I realize this is a hornet’s nest, and I’ve posted it specifically because I want to know your honest opinion. You know how I feel. As a pro-choicer and a conservative it would do the party good to have authentic conservatives like myself in the party. It would also make winning elections possible. And, when the GOP wins and small government prevails, that’s also good for people of faith and the values that make this country great and strong. So here is a poll on the matter and comments by Michael Steele. Essentially, you’re voting on whether or not someone like myself can be considered a true conservative and if the Repub Party should embrace people like me.
I ask that you listen Steele’s comments before you vote on the poll. What concerns me is his presumption that faith-based opinion are conservative opinions. That’s just not true. Conservatism is a very specific framework regarding small governmen. Religious politics are a completely different dynamic. Thanks 🙂
Video: Michael Steele to his Conservative Critics: Wake Up People!”
Related Link:
One of my best friends is gay and he’s more conservative than I am.
He gets disgusted every time he sees one of those parades in San Fran and says that it gives people like him a bad name.
He agrees with with me that no one should be expected to keep it in the closet but that everyone, gay or straight, should at least keep it in the bedroom and away from the kids.
I’m a Catholic that believes in a woman’s right to choose abortion. I can’t imagine another alternative. I am SICK of the pro-life people attaching their views to the Republican party. They are separate! You are correct…Republicans are about small gov’t and fiscal responsibility! Whether or not people believe in abortion is a separate issue. Republicans should reach out to the pro-life people and make it clear that our party is about those two facts NOT abortion. Terri
I consider myself to be pro life … but I see myself as having a lot more in common with Tammy on this issue than say, the lunatics at the Westboro Baptist Church. I’m finding there are actually a lot of Pro Choice advocates that actually do highly value human life… we can debate the rest!
Can we find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life?
My main problem with the abortion issue is that I believe if the baby can survive outside the womb – it is no longer an abortion it is murder. Any woman should be able to decide by the 5th month of pregnancy if she wants an abortion and unless there is some extreme circumstance beyond the 6th month – abortion should be illegal. I think there could be a “common ground” solution to this issue for most people. It is horrifying to me that “partial birth” abortions are being performed well into the 7th and even the 8th month of pregnancy.
I am a pro choice conservative and I suspect there are a lot more of us out there then many people realize. This abortion litmus tests for GOP candidates is plain stupid.
I understand that Steele is a star, but why not consider my fellow Lithuanian Saul Anuzis who appears to be an authentic conservative with great ideas?
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I’d like to think that reasonable people would realize that this shouldn’t be at the top of our priority list.
We have far greater things to worry about.
I voted “no”. Not that I have anything against pro-choice types, I just object to the whole “reach out” mindset.
Look, you say what you stand for, establish core principles, and let people know. They agree and join you or they don’t.
I am Pro-life. I am also Pro-choice. How is that possible? my friends often ask… Not possible at all! many often argue…
I am a staunch governmental conservative.
I believe it’s a woman’s choice, but that said, I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice 99.5% of the time. I am anti-Planned Parenthood (in it’s current form). I believe that pregnancy counseling should be honestly geared toward all options, INCLUDING AND STARTING WITH the sanctity of life and adoption options.
I tend to think that many people feel this way, living in the middle of the issue, but it is just not hip or trendy to take such a nuanced stand.
I’m not fond of abortion, but I take Barry Goldwaters’ view on the subject: “There are times when I hate to see abortion happen and then there are times when I’d hate to see it not happen. Abortion always has been and always will be. An abortion is between a woman an her doctor. Abortion is best left ALONE”.
I will never embrace abortion and I think it’s morally as well as financially irresponsible if it’s your main form of contraception. However, I’d rather see a woman go to a safe, sanitary clinic, tended to by trained professionals, than see her exposed to the dangers of of a botched back-alley abortion performed by God knows who.
If our tax dollars don’t fund it, I say follow the Godwater doctrine and leave it alone. You don’t have to love it, but the fact is, legal or not, it’s not going to go away, and the choice ultimately lies with the individual.
Tammy, your books have changed my life. I respect you and your opinions immensely. We need more people like you on the conservative side.
Common values, common sense.
I’m a pro-choice conservative. I never understood how Republicans could say that they were for “small gov’t” but believed in making abortion illegal, basically having a gov’t tell a woman what she could and could not do with her body.
It’s right up there with trying to put prayer back into schools or teaching creationism in science class.
Those things are anti-thetical (at least to me) with conservatism.
It’s nice to see so many of you agreeing, although in totally different ways.
I believe that most Americans are pro-life in their personal life, but believe that the choice should be left to the individual. Freedom of conscience is what I remember our Founding Fathers saying. That’s the American way as I see it.
Yes, there is a compromise and I’ve heard many pro-lifers already making that compromise or willing to do so – PREVENTION OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES as well as better counseling and more charitable help for those that choose to keep the child but who might otherwise have aborted because of financial considerations (which is probably the main reason why women get abortions in the first place).
The issue is NOT going to go away. I don’t believe that abortion will ever be illegal, but we can make it happen less if we put our minds to it. And I want to make it less. As much as I believe it’s a personal choice, I also believe that we should not always make that the FIRST and ONLY choice. That’s not “choice”.
And as someone else said: this issue pales in comparison to the economic and security issues we are facing right now. I think the Republican party should tweak their stance on the abortion issue. Call it “pro-life” still (because it is), but frame it in a more “small gov’t” way.
On almost any subject but abortion I would favor being more inclusive, but the moment either party puts a pro-choice candidate on the ballot they lose my vote. I simply can’t bring myself to support someone who sanctions what I believe to be murder and the abandonment of personal responsibility. I’d rather be in the minority the rest of my life than compromise my principles.
I am curious – just who is in this “Republican Leadership Council”? I mean, seriously, when was the last time a Republican on the national level showed any real leadership?
The only think I can say is that I wish I was being sarcastic.
sigh
I follow the same train of thought that Daredevil and Lamplighter have expressed. I’m pro-life, but I’m also pro-choice and think abortion should be left alone. It is a private issue, but I don’t like it being in our Constitution.
But has it gone beyond our control politically? What if the pro-life movement just stopped? Would the abortion-as-birth-control movement stop as well without an enemy to demonize?
It’s a progression of contraries that needs each other to keep going in the political arena.
I really believe that if it had not become such a political issue there would have been far fewer abortions in America.
I have no idea what the Republican should do… other than stick to the Sarah Palin model, ‘This is what I believe, but I’m not going to force it on everyone else.’ That’s freedom… and that’s why I don’t like in your face activists, they want to coerce eveyone into doing what they think you should do.
The Republican Party has been exploiting the pro-lifers for decades. What chutzpah that they now see pro-lifers as a drag on their political fortunes.
Religious groups are at the vanguard of the pro-life movement, but opposition to abortion is not restricted to religious belief. There are non-religious people who are pro-life for whom it is a moral issue stemming from a philosophical base and a conviction that life begins at conception. The pseudo-serious debate over when life begins is a bogus issue to avoid dealing with the moral implications of killing fetal life.
This is not an issue that will be settled just by new laws or the right combination of judges. Being a moral issue, it has to be addressed with moral arguments, not political threats. Hearts and minds, as they say.
My argument in favor of the pro-life position is the recognition of the fetus as a human life in the fetal phase of its journey as a unique living being. I am repulsed by a moral climate that permits killing life under these special circumstances. I won’t delude myself into thinking campaigning for Draconian legal measures will be successful in a society unwilling to admit life begins at conception. It isn’t a simple matter to get past where we are. I do believe moral persuasion —and scientific facts—can win over society to view abortion as morally repugnant only if the argument of life wins over the argument of non-life. Once that happens, the rest will follow.
In the mean time, let’s keep the political debate about political matters. Candidates who are pro-life are free to appeal to voters as someone whose view on the issue may be evaluated as part of his or her credentials as a moral and ethical person. That isn’t the same for political parties. Including pro-life in a party platform misleads people into thinking there is a political fix for a moral problem.
First I am the opposite of Ms Bruce on this. I anti death penalty (a bit odd perhaps for a former Federal Law Enforcement Officer) amd anti abortion except when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and I mean serious jeopardy. In other words Abortion should be legal in cases in which carrying the child to term can result in death or serious physical injury to the mother.That part is just so you have an idea of where I’m coming from personally.
Now to the political part. The Republican Party is made up of people with a lot of agendas. There are constitutional conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians and people who have single issues such as gun rights or abortion rights. The people in these groups also don’t agree with each other all of the time. My daughter’s mother in law is a good example of this. She is strongly anti abortion and strongly anti gun. The party has to keep all of these sometimes competing interests together.
The anti abortion group is a powerful Republican constituency and most social conservatives are more or less anti abortion. It comes down to deciding whether, if you were the Republican party, you could risk antagonizing a very large part of your constituancy with a high percentage of likely voters. Up to now the answer has been no.
Sorry to make my first post so long.
Tammy said: “What concerns me is his presumption that faith-based opinions are conservative opinions.”
It is that very presumption that gets my knickers in a bunch. It seems everyone assumes I’m a bible thumping religious right wing nut case because I say I’m a conservative. My morals, values and views of life comes from many different sources not just the Bible or church. Thomas Sowell does an excellent job in explaining the ideological differences between conservatives and the other school of thought in his book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.
“How do we make ourselves relevant to the 21st century”, Michael Steelle asks. For starters, read Thomas Sowell’s book. Sowell writes a “constrained view” (conservatives) is one in which people are viewed to be full of fault by nature and therefore laws are needed to keep people from doing stupid stuff. Everyone is happy living their lives so long as rule of law is followed. The “unconstrained view” is one in which people are seen as perfectible. The role of the government is to help people reach perfection. It isn’t enough to set up opportunities but to go further in setting up a framework/laws to make people perfect. I way over simplified here. But the point I’m trying to make is the conservative beliefs are multifaceted and not solely a faith based philosophy.
(anyone else still having trouble posting . . .I’m on my 4th try)
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator ( God ) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Scientific evidence, not religion tell us in the course of sperm-egg interaction a new cell, the human zygote comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion. Upon formation the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development.
The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of human organism. This scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically moment of conception.
This conclusion is objective, consistent, with factual evidence and independent of any ethical, moral, political, or religious view.
The foundation of conservatism is the right to life. If we are not granted a right to be born and live, the other conservative values and principles that we hold near and dear don’t really matter, do they ?
The Republican Party will remain pro-life, but one which welcomes honest differences on the subject. If we don’t accept differences among ourselves, we will be an irrelevant debating society, with little future in electoral politics. Those who want “purity” should consider who Ronald Reagan chose as his running mate in 1976–yes, 1976!
I was pro choice most of my life until I stepped out of abstract thinking and moved into concrete thinking. It did not happen overnight. I am very familiar now with the science quoted by Young American above, as well as the films in recent years of infants in womb at all stages of development — moving and smiling, making other integrated signs that a dumb fetus could not be capable of. And then there is the truth of the many reasons why people abort: because its the wrong color or sex, for instance. And then there are the thousands of women who are years later healing broken hearts in post abortion healing settings, because that surgery really wasn’t just like removing a bad tooth. And then there are the medical professionals who have worked in abortion clinics who have left the profession because the work, again was not like removing a tooth, but more like a murder. And there is the fact of future humanity, where it looks to me like Muslims are the fastest growing population around. I suppose the fact that really nailed it for me, really turned my thinking around, is that I spend, and have spent, about 30 years with the unique hobby of saving animals of all kinds, from all kinds of threatening situations. When I started this activity years ago, animals did not have many rights. Now animals have more rights than unborn humans, or humans who have survived an abortion. I am not a big fan of PETA, (they have their own issues with killing), but if this were chickens getting their brains sucked out, as happens in abortions, PETA would be all over it; and in this day and age, humans really do jail time over abusing animals (thank God!). I really think an advanced civilization could do better than this – this attachment to convenience and expediency. I see much evidence that we are a civilization sliding into major decline. This is where having a choice could be useful: to decline – or not to decline.
I do not disagree with the RNC platform on this issue. The fact that the Constitution names the unalienable right of life as the first one (and not the pursuit of happiness), to me, it’s the kicker. Life is the foundation. Abortion should be kept as an option, but an option of last resort, under extreme circumstances. I think that abortion on demand is plain wrong. That said, I’m not a zealot on this point, and if I were pro-choice, I wouldn’t be a single issue voter either. There are many other things that unite us conservatives (smaller government, the notion of freedom, etc.) that trump the abortion debate. I agree with Tammy, a pro-life person is not necessarily conservative (McCain, for instance?).
What I find troubling is Steele’s definition of “moderate”, and his assertion that “no one can get elected in MD if they are not moderate”. How did he get elected? Is being pro-choice moderate? I don’t think so. To me, moderate means espousing non-conservative ideas, when a conservative solution is the obvious.
BTW, I’m not a registered Republican either: I’m independent conservative. I won’t register Republican until I see true conservative leadership.
Uh, sure….
As a grateful recovering liberal, many of my formerly held beliefs are morphing into more conservative ones. Abortion has been one of the slower ones, but I find myself becoming more pro-life over time.
And here’s the thing… IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RELIGION!
For every woman I have ever known who has gotten an abortion (none of which I was responsible for), the decision to get an abortion was a heart-breaking one that was much, much tougher than they thought it would be. Yes, there have been one or two monstrous cases where they were like “get this thing out of my body,” but that was the exception. And I believe it is that way for most people.
I believe even most liberals know in their hearts that abortion is wrong, and that a political stance that condones the killings of tens of thousands of babies a year has no moral high ground to stand on.
Scientific objections to abortion will always be poo-pooed by the baby-killers as “stealth religion” which is of course not true.
One of the reasons I denounced liberalism was because the people who claimed to speak for the “non-religious majority” are some of the worst people on Earth, hell-bent on destroying every decent act, deed, and thought. Of course, accidents happen, and we need to acknowledge that they do. But there is a big difference between that and some of the “logical conclusions” espoused by liberals. Suicide Booths (a la Futurama) are not that far off into the future.
I am torn on this issue Tammy. As a pro-life Christian,I view abortion as nothing short of murder.If I thought that the fetus was just another organ in the female body,like a liver or heart,I would be appalled at the thought of the government telling a woman what she can and can’t do with those organs. But a fetus is not just another organ. It’s a living human being. And that’s why so many Christians are opposed to abortion. I could care less what you do with your toe nails or your spleen but I must step in if you’re thinking of killing an innocent human being. I admire you greatly Tammy. I agree with so many of the positions you take but at the end of the day,you are still a lesbian,pro-choice Democrat. I am the exact opposite. We will never see eye-to-eye on some issues. i can no sooner ignore abortion than you can the treatment of women. If the GOP was known for keeping women from running for higher office,would you ignore that so long as a conservative won the White House? I just don’t see how you and I could be in the same party without someone compromising their core values. And I see by your comments that it bothers you when the GOP brings up issues like abortion and gay marriage. At some point,this problem will have to be resolved or we will remain a house divided.
I am a Pro-life Christian and a true conservative. There is no place in authentic conservatism for the banning of abortion. That’s not big government. That’s HUGE government.
I have a friend who will not survive to term if she were to become pregnant. I pray she never has to make that choice because I think she would try. But, her condition won’t allow it.
I do personally hold that abortion is morally wrong and should almost never be preformed. Because, there is just something damn wrong about it. Living in a world where there are people who would kill to have a child while many are killing not to.
If the objective of the Pro-life movement is the reduction of abortions to as close to zero as humanly possible; the tactics need to be changed:
1) Reduce the Cost
Work on simplifying the laws, procedures, and costs of adoption. It’s hard to nail down an exact figure but the average out-of-pocket cost for adoption runs the gamut between $20,000 and $30,000. It’s perfectly free to give up a child (as it should be) and yet the prospective parents are expected to give up college tuition? It’s wrong, it’s a hurdle to adoption, and it needs to be fixed.
2) Promote self-defense
Rape is a very real problem where the victim’s life is at stake (we’re in favor of the sanctity of life, no?) Should they survive that monstrous act, it’s hard to justify not having an abortion.
How do you convince a woman who was raped that life is sacred? How do you convince her that bringing a child into this world is joyful when she has felt the depths of its’ cruelty?
The only answer to the rape argument is to prevent rape. We need to focus on promoting self-defense and the subsequent education.
3) Sex/ Relationship Education
Abstinence-only education is ineffective; abstinence is not. It’s not a hard equation: Sex = Children. Contraception increases the odds of not having children but it’s still lower than %100.
Morals need to make a come-back in this country in a big way. Education is a part of it but there needs to be a movement away from the counter-culture brought on by the stupidity of the 60’s and 70’s. These things will be far more effective at reducing the number of abortions and none of them involve Big Government. There is nothing wrong with the ends proposed by the current Pro-life movement, only the means.
I am pro life, but believe the Republican party should embrace people who are pro choice
Personally, I am pro-life. I used to identify as pro-choice out of default, more or less, when I identified as a liberal. I am troubled, however, with the abortion issue being used as a litmus test in determining someone’s conservative “cred”. The nature of conservatism means less government intrusion in our lives, not more. When conservative people of faith parrot that on some issues like taxes but not on others (i.e., a woman and her doctor or two consenting adults in their bedroom), how is it not hypocritical?
As far as I can tell, the tenets of conservatism involve a belief in small government, support of our military, border security, free enterprise, the Second Amendment and personal responsibility for example. Moral character is a key component but morality isn’t solely the property of Christians. While you can be a conservative and Christian you can also be a conservative and another religion or no religion at all.
We need to find that line between being inclusive while not selling out. It’s not an easy task but I have faith that we are up to the challenge.
The GOP has included many people who are prochoice. Susan Molinari comes to mind as someone conservatives loved but disagreed with on her prochoice stand. She was seen as a hopeful for a larger part in the GOP before Bob Dole’s failed 1996 presidential bid. Realize, too, that many who did not agree with her prochoice position DID support her conservative principles against subsidizing abortions (among other things). So, I see the GOP as being far more open to the prolife & prochoice voices & arguments than the Dems. But changing the platform should not be the goal. I don’t want anyone to be in the closet at all, only to understand that the prolife position is there for a reason – a reason well beyond the ‘religious’ element (we cannot ignore agnostics and atheists who are prolife! Abortion is NOT a religious issue!!!) as it encapsulates an entire spectrum of life issues overall. Abortion is merely the beginning. If you’re prochoice and want to be a Republican, you’re welcome to do so – BUT do not expect the platform to change to fit what you want. Frankly, I prefer voting for individuals over parties; I left the GOP over 2 years ago. I like being a registered No Party.
Where the ‘platform’ becomes despicable and meaningless is when the GOP establishment has used abortion as the carrot on the stick. Funny how they have wanted to attract the very people they wish would also go away. When we rely on parties, we can expect such large scale disappointments. Concentrating on INDIVIDUALS puts more focus on the principles on which they run. That’s one of many reasons why I admire Sarah Palin so much; she’s not just another GOP candidate – she’s an individual who stands on principle. Ronald Reagan was not in bed with the GOP either. I find it more beneficial to fight for candidates the GOP establishment does not support who usually turn out to be REAL conservatives who happen to be largely prolife, too. McCain had a good prolife record, but he was not a true conservative – I think that has more to do with why many did not vote in November than anything to do with abortion: people are DONE with being used and lied to – that’s the lesson the GOP needs to learn.
I do wish to comment on a few things that have been mentioned in prior posts regarding the ‘hornet’s nest’.
We simply cannot ignore the dynamic abortion plays in our nation. It affects our relationships with each other, how we view one another, the value we place on life, how we treat future lives and the ensuing debates on embryonic stem cells, partial birth abortions, infanticide, euthanasia, etc. Have repetitive bumper sticker slogans seered into our psyche for so long that reasoned debate among thoughtful people is to cease?
It was pointed out in a prior post that some women may turn to abortion due to finances. Unfortunately, this is true. Does it sound like she’s exercising ‘choice’ if the death of her unborn child is presented as a solution to her woes? Sounds more like an act of desperation than the liberating exercise of a choice. If her financial woes occurred AFTER the child was born, would we say she has a right to choose to rid herself of that expensive, burdensome child at that time as well? Seems bizarre to suggest such a thing, doesn’t it? But isn’t that what we are doing – something bizarre – when suggesting that death is an option for our unborn citizens for any and all circumstances?
I wish to include an earlier post I made on November 24, 2008 as it points to some background & frankly, where I stand on the ‘abortion plank’.
“With all due respect, government inserted itself in the abortion argument through the relentless efforts of NARAL leading to judicial activism in 1973. Most states had bans on abortion until that time; those who did not had restrictions of some sort (though elastic). I have pointed this out in a previous post. The legislative process was completely bypassed in 1973 because most Americans would have voted against abortion on demand. This was even documented by one of NARAL’s founders, Bernard Nathanson, who came to his prolife views (as an atheist, btw) after many years of performing abortions and being one of the pioneers of its legalization.
The idea that we do not legislate morality in this country is false. Since when do we have the right to willfully kill another human being in our society? Those who violate law and inflict harm or death upon another individual are expected to be dealt with accordingly by law. We also have laws against prostitution, drug use and abuse of others – all of those being moral issues with government telling us we are not going to do certain things to or with ours (or any others’) bodies lest we reap the consequences.
Actually, government indeed legislated morality in Roe vs. Wade: the unborn child has no rights and is not a protected person – nor defined as a ‘person’ for that matter. Wow – sound familiar? Replace ‘unborn child’ with any other group of people who have been targeted, dehumanized and denied their right to life. It’s not hard to see a pattern forming: when we deny one their human worth, we no longer treat them as human beings. Seems we have more sympathy for the helpless animals Michael Vick tortured and killed than for the helpless unborn babies being forced to die a barbaric death in this country every single day.
I noticed that in one of the posts above the reasoning given for abortions is an “unwanted pregnancy” (shouldn’t we just say “unwanted child”?). So do we just dispose others on the basis of whether they are ‘wanted’ or not? There was, in fact, a time when a woman’s worth was based on whether a man “wanted” her or not; how very sad for women to transfer that oppressive judgement onto her innocent child.
Do not think for one moment abortion does not directly impact our economy. If FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act), nationalized healthcare, & expansion of stem cell research are passed, taxpayers will pay for abortions – and so will society as a whole. FOCA will strike down every federal and state restriction on abortions currently in use, so expect to see partial birth abortion bans lifted & subsidized. The only “obsessing about abortion” I see is actually taking place on the left where there seems to be a rush to make sure as many abortions are performed as possible with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. As long as this is the case, I will not shut up nor abandon my prolife activism & education efforts.
As an unapologetic prolife feminist and gay conservative, I hope the GOP will stand firm on keeping the prolife platform. Without the right to life, there is no liberty or the pursuit of happiness.”
A hornets nest indeed. Yet, I appreciate the discussion – reasoned for a change among Conservatives.
I am pro life. Politically speaking, and historically as well, many who are pro choice have and do vote for the GOP when the true message that Tammy is referring to is articulated, lower taxes, small gov’t, personal responsiblity, and the one minute yet most important detail that Conservatives like to roll over – individual choice. Ah..now we hit the weeds, don’t we?
I used to be pro choice. I have changed my position to becoming pro life when I was about 25-26 years old. The Conservative principles are not just about governmental fiscal and national security issues; they also include and are rooted in social issues – personally, I don’t want that changed. Conservatives differ from Libertarians when it comes down to this point – what constitutes individual choice over what is God’s intent for our way of life. We can look at it as a debate of Natural law – We see our rights given by God protected by The Constitution, we do not want God, nor the destruction of life to be erased from what we believe – if that happens, what we may gain is nothing to what we will lose – our foundational soul of our principles.
Now..having said that – I do believe that we should reach out to those who have different Constitutional opinions on abortion, or in fact gay rights than we do – I agree with that. How was it that Ronald Reagan was able to form a coalition of the three legged stool if not to include those that disagreed with him and the more Conservative base? He did so by empower the individual and their choices and relying on the common good of what is right for this nation – cultivating a climate of life, always life without demonizing those that see their rights of being pro choice in the Constitution.
I flirted with being a Libertarian many many times. I am more socially liberal than most in my ‘party’ – yet, I do not want the Conservative platform to become a twin of the Libertarian party – God, family, country is the foundation of who we are not just as a party but as a nation and we must not disavow that to win elections, yet, we should not use it as a weapon for political suicide as well.
Just because someone may be pro choice, does not mean their cheer abortions..and on the flip side just because someone is pro life does not give them a strangle hold on the Conservative party – it’s the majority that need to focus on ending the culture of destroying our futures because it is their ‘right’ – now if Conservatives could focus on that – then nothing could stop them.
Thanks for letting me vent..and great discussion.
The interesting thing to me is you have to go so far to the “extreme right” to find two groups of people juxta opposed on such a seemingly fundamental issue who can find enough common ground to still agree on 500 other ones without one single nasty post.
I think Tammy’s article on Sara (after reading the responses) really brought that home for me.
I am pro-life, & agree wholeheartedly that the last thing this needs to be is a political issue, nor does it belong in my church. An innocent human life is an innocent human life, simple as that. This has to be my stance if I am to remain consistent with my belief that the killer of a pregnant woman should get double murder (even though he/she should be strung up by the ‘nads after the first one).
Tammy is a true conservative, but there is room for discussion of what that means on a wide range of issues.
I am not perfect in all that I profess, and allow all others the same struggle.
Conservatives CONSERVE what centuries of experience w/ our Constitution, and millenia of human values and traditions have PROVEN to be of reliable worth.
One of these ideals is that the proper role of GOOD government is to OPTIMIZE FREEDOM. The difficulty is in the competing demands that must be weighed.
Freedom is a conservative value, but not to the extent of what is called Libertarianism — there are just some things that will destroy Freedom if allowed unbridled freedom (like legalizing drugs).
All true conservatives believe Roe vs. Wade is wrong, if not because it has resulted in our greatest national crime (beyond slavery, Hiroshima, etc.), then because of the way it violated our Constitution.
Tammy would surely agree that Roe vs. Wade is the epitomy of BIG govt — stripping the People of the rights to self determination that federalism is about.
I welcome all who share at least some of our Conservative values, whether they be Pro-Life socialists (as many religious folk tend to be) or Pro-Choice libertarians.
We’ll continue to debate the issues, and help each other where we agree (refusing to personally undermine each other where we disagree).
Here’s the least acknowledged thing about the status quo of abortion:
The practical result of R v. W has been to HURT individual women, as their “boyfriends” and parents have typically forced the decision (even if unknowingly).
Pro-Choicers need to first tackle this — that abortion “rights” primarily benefit skanky “men”.
As conservatives, we must not allow the issue of abortion to divide us.
To do so would be handing victory to the liberals.