Skip to comments.NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE
Posted on 10/20/2007 2:08:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
"I speak for at least half the people here, including the Founder Jim Robinson, who has stated he will not vote for Giuliani under any circumstance."
Don't Cut and Run, vote pro-life every time. It's the way you always win.
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life the unborn without diminishing the value of all human life. Ronald Reagan
Nominating a candidate who goes against not just a few but almost every principle of the Republican party would be a demonstration to everyone that Republicans stand for nothing. Such a party could not continue to exist as any effective form of opposition to the Democrats.
The majority has allowed the murder of nearly 45 million American babies. I can not help if people have their priorities and hearts out of whack. There wrong in no way justifies pro-life American’s setting their values aside just so we don’t have to live with Hillary.
Rudy, or any pro-abort politician, does not get my vote. Not now. not ever.
Are you off your meds,,,AGAIN ??
Out in that Hot Sun without your hat,,,AGAIN ??
Why do you want to MURDER BABIES ?!?!?!??
From what I have seen of your posts,in the time I’ve been here,FR is not “beloved” by you as it is to me and others on this thread,,,
I’m 52 and remember it well. See post #591 and #594.
Funny, the "moderate" Democrats that I know are mostly "moderate" because they are pro-life. Do you think they will vote for pro-abortion Rudy over pro-abortion Hillary?
From the wikipedia link you posted:
The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state’s legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health”, and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable (”except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).
***It appears that the Life of the Mother clause is not discussed for states prior to Roe v. Wade in that article.
There can be no "grey area" on the issue of life.
Republicans/Conservatives, do not have to sacrifice the pro-life cause (and other social conservative issues), to win the war on terror, when there are viable candidates willing to take on both.
“Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate? ^
Posted by Hildy to Jim Robinson
On News/Activism ^ 04/26/2007 5:04:58 PM PDT · 11,382 of 18,393 ^
You will KEEP me around as an example - thats rich. FR has become one big circle jerk. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. I mourn the great site this once was.
Goodbye Jim. It was a great decade and its been an interesting ride. I wish you and your family nothing but happiness. Life is too short for this kind of nonsense. Please close my account.”
...go back to WA, or wherever you hang out now.
File your report...
Well, I’m 56, female, was of age at that time, and remember things a bit differently.
I hope you saw Kevmo’s post.
I have no idea what you see differently. You haven’t clearly said. Kevmo’s post confirms what I said, that abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother was legal in all fifty states before Roe v. Wade. If you have information that refutes that let’s see it. Otherwise I have no idea what you are taking exception to.
I was not referring to state law prior to Roe v. Wade, I was referring to the attitude of a significant number of people on FR, who DO NOT believe in an exemption for the life of the mother. I have had that argument here before -- I will look to see if I can find the thread in which many said "no exceptions." As a member of several pro-life organizations, I find that kind of wing-nut thinking from some on this site, or anywhere else, impossible to take and ultimately harmful to the pro-life cause.
That would seem to further support my statement. Thanks, I haven’t explored those links since I first assembled them about four years ago.
That was going to be the next thing I was gonna check on. I thought there had been an exchange like that with Hildy.
It does appear Hildy makes good target practice.
“And it will never be outlawed here.”
Yes, it will. Many of us remember when baby-killing was illegal, and it will be again.
I think you’re talking about a small minority and it doesn’t significantly effect the debate. The question here is whether Republicans can stomach voting Pro-Choice. I can’t. Until Roe v. Wade is struck down specific state legislation is a moot point. If I live to see the day I will decide then whether to support or oppose specific legislation in my state.
“I have no idea what you see differently.”
After thinking a bit, you are probably right in that the life of the mother took precedence.
However, since then (the early 70s), that now includes not only her life, but her psychology, and her mental state.
The mother can claim to be depressed over the situation and have an abortion.
That is the difference.
Yes...she is good on the abortion threads. ;o)
>> But that begs a question: At what point does that bunch of cells become a baby?
It also begs the question at what point does the woman become the mother.
Well that is what the fight is about and why I have posted what I did at #594 hundreds of times in the last four years. I think it pretty well shows how things have changed and how petty and selfish the reasons for abortions are.
>> >> But that begs a question: At what point does that bunch of cells become a baby?
>> It also begs the question at what point does the woman become the mother.
I’d like to know from the perspective of a pro-abortionist the point the woman does become the mother. Is the woman not the mother until the child is delivered, or is the woman the mother in the third trimester? Is the woman not the mother at any point during the first trimester? If the woman, who also supports abortion, claims that she has the right to be the mother in the first trimester, would she not then be killing her child if she aborts during the same period?
If the woman refuses to be the mother until the child is delivered, can the father claim right to the child during the pregnancy in order to protect the child from the woman until the child is born?
Let me just say that I’m making a judgement call on Rudy from a long ways away here in California. From what I have seen of Rudy, I don’t dislike the guy. Do I like all of his political stances? Not really. I do think he handled 09/11 well, but other than that I’m not a big fan of him politically.
I can’t vote for him, and I do see some of the same problems with Rudy that I do with Arnold. I don’t want to see him become the President. I’ve had enough of the down sides of voting for RINOs. Rudy is a RINO IMO. I won’t be voting for him.
When I say I like him, I like a lot of people. I sure don’t agree with his stances regarding abortion. I think his stance on that has been despicable. I guess I shouldn’t really like the guy, but I don’t operate that way.
Ted Kennedy I don’t like. Pelosi, Ried, Murtha, Sheehan, I don’t like. These folks are the ilk of the earth. Rudy is just a misguided fool on conservative issues, and I couldn’t vote for him period. I don’t see him as anti-American by any means, and so he resides in a different category then the people I mentioned above.
Our terrorist enemies have, IMHO, a three pointed attack on the West. They argue that it is legitimate to indiscriminately attack civilians, and that is a moral abomination. They say that Islam has a right to politically dominate the earth, and to suppress or kill those who will not ‘submit’, and that is a moral abomination. The third argument is that the West is totally corrupt and decadent. If the greatest power on earth makes it politically impossible to oppose the American Holocaust, then I think that the argument about moral decadence would be proved, and would lead to our defeat in the War on Terror.
If Gillian became President, only Republican politicians who are morally courageous would dare to remain pro-life, and the GOP would never nominate a pro-life candidate again. I do not believe that there are very many congressmen with that amount of moral courage. In such a case it would be necessary to sweep the Republicans into the trash heap of history, so that a truly conservative party could emerge, and again make the United States deserving to be saved. So that if the Republicans nominate Rudy, it is better to kill the party sooner rather than later.
As far as what will I do if Rudy is the nominee, that would depend on the existence of a creditable third party. If there is one, I will support it. If not it would depend on how close the contest is in Florida. If it is close, I will privately vote for Hillary, as the most effective way to destroy the GOP. If it isn’t close, I will write in ‘RONALD W. REAGAN’, and urge everyone else to do the same!
& if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it'll go back to the states...
Now, what kind of judges do you know that Hillary will appoint? & how many decades will that push back your cause?
Is there any doubt that we have come to a place where we are morally corrupt? I’m not able to deny it. The Congress is definately morally backrupt. It is my opinion that the White House is also morally bankrupt in many ways. It’s occupant has turned his back on U.S. Citizens and concerns himself with the plight of foreign nationals. He was also willing to send us further into debt to finance the new Medicare Medication enhancement. This guy just doesn’t get it, when it comes to fiscal matters. As much as we hate the Department of Education, he doubled their budget within a very few years of coming to office.
Look, it pains me to take Bush to task. He’s supposed to be on our side, and I wish he was. His efforts against the terrorists aside, the guy just doesn’t get it. And when it comes to homeland security, he has even shown himself willing to sell that out so that as many Saudi Arabian nationals that wanted to, could continue to come here on education visas. Then he allowed our southern border to remain out of control for almost his entire presidency. The man has been in violation of Aricle IV Section IV from the day he took his oath.
This being said, it’s not for some Islamic Fundamentalist nutjob to decide if our nation is in need of destruction or not. There is no justification for what has taken place. The citizens of Iraq don’t deserve what the terrorists have carried out against them. There’s no justification for what has taken place on our soil. Those who practice the Islamic religion, shouldn’t have to be represented by or threatened by such lunatics. And please don’t think I’m trying to intimate you advocated any such thing. I’m just addressing the situation as I see it.
The United States isn’t interested in trying to manage the Middle-East. Contrary to popular opinion amongst the left in our nation, and the terrorist leaders in the Middle-East, we would rather see nations in that region run their own affairs without our involvement. But that’s evidently not what the terrorists want. They don’t want to live in peace. They want to subjegate everyone to their will. They want to make the lives of their Islamic brothers and sisters a pure hell on earth, and they want to make everyone else subject to a hell on earth as well.
What is our crime today, as it relates to Islam? Oh yes, we entered Iraq and removed a man and his two sons from killing, raping, maming and generally terrorizing the citizens of Iraq and it’s neighbors. We stoped a man from using chemical weapons on the practitioners of Islam. We stopped him from using those weapons on Iraqi nationals. We stopped him from threatening his Islamic neighbors. We stopped him from starting wars in the region. Each of these things were beneficial to the followers of Islam. We have sought to provide access to education for all Iraqi children. We have triend to get the infrastructure rebuilt. We have sought to provid food and peace for them. We have not introduced Christianity to replace Islam. We have supported the citizens of Iraq selecting their own government. We invision a time when we will pull out of Iraq and it’s citizens will govern themselves in peace. Now there’s a real threat to Islam.
If Giuliani became President, I’d expect him to continue on with the war and see it through. If he was elected, I wouldn’t expect to see him take on the abortion issue. He may or may not appoint conservative judges. As you say, the right to life issue would probably be put on hold for his term in office. I do think right to life is the battle cry. I do think folks are turning to that direction of thought. I do think it’s only a matter of time before the abortion issue is rectified to some degree. I just don’t see Giuliani taking the lead here.
Would that affect the ability for other Conservatives to promote the cause? I don’t think so. I could be wrong, but Giuliani isn’t going to put a cork in this bottle. It’s bubbling over and right to life will not be stopped.
If Rudy is the nominee, it would take a hell of a lot of people to create a groundswell that would replace Rudy and Hillary. I don’t see it happening. We live in interesting times. The down side to not having Rudy in office, would be the lifetime appointments to the courts. That is a serious matter.
The trade off would be this. Rudy isn’t going to appoint the most conservative judges to the bench. His appointments will disappoint IMO. They won’t disappoint as much as Hillary’s would. Could we let Rudy lose to Hillary knowing she would make court appointments? Well, that is the real question IMO.
Frankly, I’m so fed up with the Republican party that I simply cannot support it unitl it shows some signs of Conservative life within it’s leadership.
I can’t believe what I am seeing in this nation today. The left does it’s damndest to destroy our war effort, and about all we get out of our leaders is a single statement. I’m sure they are terrified.
If we can’t sick our Justice Department on the folks who try to sell us out to China and the Islamic Terrorists, what the hell is our government worth?
If we can’t stop the flow of illegals across our border to sap us dry, what the hell is our government worth?
If we can’t get the Republican Party to stand up and tackle some of this, what is it worth?
I’m at the end of my patience concerning these matters.
Republican Party, I consider it to be your responsibility to put an end to the treason in Congress. I expect you to put an end to the border issue. I expect you to stand up for the right thing. And if you are not going to do these things, then I have no use for you. Don’t call me. You’re not getting a dime. You’re not getting a vote from my family either. You’re party has been pulled from my call list. I’ve got no use for you. PERIOD.
Shape up G— damn it!
The differnce is that the President's JOB is to cause the laws of the US to be faithfully executed.
Illegal immigration is against the law. Permitting illegals to reside here without interference is maladministration, at the very least, and could be impeachable under certain circumstances.
The President has no laws to enforce in the matter of abortion. They two situations are not comparable.
I know this. I practiced medicine beginning in 1959. Abortions were common. Physicians were rarely prosecuted if they were cautious and simply induced a “spontaneous abortion.” Some women with funds went out of state and others used non-credentialled abortionists.
You were right though, the woman having an abortion was seldom prosecuted. Abortion in Minnesota was illegal but the law rested on the premise you suggested. This created a tautology in that abortion was illegal but those securing an abortion were not punished but those doing the abortion were.
The real solution to this is not Draconian laws that people do not obey, but real changes in how we look at abortion and the child. This will mean using all our present technology (sonograms)as well as changing hearts. The “changing hearts” phrase is from President Bush’s speech on this subject. We could make real progress if we wanted to.
This premise of punishing the doctor didn’t work. Those with $ got their abortion, those without $ either found a physician who would begin the abortion by dilating the cervix or they went to a medically untrained abortionist who charged a stiff fee.
Well i think we are coming by somewhat different paths to a similar conclusion, which is that the GOP under Rudyite control is more of an obstacle than a benefit to the national interest (maybe I have you wrong here). Of course if someone else is nominated the worth of the party is still in question. As of this point I could support any other GOP candidate (other than Paul, of course), with more or less enthusiasm. As to the WOT, I think Iraq will be settled, one way or the other, by January, 2009, and no action against Iran would be supported by the next president, unless it attacks us or Israel.
Very good post!
Hillary starts with Kerry's 59 milion votes and his 254 EV. She is a much, MUCH stronger candidate than Jean Francois.
To this, she will add millions of Republican women. If you don't believe this, compare the votes for Hillary in 2000 in upstate Republican districts to the 1998 election in which Schumer beat D'Amato. Hillary has a large hidden female vote.
To think she cannot win is absurd.
I guess we're about to find out.
When you are given no options, no recourse but to fight against tyranny then you must. I truly believe that with the Hsu and Chinatown examples before us, we are fighting the devil herself. We must win for the sake of the future of Liberty.
I am sorry that my post was not better written, but the pain and suffering my Wife, my Son and I endured was pure hell. The only way we were able to endure it was through faith.
I do not believe I am wrong in the slightest. My guidance came from the Lord.
Thank you, I will and I have. Bless you.
“Id have to say abortion takes a backseat to our economy and foreign policy, sorry.”
And you signed up yesterday to say that?
I FEEL LIKE I AM IN ALICE IN WONDERLAND......
How about putting the blame on the proper people! You are saying that those of us that stand up for what is right will be to blame.
The proper people to blame are the ones that are arguing for Rudy even though they know that a third of the party are heart sick about the prospect.
I agree 100 percent!!!!!!!!!!!!! This by the way is my number one issue!!!!
I cant tolerate the thought that folks would stay home or skip the Presidential race.
Than the Republicans better not pick Guiliani for the nominee then. I am sick and tired of the tired excuse of “if you don’t vote for Guiliani than you are voting for Hillary” HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And besides I don’t care because the Republicans have lost it not me!
Wow. I checked your sign up date, and I am totally amazed you have lasted for almost a decade on FR! I would have thought you were a plant from DU from the gitgo.
I’m sorry, but several of your views (which you are free to express, America still promotes FRee Speech for now) are NOT conservative. I am starting to wonder how much longer you will want to post here at FR, since we are all ignorant bozos who don’t have a clue what we’re doing, and you are vastly superior to us because you are going to vote for Rudy.
If Rudy wins the nomination, allowing Hillary to win by not voting for Rudy would enable her to appoint very liberal judges to the supreme court. This will impact any future pro-life Presidents actions towards ending abortion. There in lies the danger with a non-vote for Rudy, as these are lifetime appointments. Sure it would be a vote on principle, but the underlying consequences are overall counterproductive to the anti-abortion movement.
I disagree. There are many things more important than life.
Self-sacrifice. Loyalty. Freedom. Faith. Martyrdom.
I disagree! What good is all of this if we are killing off babies.
Take, for example, the abortion procedure called Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E). Through this procedure, the child is dismembered within the womb. Hern describes the procedure at various stages of pregnancy, starting at 13 weeks. I quote here from the section "21 to 24 Weeks Fetal Age":
"The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember. This problem is accentuated by the fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the pelvis, present more difficulty….A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus…"(p.154).
Another abortionist, Martin Haskell, describes the same procedure. The following words are from court testimony. Please note that he was testifying as an expert witness about legal activity.
"Let's just say for instance we took a different view, a different tact and we left the leg in the uterus just to dismember it. Well, we'd probably have to dismember it at several different levels because we don't have firm control over it, so we would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip."
"When the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move …or…we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure. It's not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix …prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise."
"When you're doing a dismemberment D&E usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it's floating free inside the uterine cavity…like a ping-pong ball floating around … Finally … a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece, the result being that sharp bony edges of the skull are exposed” (US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 98-C-0305-S).
America will reject abortion once she realizes just what it really is.
Perhaps you could focus on Hildy’s points with reasoned arguments instead of insulting graphics.
I lurked here for many years before I registered and have seen the scope and character of the discussions change — there is good reason to show some respect FR’s early members.
May I ask you something is a respectful way?
As a Brit - our policy as you’re aware if far more liberal.
I am pretty undecided on the matter, so perhaps you and others could educate me, because it’s an important issue and I would go no where else but FR to get the right information.
By being pro life, does this mean you are opposed to abortions at any period? Just a matter or weeks in? Is it the case in your opinion that when a women is pregnant, that that is it, the child must be born? (of course as you would make clear, depending on the obvious circumstances)
I watched a documentary on this the other day, and I was utterly horrified - they are literally aborting babies at the same period that babies are being born and have a survival rate of over 50%. That for me is criminal, and in fact murder. It showed some rather graphic footage that certainly has played on my mind.
I certainly am now of the opinion that no abortions should take place after and including week 17, but what can you tell me to convince me that I should change that position?