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

Skip to comments.

Pro-life is not the Same as Pro-GOP
The Newark Star Ledger ^ | 11.17.02 | Paul Mulshine

Posted on 11/17/2002 5:09:55 PM PST by Coleus

Edited on 07/06/2004 6:38:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Every time there's an election in New Jersey these days, the Republican Party finds itself caught in the middle of a loud and very public battle between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. The result is pro-Democrat.

Is there any chance of this ending soon? I doubt it. The problem here is that many people mistakenly assume that the pro-life movement is a natural outgrowth of conservative philosophy and that it therefore belongs in the Republican Party.


(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Free Republic; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlist; benny; catholiclist; conservative; forrester; liberal; libertarian; life; marietasy; matheussen; mcgreevey; mulshine; newjersey; nhs; nj; njrtl; paul; paulmulshine; prolife; republican; sprint
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
Although I am usually in agreement with Paul, one of the few conservative columnists in the State of NJ, I disagree with him this time. I think what he is explaining is a part of the Libertarian Platform and not the Republican or Conservative platforms.

The platform of the republican party is pro life. Life is a conservative and a republican issue. It's mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the 14th amendment.

http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."

If it were not for the Rupublican Party, who then, would be the advocate for the unborn?

1 posted on 11/17/2002 5:09:55 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; annalex; AmericanGirl329; aposiopetic; ...
Pro-Life Platform of the Republican Party

http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm

Marie Tasy's Report

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/758810/posts?page=19#19

Why Doug Forrester Lost

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784734/posts
2 posted on 11/17/2002 5:14:02 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
The fact is that for some, regardless of what they say or do on other issues, it really is all about abortion. That's just the way it is.
3 posted on 11/17/2002 5:19:19 PM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
If and when that platform changes, there will be a mass exodus from the GOP party.
4 posted on 11/17/2002 5:20:39 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion

It's not about you, it's the child you want to kill.

5 posted on 11/17/2002 5:23:09 PM PST by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I disagree. Many union card holding, tax and morally conservative democrats switched parties over the abortion issue. They have not changed their positions on anything. They are just anti-abortion.

It is part of the quirky nature of our two party system. Gary Bauer is a good example of this. He is actually pretty well on the left economically. Talk about abortion, homosexuality, though... and it is a different matter.

Does the republican party want to keep this big tent though is the question. Do you have to be both pro small government and pro-life to run for office? Or can ya just be one of the two. If this was European parliamentary style democracy... the issue would be moot as the ties that bind people to the democrats and republicans would be loosened.

6 posted on 11/17/2002 5:29:40 PM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; *Catholic_list; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; ...
"LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

In that order.

The way the Founders knew it must be.

If you can't get it right on the first of the three, there's not much chance you'll get it right on anything else. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, et al.

Never trust a politician who cannot get the first thing right. Never vote for a politician who cannot get the first thing right.

A foundational respect for human life is a necessity if we desire to maintain any semblance of the Freedoms that made this country great.

7 posted on 11/17/2002 5:30:14 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
If and when that platform changes, there will be a mass exodus from the GOP party.

Unfortunately, indications from some of the party leadership are that this is a chance they are not only willing to take, but gleefully anticipating.

I hope there is a viable third party fully to take the refugees when (not if...its a given) this occurs.

8 posted on 11/17/2002 5:35:49 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
"If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion. I already have the power to keep myself from having an abortion. When the government employs people to stop abortion, it is taking my tax dollars but providing me with no useful service in return."

Since I am an adult Republican woman, I'll say it in my own words. "When the government takes my money and subsidizes clinics and doctors who I believe are committing murder, it is providing me with the sick knowledge that I am being forced to support the unsupportable."
9 posted on 11/17/2002 5:37:56 PM PST by EllaMinnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Polycarp
I once lived in David Bonior's district. Not many knew of his pro-life position but he did support the cause. Voting was always a stressful time because I disagreed so much with every other position he took. Luckily I was able to vote for pro-life candidates in other parties (including Republican) at election time.

11 posted on 11/17/2002 5:43:05 PM PST by cebadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Yes, but life isn't a platform of the Democrat Party, it is for the republicans, that's why the Reagan Dems switch over.

If the republicans drop the life issue, as I think Paul wants us to do, we would not have those Democrats voting for us and many Repubs. would leave the party for the Conservative and Constitutional parties.

I think that if you want to run as a Republican you should be pro life as the party dictates. Doug Forrester may have won if he hadn't waffled on the life issue. He also refused to fill out the questionnaire for the NRA and lost that endorsement too.
12 posted on 11/17/2002 6:03:27 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
Did anyone see the Senate Candidate from LA on MEET the PRESS today, she made a very forceful statement: I'm Catholic and pro life. She shut Tim Russert right up. No waffling from her!

Catholics should send her a donation marked Catholics for Terrell. She is pro-life and would be a pro-life woman US Senator.
http://www.suzieterrell.com/

Here is a copy of the score card for the runoff.

http://www.lafamilyforum.org/dynaweb/1001014/docs/runoff_scorecard.pdf
13 posted on 11/17/2002 6:27:33 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion."

Let me get this straight: He's actually saying that government provides women with a "service" called abortion and that since they pay taxes a denial of this "service" would be... a breach of contract.

That's an interesting take, I guess. But it has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be a "service," let along whether ot not government should provide it.

14 posted on 11/17/2002 6:28:01 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
Let alone, rather.
15 posted on 11/17/2002 6:28:22 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
"If and when that platform changes, there will be a mass exodus from the GOP party."

Yes, yes, and yes, there will. Which is why it wont' happen. Forrester screwed this up, he was NOT pro-life and he tried to have it both ways. That really doesn't work on the abortion issue. Coleman won, and he was pro-life. The real moral of the 2002 elections is "be true to your views". After 8 years of obfuscating, and 3000 murdered people, we've come down to earth. Think what you like, but say what you think, and mean what you say. That alone will carry the day.
16 posted on 11/17/2002 6:37:00 PM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
When the government employs people to stop abortion, it is taking my tax dollars but providing me with no useful service in return.

He's arguing backwards, probably out of frustration. Federalism solves this, as it solves most issues. Roe vs. Wade was a terrible decision, based on a non-existent "right to privacy" provision in the Constitution ("emanations and penumbras," as the court wrote). It extended federal government power willy-nilly everywhere, thereby creating endless arguments over actually funding abortion. Banning various aspects of abortion doesn't cost much of anything.

And if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, it would not outlaw abortion. It would simply return abortion law to the states, where it belongs. Some states would ban it. Some states would restrict it. And some states would allow it.

17 posted on 11/17/2002 6:39:17 PM PST by MoralSense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut; MadIvan
I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion

I guess by banning abortion the government allows you to pay taxes to support unmarried mothers without WHINING ABOUT IT (as you do all the time, eh? *S*)

I'm being sarcastic here. As a 30 year old unmarried Catholic woman, I don't ever plan to have an abortion (no matter what the circumstances)..but then again, I can afford to bring up a child on my own. I'm not sure how many others can make the moral choice, without my luxury. And I'm not confident about how many pro-Lifers are moral people supporting the children they have already (pre-divorce etc) or the ones their wives don't know about. Eh? i would never have an abortion. I happily, am in the financial position, never to have to.

18 posted on 11/17/2002 6:40:20 PM PST by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Darling, the last time I saw figures on this, the vast majority of abortions in the United States were had, not by people who were "deprived", but middle and upper class women, mostly white, in urban areas.

It's not only being used as a form of birth control, it's being used by people who could afford to do otherwise - yes, it would involve sacrifice for some, perhaps even some hardship, but sacrifice is part and parcel of having children.

Love, Ivan

19 posted on 11/17/2002 6:45:58 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I absolutely abhor abortion as a form of contraception.

Having that said, a very good friend (aged 40) told me recently that she'd had an abortion.
I went through a moral crisis about it.
I love this person like a mother. She has seen me through many calamities in my life..not least being the death of my own mother last year.
So what should I have done? Hit her with a big stick?

I don't think so.
I hugged her.
And listened to her cry.
For weeks.
And weeks.
And weeks.
20 posted on 11/17/2002 6:51:23 PM PST by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
No, darling, I don't have any interest in persecuting people who have had abortions - nor would I say you should whack her with anything. As your friend's reaction shows, it is a terrible thing. What is even worse is that the Democrats shield the actual horror of it behind rhetoric about "saving women's lives" or a "woman's right to choose". It's time that lie was exposed.

Secondly, you'll hear a lot of rhetoric out of the Left about being "pro-choice". But since when did Planned Parenthood set up adoption clinics? The only choice they are interested is not a choice at all, it's reaching for the abortionist's forceps.

Now there are certain things which should be made illegal immediately, such as partial birth abortion, which is a crime against humanity. As for "generic" abortions, it will take a large cultural change to effect its removal - but as your friend's reaction showed, those who have been through it are not the same afterwards. It's a horrible thing. And as such it needs to be exposed for what it is.

Love, Ivan

21 posted on 11/17/2002 6:59:06 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
The secret to the winning back of hearts and minds to the respect of human life is semantics. The pro-"choice" crowd succeed in their agenda by word games, all designed to dehumanize the unborn and turn it into the opponent of women. "Fetus" (a purely medical term) replaces "baby". "Terminating a pregnancy" or "evacuating a uterus" replaces a D&C or vacuum aspiration. "Right to choose" means a woman's right to destroy the evidence of her "mistake". "Right to control one's own body" replaces "killing a living human, genetically separate and unique, residing within the womb."

People can "choose" to "terminate a pregnancy", but they can't "decide" to "kill an unborn baby". If once we can change the language of the debate, public attitudes will change.

Regarding your previous post as to who is having abortions--actually I'm pretty sure the percentage of abortions among black women is proportionally much higher, which surprised me. But you're right about why most abortions are done; because the teenage girl doesn't want her parents to find out, because the young woman doesn't want a baby to interrupt her college education, because she doesn't want it to interrupt her burgeoning career, because the time "isn't right" or the father "isn't the right one", etc.

22 posted on 11/17/2002 7:15:36 PM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Liberty 1st life second better dead than a slave.
23 posted on 11/17/2002 7:50:11 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion. I already have the power to keep myself from having an abortion."

What an idiotic attempt at an argument.

Try this:

"If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the givernment is providing me by banning murder. I already have the power to keep myself from committing murder."

Since abortion entails the ripping apart of little guys in their mama's wombs, I'll let somebody explain the difference to me.

24 posted on 11/17/2002 7:53:47 PM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Being pro-life may not be a Republican thingy, but the reality is if one votes democrats into power (by voting for them or for a third party candidate), the judgeships will go more liberal; by voting pubbies into power, the judgeships are more likely to go toward stricter interpretation of the Constitution and thus more likely to overturn Roe through some case brought forward. It is obvious, I mean, why else do the despotic democrats hold Roe as their litmust test for considering nominees to the bench?
25 posted on 11/17/2002 7:55:15 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
A foundational respect for human life is a necessity if we desire to maintain any semblance of the Freedoms that made this country great.

Megadittos.

26 posted on 11/17/2002 8:16:07 PM PST by Siobhan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I'm all for stealth nominees who, once in office, will smash Roe v. Wade to smithereens.
27 posted on 11/17/2002 8:17:43 PM PST by Siobhan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
It is quite possible for a nominee to answer truthfully that they would not strike Roe when asked by litmus test democrats like Schumer, yet would rule to set Roe aside if the proper case presented. The Casey, Doe, and Bolton decisions seem shakey also.
28 posted on 11/17/2002 8:21:33 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion.

In short, none. The 'service' by the government isn't to you, madam. The 'service' is to your child. And it is the same as the service the government provides you (as one of the lucky adults that lived to be born) when the state makes it illegal for men to rape and kill you. At least you can fight back. Your child cannot. I pray for you and your children.

29 posted on 11/17/2002 8:45:22 PM PST by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion

The government is not providing a ``service’’ by banning an abortion, they are defending an intrinsic right. Is the government providing a ``service'' by banning the murder of an adult? No, they are merely protecting a right that the constitution recognizes every person already has. The government has no authority to give us the right to life, we already have it. The government can merely perform certain actions to make sure these rights are protected. And just like the government doesn't grant us that right, it has no authority to decide who qualifies for it. We all intrinsically have that right. That means it has no right to limit that right to any human with their own DNA from an embryo to a 100 year old, from a poor immigrant of any race to a the wealthy descendant of a king.

30 posted on 11/17/2002 8:59:39 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I'm pro-life, but yes I would vote for a pro-choicer, for one reason only. As long as they would confirm a pro-life judge. At this time, and as of right now, if the senate had a 100 pro-choice republicans who would be willing to confirm pro-life judges to the senate, great. The I'd want to boot them out after Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Its not about the governors or mayors or even the senators being pro-life, we need to increase GOP control, so that we can take back the judiciary, and in time, overtrun Roe vs Wade, and clear the way to banning abortion.

Just to clarify, overturning Roe vs Wade would not ban abortion, it would allow abortion to be banned and would revert the whole issue back to the states.

31 posted on 11/17/2002 11:01:58 PM PST by Sonny M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
CONSTITUTION PARTY (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party): Platform Regarding The Sanctity of Life
http://www.constitutionparty.org/ustp-99p1.html#Sancity%20of%20Life
32 posted on 11/17/2002 11:54:33 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
LIFE!
http://www.truthusa.com/cindy.html#LIFE
33 posted on 11/17/2002 11:58:47 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
It's pro-murder not pro-choice !

It's a slam dunk if you ask me !

34 posted on 11/18/2002 12:20:51 AM PST by Crossbow Eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Every time a gal has confided in me that they had an abortion, the emotional reaction is so powerful I have been miserable for weeks thereafter. Each of those women, whether they say they still "believe it was the right thing to do" or not, are affected for life by it. God can and will forgive them when they ask for it, and I believe that is the only way out for them. If they don't, the rest of their life becomes distorted by it. I still cry for them when I recall...
35 posted on 11/18/2002 2:31:32 AM PST by AFPhys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
When the government employs people to stop abortion, it is taking my tax dollars but providing me with no useful service in return.

When the government employs people to stop my neighbor from being murdered, it is taking my tax dollars but providing me with no useful service in return.

When the government employs people to stop another state from being nuked, it is taking my tax dollars but providing me with no useful service in return.

36 posted on 11/18/2002 2:40:05 AM PST by Godel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Half of all aborted children are female. What about their right to choose?
37 posted on 11/18/2002 2:43:32 AM PST by Godel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
If I am, for example, an adult Republican woman of sound mind, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing me by banning abortion

Uhhh....it isn't about the inconvenience of the mother, it's about saving the life of her child.

New Jersey is the state that passed a ban on Partial Birth "Abortion", (Homicide), which was vetoed by then-Governor Chrissie Whitman.

If the Republicans can't win without the votes of pro-lifers, maybe they're going to have to choose candidates that support their beliefs. Lecturing the pro-lifers about waiting until the time is right or not giving the election to a Liberal is getting old. People will look at the candidates, evaluate them, and determine if they trust them enough to vote for that person.

I'm still waiting for the national ban on PBA.

38 posted on 11/18/2002 2:58:37 AM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grania
Yea, me too. Don't hold your breath. We will have to put pressure on Bush and Congress.
39 posted on 11/18/2002 10:19:21 AM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
His entire argument is convulted and doesn't make much sense. He completely misses the point on why abortion should be banned, discussing only the economic issue (without mentioning, by the way, taking my tax dollars to pay for abortions of other women ... what am I getting from that, hmmmm????)

The Republican Party is the pro-life party. Not all members of the Republican Party are pro-life, but the majority are and the platform declares that we support a Human Life Amendment. (Personally, I support this of course, but I believe we already HAVE a human life amendment where it says "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.")

It's difficult for Right to Life organizations sometimes because they truly are one-issue organizations: they believe that EVERY life is sacred. If a Democrat has a pro-life view, and the Republican does not, they endorse the pro-lifer. While I would never vote for a Democrat, I don't vote for every Republican.

Life is the most important issue of our times. The abortion mentality in this country has gravely affected so much more ... we have more crime, more murder, more child abuse, more divorce, more promiscuity, more anger, ultimately, less happiness. Ending abortion will not stop all the bad things from happening, but re-affirming Life -- and supporting those who need help during the difficult times in their lives -- will go a long way in curing many of societal ills. If we have no respect for Life, we have no respect for anyone, including ourselves.

Just my two cents.

40 posted on 11/18/2002 10:59:51 AM PST by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
So many women were lied to and manipulated. I don't always fault the women who "choose" abortion. Their lives are irrevocably changed, and always for the worse. When they make this "choice", they are often without moral or emotional support. The so-called fathers want nothing to do with the new baby, their families may not support an unwed mother, they may think that their financial circumstances are so dire that they can't even fathom living themselves, let along supporting a baby.

We must support these women and help them make the right choice -- for LIFE -- and be there when they do.

My father told my mother to have an abortion, and when she didn't he up and left the country. I thank God that my mother didn't abort me, I thank God that her parents supported her (not always the case, especially in the sixties), and I thank God for my mother, who raised me on her own even when it wasn't easy.

Women need to love themselves first. If they love themselves, they can and will love their unborn child.

God bless your friend, and I hope she makes peace with God and herself.

41 posted on 11/18/2002 11:09:46 AM PST by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I'm seriously looking at the Constitution Party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html

Here's a PA link.

http://www.constitutional.net/
42 posted on 11/18/2002 2:09:38 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I go along with you most the way. However, there are people who are Democrat and liberal; but they are unabashed pro-lifers! One example: The late Gov. Casey of Pennsylvania. There also is/was a web-page that is the liberal version of "Rightgrrl". It is called, I think, "Leftout".

It is a page that otherwise pretty much liberal, except they are strongly pro-life. Then, there are Republicans that are conservative in other ways, but are strongly pro-abortion! But I do believe that between Republicans and Democrats; the Repubs. have the most pro-life people.
43 posted on 11/18/2002 4:47:15 PM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
A foundational respect for human life is a necessity if we desire to maintain any semblance of the Freedoms that made this country great.

You have hit the nail on the head.

44 posted on 11/18/2002 6:54:45 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
at that moment, the right-to-lifers chose to attack the conservative Republican to the benefit of the liberal Democrat. Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you the pro-life movement is conservative

This is silly. G-d forbid the people of NJ get a pro-life GOP candidate, like they did with Scott Garrett, who won overwhelmingly against his nauseating opponent Ann Sumers.

As Rick Shaftan expressed so well in a recent article, the GOP continually fails to take advantage of the large Catholic vote in NJ. Lautenberg's open support for unrestricted partial-birth abortion is appalling. Yet, despite consultants like myself, who tried to urge Forrester's hapless CM Bill Pascoe to attack Lautenberg on this, he would not do so, thus missing out on rallying the huge and activist NJ pro-life vote.

45 posted on 11/18/2002 7:04:30 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
"The secret to the winning back of hearts and minds to the respect of human life is semantics. The pro-"choice" crowd succeed in their agenda by word games, all designed to dehumanize the unborn..."

This is always the way. Hitler didn't jump up one day and say "Let's kill all the Jews" and have the German reply "Good Idea!" Step by step and bit by bit the Jews were made to seem less than equal, less than German, and finally less than human. After that it was easy to contemplate their destruction.

The real irony in the abortion issue is that women have abortions because they feel they have NO choice. I've known women who've had abortions because their own parents refused to help them. I've known women who are already mothers who've had abortions because their husbands would not work with them to "manage with" another child. I knew one women, whose family was very well off tell me that if she'd had her child she was fairly sure "they both would have ended up on welfare". I'm fairly sure her parents never knew about that situation.

Anyone I've ever personally known who has had an abortion could well have, with FAMILY SUPPORT, afforded to have their child. This is why, although I have urged my daughter not to have sex until she is married, I have also repeatedly assured her that no matter what the circumstances, if she is ever pregnant she should come to me and I will help her. I always knew I'd have my parents support, and when my husband let me down, they did step up to the plate. They don't call an unplanned pregnancy "trouble" for nothing, but if you can't count on your family in times of trouble who can you count on?
46 posted on 11/18/2002 7:52:52 PM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: montag813
There are 3 million Catholics in NJ. I have a link above to Rick Shaftan's article. We all tried to get Forrester to change his way but he was steadfast in his RINO/liberal views. Well, Forrester and Pasco learned the hard way, that's what they get for listening to Tom Kean.
47 posted on 11/18/2002 8:49:58 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
If I am, for example, an unborn baby, I have to ask exactly what service the government is providing by permitting mommy to kill me.
48 posted on 11/18/2002 9:05:40 PM PST by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
Free Decapitation and dismemberment, welcome to the human race and a woman's right to choose, with Liberty and Justice for all, except the unborn.
49 posted on 11/18/2002 9:17:15 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Please see #25 ... even if the Constitutional Party could get a president elected, they would have to have enough Congressional support to get anything done. But we know the third party presidential candidates cannot get elected in a typical election cycle, so voting for one of them is to empower the democrat votes since most third party votes are more like republican sympathies than despotic democrats.
50 posted on 11/18/2002 9:20:30 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next 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