Posted on 11/08/2007 12:03:44 PM PST by coca-cola kid
I see you as one of the "soft-core" pro-lifers. But I do wish you well and your efforts success. If the only way to succeed on moral issues is to move to a moderate position on everything then I am completely wrong.
Anyone who knows in their heart that God does exist needs to think it all the way through. We commit mass crimes against His children, then celebrate those crimes as "rights" we wish to preserve for our own daughters (just in case, you know... we get into a bind).
This sort of madness can't go on forever.
That is your goal, right?
It is a moral issue, but it will take a political solution...
Well said, ejonesie.
The actual solution is prayer, and in the end all the posturing and diatribe don't matter.
No vote or contribution to a conservative political candidate will matter unless it is God's will. And pandering to a political correct "let's not offend anyone by suggesting what they're doing isn't bad enough to warrant a prison sentence" isn't going to cut it.
Who ARE these people, cckid? I’ve not met any in my 32 years as a pro-lifer. Bob
You talk of devotion to the cause, and I think that one who does it for a living would have a better call than most.
David Osteen seems to be ok with Thompson’s position
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922280/posts
I don't think it is time to suggest things one way or the other, we have to have the law first. Tactical considerations in a political battles is not pandering, it’s smart.
Again, I want to win the fight, how about you?
Novak and the rest of the MSM view FDT’s campaign in the context of conventional thought as to how a modern campaing should be run and any deviation is viewed as a blunder. Perhaps they should quit playing “gotcha”, wanting to be the first to point out a fatal error and dismiss the candidate from the race and do what his supporters are doing...listening to the man’s entire answer. He does tend to show his years in the Senate by giving a thorough and usually thought provoking answer but the detractors want to deal in sound bites and don’t have time to really listen. He’s really trying to run a different kind of campaign and once the pretend conservatives go by the wayside he’ll be left to inherit his rightfull role as leading conservative with a state’s rights emphasis. It’s like these talk shows that want to cover a complex issue in the 15 minute segment they’ve allotted to it with four guests who usually only get maybe one shot to make a statement, let alone a convincing arguement.
I will read your link when returning later.
Penalties wouldn't have to be part of the amendment. This is why several amendments contain the clause reading, Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
bump
I’m really sorry, but I’m afraid am going to have to off you... Well...okay.
There was nothing even remotely totalitarian about anything I said... but I suppose in this day and age, it’s futile to expect people know what the words they use actually mean. At least you spelled it right. That puts you ahead of the curve.
Clearly, I was not necessarily making reference to flood literally, as my subsequent post utilizing the word “cataclysm” points out. But thanks for your literalistic comment.
__________
LOL. I apologize for not knowing what you have posted in the future. Subsequent still means ‘after’, right. I don’t wanna be too much of a literalist, y’know
Publicity The pro-aborts' strongest argument has always been to induce sympathy the pretty young girl whose bright future was truncated by the arrival of an unwanted child. People do feel sorry for these girls, and it gives a surface plausibility that helps them to mask the underlying ghastliness of abortion.
Politics Any legislator who tries to impose criminal penalties on the women who have abortions, will be quickly marginalized. Whose side are you gonna take: some poor kid who's at her wits end, or the politician who wants this poor girl to be put in jail? Politics says the girl gets all the sympathy.
Practicality To get any reasonable restrictions on abortion, legislators have to avoid introducing the sorts of issues that will shift the focus to something distracting. Thus, you don't want to attack the sympathetic figures.
There are undoubtedly that set of purists who will try to use this to paint Fred Thompson as a pro-abort. Those people are fools who would rather be right and get nothing, than practical and move the line a bit further toward the goal.
Like it or not, This is a political problem, and it demands a political solution. You don't win in politics by picking on attractive victims.
There are other, better ways to do this, such as highlighting the ghoulish characters who make millions by killing thousands of babies yearly.
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.