Question for my fellow pro-lifers....

[Gop guy]

Why don't we wish to make our voices heard as loudly as those who are pro-murder? I mean, their ignorant evil cries are drowning us out guys.

Why don't we rally in front of the White House and show our support for Bush and his policies.

We used to, what happened?

We cannot afford to be silent about this.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Why don't we wish to make our voices heard as loudly as those who are pro-murder? I mean, their ignorant evil cries are drowning us out guys.

Why don't we rally in front of the White House and show our support for Bush and his policies.

We used to, what happened?

We cannot afford to be silent about this.

pro-murder? please. why don't you make a bid to bring back the scarlet letter as well.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Why don't we wish to make our voices heard as loudly as those who are pro-murder? I mean, their ignorant evil cries are drowning us out guys.

Why don't we rally in front of the White House and show our support for Bush and his policies.

We used to, what happened?

We cannot afford to be silent about this.

Bush may be pro life, but his policies aren't.

You are a little off base on this.

 

[dilloduck]

A lot of Reps are pro-choice and pro stem cell research----hopefully the party will not alienate these voters---gotta fine line to walk here

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Why don't we wish to make our voices heard as loudly as those who are pro-murder? I mean, their ignorant evil cries are drowning us out guys.

Why don't we rally in front of the White House and show our support for Bush and his policies.

We used to, what happened?

We cannot afford to be silent about this.

(shrug)

Nobody wants to 'listen' - that's probably why we aren't more vocal.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
pro-murder? please. why don't you make a bid to bring back the scarlet letter as well.

If Scott Peterson can be tried for double-murder, his terminology fits.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by -=d=-
If Scott Peterson can be tried for double-murder, his terminology fits.

not exactly. the death of a baby as a result of the death of the mother is in no way related to the issue he brings up.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
not exactly. the death of a baby as a result of the death of the mother is in no way related to the issue he brings up.

It IS related - Since Connor Peterson is valid as a PERSON, killing him is MURDER. The VERY sad thing is, up until RIGHT BEFORE (weeks?) her death, Lacy could have decided to have Connor killed and nobody would have raised an eyebrow.

Child dies, but the mother concents = considered a 'choice'

Child dies, but the mother does not concent= 'murder'


weird, eh?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by -=d=-
It IS related - Since Connor Peterson is valid as a PERSON, killing him is MURDER. The VERY sad thing is, up until RIGHT BEFORE (weeks?) her death, Lacy could have decided to have Connor killed and nobody would have raised an eyebrow.

Child dies, but the mother concents = considered a 'choice'

Child dies, but the mother does not concent= 'murder'


weird, eh?

I agree with you in this instance simply because laci was so close to delivering. anything after the first 2-3 months should be considered murder with the exception of risk of life.

 

[Gop guy]

Wel, I guess this thread belongs to you two now....

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Wel, I guess this thread belongs to you two now....

yeah - God Forbid two people have a dialog within somebody's thread eh?

:-/

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Wel, I guess this thread belongs to you two now....

Fine.

Here you go then, since I knew this would eventually have to come up anyway:

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=170

Yes, There is a Pro-Life Candidate Running for President
May 01, 2004
Printer Friendly E-mail this page

By David Brownlow
April 29, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

This article originally appeared here.

Yes, there is a pro-life candidate running for President. Unfortunately, he will not be found within the one-party charade we call the Democratic and Republican parties.

When it comes to the plight of America's unborn children, the outcome of the Bush/Kerry race is completely irrelevant. The legalized child-killing industry will continue to grind out another 3,600 abortion victims every day under either a President Bush or a President Kerry.

John Kerry has shown remarkable candor in revealing his radical pro-abortion views. He has forcefully and unapologetically defended his belief that the murder of millions of American children should continue. Kerry's Planned Parenthood rating of 100% is proof of his consistent support for the death agenda. [1] Hats off to him for following through on his promises. Shame on him for the horrendous death and destruction he has been a part of.

President Bush on the other hand, has given us nothing but lip service for the last three and a half years. He likes to talk in vague terms about his commitment to life, but other than signing a Partial Birth Abortion Ban that does not ban any abortions, along with a couple of other "feel good" bills, he has done very little to protect America's unborn.

The facts are undeniable. Since the day President Bush was sworn into office in January of 2001, over 4,000,000 (that's FOUR MILLION!) American children have died in the abortion holocaust. [2] The bills the President has signed into law have saved few, if any children.

Over a recent two-day period, the President gave us an unbelievable and bizarre glimpse into the mind of a man who would seem to have no idea what he believes about abortion - or is trying to play both sides of the issue.

At a campaign event last week, Bush stood arm in arm with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican whose pro-abortion fanaticism (75% rating) rivals that of John Kerry. [3] Before a crowd of 2,000 cheering supporters, Bush said of Specter,


"I'm here to say it as plainly as I can: Arlen Specter is the right man for the United States Senate," GWB April 19, 2004 [4]

What makes Bush's endorsement of Specter even more disturbing is that his Republican opponent, Congressman Pat Toomey, speaks openly of protecting the sanctity of life. [5] The hypocrisy of George Bush is no longer possible to ignore.

What George Bush did at the Specter rally sends a very clear message to anyone who is paying attention: If Bush is re-elected in November, he will continue doing next to nothing in the fight to end legalized child-killing in America.

Bush obviously knows he is in real pro-life trouble, because just two days after the Specter endorsement speech, he dispatched Dick Cheney to speak at a National Right to Life (National Right to Fundraise!) banquet. Before the spellbound NRTL audience, Cheney gave out the typical mealy-mouthed plea for votes, "Bush has been firm in his commitment to protecting the weakest members of our society.'' [6]

Oh, is that right? "Bush has been firm?" Does that explain how so many millions of the "weakest members of our society" have been killed on his watch? How Cheney could say something like that with a straight face is simply amazing.

Do you ever wonder what happens when these guys get back in the limo? You can just see them leaning over to one of their buddies, laughing nearly to tears saying, "They bought it again! Can you believe those idiots? How many times are we going to be able to get away with this?" Lot's of times, apparently.

There will be no Rep/Dem pro-life choice in this election. Because while there's a difference in the abortion rhetoric of John Kerry and George Bush, there is not a dimes worth of difference between them in their core abortion policies.

So let's not throw away our vote (again) on a man who, in spite of the enormous powers available to him, has done so little to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. It is time for us to quit playing politics and figure out whose side we are on. It is time for us to show President Bush the oval office door and give someone else a chance!

The good news is that there is a pro-life candidate running for President. His name is Michael Peroutka. You can check him out at www.peroutka2004.com. He has committed to get in the abortion fight the first day he is sworn into office. Here is what he says he will do:

"As President, I would do everything in my power to end the national disgrace of abortion. Starting with a formal acknowledgment of the person-hood of every child from the moment of conception - and the appointment of U.S. Attorneys, by recess appointment if necessary, who will enforce the Fifth Amendment requirement that no person be deprived of life without due process of law.

As President, I would advocate a total ban on all abortions and a total ban on any federal funding of abortions, here or abroad."

There is plenty a President could do to start a serious fight against abortion without violating either his oath of office or the constitutional separation of powers. Michael Peroutka has told us how he would do that.

It is time for us to elect a fighter rather than a talker. Let's do the right thing and elect Michael Peroutka for President.

 

[Gop guy]

Dude, I can respect your passion for your beliefs, but I've never even heard of this guy before you started talking about him.

Will he even be on the ballot in any state?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Dude, I can respect your passion for your beliefs, but I've never even heard of this guy before you started talking about him.

Will he even be on the ballot in any state?

This isn't a party that just formed yesterday.

The "Constitution Party" is as strong if not stronger than the Green Party.

Look him up: http://www.peroutka2004.com/index.php

I am not him, so you are best researching him yourself. If you want a whole lamb-basting of Bush (so to speak) then you can find a few references on the site as to what Bush has done as well.

You are not comparing an "honest and good" republican to a simple third party candidate.


50 Reasons We Aren't Better Off With Bush
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=86

 

[Gop guy]

Well we disagree.

Like I said I respect your beliefs, but are you still going to vote for this guy knowing that he won't win?

 

[nycflasher]

Read an interesting article in New Republic about the Toomey/Specter race in PA and the abortion issue...

 

[Gop guy]

Uh, you had to remind me, that was soooooooo depressing.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Read an interesting article in New Republic about the Toomey/Specter race in PA and the abortion issue...

here's another:



source--agapepress(christian news service)

High Stakes in the Specter-Toomey Race

By Paul Kengor
April 22, 2004

(AgapePress) - On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Republicans like myself will cast a ballot for either long-time senator Arlen Specter or three-term congressman Pat Toomey. The winner will secure the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate and take on the Democratic nominee in November. Specter is probably the Senate's most liberal Republican, representing the old Northeast/Rockefeller-wing of the GOP. Toomey is a conservative, in the mold of the Reagan wing that today dominates the party.

The most crucial difference between the two men concerns their stance on abortion. Toomey is staunchly pro-life. Specter is adamantly pro-choice. And that's why this election really matters, and certainly beyond just Pennsylvanians.

If Specter defeats Toomey, and the GOP holds its Senate majority in November -- which it likely will -- he will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. If that happens, pro-life Republicans will face the appalling prospect of a Republican chairman blocking President George W. Bush's pro-life appointments to the bench, including the Supreme Court, or supporting a President John F. Kerry's pro-choice picks.

Equally frustrating, Pennsylvania is a pro-life state, where one need not be pro-choice to succeed politically. Our other senator, Republican Rick Santorum, is one of the Senate's top pro-lifers. We twice elected a pro-life Democrat as governor: Robert Casey, a voice of conscience whom the Democratic Party refused to let articulate the pro-life position at the 1992 convention.

The Toomey-Specter election speaks to the future of the GOP. The Democratic Party has become the pro-choice party. If you want abortion on demand, you pull the Democratic lever. That will be especially true in the coming presidential election, where Democrats will run the most fiercely pro-choice individual ever to receive a major party nomination for president. (At the 2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, Senator Kerry described pro-lifers as "the forces of intolerance.")

The Republican Party is the pro-life party. That was the wish of the architect of the modern GOP: Ronald Reagan -- the man whom George W. Bush most resembles politically, including on the abortion issue.

To Reagan, abortion was not merely a political matter; it was a moral matter -- actually, it was a biblical matter. In a January 1984 speech to the National Religious Broadcasters convention, he said: "God's most blessed gift to his family is the gift of life. He sent us the Prince of Peace as a babe in the manger." Like 19th century clergy who led the movement to abolish slavery, Reagan as a Christian saw himself as similarly duty-bound to fight abortion, which he equated with slavery in terms of moral outrage -- an analogy that outraged the New York Times. He made the analogy to the religious broadcasters, and quoted Jesus Christ in the process:

"This nation fought a terrible war so that black Americans would be guaranteed their God-given rights. Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some could decide whether others should be free or slaves. Well, today another question begs to be asked: How can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with?"

"I believe no challenge is more important to the character of America than restoring the right to life to all human beings. Without that right, no other rights have meaning. 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of God.'"

Together, Reagan assured the religious broadcasters, they could convince their fellow countrymen that America "should, can, and will preserve God's greatest gift" -- the right to life. In his 1986 State of the Union address, Reagan lamented: "Today there is a wound in our national conscience. America will never be whole as long as the right to life granted by our Creator is denied to the unborn."

Ronald Reagan was politically much more flexible than assumed, but abortion was a moral issue on which he refused to compromise as president. He understood what pro-choice Republicans do not: abortion is the preeminent moral problem of our time.

On Reagan's side is one of the most influential moral thinkers of our generation -- Pope John Paul II, who has framed the subject even more starkly: pro-choicers are foot soldiers in what he has characterized as the Culture of Death. We need a culture that embraces life and fights to protect the unborn, not one that battles for the "right" to partial-birth abortion or for taxpayer funding of abortion.

And it's that which is at stake for Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday, April 27. Should the GOP be the Party of Reagan or be complicit in the Culture of Death?

 

[Gop guy]

Again, how can Pennsylvanians be so stupid?

 

[nycflasher]

from agapepress article


On Reagan's side is one of the most influential moral thinkers of our generation -- Pope John Paul II, who has framed the subject even more starkly: pro-choicers are foot soldiers in what he has characterized as the Culture of Death. We need a culture that embraces life and fights to protect the unborn, not one that battles for the "right" to partial-birth abortion or for taxpayer funding of abortion.

And it's that which is at stake for Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday, April 27. Should the GOP be the Party of Reagan or be complicit in the Culture of Death?

What about a woman's rights?
Pro-choicers are foot-soldiers in the Culture of Death?
That's like saying Pope John Paul II is a foot-soldier in the culture of raping little boys...

Man I hate this issue. There are some good points on both sides-- you know what side I'm on-- but mostly this issue just enrages people and polarizes them.