Pro-Life movement closer to victory?

[AxFactor]

What are your thoughts on the MArch for Life and the Pro-Life movement?

[Socrates]

The March for Life is a great thing! I go every year I can get a chance.

Pro-lifers should make themselves heard. If we give up and keep silent, then of course we will not win. We need to keep up the good fight and let the truth be heard.

[jezic]

It might be. The coming times will tell.

[Iacobus]

I saw further.

You re-elected Bush, who said on Oct 26, 2004,

"I don't think America and Congress has changed enough for a ban on abortion."

Cop out.

Not to mention Reagan was pres and the Repblican Congress.

I am going to leave before I get nasty.

[Ellenita]

The March for Life made the news in the UK - the media seems facinated that it's an 'issue' in the US.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 26 2005, 05:30 PM'] I saw further.

You re-elected Bush, who said on Oct 26, 2004,

"I don't think America and Congress has changed enough for a ban on abortion."

Cop out.

Not to mention Reagan was pres and the Repblican Congress.

I am going to leave before I get nasty. [/quote]
What does this have to do with the March for Life?

It took place when Carter and Reagan and Bush Sr. and Clinton were president.

Why does the fact that you don't like Pres. Bush make protesting abortion wrong?
We should protest it as long as it exists whoever the pres is.

Besides Roe v. Wade can only be overturned by the Supreme Court.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 26 2005, 08:10 PM'] What does this have to do with the March for Life?

It took place when Carter and Reagan and Bush Sr. and Clinton were president.

Why does the fact that you don't like Pres. Bush make protesting abortion wrong?
We should protest it as long as it exists whoever the pres is.

Besides Roe v. Wade can only be overturned by the Supreme Court. [/quote]
I don't think Bush was protesting abortion, I feel, even though I didn't vote for him, that we were robbed. Oh no, you are saying, "Another liberal made about the election." No so, at least not in this case, it is bigger than that. Those who voted for Bush overwheleming voted for him because of moral issues, i.e. gay marriage and abortion. Can I say they erred in having that guide their voting? No, those are the right priciapls to drive your voting formation, however, does that mean I supported Bush? No.

I think, notice the I, that you may have been robbed as well as I. Bush basicly announced that he has two goals for this term, one is to try and repeal some of the New Deal, and the other is to reform the tax system. Notice, neither the issue is "moral" in nature.

This coupled with Bush comments about how the nation isn't ready for a ban on abortion makes me inclined to think we aren't going to see much of anything "moral" coming out of this White House. Sure, they are trying to derail talks between the EU and Iran, but that is just silly neo-con cage rattling that may get people killed, but lets stay on topic. I do not expect Bush or any of his cohorts to make anything beyond a simple token guestue at banning abortion or gay marriage. The pre-election comment probly reflects this, it is a sort of way of saying "I knew that I probly wouldn't work but I gave it my all."

Also, Chief Justice R. is probly going to retire these next few years leaving a void. One of the names floating is Antonin Scalia. The problem with this is that Scalia is very pro life (and logical) however, to get him in and non fillabustered (which wouldn't be pretty) Bush will have to comprise with the Dems, probly replacing Scalia with a more moderate consveritive, which will leave the court on the "abortion rights" side.

Furthermore, when Reagan nomed Brok to the USSC the PR campgin ruined him, rightfully. The same thing will happen if Bush tries to stack the court.

Also, Bush and his party cannot ban abortion because of a simple fact. The majority of their voters do not like abortion, they do not want a dime going towards it, however, they don't want to ban it. In 1985 (I think), NARAL started an ad campgin with the solgan "Who Decides? You or them?" The support for a ban on abortion when cached in this context drops to under 20% among white consveriatve males in the Bible Belt. That doesn't bod well for the rest of the nation.

Oh, and did I mention that banning them would most likely result in state funded pre-netal care for all welfare and medicad recpeinets. That really takes a bite out of the small goverment, anti welfare population.

Moreover, the majorty of abortions occur in persons under the proverty line and a Republican dotrine holds that a way to discourge reproduations (sounds like eugenics to me) for those under teh proverty line is to cut any increase in welfare payments or medical coverage for newborn children to medicad and or welfare particapents.

This is why I commented on this thread, he asked if we thought the pro life movement has been adavnced, I do not think so, so I posted.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 26 2005, 09:51 PM'] I don't think Bush was protesting abortion, I feel, even though I didn't vote for him, that we were robbed. Oh no, you are saying, "Another liberal made about the election." No so, at least not in this case, it is bigger than that. Those who voted for Bush overwheleming voted for him because of moral issues, i.e. gay marriage and abortion. Can I say they erred in having that guide their voting? No, those are the right priciapls to drive your voting formation, however, does that mean I supported Bush? No.

I think, notice the I, that you may have been robbed as well as I. Bush basicly announced that he has two goals for this term, one is to try and repeal some of the New Deal, and the other is to reform the tax system. Notice, neither the issue is "moral" in nature.

This coupled with Bush comments about how the nation isn't ready for a ban on abortion makes me inclined to think we aren't going to see much of anything "moral" coming out of this White House. Sure, they are trying to derail talks between the EU and Iran, but that is just silly neo-con cage rattling that may get people killed, but lets stay on topic. I do not expect Bush or any of his cohorts to make anything beyond a simple token guestue at banning abortion or gay marriage. The pre-election comment probly reflects this, it is a sort of way of saying "I knew that I probly wouldn't work but I gave it my all."

Also, Chief Justice R. is probly going to retire these next few years leaving a void. One of the names floating is Antonin Scalia. The problem with this is that Scalia is very pro life (and logical) however, to get him in and non fillabustered (which wouldn't be pretty) Bush will have to comprise with the Dems, probly replacing Scalia with a more moderate consveritive, which will leave the court on the "abortion rights" side.

Furthermore, when Reagan nomed Brok to the USSC the PR campgin ruined him, rightfully. The same thing will happen if Bush tries to stack the court.

Also, Bush and his party cannot ban abortion because of a simple fact. The majority of their voters do not like abortion, they do not want a dime going towards it, however, they don't want to ban it. In 1985 (I think), NARAL started an ad campgin with the solgan "Who Decides? You or them?" The support for a ban on abortion when cached in this context drops to under 20% among white consveriatve males in the Bible Belt. That doesn't bod well for the rest of the nation.

Oh, and did I mention that banning them would most likely result in state funded pre-netal care for all welfare and medicad recpeinets. That really takes a bite out of the small goverment, anti welfare population.

Moreover, the majorty of abortions occur in persons under the proverty line and a Republican dotrine holds that a way to discourge reproduations (sounds like eugenics to me) for those under teh proverty line is to cut any increase in welfare payments or medical coverage for newborn children to medicad and or welfare particapents.

This is why I commented on this thread, he asked if we thought the pro life movement has been adavnced, I do not think so, so I posted. [/quote]
None of this has any bearing on why you think the March for life is wrong. (We protest no matter who is in office.)

Not gving welfare checks for women having babies out of wedlock is not eugenics. The whole welfare system of is immoral because it rewards money to people who do not work, and encourages women to have babies out of wedlock and not marry. The whole system encourages laziness and government dependency. Even FDR considered welfare a "subtle destroyer of the human spirit." "Let he who does not work, not eat."
But I digress.

[quote]Furthermore, when Reagan nomed Brok to the USSC the PR campgin ruined him, rightfully. The same thing will happen if Bush tries to stack the court. [/quote]

You say it is rightful for pro-life judges to be blocked. Seems like this is revealing your true colors here.

We can only get a majority of people in government office to overturn Roe v. Wade if we work to get them in.

Beyond all the liberal Dem rhetoric, your argument boils down to one of defeatism and despair. "We can never get enough pro-life people into office and Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Therefore, we should stick to voting for 100% pro-abortion politicians, never speak out against abortion, or do anything else to fight this evil or even let others know we are against it."

All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
Which seems to be exactly what you are advocating.

If all "pro-lifers" take your attitude, yours will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Edited January 27, 2005 by Socrates

[bookwyrm]

Hmm, Jacob you actually make sense.

I don't think he was saying that the march is wrong. He's saying that everyone who supported Bush because of his Pro-Life stance was tricked, because Bush probably isn't going to do anything about abortion.

Actually, I was hoping that he'd really push for it this term, because it's not like he has to run for reelection or anything, y'know? It's the very least he could do for all the people who put him in office for that very purpose.

Maybe he'll surprise you, Jacob. I certainly hope so.

God bless,
-Shannon

[MC Just]

Yes it is obvisously closer to victory, despite the criticism. We will win this soon.The president may not have stated what he was going to do the next 4 years regarding morals, but seriously how do you know what his intentions are deep down in his heart?

Edited January 27, 2005 by MC Just

[Theoketos]

The pro-abortionists are shaken in thier boots.

[Pennypacker11]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 26 2005, 09:51 PM']
Also, Chief Justice R. is probly going to retire these next few years leaving a void. One of the names floating is Antonin Scalia. The problem with this is that Scalia is very pro life (and logical) however, to get him in and non fillabustered (which wouldn't be pretty) Bush will have to comprise with the Dems, probly replacing Scalia with a more moderate consveritive, which will leave the court on the "abortion rights" side.
[/quote]
Actually, Reid, the head democrat in the senate said he would not oppose Scalia as the head justice. He said he would opposed C. Thomas strongly but that even though he disagrees with Scalia on many issues, he said that he is certainly the most intelligent person on the court and that is what is needed in a head justice.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='bookwyrm' date='Jan 26 2005, 10:25 PM'] Hmm, Jacob you actually make sense.

I don't think he was saying that the march is wrong. He's saying that everyone who supported Bush because of his Pro-Life stance was tricked, because Bush probably isn't going to do anything about abortion.

Actually, I was hoping that he'd really push for it this term, because it's not like he has to run for reelection or anything, y'know? It's the very least he could do for all the people who put him in office for that very purpose.

Maybe he'll surprise you, Jacob. I certainly hope so.

God bless,
-Shannon [/quote]
Scalia is who I hoe gets picked, he is by far the smartest and most logical, but he won't get on without some compromise.

As to the post I copied here.

One more reason to be a pesmist (sp?). You can be self-assured because you are normally right but you love to be wrong.

Shannon has my point right, I am not saying that the March was wrong, but I was saying that I don't see Bush doing much about abortion these next few years. He was re-elected because of his stance on this issue, more so than his Iraq deal or any of this tax plans, but what does he make known he is going to chase? I think there was a massive trick, but as Hitler once said, "The masses will fall more easily to a great lie than to a small one."

Plus, Bush isn't going to have much of a "mandate" left in a few weeks, esp if the Iraqi election fails (If the Sunnis, who won't vote, don't get at least 10% repersantation, than there will most probly be a civil war within 60-90 days). Can you say Catch-22? Bush won't have the poltical favors left to force an anti Roe court after dealing with the whole Iraq deal.

If you want to read a good non-fiction book on the abortion as a limit on gov't issue see the book [url="http://www.ucpress.edu/books/sale/pages/8373.html"][i]Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War[/i][/url] by William Saletan.

[jezic]

I do not think the march has failed. I think that America is beginning to unite. We need many more things like that, drawing national attention to the issues. More than anything the president wants, i think this plays on us as citizens. It is our country and it is time to start pushing this. They can catch up later.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 27 2005, 05:15 PM'] Scalia is who I hoe gets picked, he is by far the smartest and most logical, but he won't get on without some compromise.

As to the post I copied here.

One more reason to be a pesmist (sp?). You can be self-assured because you are normally right but you love to be wrong.

Shannon has my point right, I am not saying that the March was wrong, but I was saying that I don't see Bush doing much about abortion these next few years. He was re-elected because of his stance on this issue, more so than his Iraq deal or any of this tax plans, but what does he make known he is going to chase? I think there was a massive trick, but as Hitler once said, "The masses will fall more easily to a great lie than to a small one."

Plus, Bush isn't going to have much of a "mandate" left in a few weeks, esp if the Iraqi election fails (If the Sunnis, who won't vote, don't get at least 10% repersantation, than there will most probly be a civil war within 60-90 days). Can you say Catch-22? Bush won't have the poltical favors left to force an anti Roe court after dealing with the whole Iraq deal.

If you want to read a good non-fiction book on the abortion as a limit on gov't issue see the book [url="http://www.ucpress.edu/books/sale/pages/8373.html"][i]Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War[/i][/url] by William Saletan. [/quote]
I was basing my assumptions about Jacob opposing the march on another post in open mike stating that he wouldn't attend the march and then blaming abortion on Reagan and Bush (or something, it wasn't very clear what that post was saying).

While it is unlikely that abortion will be completely outlawed in this country anytime soon, and certainly many Republicans could and should be doing more against abortion, the fact reamins that the national Democratic Party has done absolutely nothing to even limit abortion, and supports abortion on demand with no limits.

To blame abortion on conservatives is absurd. True conservatives are strongly opposed to abortion. Conservatism supports morality and virtue as an indispensable force to be preserved in the country. Liberalism is nihilistic in its morals and believes that right and wrong are determined by the choice of the people or the decree of the courts.

If law does not acknowledge the right to life of every human being, then it is worthless.
The pro-life cause is so fundamental that it should transcend "conservative" and "liberal" politics.
I would actually be happy if there were pro-life liberals joining the fight against abortion. Unfortunately, the Left as a whole and the national Democratic party seems to have firmly wedded itself to the pro-abortion cause and the whole "Culture of Death."

Supporting politicians who give complete support to abortion-on-demand and doing nothing to promote the pro-life cause while blaming abortion on conservatism is simply absurd.