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

Skip to comments.

Abortion Ban Will Never Happen; Pro-Life Movement Needs New Plan
North Star Writers Group ^ | October 8, 2007 | Dan Calabrese

Posted on 10/08/2007 7:29:07 AM PDT by Dukes Travels

It’s time for the fight against abortion to move to a new front. An honest look at the landscape suggests that the longtime goal of the pro-life movement – the banning of abortion – is never going to be achieved.

We need to try something else.

I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. But if the goal is to save the lives of unborn children – and it should be – we need to look at our primary line of attack and see what it has achieved, and what it is likely to achieve in the future.

(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; dobson; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last
To: Ol' Sparky
With apologies, but your kind of thinking gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton along with many of the evils we find ourselves unable to reverse. People looking for the unattainable perfect voted for Perot. This was the equivalent of voting for Hillary, third party conservative, or not voting this time around.
In any election involving people it is necessary to look for the partial victory; to vote for the individuals which will do the least harm. Thus in a head to head between Hillary and Giuliani, ON ALL MATTERS, Giuliani will do least harm to the conservative positions. This is especially true as he has vowed to nominate judges in the mold of Alito, et. al. The HilBeast, with a Democratic Congress (almost a surety) would be a True Conservative’s (or Catholic’s for that matter) worst nightmare
101 posted on 10/08/2007 11:34:29 AM PDT by francesco525
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Again, you’re not listening. It’s not that I don’t favor it. It’s that I don’t think it’s going to be achieved.

What has been accomplished in 34 years of trying to change the law? Nothing. You want to keep on this path? God bless you.

I say the political arena is not where this fight is won.

Finally, I really don’t care if you give your imprematur to my pro-life bonafides, but when you accused me of being a libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter, I laughed like I haven’t laughed in a long time.

It tends to support my point that those who have become fixated, abortion-is-my-issue-and-the-only-issue people simply cannot see anything except through the lens of abortion, which is how someone like you could think someone like me is a libertarian.


102 posted on 10/08/2007 11:35:11 AM PDT by Dan Calabrese
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Trust me.

No.

If you can't admit failure after forty years of murders, you never will.

103 posted on 10/08/2007 11:40:44 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Going off on a tangent isn't going to help, we've made a lot of progress we just have to keep going.

Where do you see "a lot" of progress? Admitting the lack thereof is not a "tangent."

104 posted on 10/08/2007 11:45:00 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Backatcha.


105 posted on 10/08/2007 11:45:24 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: murron
Our pro-life leaders have allowed the other side to frame the argument, and a few bumper stickers on cars with cute sayings aren’t going to turn the tide.

The sad fact is our pro-lifers have chosen safety and stability over holocaust.

106 posted on 10/08/2007 11:51:36 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Dan Calabrese
You have understandably avoided the question as to why there is no federal solution but only "state" solutions which certainly sounds like unjustified "federalism" to me. If you don't want to fight to end the Holocaust once and for all federally, no one can make you, but I also note the absence of specifics in whatever you might CLAIM to have been doing instead.

BTW, my issues also include guns (I was also a volunteer lawyer for NRA members), marriage, military, destruction of the Islamofascisti and others BUT the abortion issue unless and until successfully resolvedby prohibition of abortion NATIONALLY, is the top issue. If it isn't your #1, then go work on what you actually care about and stop posing as though you were a prolifer just because you say so and further posing as though you have some authority to lecture activist pro-lifers as to why they should surrender on the federal law and lecture Christians that it is somehow their Biblical responsibility to knuckle under to federal Caesar babykillers rather than destroying the babykillers.

BTW, I would have pegged you for a supporter of Julie Annie.

107 posted on 10/08/2007 11:55:36 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dan Calabrese
Also, I am listening but, for a writer, you are not particularly persuasive. If you don't want to end the ENTIRE abortion Holocaust by federal means, don't blame me for calling you a libertarian.

Ending abortion in Connecticut will not stop the trains from bringing the pregnant moms to kill their babies in NY. What you are advocating is surrender on the issue. At most, your idea might stop 10%, primarily by inconveniencing the killers.

If you think that minisolutions on a state by state basis over several centuries is the way to go, you won't be offended when we surprise you with a federal SCOTUS personhood decision.

Again, before you give prolifers advice, what are YOU doing to effectuateYOUR proposed solution. You have no more right to draft prolifers to YOUR "solution" than they have to draft you to theirs. Of course, we don't really know what "solution" you have been working toward or what you have done. Will we?

108 posted on 10/08/2007 12:03:54 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Backatcha.

What does that mean? How about a list of pro-life accomplishment?

Face it: so long as you're depending on turning sinners into saints, abortion will remain legal.

Conversely, my proposal depends on exactly the same calculations as the founding of our federal government...balance through competing interest.

109 posted on 10/08/2007 12:07:28 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

We have five right leaning or flat conservative justices, Partial birth abortion is gone. The argument has shifted in our favor. A full third of the Democrats voted to ban partial birth abortion. Remember we had thirty years of Democrat controlled House and Senate it’s gonna take a while. We are also fighting the MSM.


110 posted on 10/08/2007 12:08:21 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

The “frustrated” can either pay their child support payments or keep it in their knickers or prevent the actual pregnancy in the first place in other non-homicidal ways. We don’t need such irresponsibles as allies.


111 posted on 10/08/2007 12:08:40 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Interesting. I’ll need to read this later.


112 posted on 10/08/2007 12:12:59 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
1. CJ Roberts.

2. AJ Antonin Scalia.

3. AJ Clarence Thomas.

4. AJ Samuel Alito.

5. Partial Birth abortion ban.

6. About 30 babies saved PERMANENTLY from abortion each time Rescue shut a mill down for the day (according to Planned Barrenhood's Alan Guttmacher Institute)

Sin is the cause and not the solution of abortion. I don't expect sin to disappear but I do certainly expect abortion to disappear.

Your proposal is surrender and effective endorsement of the worst among us who want to go around whining about men's "rights" to abandon woman and child and not to have to pay child support when they wanted to murder their own children.

113 posted on 10/08/2007 12:14:44 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I don't think we should give up on the political process, just not spin our wheels and spend our money, unnecessarily. I am a pragmatist, because I've seen what can be done by changing hearts and minds. The opinion polls bear this out. But to sit out an election using the excuse that the Republican nominee may be someone who is not as pro-life as I am is not the way to get things accomplished.

I don't like Rudy Giuliani as a Presidential candidate, but I believe he has said that he would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who would be open to overturning Roe-v-Wade. If he's the nominee I WILL vote for him, because there would at least be the CHANCE he would keep his campaign promise. I know for a FACT that Her Heinous will do everything in her power to keep abortion as widespread as it is now, and she'll be supported in that by the MSM. She will also be the one to appoint at least 3 Justice to the Supremes because I believe that if she were elected, Ginsburg and a couple of others would resign. They haven't done so yet because they don't want George W. Bush deciding on their replacements.

I support Fred Thompson, because I think he's the only one of the top three who most closely represents my views, and he has said directly that he would appoint Justices who would be willing to overturn Roe-v-Wade, because he thinks it was bad law from the start. He doesn't support a Human Life Amendment, but I believe that's from his experience with the Senate. He knows that a HLA won't pass Congress, in order to be placed before the people, and he thinks that having the issue go back to the States will work more quickly to save babies than anything else. We may never get abortion outlawed in all the States, but we can save as many babies as we possibly can, with restrictions passed my most States that, when passed now, are routinely thrown out by the Supremes because of Roe.

114 posted on 10/08/2007 12:17:29 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ontap
The argument has shifted in our favor.

I don't see how you could possibly say that. Any and every gain we have made has been met by increased stridency on the part of the democrats, and our list of gains is pathetic.

115 posted on 10/08/2007 12:19:14 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Dukes Travels

You People are deluded.

We will never end Slavery!!

It’s been around for thousands of years!!

Just settle for letting the States Decide for themselves.

This isn’t an issue for the Federal Government.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

//sarc


116 posted on 10/08/2007 12:25:59 PM PDT by RachelFaith (Doing NOTHING... about the illegals already here IS Amnesty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
We don’t need such irresponsibles as allies.

Just who do you think you are? You ally with babykillers to preserve the status quo?

Who are you to decide one American citizen gets several months post-coitus to choose parenthood, and another American citizen has to choose pre-coitus?

You go on and play about with woulda, shoulda, and aughta: I deal in "is."

117 posted on 10/08/2007 12:33:34 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I'll give you Roberts, Alito, and the ban...not much to show for forty years labor.

Your proposal is surrender and effective endorsement of the worst among us who want to go around whining about men's "rights" to abandon woman and child and not to have to pay child support when they wanted to murder their own children.

So? What do you care if it makes a woman scared to have sex with this bum?

118 posted on 10/08/2007 12:41:27 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

So you think starting all over with a new strategy is going to help. Twenty years from now there will be someone else with a better plan. The fact of the matter is we have to a lot more people on our side. It is always going to be a numbers thing, always.


119 posted on 10/08/2007 1:01:25 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ontap
So you think starting all over with a new strategy is going to help.

One definition of "insanity" is the expectation of different results from the same activity.

120 posted on 10/08/2007 1:09:34 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ontap
The fact of the matter is we have to a lot more people on our side. It is always going to be a numbers thing, always.

And what kind of numbers do you suppose we need to guarantee an end to abortion?

121 posted on 10/08/2007 1:20:01 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Cliches aside it is still a numbers game. No court, no win.


122 posted on 10/08/2007 1:20:35 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You have to get enough Justices who are in favor of overturning Wade. It was passed with a 7-2 majority from the Burger court. I don’t know if we have enough votes or not but we are a lot closer than we were. We have to get a Republican elected this time. Hillary will set it back twenty years.


123 posted on 10/08/2007 1:26:36 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ontap

That wasn’t my question, and I think you know it.


124 posted on 10/08/2007 1:33:21 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: avacado

I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed.
***I do too. That fetus deserves protection extended by the state.

I do wonder if it is biblical to extend “full” protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, he’s expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.

Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 (or even 4) tiered system of protection.

Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.

With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.


125 posted on 10/08/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

I haven’t quite thought my way through how your proposal would fit in, but the harnessing of such social forces might save lives. Have a look at my 3-tiered proposal.


126 posted on 10/08/2007 2:25:48 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Honestly, I believe it’s too complicated to gain wide support. Every tier is another possibility for the whole to fail to get the required support.


127 posted on 10/08/2007 2:33:49 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You’re probably right.


128 posted on 10/08/2007 2:56:23 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Oh, I could certainly agree. But the same group of assholes who crafted Roe v Wade would have the say on constitutional legislation.

They could easily go the other way and have plenty of applause from certain groups. They would have to be willing to destroy the system that comes from Roe by ruling "person" definition constitutional, and I don't think they are willing to do that.

129 posted on 10/08/2007 3:00:15 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: francesco525
It's YOUR thinking that has Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Bloomberg implementing all sorts of liberal evils that can't be reserved with the votes of conservatives. And, when a liberal Republican is pushing leftist legislation, there IS NO stopping it.

It was George W. Bush that implemented more big-government socialism than Bill Clinton could ever have hoped to implement, including the Medicare prescription drug plan that will cost future generations billions of dollars.

Liberal Republicans DO FAR MORE damage than liberal Democrats because Republicans will not stop leftist legislation pushed for by such a Republican.

I'm not asking for perfect. I AM ASKING FOR A CONSERVATIVE. Fred Thompson would do. Giuliani is NOT a conservative. He is a liberal. Anyone not realizing that is grossly ignorant of his record.

The country is damaged when liberals reach office, even more so when liberal Republicans reach office with the votes of conservatives.

130 posted on 10/08/2007 4:33:08 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Dan Calabrese
I’m trying to urge the pro-life movement to focus its efforts in a direction by which it can save a lot more babies than it is saving - or ever will have any hopes of saving - by trying to do it through politics.

The best way to save the lives if the unborn is to overturn Roe. Presuming, we're only one vote away on the Supreme Court from doing so, the most important objective for pro-lifers would be elect a pro-life President dedicated to getting justices on the court to overturn Roe.

Another objective should be to stop Rudolph Giuliani from turning the Republican party into a pro-abortion party. If that happens, any attempt to reduce abortion at the Federal level and through the courts will be eliminated.

And, I don't think any pro-lifer opposes means other than political ones to reduce abortion. But, that doesn't mean pro-lifers should give up the political and legislative fight, which has been used to save the lives of the unborn.

131 posted on 10/08/2007 4:41:58 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Electing Presidents that will nominate pro-life judges is the only way to fight this battle.

That is the very route that has failed.

Disagree. With this President we got two of the three Justices we need.

132 posted on 10/08/2007 4:46:55 PM PDT by colorado tanker (I'm unmoderated - just ask Bill O'Reilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

When I read things like what you just wrote, I want to cry at the complete naivity of what a Clinton presidency will yield. I guess if you believe abortion is the number one issue of our day, than I guess I can maybe understand...but I don’t understand, with everything that’s going on in this world, how you can think that.


133 posted on 10/08/2007 5:06:53 PM PDT by Hildy ("man's reach exceeds his grasp"? It's a lie: man's grasp exceeds his nerve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Disagree. With this President we got two of the three Justices we need.

And the only reason we got them is because it ISN'T the three we need, but they sure laid the groundwork for refusing to confirm anyone that won't make a blanket promise not to touch Roe.

It's just another variation on the Rockefeller memo scam: "Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct..." then "launch an independent [fill in the blank] when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate ...."

They went along with the Supreme Court legislating from the bench when abortion was really considered bad, you think they are going to blanche at taking a dump on the Constitution again to keep it?

134 posted on 10/08/2007 5:44:19 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: murron
The “hearts and minds” argument won’t wash.

The only other option is a dictatorship.

135 posted on 10/08/2007 5:46:36 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

I is what I perceived to be your question when you asked how many numbers it would take. The number of like minded justices is the only number that counts. And I think YOU know that.


136 posted on 10/09/2007 5:22:57 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ontap
The number of like minded justices is the only number that counts. And I think YOU know that.

Not at all.

The number of justices presupposes electing a president who will nominate them, and enough of a willing majority in the Senate to confirm.

So I ask again, what's the bullet-proof number we have to elect to strike down Roe by your plan?

Surely you recognize that number MUST be our requirement if we are to achieve an end to abortion by the only method you seem to approve.

137 posted on 10/09/2007 5:40:36 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
The only way we'll get that third Justice is to have both the White House and Senate again. Had the Senate been majority Dem 2004-2006 we never would have gotten Alito and maybe not Roberts.

We kept telling the "teach 'em a lesson" crowd there are consequences to losing elections and one of them is we won't get the third Justice this term. You're right, a Dem Senate will never confirm a Roberts/Alito type nominee.

138 posted on 10/09/2007 9:12:53 AM PDT by colorado tanker (I'm unmoderated - just ask Bill O'Reilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Oh, I'm all for "teach 'em a lesson."

I just advocate a plan that would take a bite out of the "harmless" recreational sex that feeds babies to the abortion industry RIGHT NOW, rather than wait for a pie in the sky majority that will never happen.

139 posted on 10/09/2007 9:56:52 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
You and I disagree on abortion but, as one who believes that 50+ million innocents have been wantonly slaughtered under Roe vs. Wade, how am I supposed to prioritize issues? I would like to think that, if you agreed with my premises, you would agree with my conclusions. Part of the problem is that some who are "pro-choice" cannot bring themselves to believe that pro-lifers are serious, informed, principled and absolutely dedicated to that cause. Hillary would be a disaster to the pro-life cause and to many other causes as well. The nomination of a pro-abortion Republican would end the GOP status as the pro-life party and make the pro-life issue a transitory issue rather than a permanent principle.

If the pro-life issue is paramount, then, by definition, all other issues are secondary. Those other issues can still be very important but they are not paramount to pro-lifers. I personally would defend gun rights nearly as militantly as I would pursue pro-life. I feel very strongly in favor of a militantly interventionist foreign policy with all the bells and whistles. I don't like taxes any more than any other conservative does. I admit that I am less fiscally conservative than many and less than I used to be. Whatever your most important issues may be, the probability is that most pro-lifers agree with you but not so much as to abandon the babies.

Even more than the tragic election of Jimmuh Cahtuh against His Accidency and Nixon's Legacy Feckless Ford, the last GOP pro-abort candidate, the election of Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist would galvanize conservatives and cause the formation of a genuine conservative movement in this country for the first time in nearly thirty years. It would be a disciplined movement and not just a hodgepodge of issues that make people feel good. There would be blood in the gutters, first within the movement as it unifies, and then against the Demonrats. So be it if the alternative is a restoration of social issue liberalism as a GOP norm.

140 posted on 10/09/2007 11:56:51 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; ontap
Two of the most likely SCOTUS justices to bite the dust soon are nearly 90-year-old John Paul Stevens (who has already had open heart surgery and cancer and Ruth Buzzi Ginzberg who has had one bout of uterine cancer and whose mother died of it at an earlier age. A 5-2 SCOTUS judgment from a 7 member court will suffice with the usual misbehavior by the Senate Judiciary and by the Demonratic caucus. If not, that is why God (or the Founders) invented recess appointments.

Watch Leahy crawling on his belly like the reptile he is begging the GOP POTUS for a "moderate" dependable babykiller nomination in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor ("Bring Us Together, Mr. President!!!!) Watch Spector analyzing Scottish Law to prove that abortion can never be outlawed! Mass suicides at the usual suspect babykiller organizations. Not only that but those guys who went out in the rain without their rain coats might have to financially support their children casually conceived. Oh, the horror! Oh, the lost revenues at the sports bars!!!

141 posted on 10/09/2007 12:05:59 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Dukes Travels

Slavery just has too many powerful friends in the South. It will never be banned.


142 posted on 10/09/2007 12:07:17 PM PDT by farmer18th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Not so. When Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, there was no great consensus or outcry to change the abortion laws. The Supreme Court just did it. Now they can just undo it. Too bad if the pro-death crowd doesn’t like it.


143 posted on 10/09/2007 12:13:06 PM PDT by murron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You deal in moral surrender, nothing less. I am the person I have become, for good or for ill, but I would love to see you post your pro-life credentials. Not likely, huh???? You don’t actually imagine that the pro-life movement will EVER listen to your counsels of surrender. It may take more years to do it right but the pro-life movement WILL do it right!


144 posted on 10/09/2007 12:19:18 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Not only that but those guys who went out in the rain without their rain coats might have to financially support their children casually conceived. Oh, the horror!

So are you gonna continue to mock like a little girl, or are you gonna explain why one voter gets a nine month escape clause and another voter gets "no return, no refund" on exactly the same transaction.

145 posted on 10/09/2007 12:25:45 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You don't actually imagine that the pro-life movement will EVER listen to your counsels of surrender.

No, I don't. That's why I now ignore the pro-life "movement." They didn't have the guts to fight at first, nor the brains to adapt now.

Frankly, I see people like you in history as those who prayed for deliverance from the moslems right up until some Moor cut off their head.

146 posted on 10/09/2007 12:39:56 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
I STILL haven't heard your pro-life credentials. BTW, it the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong which slaughtered the Islamic armies at Vienna under Jan Sobieski and the Islamic navies at Lepanto under Don Juan of Austria, routed the Moors in Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella and fought them under El Cid when your likes were worrying about the imagined "injustice" of men having to support their casually conceived children rather than support their local bartender or drug dealer as the case may be.

That Church will never surrender to its enemies and, as guaranteed by its Founder, the very gates of hell will not prevail against it. History is littered with the corpses of far more impressive enemies of the Church than Planned Barrenhood.

Your purpose in posting here is apparently nothing more than that of a troll. Why should pro-lifers take you seriously?

The pro-life movement will gladly ignore you and will win anyway however long it takes.

147 posted on 10/09/2007 1:48:53 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Each man and woman is responsible foir his or her decisions. When a man engages in non-contraceptive sex with a woman not his wife or with a woman who is his wife, he has exercised his reproductive choice. She may or may not become pregnant. If she does, Roe vs. Wade gives her a choice to bear or not bear the child. If he does not want her to control that decision, he should not engage in the actions which may make her pregnant. However evil it may be to allow her to abort, it will not be an improved situation to allow the sissy posing as a man to whine that his inability to force the abortion of the child she has decided to carry somehow justifies his refusal to support the child. The only shame is that taxpayers have to pay his room and board at the local hoosegow. The total cost should be added to his bill as a condition of probation and voting rights denied until paid. He deserves NO SYMPATHY whatsoever. Nor do whiny arguments of "equal rights" (to murder children) posing as being somehow "pro-life."

Are child support payment obligations cutting into your personal booze budget????

148 posted on 10/09/2007 2:00:25 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Your argument is full of assumptions...so I can play that game too and say that if Hillary takes over with a Democrat congress you can kiss ANY chance of having your first priority realized...EVER. What makes you think once they take over, we’ll ever get any chance again. You ASSUME,again, that there are enough people who think like you do that after seeing a Hillary presidency, will rise up en masse and revolt. I’m sorry to say, and this is not an assumption, that there are just not as many as you think or else we wouldn’t be where we are today.

If Rudy says he will appoint pro-life judges, why don’t you believe him?

All that being said...if abortion is the number one issue to you, which apparently it is, than I guess you have no choice. I just think one day you, and the country, will regret it.


149 posted on 10/09/2007 2:31:44 PM PDT by Hildy ("man's reach exceeds his grasp"? It's a lie: man's grasp exceeds his nerve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
I have long agreed with the main premise of this article: abortion will never be banned. That is why I have advocated a competing right for males: the paper abortion.

Or we can just go with my solution -- arm the unborn. If abortion's going to be legal, we might as well even the odds. ;)

150 posted on 10/09/2007 2:35:51 PM PDT by VirginiaConstitutionalist (Socialized medicine kills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last

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.

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