Furthermore, the pro-contraception, pro-abortion position has at its heart the idea that fertility is a disease, that woman’s unique capacity for motherhood is not to be regarded with wonder and awe but to be controlled — and not by a woman’s own proactive free choice (say, her choice to abstain from sex or to engage in it) and the mature acceptance of the consequences of those choices, but by artificial, exterior means.

Yes! Fertility is the normal function of the human body. Infertility is the disease. These people have it completely upside down and wrong in every way. Thanks, Reince, for trying to set them straight!

SoonerNationGal on April 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM

For the record, this is a quote from Tina. A good one at that.

Why is it that pro-abortion people are terrified of the word “abortion”? If abortion is no big deal and a “fundamental right”, why won’t they even use the word? They’ve even changed the language so that abortion is now called “womens health” or “reproductive rights”. Could it be that they know they’ve lost the fight and that the majority of people in this country oppose abortion and see it for what it really is…child slaughter. The gig is up.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Because almost everyone claims to be “personally opposed” to abortion, but not in favor of making it illegal. Which is ridiculous. Why is one “personally opposed” to abortion? Because you believe it is a life. Otherwise, why be opposed to it?

“I’m personally opposed to heart surgery” for instance is the same thing that these people are saying, if they truly believe that the fetus is not a life. I suppose there is some very small number of people where this could be true if they are christian scientists or otherwise have beliefs against surgery in general. But that is not the people we are talking about here.

So, by saying they are “personally opposed” to abortion, they are admitting it is morally wrong. The only thing that could make it morally wrong is if it is killing an innocent life.

And, nobody wants to be confronted with that realization. So they try and pretend instead that they are fighting for something else. “Freedom”, “choice”, “health”. All nonsense, of course.

I ask the same question I always ask of lefties. when you always have to lie about your position, how is it you convince yourselves that you are right? If your position was the right one, shouldn’t you be able to be honest about it?

Not wanting your own beliefs to be forced on the nation is admirable, but every law codifies somebody’s belief.
The purpose of seeking political power is to make sure that somebody is you.

AesopFan on April 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

That is a point way too many people, even conservatives, fail to understand.

Making marijuana illegal is taking one person’s belief about the morality, etc. of marijuana and forcing it upon another person.

Making insider trading illegal is taking one person’s belief about the morality, ethics and economic consequences of insider trading, and forcing it upon someone else.

Zoning laws take one person’s belief about how certain property can be used and forcing it on someone else.

Speed limits are based on one person’s belief about what the “correct” maximum speed on a certain road should be.

Every law is based on one person’s belief. The reason it is a law is that other people disagree with that belief and the power of the state is needed to enforce compliance, otherwise there would be no need for laws at all.

There is literally no such thing as a law that nobody disagrees with. Every law is violated because people disagree with the laws.

Now, admittedly, conservatives want less gov’t and fewer laws. However, conservatives don’t believe that there are not legitimate laws and no legitimate gov’t functions. Of course there are legitimate laws and legitimate gov’t functions. And protecting an innocent life is one of those legitimate gov’t functions.

The argument “don’t force your belief on me” is not an argument. It is a cop out. either you argue why abortion is a perfectly fine procedure and why society needs abortion to be legal, or you don’t. Saying you are pro-abortion because you don’t want to “enforce your morals” is not a true argument. You are already enforcing your morals by allowing abortion. You are saying that society must allow abortion to happen regardless of people who disagree with allowing abortion’s beliefs.

If we were talking about forcing everyone to genuflect upon entering a federal building, I could see the argument made that it is unfair to force your beliefs and religious practices on others. That would be a valid argument, because there is no other consideration there. It is merely a gesture. Abortion is not akin because there is or is not an innocent life involved. If you want to argue that a fetus is not a life, then make that argument. Arguing that one “is personally opposed to abortion, but don’t want to enforce my beliefs” is a total coward move. Because by being personally opposed to abortion, you are admitting it is a life – what other reason is there to be personally opposed to abortion? Yet you will not protect that life?

We all believe what we believe. I however do not think what I believe should be forced on the rest of the nation. If you feel it should, more power to you. But there’s nothing repugnant about saying that a personal belief of mine (and admittedly around half of the American public), even about something as serious as when life begins, shouldn’t necessarily be the law of the land.
Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Not wanting your own beliefs to be forced on the nation is admirable, but every law codifies somebody’s belief.
The purpose of seeking political power is to make sure that somebody is you.

it is possible to be pro-life and pro-woman

I believe the technical term for people such as this is…………

………Fathers.

Subsunk

At one point, he objected that Priebus used the term “pro-abortion.” “I believe the term is pro-choice,”

Why is it that pro-abortion people are terrified of the word “abortion”? If abortion is no big deal and a “fundamental right”, why won’t they even use the word? They’ve even changed the language so that abortion is now called “womens health” or “reproductive rights”. Could it be that they know they’ve lost the fight and that the majority of people in this country oppose abortion and see it for what it really is…child slaughter. The gig is up.

Pretty soon you’ll be able to get disability compensation for being a liberal since it has to be a mental disorder.

the idea of allowing the government to make value judgments on what people do and do not “count” as worthy of having such a right protected by society. An idea I would have thought to be gone from this nation with the ultimate abolition of slavery.

The Schaef on April 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I thought that argument was only good for homosexuals seeking marraige, not pro-lifers seeking an end to legalized abortion? //

I used to hold similar views to Doughboy on abortion. I was in my late teens/early twenties. I also wasn’t thinking much on the subject. In fact I pretty much ignored it. I was also leaning heavily moderate – if not liberal – during that time. Then I began to really think about the topic and came back to a fully pro-life position, one step at a time. At this point, an ectopic pregnancy would be about the only reason I’d find “acceptable” for killing the unborn… and even then I wonder.

Doughboy’s position – as was my past one – is squishy. Something I have been called because of my political party stances, specifically concerning voting. Lots of people are squishes. Even and especially a lot of people calling other people squishes. But trying to hold to both sides of the abortion argument as logically sound? Squishy, sandy morality.

The look on Robert’s face was priceless. I don’t understand why more republicans don’t take this tact and dismiss the premises of the left. Romney needs to use this as a model. Roberts was clearly agitated and thrown off his game once he realized he lost control of his talking points. Nice job Priebus!

Ellis on April 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

-
Something Rush has advocated for years it works.
-

We all believe what we believe. I however do not think what I believe should be forced on the rest of the nation. If you feel it should, more power to you. But there’s nothing repugnant about saying that a personal belief of mine(and admittedly around half of the American public), even about something as serious as when life begins, shouldn’t necessarily be the law of the land.

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Suppose “what I believe” is that you are not a living person. Would you find it equally unfair that my choice to kill you is usurped by laws that protect your life? Why should your definition of life be the law of the land, but not mine?

And therein lies the irreconcilable conflict regarding the support of abortion. Either all human life is the inherent right of the person (as stated in our Declaration of Independence), or you support the idea of allowing the government to make value judgments on what people do and do not “count” as worthy of having such a right protected by society. An idea I would have thought to be gone from this nation with the ultimate abolition of slavery.

Implicate the talking head as holding the view.
They are on an agenda. Notice he backed off once
he realized those were his views also. Stop
thinking that they are smart….they aren’t.

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

In one respect it’s called erring on the side of caution. And just as from your perspective there’s a possible sliding scale up, there is also a sliding scale down.

And you don’t know when life begins?

Just what is it that happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg, or did you miss human biology 101?

It’s not an acorn and it’s not going to become an oak tree. It’s not going to become anything other than what it already is, a human being the instant it was fertilized/conceived.

People who want to keep abortion legal claim it’s because they don’t want to push their beliefs on others. Sorry, that’s an absurd argument to make. You’re appealing to the law for morality and acceptability. You’re putting the rights of one human being over another because one can breath air and voice an opinion, because one has the backing of the law and the other doesn’t.

Abortion’s all good for them, but not for me. Yet, a human life is at stake in both equations. This isn’t like deciding what to eat for dinner or wear to the party. This isn’t deciding what car to buy or political party to affiliate with. You are talking about a human being and the reality that you do/may/have/will want your unborn child(ren) to live, but it’s okay if someone else wants to kill their unborn children. All because you don’t want to force your beliefs against someone else.

Twisted logic, that.

Talk like that next time someone tries to murder you.

Yes, we don’t know about exactly when a soul joins with a body. We don’t know when that moment of consciousness truly occurs. But we do know what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. A new, unique human being is created, and it is alive. It is human and alive, even if it hasn’t got a heart or brain yet or can’t say hello, even if the law says it’s not got legal protection yet because it’s not legally defined as a person yet.

Just because something is legal doesn’t make that law or the practice it legalizes right. The law doesn’t determine humanity and it certainly doesn’t determine morality, but people who find nothing wrong with abortion certainly do like to cling to it… that and their personal pride and arrogance.

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I’m behind you Doughboy! I am in the same boat. I would never personally approve of an abortion being performed for an unborn child of mine but I also would never tell another person what they can or cannot do with their own. I equate it to my personal stance on alcohol. While I would never drink it, I would also never tell anyone else that they can’t drink it. Let people have their freedom to choose and let them face the consequences (which includes footing the bill!).

As I’ve written again and again, once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has a choice as to whether she will be a mother. She already is. At that point, her only choice is as to what kind of mother she will be.

No matter what you believe about when life starts, legally you’re wrong here. Up to a certain point a woman legally has the ability to abort a fetus. You can argue the morality of it, but until there’s a law banning abortion women DO have a choice.

Cyhort on April 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Well, once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has a choice as to whether she will be a mother. Unless she was pregnant (i.e. a mother) there would be no baby to abort. If she aborts her fetus she is still a mother, the mother of a child now dead. She legally gets to choose if her child lives or dies because for some unfathomable reason our society thinks mothers should have that option.

Finally, consider just how many women are aborted each day.

Casualties from the Dems’ war on women and children.

Wow, this idea that you can’t be pro-abortion and pro-woman sounds like something that would come out of a liberal’s mouth, or pen. I thought they were the ones who were incapable of seeing the other side of an issue.

wbcoleman on April 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

1. Pro-abortion isn’t the same as wanting abortion to remain legal.

2. Tina didn’t even say it’s impossible. If the other side would give us this same consideration, it would be very hard to complain.

Now that I’m safe, I’m Pro-Choice!

Doing TWO things at ONCE (!) – no lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist would ever believe that such mental agility is possible because with their defective, ideologically warped brains, they certainly CAN’T DO IT !!!!!

But to say that you personally believe life begins at conception, but you think they should still have a choice on whether or not to end that life for convenience is the most repugnant level of relativism, a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles that human liberty is based on or extreme naiveté.

FlareCorran on April 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

What’s repugnant about it? I’m not God. I have a personal belief and that’s it. You don’t know when life begins. None of us do. Is using the morning after pill a form of murder? If not, then what about having an abortion a month into the pregnancy before the heart is beating? How about 3 or 4 months in when the heart is beating, but the fetus could never survive outside of the womb? How about when it’s 6 months along and could technically survive an early birth, but the statistics are weighted heavily against its favor? How about 7 months? And so on and so forth.

We all believe what we believe. I however do not think what I believe should be forced on the rest of the nation. If you feel it should, more power to you. But there’s nothing repugnant about saying that a personal belief of mine(and admittedly around half of the American public), even about something as serious as when life begins, shouldn’t necessarily be the law of the land.