Posted on 07/23/2008 3:49:56 AM PDT by rhema
Thank you for inviting me to address the 2008 National Right to Life Convention, I'm sorry I'm not able to be there in person to address you.
More than two-hundred years ago our nation's founders declared, that we are endowed by our Creator, with certain and unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was no accident, that they cited life as the first, and most basic right.
For without recognition of the right to life, we are not guaranteed any other rights. Sometimes all wisdom asks of us, is that we recognize common-sense. But sometimes wisdom, as to all other virtues requires courage.
Wisdom suggests that we should be willing to give an unborn child the same chance that our parents gave us. But it takes courage in this political climate, to insist on the protection of unborn children, who can't vote, have no voice, and can't reward you with support and donations.
Wisdom suggests that when federal judges impose their social views on the citizens of every state, the result is going to distort our politics in harmful ways. But it takes courage to insist, that the courts have to return to their proper role.
I will look for accomplished men and women, with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment, to strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Sam Alito, my friend the late William Rehnquist, jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. I have been pro-life, my entire public career.
I am pro-life, because I know what it is like, to live without human rights, where human life is accorded no inherent value. And I know that I have a personal obligation to advocate human rights wherever they are denied, in Bosnia or Burma, in Cuba or the Middle East, and in our own country, when we fail to respect the inherent dignity of all human life, born or unborn.
That is a personal testament, which you need not take on faith. You need only to examine my public record, to know that I won't change my position. I've been proud to serve our great country in the military and in Congress.
Throughout these years I have always believed that the most important duty of our national leaders is to protect human life. We protect human life from violent extremists, who would destroy it to produce a cruel ideology. We protect the lives of the most vulnerable, whether they are the unborn, the elderly, or the disabled. It is a privilege to defend Americans in war and in peace.
I'm proud to stand with you in defending the sanctity of human life, and in supporting mothers and children, under the most challenging of circumstances.
I'm proud of my wife Cindy, who brought our daughter Bridget home from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, and blessed our family with the gift of this blessed child of god. I am as thankful for her, as I am for all of my children, and am glad that we were able to give her a home, and a better life.
My friends we confront a difficult question when we address the issue of abortion, the American people are compassionate people, who cherish life and liberty. They love life, and they have an instinctive compassion for those who confront difficult circumstances.
We believe that the best way to respond to such situations is to demonstrate our love and support for the mothers and children, who are at the center of such challenges. The pro-life movement has done this for decades by participating in and supporting thousands of pregnancy care centers, that help women and their children meet these challenges.
In November, the American people will choose a new president to lead our country during very challenging times. I will proudly defend my record of protecting human life during key debates on domestic and international policy. I am proud to have supported a ban on partial-birth abortion, and legislation that would protect children who survived an abortion procedure.
On the very first day, after the Supreme Court upheld the ban on the hideous practice of partial-birth abortion, a bill was introduced in Congress to codify this practice in every state in the United States of America.
The same legislation would strike down the Hyde amendment, named after our great friend and champion of human life, the incomparable Henry Hyde, and would also strike down every other federal and state limitation on abortion funding. This legislation, with has been co-sponsored by my opponent, would also strike down every parental notification law enacted anywhere in our country.
The American people have come together, to say that partial-birth abortion offends our national conscience, that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for elective abortions, and that states should be allowed to enact parental notification laws.
Those who oppose these protections of human life, unable to prevail in legislatures, hope to appoint to the federal courts jurists who would reject this political consensus, and would impose on us abortion policies that offend the conscience of very many Americans.
My friends, I want to thank you again, for your commitment to a cause that is greater than us all, protecting human life, and women and children, wherever they need our support.
May God bless America, and your unselfish efforts, on behalf of all his children
Wonder why he phoned it in? Hmmmmmm. I bet Barak doesn't phone it in to NAACP.
There is no excuse for McCain to not be there. No excuse. He must not want to offend his Hillary voters and independents.
McCain may only be 90% with us on this issue, but Obama is an absolute ZERO on this. Obama may actually be below zero for his support of allow the killing of babies after birth.
This article is about McCain, not Obama. I am aware of where Obama stands.
McCain worries me on this issue. He doesn’t appear to want to deal with this issue in public.
I’ve saw McCain at a Wisconsin rally. He does bring up the issue. We must insure we have judges who agree.
So comparing Obama and McCain on this issue is not allowed on this thread??? I apologize for violating your rule on this.
This is one issue that he could get conservative support for. Yet.....he chooses not to make it well known.
I really do not believe it is an issue Mc
Cain will deal with. I feel sorry for people that think McCain wil put up a SCOTUS nominee who is pro life and actually get that appointment passed by the Democrats.
Democrats worship abortion.
There is no excuse for McCain to not be there. No excuse. He must not want to offend his Hillary voters and independents.
Cut the guy some slack. At least we have someone who is pro life running! I read the speech and it was really well done.
NRTL seems not to have been miffed. Its president writes about those who are, though:
WHEN COMMON SENSE IS LACKING
BY Wanda Franz, Ph.D.
Former Senator Alfonse D’Amato, the New York Republican, was first elected in 1980. He was reelected in 1986 and in 1992. Senator D’Amato managed to do this in liberal New York in spite of a solid pro-life record in the Senate: he voted pro-life 85 times on 89 roll calls.
When Senator D’Amato stood for reelection in 1998, he ran into opposition from some pro-lifers who considered him not pro-life enough or disliked him. Some misguided pro-lifers actively worked against him, others simply refused to vote for him in the general election—it was a matter of "principle," and Senator D’Amato didn’t match their notion of a pro-life candidate.
Senator D’Amato lost to a Democrat who had previously been in the House of Representatives where he (1) was a shrill promoter of abortion, (2) co-sponsored the infamous "Freedom of Choice Act" that would have established abortion on demand under a federal law, (3) co-sponsored the "Reproductive Health Equity Act" that would have required federal funding of all abortions in any federal program, and (4) had voted 97 out of 100 times for the pro-abortion side. In other words, the Democratic candidate was the "ideal" pro-abortion candidate. And his pro-abortion zeal was gratingly expressed: as one senator observed, "There is no more dangerous place than between Senator Schumer and a TV camera." Yes, we are talking about the very same Senator Chuck Schumer who now proudly basks in the glory of having organized the Democratic takeover of the Senate in the 2006 election. . . .
"bless America"? while we endlessly sacrifice our future, slaughtering our blessings? None of us take this seriously enough.
Nothing can sustain American productivity better than the investment of life for our future producers. There are selfish arguments aginst abortion. But no one ever makes them. Those babies are our economy, our security and our culture in twenty years so much more so than those new oil wells are our gasoline in ten. May God have mercy on America and save us from ourselves.
It should have been done by him in person. He sure had time for Lulac, LaRaza, and the Hillary girls.
I read what was said. What has that to do with McCain not being there in person?
Seems like it should be as important as LaRaza.
LOL, true.
If McCain had been there, they would have just accused him of pandering. So anything McCain does is never good enough.
I don’t really wish this, but I wish that *they* could somehow get 8 years of Barry and Ma pelosi and Harry the body Reid, just so they can suffer for their principles like they are in such a hurry to do.
And I have it figured out as to why they do.
Two undeniable truths about "liberalism":
1) Liberalism is at its core, the belief in the use of force to make the responsible and innocent pay for the consequences of the irresponsible.
2) Liberals support NO freedoms unrelated to consequence-free sexual behavior.
Combine these two core beliefs, and you get
the MOST innocent human paying for, with its very life, the irresponsible sexual behavior decisions of others.
Obama is definitely in the MINUS category on this issue having LED a legislative effort to allow infanticide.
Wonder why he phoned it in? Hmmmmmm. I bet Barak doesn’t phone it in to NAACP. by don-o
{Oh,..don-o, And what would BHO’s message be? “faith & hope that we can afford to place an abortorium in every public highschool?”}
Amen!...it might be the only way some people can learn to think logically.
You are 100% correct in your assessment. McCain will support “Life” interests.
see post #20, apologies for lack of pinging
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was talking about McCain, a man who had a great chance to make a really positive appearance, to be seen, supporting a positive issue for his base. He also has a problem with support of embryonic stem cell research he could have cleared up. Without being there, no one could ask about that stance.
I do not like Obama, so you needn’t insult me to remind me he is a fool. I really have a problem with those “conservatives” who do not “expect” anything from McCain though. If he tosses a tiny crumb, you morph into believing it was a whole cake. Blind faith that is.
“Of course, when asked a few years back what I’d do if my daughter wanted to kill our granddaughter before birth, I said we’d all talk it over and decide what to do. Heh heh heh, maybe you remember Alan Keyes kicking my butt all over the stage about that one. Heh heh heh. But anyway, I’m the best you’ve got this time, so what are you gonna do, huh? Heh heh heh.”
What are we going to do?
I'm not privy to McCain's schedule. I don't know what he was doing during the NRTL convention. In any case, NRTL isn't suffering any paroxysms of rejection about his taped remarks. Its president is questioning the overly sensitive sensibilities of those who demand no less than perfection from him, though:
. . .Third, "the point is not to make a statement but a difference"—more accurately, a positive difference. When a "statement" (e.g., actively opposing a pro-life candidate facing a pro-abortionist) has the effect of defeating the pro-life candidate and letting a pro-abortionist win, the pro-life cause has been betrayed—no matter what highfalutin "principled" stance has been invoked to justify such moral posturing. Simply staying above the fray and not voting in such a case may not have the ringing sound of a "statement," but it still has the same effect. Such non-voters allow the pro-abortionist to win. Again the pro-life cause loses—a negative difference, in effect. What true adherence to the pro-life cause compels us to do is to make a positive difference: actively working for the pro-life candidate, ensuring the loss of the pro-abortionist.
Fourth, "don’t fall in love with your candidate." We all know candidates, 100% pro-lifers, who would make great presidents, representatives, or senators—except that they just have no chance of getting elected. People have all kinds of motives for giving candidates their votes. Unfortunately, electing a 100% pro-life candidate into office motivates only a minority. The perfect pro-life candidate, if one is available, may not have the same perfect appeal to the generally wishy-washy-on-life-issues public.
Oh, barring the unforeseeable, I’m casting the most unhappy presidential vote I’ve ever cast. For McMeMeMe, because he’s the better of the two. Or, anyw, they less-worserer. Never in my adult lifetime, though, has that been a more relative statement.
. . .Beyond elections, this principle is brought home to us again and again when we pursue legislation. Many of us in the trenches have suffered the arrogant criticism of "principled" pro-lifers who dismiss our legislative efforts because "they do not outlaw abortion." First of all, these critics don’t understand what laws realistically can be passed, given the current political situation and state of public opinion. Second, they don’t grasp what role even limited legislation can play in bending public opinion in our direction. Third, they fail to understand that such laws refocus the debate on the plight of the babies and the abuses of the abortion industry—away from the hard cases and invented "constitutional" rights. And fourth, such "imperfect" laws save lives.
Just look at South Carolina, where pro-lifers got several laws on the books, ranging from parental consent, to abortion clinic regulations, to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (and more). And now South Carolina Citizens for Life is working on legislation requiring ultrasound images of the baby to be given to a woman before an abortion. And the result of all this imperfect legislation? Abortions in South Carolina peaked at 14,133 in 1988. In 2004, the number of abortions had dropped to 6,565—a 53% reduction that far exceeds the national decline.
I can’t think of anything better to grab the news this week by showing up. McCain would have been “seen” standing proudly for life.
A letter, anyone can write.
Go ahead and believe the excuse though. Obviously you want to believe them.
This is an issue important to conservatives. McCain did not want to be “seen”. It might turn off his base voters. You know, the ones he reassured that Ginsberg and Breyer got his vote.
Look, McCain has voted pro life in the past. I just want to see that he really believes in it enough to stand up in public and be heard. Not a lot to ask for really.
Right. He has some good votes, and some bad ones. More of the former, though in the further past Therefore I will likely vote for him, as I just said.
But there’s no sign it’s a passionate issue for McHeyitsmyturn, or that he will be a passionate advocate or a proactive moving force, or that he can even articulate it, unscripted.
Did you see the interchange I alluded to? Revealing.
I would bet you money that, WHEN (no point saying “if”) McIbashmyallies is asked confrontive questions on abortion in the debates, his answer will be inarticulate, shallow, apologetic, defensive, and unpersuasive. He’ll sound as if he had no idea anyone would bring up the issue, so he’s only been fed a nothing-answer to spout. Bookmark this and tell me if I turn out to be wrong — which I’d be TICKLED to be!
Can you say you’re sure he’d pick a good Supreme Court justice, if it meant his “good friends” at the NYT, on the left side of the aisle, and in the MSM, roasting him alive and forcing him actively to defend and prosecute the choice?
I think there are only two possible answers to that question: “Yes,” and an honest answer.
But HSAT, I am sure what Obama would pick. And even a 1% chance of a good choice is better than a 0% chance.
Hence the reluctant vote for McIdeservethis.
The convention, as I recall, was in early July. What McCain was doing then, I don't know. The pro-life web site posted the text of the speech today.
You've become judge and jury about McCain's motives, sententiously attributing his absence to your "fact" that he "didn't want to be seen."
I'll take his 115 of 119 pro-life votes and the endorsement of NRTL over the subjective hauteur of his critics.
mark for later
I really do not know McCain’s motives. The fact I have to guess, says it all.
Thoughtful, well-articulated post, Dan. I actually would bet he'll show some backbone when those questions are asked. If I'm wrong, FReepmail me your address and I'll send you Chicago's Greatest Hits as payment for losing the bet.
Please don't equivocate after the fact. You wrote "McCain didn't want to be seen." That's a rather bald-faced ascription.
Solipsism on parade. But what the hey, it's just another rough-and-tumble day on Free Republic.
I think you probably know more about solipsism, as you call it, than I do.
Conservatives are not allowed to expect anything from McCain.
They are just supposed to vote for him.
Not enough to ascribe ulterior, sinister motives when they're not evident, at any rate.
Me
Bite
I hardly think his motive was sinister, you said that, an exaggeration, I might say.
McCain has, quite frankly, stayed away from conservative issues. It is not missed by many that he is staying away from many of those issues. Why? Only an answer from McCain himself could explain his motivation for that.
Meet The Real McCain!
The REAL John McCain is not the "moderate maverick" the pundits like to swoon over. The REAL McCain has spent the last 25 years amassing one of the worst anti-choice voting records in Congress.
NARAL worships at the Obamessiah's altar; he's 100 percent with them. McCain's scores a big zero in NARAL's book. Good enough for me.
Whatever. DId my question ever get answered - why did he phone it in?
As I wrote earlier, I’m not privy to his itinerary and the reasons for it. Request an explanation from his staff if you need it. Me, I’ll go with his pro-life record and NARAL’s rampant paranoia over him.
McCain campaign plans ‘very aggressive’ outreach to Catholic voters
From my understanding, that is not a fair representation of McCain's position. The reasoning, whether you agree with it or not, is that these embryos are gonna be destroyed any ways, why not use them for good. McCain does not support letting people create embryos for research. It is not a rationalization I agree with as it creates an environment which likely will lead to creating and harvesting embryos for research, but it is a position that a reasonably pro-life person could take.
I agree, no Obama, but this article isn’t about Obama.
Thanks for the clear picture of what this thread is all about.
Obama Vote = Death to American Babies.
Senator McCain, gets a ZERO vote from NARAL, such an simple choice!
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.