Pro-life is not the Same as Pro-GOP

The Newark Star Ledger ^ | 11.17.02 | Paul Mulshine

[WOSG]

I think you can even be Libertarian and prolife .. the missing ingredient as always with those who favor legalized aboriton is the unborn human involved.

Once you realize that abortion is the killing of an unborn human, the question becomes one of 'what legal protection does the unborn human deserve?', and unless the answer is "none", you are in some measure and form 'prolife'.

Do libertarians favor child abuse just because it is convenient for parents? NO. Then why is abortion different, it is the starkest abuse possible - killing - against pre-born human beings.

[MHGinTN]

Let the pubbies seat three conservative (not right-wing, just conservative) judges on the SCOTUS, and pass a ban on partial birth abortion and something acknowledging the human right to life for prenatals with the exception of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the woman and I'll vote for alternatives also. Why can't democrats vote for Constitutional party candidates?... Democrats aren't conservatives, by and large.

[Prolifeconservative]

You know I'm tired of these candidates ducking, dodging, and dancing on the head of a pin to try and explain their position concerning abortion without offending anyone. I wish more politicians had the convictions to do what Louisiana Senatorial candidate Suzy Terrell did on MEET THE PRESS - her response was quick and unequivocal. And if a candidate just loves abortion and wants it to continue, please just say so and let voters have a clear choice.

[pray4liberty]

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

Since when did government start doing this? Most pro-life organizations are volunteer and we don't get tax money. Who's he talking about?

What about Planned Parenthood? The government gives them millions to perform abortions.

[Coleus]

I don't know, maybe he meant to say "if" and when....

Or maybe he is now referring to the new law which was passed last month where hospitals are no longer penalized, financially, for refusing to do abortions, HR 4691 The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=412


http://capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/votes/?chamber=H&congress=1072&votenum=412

[Campion]

The Republicans need to understand that if they become a pro-abort echo of the Democrats, pro-lifers will bolt to the Constitution Party or something similar. We aren't going to stay on the plantation and vote Republican like it's a reflex.

As to the possibility that this will elect a pro-abort Democrat instead of a pro-abort Republican, so be it. The situation brings to mind a comment by Abraham Lincoln, about wishing to live in Russia, "where I can take my despotism straight up, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

[kms61]

"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."

Do you think the pro life movement would ultimately be satisfied with abortion law being returned to the states, knowing that some states would NEVER restrict abortion? My thinking is that they'd eventually be back in Washington pushing for a national ban. Federalism in reverse.

[MoralSense]

Obviously, some pro-lifers would not be satisfied with state-by-state law. But that was the way slavery was originally fought. Jayhawkers, anyone? Kansas-Nebraska Act? There is a wide range of political sophistication in the pro-life movement. Most pro-lifers, I think, realize the futility of immediately introducing, say, a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Even the once-thought-unstoppable Equal Rights Amendment failed. I figure pro-lifers will look for, and take, the political victories they can get.

[supercat]

I figure pro-lifers will look for, and take, the political victories they can get.

I don't. I figure that half of them will demand all-or-nothing and the other half will demand lip service.

The current Republican Party platform on abortion needs to be reworked. To be sure, some idealists would be incensed by the thought, but what good is done by a party platform which almost no candidates actually follow?

It is well and good to have the party platform acknowledge that in an ideal world there would be no abortions, for there would be no need. It should, however, acknowledge that there is not public support for anything close to a full abortion ban, and that the party should only seek to impose by law those restrictions for which there is broad public support.

Realistically speaking, any politician who actually tries to implement restrictions for which there isn't broad public support will be kicked out next election, and his replacement will almost certainly ease those restrictions he'd imposed. Clearly that would not be a good long-term policy. For the Republicans to forswear doing something that would be both suicidal and unproductive, therefore, would cost them nothing. What it would do, however, is defuse attacks by opponents who accuse the Republicans of wanting to impose [what liberals describe as] draconian restrictions without any regard for what the public wants.

If the Republicans played the abortion card right, it would net them enormous political dividends. Unfortunately, they have consistently shown that they lack the savvy to do so.