Posted on 11/27/2008 5:29:23 PM PST by wagglebee
I probably don't need to say much more than the Washington Post and USA Today wrote glowingly of a new "pro-life" plan. Red flags arise.
Last week USA Today editorialized:
Realism seems to have struck some ardent foes of abortion. After 35 years of trying to outlaw the procedure nationally while chipping away at abortion rights state by state, they have decided to add a new and sensible initiative. They'll work with the other side to reduce the number of abortions.It's not that the opponents changed their minds or that they're any less committed to their cause. It's just that they have done the new math. And the numbers don't add up to more anti-abortion justices on the U.S. Supreme Court or a sea change on the issue among most Americans.
The new "pro-life" coalition is composed of Barack Obama supporters, and they're a little late with their Supreme Court math. Whatever. Smokescreen anyway.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
And they shall be known as “PLINO’s,” pro-life in name only. Known to associate with RINO’s.
The socon right needs to understand that and address it.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
The proaborts always say they want to “reduce” the amount of abortions being done in the U.S.. One of them told me she wanted abortion “safe and rare”. I told her that no matter how rare it is abortion is never safe.
First, do you think Americans actually know what the extent of the evil is with abortion in America—the media have carefully avoided exposing the truth? And second, what do you think would happen with the abortion issue if the American people were given the actual truth about the state of life in the womb and the real record of murder in abortuaries? ... Or do you even care, and merely come on abortion threads to prick the ‘socons’?
You're losing, no you've lost, in the arena of ideas. Especially among those people who are under 40 and who even in the bottom line agree with you likely voted for Barry.
And don't pull the media victimization card. There are plenty of radio, television, print and internet socon outlets available on the open market. Most only preach to the choir and seldom beyond. None of the message is filtered. It's available on the open market and it's not desired to be digested or consumed.
Pure leftists bullsh!te, maroon. I ask you what would be the result if the American people actually had the information so there was a battle of ideas. You respond with the typical misdirection and foolishness the leftists always spews. ... You exposed yourself, lefty. Have a nice evening.
Nothing has changed from the way it was five, ten, or even twenty years ago. Everyone still knows that abortion is the killing of innocent life; one camp knows and is disgusted, the other knows and cheers on the slaughter, and the rest are too bound up in their own lives to care.
See...I didn’t vote for Obama, because I’m pro-life and never could. I’ve had enough experience and insight to see that just because something sounds good doesn’t mean that it’ll work and that the person saying it actually intends to do it.
But I do agree with the idea of reducing numbers and attacking the perceived need for abortion. There is this emotional appeal that is at first glance very compelling to most people; a woman in trouble being kept down by society and the only way out is abortion. The best way to attack that is to attack that situation. Woman gets kicked out of her home or school housing for being pregnant? Woman loses her scholarship or unable to fit into a school desk because she’s pregnant? Woman loses her job for being pregnant? Unable to balance work and a baby? The adoption system scares them because of all the restrictions in place that keep kids in the system for a long time?
Attack those things. Change them. Those are all things that can be bipartisan. Jill Stanek is absolutely right, they need to come from the community, from a loving community, but the best way to attack abortion is to attack the perceived need. Even if you would still face the odds and choose life, as I know I would, with society the way it is, they’ve created this idea that these things make abortion necessary. Attack that idea by making a massive widespread effort to help women through these situations, on a community level, and the public’s opinion will change. Women do not need abortion to survive and prosper. We are not that weak. What women need is a support system. Give them the tools to do it and they will do it because women are stronger than the feminazis give us credit for.
Obama has taken that idea, and subverted it to match socialism’s “government will take care of you all.” Which is appealing. Socialism is appealing to me on an emotional level because I believe in charity; I don’t want anyone to suffer and I believe everyone has a time in life when they need a hand. I don’t believe in socialism because I realize the difference between charity and socialism, and there is a huge difference, but socialism’s greatest lure is that it disguises itself as charity and pulls in good-hearted people. Every human being has the inclination to help others, and socialism takes advantage of that.
I have 5 teaching christian radio stations in my market. (And I'm not in the bible belt) All are virtual ratings losers. They have a few hundred listeners that are mostly from the choir to begin with. I have one full time full powered christian tv station in my market. It has few viewers. There are a few low powered stations. Again, few viewers. The internet is full of web sites with the information. There are socially conservative publications. I've been to markets where the cable systems have a half dozen or more christian stations.
None of that information is censored. None of it is blocked or difficult to obtain. Most of it is free. All of it is competing in the arena of ideas and it's failing to capture an audience.
It appears to me there is plenty of media devoted to most or some of the socon message and it's not being scooped up by the masses.
The bigger problem is the message of the early 70's doesn't resonate with the under 40 crowd of 2008. The socon message of today is still using the functional equivalent of 8 track players while your target audience is using ipods and other digital devices. It's a disconnect.
The problem isn't the media. You haven't mastered the message on the media that you have.
the financial collapse took McCain -Palin from even to 5-10 points down where they stayed. Absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Too early to get away with your lame historical revision now.
Thank you for the name calling. Maybe that’s another reason the message doesn’t get beyond the choir. Can’t survive in the area of ideas and resort to calling names.
I found out my family is very Catholic, but whether they are truly Christian is up for Jesus to know. They ALL voted for Obama.
I pray.
Again, you've lost the under 40 crowd because your message doesn't appeal to them. Even when they agree with you, they will still vote for Barrack.
That's how he was able to deceive so many Catholics into voting for him.
you're kidding,right? Iraq War , and don't say that wasn't a media snow job.
Catholic pro-abort groups gave millions of morons cover to vote their party, their union, their race before thinking of the unborn.
Many priests and bishops are too new to the front of the battle to be trusted leaders yet.
Some bishops and cardinals (Mahony) could give a shit.
When a bishop is led off in shackles I’ll be impressed.
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.