Posted on 09/05/2008 11:46:50 AM PDT by pissant
Three major advocates of abortion rights are planning to spend nearly $30 million to defeat John McCain’s run for president, citing his new running mate as the core reason.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List have Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) in their crosshairs, calling her a staunch opponent of abortion rights.
“This is the most anti-choice ticket in history of the Republican Party,” said Beth Shipp, the political director of NARAL. “McCain put someone as outside the mainstream as you can on his ticket, which is Sarah Palin,” Shipp added.
Hoping to drive a wedge between the pro-life GOP base and party centrists who favor abortion rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to raise and spend $10 million to communicate to voters in 34 to 35 congressional districts and battleground states. The group is also targeting independents.
Planned Parenthood, another liberal group, plans to spend $10 million on its One Million Strong campaign, an effort to mobilize “pro-choice voters in battleground states,” said spokesman Tait Sye.
And EMILY’s List, a group that backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion, will spend nearly as much as the other groups on its Women Vote! program.
The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
NARAL sent out an alert to more than 500,000 of its supporters immediately after Sen. McCain (Ariz.) chose Palin as his running mate. The alert highlighted Palin’s opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest.
The Planned Parenthood campaign began in January and will pick up intensity in the wake of Palin’s selection.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
And in other news, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow.
Funny how “choice” never means the choice to have one’s baby. Sarah made such a choice. She chose LIFE. And we are all blessed with Trig as a result.
That's why it's idiotic for Republicans to support abortion. But if they want to pound sand and waste their money, I say go for it.
Sarah made such a choice. She chose LIFE. And we are all blessed with Trig as a result.
I think there are going to be a lot babies named Sarah real soon.
Call them “pro death” or “pro infanticide”.
The child does not have a choice.
When I talk with pro death people, I make a point to bring this up.
You know that a lot of Republicans, and not a few on this site, are against Plain because she is pro life?
McCain just started a civil war in the GOP. Which is good in a way, but not something I ever expected him to do.
Abortion Rights = Murder Inc.(for profit)
I wish Republicans could work to spread the message, "If you've had an abortion and feel bad about it, the best way to eliminate the guilt and feel good about yourself again is to discourage others from following in your footsteps. Pretending abortion is okay may help you bury the guilt temporarily, but working to prevent others from making your mistake will eliminate it for good."
I'm not sure how effectively such a message could be spread by those who have never been personally involved with abortions, but if it catches on among those who have, it could result in a massive sea change. I wish Republicans would have the courage to work toward that; unfortunately, I suspect many of them want to keep abortion as an issue and would thus not want to actually 'solve' it.
If we could discourage even 10% of abortions in the coming year, that would be a good thing. Even if it meant that 90% of abortions went on as planned, that would still be better than 100%.
There are some reasonable practical and moral arguments for and against abortion in the case of rape or incest (e.g. should a rapist be allowed to profit from his crime by perpetuating his genes to the next generation). An argument that I have not seen mentioned is the increased risk of false rape accusations. A woman who consents to have sex may retroactively withdraw that consent if she finds herself pregnant and a rape accusation becomes the key to getting an abortion.
Still, if someone wants to end 99% of abortions, I'd rather go along with that and worry about the other 1% later than argue with them about the other 1% while doing nothing.
I would suggest that, among other things:
Anything that NARAL considers bad is GOOD!
I take it that your pro-abortion? Probably why you liked Rudy so much. Have you had issues like this in your life?
Well I for one am working on it.
And in other thing...
Any Incest cases that are worth talking about ARE rape. If a 30 YO brother and sister want to have sex, it is no excuse for an abortion. The risk to the fetus is not near as high because of their genes as it is to their age.
Even an egg fertilized in a petri dish is viable... Such are implanted regularly and brought to full term...
Bears repeating. It's the same with pederasty. Once you've uttered the word 'gay', you've lost whatever argument you're going to present. Who's against gaiety, who's against choice and who's against social justice (whatever that means). Whoever controls the language controls the debate, and so far, McCain and Palin are doing well in this department.
A fertilized egg in a petri dish, without some of the magic ingredients found in the uterine lining, won't do a whole lot. While it may have all of the genetic material that's going to be necessary, it won't have all the necessary ingredients to really get things going until after implantation.
Given the huge difference in natural mortality rates between embryos that have not yet implanted, and those that have, it would seem logical that God would wait until after implantation before imparting a soul. I can't claim any particular insights to His plans or motivations, but it would seem rather wasteful to implant souls in embryos that might or might not implant successfully. Nor am I aware of anything Biblically that would contradict such a notion. I recall a reference to him knowing someone before that person was in his mother's womb, but another which suggests that he knew someone before they were even conceived (which would imply that the soul exists before the body).
In any case, rather than worrying about what might possibly be ambiguous cases, the important thing is to first do something about the slaughter of those who would be almost universally recognized as babies. The ambiguous cases can't be handled immediately, but the unambiguous ones can and should.
Whoever controls the language controls the debate,
That is what NARAL et al are trying to do here.
To set the narrative that some how a mother of five in a loving monogamous relationship is out of the mainstream
seems unbelievable, yet tell that lie often enough and loud enough and some people will believe it.
Practice makes perfect.
:-)
Exactly right. They are throwing guano and waiting for something to stick, like they had done with Dan Quayle and Papa Bush, quite successfully, and with Reagan, unsuccessfully. I mean, to this day even many conservatives believe Dan is a dumby. Is he? We really don’t know for sure, but that’s what had stuck and has remained stuck. They’ll keep trying with Sarah, you’ll see.
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.