Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John McCain's Remarks on Abortion in Speech to National Pro-Life Convention
LifeNews.com ^ | July 22, 2008 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 07/23/2008 3:49:56 AM PDT by rhema

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2008 3:49:57 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rhema
I'm sorry I'm not able to be there in person to address you.

Wonder why he phoned it in? Hmmmmmm. I bet Barak doesn't phone it in to NAACP.

2 posted on 07/23/2008 3:53:43 AM PDT by don-o (Have you donated to FR? If not, why not?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

There is no excuse for McCain to not be there. No excuse. He must not want to offend his Hillary voters and independents.


3 posted on 07/23/2008 4:04:00 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

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.


4 posted on 07/23/2008 4:18:51 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


5 posted on 07/23/2008 4:25:09 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

I’ve saw McCain at a Wisconsin rally. He does bring up the issue. We must insure we have judges who agree.


6 posted on 07/23/2008 4:29:23 AM PDT by mouse1 (a vote for mccain is a vote against obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
This article is about McCain, not Obama.

So comparing Obama and McCain on this issue is not allowed on this thread??? I apologize for violating your rule on this.

7 posted on 07/23/2008 4:35:05 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mouse1

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.


8 posted on 07/23/2008 4:35:34 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

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.


9 posted on 07/23/2008 4:47:54 AM PDT by blueyon (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
There is no excuse for McCain to not be there. No excuse. He must not want to offend his Hillary voters and independents.

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. . . .

10 posted on 07/23/2008 4:48:21 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: don-o
"May God bless America, and your unselfish efforts, on behalf of all his children"

"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.

11 posted on 07/23/2008 4:51:14 AM PDT by Theophilus (Nothing can make Americans safer than to stop aborting them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

It should have been done by him in person. He sure had time for Lulac, LaRaza, and the Hillary girls.


12 posted on 07/23/2008 4:57:11 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; indylindy; All
It embarrasses McCain to talk about *women things* (and anything conservative)
13 posted on 07/23/2008 4:58:51 AM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema

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.


14 posted on 07/23/2008 4:59:21 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
It embarrasses McCain to talk about *women things* (and anything conservative)

LOL, true.

15 posted on 07/23/2008 5:01:10 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mouse1
They don't want to hear that. All they want to hear is about how bad McCain is. Any thing else would cause cognitive dissonance.
16 posted on 07/23/2008 5:02:47 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

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.


17 posted on 07/23/2008 5:06:23 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
Democrats worship abortion.

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.

18 posted on 07/23/2008 5:10:33 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Obama is definitely in the MINUS category on this issue having LED a legislative effort to allow infanticide.


19 posted on 07/23/2008 5:40:43 AM PDT by SumProVita ("Cogito ergo sum pro vita." .....updated Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: don-o; indylindy

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?”}


BINGO-—> ding,ding,ding, got a winner here-—>
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———————————————————————————————
Common sense would lead an educated person to support a man who is with you most of the time on this issue (McCain) as opposed to a man who despises Pro-Life Issues. In fact, if he thought it would please you & buy your vote, he may be inclined to load a wagon of tiny dismembered babies and drop them at your doorstep, with a smile, since he views them as “punishments.” If you want to expand the availability of abortions and increase deaths to the unborn, support Barry Hussein, he’s your kind of guy!


20 posted on 07/23/2008 5:42:17 AM PDT by Gemsbok (shark- waiting, circling, tasting, fresh blood on the obamination trail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Amen!...it might be the only way some people can learn to think logically.


21 posted on 07/23/2008 5:44:13 AM PDT by SumProVita ("Cogito ergo sum pro vita." .....updated Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You are 100% correct in your assessment. McCain will support “Life” interests.

see post #20, apologies for lack of pinging


22 posted on 07/23/2008 5:47:51 AM PDT by Gemsbok (shark- waiting, circling, tasting, fresh blood on the obamination trail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gemsbok

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.


23 posted on 07/23/2008 5:52:46 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rhema

“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.”


24 posted on 07/23/2008 5:54:12 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Good question....

What are we going to do?

25 posted on 07/23/2008 5:57:22 AM PDT by Guenevere (America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
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.

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.

26 posted on 07/23/2008 6:00:01 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

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.


27 posted on 07/23/2008 6:02:58 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Vote 115 of 119 times for the cause of life, that's what. But that won't satisfy some of the purists Wanda Franz addresses in her essay "When Common Sense is Lacking":

. . .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.

28 posted on 07/23/2008 6:03:57 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rhema

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.


29 posted on 07/23/2008 6:16:52 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rhema

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.


30 posted on 07/23/2008 6:20:32 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
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.

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.

31 posted on 07/23/2008 6:26:58 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rhema

mark for later


32 posted on 07/23/2008 6:29:55 AM PDT by Christian4Bush ("Attention stattions: the heavenly edition of the Tony Snow Show is now on the air. Woof.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I really do not know McCain’s motives. The fact I have to guess, says it all.


33 posted on 07/23/2008 6:30:02 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
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!

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.

34 posted on 07/23/2008 6:30:33 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
I really do not know McCain’s motives. The fact I have to guess, says it all.

Please don't equivocate after the fact. You wrote "McCain didn't want to be seen." That's a rather bald-faced ascription.

35 posted on 07/23/2008 6:33:34 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
The fact I have to guess, says it all.

Solipsism on parade. But what the hey, it's just another rough-and-tumble day on Free Republic.

36 posted on 07/23/2008 6:38:41 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rhema

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.


37 posted on 07/23/2008 6:50:48 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
I think you probably know more about solipsism, as you call it, than I do.

Not enough to ascribe ulterior, sinister motives when they're not evident, at any rate.

38 posted on 07/23/2008 7:00:35 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gemsbok

Me
Bite


39 posted on 07/23/2008 7:16:29 AM PDT by don-o (Have you donated to FR? If not, why not?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rhema

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.


40 posted on 07/23/2008 7:17:01 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: don-o
When NARAL posts apocalyptic stuff like this on its website, that's all I really need to know:

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.

41 posted on 07/23/2008 7:18:09 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Whatever. DId my question ever get answered - why did he phone it in?


42 posted on 07/23/2008 7:33:40 AM PDT by don-o (Have you donated to FR? If not, why not?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: don-o

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.


43 posted on 07/23/2008 7:37:29 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
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.

Wow, that just makes it all OK that he wants to kill some babies through his support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, right?
44 posted on 07/23/2008 7:53:34 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (GOP: If you reward bad behavior all you get is more bad behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema
John McCain's Remarks on Abortion in Speech to National Pro-Life Convention

McCain campaign plans ‘very aggressive’ outreach to Catholic voters

McCain Meets with Selected Catholic Leaders

45 posted on 07/23/2008 8:15:16 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

46 posted on 07/23/2008 8:16:12 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Wow, that just makes it all OK that he wants to kill some babies through his support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, right?

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.

47 posted on 07/23/2008 8:20:10 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I agree, no Obama, but this article isn’t about Obama.


48 posted on 07/23/2008 8:24:28 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
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.

Either way, it is still rationalizing the murder of an innocent!

Cut away all the rationalization, and you are still killing a developing Human Being.
49 posted on 07/23/2008 1:18:32 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (GOP: If you reward bad behavior all you get is more bad behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; don-o; indylindy

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!


50 posted on 07/23/2008 2:46:55 PM PDT by Gemsbok (shark- waiting, circling, tasting, fresh blood on the obamination trail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson