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

Skip to comments.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?
hillary clinton, Hannity & Colmes, YouTube ^ | 4.19.07 | Mia T

Posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:50 AM PDT by Mia T

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?


by Mia T, 4.18.07

 

HILLARY TAKES VILLAGE: teen abortion / no parent notification (YouTube)



From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC --

4/18/2007

"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION

HANNITY: Partial birth?

GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done.

HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.

GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support....

GIULIANI: I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously.

HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito.

GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it.

Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.

IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this.

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support.

Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.

But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late.


POSTSCRIPT

MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.

They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.


"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 320,931
PLEASE FReep

YouTube (First Month) Honors for
VOTE SMART:
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - English
#33 - Top Rated - News & Politics - All
#30 - Top Rated - News & Politics - English
#7 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - English
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - All
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - English



 

 




COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortionist; bilgewater
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-374 last
To: Al Simmons
99% of the below-the-belt vitriol in these threads has been directed by a self-appointed "goon squad"...

They have been let loose like rabid dogs...

Yes. Vitriol. "Goon squads" and "rabid dogs". Nice.

361 posted on 04/22/2007 4:47:35 PM PDT by airborne (Duncan Hunter is the only real choice for honest to goodness conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: jla

Thanks Mia!!!! What happened?


362 posted on 04/22/2007 5:04:52 PM PDT by Atchafalaya (When you are there thats the best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Atchafalaya
She's here in Virginia. I'm teaching her how to recite using proper diction and cadence.

~jla smacks the pointer on the table top~

From the top, Mia!

...the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain

363 posted on 04/22/2007 5:25:05 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
In a word: Reichsmordwoche

You're calling this a Nazi blood purge?

You're so clever. Snidely referring to the owner of the site as a Nazi (cliche as that is) probably won't endear you to him.

But even if you get booted, life will go on swimmingly for you. There are ten thousand other websites you could infect with your social liberal atheist sanctimony. You won't suffer the least harm.

364 posted on 04/22/2007 8:00:17 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Yup. I won’t suffer a thing. :-)


365 posted on 04/22/2007 9:21:10 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

Comment #366 Removed by Moderator

To: MACVSOG68

There is not a SINGLE reason to believe that Giuliani will deliver a good judge. Not one.

His word is not to be trusted.

His judge selection while mayor were not conservative.

He believes the exact opposite of what the judges he says he will appoint will supposedly believe.


367 posted on 04/23/2007 12:40:58 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Better a democrat with an energized opposition than a leftist “Republican” with no opposition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

ABOMINATION


368 posted on 04/24/2007 6:22:27 AM PDT by citizensgratitude (Our Military, present & past, the Highest example of Brotherhood of Man and doing God's Will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

If Rudy gets nominated it’s entirely possible that he’d get more votes from liberals who just don’t like Hillary personally then from actual conservatives.


369 posted on 04/24/2007 9:54:28 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...

.


370 posted on 04/27/2007 5:58:57 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, insects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Yes, and there are more single-issue pro-life voters than pro-choice - IIRC in 2000 or 2004 it was 10% voting on pro-life only vs. 8% voting on pro-choice only - a 2% advantage for a pro-life candidate.


371 posted on 04/27/2007 6:58:24 PM PDT by Lexinom (DH08/FT08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
How funny, but for the grim irony: Opposing, not supporting the Nazi-like practice of exterminating the "unfit to live" constitutes a Nazi blood purge. Oh, how the language is twisted when it comes to abortion!: "Hard" means opposing use of the hard, sharp instruments used to dismember and evacuate a human fetus.

Perhaps without realizing it, the pro-choice/pro-abortion folks on FR and elsewhere are inferentially advocating the slaughter of future incarnations of many, many productive folks and difference-makers - folks like this man.

I do not think they honestly realize what they are saying about those of us who are less-than-perfect (which includes all of us, really). I do not think it is malice on their part, but rather a genuine naïvety - a reality in which they subconciously remove themselves from the pool of those most impacted by the policy under discussion.

372 posted on 04/27/2007 7:18:44 PM PDT by Lexinom (DH08/FT08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

So can we all agree in retrospect that this thread was completely retarded? Why this crazy Mia chick was regarded as a deity amongst freepers by some still baffles me.


373 posted on 05/27/2008 2:11:38 AM PDT by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

What happened to you??!?


374 posted on 11/14/2012 7:21:21 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-374 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