« The Way Giuliani Takes the GOP Nomination | Main | Planned Parenthood of Western Washington Libels Local Pro-Lifers »

November 12, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834521cc169e200e54f81c3b48833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference National Right to Life Endorses Pro-Choice Candidate:

Comments

Mike

Michelle,

Question for you; how does calling pro-life candidates, such as Fred Thompson, pro-choice, further the pro-life cause? You seem to have done this in many posts lately.

Thompson may not be your candidate of choice but he certainly isn’t pro-choice. In fact, his Senate voting record on life issues is flawless as far as I can see. Just because Fred favors a different route (defer to states rather than Human Life Amendment, which would not likely pass anyway) does not make him any less committed to the pro-life cause. It just means he’s actually done some thinking as to what practical steps we could take to reduce and eventually eliminate abortion in the U.S.

Maybe you could do your readers a favor and define pro-life and pro-choice for us all.

I’ve always thought of myself as pro-life; I would end all abortion today if I had the power to. I hope I meet your criteria.

Mike

Michelle

Maybe you could do your readers a favor and define pro-life and pro-choice for us all.

Hi Mike. Sure, I'd be glad to.

This is pro-life:
I would end all abortion today if I had the power to.

This is not:

People ask me hypothetically, okay, you know, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill and they say we're going to outlaw this or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors and perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about, it's not the sense of the Senate. Your talking about potential criminal law.

That is pro-choice rhetoric. If abortion is illegal, someone in that list is a criminal.

And you have no idea if a Human Life Amendment would pass or not. It hasn't even been discussed on a national level. I believe that if given the opportunity for pro-lifers to pull together and fund a major educational campaign for it, it could pass. I guess I'm not as jaded as you think I am. Only about politicians.

Mike

I freely admit that I’m jaded. I’m sick of all the negativity about our Republican candidates within conservative circles. Yes, they all have their flaws, even Tancredo, and some of their flaws are much larger (Rudy) than others.

A lot of conservatives I talk to are frustrated with the Republican field because they’re still looking for the PERFECT candidate. We’re never going to find a PERFECT candidate. I wonder what would happen if Reagan was running for the nomination this year. Would we be nitpicking a past marriage? How crazy is Nancy? Would we be lambasting Reagan’s support for amnesty? Etc.

Clearly, some running on the Republican ticket are “more pro-life” than others and I would even label one (Rudy) pro-choice. ALL, however, are preferable to the truly pro-abortion positions that the Democrats are taking.

Right now we have an opportunity to influence the direction the Republican Party takes. Republicans know the flaws of these candidates; that’s all that’s been discussed for the past year. For what it’s worth, I think this blog would have a greater impact on uniting pro-lifers around the pro-life candidates by commenting every now and then on the positives. Like I said, we already know the negatives.

Mike

I freely admit that I’m jaded. I’m sick of all the negativity about our Republican candidates within conservative circles. Yes, they all have their flaws, even Tancredo, and some of their flaws are much larger (Rudy) than others.

A lot of conservatives I talk to are frustrated with the Republican field because they’re still looking for the PERFECT candidate. We’re never going to find a PERFECT candidate. I wonder what would happen if Reagan was running for the nomination this year. Would we be nitpicking a past marriage? How crazy is Nancy? Would we be lambasting Reagan’s support for amnesty? Etc.

Clearly, some running on the Republican ticket are “more pro-life” than others and I would even label one (Rudy) pro-choice. ALL, however, are preferable to the truly pro-abortion positions that the Democrats are taking.

Right now we have an opportunity to influence the direction the Republican Party takes. Republicans know the flaws of these candidates; that’s all that’s been discussed for the past year. For what it’s worth, I think this blog would have a greater impact on uniting pro-lifers around the pro-life candidates by commenting every now and then on the positives. Like I said, we already know the negatives.

Michelle

My intention for this blog is to unite pro-lifers on purpose and resolve to end legalized abortion, and to unite us around ONE candidate (because if we're divided among 3, 4, or 5, Rudy gets the nomination, and Hillary wins). In order to do that, unfortunately, the negativities of the others need to be pointed out. However, if one looks around here, they can find plenty of positives.

Brent

Mike,

Don't forget that Reagan was instrumental in legalizing Abortion in California. Certainly Reagan wouldn't qualify as pro-life enough.

To call Thompson Pro-Choice is a joke. If Thompson is pro-choice then I am proud to be pro-choice. But I've always considered myself pro-life.

Michelle

Brent,

You know darn well, that there is a HUGE difference. Reagan changed not only his personal position on abortion, but his POLITICAL position. And he strongly advocated a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, calling on Congress to move forward with it several times. He deeply regretted what he did in California.

Fred Thompson has no regrets about his past or current position. On abortion. He personally opposes abortion, but is not for making it illegal.

Mike

Don't get me wrong...I love Reagan...but Reagan running today would be crucified as a flip-floper by most of today's righties for his politically convenient conversion.

Fred Thompson has nothing TO regret. His voting record was 100% pro-LIFE in the Senate and he still is pro-LIFE.

Michelle

Speaking as a "righty" (I guess), Reagan was NOT a "flip flopper". It's one thing to have a conversion and turn away from past mistakes, and go in a completely different direction...permanently, and quite another to change your position, constantly, depending on which group you're talking to. I'm not accusing Fred of this. He just doesn't support making abortion illegal. Never has.

His "100% pro-life voting record" is on regulating abortion.

Doug Parris

Mike and Brent,
I have somewhat to say unto thee and difficult to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of human life; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Heb. 5:11,12)
It is clear that you are well-meaning, though misguided on some crucial points, but you have not come forward with humility, willing to discuss, but puffed up with self-pride, attempting to rebuke and contradict Michelle, who is your superior in these matters. This is excusable for the young, if you are willing to recognize your errors and change. That is what the Bible means by “meekness” and it says Moses was the meekest man on earth, even when he was the most powerful.

We need to discuss:
1. if Fred Thompson is pro-life or pro-choice,
2. if conservatives are looking for a PERFECT candidate,
3. if Republican primary voters are, in fact, aware of the liberal positions of the Presidential candidates who take liberal positions,
4. If Michelle is unduly focused on the negative or is balanced, and
5. If Ronald Reagan would be conservative enough and pro-life enough for today’s conservatives....
Because you guys are dead wrong on every point and I’m sure I can demonstrate that, if you are amenable to fact.
Tonight I’ll just take one issue:
The first issue that needs to be settled is whether or not Fred Thompson is pro-choice or pro-life, philosophically, on abortion. Those designations divide the whole spectrum of positions on Human life into just two categories, with some variations within each of the two overall categories.
But it is not a difficult division to make, philosophically and morally. Here are the two:

I. Pro-Life: The Judeo/Christian position, rooted in scientific fact, the position of the true pro-life movement:
a. human life begins at conception,
b. killing a human being is fundamentally wrong, and,
c. government has an obligation to protect innocent human beings from being intentionally killed (murdered).
(This is also the position of the Declaration of Independence.) If you take this position you are pro-life.

II. Pro-Abortion Choice: By contrast, if you:
1) do not believe that life begins at conception, and that, as a result, there is some moral leeway for governments, groups or individuals to kill a conceived human being, at sometime prior to birth; or
2) believe that, irrespective of when life begins, it is morally permissible for individuals or groups, like governments, to kill some or all innocent people for some or any reason; or
3) believe that, although it is morally wrong to kill innocent people, it is still permissible for government to remove its protection of innocent people and allow them to be legally killed by third parties, under some or any circumstances,
You are pro-abortion-choice.

There are sincere people with “mixed” political positions (like exceptions for rape) that cannot fit any rational philosophical position, but Fred Thompson is not one of them. Fred fits, rather exactly, into the the third sub-segment of the Pro-Choice position. So do Doug Roulstone and Rob McKenna. They all believe in the legal right of women to choose to kill their own children, subject to minor government regulations. Fred said this, openly, early in his career, wrote as much in candidate questionnaires, repeated it earlier this year to Sean Hannity and said so, very explicitly, to Tim Russert on Meet the Press on Sunday, November 4th, 2007, the 40th Day of 40 Days for life. He wishes to send the issue back to the States and, if voting in his state on a measure to ban abortions would vote "NO" to keep abortion legal.
So how did he get his “100% Pro-Life rating”? Basically the same way Jennifer Dunn, our OPENLY PRO-CHOICE, Lifetime WISH list award-winning, pro-abortion activist former State Party Chair got her “85% Pro-Life rating”: By voting with the National Right to Life Committee on PERIPHERAL MINIOR ISSUES.
For example, right now the National Right to Life is using SIX Senate votes for the 110th congress (2007-2008) for their rating.
Here is what they are:
1. Regulation of so-called "grassroots lobbying" groups
2. The "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" (funding)
3. Medicare prescription drug price controls
4. Health coverage for "unborn child" (SCHIP) (funding- not abortion related)
5. Banning funding of organizations that support coercive abortion programs (not abortion funding)
6. Boxer Amendment to overturn "Mexico City Policy" banning foreign abortion funding.

Not one of those votes, passed or rejected, would have impinged on a woman’s “right” to kill her own prenatal children. NOT ONE. Some of them have NOTHING to do with abortion. Most of them have to do with funding something.
But any senator could get a 100% rating by voting with the NRLC on just those six. And you could be 100% pro-choice and vote for ALL of them.

Throughout Senator Fred Thompson’s entire career he was Never asked to vote to ban abortion on any level.
There is, therefore, no rational argument that can be made that Fred Thompson is pro-life, politically, either on his statements or his record, except for his self description: “I’m Pro-Life”
If a statement is all you require, well, guys, I am the King of Siam.

Michelle

I should point out that the above is coming from someone who REALLY likes Fred Thompson, and was really hoping he would be "the next Ronald Reagan".

mary

Why don't you just rub it in Michelle. :-)

I'd also like to say that I would call Rudy pro-abortion rather than pro-choice. He thought it would be a such a good idea for his daughter that he would be willing to pay for it.

Fred's position has implications for other life issues as well -- If a state wants assisted suicide they can have it seems to be saying. The states would be free to trample all kinds of rights according to Fred.

Our country cannot exist half free and slave. It must be all one or the other.

mary

I might add that "family physician" rarely to never has anything to do with a girl's/woman's decision to have an abortion. Why is Fred spouting abortion industry propaganda?

It sounds like something Gregoire would say and all her blathering about a "private decision between a woman and her doctor." What rubbish!

Doug Parris

Michelle is right. I think Fred would be a good, if not great President and is, perhaps, even the best candidate on a whole range of issues. Had Fred concluded his spiritual journey by becoming politically pro-life, he would, I believe, right now, be virtually indistinguishable from Reagan, in both substance and results. But he drew back. I won't pretend. Some of my articles in support of Thompson:
http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/tancredo-term-limits-and-the-sleeping-giant/#more-445

http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/thompson-tancredo-magic-miracles-and-sleeping-giants-this-is-part-ii/

http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/another-reason-giuliani-cant-win-the-presidency/

http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2007/08/23/guiliani-vs-the-united-states/


The comments to this entry are closed.

Visit My Bookstore

Modesty-The doorway to a Culture of Life

TTLB