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

To: WFTR

You’re making a short story long.

Let’s try logic.

Why do you think the candidates, outside of Rudy, were falling all over themselves to show that they are pro-life?


37 posted on 08/05/2007 8:38:27 PM PDT by Sun (Duncan Hunter: pro-life/borders, understands Red China threat! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Sun
Why do you think the candidates, outside of Rudy, were falling all over themselves to show that they are pro-life?

Uh, because Life matters to the GOP base. Seems logical enough to me. It's amazing that some people are too smart to get it.
44 posted on 08/05/2007 10:04:36 PM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off a leftist wacko . . . have more kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Sun
I think the candidates are trying to be pro-life because most Republicans believe that most abortions in this country should be illegal. The fact that most Republicans believe that most abortions should be illegal does not mean that most Republicans agree with the most hard-core pro-lifers on the details.

The most extreme part of the pro-life movement no longer supports exceptions, but many Republicans still agree with both the mother's life and the rape exception. Others agree with the mother's life exception but not the rape exception. I've met a few who agree with the rape exception but not the mother's life exception. Those who agree with exceptions aren't in favor of abortions in these cases, but they see these cases as situations where the criminal justice system should not be involved.

Another part of the issue is what will happen if life is defined at conception and politicians want to interpret that definition to mean that birth control pills that have any ingredient that would discourage implantation are suddenly illegal. Every Republican voter who wants to stop most of the "scrape and suck" early abortions does not want to outlaw birth control pills.

The abortion issue isn't a "short story" issue. That kind of knee-jerk approach will win a candidate cheers from a small group of zealous pro-lifers, but most people see the issue as being more involved. Candidates are trying to skate around this situation so that they can win the votes of the zealots without losing the votes of people who don't want extreme measures taken.

If we reach the debates next year and someone asks, "Are you willing to throw a woman or her doctor in jail for aborting a baby when the continued pregnancy would kill the woman?" and our candidate says "Yes," our candidate will lose the election. By demanding that a Republican candidate answer this question in that way, the hard-core pro-lifers are dooming our candidates to defeat. The right answer would be, "No, I am not willing to throw a woman or her doctor in jail in that situation. We abort millions of perfectly healthy babies whose hearts are already beating, whose brain waves are already active, and who are developing in perfectly normal pregnancies every year simply because the mother doesn't want to face the natural consequence of her choices. Those are the situations that the law should address." If the candidates would focus on these issues, we'd have a chance of passing laws that would close the clinics that turn out thousands of dead babies like a commodity product on the street corners of our big cities.

Bill

48 posted on 08/05/2007 10:37:21 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

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


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