True conservatives are pro-choice

Liberals and Democrats are the home of compassion, we know this, because they tell us.

Abortion Survivors

Sarah Smith
In 1970, three years before Roe vs. Wade knocked down all laws against abortion in the United States, California had already legalized abortion. Sarah’s mother, Betty, had an abortion in Los Angeles. Neither she nor the the abortionist realized she was carrying twins. As a result, one of the twins--Sarah--survived the abortion.

"Somehow, miraculously, I survived!" says Sarah. "My twin brother wasn’t so lucky. Andrew was aborted and we lost him forever. Several weeks later, my mother was shocked to feel me kicking in her womb. She already had five children and she knew what it felt like when a baby kicked in the womb. She instantly knew that somehow she was still pregnant." Sarah’s mother went back to the doctor and told him she was still pregnant, that she had made a big mistake and that she wanted to keep this baby.

"To this day, my mother deeply regrets that abortion," says Sarah. "I know the pain is unbearable for her at times when she looks at me and knows she aborted my twin brother. Mom says ‘the protective hand of Almighty God saved my life,’ that God’s hand covered and hid me in her womb, and protected me from the scalpel of death."

Ximena Renaerts
Ximena's odessy with Vancouver General Hospital began on Dec. 16, 1985, the day she was born. After attempting an abortion at a free-standing mill in Bellingham, Wash. Ximena's birth mother entered VGH, where she gave birth. According to court documents, staff delivered the child into a "hat"--a plastic pot--and then senior nurse Vera Wood whisked her away. Ximena was placed in a room "where dead fetuses were stored," even though she was "moving, gasping, (and) crying weakly."

Court documents say Wood checked back some 26 minutes later, to find the child still alive. A nursing supervisor was called and arrived almost an hour after Ximena's birth. She found the child still in the "hat," uncovered, on a stainless-steel counter. By the time the Infant Transport Team arrived, Ximena had suffered a severe loss of heat, which in turn caused extensive and permanent brain damage.

Ximena's adoptive family eventually sued VGH for $10 million. Hospital officials petitioned to have the case heard before a judge only, but the B.C. Supreme Court ruled it would be best heard before a jury. In June of this year, facing the prospect of a public trial, the hospital settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. All family members will say is that Ximena will be well taken care of.

Meanwhile, pro-life activists are calling for criminal charges to be laid. B.C.'s pro-abortion Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh initially balked at the idea of investigating, but then instructed his criminal justice branch to contact Vancouver police. As of press time, no announcement had been made on whether further action will be taken. The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons have claimed the incident is out of their jurisdiction.

VGH continues to face heat over the case. Pro-lifers are now handing out literature outside the hospital, warning women of the events surrounding Ximena's birth. Some pro-lifers are suggesting VGH's recent request for a no-protest "bubble zone" around the facility is an attempt to cover up the case and hide it from patients and possible donors.

But it seems unlikely officials will be able to put a lid on the story, since it may have happened before. A May 30, 1986 Vancouver Sun article quotes nurse Kathryn Larouche, who spent a year working in the VGH ward where abortions were committed. Larouche stated she saw three infants "die after they were delivered live."

"We were supposed to turn the other way," Larouche said. "We weren't supposed to do anything. There were a couple of people ... I don't want to say who. They told us, ‘Don't do anything. Leave it alone. It will die.'" The events left such emotional scars, Larouche eventually resigned. Five other nurses left with her.

VGH officials insist that, according to their records, there has been no other case where a "viable" infant was born and allowed to die. They have not provided an explanation of what "viable" means

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.
 
I believe a majority of anti-abortionists would prefer to see the Constitution amended to protect the unborn.

Since you seem to insinuate looking to the views of our Founding Fathers. I believe in the established values they had desired for this country, and it can be found under the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these ARE Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to SECURE these rights Governments are instituted among Men."

Looks like the Founders believed that Government has the obligation to see that the "Right" to Life is secured, so much so that Life is the very first "Right" mentioned in a list of priorities.

To those who believe this view implies "Big Government" and not the views of a TRUE conservative, then you are also implying that our nation ( from it's conception ) has NEVER been founded upon the "idea" of lesser Government.
 
Last edited:
True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.

And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.

Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.

And that's just the way it is.
True libertarians are not conservatives. Conservatives respect the constitution, even the part that says no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Libertarians are nothing more than civil rights liberals who would rather defend those presumed rights with bullets than laws.
 
Last edited:
True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

^See what I mean about mental gymnastics?

:rofl:
You mean as opposed to willful blindness? The RTL is gaurenteed in the constituion and no person shall be deprived of it without due process.
 
wrong, this is not a real conservative.This is authoritarian-social conservative, the retarded cousin of conservatives.

Wrong. It is the thinking of a true conservatives. And when the issues are complex, and wrenching, as the abortion debate often is, true conservatives can and do reach differing conclusions. Such is the nature of the beast.

You silly libs with your false dichotomy labels and thinking cannot engage in such nuanced thinking. It eveidently hurts your tiny little pin heads.

That's right, jerkoff. Conservatism is not monolithic on this topic. But as a general rule, there is nothing whatsoever inconsistent with being a conservative and valuing life as the higher value in competing claims of important values.

Plasmaball-less, you simply (and obviously) just aren't bright enough to grasp any of this.

abortion is not a complex issue. Either you are for it or basically against it. Most people fall into those two columns.

( this is ignoring the whole 3rd trimester abortion issue, this issue tends to not go that far seeing how they are rare.) ( ha look at me trying to be civil to you, Whats wrong with me, you are too stupid)

You are nothing more than a fat little English nanny who wants to tell people what to do.

No as in the OP a real conservative realizes that it is up to the mother, father and doctor> I.E. A personal choice, and You lia. have ZERO say in the matter. You dont like that and retarded Social, authoritive cons can't handle that. Which in turn makes you and other retards, right leaning liberals nannies.

Go put your dress on, the father wants to bend you over.
Niether is bashing your neighbors kid in the head with a hammer, and depending on the kid, you are either for it or against it. But that doesn't mean it should be legal.
 
There is only one big problem with the EXTREME STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE of arguing pro-abortion means less government.

That's because abortion came into being BECAUSE OF BIG GOVERNMENT.

Prior to that, the federal government had nothing to do with it. As in agreement with the 10th amendment, each state had it's OWN LAWS on abortion.

Roe v. Wade came into being because the Jane Roe in question sued the STATE OF TEXAS (not the federal government) over the question. She now admits SHE LIED in her brief. Claiming she had been raped, when she had not. BTW, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade is now AGAINST abortion.

Roe v. Wade was BIG GOVERNMENT legislating from the bench, where before each state had it's own laws.

Because of this legislating from the bench, IN VIOLATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT, abortion became a law forced on the country.

IF those against big government mean what they say, Roe v. Wade SHOULD BE REPEALED and the question returned to each of our sundry staates.

Now WATCH THE LIBERAL HYPOCRITES SUPPOSEDLY PUSHING LESS GOVERNMENT squeal like stuck pigs against THAT.

The LAST thing they want is that question returned to where it should be in our constitution and left up to the PEOPLE, and the legislatures in each state to decide.

Why? Because they know abortion could be made illegal in some states, especially more conservative states. It has NEVER been allowed to be decided by the actual people since the Unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade IS BIG GOVERNMENT, not less.

You liberal phonies who supposedly want less government, what say you now?

Watch this guys. They will either!

A) Attack me personally, because they know they can't really deny this.

B) Spin like hell trying to lie their way out of this.

C) Ignore this completely because they know it blows their lie out of the water.

Watch the fun. ;)

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Perhaps 'true' conservatives are pro-choice, perhaps not. The important question is, why should anyone care if they are a 'true' conservative? Believe in what you think is right, not what fits in some convenient label.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with either, but the facts.

The FACTS are abortion is big government, not less.

Not only that, it's unconstitutional as presently framed.

If people want less government, or at least CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, it should be returned to the states as it once was under the precipices of our Constitution.
 
True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.

And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.

and opposing any government trying to prevent rape or telling me whom I can sell a gun and drugs to, or anything else you can think of to prove how stupid you are, right? :rolleyes:
Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.

Actually, you're just an idiot.

Apparently, Manni thinks 'conservatism' = anarchism
 
False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

wrong, this is not a real conservative.This is authoritarian-social conservative, the retarded cousin of conservatives.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
 
False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.
The "pre-born" ???

The buzz words you quacks come up with never cease to amuse me.
Yeah, they're sort of like "baby, toddler, child, adolescent, teen ager (admittedly these might not actually be human, more research is needed) youn adult, adult, old doddering fool, lots of names we have for human life.
 
abortion is a social issue and should not be subject to government intervention one way or the other....

:cuckoo:

Some people happen to disagree with your assertion that homicide is not a matter for the State to concern itself with.
if a women wants to kill her unborn child ...and you can find a doctor to do it....go for it....


What if I want to kill your unborn? Or your ten-year-old? Or you?
 
Perhaps 'true' conservatives are pro-choice, perhaps not. The important question is, why should anyone care if they are a 'true' conservative? Believe in what you think is right, not what fits in some convenient label.

I agree completely.

Just pointing out the fallacy of claiming pro-life is a conservative ideal.
 
JB,

I've already forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Wisdom cannot be found in a textbook.
 
Perhaps 'true' conservatives are pro-choice, perhaps not. The important question is, why should anyone care if they are a 'true' conservative? Believe in what you think is right, not what fits in some convenient label.

I agree completely.

Just pointing out the fallacy of claiming pro-life is a conservative ideal.

It's not a fallacy, as I have pointed out.

It just comes down to when you believe life begins.
 
If a woman wants to have an abortion, or keep her baby to term, that's her business. Certainly not the business of the government to become involved in. Personally, I could never abort my unborn child. I could never kill my baby growing inside my womb.

my name is masquerade and I am a conservative who is pro-choice.
So... the State shouldn't get involved in cases of homicide?

So if I were to shoot you in the face, that'd be my decision?
 

Forum List

Back
Top