Posted on 03/05/2005 8:41:59 AM PST by upchuck
Yeah, right. The Hildabeaste charges full speed ahead towards 2008, desperately trying to align herself just left of right center. Ain't gonna happen.
Please do not kill the messenger (that would be me :) for posting this.
LOL...keep your head down, chuck
The beginning of a national PR campaign attempting to "realign" the PERCEPTIONS of the voters that the Dem's are "in touch" with RED STATE voters and not really the radical liberals that they really are.
The camel got pushed out of the tent when Bush won the election and they're trying to get the nose back in the tent.
The Democrats are lying to themselves if they think their new strategy is better. As soon as you concede that abortion is wrong you've given the moral high ground to the pro-lifers. They were better off pretending that getting an abortion was like clipping your nails.
Compromise on abortion but keep it enshrined as a constitutional right? Yeah sure.
By my reading of the Declaration of Independence as well as the U.S. Constitution, we have asserted that our constitutionally guaranteed rights are those with which we are "endowed by our Creator". The very assertion that abortion is a constitutional right is, in an of itself, a callous blasphemy. The only righteous response is to denounce both this barbaric sacrament as well as its court-ordered enshrinement as a "right". The goal must be to utterly crush any politician of either party who doesn't seek that end.
Is there a shortage of prospective traditional adoptive parents? If so then the gays-as-adopters argument might have a basis -- but not as a countermeasure to abortion. To the best of my understanding, nobody has been advising pregnant women to abort based on a lack of adoption candidates.
How do we know that any of the statistics on abortion decline are accurate?
The CDC does NOT require the reporting of abortions; it merely compiles data that is provided voluntarily!
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm
FReepers disagreeing with this article should contact Andrew Sullivan, not me. I disagree with it too!
Fuzzing up the sharp lines of the issue for political gain attempts to replace moral certainty about infanticide with moral subjectivism.
People need to be on one side or the other about human life or you begin to make Solomonic slices of the baby into one camp or the other.
The "down side" is that their side gives up nothing in this "compromise". All they are doing is changing the subject.
Exactly. "Why not just give up and accept the fact that we've won?" This is a despiration tactic, because the pro-death crowd realizes that their side won by resorting to the non-democratic judiciary, and that after thirty years of abortion by royal fiat, they still haven't convinced enough people of the correctness of their position.
You are right not to want to compromise on abortion if you believe it is wrong. What Sullivan says above is a mistake if you're pro-choice. My position on the abortion issue is that is a private choice between a woman and her doctor. It's not the business of Sullivan or society to monitor and wring hands over the number of abortions. But if you are anti-abortion as so many on FR, then the argument above that we would be better off with fewer of them is equally wrong. You would say we'd be better off with none. To sum it up, there is no compromise possible. Either abortions are legal and nobody's business or the state will make them illegal and then it's the police force's business to round up the criminal doctors and wire hanger purveyors.
A category into which Mr Sullivan doesn't fall. Of course, "conservative Catholic" is a tag he's unlikely to have pinned on him in his other capacity as a fully paid-up, practising shirt-lifter.
The libs *have* to be kidding!!! The baby is either dead or it isn't!
Yeah right, Hillary. Abortion is a fee-per-service industry....nothing hits the Planned Barrenhood franchisees' profits like respect for life.
Oh there are grounds for compromise. You can oppose Roe because you love the Constitution. You can oppose tax money going to groups involved with abortion on the grounds that it is "nobody's business". You can support parental notificaton/consent because you don't want abortionists to have privileges real doctors don't have.
We are not a "pro-choice" society, we are a "pro-abortion" one and it makes me sick.
As for me, I'm not in favor of turning girls into criminals for having had an abortion -- at least those in the circumstances in which I was acquainted. So there's compromise on my end too.
Exactly. But I'd disagree that there is room for compromise. Right now, the pro-abortion side has won the legal battle. However, the move in this country is toward greater government control through legislation. And the anti-abortion crowd is picking up considerable steam. One side or the other will always be in charge. I frankly believe it's only a matter of time before abortion becomes illegal again. There was a historical loosening of the grip of government in the early 70's. But that noose is tightening with every passing decade. Whether right or left, we will all be trapped in a totalitarian utopia soon enough thanks to the statists who call themselves Republican and Democrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.