime (which, by the way, was built on the lie that Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe was raped. She is now, by the way, pro-life).
When this moral consensus gathers enough mass, it is time to align the law with the moral consensus. It will then be time to end abortion on demand in the United States of America both in precept and in practice.
Is a second civil war inevitable? I hope so. Is it possible? Read more about the history of these compromises and decide for yourself.
I hope this is helpful in pointing out the problem with your suggestion.
Best to you...
Dean from Ohio| 3.7.10 @ 9:49PM
Oops, a typo--should read, "Is a second civil war inevitable? I hope not." Let no one hope for war.
Defender| 3.5.10 @ 4:19PM
Ms. Stockman holds the typical (and erroneous) position that a society's increased contraceptive use reduces the abortion rates. She says, for example, "Furthermore, we support proven and effective ways to reduce the number of abortions through access to prevention methods, family planning and education..." Contraceptive use does _not_ reduce the abortion rate. On the contrary, it increases it. How? 1) Contraceptives increase risky sexual behavior, 2) contraceptives fail, 3) contraceptive use predisposes a woman to abort her child if she conceives a child, 4) contraceptives distort the cultural sexual environment even for non-users.
If you research Planned Parenthood's various positions over the years, you will see that their position has evolved from the "right" to not GET pregnant to the "right" to not BE pregnant.
Up until 1930, Every Christian denominiation in the world considered contraceptive use to be gravely immoral (the Catholic Church remains the only holdout). Until we rediscover the truth about the evils of contraception, abortion will remain a serious (and unsolvable) problem.
PCP Smoker| 3.5.10 @ 6:11PM
"Moderates like myself and others in the Republican Majority for Choice organization support a Big Tent GOP, which focuses on common sense solutions -- not division"
that's the fucking best this dumb btch can do?
Same old blather about "big tent" and "common sense solutions" and "not divisions" and "pro-choice"? Stuff it bitch. Go regurgitate your stale puke somewhere else
karent| 3.5.10 @ 7:55PM
Abortion is a form of rape. It violates a women on every possible level. When a woman has been raped once, why would you rape her again?
FTM| 3.6.10 @ 5:14AM
This seems to be fairly simple to me. Let the boys that want to marry boys marry boys. Let the girls that want to marry girls marry girls. Let the women that want to kill their unborn babies kill their unborn babies. Before long there won't be any Democrats.
Looks pretty simple to me.
Pingback| 3.6.10 @ 9:00AM
Miscarriage Symptoms – Reasons For an Abortion | links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
buy sexy corsets | 3.6.10 @ 9:08AM
[b][ur]=http://www.yo2underwear.com]buy sexy corsets[/url][/b] are hot sale now,[b][ur]=http://www.yo2underwear.com/asian-style-tapestry-pink-corset-p-12.html]Asian Style Tapestry Pink Corset[/url][/b],only $47.89
Hinterland Republican| 3.6.10 @ 11:17AM
Abortion is child murder. It is a choice, but not materially different than that of choosing to murder your neighbor. Neighbors, too, can seem inconvenient to the selfish. Or, maybe their lives are too pitiful and they should be killed since we cannot help them properly. If the Republican Party ceases to take a stand against abortion I will cease to vote Republican.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:44PM
I'd be thrilled to have you not voting in a GOP primary. You people will fall for any RINO who wave the "pro-life" flag. Two Bush's, McCain...that's worked out so well - and yet, still, abortion is legal. Government got bigger and bigger while your dumb issue didn't budge one bit.
victor| 3.6.10 @ 7:28PM
"Kenneth":
"I'd be thrilled ....not voting in a GOP primary"
Yes, I'm sure you would.
Exactly who did you vote for in the last presidential primary, eh?
By the time we got to vote, Fred Thompson was not running and the other two were dead in the water.
PS, you do know that the lib/dem/progs voted en masse for McCain in the open primaries, don't you?
If we had a real choice we would not have voted for McCain.
You, of course, voted for his opponent, didn't you.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 3:57PM
I am so sick of the GOP being pushed around by "pro-life" zealots. The Left loves our eternal, internecine battle about abortion - it sucks all the air out of our politics and perpetuates the gender gap.
True conservatives realize that abortion is properly an issue for the states. Pragmatists realize that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, most states would still allow abortion.
It's a dumb issue. Get over it.
True Conservative| 3.6.10 @ 4:14PM
I hate all those foolish zealots, too. Stupid capitalist zealots, small government fiscal conservative zealots, private property & free speech advocates...they take all the wind out of our politics. The GOP would go so much further if it would just concentrate on its fundamental values. Go get'm, Ken.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:32PM
I just love the snarkiness of pro-life zealots. The types who gave us McCain because he is so "pro-life"...regardless of his pathetic weakness otherwise. Keep it up, "True Conservative".
victor| 3.6.10 @ 6:16PM
Kenneth:
"True conservatives realize that abortion is properly an issue for the states. Pragmatists realize that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, most states would still allow abortion."
You mean like the 32 states that prohibit Homo sexual "marriage"?
Maybe there should be a vote on Pro-Choice-Abortion, eh?
Who do you think would win?
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 7:33PM
Yes, and Toddard, oops I mean Kenneth snarkily states that it is "us types" that gave us McCain. Well the LIAR strikes again! The TRUTH is that conservatives who are pro-choice didn't want McCain as the nominee. But then, this LIAR knows that already. His condescending attitude is par for the course for these Paleo-Con artists who claim to be conservative, yet BASH conservatives as a way of life!
McCain (as he knows full well) got elected due to open Primaries and leftists voting for him.
Keep up the lies, "Kenneth." They look great on you.
By the way "Kenneth"~~ who did YOU vote for, hmm?
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 7:38PM
*meant conservatives who are PRO-LIFE, above, did NOT want McCain as the nominee!
True Conservative| 3.7.10 @ 10:12AM
Kenneth: My state nominated Mitt Romney. After McCain got the nod, we went solidly for McCain. In any case, I never cast a vote for McCain. I never got your interpretation of the Constitution, nor did you ever substantiate your claims regarding how the Pro-lifers views resulted in McCain. In any case, pro-life voters helped beat Al Gore and John Kerry. Maybe you think that's a shame, but without our support our nation would be in a different place.
Margie| 3.7.10 @ 11:43AM
Let me explain something to you, TC. "Kenneth: really doesn't care about your sincere heart. This is why: He is what's called a Paleoconservative. I suspect he is also the regular poster named S.L. Toddard. who enjoys baiting and switching and attacking and insulting. Paleoconservatives HATE and I mean HATE conservatives like you, especially that are Christian. They ABHORE Sarah Palin as well. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is considered "conservative" to them except other PaleoCons. You can look them up. They believe they are the only "true conservatives" in existence. They believe in what's called "non-interventionism." In other words that America should no be involved in going to war anywhere outside the U.S. They also DESPISE Israel. ~That gives you some idea. Whenever you see a Christian who is a conservative on a blog, defending pro life stands, or conservatives who back other good conservatives, or one who defends Israel, or our Military, you will fare well to be aware of these types. They will start out by accusing you of not being a "true conservative" and if you confront them they will rip you to shreds. Just know you are dealing with evil. No matter what you say, you will not be treated fairly. Because the only "true conservatives" are them.
Ron Paul is who they back, as he believes in non-interventionism, and is anti-Isreal like they are.
They always say we want the RINO's (everyone's a RINO to them), except R.Paul.
victor| 3.6.10 @ 7:32PM
"Kenneth":
"True conservatives realize that abortion is properly an issue for the states. Pragmatists realize that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, most states would still allow abortion."
Of course we do, that is why we know that most states would not allow it.
PS not to worry, you'll still be able to get one in your state that was run by the Kennedy's for 50 or 60 years or so.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 4:15PM
Hey Kenneth~ You care what the Left thinks? That makes you weak. A strong stance is what we need in the Republican party.
"True conservatives?" Where have I heard that before?
Oh, and that sucking sound you refer to? It's the sound of wimps leaving the party.
It's a "dumb" issue? Maybe for you. Too bad.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:29PM
I care about winning. People like you are satisfied to lose, time after time, so long as your pet issue is always at the fore. Yes it is a dumb issue...what are you going to do if Roe v Wade is overturned? Get 50 states to outlaw abortion? Good luck with that.
True Conservative| 3.6.10 @ 4:34PM
Ken wants to win. Margie wants to save lives. I'm with Margie everytime. I'd rather be right and lose than wrong and win. Nevertheless, go get'm big guy.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:37PM
I'd rather be right and win. And I am right...abortion is an issue for the states, not the Federal government. True Conservatives read the Constitution. Try it sometime.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 4:44PM
You couldn't be more wrong. But as usual, you "true conservatives" have to lie about about what a person believes in order to try and make your point. Let me guess here.. you're a Paleo-Con? The only "true conservatives" on the face of the earth.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:46PM
Where is the lie, please? You sound like a Lefty blogger...throw out words like "lie" and Paleo-Con. Define Paleo-Con, by the way. If you can.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 4:48PM
You lied when you said what I believe. That abortion is my pet issue, and that I am satisfied to lose. Screw you buddy.
And if anyone is a Leftist blogger it is you.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:55PM
Ah, rational discourse from Margie. If abortion isnt your pet issue, why did you jump all over my post? Lol. And you still didn't define Paleo-Con.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 4:58PM
So, rational discourse is lying?
I called you a liar. That's rational when you lie, big man. "True Conservative!"
So once again, screw you!
Go play with someone who wants to play.
Creep.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 5:03PM
I posted, you decided to play. When the play got a little too deep for you, you started stamping your cute little feet and shouting "Liar!"
Pathetic.
By the way, you still haven't defined "Paleo-Con".
I won't hold my breath. You abortion zealots rarely educate yourselves, much less others.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 5:09PM
What's pathetic is you. You're a liar and I called you on it.
Too deep? What's deep about you and your level of morality? Abortion is a "dumb" issue to you. How deep does that make you, big guy?
Pathetic indeed!
Keep up the lying, loser. Once again you can't help yourself. I am not an abortion zealot. But you sure seem to be a pro-choice zealot.
Pathetic indeed!
I nailed you didn't I, Mr. Paleo-Con-Artiste?
Ha!
True Conservative| 3.6.10 @ 4:41PM
I didn't realize that the Republican Party only functioned on the national level and didn't play a role on the state level...are you sure about that? Which part of the Constitution are you refering to? Please teach me.
Kenneth| 3.6.10 @ 4:47PM
You're not teachable. Zealots rarely are.
True Conservative| 3.6.10 @ 5:10PM
Maybe on some level we understand each other even if we disagree. I bet that there are some things you won't compromise. I'm sorry to have missed your apologetics on the Constitution. I had hoped to learn something. If you work long and hard enough you'll get people like me out of the party. I don't think that would be a good outcome (but, some things are hard to know). In the mean time, let's work together through the GOP on things about which we agree. There must be quite a few of those issues. I apologize for my snarkiness earlier. Please forgive me. Sometimes my heart gets out ahead of my reason.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 5:20PM
TC,
This man attacks our beliefs, then accuses us of being zealots, unteachable, snarky, not "true conservatives," the reason the Republicans lose, and ignorant because we must not read the Constitution. Yet he turns it around on you so that the accuser makes the accused feel guilty and then you bow and apologize.
Meanwhile he gets to snarkily walk away looking good in his phony superiority. Don't be fooled.
True Conservative| 3.6.10 @ 5:37PM
I never indicated that I'd compromise. I've suffered worse attacks. I'm on your side of the abortion issue. Even if we enjoy a complete political victory the war will continue. The only reason I entered this fray was because I felt like making a stand today. It just isn't enough to send money to pro-life groups so they can speak for me. I didn't lose the debate, but I was rude at certain points. Worse yet, my rudeness damages the pro-life movement's reputation. Finally, I didn't want to debate forever. Better to make my point and move on, preferably on a less negative note.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 5:44PM
How on earth were you rude?
That's silly. But I don't blame you for moving on.
These haughty Paleo-Cons love to make us feel that way for taking any kind of stand.
Yet they are allowed to insult and demean.
Not on my watch!
God bless you, TC.
True Conservative| 3.6.10 @ 5:43PM
For what it's worth, I'm also the Hinterland Republican. I adopted True Conservative because of one of his earlier comments.
Margie| 3.6.10 @ 5:53PM
Mission accomplished, right Kenneth?
pitman| 3.7.10 @ 12:38PM
"Moderates like myself"?????? How about moderates like ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
erager| 3.8.10 @ 7:11AM
Good post, By the way, community is a good access.
aea| 3.8.10 @ 7:12AM
Quite excellent anfshop!
mtyj| 3.8.10 @ 7:16AM
Good idea! Welcome brand
nr| 3.8.10 @ 7:16AM
What a new life! thank you.
ber| 3.8.10 @ 7:19AM
Really awesome on brand!
erhyr| 3.8.10 @ 7:19AM
Look forward for a proper brand!
Donny| 3.8.10 @ 5:31PM
Mr. Lord's response to Stockmen is sorely lacking. Here's a better effort:
Mr. Lord's intellectual calisthenics make no contribution towards solving biology's basic dilemma: women will become pregnant, often unintentionally, and they sometimes will do so when it is virtually impossible for them to successfully raise children [NO ONE HAS A GUARANTEE OF SUCCESSFULLY RAISING CHILDREN], with or without a partner. On top of that, pregnancy itself can be fraught with danger to a woman's health and well-being. At those moments, women need to consult with their doctors, their families and their own consciences -- not a political party looking to round up votes in the next election. [THIS IS A TYPICAL TALKING POINT USED BY DEMOCRATS]
Facts are stubborn things. Studies show that abortion rates in countries in which the procedure is illegal are similar to those in which it is legal. The starkest divergence between places where abortion is legal and illegal is the safety of the procedure and the number of woman who may die. [WRONG: THERE ARE NO SAFE ABORTIONS. AND THERE ARE INCREASED RISKS OF CANCER FOR POST-ABORTIVE WOMEN. ]T he consequence of Roe is that American lives have been saved and preserved. [INCREDULOUS THAT ANYONE WOULD ACTUALLY SAY THIS! 50 MILLION AMERICANS HAVE DIED IN ABORTION MILLS! ] Legal abortions are safe abortions [THE TRUTH IS THAT WOMEN ARE DYING IN BACK-ALLEY ABORTION MILLS TODAY. ABORTION MILLS HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN ACROSS THE NATION; OTHERS HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF HUNDREDS OF VIOLATIONS OF STATE REGULATIONS. ABORTIONISTS FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO BE SUBJECT TO STATE SAFETY REGULATIONS.] -- even if we personally aren't happy that they occur.
I was raised on the idea that less government frees the individual to live a productive, entrepreneurial, responsible life. [THAT’S PRETTY HARD TO ACCOMPLISH WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SANCTIONS THE PREMEDITATED MURDER OF THE UNBORN.] Uncle Sam should stay out of your bank account, your bedroom and your doctor's office. [THE PEOPLE CROWING THE LOUDEST ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN THEIR BEDROOMS ARE HOMOSEXUALS. GOING TO AN ABORTION MILL IS QUITE A DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE THAN GOING TO A “DOCTOR’S OFFICE.” MOST PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNOW THEIR DOCTOR BY NAME AND CHOOSE WHICH DOCTORS THEY TRUST WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE. ABORTIONISTS ARE ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUALS WHO MEET THEIR PATIENTS FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE ABORTION, THEN DISAPPEAR FROM THEIR SIGHT.] Giving states the option to ban abortion, as Mr. Lord argues, would be the antithesis of this Republican ideal. [THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL IS TO REPEAL ROE V. WADE, HAILED BY RUTH BADER GINSBERG AND OTHER LEFTISTS AS EXTREMELY POOR JURISPRUDENCE. THE SUPREME COURT COULD CITE NO PRECEDENTS IN THE ROE ABOMINATION.] Legislatures and governors would have the power to dictate the very dynamics of the American family: its size, its economic prospects, even its physical condition (depending on the mother's ability to carry and bear a child, and the child's own health once it's delivered). [THIS IS A STRETCH OF SENATIONALISM, TO SAY THE LEAST.]
Mr. Lord asserts that I support a judicial philosophy that is "expressly designed to circumvent the real choices the America people wish to make," which, by extension, makes me anti-choice. [EVER MET ANYONE IN AN ABORTION CLINIC THAT URGES THE WOMAN TO MAKE A CHOICE? NO. THEY PRESSURE WOMEN INTO ABORTIONS BY LYING ABOUT THE HUMANITY OF THE UNBORN CHILD. ]He attempts to back up that nonsense with a misguided dissertation on the court's history with slavery. [SLAVERY AND ABORTION ARE INDISSOLUBLY CONNECTED: IN APPROVING BOTH, THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED UNBORN CHILDREN AND BLACKS LESS THAN HUMAN. ] He conveniently ignores more salient decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, which declared separate public schools for black and white children to be unconstitutional (I'm assuming he agreed with that bit of judicial activism). Brown upended state laws that denied black children access to equal educational experiences. [BLACK CHILDREN ARE DISPROPORTIONALLY ABORTED IN AMERICA, AND THAT’S TRAGIC.] Similarly, Roe prevents states from legislating away the rights of women. [IT’S NOT A PRO-WOMAN POSITION TO TELL A WOMAN SHE HAS ONE CHOICE AND ONE CHOICE ONLY: ABORT THIS CHILD TODAY.] Access to quality family planning [AKA ABORTION.] -- which shapes the entire lives of adults and children [AT LEAST IT DOES FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT MURDERED IN ABORTION MILLS.] -- should not be dictated by where you live or how much money you have. [NOR SHOULD STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICES BE DICTATED BY HOW MUCH MONEY CANDIDATES CAN RAISE TO OFFSET THE DEEP POCKETS OF THE ABORTIONISTS’ WELL-FUNDED CANDIDATES.]
Unlike Mr. Smerconish, I have not left the Republican Party. [YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THE OFFICIAL PLATFORM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. THAT’S A PRETTY GOOD START ON LEAVING THE GOP.] As a voter and activist I still believe in the Party's philosophy of limited government [EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCING LAWS PROHIBITING MURDER]. My views are completely consistent with that philosophy. Where I differ with the fundamentalists' right is their failure to acknowledge the views that I and so many other Republicans hold, and to work with us toward common goals. [WHY DON’T FUNDAMENTALIST PRO-ABORTS LIKE YOU WORK WITH THEM?]
The GOP's recent surge is an exciting development for those of us who believe in a vibrant two-party system. However, this momentum will grind to a screeching halt if Party leaders pursue litmus tests for candidates, with abortion being at the top of the list. [CANDIDATES RUNNING ON THIS POSITION WIN MORE OFTEN THAN THEY LOSE. THE GOP IS FOREVER DOOMED TO MINORITY PARTY STATUS BY THE PRO-ABORTION REBELLION WITHIN.] GOP victories came from the middle [FOR THE GOP, THE PRO-LIFE POSITION IS THE HEART AND CENTER OF THE PARTY’S SOUL.], where the American people happen to be. Groups like the Republican Majority for Choice remain central to those victories because we signal to voters that the right to personal freedom remains one the most important GOP ideals, and one which we will not easily give up to a vocal minority. [THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THESE KINDS OF RINOS WIN IS IN EXTREMELY LIBERAL STATES, AND EVEN IN THESE STATES, RINOS ARE IN THE MINORITY.]
Mr. Lord, Mr. Lincoln would be proud [OF THE PRO-LIFE POSITION].
-- Jennifer Stockman
Former chair, Republican Majority Coalition for Choice
Cris Worth| 3.8.10 @ 6:39PM
The proper ruling of Roe v. Wade should not have been an up or down vote but not to have taken the case at all...citing no specific abortion language exists in the constitution therefore it's up to the states and the people. Overturning Roe v. Wade today would add a dynamic to politics not seen in decades and all of it at the state and local level. Democracy at its best...both sides passionate and it would be a political fight to the finish in every state house.
Cris Worth| 3.8.10 @ 7:11PM
Romney emphasized social issues in his first presidential campaign claiming he was a social conservative in contrast to other so-called GOP moderates. Specifically he claimed he was pro-life but his record tells another story. RomneyCare provides abortion on demand, Romney and his wife Ann attended Planned Parenthood meetings and his wife made a $150 donation. I'm pretty sure Planned Parenthood is not a right to life organization. Romney profited from investments in embryonic stem cell research. Romney's words and deeds concerning abortion are 180 degrees out of phase. Just yesterday Romney will deemphasize social issues and concentrate on foreign policy and economics. I wonder if he is still profiting from embryonic stem cell research.
german sex movie | 12.19.10 @ 11:08PM
thank you great posting
แรน | 4.22.11 @ 12:30AM
True conservatives realize that abortion is properly an issue for the states. Pragmatists realize that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, most states would still allow abortion.
sbo | 5.25.11 @ 12:53AM
Wade today would add a dynamic to politics not seen in decades and all of it at the state and local level. Democracy at its best. IBCBET
rechie | 10.24.11 @ 10:48AM
I think the things you covered through the post are quiet impressive, good job and great efforts. I found it very interesting and enjoyed reading all of it...keep it up, lovely job..
Soni Leon| 10.6.11 @ 6:08PM
Thank you for the very good topic. These is cool. Awesomely posted.
weber q220 best price
yanyan | 10.11.11 @ 5:06PM
Really its a good news. I am very interested for this post. This side will be help all of us. Thanks.zoloft lawsuits
balcuizar62| 10.13.11 @ 1:50AM
You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.
yaz class action
balcuizar62| 10.13.11 @ 1:50AM
You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.
yaz class action
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 11:44AM
I am absolutely amazed at how terrific the stuff is on this site. I have saved this webpage and I truly intend on visiting the site in the upcoming days. Keep up the excellent work
silver spot price
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 1:44PM
This is all gud bt one thing tht i wud love to say is tht yea there some facts tht u still didnt clearify
mesothelioma lawsuit
fiance visa| 10.18.11 @ 2:31AM
While reading your blog it seems that you research on this topic very much. I must tell you that your blog is very informative and it helps other also
While reading your blog it seems that you research on this topic very much. I must tell you that your blog is very informative and it helps other also
fiance visa| 10.18.11 @ 2:32AM
You can really help your score improve by using the techniques in the credit bible. This is a great resource if you are going to raise your own credit score without the help of a credit professional.
fiance visa
creamer| 10.19.11 @ 11:02PM
Great post I must say.. Simple but yet interesting and engaging.. Keep up the awesome work!
Actos Lawyers
abominable putridity| 11.5.11 @ 9:46AM
I definitely love studying all the things that's written on your blog.
L Tod Schlosser
HAPPY| 11.8.11 @ 7:33PM
You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it sensible. I cant wait to read much more from you.
filipina women
Craige| 11.13.11 @ 7:40PM
This information is very interesting, I really enjoyed, I would like get more information about this, because is very beautiful, thanks for sharing !
paxil lawsuit
Jonas Dan| 11.14.11 @ 4:56PM
Reproductive health is a sensitive topic. Much attention should be given to the topic abortion. Life is precious, it must be valued.
network storage synology ds211
bogol| 11.16.11 @ 2:23PM
Your bogs here uncovered most of the coolest online social trends, I think I would continuously visit your page.It’s really worth reading through!
Actos Lawyers
bogol| 12.1.11 @ 3:20PM
this is the very interesting blog cause the point here is the topic and i like the topic so much..thanks
mesothelioma lawsuit
inah0911| 12.7.11 @ 7:14AM
when i discover your blog i feel like i need to share this blog immediately thanks..
foreclosure califorina
IMYI| 12.15.11 @ 10:35PM
Hi, really loving the design of your website. Would you mind if I asked you what theme youre making use of here? I'm new to this, but I'm hoping to have mine looking nearly as cool as yours. Thanks a lot.
Medtronic Infuse Lawsuit