Posted on 06/05/2011 10:07:28 AM PDT by jobim
As a Candidate whom Many Pro-lifers Would Like to Support: her actual abortion record and rhetoric is shocking to the conscience in that Sarah Palin:
- happily appointed in 2009 a Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court
- indicates that chemical abortifacients that kill the youngest children should be legal
- distinguishes between her "personal" and public pro-life views (personally pro-life means officially pro-choice)
- rather than fighting for protection, Sarah indicates support even for public funding to kill some unborn children - whitewashes other candidates misleading millions to believe that pro-choice politicians are pro-life
- allows her name to be used in ads promoting even tax-funded embryonic stem cell "research"
- harms personhood by holding that "equal protection" should not apply to unborn children
- has never announced support for any state's personhood amendment nor the Federal Human Personhood Amendment
- opposes personhood by claiming that the majority can decide to legalize the killing of children.
In her vice-presidential acceptance speech Sarah said, "there is a time for politics and a time for leadership."1 During the above, which time was it for her? Sources below document Sarah Palin's tragic record and political rhetoric.
Summary:
Sarah Palin claims to be personally pro-life but her words and actions prove that she is officially pro-choice and stands against the God-given right to life of the unborn. Even if Roe v. Wade were reversed, Palin says she would still leave the decision to kill children to others.
(Excerpt) Read more at prolifeprofiles.com ...
For every officer of government, and every candidate for public office, to make this resolution, and to then act accordingly without wavering.
We already have the law on the side of life.
All we really lack is the political will to protect it.
“Intermediate steps” are fine, if they don’t sacrifice the moral, natural law, constitutional principles that argue for the defense of innocent life.
Sadly, most of those steps that the “pro-life” fund-raising, vote-gathering industry have been pushing do sacrifice the principles. They’re not steps forward. They’re steps back, and over a cliff.
I’m sick and tired of people telling me that someday, over the rainbow, they’re going to bring in a crop, when I already know darned well that they’ve sold the farm.
While a good statement (and one that I agree with) this hardly constitutes a "plan".
“Intermediate steps” are fine, if they don’t sacrifice the moral, natural law, constitutional principles that argue for the defense of innocent life.
Sadly, most of those steps that the “pro-life” fund-raising, vote-gathering industry have been pushing do sacrifice the principles. They’re not steps forward. They’re steps back, and over a cliff.
Here now, we might be talking. What might some of these appropriate "intermediate steps" be? The whole reason that the majority of the Pro-Life movement operates on the strategy that it does is that the strategy seems to be the only one that will work given the political situation that currently exists -- so what are some concrete means of securing this ideal, within the political circumstances as they are now?
Any that don’t sacrifice the principles.
We do not wish to make the perfect the enemy of the good. But we do want to conform our government to the Declaration of Independence, which is the country's mission statement.
This is the challenge we face, and the leaders we choose should move us as a nation towards this goal.
I personally believe Sarah Palin is one such leader.
I’m still waiting for that apology.
Unlike you, I believe in saving those children that I can and teaching when I can. Some is better than none.
The law that you reference, our Prenatal Protection Act (Texas’ form of “Connor and Lacy Peterson law”) makes it a crime to kill an unborn child and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, which currently holds all the power on abortion in the United States.
Reality must be dealt with. In addition to convicting several men for killing unborn children, the dichotomy that this law highlights has been used as a tool to teach the preposterous nature of our abortion laws - to teach the humanity of “embryos” and “fetuses.”
Only because the judicial supremacists in the Republican Party allow it.
But this is a non-answer.
The reason that most Pro-Lifers take the approach that they do is that they see it as the only way forward. You and ARTL are advocating a complete paradigm shift in the Pro-Life movement, but to accomplish that, you have to have concrete plans that take our current circumstances into account.
You can have principles coming out of your ears, but they won't accomplish anything without a plan.
Look, the course I advise requires faith. It requires Christians to quit making deals with the devil.
It requires the kind of attitude George Washington was talking about when he said, “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”
I truly believe that if Christians would simply return to the founding self-evident truths of our nation’s founding, and quit compromising, the practice of child-killing would end in our land forthwith.
If we will make that kind of commitment I believe He will raise up leaders for us. He will give us a righteous strategy, one that will work so well on the practical level that the world will stand silent in amazement.
I already told you the plan. You just didn't hear it. It is to put people in office who will keep the primary duty of their oath, which is to provide equal protection for the right to life of all.
Any who won't keep their oath? Throw them out, by any lawful means at our disposal.
And, most certainly, don't elect those who have already shown you that they don't understand or care about the principles upon which this free republic was built.
The main reason we're not getting anywhere right now is because Christians, pro-lifers, conservatives, are chasing after a bunch of false flags.
It doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. It matters what the USSC says the Constitution says. And there is absolutely zero Constitutional jurisprudence that I am aware of that recognizes a person prior to birth.
There are MANY state laws that do so.
But, from what I can discern you would oppose a candidate that would appoint judges that would overturn Roe on 10th Amendment grounds because they would not appoint judges that would overturn Roe on 14th Amendment grounds as they could apply to an unborn child...even though there is no precedent for same.
I call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Hmmm...I could have sworn that Article VI requires every officer of government, in every branch, at every level of governance, to support the Constitution of the United States.
Oh yeah, it does!
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." -- Article VI, the United States Constitution
The idea that an officer of government has no responsibility to interpret the meaning of his own oath, and to act accordingly, is preposterous.
The judicial supremacist fallacy that you and others are pushing here, and that Sarah Palin supports as well, is the death of representative republican self-government. There are no checks and balances in such a system.
Sorry, living under a judicial oligarchy wasn't part of the deal.
FOEV, turd party troll...
Such lovely sentiments. I’ll keep your kind and generous spirit in mind as I ponder what actions must be taken in the coming election cycle.
Aw, shush. She is very obviously personally pro-life; leave it at that. As President, she will probably govern along the lines of Reagan and Bush re abortion, so just let it be. Abortion is not an issue to campaign on. That’s not how you win elections. I completely trust Sarah Palin to do the right thing.
Look — you have a President right now who ADVOCATES and VOTES FOR killing babies who SURVIVE abortions. Come on!! Don’t be an one-issue voter; trust Sarah Palin on this issue or you get more Obama.
I heard your "plan", and I told you that it is a non-plan because it has no means of moving from ideal to execution.
It sounds nice to elect only people who will sign on to our oaths of ideological purity, and to throw out all the bums who won't or can't hold to those ideals, but it isn't particularly realistic.
Holding to those strict ideals in the current political climate serves no purpose but to allow liberals to be elected, who will continue to destroy our rights and destroy our nation. Not only does this go against the purpose of protecting the rights of children in utero, but it also deprives us of our own rights and means to continue the fight for the universal right to life another day.
-----
By the way, what is your position on artificial contraception (condoms, the pill, etc.)?
I’m against them if they kill babies.
Whatever.
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.