Are Governor Sarah Palin's pro-life credentials really up for debate? RLY?
If so, then gag you!
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 ...
What's wrong with that?
For the first 200 years of this nation's existence that's the way it was. And, that's the way it is now for MURDER, states decide their own laws and undertake their own prosecutions.
It was Roe that changed that and enshrined a Federal "Right to Privacy" that ostensibly covered abortion.
If you think Palin would ever sign a bill as a governor to outlaw abortion...or, a bill as President...you will be sorely disappointed.
While she would not abort, she would not deny another woman that option under all circumstances.
She's a 10th Amendment Federalist.
While you may not agree with ARTL's take on the data, you can't honestly say it is "unsubstantiated." They have a list of sources longer than your arm at the bottom of the article, all linked.
It's the destruction of the cornerstone of this free republic.
You gonna post a picture of Obama’s girls to prove he’s “pro-life”?
Kind of rich coming from a guy who works for a former candidate whose definition of being a pro-life activist is pushing around red-paint covered Cabbage Patch kid dolls in Sponge Bob strollers and pretending you are saving a single life. I would bet that Keyes couldn’t account for a single baby he has actually saved with his antics, but he still keeps his chin way up in the air thanking God he isn’t like ‘those’ people who don’t use the high and mighty words he does.
If we want to make up definitions of what is pro-life, then my definition is you aren’t really pro-life unless you stand in front of an abortion clinic and offer to adopt the children of every single person who goes in. Anything else is pro-death?
So, EV, how many children have you or Dr. Keyes adopted? None? Then I say you are pro-death and pro-abortion.
Great post, smooth, and it’s all sourced.
If he they had a Down’s Syndrome baby in the womb, knew it and kept it, and he was pro-life, sure, or *you betcha* but he’s not and everyone knows he’s pro-abortion, even por-infantacide.
If a candidate for public office said it was up to the states to decide whether or not we could keep and bear arms, would you try to convince us that he or she was “pro-Second Amendment”?
If not, please explain why the supreme right, the right to live, is not subject to identical logic.
Our rights are either from God, and therefore unalienable, or they’re from men, and subject to the whims of men. Can’t be both.
We’ve been through this dozens of times. It is about strategy and what is most effective. But you don’t care, you just want to trash a majority of pro-lifers out there who are doing something just so you can keep your Pharisee like attitude of your so called ideological purity.
I ask you again, how many children who would have been aborted have you even attempted to adopt?
I’m not going to fight personally with Eternal Vigilance on this matter, because I and Scalia think he’s wrong but he’s never going to change his mind and I’m not going to change mine either.
Governor Sarah Palin is as pro-life as we serious and faithful pro-life people need her to be and she is hated for it.
Well, if you feel comfortable making some sort of distinction between a Down’s child and any other child, that’s your call.
As for me, I find that sort of differentiation repugnant. A child is a child. A person is a person.
And our Constitution is supposed to protect every person, without exception, in every state in the Union.
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
We’ve been through this with him hundreds of times and he doesn’t care. He seems on a mission to trash a majority of the pro-life movement and seems to act like that is more important than actually saving lives.
If your "strategy" involves the sacrifice of the first principles of this republic, you should be thinking about getting a new strategy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
Palin is pro life and pro 10th amendment.
No thank you. It is not a credible source and anything they print is suspect because of an agenda.
Also, iirc from other threads on here EV, you have your own agenda even if it means sullying someone else to achieve your goal (which keyes will NEVER be elected) you will be happy to perpetuate lies.
Did you read post #40?
Again, how many children who were going to be aborted have you adopted? None? Then you are no better than a coffee shop philosopher ranting about the world but doing absolutely nothing substantial.
If pointing out the facts of their positions is "trash," perhaps it you should examine their positions, not keep trying to trash the one pointing out the simple facts of the case.
How many lives have you saved?
I’ll just keep ignoring your silly straw men the way you keep ignoring the simple question about which other unalienable rights you think states can “decide.”
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.