Senate candidate Carly Fiorina wants you to know she’s pro-life. But she wants everyone to know that she’s not like really really pro-life.
She’s kinda’ OK with life, not totally against it but if someone wanted to be against it she’d be cool with that too. But if you wanted to do something kinda’ pro-life she might be into that too maybe if it maybe wouldn’t hurt her candidacy.
Last night, Fiorina freaked out at the debate because Senator Barbara Boxer has accused her of being pro-life.
From The Politico:
But when the moderator, KPCC’s Patt Morrison, raised the lightning-rod issue of abortion rights, Fiorina accused Boxer of engaging in a “unconscionable shocking misrepresentation” of her record to divert voters’ attention.
While Fiorina considers herself “pro-life” and has the backing of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony Group, she said she does not support the criminalization of abortion in any instance, would not introduce legislation to ban abortion and promised not to use the issue as a litmus test in determining her support for candidates nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So she’s pro-life but wouldn’t make it against the law, wouldn’t introduce legislation to make it against the law, and wouldn’t work to put judges in place who would rule in a pro-life manner.
But she considers herself pro-life so don’t worry. I’m starting to think that Carly Fiorina might just be pro-Carly Fiorina.
Here’s the rule. Pro-life with caveats means you’re not pro-life. Got it?
October 1, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Geronimo, somewhere is better than nowhere. What you say is true essentially — for all the pro-life support of Republicans we haven't ended legal abortion. BUT we have curtailed it alot, which means that at least we can get somewhere with a lot of Republicans (but not all). The first week of a Democratic administration and the Mexico City Policy dies, taking a lot of human beings with it. This trend continues. I say let's support the "Repulican Alive Act" and if they show any signs of life, we help them live. Elect them and feed them.
October 1, 2010 at 1:27 pm
My point is this – keep doing what you have been doing for the last 35 years and you can expect to have the same results. If you're are satisfied with the results of the last 35 years, then by all means, go ahead and continue what you've been doing.
And by the way D408, we have not curtailed abortion at all legally – It is legal through all nine months of pregnancy (and sometimes after birth) for any reason whatsoever.
October 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm
And John, the enemy is not at the gates – the enemy is inside the gates and is running the show, as they have been for quite a long time.
October 1, 2010 at 4:16 pm
The other option is to vote, but vote third party. Every third party vote decreases the winner's percentage of the vote, thereby decreasing the "mandate" for their ideologies. If every pro-life American did this when they didn't have a real pro-life candidate, imagine the embarrassing percentages the winners would have. If they all voted for the same third party candidate, they would win.
But getting a third party candidate in is not really the point .. it'd be nice, but is unlikely. The point is to move the other parties. Show the Dems that there are people out there who will vote for life. Show the Reps that their wishy-washy pro-life activity isn't good enough. If we all refused to give them our votes, but still gave our votes to someone, imagine what the reaction would be in the parties. The Dems would win far less and the Reps would have to get serious about being genuinely pro-life if they really wanted to win.
Many pro-lifers criticize those of us who vote third party when there are no real pro-life candidates for helping allow the pro-choice candidate in. But they are the ones who have chosen a provenly ineffective route. And when it comes to voting for people like Scott Brown, they are actually choosing to vote for someone who supports intrinsic evil. The lesser of evils is still evil. And I would rather choose a course of action that could, if more people did it, change the parties rather than choose a course of action that will lead to more of the same of what we've had. No one can say with even a crumb of credibility that the Republican party has been effective for the pro-life cause. In fact, I think there is an argument that they have been a hinderance to the pro-life cause with their unfilled promises.
October 1, 2010 at 7:18 pm
also Geronimo, if the enemy is within and has been for a long time, whose fault is that? We are the electorate… we each one need to join the war, at each our own task, and understand that we do have right on our side, if, of course, we conduct our fight morally.
October 1, 2010 at 7:21 pm
geronimo, i define "curtail" as lessening the incidence of abortion. Results! Pro-life elected officials and even occasionally prolife elected officials have helped enact legislation at both the state and federal levels that has: outlawed partial-birth abortion,
mandated full consent and information,
mandated parental consent,
mandated criminal charges of fetal homicide when an expectant mother is killed,
outlawed use of federal funds for abortion, outlawed the provision of abortion on military bases…
you get the idea. In come the Dems, who are almost unanimously pro-abortion, as the voting record shows — any curtailing legislation gets tossed, any restriction at all, beginning with the Mexico City policy.
We need to fight: Elect Republicans who profess to meet us at least even half way, and then fight to bring them the rest of the way.
October 1, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Republicans are pro-life when we vote, not when they vote.
October 1, 2010 at 11:29 pm
That should be, republican politicians
October 13, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Thank god this country still separates Church and State. If you pro-lifers had your way 12 – 18 yr/ old girls would be dieing left and right from back alley abortions. When are you going to learn that America is about difference of opinion, just because you feel your opinion is right, and you have the moral and religious high ground, doesn't mean everyone else should follow.
If abortion was banned, do you pro-lifers have a plan to take care of the influx of homeless foster children in this country? If you're a pro-lifer, and you don't have 10 adopted children yet, you're a part of the problem and should keep your political opinions to yourself. There's already hundreds of thousands of children that were born, and have no home, why can't you focus all this energy on saving the ones that are alive?
Oh, and lastly, if you're republican, supported the war, and you're pro-life, you're very very confused about reality. It's cool to kill living men women and children, but eliminating a grouping of cells that can't sustain life on it's own, now that's a problem.
You people disgust me.