“A
Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections? Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.
May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.
The left and the middle are portraying pro-life Republicans as radicals. Thank God for radicals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Frederick Douglas, and the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln.
Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections? Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.
May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.
their divinely-endowed right to life.
no.
you don't compromise in these kinds of issues. nor should you.
Okay - fair enough - let's apply some true conservative principles to your argument.
*There's no free ride. No free meals. No free health care. We shouldn't let these people sponge off their neighbor.
Okay - fair enough - let's apply some true conservative principles to your argument.
*There's no free ride. No free meals. No free health care. We shouldn't let these people sponge off their neighbor.
Big Government should stop forcing us to carry these little freeloaders around. Right?
Let's draw the line right here - if they can't make it on their own, sorry. And don't give me that liberal compromise "viable fetus" crap. They are all human babies. First term, second term, third term... The earlier we get them out and on their own, the better. No lungs? Can't breath? Just a bunch of liberal excuses for lazy and unmotivated.
*or* why not let states regulate and restrict late-term abortions?
hehehe
That is a funny cartoon, but it does oversimplify. Abortion is not just an individual healthcare issue.
To you maybe, but it does involve a bunch of non-professionals trying to make medical decisions for women everywhere, and act like they have the moral high ground. :shrug:
That is a funny cartoon, but it does oversimplify. Abortion is not just an individual healthcare issue.
Well, not just to me, but to about half of American citizens (according to polling data).
As far as the moral high ground: I'm also against slavery, rape, murder, theft, child labor, the death penalty, domestic violence, drug abuse, genocide, child abuse and quite a few others. Is that moral high ground as well?
And why bother to take the time to elaborate on your point when you can score an easy post point by saying nothing at all.
You pointed out the irony a cartoon poked fun at without evaluating the entire topic in 2 cells. That was a really deep response. Where would we be without you mac. I think you need to bring back your sock puppet.
We've already established that mob opinion doesn't matter when it comes to civil rights.
Most of those issues, save for the death penalty, have very clear cut consensus within our society about the harms they cause, and that includes the opinions of the scientific community as well. Fetal personhood does not rank among them, but I suppose in your mind it does.
Is pro-choice not mob opinion too then?
All of those issues at one point in our history (some very recently) did not have clear cut consensus.
Not really since, as you say, pro-choice people are in the minority.
That's true, but when challenged in the courts things inevitably changed. What did Roe v Wade do? It assured the privacy of women everywhere and blocked the anti-choice crowd from progressing.
The choice to abort is forward thinking and is therefore en par to the other decisions of the past.
No, it's roughly 50/50. Each side goes up and down from year to year.
I see your point but disagree with the logic since it wasn't really abortion itslef that was ruled a right. It was privacy, and abortion was assumed to fall under that right.
It took years of work for genocide to be seen as a real and seperate issue due to the hard work of a very few people. Up to the point where genocide became recognized as a real and specific crime, countries were loathe to violate the soveriegnity of another nation in order to stop it. I think that (with a lot of work) forward thinking will eventually show the barbarism inherent in abortion and will eliminate it.
Are we still arguing on how we can be killing something that has not taken its first breath and is therefore not alive?
The state shouldn't get involved with what a citizen does with the professional advice of her medical practitioner. Simple as that.
“All mutual concession in the nature of compromise must necessarily be unwelcome to men of extreme opinions.” – Democrat Millard Filmore, December 2, 1850
Millard Filmore was celebrating the success of a series of compromises that kept slavery legal, caused the Federal Government to be in charge of capturing runaway slaves, and in return admitted California as a free state and kept slavery out of the territories of Utah and New Mexico. This got me thinking.
In a debate in Florida for the Senate seat, Charlie Crist accused his Republican opponent Marco Rubio of being radically against abortion. Crist then claimed he himself is pro-life. He is among a growing number of so-called moderate Republicans and independents who think we must compromise on abortion and not emphasize it in elections. Some Republicans suggest we compromise by allowing some early abortions in order to stop late term abortions and partial birth abortions. Here is my question, what compromise on slavery would Crist have been happy with? Is it an ok compromise to make California a free state if it means leaving people in Georgia enslaved?
Compromises on the life and death issue of abortion puts us on the wrong side of the issue no matter what side we are coming from. Abortion is contrary to the constitution, to basic human rights, and to a civilized culture. Yet the left argues that it is constitutional. As though this is some moral determining factor, the left argues that it is the law of the land, therefore it is right. Again, this echoes the moderates of a century and a half ago. Consider these words:
“I believe that involuntary servitude (slavery), as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called the ‘compromise measures,’ are strictly constitutional and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect…I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.” – Democrat Franklin Pierce, from his inauguration, 1852.
The left and the middle are portraying pro-life Republicans as radicals. Thank God for radicals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Frederick Douglas, and the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln.
Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections? Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.
May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?