Skip to comments.Sid Dinsdale Won’t Compromise On Abortion. He’ll Just Set the Pro-Life Cause Aside (NE)
Posted on 05/03/2014 9:07:55 AM PDT by cotton1706
When I called Sid Dinsdale Planned Parenthoods Republican, he got all upset. In fact, he released a statement saying, in part
I would never compromise on abortion and to insinuate otherwise, is nonsense.
This is the man who demands we call him a life long Republican, despite years of funding Democrats, including one guy who wanted to run against Republican Mike Johanns.
This is the exact same guy who said
Im Pro-Life and Im not embarrassed about that. Im proud of that but I see a time in our country where you have to set aside something like that and try to work on the things you can get done.
So hell never compromise on abortion. Hell just set it aside.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Greg Brannon for Senate!!
Oops. I meant Ben Sasse for Senaate!!
Where’s Spiny Norman when you need him?
“DINSDALE”!!! (Spiny Norman)
Sid Dinsdale? Isn’t this a Monty Python character?
He sounds exactly like Nancy Pelosi and her ilk, who “personally oppose abortion”, but let 60,000,000 babies be disposed of as garbage, or in the case of OR, burned to generate electricity.
That is worse than believing in abortion.
Welcome to the left’s national socialism.
Under national socialism, if you are to remain vital in your business, you are *stuck* (until you can arrange to / benefit from a return of freedom) ... having to do what you can for freedom.
True for many circumstances.
The Dinsdale family could stop their business and go about doing something else, like living off the public trough and protesting when possible.
Instead, the Dinsdale family tries to keep going. Which, by the way, was the original purpose behind their business ... try to help people to keep going in tough times.
Their business is very much in the public eye, and their customers are of all types.
The Dinsdale family business is under the microscope of the fascist thought police (who are addicted to the propaganda fed from People for the American Way and the Southern Poverty Law Center), and unlike other businesses, in particular, the Dinsdale business is at the mercy of many infernal agencies and agents of nationalizing socialism, ie. The Regime of The One.
The Dinsdale family could just quit, but under cultural civil war time conditions, they choose to try and hold onto at least something.
They obviously have a lot of my sympathy.
BTW, I believe that abortion is between God, mother, father; it is not a government matter; the people should not be involved, nor compromised to be involved.
I’m guessing that throughout the history of the planet that man and woman have joined together, there have been 2 reasons for the mother or a midwife to end the life of a baby:
2) family duress
The first (1) because of the seond (2) reason. That is, given the family situation and chances of the family’s survival, let alone the baby’s survival, I am guessing that some babies were put to sleep.
Our Constitution is silent about abortion, leaving the matter to the people of their respective states, should the people decide that abortion is a common law matter.
Myself, I’d prefer that it remain entirely private, and [again] between God, mother, and father; but if government is involved, the matter is state level, not federal.
By that logic, any murder is between the murderer, his/her victim, and God. It's not a government matter.
That doesn't make any sense.
The distinction is “a harmful threat to the public.”
A murderer is pursued, prosecuted, and punished by a community because of that threat.
You propose the same for a person who seeks and/or succeeds at an abortion.
I suggest, that in the case of abortion, if their be punishment, it is a matter between God, mother, and father.
I’m looking at it from the perspective of the victim, as well. They’re both just as dead. And dear ol’ ma can manufacture more victims, too.
Abortion is as morally defensible as murder. It very much requires government involvement since government’s job is to protect society. You’re not protecting society when you allow women to murder their own children.
If government is to be involved, I see it as a local, common law matter, not a national/federal matter.
Because, both abortion and putting a newborn to sleep, are likely ancient customs among many tribes ... and from there, becoming what we call now the common law.
I’d imagine that among some tribes, protecting their society would affect the enforcement, or not, of the practice.
Meaning, if the tribe is aware of how much it needs more people, the tribe could be hard on a mother who put her baby to sleep summarily and without a recognized urgent reason to her sub-tribe at least.
And on the other hand, if a tribe be urgently on the move and unable to care for newborns, a sad trail of tears might be left behind.
Myself, I prefer the idea, that if the people of a state desire laws against abortion, that is their right to propose and support their view. On the other hand, if the people of another state are unwilling to support laws against abortion, that is their choice, too.
Our Constitution is silent about abortion
BS of the first order ,,, that’s like saying dragging someone to death behind a truck is A-Ok because the constitution doesn’t mention trucks ... Abortion is homicide even if it is temporarily legal and cannot therefore be called Murder,, it may not be the constitution but the Declaration of Independence certainly asserts a right to life... and only the dimmest amongst us can declare a child as “not alive” simply because of it’s location.