Posted on 11/11/2012 8:55:29 PM PST by SquarePants
First off, let me say this. I am completely, unabashedly and unapologetically pro-life. That being said, I was somewhat dismayed by the reports of the 2012 election featuring the largest gender gap in history. Given multiple national polls showing that people do not support abortion, it remains an issue, and it remains an issue that the GOP does not handle well.
I remember watching the VP debate between Biden and Ryan, and being hugely disappointed in how Ryan handled the abortion question. You can watch a video of it below, but, if I may paraphrase Ryan's answer in general terms, he stressed how important his faith was in coming to his pro-life position. Biden then rambled on about how much he supports a woman's "right to choose." The net result is that Biden generally came across as a rational, compassionate, caring sort - which is not what he is at all, while the impression of Ryan that the underinformed voters ultimately got was that he would be the sort of person who might just be capable of supporting any sort of position informed by his religious views.
Of course, Senate candidates Akin and Mourdock also had cringe-worthy comments on the abortion issue as well. Arguably, poor handling of "women's issues" cost the GOP two Senate seats and possibly the Presidency. So what's the problem? Why does the GOP insist upon conveying the most important message of civilized society - the message that every life is valuable - in such consistently inarticulate fashion? What kind of an approach would serve to neutralize the issue at the voting booth, and bring election results in line with national polls on the matter?
Well, as to why the GOP is so incompetent at communicating the value of life, I'm not really sure. They certainly know it's an issue that will be raised by Democrat candidates and the progressive, state-run media. They certainly have the time and resources to prepare for it. Honestly, I have no idea why the GOP can't positively deliver the pro-life message, but I do know what their message should be.
The GOP message should be, "The abortion issue has nothing to do with religion. Mine or anyone else's. The senseless and societally counterproductive promotion of abortion as an acceptable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy has led to a culture where the value of a life can be quantified, and that's wrong. Abortion is a human rights issue, and a civilized society has several undeniable obligations. Primary among them is the right to life. This is not an opinion informed by my religious beliefs. This is an opinion informed by common sense. Every life has value, and a civilized society protects life. It's that simple."
The GOP needs to stop hinging their abortion discussions on religion, and their public policy positions on faith. Frankly, it makes the pro-life position look fanatical, when it is anything but. The GOP needs to have confidence that their position is informed by reality, and by the conviction that a society is judged, ultimately, by how they treat the least among them. And most Americans support candidates who promote the future of our nation and stand up for using our government programs in the manner they were intended - which is to protect and provide for those who cannot protect or provide for themselves.
If they were smart, the GOP would position themselves to call out the pro-abortion Democrats for the hypocritical simultaneous support of the contradicting position on Human Rights. Real concern for human rights and promotion of abortion can't exist together. That's not fanatical. That's Realville, USA.
You’re an arrogant pharisee to use a word that basically no one knows so that you look as well educated as... a pharisee. My representation was not an unfounded assumption, and many christian evangelical scholars hold the same view. What you COMPLETELY ignore is the intent of the investigation, which is not so much to show that the bible does not uphold fetal life holds less value than adult human life (which it does), but that it holds it to some particular relatively high value. It certainly holds it to a value higher than a vulture’s egg. But in your pharisaical urge to make some “exegetical” point, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
So... we’re all very impressed that you know big words and have such high pretension to biblical knowledge. But your knowledge has puffed you up, like the bible says.
Angry males >>>
angry males? I’ve never met one, this is right out of the democrat playbook, try again.
actually, it’s the females who appear to be angry, very angry, almost hysterical, just listen to hillary when she was campaigning, the liberal females are at war with men, with boys in school (read the book “the war against boys”), and with pro-life people (both male and female). You should join the democrat party, I think you would fit right in with the angry females.
which is not so much to show that the bible does not uphold fetal life holds less value than adult human life (which it does),
If I am understanding your meaning correctly, the Bible most certainly does not hold fetal human life as less value than adult human life, and the greatest evidence of that fact is that Jesus Christ Himself was once a pre-born child.
Have you not read what the prophet Jeremiah wrote? ""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
If you are going to represent what the Bible teaches on some subject you ought to make very sure you are doing so accurately. If saying so makes me arrogant and a puffed up pharisee in your eyes, so be it.
Cordially,
From the same passage in scripture,
17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
It is clear that slaves were worth less than freemen. Some human beings are worth less than others. And it is also clear from history that Jews took things seriously and codified the “eye for an eye” stuff, all at the same time attributing less value to fetuses than full-grown humans, even to the point of being pro-choice.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that you are right and the passage means that a baby who can survive a premature delivery due to a violent accident has full “eye for an eye” rights. It only reinforces what I said about Tier1 pregnancies and abortions. That says nothing about nonviable preborn humans and that is why the jewish Mishnah is pro-choice.
The way to save millions of lives is to accept the common interpretation of scripture and proceed from it. You won’t get pro-choicers to accept the extension of protection for life onto preborn, unviable babies if you insist on the backend that practitioners are murderers. But you will get them to accept that a human preborn life is worth more than a vulture embryo. You would save lives that way. But perhaps you prefer to stay stuck in being a pharisee and arguing the smaller points.
I’m not pro-life because I’m Catholic. I’m pro-life because babies are defenseless individuals who need protection from those who enable murder for convenience.
Unfortunately a lot of times the male is one of the reasons for the abortion. "Get an abortion or I'm leaving."
And millions of people would not vote for pro-abortion Republican politicians. My mom, girlfriend, and myself for starters. Joe Schwarz never got my vote.
It's not about any of us. It's about the babies.
If you think this reasoning will change votes among the vaginacentric you’re pissin’ in the wind. LBJ set the groundwork for the present electorate by making government daddy. And here’s some bad news for you, it’s too damn late to turn it around. The young want government to run their lives and they have no love for liberty which they confuse with license. They’ll reap what they’ve sown and I don’t much care.
True, but at least he was involved in the “decision”. I simply cannot buy into this notion that once conception exists, the decision is totally on the woman, should she choose to have it that way. Yes, weed out the dirt bags who could care less; those are not the situations I am concerned about. If the mother can unilaterally decide to abort while the father wants to keep, that is not right. Males/females were designed for basic purposes. When one can take that from the other, it is not right.
The big choice the guys need to make is to find the right lady. Some of that's easy for good guys. Don't sleep with married women to start with. If I cave into temptation and end up being in an unplanned situation, both my girl and I were raised a certain way. It would be time for me to buy a ring and man up. That's what she'd expect and what both our families would expect. Abortion wouldn't even be considered and I'd probably be shot, slapped, and kicked to the curb if I even suggested it (which I wouldn't).
Agreed! The bigger issue is abortion. It should not be allowed but for some limited exceptions. That’d solve many problems.
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.