Skip to comments.
Pro-life is not the Same as Pro-GOP
The Newark Star Ledger ^
| 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.
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50, 51-70 last
Yea, I know. I'm still a republican county committeeman, so it won't be for a couple of years, I'm just looking around. I think it would be a good idea just to "threaten" our republican leaders of our district and tell them that we are going to join the 3rd-party if they don't change their ways. For instance, today they just voted for the smart-gun technology, even though it hasn't been invented yet. Many republicans were too afraid of the issue and "abstained" from voting--a bunch of capons in my book.
posted on 11/18/2002 9:38:42 PM PST
I'm waiting for the PBA ban as well. Pro-lifers are growing just a wee bit weary of supporting the Pro-life candidates and getting nothing in return. Mark my words, if this Congress fails to get a bill banning Partial Birth Abortion to the President in the next two years, Republicans are going to face a huge price at the polls. Heavy conservative (read: Prolife) turnout at the polls will dissipate and the conservative tilt in this nation that manifested itself on November 5th will recede, mainly because Prolifers will collectively throw their hands in the air and wash themselves of Republicans altogether. I hope this new Congress heeds the message.
Our President is pro-life, and our numbers are growing in America. As Governor Seward stated of slavery over one hundred years ago, this is an "irrepressible conflict." Life will be sacred in this country.
As far as New Jersey is concerned, I'd expect better. They let Democrats demagogue the issue. I was an admirer of Bret Schundler, and felt he was a rare leader with excellent future prospects, but his handling of the abortion issue was abysmal. All he did was hide behind the Pope. It isn't the point Bret. It isn't even a religious issue. It is a moral issue, and a wide variety of people were anti-slavery.
Nothing is surer to me that there will come a day when all children will be welcomed into this world.
This is a crock. It is a Constitutional and conservative notion to defend the defenseless and preserve individual rights, especially those that are least able to defend themselves. Liberals act as though they corner the market regarding defending the 'defenseless', when nothing could be farther from the truth.
"It was a huge miscalculation and should serve as a warning that endorsement by the Republican Pro- Choice coalition is the kiss of death for a candidate."
With the exceptions of Nixon, Ford and (most likely) Dole, had he been elected. Even Reagan got skunked. On the whole, you're correct.
Amen-right-on-the-money-bump! Based on your posts, you're growing on me!
It's worthy of a good, long look and activism if you're so inclined.
To: Coleus; MHGinTN
The GOP could easily create a set of circumstances to make themselves irrelevant in national politics and a party such as the Constituion could rise mightily in an election cycle or two. Bob Dole almost did it single-handedly...
Amen. That's the reality.
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.
posted on 11/19/2002 9:15:23 PM PST
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.
posted on 11/19/2002 9:24:21 PM PST
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.
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.
posted on 11/20/2002 9:22:02 AM PST
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."
posted on 11/20/2002 9:49:49 AM PST
"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.
posted on 11/20/2002 9:58:42 AM PST
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.
Comment #69 Removed by Moderator
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.
posted on 11/21/2002 5:37:12 PM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50, 51-70 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson