Is Palin’s lead a pitfall for the pro-life cause? - ALAN KEYES

Loyal to Liberty ^ | November 27, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[uncbob]

This issue, whether or not the right to life is considered to be UNALIENABLE FOR ALL, is the KEY QUESTION that will determine the fate of the pro-life movement, the survival of our form of government, and whether or not America will continue to be the home of the free.

But the Constitution says nothing about murder--bank rape--assault etc etc --they are all crimes defined in state laws

After JFK was shot they made it a federal crime to murder a federal figure since Lee Harvey Oswald was going to be tried in Texas

[freekitty]

Mine too.

[Jacob Kell]

Keyes is right about much of the article; however, it seems that because Sarah differs from him in how to deal with the abortion problem, he dismisses her as “pro choice”. Basically, it seems as if he’s a perfectionist who isn’t satisfied with “good enough”.

[Logical me]

She says it should be up to the states to outlaw ‘murder’. States rights are more important than the right to life?

So, shall we just trash the Constitution and say the States have no rights and that total control is Washington? I do not like taking any life, but I realize that it is the right of each State to decide. And there is a difference between murder and execution. I know a few that I would be willing to pull the trigger on their ass and send them to hell. And as a vet in a bloody war I know how.

[dirtboy]

To back peddle the abomination of Roe to the "states right's" issue is granting a legitimacy to killing the innocent that never existed prior to 1973.

That is not correct. Abortion was legal in New York prior to Roe, for example.

But beyond that, we have to look at what can be achieved when and how. To create a federal amendment outlawing abortion would take 2/3rds of the Senate and 3/4s of the state legislatures - and please show us how that threshhold can be reached anytime soon. But if Roe is overturned, many states would quickly outlaw abortion within their borders.

Is that perfect? No. But is is doable, and would save at least half of the children aborted nowadway while public opinion shifts to the level of a consensus that can cross the amendment threshhold.

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good - a lot of lives can be saved with the federalist argument sooner than by waiting for the perfect solution later, and the federalist approach can be the means to reach something better later.

[Kansas58]

NONSENSE!

Do you think that the Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton decisions were wrong?

Well, if those decisions had NOT been made, abortion would be a STATES RIGHTS issue!

So, shut the heck up about Roe V. Wade, or admit that Sarah is RIGHT on this one!

Politics is the art of the possible.

The 3rd Party idiots think politics is a way to get to Heaven.

The 3rd Party idiots also seem to think that their chances of getting to political “Heaven” increase every time they damn someone else to political Hell.

When a cop comes to rescue me from a mugging, I do not care if he is pure in all his thoughts and actions.

When a firefighter comes to put out the fire in my burning house, I do not care if he allows for exceptions in the Republican prolife platform.

You “holier than thou” types are ridiculous.

[browardchad]

What you said about what he said.

[McGruff]

I'm surprised you don't just call us racist for daring to criticize Alan Keyes.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

again,,

I say..

You are just a pathetic Palin hating bonehead.

[deport]

You “holier than thou” types are ridiculous.

---

That may well be true. But when mixing politics and religion one is always stomping on someone else’s toes, imo.

[Kansas58]

You are, simply WRONG!

The STATES handle laws concerning murder, homicide, manslaughter, etc.

Why not abortion?

Yes, the Feds have their claws in every aspect of our lives, but State medical licences, etc., are still under the control of the various states. Sanctions which impact those licenses should, likewise, be handled at the State level.

If we are to outlaw abortion, do we allow for exceptions?

What if NO exceptions means that no law can pass?

Do not forget that, should one member of a jury think that a 14 year old who was raped by her brother, is in the 1st Trimester, and has been diagnosed with cervical tumors, thinks an abortion SHOULD be allowed, that jury member has the absolute right to refuse to convict the prosecutor, the doctor or the mother and family involved.

Get off of your moral high-horses.

I am prolife.

However, I realize that any laws we pass MUST have political support, or those laws will be ignored.

Alan Keyes is a crack-pot kook who does not want progress on the prolife issue.

Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are race hustlers, who do not want real progress on race relations.

Alan Keyes is a prolife hustler, taking advantage of the naive in order to keep his face in the spotlight.

[9YearLurker]

Great post, Kansas58, and one that the likes of whatisthetruth could learn from.

[Kansas58]

There WERE “States Rights” issues involved with slavery, study your history!

The Dred Scott decision and the “Fugitive Slave Law” trampled on the RIGHTS of free-soilers and Anti-Slavery States.

Much of the cause of the Civil War was due to Southern Slave States not respecting the rights of the anti-Slave States.

Again, get off of your moral high horses.

I suggest the Serenity Prayers.

What you want is not possible.

So, where do we go from here?

[frogjerk]

One thing I don't understand is that the men in black, by judicial fiat, can create an abortion on demand law of the land, but to reverse it, we need to go thru all of these 3/4rs this and 2/3rds that hoops, to get us back to where we were.

And in NY are you talking about the law passed in 1970?

[frogjerk]

Get off of your moral high-horses.

This is a very dumb statement.

[whatisthetruth]

On a personal level Palin is pro-life, on a public policy level she appears to be pro-choice. The only difference she calls herself pro-life whereas others with this position may call themselves pro-choice. But would she say that it was a state's issue as far as slavery was concerned?

The question should be do you believe abortion is murder, and then take it from there, if one believes it's murder, then how can you justify a state's right to legalize murder?

That would not resolve the issue of abortion anyway because anyone desiring one could simply travel to whatever state that's offering them?

[Batrachian]

"Can you show me where in the Constitution a bunch of black-robed legal hacks, responsible to no one and entrenched for life, are allowed to make law?"

Can you really be this naive? A judicial ruling has the force of law and always has (or at least since 1803). That is not open to debate. None of us like abortion or Roe V. Wade but is a judicial ruling from the Supreme Court and therefore is, in effect, the law of the land. That doesn't mean that we don't try to fight it somehow, but we can't ignore it like an elephant in the room as you seem to want to do.

You can read the Constitution yourself and no doubt have done so, but that doesn't change the reality on the ground. Judicial decisions have the force of law and are de facto law. Even if you hate that fact with every fiber of your being and spend every waking hour wishing it where different, it's not. I can cite many decisions that we hate, such as Kelo, but they do still have the force of law. Standing on constitutionality, which nowadays has a different meaning than you seem to think, doesn't change that.

[Just A Nobody]

ignoring certain basic truths, first and foremost being that the pro life cause was defeated in 1973 with Roe V. Wade, which grants an almost absolute legal right to an abortion. That is now the law of the land...
Furthermore, the only way to reverse this problem is to overturn Roe V. Wade and get back to the point where it was a state's rights issue, then work from there.

Your statement is not altogether true.
Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.

What SCOTUS said was:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Man's knowledge has come a long way baby!
8 week unborn child

They continued:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

The Life at Conception Act Follows the High Court's Instructions To Define When Life Begins.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate.
It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.

[Just A Nobody]

ignoring certain basic truths, first and foremost being that the pro life cause was defeated in 1973 with Roe V. Wade, which grants an almost absolute legal right to an abortion. That is now the law of the land...
Furthermore, the only way to reverse this problem is to overturn Roe V. Wade and get back to the point where it was a state's rights issue, then work from there.

Your statement is not altogether true.
Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.

What SCOTUS said was:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Man's knowledge has come a long way baby!
8 week unborn child

They continued:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

The Life at Conception Act Follows the High Court's Instructions To Define When Life Begins.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate.
It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.

[Kansas58]

Actually, my comment is right on the money.

What is your objective?

If you only want to damn those who disagree with you to Hell, well I guess you have met your objective.

If you wish to elect friendly politicians to office who will vote to advance the prolife cause with legislation that the public will support and with laws that jurors and courts will uphold?

Well, you folks really suck at that!