Posted on 08/26/2006 2:18:58 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Dear JHBowden,
" If we keep the presidency it isn't a matter of if Roe v Wade is overturned, but when."
No, it isn't. I don't believe that Mr. Giuliani would appoint justices who understand that the Constitution does not enshrine any right to murder unborn babies, and who understand that, therefore, Roe must go. I don't believe it for a moment.
I'm not persuaded that Mr. Romney would, either.
Yet, the next president will likely replace two or three justices, perhaps even four. Justice Stevens is unlikely to last another six or ten years. Justice Ginsburg, neither. Justice Scalia turns 70 soon. Will he last until 2016?
So, electing Mr. Giuliani, and possibly Mr. Romney, might give a new lease on "life" to Roe.
"That will not eliminate abortion in the United States-- overturning it sends the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs."
I haven't asserted otherwise.
I've often said, overturning Roe isn't the end of the fight, but rather just the beginning.
But we gotta get to the beginning to start saving any significant number of unborn children.
"Now, consider an Iran that goes nuclear and pumps out many nukes a year in an effort to destroy the Great Satan and the Little Satan. While Dems pussyfoot with talk, talk, and more talk, Team Ayatollah gets 30 nukes across our porous border, puts them on light planes over Houston, Atlanta, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Pheonix, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus---- BOOM --- the United States of America is reduced to its knees."
I don't really think your scenario is realistic.
"This stuff matters. Unknown fantasy candidate 'x' may be just as good as Gingrich, or Giuliani, or Allen on defense, but if we can't win, it won't be worth a hill of beans."
I'd vote for either Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Allen. I'm unsure Mr. Gingrich can win the general election, but I'd certainly vote for him. As for Mr. Allen, he's far from perfect for us social conservatives, but my standards are pretty low. ;-)
Just not low enough to accept a Democrat liberal with an "R" pasted on his back, as in the case of Mr. Giuliani.
And perhaps not low enough for Mr. Romney, either, although his attempts at being a social conservative at least win him points for trying.
sitetest
Hmmmmm. I dunno. Sounds like he knows he has to be "Conservative" to get the nomination. But, after that, how do we know he won't have another "conversion" back to the pro-choice stance.
But then, what difference does it make. None of our Pro-Life Presidents have been able to stop abortion. Even the one whose party controls both houses.
Hate to play "ticky tack" but you just called a "touch foul" on me. I wasn't trying to demean Reagan, I believed his conversion and I believe Romney's conversion. You can't deny that what I stated was accurate that "Reagan was pro-choice" before his conversion.
Of course Reagan was so repentant on the abortion issue: He signed into law California's liberal abortion rights legislation and therefore had some responsibilities for abortions taking place. I'd be repentant too. Romney has not signed or voted for one bill that has lead to more abortions. I think you're likely to see more repentance where the guilt is greatest.
Romney only has to be repentant of his previous OPINIONS that didn't end up hurting anyone (actually as a leader of Mormon congregations he has been on the record of personally counselling women against having abortions . . . a point that he was attacked on in the 1994 campaign as being someone who would really impose his views on an unwilling electorat).
My view on Romney and Abortion in Massachussetts as a Mormon? . . . he's done the best that he could.
And I don't think you'll see him breaking down and crying about that politically pragmatic position . . . if it had lead to an expansion of abortion rights then I would expect a more "tearful repentance." I still think that he'll convince the GOP base that he's pro-life and will govern that way (heck . . . if he can govern in a pro-life manner in Mass, why are people concerned about what he'd do as president.
I got this from the EFM website:
The only thing NARAL's characterization of Gov. Romney indicates is that they're not as gullible as some. They knew better than to believe him. Pro-lifers should be equally skeptical and have equally high standards for our support.
Romney's response to the National Abortion Rights Action League's 2002
candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose.
This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based
on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no
candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion
rights."
Notably, Romney refused to answer Massachusetts Citizens for Life's
candidate questionnaire.
Please feel free to publish.
Romney's said he would appoint "constructionist" judges. He has passionately advocated against "activist judges" having seen what such renegades can do (read, gay marriage). He disagreed with the SCOTUS's ruling on Gitmo . . . indicating to me that he was on the conservative side of the Court. He's also against eminent domain expansion rulings.
It is ironic most of Reagan's and Bush 41's appointees voted against overturing R v. W. (2 of 3 of Reagan's appointees--O'Conner and Kennedey, and Bush's Ginsberg).
Dear Jeff Fuller,
"I wasn't trying to demean Reagan, I believed his conversion and I believe Romney's conversion. You can't deny that what I stated was accurate that 'Reagan was pro-choice' before his conversion."
In that the term "pro-choice" didn't exist when Mr. Reagan was Governor of California, it's an anachronism to call him such. However, even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that one might call someone such a thing in 1970, it wouldn't really apply to Mr. Reagan.
As Mr. Reagan related himself, years later, he didn't realize just how liberal was the piece of legislation he was signing. He thought it would liberalize the rules for abortions, but not that it would usher in abortion-on-demand. Thus, he was never a pro-abort in need of conversion, but rather someone who believed some exceptions should be made to the general rule that abortion ought not be permitted.
Yet, even this intention he repented.
"I think you're likely to see more repentance where the guilt is greatest."
Mr. Reagan acted wrongly at the BEGINNING of the abortion-on-demand, mass murder era. He didn't see the consequences of his actions before he committed them, and he didn't realize just where we were headed in 1970.
Mr. Romney has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight of the entire miserable 33-year reign of terror that is the era of abortion-on-demand throughout the United States. That it took the first THIRTY-TWO years of that era for Mr. Romney to figure it out does not speak highly of him. And, yes, it requres far more repentance than Mr. Reagan ever owed.
"Romney only has to be repentant of his previous OPINIONS that didn't end up hurting anyone..."
In that he was pro-abort from (even before) the beginning of the era of abortion-on-demand, he shares, along with all other pro-aborts, the guilt of the blood of the 40+ million murdered from the time that the black-robed tyrants opened the floodgates from Hell up until the time that he publicly reversed himself.
Personally, I believe that the bully pulpit that politicians use, especially chief executives of major jurisdictions, has some effect on folks. Thus, he is even more responsible than the average pro-abort voter, who never gets to have his own personal soapbox from which he will be listened to by millions.
"I still think that he'll convince the GOP base that he's pro-life and will govern that way..."
I think you're kidding yourself. Mr. Romney's "pro-life" position reeks of opportunism. He may be able to deodorize and air out much of that stench in the next couple of years, but then again, he may not. The problem is that his support for abortion at the level of a constitutional "right" is just too unambiguous, and all his other actions and rhetoric just look like an attempt to straddle the fence.
Of all the social conservatives I know (and that's pretty much all I hang with), I'm the most likely to vote for Mr. Romney.
And I wouldn't bet the farm on my vote for him.
sitetest
Dear Jeff Fuller,
At this point, I have absolutely no confidence that Mr. Romney would bother to try to appoint justices who will overturn Roe.
By the way, Mr. Bush, the father, didn't appoint "justice" Ginsberg. Neither did the current President Bush.
sitetest
We've found "your issue" havent' we?
I'm sorry that you don't seem to believe Romney's change on abortion.
You are also the beneficiary of 20/20 hindsight and have applied it to the benefit of Reagan, but don't give Romney any "benefit of the doubt". Reagan was a great leader and a true conservative in the end. You say:
"As Mr. Reagan related himself, years later, he didn't realize just how liberal was the piece of legislation he was signing. He thought it would liberalize the rules for abortions, but not that it would usher in abortion-on-demand. Thus, he was never a pro-abort in need of conversion, but rather someone who believed some exceptions should be made to the general rule that abortion ought not be permitted."
Those are some serious mental and moral gymnastics and you are giving Reagan more slack than is deserved, IMO. Abortion was legal . . . and he liberalized the laws restricting it. Stating that he didn't realize what what he was signing doesn't get much sympathy from me . . . it was his job to realize what he was signing. It was a real moral issue then and he was attacked for his actions by social conservatives. He signed it anyway. He was on the liberal side of the abortion issue then, but fortunately, he realized that and later fully repented.
Romney is the most Reaganesque Republican since Reagan. I hate to see people who idolize Reagan so quick to throw out Romney. I think many of the people who oppose Romney now would have opposed Reagan then. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Well, terrorists flying airplanes into the Pentagon, the Capitol, and two skyscrapers also wasn't realistic six years ago.
Even if the Islamofascists nuke one American city, that's one American city too many.
Oops. My memory got the better of me there. It was Clinton, but she passed through the GOP senate 96-3 . . . I guess that's what I was remembering, that she got through with a total pass through a Republican lead senate despite her liberal past and work for the ACLU. But I was incorrect and I appreicate you pointing it out.
YOu made an "Oops!" Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was appointed by CLINTON not Bush 41.
Dear Jeff Fuller,
"We've found "your issue" havent' we?"
That's certainly a non-negotiable one for me. But I believe I said that some number of posts back. I believe I already said that quite clearly in post #73.
"...you are giving Reagan more slack than is deserved, IMO."
I thought you weren't attacking Mr. Reagan? ;-)
Anyway, I'm only going by what he said. Seems credible to me.
Mr. Romney's "explanations" don't seem credible at all. But there's still time. ;-)
By the way, please show me where Mr. Reagan ever said that abortion is a constitutional right. Mr. Romney has unambiguously stated that in the past.
I really need to know how he goes from believing this is a constitutional "right" to believing that it isn't. The whole thing about discussing it with the stem cell folks doesn't really add up for me (I watched your video link - very unpersuasive on the issue of abortion.). If it's a right, then it's a right, and what researchers do with embryos at 14 days isn't really much of a deal.
sitetest
"Your right. I think the Baptists will be happier with Hillary than Mitt."
First, there is no such thing as "THE" Baptists. You are probably not aware that the overwhelming majority of Baptists in the world are not members of particular named denominations, associations, conventions or the like.
The opinions and positions of Baptist peoples are not anywhere so nearly homogeneous as you might think.
This Free Baptist would not prefer Hillary to Mitt Romney, and to say that we would prefer Hillary by voting third party (were Romney to receive the GOP nomination) would not be fair, because we (my household and many others) have been voting third party, and have been planning to do so for a very long time, even before there was a Hillary or a Mitt.
Dear JHBowden,
"Well, terrorists flying airplanes into the Pentagon, the Capitol, and two skyscrapers also wasn't realistic six years ago."
That's true. And the bastards murdered nearly 3,000 folks. In one day!
Over 3,500 persons are murdered each and every day, on average, 365 days per year, over 1.2 million dead every year, by abortionists.
"Even if the Islamofascists nuke one American city, that's one American city too many."
I absolutely agree.
Will you not agree with me that even worse is the annual slaughter of over 1.2 million innocent human children? Year in and year out for over 30 years?
sitetest
Dear Jeff Fuller,
I checked... Mr. Reagan's law, as written, was not meant to usher in widespread abortion in California. Perhaps you didn't realize it when you wrote what you wrote, perhaps you didn't realize that even the 1967 bill he signed into law wasn't all that liberal after all (although it was very liberal for the time).
Indeed, the bill allowed for abortion only when a hospital committee voted that a woman required one because without one her physical or mental health would be "gravely impaired," or if a district attorney concluded there had been rape or incest.
Now, we all know what the courts have done with the health exceptions even embedded in Roe. They have become wide-open licenses for abortion on demand. And they became nearly so in California after 1967.
However, it is perfectly reasonable to think that Mr. Reagan didn't realize this would happen. Mr. Reagan could have certainly interpreted this law as providing a rather narrow liberalization of abortion law. It certainly doesn't suggest a "right" to abortion. It certainly doesn't require an interpretation that allows our current regime of abortion on demand.
In fact, the law is so conservative by post-Roe standards that it is, by those standards, unconstitutional.
It seems that you have (perhaps unwittingly) again derided Mr. Reagan undeservedly.
It ain't makin' me like Mr. Romney any more than I might already like him.
sitetest
On Reagan . . . by signing your name to a law expanding abortion laws to enable "abortion on demand" I think the actual wordage of "right" matters less (again, this pains me to take these views on Reagan . . . he really is one of my heroes, but you keep pushing me on the issue! ;)
The word "right" is thrown about in moral, political circles with very loose definitions. I've never seen anywhere where Romney has stated abortion is a "constitutional right" (maybe I've overlooked it). He has used the word "right" but more in the sense that under current law a woman can get an abortion without anyone intervening. Most would call that "a right." Romney believes in the "rule of law" and respects/enforces laws, even if he doesn't agree with them. Now that his term is almost over he will soon be relieved of his promise not to change the MA abortion laws. He says states should decide now and said that, personally, he would sign a law like in South Dakota if it were Governor there.
The funny thing is . . . if Romney had run for Senate and Governor in Tennessee, Utah, or anywhere in the midwest or South we would not be having all of this interesting discussion. His "personally pro-life" stance would have been OK with the electorate and he would never have been called a "pro-abort" by the likes of you and others.
Oh yeah, Romney said that he thought the Boy Scouts should decide who can be in their organization too. That was a firm matter of record.
Sitetest,
OK, I'll lay off the Reagan thing. I've been trying to support a point of view for argument's sake that my heart is not really into. I've been playing the devil's advocate with you and I know that Reagan was not a huge "pro-abort" (but neither do I think Romney was ever a huge "pro-abort" either and that's why I've taken it this far). Reagan had over 20 yrs to establish himself politically on this issue and he did improve with time. ROmney is still in his political infancy and I believe he will improve with time too.
Again, if Romney becomes president and is the one who ends up being responsible for appointing a judge or two that could help overturn R v W (sending it back to the states) then we can look back smilingly at our discussion.
I really do appreicate the thoughtful replies and facts. At least it's not all knee-Jerking namecallers here.
Dear Jeff Fuller,
Okay.
The "devil's advocate" thingy has been a bit counterproductive for you. It just sort of annoyed me in that I view it as a material misrepresentation of Mr. Reagan's record. I view it as just trying to create a moral equivalence between Mr. Reagan's mistake, and Mr. Romney's knowing choice of the evil of abortion-on-demand.
It doesn't cut any mustard with me at all.
"ROmney is still in his political infancy and I believe he will improve with time too."
Could be. I've certainly allowed for that. But that certainly raises the question of whether he's been at this long enough to run in 2008.
"Again, if Romney becomes president and is the one who ends up being responsible for appointing a judge or two that could help overturn R v W (sending it back to the states) then we can look back smilingly at our discussion."
That would be nice, but I really don't believe that a President Romney (that gives me cold chills to type) would even bother to try.
He may yet change my mind, but frankly, the video I watched didn't really cut it. I need to see a much stronger rationale from going from supporting a constitutional right to kill unborn babies to thinking that unborn babies should be protected in law. I ain't seeing it. Right now, it looks like political expediency.
"I really do appreicate the thoughtful replies and facts. At least it's not all knee-Jerking namecallers here."
Thanks. I try. I'll return the compliment to you. You've tried to keep the conversation civil. A lot of the folks supporting liberal Republicans basically have told me to get out of the Republican Party because I won't support their favorite liberal for President. And most of them haven't been very polite about it.
You have.
But then again, I've generally found folks who belong to the LDS church to be polite and decent folks.
Even if I don't accept an iota of LDS theology.
;-)
It's way past my bedtime. Good night.
sitetest
I think you are right. I don't hear Mormom bashing in my conservative Baptist church. Over the years I only remember hearing them mentioned once or twice. Yes, there are serious differences; but, more in common than with ANY LIBERAL, PRO-BABY MURDERERS.
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.