Posted on 06/18/2011 11:27:57 AM PDT by Lou Budvis
I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother....
--- As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Do you have a link to that interview? I ask because he was unequivocal in this interview on CNN:
I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother....
and baby’s sex, mother’s disposition, father’s income, etc. There is no exception -a baby is a living being; abortion is murder.
-— As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.
And hospitals did just fine without federal funding - and the attendant regulations - for 200 years. STOP THE SPENDING NOW!
Romney is NOT a man of his word. He will say anything and take any position as long as it advances his career.
Not being a father yet myself, I ask the same question all the time, FRiend. It’s difficult to know without having been through childbirth. I pray it never comes to having to make that decision.
Some “pro-lifers” here on FR think anyone who wouldn’t bomb clinics or kill abortion clinic staff are squishy and not truly pro-life.
BS litmus tests like this are the enemy of good because they allow the extremists to define the issues and control the agenda.
Do you oppose birth control? Condoms, medication, diaphragms, etc?
I ask because there are those that consider birth control a sin as they do abortion.
At what point to the .01%ers stop alienating the 95%ers by calling them names?
In our system, .01% won’t get much done legally; typically it takes about 51%.
Thank goodness God doesn’t require absolute pureness from us!
Sorry to disagree and this is not meant to “flame you”. With today’s medical technology it’s a non issue. Sacrificing one to save the other is virtually unheard of in our country. The woman’s “right to choose” folks hide behind “life of the mother” to justify taking the life of their unborn child for convenience.
I totally agree.
I CAN NOT accept abortion for convenience.
I love life, and would give mine in trade for another.
It's been said that you can't legistrate morality. While this is "partially true" Like many things, it doesn't tell the whole story. I pray that more people would be more honest in the positions they advocate. We live in a world where the ability to rationalize, not only our own behavior, but the behavior of others (for a fee, many times,) gives us an "OUT".
. A pass on passing judgment..
My own bad behavior (within established laws), as well as that of others, should not be judged by man, will be judged by God..
This is the issue..
"Bungle in the jungle".
by: Ian Anderson..
Walking through forests of palm tree apartments ---
scoff at the monkeys who live in their dark tents
down by the waterhole --- drunk every Friday
eating their nuts --- saving their raisins for Sunday.
Lions and tigers who wait in the shadows
they're fast but they're lazy, and sleep in green meadows.
Let's bungle in the jungle ---
well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.
Just say a word and the boys will be right there:
with claws at your back to send a chill through the night air.
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.
Let's bungle in the jungle ---
well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.
The rivers are full of crocodile nasties
and He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns ---
yes, the King on His sunset lies waiting for dawn
to light up His Jungle
as play is resumed.
The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QxPIOj374
PLEASE, LISTEN TO THE SONG.
I'm trying to exposed the problem.
I know only my solution.
I just pray I'm not alone.
hellbender wrote:
Presidents propose legislation all the time. They campaign on behalf of measures they like. Cain is one of the candidates who is actually not a lawyer (thank goodness), but he is talking like one here. Just a little too cute.
Precisely. I wasn't impressed with Cain's answer, and I think he might actually clarify his position a bit better. From his answer to that, we could expect that President Herman Cain:
From what I know of Herman Cain, he won't take that position, and if he made a mistake in his explanation, he'll own up to it and issue a restatement/correction.
Having said all that, The SBA List Pro-Life pledge is somewhat self-contradictory and inconsistent. I would not have signed it either.
Here is the problem. Item one of that pledge favors committment "to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution." I'm all for that. But it can be a tough standard to live up to. They fail with the fourth item. First, let's agree that Madison did not believe (or intend) for the "General welfare clause" to convey any power to the Congress. He wrote about this in Federalist #41 and in other places. For example, he is credited with this quote:
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
So, can you (or anyone) please explain which of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution would give the Congress the authority to pass a “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” Don’t get me wrong, I would support a law like that in my own state. Actually, I would support that as a state law in all 50 of these United States. But I would not favor the United States Congress making such a law. And I question why any Presidential candidate would say that they would sign such an act into law.
Choose betweeen my wife and her unborn baby?
Try to imagine a single circumstance in which that choice would be required.
At 6 months the baby could have survived. My daughter is pregnant. She is facing some of the same challenges. She has made it absolutely clear that she will forego her well being for the life of the child. I honor her for her moral courage.
My prayers are with you and your Daughter.
Well, how about by calling it "regulating interstate commerce?" Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic, but as that phrase is construed today, it covers anything the pols and Feds want to do. We are so far from sticking to the enumerated powers that using legal niceties to kill pro-life laws seems a little silly.
[Incidentally, I am not one of those who thinks the Constitution is perfect and came down from heaven on stone tablets. That idiotic "general welfare" clause should never have been included, nor the "interstate commerce" one either. They were far too vague and the consequences were predictable, as Madison should have known.]
We are in this mess because the SCOTUS conjured up a right for one class of people (fertile women) to kill another (unborn babies). There is no basis for that under the Constitution either.
Getting the Federal govt. completely out of the health care business would go a long way toward curbing abortion and restoring Constitutional govt., but conservatives like Bachmann merely call for "letting the states spend their Federal 'aid' as they choose."
When I think of someones life being threatened I think of their body. NOT their mental health. the “life of the mother” loophole is large enough to drive a mac truck through as others have pointed out.
On the federal level it’s all a moot point anyways. Get rid of roe vs wade and let the states figure it out on their own.
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.