Comments on: A Call to Redirect http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/ Unity in charity, diversity in truth Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:46:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Tobias Petrus http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15109 Tobias Petrus Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:32:13 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15109 Double post above. Double post above.

]]> By: Nathan Smith http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15094 Nathan Smith Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:13:51 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15094 I hadn't heard that McCain quote before. I thought he was a consistent pro-lifer. That changes the picture a bit. I hadn’t heard that McCain quote before. I thought he was a consistent pro-lifer. That changes the picture a bit.

]]> By: Tobias-Petrus http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15088 Tobias-Petrus Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:17:32 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15088 I agree that Giuliani needs to be bashed into oblivion. Clara also makes an interesting point about the danger of letting anti-Hillary animus become self-defeating. However, McCain is also a dangerous candidate on the abortion issue. For instance, McCain reportedly said in the "Washington Post" in 1999: "I'd love to see a point where it [abortion] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." If this is an accurate report, his position then was identical to Hillary's and Giuliani's now: abortion should be safe, legal, and -- which follows logically from the preceding -- frequent. Should we really trust a man who's said this? Plus, he supports fetal stem cell research. Yes, McCain has backtracked to some extent from his earlier pro-choice position, so his official platform currently is better than Giuliani. Yet we should remember that right now there the Republican Party actually has an orthodox Catholic candidate -- Sen. Brownback. If Giuliani could be knocked out, maybe Brownback could become at least McCain's running mate. But that would require enough Catholics to promote Brownback in the first place. Plus, I am of the mind that the only real difference between the Democrats' position on Roe v. Wade and the Republicans' is that the Democrats want Roe upheld by a 9-0 majority while the Republicans want it upheld by a 5-4 majority. When Republicans actually fight to get a fifth vote against Roe -- that is, a vote that actually matters -- I'll faint. Even the latest "anti-abortion" ruling both upholds Roe and probably will not reduce the number of abortions being committed. (By "Democrats" and "Republicans" here I mean the actual movers and shakers who set policy, not the grassroots.) I agree that Giuliani needs to be bashed into oblivion. Clara also makes an interesting point about the danger of letting anti-Hillary animus become self-defeating. However, McCain is also a dangerous candidate on the abortion issue. For instance, McCain reportedly said in the
“Washington Post” in 1999: “I’d love to see a point where it [abortion] is irrelevant, and
could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” If this is an accurate report, his position then was identical to
Hillary’s and Giuliani’s now: abortion should be safe, legal, and — which follows logically from the preceding — frequent. Should we
really trust a man who’s said this? Plus, he supports fetal stem cell research.

Yes, McCain has backtracked to some extent from his earlier pro-choice position, so his official platform currently is better than Giuliani. Yet we should remember that right now there the Republican Party actually has an orthodox Catholic candidate — Sen. Brownback. If Giuliani could be knocked out, maybe Brownback could become at least McCain’s running mate. But that would require enough Catholics to promote Brownback in the first place.

Plus, I am of the mind that the only real difference between the Democrats’ position on Roe v. Wade and the Republicans’ is that the
Democrats want Roe upheld by a 9-0 majority while the Republicans want it upheld by a 5-4 majority. When Republicans actually fight
to get a fifth vote against Roe — that is, a vote that actually matters — I’ll faint. Even the latest “anti-abortion” ruling both
upholds Roe and probably will not reduce the number of abortions being committed. (By “Democrats” and “Republicans” here I mean the actual movers and shakers who set policy, not the grassroots.)

]]> By: Tobias-Petrus http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15087 Tobias-Petrus Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:28:36 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15087 Bashing Giuliani -- I'm all for it. Not letting anti-Hillary animus become self-defeating -- you have an interesting. But McCain is a dangerous alternative, too. For instance, he reportedly said in the "Washington Post" in 1999: "I'd love to see a point where it [abortion] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." If this is an accurate report, his position then was identical to Hillary's and Giuliani's now: abortion should be safe, legal, and -- which follows logically from the preceding -- frequent. Should we really trust a man who's said this? Plus, he supports fetal stem cell research. Okay, he's backtracked a bit on his earlier pro-choice stance. So he still seems better than Giuliani. But right now there actually is an orthodox Catholic candidate -- Sen. Brownback. If Giuliani could be knocked out, maybe Brownback could become at least McCain's running mate. But for that to happen, he'd actually need support from conservatives. So why shouldn't orthodox Catholics back an orthodox Catholic candidate? Plus, I am of the mind that the only real difference between the Democrats' position on Roe v. Wade and the Republicans' is that the Democrats want Roe upheld by a 9-0 majority while the Republicans want it upheld by a 5-4 majority. When Republicans actually fight to get a fifth vote against Roe -- that is, a vote that actually matters -- I'll faint. Even the latest "anti-abortion" ruling both upholds Roe and probably will not reduce the number of abortions being committed. Bashing Giuliani — I’m all for it. Not letting
anti-Hillary animus become self-defeating — you have an interesting. But McCain is a dangerous alternative, too. For instance, he reportedly said in the “Washington Post” in 1999: “I’d love to see a point where it [abortion] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” If
this is an accurate report, his position then was identical to Hillary’s and Giuliani’s now: abortion should be safe, legal, and — which follows logically from the preceding — frequent. Should we really trust a man who’s said this? Plus, he supports fetal stem
cell research.

Okay, he’s backtracked a bit on his earlier pro-choice stance. So he still seems better than Giuliani. But right now there actually is an orthodox Catholic candidate — Sen. Brownback. If Giuliani could be knocked out, maybe Brownback could become at least McCain’s running mate. But for that to happen, he’d actually need support from conservatives. So why shouldn’t orthodox Catholics back an orthodox Catholic candidate?

Plus, I am of the mind that the only real difference between the Democrats’ position on Roe v. Wade and the Republicans’ is that the
Democrats want Roe upheld by a 9-0 majority while the Republicans want it upheld by a 5-4 majority. When Republicans actually fight
to get a fifth vote against Roe — that is, a vote that actually matters — I’ll faint. Even the latest “anti-abortion” ruling both upholds Roe and probably will not reduce the number of abortions being committed.

]]> By: Brad C http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15081 Brad C Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:56:27 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15081 I agree with your point about not playing into the hands of the media by appearing "anti-woman". But I think this election is already a bust for pro-lifers. While Giuliani is certainly the worst of the Republican cadidates on this issue, there is no evidence that any of the other candidates who actually have a chance of winning would do anything to protect unborn life. You have to be careful about Romney in particular. Keep in mind that before he became governor of Massachusetts he was "pro-choice". He changed his mind when he became governor and vetoed a bill from the state legislature providing state funds for embryo-destroying stem cell research. You might think this is a good sign. But keep in mind that the Mass. legislature is 2/3 Democrat. They have enough votes to override any veto from a Republican governor, which is what they did on exactly this issue and on several other Romney vetoes on "social conservative" issues. So when Romney touts his vetoes as proof of his social conservative bona fides, you have to keep in mind that these were basically meaningless gestures. Would he really fight for unborn life if he had to bring something substantial to the bargaining table? I doubt it. Also, grass-roots dislike with Giuliani from bloggers and so on probably won't be effective. He's protected by "movement conservatives" and their outlets like National Review and Fox News. I've just about already decided to stay home in '08 or maybe to vote for some third-party candidate who doesn't have a chance in heck of winning. I do think that pro-lifers do have the power to punish the Republican party in that way. There is no way a Republican candidate can wiin the necessary swing states without an enthusiastic Evangelical and Catholic vote. I agree with your point about not playing into the hands of the media by appearing “anti-woman”. But I think this election is already a bust for pro-lifers. While Giuliani is certainly the worst of the Republican cadidates on this issue, there is no evidence that any of the other candidates who actually have a chance of winning would do anything to protect unborn life.

You have to be careful about Romney in particular. Keep in mind that before he became governor of Massachusetts he was “pro-choice”. He changed his mind when he became governor and vetoed a bill from the state legislature providing state funds for embryo-destroying stem cell research. You might think this is a good sign. But keep in mind that the Mass. legislature is 2/3 Democrat. They have enough votes to override any veto from a Republican governor, which is what they did on exactly this issue and on several other Romney vetoes on “social conservative” issues. So when Romney touts his vetoes as proof of his social conservative bona fides, you have to keep in mind that these were basically meaningless gestures. Would he really fight for unborn life if he had to bring something substantial to the bargaining table? I doubt it.

Also, grass-roots dislike with Giuliani from bloggers and so on probably won’t be effective. He’s protected by “movement conservatives” and their outlets like National Review and Fox News. I’ve just about already decided to stay home in ‘08 or maybe to vote for some third-party candidate who doesn’t have a chance in heck of winning. I do think that pro-lifers do have the power to punish the Republican party in that way. There is no way a Republican candidate can wiin the necessary swing states without an enthusiastic Evangelical and Catholic vote.

]]> By: canuk scribbler http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15077 canuk scribbler Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:54:29 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15077 You're entirely right. Giuliani is a bit dangerous because he is consevative on other topics. People like that drive me nuts - they say they want to be tough on crime but look right past the horrendous crime of abortion. You’re entirely right. Giuliani is a bit dangerous because he is consevative on other topics. People like that drive me nuts - they say they want to be tough on crime but look right past the horrendous crime of abortion.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15072 Anonymous Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:47:45 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/04/a-call-to-redirect/#comment-15072 Testing Testing

]]>