Posted on 09/11/2008 10:57:32 PM PDT by joanie-f
Even some of the advocates for Roe vs. Wade did not see that empowerment of abortion on demand in the first trimester would grow into abortion on demand anytime, even for babies who survived the process. Of course, some did and some planned on it. But the bottom line is that the extremism of the abortion industry and the lives lost thereto is what has played the key role in slowly turning the public attitude around.
Gov. Palin's position is very reasonable and contrasts nicely with the extremism of the Oba Mao position.
“Many people have been brainwashed into that states’ rights lie.”
Even Justice Scalia has that stance.
Even though pressured to abort her baby with down’s syndrome, she did not. I’d say she’s pro-life. Plus, the only exception she has is for the life of the mother.
She is also against EMBRYONIC stem cell research, unlike McCain.
If you want to point out flaws in her answer, fine. But to say she is not pro-life, and like McCain, is a stretch.
Such a position just happens to be the destruction of America's most fundamental premise.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Either God-given rights are unalienable everywhere in America, or they are alienable anywhere and everywhere. The very existence of liberty and of the Union depends upon it.
Do you also think it would be "reasonable" for freedom to worship, free assembly, a free press, or the right to keep and bear arms to be considered a "states' rights issue"?
Hillary Clinton didn't kill Chelsea. Is that a "pro-life credential" now? Sheesh.
You should really stop, step back and think deeply about what you're arguing, because at its core, you're arguing from a pro-choice mindset.
Go back and read the transcript. She made it explicitly clear that her personal opinion means nothing, and that it is McCain's opinion that will be carried into policy.
In other words, her political capital is being expended to support the destruction of human embryos.
If you, and all the other conservatives who are now so hot to ride on the McCain/Palin bandwagon, would be truly honest with yourselves, you'd realize that yours is too. This is the practical reality.
It's not a stretch at all. It's a stretch to call someone who doesn't believe that our most fundamental God-given right, the right to life, belongs to all, "pro-life."
Does anyone even remember what the word "unalienable" even means any more? Have your brains turned to mush?
John McCain and Sarah Palin are no more pro-life than Stephen A. Douglas was anti-slavery.
With America primary schools not teaching civic anymore.. or even America History(not re-written).. Americas youth are pretty much at risk to these socialist memes.. Most Americans have no idea America is NOT a democracy.. or even what a democracy really is.. Mob Rule.. by elite mobsters.. Like in Europe and Canada..
As heartfelt and eloquent a description of where we stand as I have read in recent memory. I have it saved, and intend to share your inspiring message with others.
Thank you, and God's blessings to you, TigersEye.
~ joanie
Does Alan Keyes support Federal murder statutes?
Geeze!
Are some of you so single issue and narrow that you can’t see the risks of the alternatives? In all purity, the right to life will not exist in a Marxist society!
You can define and parse all you want - and be beautifully religiously pure - but you are pissing in the wind if you think the ideology alone should dominate the entire discussion. If you don’t have a supportive party, you don’t have a secular platform. And the best chance for support of your position is McCain/Palin. The alternatives basically suck.
Thank you, joanie. Coming from you that is very much appreciated. Blessings to you and yours as well.
That says nothing more than that she recognizes the difference between the Presidency and Vice Presidency. Do you?
Your description of Obama’s take on Sharansky’s concept of ‘belonging to something greater than self’ is spot on! And it cuts to the heart of the elitist mindset – namely, that we all need to work toward the common good, and there is a special, self-anointed subgroup of us whose destiny includes the power to define ‘common good,’ and the power to define the collective means to achieve it.
If there were an ideology more opposed to the preservation of individual liberty I can’t imagine what it might be.
I watched a portion of the McCain-Obama ‘service summit’ held at Columbia University last night. Although there were many things about that ‘summit’ that were disturbing, the one that caused me to turn it off in disgust was a comment made by Obama in which he spoke pseudo-inspiringly about the benefits of ‘community service’ and then proceeded to say (I don’t know that this is verbatim, but it’s pretty close), ‘In an Obama administration I will see to it that citizens perform extensive community service, in co-operation with their government.’
As I said in a previous response, Davy Crockett, of all people, displayed uncanny eloquence and insight into representative government in a speech delivered before the House in the early 1800s. The speech was entitled ‘Not Yours to Give’. Through the use of an incredibly moving personal anecdote, he addresses the fact that any attempt by the federal government to involve itself in ‘charity’ by forcing the citizenry to give of its time and its money for noble causes is both immoral and unconstitutional.
As you point out so powerfully, under an Obama administration the Constitution would become ever more irrelevant and ‘bothersome’ than it now is, and our liberties (such as they are) would be clearly and forcefully defined by Barack and his fellow elitists. His 'summit' comment regarding government and the citizenry working together in service-related causes is one glaring illustration of that mindset. Genuine volunteerism would find itself systematically replaced by forced financial and physical servitude, the devastating results of which might even be an inverse relationship between the growth in the power of the federal bureaucracy and the number of genuine acts of altruism performed.
I truly believe that, in the history of mankind, America has indeed stood as an example of goodness when it comes to caring for the freedom and well-being of others – whether they be our fellow citizens, or people from other countries. And for Barack Obama to believe that he needs to teach us a lesson in that regard – and to use the power of the Presidency to do so – is testimony to nothing more than his thirst for power, his disdain for Constitutional order, and his personal arrogance.
Your ‘stray ... hopefully coherent’ thoughts serve as an example of the power to combine education, research, wisdom and critical thought into conclusions that are virtually irrefutable. Thank you!
~ joanie
Spot on!
Thank you, Donna.
I’d like to believe that the pragmatic purists are the ones who will prevail in this election.
I dislike (vast understatement) much of what McCain stands for, and yet, now that he has named a genuine conservative as his running mate, there’s no way on earth I can be kept from voting for the ticket, or campaigning in its behalf.
… after which I hope that all of my fellow conservatives will do all that is within their power to hold McCain’s feet to the fire, and to demand that his vice president have a significant voice in his administration.
It’s one thing to compromise with those who would bring our republic to her knees. It’s quite another to hold so single-mindedly to conservative tenets that, by default, we wind up allowing such scoundrels to take the wheel.
Talk about cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Some purist conservatives appear willing to perform an entire face-ectomy.
~ joanie
You are right. He said it, too, but I think Clarence Thomas gives the correct assessment re: the govt’s obligation to defend and protect innocent human life.
I watched it last night. It appears different on screen, and there was force in her voice when she stressed her views. To me, she definitely seemed to repeatedly remind herself and Charlie that she is the VP candidate- not the presidential candidate.
How in the WORLD can you say she's not pro-life!
Good grief!
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.