Skip to comments.Palin: Obama Trying to Pretty Up Extreme Abortion Record
Posted on 10/20/2008 9:25:20 AM PDT by julieee
Washington, DC -- In a weekend interview, Alaska governor and John McCain running mate Sarah Palin again highlighted Barack Obama's abortion views. Palin accused Obama of trying to "pretty up" his record during the presidential debate last week even though he supports unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy.
(Excerpt) Read more at LifeNews.com ...
Downtown Womens Government Clinic
Dr. Moloch Mengele, M.D.
Board Certified Ob/Gyn/BabyKiller
No fetus too big or too small !!!
Caring friendly staff (sure, were friendly.)
Knowledgeable manipulative persuasive counselors
(you dont want to be punished with a babyDO YOU!)
I don’t mean to imply you don’t know the Declaration, nor that you said it was wrong. This being a public discussion, my arguments have been rather broad. So please pardon me if I’m disputing positions you don’t hold. The aim of my posts has not been to attack you at all.
My fundamental point is neither a recommendation for revolution, nor a recommendation for following the Constitution. Rather, my point is that, when people are being slaughtered in this country, something has gone terribly wrong and desperately needs to be corrected. I have no doubt you will agree with that.
So what has gone wrong? And how can it be corrected? Babies are still being butchered with impunity, and there’s no end in sight. Nor are we even able to say, as Lincoln could regarding slavery, that abortion “is in the course of ultimate extinction.” Nothing has worked. Nothing is working. None of the “pro-life” actions of Pres. Bush have worked.
Is it the Constitution which has failed us? If so, it needs overthrowing.
Or is it that we have failed to follow the Constitution? If so, how so? And how do we correct our course?
It’s not that I “waver between chucking the republic and defending the republic.” I’ve argued from both angles in order to demonstrate that, in either case, the aim remains the same: protecting the right to life. No matter which side one takes, the aim is the same.
You wanna work within the Constitution’s restrictions? Fine. Stop the slaughter.
You wanna stretch the limits of (and even ignore parts of) the Constitution? Fine. Stop the slaughter.
It can be done either way. For the sticklers, I’ve offered reasons why the President can act on existing law. And for the not-so-rigid, their justification is found in God’s Natural Law and the Declaration.
(For the more draconian, who might wish to throw over the Constitution altogether, their justification can also be found in the Natural Law and the Declaration - the same sources to which the American revolutionaries and Lincoln appealed.)
(Nor is following the Constitution any worthy endeavor in itself - no more or less worthy than being a faithful subject of King George III. Fidelity to a form of government which fails to perform the duty of government is no laudable act.)
But make your own choice, my FRiend. Pick a position, any position. If our aim is to protect the right to life, there is a way to do it.
I’ve made my argument as best I can, but perhaps it hasn’t been persuasive enough. And I don’t want to strain your patience, so we can drop the subject whenever you’d like. Thank you for the honest discussion and the good points you’ve made. I look forward to your reply. :-)
Not a problem. I have simply been responding where I see the discussion leading. I appreciate that you have accepted my bluntness without taking offense. It is actually a breath of fresh air to take a strong position and level some pointed criticisms without receiving a "you so and so" reply full of insults, accusations and veiled threats. Or the equally discussion killing absolute "you're a baby-killing minion of the devil you just don't know it."
Replying to your points has been frustrating to me. I don't see that as a reason to drop out or lose my cool. It must be as much a reflection of my ability (or inability) to express my thoughts as it is a reflection of yours so where would my gripe be? As long as there is an attempt to exchange ideas it is a much higher level of communication than flaming.
My fundamental point is neither a recommendation for revolution, nor a recommendation for following the Constitution.
Therein lies some of my frustration in replying. What you're saying is a reflection of your frustration with the situation. I understand that frustration but I'm looking for a suggestion of a substantive path to take. That is where I see wavering in your position or else the desire to have your cake and eat it too. I don't see a middle ground between upholding the Constitution and bypassing it.
Rather, my point is that, when people are being slaughtered in this country, something has gone terribly wrong and desperately needs to be corrected. I have no doubt you will agree with that.
I agree that the situation should be corrected. I disagree that things have "gone terribly wrong." I think the attitude and beliefs about pre-natal life have been wrong and confused long before America was a nation. Just as slavery was.
And how can it be corrected?
That is indeed the question.
Nor are we even able to say, as Lincoln could regarding slavery, that abortion is in the course of ultimate extinction. Nothing has worked. Nothing is working. None of the pro-life actions of Pres. Bush have worked.
I completely disagree with that on all counts. By all measures abortion is a concept that is "in the course of ultimate extinction." A far smaller percentage of people consider it acceptable than did forty years ago. Legislation has been and is being introduced in several states that greatly strengthen the Pro-Life position. The President has lobbied for and signed federal legislation that strengthens the Pro-Life position. The Pro-Life movement has done nothing but grow stronger since its inception post-Roe v Wade. Slavery wasn't overturned by the stroke of a pen, nor could it have been, and neither will abortion. It is not a test of the will and character of one politician or politicians in general. It is a test of the will and character of the nation as a whole. IMO.
Is it the Constitution which has failed us?
Not IMO. It is us who fail the Constitution. The Constitution does not set everything right by its mere existence. It is not a divine and mystical instrument of God that has magical powers emanating from it making things perfect. It is a framework of law for a government intended to make it easier for men to live the principles expressed in the DoI. Which is another document that is only the distilled views of the men who wrote it regardless of the inspirational source of those views. It is not law, it is not the Bible and it wasn't intended to be the Divine Word of God. It took a fair amount of time, effort, sacrifice and suffering for the culture of the nation to change enough to end slavery. But it was the structure of the Constitution that made it possible. It was the principles of the DoI growing in the minds of Americans as our guiding principles that led to enough of a cultural change to purge the inconsistency of slavery from secular law. At a great cost and an extreme risk of losing it all. Constitution, DoI and nation itself. Where would the secular ascension and protection of individual rights be had that happened? Those concepts of liberty and freedom, embodied in secular law, arose here and only here under the guidance of the DoI and the unifying framework of the Constitution.
And how do we correct our course?
Good question. IMO we don't correct the course, we stay the course. You are a conservative aren't you? You are a strict constructionist of the Constitution aren't you? (maybe not but for sake of argument) We, conservatives, stay the course, no matter what, and work to bring more citizens into the fold of Constitution loving Americans. Ronald Reagan said something about America being a constant process. I see that and believe that. As with all things, like climate, the process of becoming America has cycles. Sometimes the grand vision of "America" is up, bright, vibrant and clear, and sometimes it is down and muddied with confusion and doubt. But it isn't dead yet and I won't give it up for dead without a fight nor will I participate in killing it because the process is too slow or messy for my liking. The DoI and/or the Constitution contain no promise that I should see the full fruition of their vision in my lifetime. Neither I nor my generation as a whole are that important. Why should we be? What about all the generations of Americans that came before us? Is the country a complete failure because none of them saw complete and perfect justice for all in their lifetimes? Got a better country somewhere? Got a better government system? Quit holding out on us then. ;^)
Its not that I waver between chucking the republic and defending the republic. Ive argued from both angles in order to demonstrate that, in either case, the aim remains the same: protecting the right to life. No matter which side one takes, the aim is the same.
Yes, but it seems to me that in both cases you argue to a conclusion of gloom and doom and settle on neither as an answer. When Jesus comes we may have perfection in this world but until then...
...our only justice will be provided by just us. Ballots are better than bullets and until the ballot box is overthrown we should stick to ballots. Keep your powder dry ... it might not be too long. But it isn't now IMO. Your assessment may differ from mine and more power to you if you're ready to lead the revolution.
It can be done either way. For the sticklers, Ive offered reasons why the President can act on existing law.
You have offered the "why" (which I agree with) but not the "how." EO? Martial law? Shut down Congress? Indict SCOTUS? I would prefer to hear a Constitutional action as opposed to an extra-Constitutional one.
(Nor is following the Constitution any worthy endeavor in itself -... Fidelity to a form of government which fails to perform the duty of government is no laudable act.)
The failure you speak of is political failure not a failure of the Constitution so I again disagree that following the Constitution isn't worthy. We the people are the sovereigns in this nation per the Constitution. If politicians have failed it is because WE have failed. The buck doesn't stop with the politicians or the Constitution. It stops with us. That is the part of our founding principles that is hard to face. WE are responsible for the actions of this nation. WE are to blame for not following and living up to the principles of our founding. WE need to look at ourselves a lot harder before putting the blame on the principles of the DoI or the structure of the Constitution.
At the same time have a little compassion for humanity and realize that WE are not going to all get it together on one bright Monday morning in some communal awakening of conscience.
(It would be nice if we all got it together on an upcoming Tuesday morning...but that's not going to happen either. lol Let's just hope it's at least a slight majority.)
But make your own choice, my FRiend. Pick a position, any position. If our aim is to protect the right to life, there is a way to do it.
I have made my choices my position is firm and it never wavers. What is your way to do it?
Ive made my argument as best I can, but perhaps it hasnt been persuasive enough. And I dont want to strain your patience, so we can drop the subject whenever youd like. Thank you for the honest discussion and the good points youve made. I look forward to your reply.
Thank you! For me your argument is not specific enough. But we have probably both exhausted our arguments to the best of our abilities at this time. My patience isn't strained but my intellect is probably stretched to its limit. For now. ;-)
We've had a good and honest discussion and I hope you find some benefit from it. I have. I always look for the benefit I can get from engaging on this forum and your mature attitude towards debate has made that an easy task. The fact that you challenged me to work at making my case is not an irritation but a blessing that I should not be lazy or callous in my views. I'll just end with the thought that we all face difficult decisions about what we should do and how we should do it. What we can accept and work with and what we should summarily reject. As human beings we're just stuck with that. :-)
This is my usual patented post, my contribution to the Pro-Life position, that I often paste on threads about abortion. FWIW.
Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)
The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.
Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
So how many womens lives have been saved by abortion?
Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be due to a risk to maternal health. A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But lets say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.
There are two problems.
1. Supreme Court Justices
2. Freedom of Choice Act
And actually, with Bush as president, abortion rates HAVE declined (even with Clinton they declined thanks to state legislation). They haven’t ended, but some people have stopped killing their children. With problem number 2, the Freedom of Choice Act, federal funding will be used to pay for abortions for poor women, they can do away with all of the “pro-life” legislation that’s had an impact on bringing abortion rates down like parental consent, waiting periods, and informed consent, and it would prevent any progress.
I’m not confident that McCain would make things better. But I am sure that Obama will make things worse.
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.