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

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

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 ]

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