Posted on 11/27/2008 5:29:23 PM PST by wagglebee
I probably don't need to say much more than the Washington Post and USA Today wrote glowingly of a new "pro-life" plan. Red flags arise.
Last week USA Today editorialized:
Realism seems to have struck some ardent foes of abortion. After 35 years of trying to outlaw the procedure nationally while chipping away at abortion rights state by state, they have decided to add a new and sensible initiative. They'll work with the other side to reduce the number of abortions.It's not that the opponents changed their minds or that they're any less committed to their cause. It's just that they have done the new math. And the numbers don't add up to more anti-abortion justices on the U.S. Supreme Court or a sea change on the issue among most Americans.
The new "pro-life" coalition is composed of Barack Obama supporters, and they're a little late with their Supreme Court math. Whatever. Smokescreen anyway.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
And they shall be known as “PLINO’s,” pro-life in name only. Known to associate with RINO’s.
The socon right needs to understand that and address it.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
The proaborts always say they want to “reduce” the amount of abortions being done in the U.S.. One of them told me she wanted abortion “safe and rare”. I told her that no matter how rare it is abortion is never safe.
First, do you think Americans actually know what the extent of the evil is with abortion in America—the media have carefully avoided exposing the truth? And second, what do you think would happen with the abortion issue if the American people were given the actual truth about the state of life in the womb and the real record of murder in abortuaries? ... Or do you even care, and merely come on abortion threads to prick the ‘socons’?
You're losing, no you've lost, in the arena of ideas. Especially among those people who are under 40 and who even in the bottom line agree with you likely voted for Barry.
And don't pull the media victimization card. There are plenty of radio, television, print and internet socon outlets available on the open market. Most only preach to the choir and seldom beyond. None of the message is filtered. It's available on the open market and it's not desired to be digested or consumed.
Pure leftists bullsh!te, maroon. I ask you what would be the result if the American people actually had the information so there was a battle of ideas. You respond with the typical misdirection and foolishness the leftists always spews. ... You exposed yourself, lefty. Have a nice evening.
Nothing has changed from the way it was five, ten, or even twenty years ago. Everyone still knows that abortion is the killing of innocent life; one camp knows and is disgusted, the other knows and cheers on the slaughter, and the rest are too bound up in their own lives to care.
See...I didn’t vote for Obama, because I’m pro-life and never could. I’ve had enough experience and insight to see that just because something sounds good doesn’t mean that it’ll work and that the person saying it actually intends to do it.
But I do agree with the idea of reducing numbers and attacking the perceived need for abortion. There is this emotional appeal that is at first glance very compelling to most people; a woman in trouble being kept down by society and the only way out is abortion. The best way to attack that is to attack that situation. Woman gets kicked out of her home or school housing for being pregnant? Woman loses her scholarship or unable to fit into a school desk because she’s pregnant? Woman loses her job for being pregnant? Unable to balance work and a baby? The adoption system scares them because of all the restrictions in place that keep kids in the system for a long time?
Attack those things. Change them. Those are all things that can be bipartisan. Jill Stanek is absolutely right, they need to come from the community, from a loving community, but the best way to attack abortion is to attack the perceived need. Even if you would still face the odds and choose life, as I know I would, with society the way it is, they’ve created this idea that these things make abortion necessary. Attack that idea by making a massive widespread effort to help women through these situations, on a community level, and the public’s opinion will change. Women do not need abortion to survive and prosper. We are not that weak. What women need is a support system. Give them the tools to do it and they will do it because women are stronger than the feminazis give us credit for.
Obama has taken that idea, and subverted it to match socialism’s “government will take care of you all.” Which is appealing. Socialism is appealing to me on an emotional level because I believe in charity; I don’t want anyone to suffer and I believe everyone has a time in life when they need a hand. I don’t believe in socialism because I realize the difference between charity and socialism, and there is a huge difference, but socialism’s greatest lure is that it disguises itself as charity and pulls in good-hearted people. Every human being has the inclination to help others, and socialism takes advantage of that.
I have 5 teaching christian radio stations in my market. (And I'm not in the bible belt) All are virtual ratings losers. They have a few hundred listeners that are mostly from the choir to begin with. I have one full time full powered christian tv station in my market. It has few viewers. There are a few low powered stations. Again, few viewers. The internet is full of web sites with the information. There are socially conservative publications. I've been to markets where the cable systems have a half dozen or more christian stations.
None of that information is censored. None of it is blocked or difficult to obtain. Most of it is free. All of it is competing in the arena of ideas and it's failing to capture an audience.
It appears to me there is plenty of media devoted to most or some of the socon message and it's not being scooped up by the masses.
The bigger problem is the message of the early 70's doesn't resonate with the under 40 crowd of 2008. The socon message of today is still using the functional equivalent of 8 track players while your target audience is using ipods and other digital devices. It's a disconnect.
The problem isn't the media. You haven't mastered the message on the media that you have.
the financial collapse took McCain -Palin from even to 5-10 points down where they stayed. Absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Too early to get away with your lame historical revision now.
Thank you for the name calling. Maybe that’s another reason the message doesn’t get beyond the choir. Can’t survive in the area of ideas and resort to calling names.
I found out my family is very Catholic, but whether they are truly Christian is up for Jesus to know. They ALL voted for Obama.
I pray.
Again, you've lost the under 40 crowd because your message doesn't appeal to them. Even when they agree with you, they will still vote for Barrack.
That's how he was able to deceive so many Catholics into voting for him.
you're kidding,right? Iraq War , and don't say that wasn't a media snow job.
Catholic pro-abort groups gave millions of morons cover to vote their party, their union, their race before thinking of the unborn.
Many priests and bishops are too new to the front of the battle to be trusted leaders yet.
Some bishops and cardinals (Mahony) could give a shit.
When a bishop is led off in shackles I’ll be impressed.
Congreess changed hands because the party of real Democrats always wins the giveaway battle.
Also, they should open pro-life chapters at colleges and universities.
The problem is that most Americans don't read FR or the conservative pro-life websites.
I think all joebucks is saying is that the pro-life side needs to get its message out more effectively.
I agree. I was also very disappointed in my parish, and from what my friends said, I’m not alone in thinking there was not enough leadership and insight from spiritual leaders in several parishes at least. I really think that if there had been more of unified push against Obama, less Catholics would have voted for Obama because they would have been presented with another angle that addressed these problems and that desire to help people.
Winner!
Cover for the jerk if you must, but the posts speak volumes about poking ‘socons’ in the eye as the reason America has not turned away from this evil. I doubt the poster actually considers abortion slaughter a bad thing.
Your America is a reflection of the mainstream media, jerk. You chide ‘socons’ because you aren’t one. You are exposing more the more you post. Keep it up, fuzzball.
My friend actually had a problem with this; she was told she couldn’t start a pro-life group at school because it was discriminatory, even though there was a pro-choice group.
I agree though. There needs to be a push to people in my age group, and not just on the pro-life issue.
attacking the perceived need for abortion
This is the wisest statement because it is the absolute truth. Women have been duped into believing that abortion is a means of birth control. They have been given so much conflicting information on birth control pills, etc etc that they aren’t confident they are safe, effective or whatever. They are not taught to be comfortable in their choosing to be abstinent and that it doesn’t mean you will never have a date or mate if you choose not to be sexually active. So, they don’t really know about birth control in spite of all the sex education classes being taught. Add to that is a significant amount of women who are just too lazy or unconcerned to take the precautions against pregnancy. Abortion is the fall back on failed or not used birth control.
It makes me so angry with these so called feminists that want women to surgically abuse their bodies and to kill unwanted children in the name of choice or freedom when their choice should have been prevention.
Women do not understand that when your uterus is scraped to get rid of that pregnancy, the lining becomes thinner and thinner. If you have enough abortions at some point you will not be able to bear a child. Girls and women are taught to believe that abortions are safe and ‘okay’. They are neither.
On the other hand, I do not want to see women put back into dark alleys with coat hangers. Too many scared women died at the hands of those filthy murderers who preyed on frightened girls. Planned Parenthood should spend more time in the education department than in the surgical department.
I am pro-life but I do believe that there are rare exceptions such as rape or incest or the loss of the mother’s life. I remember in the ‘good ole days’ the wife and husband made the choice whether the baby lived or the wife lived. That is one of those rare exceptions I feel may warrant taking the child.
Also, to require a girl or woman to bear the child of a rapist or a relative may also result in such damage to their psyche that taking the child may have to be considered. But, all in all, abortion SHOULD ALWAYS be the absolute last resort even in a dire situation and it SHOULD NEVER be a means of birth control.
I agree. It’s had an effect on young men, too. Women aren’t the only ones under social pressure to forgo abstinence. It’s creating an unsafe culture that’s exploded into tons of problems.
When half the women having abortions report that they used no birth control, I can’t believe the party line of “Abortion isn’t used as birth control!” It is most definitely used as birth control, and the dangers are glossed over entirely, to the point where these people who claim to care about women’s safety are furious when laws are put in place to force clinics to fully disclose the dangers of abortion.
No one wants to see women dying in back alley abortions, but honestly, the number of deaths from back alley abortions was pretty low once penicillin was discovered and put to use, because the fact of the matter is many of these abortions were done by doctors. When abortion was made legal, the terrible back alley abortionists were suddenly legitimate doctors. Amazing how a law can do that! One minute you’re a dangerous woman killer, the next, a respectable hero of choice!
I think abortions can be just as damaging as child birth in rape and incest situations, honestly. It’s a tough call but rape trauma syndrome is a difficult thing that often comes with guilt. Compound that with the emotional trauma that abortion can bring, and the guilt that can bring. It’s basically taking a horrible experience and topping it with another horrible experience. You could say the same about bearing the child of your rapist, but in one case, the victim becomes a killer and a life is lost. I don’t think it will ever be illegal in those situations, and I understand making the exception, but I wouldn’t make it for myself and wouldn’t vote to keep it legal. I think there are more positive things that can be done for women in those situations.
It astounds me that anyone who values life would poo-poo any move to reduce the number of abortions. Fewer abortions means fewer little babies murdered, plain and simple.
The pro-life movement has wasted its efforts for 35 years trying to gin up support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. The result? 50 million dead babies and no chance whatsoever of passing said amendment.
Maybe a new approach is in order? The pro-life movement is in danger of falling into Einstein’s definition of insanity, which is repeating something that hasn’t worked over and over again, hoping next time it’ll somehow work.
And I say this as someone who is probably more pro-life than 95% of the people on Wagglebee’s moral absolutes ping list.
I assume you didn't hear about the little thing called "the financial meltdown of 2008"?
I find the whole premise of your arguments on this thread to not only be idiotic, but worse, unsupportable by actual empirical evidence. If the "under-40 crowd" is turned off by social conservatism, then why did social conservatism - on a hot-button issue like gay "rights" no less, which is near and dear to your average mentally-stunted college student activist's heart - win victories even in states which Obama won, like Florida and California? Why did social conservatism win other high-profile ballot initiatives in Arizona, Arkansas, and Nebraska? Why did the anti-abortion initiative in South Dakota only fail because pro-LIFE hardcases thought it wasn't radical enough, and refused to support it? The only state where one can even credibly make the case that social conservatism failed, when specifically being put to the test, is in Colorado - and even then, the measure failed because it would basically have criminalised women getting abortions, something which large pluralities of pro-LIFERS don't even support.
If we look at the actual, you know, evidence, your arguments fade away into nothingness. Obama took the "under-40 crowd" (and everyone else, except the senior citizens) because of the economic meltdown, not social conservatism. He dangled the bait of "free" goodies in front of people, and they took it.
Oh I DO blame the pro-life movement, at least the mainstream organisations. Instead of focusing our efforts on rolling back abortions one law at a time, the national mainstream pro-life movement has frittered away its efforts on a useless constitutional amendment which they are no closer to achieving than they were in 1974. Meanwhile, they could be focusing their efforts on aggressive action to pass anything and everything that will actually stop abortions (which I thought was the point???). You know, things like stricter parental notification laws, prohibitively expensive regulations, even rigidly enforced health codes (which have been known, in and of themselves, to put clinics out of business). But no. They have to blow their money and time in some quixotic quest for a constitutional amendment. If I were cynical, I'd almost say they're more interested in grandstanding for donations to pad the salaries of highly-paid executive directors than they are saving little babies' lives.
Tell you what. You change your approach. I plan to keep on preaching the Gospel of Life to any and all who will listen and to keep supporting only those politicians who are pro-life. My only change will be to amp up my efforts even more.
First, I have a semantic issue with what you've said. The Gospel of Life has nothing to do with abortion, it has everything to do with salvation through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. As important as ending abortion is, don't confuse the two.
Now, if you want to keep beating your head on the constitutional amendment brick wall, that's fine and dandy. I prefer an approach which has already been proven to work - which is piecemealing abortion to death with a thousand cuts. THIS reduces abortions. THIS saves little babies' lives. Fulfilling Einstein's definition of insanity does NOT.
If you were following FR in ‘06, you would know that the Republicans weren’t being conservative enough, so many of the usual base “taught them a lessen.”
Unfortunately, the message was unclear and appeared to be a mandate for the left, rather than a push farther to the right.
Why did two pro life initiatives fail?
Some lesson. You lost more seats in 08 and the White House. We need more lessons.
/Well that strategy seems to be working well. Two pro life issues lost on election day.
Yes, I'm less a social conservative than you. "My America" is the result of the failure of the church and other related institutions. They forgot how to win hearts and minds. And the defenders simply resort to name calling. Great way to attract followers.
I've pointed out that there are many free market options for people to learn. They are not widely accepted. Face it. You've lost in the arena of ideas.
For the same reason the Republicans lost this year. They are not acting in a Conservative fashion. Conservatives stayed home. You lose. Geez. This isn't hard to figure out.
Try offering an actual Pro-Life candidate. Then you might have an argument to make. Pro-Life was not even represented in the Republican ticket this year. No wonder they stayed home.
The problem with this nonsense is that Obama has always gone out of his way to be as extremely pro-abort as possible. His support for infanticide. He specifically changed the old Clinton abortion wording in the Dem platform. "Rare" was dropped from "Safe, legal, and rare."
55% of the Catholics in this country voted for this baby murdering boob.
Sounds like 55% of the Catholics in this country need to be ex-communicated.
Did you ask her "safe foe who?"
Abortion always results in the death of at least one person.
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.