No Party for Pro-Choice Conservatives

ModernConservative.com ^ | 11/7/08 | McCainiac

[ikeonic]

The discussion at Little Green Footballs on this is pretty intense.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I do not understand how any “HUMAN” can be for
the planned murder of the most helpless!

[Jibaholic]

People who are pro-choice should leave the party. They are Democrats and they don’t know it. Us social conservatives don’t need libertarians to tell us that government is too big and taxes are too high. We already know that. We agree on those issues, but they want to make us pro-choice. More libertarianism of “liberty for me, but not for thee.”

[highlander_UW]

I still don’t see where in the constitution it says people have a right to choose murder.

[EnigmaticAnomaly]

A “Conservative” who supports abortion? Isn’t this an oxymoron?

[Clint N. Suhks]

RINOs and Liberaltarians can start their own party.

Oh that's right they already did. Let them move in with Boob Barr...

[perfect_rovian_storm]

People can be ‘pro-choice’ all they want. But supporting RvW and advocating for communist judges to keep it is a deal breaker. For them, there is no place.

If you want to think it’s okay to kill the unborn, I can’t change that. But if you think I’m going to give up the Second Amendment and property rights just for you to have that ‘right’, you’re smoking something.

If you’re ‘pro-choice’, make your case for it. Fight for it at the local level. Do whatever you need to do. But stop being an advocate for the communists.

[syriacus]

Which party do Democrats who don’t believe in abortion go to?

[Deb]

When the baby has a “choice” I’ll be for it.

[Revolting cat!]

Ah, the false dilemmas invented by those clever Communists. There is no one in this country who is against “choice”, just as there is no one against “gaiety”. It’s not “pro-choice”, it’s pro-abortion, pro-infanticide! You ain’t fooling no one.

[frankiep]

AMEN, AMEN, and AMEN!!!

[tumblindice]

“Pro-choice conservatives”

They support abortion, are anti-gun, pro-gay and spend your tax dollars like drunken frat boys pumping quarters into foosball tables, but they prefer to be called simply (clearing throat) “conservatives”.
Don’t ask me why.

[VictoryGal]

There is a party. They’re called Libertarians.

[FrankR]

Rabid opinions on abortion - whether pro-choice or pro-life, are taking this country down.

Pro-lifers just don't get it that to change the abortion laws, we've first got to get a government in place that AGREES WITH THEM.

Pro-choice believers now HAVE the government that agrees with them. They have their remedy to "free and unprotected" sex in place.

Now, back to the pro-lifers. I agree with them, and their belief about the sanctity of life, but you're never going to get that put into place into today's society with a 50/50 ratio of conservative vs liberal...it just ain't gonna happen.

The cure: Stop making abortion your prime litmus test of a candidate. I see people saying "I'm not voting for him because he was on a Roe-v-Wade discussion panel in 1980" etc.

Recently on a plane trip, I was reading the "instructions" and the "in case we lose pressure" section reminded parents to "put on THEIR masks first, in order to be able to help the children and invalids".

Now, using that as a comparison, how are we ever going to help abolish abortion, if we don't get a government in place who believes in doing that?

No matter how "anti-abortion" a presidential candidate is, he'll never get an outright "ban" put through with today's congress, or the Supreme Court.

To get all of the elements in place to accomplish the role of the rabid pro-lifers, it would take several election cycles of conservative landslides...not a probability.

No one is asking anyone to give up their principles, but sometimes you have to take a step back and sideways to get around an obstacle.

The moral is, don't sit home on election day just because this candidate doesn't top his Resume' with anti-abortion rhetoric. Sometimes a new dog will poop on the rug, but with a little time and patience, he can be trained.

Single issue voters will themselves cause the loss of overall freedom in this country...you heard it here.

[qam1]

I'm not saying social conservatism isn't important. It is. But shouldn't our first test of a candidate be to verify that they are a solid fiscal conservative? Fiscal conservatism shouldn't be a nice bonus, it should be a non-negotiable principle of the Republican Party along with promoting self-reliance, individual freedom and local governance wherever possible.

The reason Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 is because we failed to live up to our own principles of fiscal conservatism and federalism. On this much, McCain was spot on. Instead of reining in government spending, we added a new entitlement and went on a spending binge. George W. Bush is a fine social conservative and did an adequate job on national security (after listening to McCain on the surge), but was a trainwreck as a fiscal conservative. When voters wanted the GOP to rein in spending, they were instead trying to rein in Terri Schiavo's husband.

100% correct!!!!!!

Rush is only partly right when he says "Conservatism wins everytime it's tried"

Fiscal yes it's true, but Social Conservatism (a.k.a. Christian Socialism) on the other hand repels

Case in point, Embryonic Research, which was on the ballot in Missouri and New Jersey

In 2006 In Conservative Missouri it was fought as a moral issue yet it still passed by a large margin,

Yet in 2007 in Ultra Liberal New Jersey it was fought as a fiscal issue and ended up being soundly defeated.

Fiscal should come 1st, don't like abortion, don't have one, don't like what's on TV, DOn't watch. All this should be a hearts and mind issue not a federal one.

Meanwhile if you don't like the spending on a particular program, try not paying your taxes, see what happens.

[pissant]

Funny, the most ardently pro-life are often the most fiscally conservative too. Think Tancredo, Hunter, Pence, Paul, Sessions, etc...

[NinoFan]

Sorry, but abortion is not an area for compromise. It is the destruction of innocent children.

Republicans can agree to disagree on other social issues, such as gays, because at least in those cases, the people involved are consenting. The baby doesn’t get a “choice”

[Ol' Sparky]

The insane about this commentary is that author assumes we have to choose between a fiscal conservative and that isn't pro-life or a pro-lifer that isn't fiscal conservative.

Is there any reason why we can't settle for a Reagan-type that is fiscally and socially conservative? Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal come to mind.

[goldstategop]

You cannot be a conservative if you don't believe in protecting the unborn and in standing up for traditional values.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[NinoFan]

“If you’re ‘pro-choice’, make your case for it. Fight for it at the local level. Do whatever you need to do. But stop being an advocate for the communists.”

AMEN!!! Roe v. Wade is un-American.