Mike Huckabee: Abortion Most Important Political Issue

[irishpatrick]

Americans are fools. For thirty years Christians have warned of the consequences that abortion would bring. We are reaping what we sowed.

THIS NATION DOES NOT DESERVE PROSPERITY! We legally slaughter 1.3 million of God’s babies every year–in the USA alone. We cannot control what other nations do, but we sure can control what happens in the USA and shame on everyone for allowing this terrible practice to continue.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said that the fruit of abortion is nuclear war. Does it not look as if we are heading in that exact direction?

Yet, the fools populating the USA will NOT wake-up. How any person can think killing an innocent baby (on purpose) is somehow a moral choice is beyond my understanding. Abortion is the most evil practice humanity has ever invented.

We will not have peace, and we will not have prosperity, and we will not have joy until we have rid our land of legal abortion. With each passing year we go farther from God’s blessings, not closer.

 

[irishpatrick]

The Governor is getting beat up over this, so I’ll lend him support. It is a political issue, and certainly the most important for large numbers of Americans!

Whether or not it is important enough to dominate the '12 election is still problematic.

Imagine if Hitler’s Holocaust was happening right now and we knew about it. Would that then rise to be the most important politcal issue for “12” in your view?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Imagine if Hitler’s Holocaust was happening right now and we knew about it. Would that then rise to be the most important politcal issue for “12” in your view?

I knew Hitler’s name had to come up sooner or later!

For Americans, I’d say no; for Germans, yes. We have no obligation to interfere in other countries’ affairs.

 

[tandrew]

During an appearance at a pro-life fundraising event on Monday night, pro-life potential Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee confirmed that, for him, abortion is the most important political issue.

“For me this is an issue that — as I’ve said before — it transcends all of the political issues,” he said. “I’ve often said I would gladly lose an election before I would ever yield on the issue of the sanctity of human life.”

lifenews.com/2011/02/15/mike-huckabee-abortion-most-important-political-issue/

Human life is an important issue and a moral issue. Moralit cannot be legislated which is the point of the New Testament. Roe vs. Wade I was against on the moral grounds that a all pregnancies should be cherished. But if it had passed it wouldhave set a precedent that the government should have the right to tell someone what to do with their body. Legaly it could be forced upon a woman to have an abortion under such a precedent. Love cannot be legislated through law. To believe so is to deny God exists as the light of man.

 

[irishpatrick]

I knew Hitler’s name had to come up sooner or later!

For Americans, I’d say no; for Germans, yes. We have no obligation to interfere in other countries’ affairs.

Regarding abortion, using the name “Hitler” is the most apt analogy available. I do agree that in nearly all other cases the name “Hitler” is overused and often misused.

Really? You would not think the ongoing slaughter of six milion Jews would rise to the level of being the most important issue for the USA? What level of complete and utter immorality do you envision for the USA? Or have I misunderstood you?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Really? You would not think the ongoing slaughter of six milion Jews would rise to the level of being the most important issue for the USA?

Not at all. There have been horrors in the 20th Century such as the murder of millions of Armenians, the starvation of the Ukrainians by Stalin, the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese, the Cambodian atrocities as well as those in Rwanda; and Mao killed millions of Chinese. Each time there has been concern by America for the victims, but in none of those cases did the U.S. consider it important enough for the U.S. to take action by sending troops to take on the aggressors. Why? It wasn’t ours to fight as far as I’m concerned. Ipso facto, those happenings never rose to be the most important issue for the U.S.

What level of complete and utter immorality do you envision for the USA? Or have I misunderstood you?

We go to war for things like that when they directly affect us or our interests. Otherwise, we’d be sending in the Marines every time some monster does evil. We aren’t the world’s policeman. Sorry.

 

[irishpatrick]

Not at all. There have been horrors in the 20th Century such as the murder of millions of Armenians, the starvation of the Ukrainians by Stalin, the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese, the Cambodian atrocities as well as those in Rwanda; and Mao killed millions of Chinese. Each time there has been concern by America for the victims, but in none of those cases did the U.S. consider it important enough for the U.S. to take action by sending troops to take on the aggressors. Why? It wasn’t ours to fight as far as I’m concerned. Ipso facto, those happenings never rose to be the most important issue for the U.S.

==> So, in essence, you are saying the wholesale slaughter of six million Jews, even if we knew what was going on right before our own eyes, would not rise to the most important issue for the USA? Okay, I disagree (obviously), and if you are correct, then we are much sicker nation than I even thought.

We go to war for things like that when they directly affect us or our interests. Otherwise, we’d be sending in the Marines every time some monster does evil. We aren’t the world’s policeman. Sorry.

**==> You are conducting a typical bait-and-switch and I will NOT let that escape notice here. Your other examples have no play here because I gave one very specific analogy, one very specific challenge and you have now made it clear that saving would six million Jews from incredible (and sometimes tortuous) death is something that would be placed somewhere down your list of priorities to stop…yet certainly those Jews would NOT raise your interest enough to make them a real priority to save.

It is no wonder millions die to abortion!!!**

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

**==> You are conducting a typical bait-and-switch and I will NOT let that escape notice here. Your other examples have no play here because I gave one very specific analogy, one very specific challenge and you have now made it clear that saving would six million Jews from incredible (and sometimes tortuous) death is something that would be placed somewhere down your list of priorities to stop…yet certainly those Jews would NOT raise your interest enough to make them a real priority to save.

It is no wonder millions die to abortion!!!**

Why the Jews? Is the death of millions of Ukrainians by starvation not equally an evil to be resisted? Are those other atrocities not as horrible as the example you gave?

My basic reason is this: I am not of the neo-conservative mentality. I do not believe that we are to be the world’s policeman and to go to war every place there is injustice so as to mold the world to our own image.

 

[grampben]

So Rich what are your opinions on foreign aid?

 

[irishpatrick]

Why the Jews? Is the death of millions of Ukrainians by starvation not equally an evil to be resisted? Are those other atrocities not as horrible as the example you gave?

My basic reason is this: I am not of the neo-conservative mentality. I do not believe that we are to be the world’s policeman and to go to war every place there is injustice so as to mold the world to our own image.

Cease with the policeman remarks, you are using that to demean the views of people you disagree with. You know–but you avoid this–what I am saying.

If we knew that six million Jews were being killed in the camps right NOW, would that pique your interest, or would you just keep only worrying about yourself? Now, moving beyond just you, should such a piece of knowledge (the ongoing mass murder of the Jews) rise to the level of being a top political priority for the USA (it is really a yes or no answer)?

This is not about other mass murders or other examples of genocide…stop using bait-and-switch, I simply will not fall for that tactic. When we as a people are fully aware of such heinous acts going on anywhere in the world, then we should help stop those acts and when we do not give any effort to help, then we are acting in a seriously immoral way–imo.

Again, if your view reflects the majority, then there is no wonder at all why 1.3 murdered babies each year means nothing to the USA as a whole.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If we knew that six million Jews were being killed in the camps right NOW, would that pique your interest, or would you just keep only worrying about yourself?

Yes, it would pique my interest, just as any other tale of atrocities would, such as in Cambodia as a comparable recent event.

Now, moving beyond just you, should such a piece of knowledge (the ongoing mass murder of the Jews) rise to the level of being a top political priority for the USA (it is really a yes or no answer)?

No, it would not. I wouldn’t go to war over that.

This is not about other mass murders or other examp[les of genocide…stop using bait-and-switch, I simply will not fall for that tactic. When we as a people are fully aware of such heinous acts going on anywhere in the world, then we should help stop those acts and when we do not give any effort to help, then we are acting in a seriously immoral way–imo.

Yours is the neo-conservative point of view about intervention in the policies of those of a foreign country, and is a valid point of view, but one I don’t accept.

Again, if your view reflects the majority, then there is no wonder at all why 1.3 murdered babies each year means nothing to the USA as a whole.

The United States fought WWII to defeat Hitler, not to save the Jews. Before and at the beginning of the war, the United States and Canada did very, very little about offering asylum to the Jews of Europe. That was the majority opinion - the majority did not consider that a national priority.
[/quote]

 

[irishpatrick]

This is the problem that Rich, and now you, are creating. I simply made one specific challenge or analogy, not one hundred. I made that challenge as a means to drive home a point, it was not meant to open a discussion about what the USA should have done in a zillion other cases, and to open that is simply a bait-and-switch ploy (which I am sure you know and are also intentionally doing).

Further, if you read one of my lasts posts, I also made it clear that when the USA actually knows of such ongoing heinous acts, we should help in every case, and that if we do not we are acting in an immoral way–imo.

Now, getting beyond the obvious bait-and-switch, the point here is that if we as a people are so cold and immoral that we would not make stopping the Holocaust a real priority, then it is no surprise at all that the modern (and much worse) holocaust of legal abortion is not seen as something bad at all by a large swatch of USA citizens. We have a small holocaust in our country every single day and we look the other way. So, people who condemn the Jewish holocaust, are hypocrites if they do not as strongly codemn the holocaust againt the innocent unborn babies being slaughtered every day! If people say we should help starving people across the world, yet never say a word about those slaughtered babies, they are being hypocritical. And so on…

 

[Nordar]

This is the problem that Rich, and now you, are creating. I simply made one specific challenge or analogy, not one hundred. I made that challenge as a means to drive home a point, it was not meant to open a discussion about what the USA should have done in a zillion other cases, and to open that is simply a bait-and-switch ploy (which I am sure you know and are also intentionally doing).

Further, if you read one of my lasts posts, I also made it clear that when the USA actually knows of such ongoing heinous acts, we should help in every case, and that if we do not we are acting in an immoral way–imo.

Now, getting beyond the obvious bait-and-switch, the point here is that if we as a people are so cold and immoral that we would not make stopping the Holocaust a real priority, then it is no surprise at all that the modern (and much worse) holocaust of legal abortion is not seen as something bad at all by a large swatch of USA citizens. We have a small holocaust in our country every single day and we look the other way. So, people who condemn the Jewish holocaust, are hypocrites if they do not as strongly codemn the holocaust againt the innocent unborn babies being slaughtered every day! If people say we should help starving people across the world, yet never say a word about those slaughtered babies, they are being hypocritical. And so on…

 

[irishpatrick]

No, it would not. I wouldn’t go to war over that.

Okay, so we have clarity on where we each stand. You would look the other way as six million Jews were killed, while I would intervene to help.

Your view is the very reason 3,000-4,000 babies are killed each day through legal abortion. People look the other way and say to themselves, “It is not my business.”

So there we have it, a clear distinction of where we each stand. Thank you for your honesty.

 

[irishpatrick]

Thank you.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Further, if you read one of my lasts posts, I also made it clear that when the USA actually knows of such ongoing heinous acts, we should help in every case, and that if we do not we are acting in an immoral way–imo.

You are consistent with the neo-conservative view of the world, and I’m not crticizing you for it. I only said that I’m not an interventionist.

if we as a people are so cold and immoral that we would not make stopping the Holocaust a real priority

You are critical of the US policy and priorities of World War II, then. Again, consistent with your point of view, and I’ll not condemn you for taking that position.

So, people who condemn the Jewish holocaust, are hypocrites if they do not as strongly codemn the holocaust againt the innocent unborn babies being slaughtered every day! If people say we should help starving people across the world, yet never say a word about those slaughtered babies, they are being hypocritical. And so on…

Hypocritical in your eyes, okay. You are tieing abortion to everything. I don’t. Sometimes people give money to the Near East Missions, e.g., without feeling that they also have to give to National Pro-Life.

 

[estesbob]

==> You are conducting a typical bait-and-switch and I will NOT let that escape notice here. Your other examples have no play here because I gave one very specific analogy, one very specific challenge and you have now made it clear that saving would six million Jews from incredible (and sometimes tortuous) death is something that would be placed somewhere down your list of priorities to stop…yet certainly those Jews would NOT raise your interest enough to make them a real priority to save.

It is no wonder millions die to abortion!!!

When one is Catholic and Democrat changing the subject is often the only option available when asked to reconcile their politics with their faith

 

[estesbob]

The difference ,of course, is there is not a death camp down the street from me but there is a Planned Parenthood “clinic”. But rather than get sidetracked lets go back to the topic at hand-that is where abortion fits in the hierarchies of the issues facing this country.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

When one is Catholic and Democrat changing the subject is often the only option available when asked to reconcile their politics with their faith

If the topic is Jews facing the death camps, one doesn’t have to be Catholic and Democrat to be an interventionist or, on the other hand, to reject intervention as a national policy

You are free to want to tie abortion to everything, but it was irishpatrick who brought up the subject of the Jews in this thread.

 

[Nordar]

When one is Catholic and Democrat changing the subject is often the only option available when asked to reconcile their politics with their faith

Exactly!