Posted on 01/16/2010 5:55:02 PM PST by freedomyes
It is alarming to realize the nonchalance on the part of many concerning abortion. But it is not new. There are those who state: "Abortion is finding its place as a perfectly acceptable and valid health measure. We no longer think of it as a crime."
(Excerpt) Read more at grantswank.blogtownhall.com ...
God will continue to punish America until abortion carries the same Bible-mandated penalty as any other form of premeditated MURDER.
Thy shalt not kill.
I guess the commandment is thou shall not kill unless your candidate of choice supports abortion.
This is something I posted on another thread about the strategic implications of Brown’s victory in the abortion issue. Basically, it is about the strategic implication of the issue, not about an individual person.
The question was posed, what could the Senate really do as a body and how does Brown play into this?
At this point, the Senate has several things they can do that will impact abortion-
1, vote for originalist judges. Of course, we won’t get any originalist judge nominees until Zero is out of office so this special election doesn’t touch that.
2, vote for laws that limit abortion. Brown is actually pro-life on many of these laws (such as parental notification, opposing partial birth abortion) so this is a win for us with Brown.
3, IF a Constitutional convention comes up that gives an opportunity for a definition of life amendment, obviously every vote will count. However, even if you started today, that could take years to put together.
4, Kill the health care bill which funds abortions and makes them more available, again, another win with a Brown victory.
5, If by some odd chance, the SCOTUS does overturn Roe v Wade, then the State legislatures would have first crack at outlawing, followed by a federal ban possibly.
The two most realistic impacts to abortion, healthcare and laws restricting it, both are a victory for us with a Brown win. Being a purist in the mold of a Keyes only makes a major difference in #3 or #5- which are the most remote possibilities.
Where people need to demand purity is on the Presidential level as that will impact judges, on party platforms to guide the ship, and in local races as those have direct impacts on if abortion providers can set up shop.
Other than that, our next best thing is to personally be involved with each and every person who is facing that decision, offering yourself up as an adoptive parent (as we are trying to do), funding groups that provide adoption services, or personally helping those who choose life.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Not voting changes nothing.
Voting Kennedy or Coakley is voting for someone who is more pro-choice.
The Brown vote is the only option that actually could result in reducing abortions. Until you get a time machine and can get someone else in the primary, that is the reality in front of the voters.
Rationalize however you want.
Moral absolutes are moral absolutes.
If the GOP chooses to run Pro Choice candidates they may not get the support of those who refuse to compromise their core beliefs.
The reality is that voting for an advocate of baby killing, like Brown, is still voting for an advocate of baby killing.
Your spin changes absolutely nothing.
Right on.
The reality is, if you are in Mass, you have a ballot in front of you with three choices-
Scott Brown
Martha Coakley
Joe Kennedy
Your only other choice is to not vote.
With that reality, which one does the most for the pro-life cause substantially? That is the reality people face. Sometimes life gives you hard choices. But you have to make them.
Most people are working on the fact that right now, letting the Health Care bill pass means that not only will abortions continue, your tax dollars will pay for it. So if you make a vote that allows it to pass, you will be funding abortions, as simple as that.
The reality is that voting for any advocate of baby killing is voting for an advocate of baby killing and your weak-kneed pseudo-rationalization is pathetic and renders you complicit.
So, if ObamaCare passes, you should look at your pay check and look at the taxes withheld line, and know that a percent of that goes directly to funding the murder of babies.
That is reality.
Unless you have a better option for the people of Mass, that is the reality they face.
Do you have a better option? What would it be?
Right now I can only see four.
Vote for Scott Brown
Vote for Martha Coakley
Vote for Joe Kennedy
Don’t Vote
What’s the fifth option that is somehow the purist way that allows you to raise yourself up above others on this issue?
Then what is your advice for someone in that state? Is there a mystery candidate on that ticket we aren’t aware of?
I'm not being facetious. I'm looking for a truly charismatic leader.
Are you him?
(You know, we really should quit hanging around here in sWANKerville!)
Actually, the way I see it, the only way you can truly be 100% pro-life is if you march your butt in front of an abortion clinic and offer to adopt every single child that may be aborted. I’m sure that those here claim some sort of justification for why they can’t. They don’t have time.. they can’t afford it..
They all find some justification for why they can’t while they complain that others don’t follow their ‘purist’ strategic path.
I don't think its to much to demand that the GOP only run Pro Life candidates in every state.
If Obama can pull the electorate to the left, starting with Pro Life voters electing Pro Abort candidates then he wins.
Believing in moral absolutes and backing that position by action is the way. Electing Pro Choice candidates is ridiculous if you are Pro Life.
Try to justify it any way you like. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Mark my words well - The Republicans will rue the day they demanded compromise on the issue of Life.
Brown may well be a bellwether regarding Obama and his agenda, but he is also a bellwether regarding the efficacy and moral stand of the TEA Partiers. God IS watching.
The purpose for being a "purist" in politics evolves from Reaganism - No faction of Conservatism should be made to take a back seat. The basic immovable principles of all of the conservative factions should rightly be honored by any candidate claiming the "Conservative" mantle.
Brown is not a Conservative - and by your own words, neither are you.
The socialist agenda can be completely shut off by state sovereignty - claiming the 10th is Constitutionally sufficient for any and every state to ignore unconstitutional mandates from the federal government.
To suggest that anyone must vote *for* the abrogation of the Constitutionally protected right to Life, or ANY of the enumerated rights as "the only way" is simply scurrilous and wrong minded.
Pro-Life constituents should, and by their principles, MUST refrain from this vote. If their vote is desired, then provide for their basic moral needs. That cannot be done in the current Mass. election.
ping your FRiends plz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.