Tolerance Is The Virtue Of Those With No Convictions

If the Republican Party supports abortion, I will never support them again.

Former Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Sunday the GOP needs to embrace a bigger tent and immigration reform – and leave abortion “alone” in the wake of the disappointing 2012 presidential elections.

“We have to have a bigger tent. No doubt about it. And obviously we have to do immigration reform,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday.” “There is no doubt whatsoever that the demographics are not on our side.”

The Arizona senator added that the GOP needed to have a more proactive conversation about the policies it supports.

“We are going to give a much more positive agenda. It can’t be just being against the Democrats… You’ve got to be for things, and we have to give them something like the ‘Contract for America,’” he said

I draw an absolute “DO NOT CROSS” line-in-the-sand on saying that any among us does not deserve their right to life. If that is their party platform, they are not my party.

Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Tolerance Is The Virtue Of Those With No Convictions

  1. notamobster says:

    I’m not a purist. I simply cannot support moving to the left because we lost by a small margin. I have principles and I will not budge on them. Among them are the right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. Second, among them would be national sovereignty and the rule of law.

    I have room for movement on immigration reform. We obviously need to reform the system. It’s broken. That should NOT include rewarding those who broke the law to get here.

  2. Frank in Texas says:

    Yes, by all means, let’s listen to the man who had no plan and no campaign in 2008. The only respect McCain gets from me is for having served his country and been a prisoner of war. As a politician not so much. If the GOP can’t protect and stand up for those who can’t defend themselves then they are not the party for me. I believe that conservative values will eventually win out over the immoral and criminal actions of the Democrat party. If not then you can sound taps for the United States of America.

  3. Fubar says:

    absolutely. MOving to the left makes us Europe.

    and why won’t McRino just retire already?

  4. xenicalman says:

    What a sellout?
    This joker calls himself a Republican. Being a Constitutionilist, I have been forced to vote as a Republican out of sheer necessity to vote the lesser of two evils in order to get as close to my philosophy as possible. Libertarians are closer still but they did not have one chance in hell. I too can move a little more to the left on some issues but how do you compromise murder? We will change our registration from Republican to Independent. If this were done enmass the pubs might move more toward center and aspire to the Reagan platform. I fear a crisis of conscious in 2016 may loom ahead.

  5. James says:

    Abortion issue causes lost elections.

  6. notamobster says:

    James – If the only point is winning elections for the republican party, I’m out!

    I don’t want to win elections for somebody who doesn’t value life, as the first of all rights.

    I’m not against abortion because of my faith. I’m against abortion because that child has a right to live, as any human does.

    I don’t have any moral issues with birth control or any means of preventing conception. Once a life is formed, society’s job is to protect it.

  7. James says:

    My attorney friend and I discussed this.

    What is “abortion?”

    Is it the RU-486 (I have a pentium) morning after pill?
    Is it after 2 months gestation?
    Is it 6 months?
    Is it partial birth abortion?

    Because few people study the issue, and most have strong opinions without understanding what “abortion” they are talking about, I’d rather not hear about it. It loses elections.

    She tells me Roe vs. Wade was decided on very thin constitutional grounds. That is yet another issue.

  8. R.D. Walker says:

    I know partial birth abortion is flat out murder.

    I know that a good friend who has a son who was a preemie at 6 months and is now a teenager. Abortion at 6 months is flat out murder.

    Where is the line? I don’t know. But my uncertainty of when it is murder does not compel me to acquiesce to this horrendous crime. It is murder. I suppose at some point it isn’t, but most abortion is murder. I know it in my bones.

    I wish the abortion issue would go away too, James. Things would be a hell of a lot simpler, especially for conservatives. The thing is, it isn’t going to go away.

    What are you asking me to do? To change my mind and accept the banal institutionalization of what I know for an absolute certainty is cold blooded murder? How can I do that?

  9. James says:

    No. I am not asking your convictions be changed. I’m only stating my thinking.

  10. Dusty says:

    This has been so convoluted but FuBar has a solution to the McCain disaster…retire or get voted out! (Wake up Arizona!) And James brings food for thought. My thoughts on life follow those of some of my Japanese acquaintences life begins at the moment of conseption. Maybe Mr. Herman Cain was right about the conservatives need a real party of their own.

  11. Rich says:


    ALL abortion is murder unless it is done to actually spare the life of the mother … and I mean to spare in the physical extremis sense, i.e. it is a medical certainty that if the child continues the mother WILL die.

    Needless to say, such situations are rare.

    All other killings of children in the womb are murder plain and simple.

    And I do not give a damn what the 9 robed idiots say.

  12. James says:

    Rich, frequently eggs become fertilized and are flushed out during menstruation. What do we call that?

  13. notamobster says:

    James – We call that nature.

    Sometimes, human beings have their heads involuntarily removed by angry hajjis. Sometimes it happens as the result of a freak occurrence. One is man-caused, and wrong. The other is chance.

  14. James says:

    Is a flushed zygote from an RU-486 pill equivalent to a late term abortion?

  15. notamobster says:

    We could argue until the end of days – at which point the embryo becomes a life.

    That tack leads to one of two options:

    1) Allow abortion because it may not be a life.


    2) Don’t because it may be a life.

    I could possibly be wrong in either one of these two choices, I’m choosing to possibly be wrong and save the life. If I save the life but turn out to be wrong, nothing is lost. If the man who chooses #1 turns out to be wrong, a life is lost.

    The first of all rights is the right to exist.

  16. James says:

    Please answer the question.
    Are they equivalent?

  17. James says:

    The reason I ask, is because they are not equivalent. I won’t comment whether they are morally equivalent, but to an outside observer, a woman taking a pill, and a baby being shredded are very different. Most people would be repulsed by the latter. Therefore, if the latter were isolated and exposed, the chance of stopping it is high.

    If you are committed to stopping abortion, an absolutist approach will not achieve success.
    An incremental approach isolating and stopping the worst abuse will succeed.

    Hasn’t the Right learned anything about “compromise” from the Left?
    When you got nothing, getting something is a much better place than where you started.

  18. R.D. Walker says:

    A majority of Americans call themselves pro-life. I don’t see why we would dump them.

    Killing babies is murder. Anything over six months is viable and is therefore, a living human being. Killing these babies is a heinous crime.

    I have a feeling if I were to agree that terminating a two day old zygote isn’t murder, the discussion would immediately advance to why killing an embryo also doesn’t count. If I were to agree to that, I am certain that the discussion would immediately transition to why killing an early stage fetus doesn’t count.

    I am pretty sure that if the only abortions in America were of 72 hour old zygotes, it would be a pretty minor issue. The thing is, we all know that the zygote argument is just a wedge argument to open the debate up to later and later abortions. Pretty soon, we are back to the third trimester murder that happens legally every day in America.

  19. Rockheim says:

    The incremental creep favors the Pro-Life side of the equation.
    “Life” begins at “X” is a moving target. I know for a fact that my opinion of “life” changed the microsecond I saw my 11 week old daughter moving around in an ultrasound.
    As medical technology improves “viable” pregnancies and “Viable” babies keep coming earlier and earlier.
    The last thing anyone on the left wants to do is to get “life” defined in ANY way.
    Which is why they’ll fight any attempt to define it or place ANY limits at all on abortion.
    It’s also why “life” is frequently, and barbarically, described as not being a state until the baby takes it’s first breath of air. Which allows for the termination of fully viable, full term babies. As long as you kill them in eutero.

  20. notamobster says:

    I answered the question, James. For me – it is the same. I believe life begins at the point of fertilization. The argument could go on forever as to whether or not that is the case. I choose to err on the side of individual rights, and ban all abortion. The morning after pill prevents conception. The abortion pill(ru486), does not.

    Emergency contraceptives (the morning after pill) & RU-486 (the abortion pill) are not the same thing.

  21. James says:

    “I have a feeling if I were to agree that terminating a two day old zygote isn’t murder.”

    Maybe my point isn’t clear. You don’t agree to that. You talk about the infanticide problem only, and secure that beachhead.

    Do you really think The Left says “We’re going to confisctate all your stuff?”
    NO. Although that is what they really want. It starts out “Balanced approach. We believe The Rich can afford to pay just a little bit more.”