You realize that the ISSUE of abortion is far too valuable to let go of easily.
You're spot on in your post. ^5!
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Posted on 07/12/2009 9:15:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.
First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"
In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.
Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.
Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.
Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.
I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.
The Founders never stated that in the law that I am aware of. Do you have backing for your claim? Outside of supporting documents? I mean, something that they actually voted on or signed as law?
Yes!
And if we let the nose of that camel get under the tent, then that precedent will let some very bad "scripture" come in with that camel.
Except for making treason a crime, the Founding Fathers left it to the States to define what is and what isn’t a crime. The Founding Fathers did not make murder a federal crime.
The federal government has usurped most of the States’ powers but to this day there is no federal law against murder except in SPECIFIC cases like killing a federal government employee. It wasn’t even against federal law to kill the President until after Kennedy got killed. As of today there is no federal law against you killing me or me killing you.
The States vary greatly in defining when it is permissible to kill another person. In Texas you can kill someone you reasonably believe is a danger to your life. In New York you have to retreat until you are unable to retreat before killing him. States differ greatly on what is murder and what is manslaughter and degrees of each.
The Founding Fathers didn’t forget to make murder a federal crime. It was their intention to leave the general police powers and the criminal law writing to the states.
If no federal law protects a new born baby or a two-year-old or a sixty-year-old, why should one protect a pre-birth baby? If it’s not a federal offence to kill you, why should it be a federal offence to kill an unborn baby?
If you want a federal law defining when it is permissible to kill a person and when it’s a crime, should we use New York’s laws or Texas’ laws as the model? Is today’s crop of politicians more qualified than the Founding Fathers to decide what should be federal law?
The States should ban abortion. The federal government should go back to taking care of their enumerated responsibilities and go back to being restricted from taking more than their enumerated powers.
Yeah. The founders of America called it "self-evident truth" actually.
I’m sorry that you don’t believe in equal rights for all Americans.
bttt
Not in the law, they didn’t. Again, I could quote something from the Federalist Papers or something else but it doesn’t make it law.
Again, show support in a legal document that has basis in the US. Otherwise, it is a historical ‘opinion’ and they are all over the board. Do you really want to rely on Pelosi’s opinion as law? Or should we take a vote?
You’re making less and less sense.
Oh, come on, it is a simple thing. Your argument is that abortion is the "killing of an innocent person" and therefore is subject to Federal authority via the Declaration and the Constitution. However, most murders are the "killing of an innocent person" and yet they are most assuredly and absolutely not subject to the Federal government. Such matters are most definitely reserved to the States, and yet you don't seem to be on a tirade about the evils of such a situation. But, either all such homicides are actually not a matter for the States, and rather are Federal, or you are saying that all of the people murdered in this nation (outside of abortion) are in fact not PERSONS.
Which is it? Are all of these murder victims PERSONS or aren't they? It is a simple question. If you say they are persons, then allowing the States to legislate, enforce and prosecute their murders is to "deny their protection under our Constitution," to use your own language. That certainly has been your position regarding abortion, and so either it applies to all murder, or it doesn't. So, I ask, are these people PERSONS?
You didn’t read my post #104.
The Federalist Papers, as wonderful and useful as they are, are not part of the organic law of the United States. The Declaration of Independence is.
You’re not listening. If a state is not protecting the unalienable rights of the people, the officers of the federal government have a sworn duty to secure the people and their rights. This is not complicated.
Moved and seconded. It's a genuine toss-up as to whether "dishonest" or "just plain sad" is the more apt description in this particular instance, as both are equally applicable. Instant replay may be needed for the final call.
I guess it’s too hard for you to click on my screen name and read my home page, eh?
Hey. EV.
Let me tell you very clearly why other Pro-Lifers seem so hell-bent on standing against your argument (and Keyes) of “recognize the unborn are persons are nothing!”, to the point of disregarding even those who are for overturning Roe v. Wade.
Let’s look at door #1:
1) The argument for overturning Roe v. Wade DOES NOT mean that pursuing your argument is no longer viable. By all means, your argument will only have more steam!
Now for door #2:
2) Pursuing your argument discounts any and all other measures at lessening abortions, including putting the issue out of the hands of the feds and into those of the states.
In other words, beyond door #2 lies this maxim: “Good has been made an enemy of Perfect.”
Even when ‘Good’ would be vastly preferable to the current situation we have now. Nope, can’t have it whatsoever...
I’m sorry, but this is what I keep hearing when you post.
EV: You want to overturn Roe v. Wade? HERESY! My way or the highway!
Even if your method has no chance of working right now. Even if your argument has a much better chance of changing the hearts and minds of the people (where this battle must be fought) once abortion is a state matter and not a federal matter. Nope, can’t have that.
As you know, its not about "equal rights", its about what is moral and what is clearly immoral.
In our system, morality gets worked into law by a process that is clearly defined. People argue with one another, persuade one another, and the argument goes on year after year, all over the United States, at the state and at the federal level. Endlessly.
If the lawmakers pass a law that is immoral, does it become moral? No, of course not. Is the argument over? No, of course not. If we win the argument, is the argument over? No, of course not, nor is it over if we lose the argument. The argument never ends.
Palin and Keyes are on the same side in this argument, and they both know it. Keyes picked on her to make a point, and its not a bad point, which is that changing the law or changing the constitution doesn't make abortion moral. Of course, she knows that and he knows she knows that. He's just trying to make a point. If he picked on someone who was actually pro-abortion, like any Democrat, the argument wouldn't have attracted nearly as much attention. But a conservative going after Palin because, supposedly, she isn't pro-life enough, well that gets people's attention. Its like, man bites dog. Thats all.
But she is pro-life, everyone knows it including Keyes.
It’s you who doesn’t believe in equal rights for everyone.
You realize that the ISSUE of abortion is far too valuable to let go of easily.
You're spot on in your post. ^5!
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
You’re not listening. If a state is not protecting the unalienable rights of the people, the officers of the federal government have a sworn duty to secure the people and their rights. This is not complicated.
Your position is impossible. Abortion is murder. That is plain fact. And murder is most definitely reserved to the People and the States by the Constitution. If Alan Keyes does not understand this then I greatly overestimated him when I voted for him. You are twisting the Constitution in extremely absurd ways which would render it meaningless, just like those on the left do everyday.
You're representing your candidate -- badly, in this particular instance, if the only response to your having been called out on a fundamental aspect of online posting honesty is a feeble, half-hearted "meh." Rethink that.
When ever I think of Key’s I think of Mosh pits, and crowd diving.
In fact, my position is the only hope there is of ever overturning Roe vs. Wade.
The neglect of these indispensable principles by Christians, by the pro-life movement, by conservatives, by Republicans, is why it hasn’t been overturned already.
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.