Posted on 11/07/2008 8:25:32 AM PST by ikeonic
It's not like being pro universal health care, pro environment or such. Abortion is murder plain and simple.
People who want to equate it with lesser issues are hiding behind spurious logic.
“A “Conservative” who supports abortion? Isn’t this an oxymoron”
I think so, kind of like saying Al Capone is “pro life”. You shouldn’t say “abortion”, that makes them skittish, they prefer “pro choice”.
Spot on!
You have summed up the situation perfectly. Just be prepared to get flamed mercilessly here for it.
I refuse to admit that there is any such thing as a conservative who believes that women should by choice murder their unborn children. Waht an “unnatural affection.”
“Conserviatism” based solely on profit and capitalistic intent is not true conservatism. The communist Chinese, who don’t flinch to murder babies or anyone else, are becoming just as capitalistic as Americans. Shall we call them “Free Market Conservatives?”
Everyone should make monthy donations to Palin for the next four years...she won’t be able to buy the spotlight without it...fact of life.
That attitude will get you a Marxist as President if you are not careful. Oh yeah, it just did.
>>When the baby has a “choice” I’ll be for it.
And when retractive abortion is enacted for Libs, I’m for it.
Ping
>> I am proud to be Republican, the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Reagan and McCain. I disagree with social conservatives not because I’m a RINO or liberal but because I have a genuine difference of opinion just as Goldwater, Ford and Guiliani.
To me, the difference between a pro-choice conservative, and a person whose “pro-choice” stance makes them necessarily a liberal/RINO is whether they believe that there is a Constitutional right to “choice”.
Conservatives can have differences of opinion on abortion, I suppose. Conservatives cannot have differences of opinion on whether there is a Constitutionally protected right to abortion. At the VERY least, a conservative MUST believe that this issue should be within the purview of the States to decide.
A conservative can be pro-choice. A conservative CANNOT agree with Roe v. Wade.
H
There is too, it’s called hell, I mean the democrat party.
Um, McCain won Missouri even in this election. A strongly pro-life and popular Missouri governor Matt Blunt is finishing out his term after willing deciding to step down.
And fiscal conservatism doesn't win in New Jersey.
Social conservatism is absolutely essential to winning in the south and Bible-belt. Democrats are picking up multiple seats by running socially conservative candidates there.
In a Presidential race, the only way Republicans are going to win the hardcore blue states is if the economy is doing poorly, in which case a Republican would win regardless of his or her socially conservative stance.
So, your points here are utter BS.
I think Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision on Constitutional grounds which should be overturned and the issue should returned to the states... Abortion was never, ever a federal issue prior to 1973 when the Supreme Court made it a federal issue.
If even South Dakota doesn't have a majority of voters who oppose abortion, aren't we guaranteeing defeat in national elections if we insist that abortion is the foundational issue on which there can be no disagreement? Do we want to be a party that only wins states like Mississippi and my home state of Louisiana (where it remains to be seen if an abortion ban will be enacted)?
Flame on if you must, be at least read the whole article before you spout off at the mouth without any regard for anything that was said
That’s why I encourage all fiscal conservatives to broaden their circle of moral consciousness and include children and the unborn. No one is asking fiscal conservatives to support reinstating anti-sodomy laws, but we are asking that you support laws against, you know, killing human beings.
The idea that one cannot be a “pro-choice conservative” is wrong.
One might be not a social conservative and still believe in the Constitution.
If that’s the case, then the same person can understand that the error of Roe-v-Wade is that the Constitution neither demands nor prevents the legality of abortion. It is mute on abortion. Therefore, the federal Constitution did not give the federal Supreme Court any mandate to dictate what the states MUST do or MUST NOT DO on abortion.
The Constitution, and that it must be upheld, can unite all kinds of Conservatives.
There goes your theory again.
But we will still retain the freedom of our conscience, which strikes me as far more important than the temporal freedoms you're so worked up about.
A conservative can be pro-choice. A conservative CANNOT agree with Roe v. Wade.
Then surely you would agree with this:
I think Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision on Constitutional grounds which should be overturned and the issue should returned to the states. It's a moral issue that should be decided by the democratic process at the state level just as we do with gay marriage, polygamy, incest and number of other moral issues. Abortion was never, ever a federal issue prior to 1973 when the Supreme Court made it a federal issue.
Who are the "moderate" Democrats calling for pro-abortionists to compromise?
Buzz off.
Presently it looks like there is no party for Conservatives at all....
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.