Saying you are pro-life during election season and voting to uphold Roe vs. Wade once in office is a blatant contradiction, just as is “Kay Bailey Hutchison” and “Governor of Texas”.
I am sure Medina has more of these planned for Rick and Kay. She has mainly focused on Rick to this point, but it looks like maybe she is taking up a new tactic. Maybe Medina thinks she can siphon off the "Anybody But Perry" vote to her instead of Kay.
Saying you are personally pro-life but respect Roe v. Wade as settled law isn't contradictory. KBH has a 94% rating with the National Right to Life Committee.
ReplyDelete@anon 9:11,
ReplyDeleteThose ratings are crap. They don't score pro life legislation. They score the ability of their lobbyists to maintain access. Check the votes they count.
Being personally pro life and respecting RvW means that you don't understand the basic purpose of government, that being the protection of life, liberty and property. It means you either believe that life isn't created at conception or that you don't believe that all life is created equal. To square RvW with personally pro life means you have to round a lot of other issues that are foundational to our republic.
Life begins at conception but you also don't worry about it when you blow your nose and your cells die in a tissue. You can believe, as I do, that human life begins at conception but many people see it no differently than kleenex. Nearly half the country sees it differently than I do. You and the rest of the party might consider the need to be a big tent and make some slight concessions.
ReplyDeleteSave your breath if you are going to argue about the difference in the cell types. You most likely aren't a molecular biologist and neither am I. Frankly, you're preaching to the choir. We both believe strongly in our faith and in the sanctity of life. The reality is that we live in a country where the majority rules.
The idea is to get as many people in our tent and focus on the 80% we can agree on instead of the 20% we don't. What we need is a little more Reagan, and a lot less Pelosi type pseudo-intellectual purity.
The 80% we should be agreeing on is why governments are instituted among men. If you believe the purpose of government is the protection of life, liberty and property and you believe that all men are created equal, then how can you come to the conclusion that government should not be protecting life when it is created?
ReplyDeleteFailing in that understanding means that we will disagree on 95%, not 20.