Palin Takes Obama to Task for Stance on Abortion

[elts1956]

“****” Hmmm. I thought “tripe” has five *****s.

Can you think of a word that has only four letters, begins with c and ends with p?

Sounds like this thread is getting into a political squabble. I’m glad Mrs. Palin has the sand to speak her mind, let alone to walk the talk.

I agree. Don’t know if she would be the right choice, but she certainly is a better Pro Life Choice than the previous two i*****ts we had.

 

[covakid]

I’m sorry, but I can’t vote for any politician based on a single issue. History has shown us that a politician will pay lip service to a controversial issue (abortion), but never do anything substantive about it.

When we’re talking about abortion, should we be single-issue voters?

Well, let me ask you this. Would you vote for a candidate who had been convicted of a brutal assault rape, convicted of child abuse? How about someone convicted of stealing money while in office?

If you answered “No”, it’s undoubtedly because their crimes have disqualified them from holding public office. And so it is with abortion. If a candidate is willing to allow the continued killing of almost every third baby conceived in America, and even wants you to pay for it, do you think you should vote from him or her?

Haven’t those candidates, in fact, disqualified themselves from holding public office? I’d like you to think about that. – Dr. John Willke. Life Jewel

 

[stormcloud]

Cova,

Based on your premise, should a politician who allowed her teenage daughter’s boyfriend to cohabitate with them be disqualified?

You can play this game with every single politician(at least in every one in the last 50+ years) who’s run for the White House.

If you cast your vote based on a single issue, you’re going to get it wrong on a whole host of other important issues.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m wholeheartedly against abortion, it’s nothing short of murder (whether you’re looking at it from a religious perspective or a medical/biological/constitutional perspective), but it cannot be the only issue you cast your vote on.

Let me ask you this; how many innocent people(including children) died because of the war in Iraq? How many innocent people were imprisoned, tortured, and denied an opportunity to prove their innocence? These are crimes against God as well, and they were done because of the policies of a pro-life President. This same President was also the governor of a state that enforces the death penalty more than any other state in the union. According to the Church the death penalty is only permissible when there is no other alternative, and since there are other ways to protect society from murderers, the Church is opposed to the death penalty in the US.

 

[RichT]

Cova,

Based on your premise, should a politician who allowed her teenage daughter’s boyfriend to cohabitate with them be disqualified?

You can play this game with every single politician(at least in every one in the last 50+ years) who’s run for the White House.

If you cast your vote based on a single issue, you’re going to get it wrong on a whole host of other important issues.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m wholeheartedly against abortion, it’s nothing short of murder (whether you’re looking at it from a religious perspective or a medical/biological/constitutional perspective), but it cannot be the only issue you cast your vote on.

Let me ask you this; how many innocent people(including children) died because of the war in Iraq? How many innocent people were imprisoned, tortured, and denied an opportunity to prove their innocence? These are crimes against God as well, and they were done because of the policies of a pro-life President. This same President was also the governor of a state that enforces the death penalty more than any other state in the union. According to the Church the death penalty is only permissible when there is no other alternative, and since there are other ways to protect society from murderers, the Church is opposed to the death penalty in the US.

The problem with your argument is that you are forgetting to take into account how vocal our church was leading up to the last election. No, a Catholic should not be a single issue voter. The exception to that rule according the the Faithful Citizen document is when one candidate is pro-life, and the other is pro-choice. The document says that we should put abortion at the top of the list, and we should not vote for any candidate who is pro-choice. It goes further to say that if all of the candidates are pro-choice, then we must look at the other issues and choose the candidate that falls the closest to church teaching.

Yes, the other issues are important, but the issue of abortion takes a priority over the other issues. I am not happy with the war in Iraq either, but it fails in comparison to abortion. In the United States alone, abortion murders over 4000 unborn children on a daily basis. The Iraq war has caused the death of some 4000 soldiers.

As I said earlier, we as Catholics need to be obedient to our church. We can not allow ourselves to be distracted and we must come together and remove the wedge that has broken our church here in America. If you think for one minute that the left is going to have us all holding hands singing Kumbaya, you better think again. They would like nothing better than to see the total destruction of the Catholic church, along with many other churches here in America.

The last thing we Pro-Lifers need is to do battle with people from our own church.

 

[stormcloud]

1. Yes the abortion issue belongs at the top of the list, but that doesn’t equate to discounting all others.
2. What good does it do to vote for a politician who claims to be pro-life, but fails to do anything substantive about it? That’s been the S.O.P. of the G.O.P. for decades. From '00 to '06 they held the majority in all three branches of the federal government. They finally had a chance to do something substantive about the issue and didn’t even try.

Even though abortion is an abomination and unconstitutional, if you want something done about it don’t look to the politicians because there just isn’t the political will to do the right thing.

 

[Havard]

If there was a candidate who had some great ideas but was in favor of exterminating the Jews, would you vote for him/her? How about re-enslaving black people?

Does this “just one issue” thing have any limits? And if so, why?

 

[stormcloud]

If you think for one minute that the left is going to have us all holding hands singing Kumbaya, you better think again. They would like nothing better than to see the total destruction of the Catholic church, along with many other churches here in America.

Are there extremists who would want this? Yes, but their numbers are too small to even give them consideration. Wow!!! The fear mongering of the right wing media has sure infected some minds in this forum into believing some outlandish stuff!!!

 

[Havard]

What good does it do to vote for a politician who claims to be pro-life, but fails to do anything substantive about it?

In 2001, President Bush declared that federal funds could not be used for embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. Instead, Bush promoted adult stem cell research, which does not destroy embryos.

In the same year, Bush also reinstated a Reagan-era mandate known as the Mexico City Policy that had been removed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The policy requires all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortions in other countries.

In 2002, Bush-appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tommy G. Thompson implemented the “unborn child rule.” It requires the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) – a federal program that gives funds to states to provide health insurance to families with children – to define the term “child” to include from conception to birth.

Also in 2002, President Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to infants who survive induced abortions by providing them with identical legal protections as babies who are born prematurely.

In 2003, President Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibits late-term abortions.

In 2004, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which defines a child “in utero” at any stage of development as human, and accords the child the legal rights of the victim if subject to certain crimes that involve death or injury.

In 2005 and 2006, President Bush appointed two pro-life justices, Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, respectively, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2007, said justices voted to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was challenged in a lawsuit.

In 2007, President Bush also sent congressional Democratic leaders a letter threatening to veto any bill that weakened existing pro-life policy.

In 2008, Bush-appointed Health and Human Services Secretary, Mike Leavitt, issued a regulation to protect the rights of federally funded health care providers to decline to participate in services to which they morally object, including abortion.

As an executive (non-legislator) what more could he have done?

 

[stormcloud]

If there was a candidate who had some great ideas but was in favor of exterminating the Jews, would you vote for him/her? How about re-enslaving black people?

Does this “just one issue” thing have any limits? And if so, why?

O.k., I’ll play along with your scenarios. Both parties decry the evils of enslaving black people and exterminating Jews. One party claims it’s not their job to stop it, the other one claims they’ll do something about it, but refuses to when they have the chance. Is one really better than the other on this particular issue? Answer anything but “no” and you’re lying to yourself.

 

[stormcloud]

It would be a complete waste of time for attempt to introduce any legislation when the court is not ready to overturn anyhting. Not sure where you get the idea there was an edge on the Surpreme Court.

Obviously I didn’t get the idea from the lying right wing propaganda machine.

 

[stormcloud]

In 2001, President Bush declared that federal funds could not be used for embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. Instead, Bush promoted adult stem cell research, which does not destroy embryos.

In the same year, Bush also reinstated a Reagan-era mandate known as the Mexico City Policy that had been removed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The policy requires all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortions in other countries.

In 2002, Bush-appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tommy G. Thompson implemented the “unborn child rule.” It requires the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) – a federal program that gives funds to states to provide health insurance to families with children – to define the term “child” to include from conception to birth.

Also in 2002, President Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to infants who survive induced abortions by providing them with identical legal protections as babies who are born prematurely.

In 2003, President Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibits late-term abortions.

In 2004, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which defines a child “in utero” at any stage of development as human, and accords the child the legal rights of the victim if subject to certain crimes that involve death or injury.

In 2005 and 2006, President Bush appointed two pro-life justices, Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, respectively, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2007, said justices voted to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was challenged in a lawsuit.

In 2007, President Bush also sent congressional Democratic leaders a letter threatening to veto any bill that weakened existing pro-life policy.

In 2008, Bush-appointed Health and Human Services Secretary, Mike Leavitt, issued a regulation to protect the rights of federally funded health care providers to decline to participate in services to which they morally object, including abortion.

None of this lead to a decline in abortions, and none of it was politically risky.

As an executive (non-legislator) what more could he have done?

Considering his party held the majority in both houses of Congress and the edge on the Supreme Court, the ability to do something substantive about the issue was there. The only thing missing was the will.

 

[Havard]

Is one really better than the other on this particular issue? Answer anything but “no” and you’re lying to yourself.

I provided evidence which says otherwise (post #28). And that was just President Bush (43), not to mention the rest of the Republicans who have held office since Roe.

If you disagree with me, don’t take my word for it, go call up a spokesperson for N.O.W. or Planned Parenthood, I’m sure they’d be happy to tell you about all the contributions various Republicans have made to the pro-Life movement.

 

[stormcloud]

I provided evidence which says otherwise (post #28). And that was just President Bush (43), not to mention the rest of the Republicans who have held office since Roe.

You provided evidence, but your counter falls flat as I explained above.

 

[estesbob]

None of this lead to a decline in abortions, and none of it was politically risky.

Considering his party held the majority in both houses of Congress and the edge on the Supreme Court, the ability to do something substantive about the issue was there. The only thing missing was the will.

Abortions reached their lowest level in 30 years under President Bush. The standard rationlaizations for supporting the Partry of death have been put foeth ad nauseum in CADF and have been refuted time and time again.

 

[estesbob]

You provided evidence, but your counter falls flat as I explained above.

He provided evidence-you provided opinion. Ill go with evidence every time.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

At least the Dems have a better history of addressing other social injustices.

They have done so much to end racism and poverty. Look at the strides that all of that money they keep paying to keep people in the welfare state and to those racism fighting groups like ACORN and Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition have accomplished.

Yessireeeee. You got to hand it to them Dems. They sure do know how to straighten the rest of us out.

Here. Let me just pour out some more kool-aid for you. Do you prefer grape?

Eddie Mac

 

[stormcloud]

Abortions reached their lowest level in 30 years under President Bush. The standard rationlaizations for supporting the Partry of death have been put foeth ad nauseum in CADF and have been refuted time and time again.

Lowest level in terms of outright numbers, or in percentage of women of child bearing age?
Considering the fact that the baby boom generation has passed that stage of their lives. This is a very legitimate and important question.

If that was the best the GOP was willing to do when they had the prime opportunity, they’re a party of lies and empty promises. The only promises they keep is to enact fiscal policies that serve to create more social injustice.

 

[stormcloud]

They have done so much to end racism and poverty. Look at the strides that all of that money they keep paying to keep people in the welfare state and to those racism fighting groups like ACORN and Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition have accomplished.

Yessireeeee. You got to hand it to them Dems. They sure do know how to straighten the rest of us out.

Here. Let me just pour out some more kool-aid for you. Do you prefer grape?

Eddie Mac

Wow!!! Even more parroting of the right wing propaganda machine’s lies.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I suppose that when the current administration’s budget is passed then the trillions of dollars more they plan on spending will do wonders for all of those social injustices.

All except for theft through taxes…I mean distribution of wealth.

I certainly they put lots more money towards the cure of sloth…I mean welfare.

I keep mis-speaking.

Eddie Mac

 

[Des]

O.k., I’ll play along with your scenarios. Both parties decry the evils of enslaving black people and exterminating Jews. One party claims it’s not their job to stop it, the other one claims they’ll do something about it, but refuses to when they have the chance. Is one really better than the other on this particular issue? Answer anything but “no” and you’re lying to yourself.

You do not have the gift of foresight so you will not know definitely that they would or would not do something about it.

Here is what you would know.

2 Parties.

One disagrees with killing the all the Jews and says its not their job to stop it.

The other disagrees with the extermination of Jews and says they will make sure it is stopped.

Who do you vote for. Are you going to assume now that the 2nd party will break their promise and do nothing because of other parties who have done nothing before or take your chance on something that has a better possibility of happening than voting for the other guy who wants to slaughter the Jews? If you are countering your arguments on mere possibilities of different leaders breaking their promises then you may as well just give up voting all together.