Posted on 09/11/2008 10:57:32 PM PDT by joanie-f
Since the ad makes no distinction, and McCain supports the destruction of humans who are at the embryonic stage of development, the answer must be the latter.
God can do anything. In the meantime, she has taken an abortion position that is destructive not only of the babies, but of this republic.
You tell me who is going to stand against this false and destructive doctrine if it isn’t us, my friend. Please, show me who.
The truth is more important than Mrs. Palin’s political career, or the outcome of one election.
One last thing: public policy happens because of what is, not because of what you hope things might be.
When is the last time the enemedia made such a distinction? How many of the sheeple understand the distinction? This ad might be rope-a-dope strategy to bring the donks out to counter how little the Republicans have done for ineffective, non-productive embryonic stem cell research.
You’re projecting your wishes onto McCain, which makes no sense. He supports the destruction of embryos, with your tax dollars.
It is not a false premise, EV. Your 'employer' has told you [by virtue of the primary elections] that your choice is limited to two.
As you know, I have deep respect for you, no matter our differences on this issue. But, if you honestly believe that Alan Keyes, or anyone other than McCain and Obama, has a chance to win this election, you are indeed deluding yourself.
If you recognize that sad fact, then, returning to my hypothetical question, your selection of a third prospective employee will get you fired. And then someone else will come in, and possibly hire the child pornographer. Is that what you want to occur as a result of standing on your principles?
I repeat:
If you are interviewing a prospective employee, you are told that you must hire one of two applicants, and one is discovered to have been recently arrested for shoplifting, and the other is discovered to be engaging in child pornography, do you sit at your desk and cogitate over which one to hire? Do you slap yourself on the wrist if your first instinct is to react in revulsion to the pornographer, and to simply react with a desire to ‘reform’ the shoplifter?
I know. I know. You would resign from your job if forced to choose between the two. My point is, even though the Lord decries all evil, there are indeed degrees of evil that we must consider in making choices as regards our republic’s future.
~ joanie
This is the hook that has conservatives calculating outcomes, rather than standing for right no matter what. To the extent that they now support the other side. And accuse those who won't compromise of being responsible for the policies of the other side.
That was a waste of keystrokes to type to me.
We’re changing the rules, ...
The rule of men. Not a new idea.
roamer_1 replies: I do not agree with you. Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort, which the court will then nationalize, and then here we go again.
One cannot ignore the plain words of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which specifically take Life beyond the reach of ALL branches of government, and lay it only in the hands of the Creator. Until that (Conservative) ideal is fully recognized and protected, there will be no end to the perversions that will occur, with 50 different states to use as legal testbeds.
roamer_1, thank you ever so much for your eloquent essay/post, and the ping!
Sorry to disagree, but I think Cicero is right that the first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade and return the life issue back to the states, where the Constitution originally vested it. I gave some reasons for my view earlier, at Post 187.
The Declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear that every human being has an unalienable right to life because life is the direct endowment of the Creator. From this “self-evident” truth follows another: In order for government to be legitimate under our Constitution, it must honor and defend life.
And that’s what makes Roe v. Wade unconstitutional: It does neither.
The DoI’s declaration of the dignity and sanctity of human life is indispensable to a proper reading of the Constitution. The Constitution itself is silent on life issues; it makes no grant of power regarding life issues to the federal government. For the Founders understood that the proper authority regarding such matters is the sovereign states, for at least two reasons.
First, the Framers absolutely did not want to consolidate excessive power in the federal government; the several states had to have sufficient power to counterbalance the national government, and to check its excesses. This is part of the Framer’s “separation and balance of powers” doctrine that is often overlooked.
But what greater power could there be to vest in government than the power over life and death? The Framers would have had a collective stroke at the mere suggestion of such a monstrous idea.
One would think this is the very power you'd want to avoid vesting in the federal government! Jeepers, it ought to be obvious that the gummint already has it — though it took a flagrant usurpation of power to get it. And that was Roe v. Wade; and even more fundamentally, I’d argue, the Fourteenth Amendment. [which I also regard as a usurpation, on the grounds that there’s nothing in the Constitution that warrants the nationalization of citizenship. The Framers envisioned the United States as a republic, an association of sovereign states with a national government empowered to discharge very limited powers on behalf of all the states and the people. The Constitution intends that the people of the several states are citizens of the state in which they reside. But I digress....]
Second, state governments are closer to the people than the federal government. The people tend be well informed about the goings on of their state and local governments, and so are in a position to hold them accountable, while that would be impossible for most people vis-à-vis the national government. Thus state and local governments tend to be more responsive to citizen concerns. Put it this way, on the life issues, would you rather deal with Leviathan than with your own state legislature? Where are you more likely to get actual results?
I was troubled by your remark, “Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort.” But then you’ve seen that I think the Constitution invested that power in the states from the very beginning. So giving it “back to them” is simply a restoration of the status quo ante. It would not be an unconstitutional act; it would be a restoration of the original Constitution. (I confess I’m of the “constitutional originalist view” of the Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia school.)
What really troubled me about your statement is that it seems to imply that you simply don’t trust the people with life issues. Do you really think it better to trust the federal government, with its disgraceful, abominable record on this matter?
I say, bring it to the states and then, bring it on! Then maybe we’ll get to start arresting and prosecuting abortionists again.
Thank you for your beautiful post roamer_1 — beautiful, even though I did disagree with it a tad, here and there.
That is a straw man. It is the authority to make laws that goes back to the states not the "power of Life" which is a bogus phrase anyway. The government at both the federal and state levels has the authority to "deprive of life" under certain specific conditions that are spelled out in the Constitution. Since abortion could not possibly fit those conditions under a fair reading of the Constitution this paranoia about states being able to legalize abortion without redress or remedy is just the handwringing of sheep and would-be statists.
I can’t believe you won’t even try to contact the McCain camp and tell them how you feel. LARGE numbers of people DO make a difference, but I can’t fight the world alone.
John McCain 703-418-2008 and http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/
“Seven of the nine sitting justices were put there by Republicans.”
And four of them are pro-life.
btw, what kind of justices did the Dems pick?
Think about it.
Careful there, you’ll send EV into an eternal logic loop by encouraging him to ‘think about it’. It’s easier for him to simple emote, not think, just emote.
By the way, Joanie, this is one of your greatest essays! Kudos from the heartland.
Bwahahahahahaha ... I love irony ... as in Iron their Y ‘til it screams!
That ‘ice queen’ has been doing this work for a lot longer than the media would like for people to realize. Look at their daughter and know that Cindy brought that girl home as an orphaned baby! The McCains have been walking the walk for a long time, without calling attention to it. They ‘do right things’ (as one VP of Northrup used to admonish).
“Careful there, you’ll send EV into an eternal logic loop by encouraging him to ‘think about it’. It’s easier for him to simple emote, not think, just emote.”
I supported Duncan Hunter who is against abortion in EVERY STATE, but the reality is that Duncan Hunter didn’t win.
So let’s do all we can to save as many innocent lives as we can until we get a STRONG pro-life POTUS.
McCain did listen to us when many of us let him know that we wanted a pro-life running mate - we didn’t CAVE - so let’s keep at it, and get him to change on other pro-life positions, as well, like ESC research.
“Sorry to disagree, but I think Cicero is right that the first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade and return the life issue back to the states, where the Constitution originally vested it. I gave some reasons for my view earlier, at Post 187.”
I agree! REVERSE Roe/Wade at the United States Supreme Court level BUT amke it include the STATE level otherwise you will NEVER, EVER ban it with all states. Forget giving it to the states. Yes, I know, I am violating core ideology but I consider the life of a baby to TRUMP that.
Sarah Palin has only just stepped on the world stage. Her words and deeds are filled with promise that she may be quite a champion of the virtuous. But if not she has already been a shining example of a life well lived without apology to the culture of victimhood and the death cult mentality that snarls at the simple good choices she has made.
It amazes me that those who trumpet their own high moral standing seize on the tiniest straw of perceived imperfection in her words to dismiss her and pigeonhole her with all the other "lost" politicians. Neverminding that the reality of this world and its political classes has forever been a cesspool of greed, corruption and compromises. Where champions are rarely seen and wise men fear to tread.
I guess the best way to avoid disappointment is to never give any of them a chance to prove themselves. They condemn themselves by merely stepping in the ring.
Dittos that
Not only is the platform morally right but it is scientifically sound. As far as I know no medically effective treatment or therapy has been derived from embryonic stem cells while adult stem cells, placenta and umbilical cord blood derived stem cells are currently being used in over 70 proven and effective therapies.
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.