G
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Watch this video and tell me John McCain was the pro-life candidate
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
captbackfire
Guest
It appears quite clear that the Republicans have long used Roe as a political tool to garner votes, without having any intention of overturning Roe if elected. They were elected and had control and did nothing.
This is how the big boys play politics. It ain’t The Waltons, where most’ ever’body keeps his word.
capt
M
mlchance
Guest
So, then, President Obama and his allies in Congress aren’t busily trying to reverse every single pro-life advance made under Republican administrations? Whew, what a relief. For a while there I thought the U.S. might be back in the business of involuntarily sterilizing foreign women like under the Clinton administration.They were elected and had control and did nothing.
– Mark L. Chance.
C
captbackfire
Guest
Let’s see, now, Mr. Obama has been in office for how long . . . nearly a week? I don’t know, I’m just taking a wild shot here, but I would imagine he has a couple of other items on his calendar right now, some even a bit more pressing than dismantling any pro-life advance.So, then, President Obama and his allies in Congress aren’t busily trying to reverse every single pro-life advance made under Republican administrations? Whew, what a relief. For a while there I thought the U.S. might be back in the business of involuntarily sterilizing foreign women like under the Clinton administration.
– Mark L. Chance.
capt
M
mlchance
Guest
You’d think, but apparently that’s not the case. In week one, we’ve had a reversal of the “Mexico City policy” (which, when President Clinton reversed it, led to the involuntary sterilization of foreign women, among other things) and a glowing Roe v. Wade statement in which President Obama again promised to “continue to defend this right [to abortion] by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”Let’s see, now, Mr. Obama has been in office for how long . . . nearly a week? I don’t know, I’m just taking a wild shot here, but I would imagine he has a couple of other items on his calendar right now, some even a bit more pressing than dismantling any pro-life advance.
Heck, we’ve even recently had Speaker Pelosi admit that the financial fix Congress and President Obama are working on includes increased funding for the abortion industry since doing so will “reduce cost.”
Which, as I noted, is terribly strange behavior since nothing’s been done to roll back the abortion-on-demand regime that President Obama so vigorously supports.
– Mark L. Chance.
0
06convert
Guest
McCain wouldn’t have overturned Roe v. Wade, but he also wouldn’t have overturned current pro-life legislation. Holding ground is better that going backwards in this fight for life.
F
fix
Guest
I know. It seems the pres has plenty of time to devote to this agenda.You’d think, but apparently that’s not the case. In week one, we’ve had a reversal of the “Mexico City policy” (which, when President Clinton reversed it, led to the involuntary sterilization of foreign women, among other things) and a glowing Roe v. Wade statement in which President Obama again promised to “continue to defend this right [to abortion] by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”
Heck, we’ve even recently had Speaker Pelosi admit that the financial fix Congress and President Obama are working on includes increased funding for the abortion industry since doing so will “reduce cost.”
Which, as I noted, is terribly strange behavior since nothing’s been done to roll back the abortion-on-demand regime that President Obama so vigorously supports.
– Mark L. Chance.
G
grampben
Guest
Justifying a vote for a mediocre pro life candidate by showing how bad his opponent is doesn’t work.
The only objectively 100% pro life candidate was Chuck Baldwin.
The only objectively 100% pro life candidate was Chuck Baldwin.
T
Teelynn
Guest
As Catholics we are required to choose a candidate with the lesser abortion agenda. Just logical sense to me. Senator McCain did not have a pro choice “agenda” that could even hold a candle to President Obama. He might not have reversed Roe, but I can assure you he would have done everything in his power to squash FOCA. At the same time President Obama is determined to do everything he can to pass it. A no brainer as to which is the better choice.Justifying a vote for a mediocre pro life candidate by showing how bad his opponent is doesn’t work.
The only objectively 100% pro life candidate was Chuck Baldwin.
G
grampben
Guest
But the choice wasn’t McCain or Obama. Baldwin.As Catholics we are required to choose a candidate with the lesser abortion agenda. Just logical sense to me. Senator McCain did not have a pro choice “agenda” that could even hold a candle to President Obama. He might not have reversed Roe, but I can assure you he would have done everything in his power to squash FOCA. At the same time President Obama is determined to do everything he can to pass it. A no brainer as to which is the better choice.
Democracy isn’t about keeping the guy you don’t like out, it’s about supporting the guy who supports your beliefs. If life comes first one must vote for the most pro life candidate.
J
JimG
Guest
Even if that means putting the extreme pro-abortion guy into office? If I were on the ticket and more pro-life than Baldwin should people vote for me even if it would result in the pro-abortion guy being elected for certain?But the choice wasn’t McCain or Obama. Baldwin.
Democracy isn’t about keeping the guy you don’t like out, it’s about supporting the guy who supports your beliefs. If life comes first one must vote for the most pro life candidate.
Sometimes, being pro-life DOES mean keeping the pro-abortion guy out.
E
Ender
Guest
I can only wonder at people who believe that Congress and the president have the power to reverse a Supreme Court decision. The *sole *power the president has is to nominate justices; the sole power the Senate has is to advise and consent to (or reject) those nominations. Bush nominated and the senate confirmed two justices, both of whom appear to be stellar appointments. You are correct that the Republicans did not overturn Roe. You appear unaware (or are unconcerned) that doing so was quite literally impossible.It appears quite clear that the Republicans have long used Roe as a political tool to garner votes, without having any intention of overturning Roe if elected. They were elected and had control and did nothing.
Your shot was indeed wild inasmuch as he has already rescinded the Mexico City accords. He hasn’t yet overturned the ban on federal funding of ESCR but everyone expects that to happen soon. And he has a Democrat congress to help him - such as by putting contraception funding in the economic stimulus bill. Isn’t it good not to have those do-nothing Republicans in control any more?Let’s see, now, Mr. Obama has been in office for how long . . . nearly a week? I don’t know, I’m just taking a wild shot here, but I would imagine he has a couple of other items on his calendar right now, some even a bit more pressing than dismantling any pro-life advance.
Ender
C
captbackfire
Guest
I can only wonder at people who believe that Congress and the president have the power to reverse a Supreme Court decision. The *sole *power the president has is to nominate justices; the sole power the Senate has is to advise and consent to (or reject) those nominations. Bush nominated and the senate confirmed two justices, both of whom appear to be stellar appointments. You are correct that the Republicans did not overturn Roe. You appear unaware (or are unconcerned) that doing so was quite literally impossible. You are correct; I am unconcerned.
Your shot was indeed wild inasmuch as he has already rescinded the Mexico City accords. He hasn’t yet overturned the ban on federal funding of ESCR but everyone expects that to happen soon. And he has a Democrat congress to help him - such as by putting contraception funding in the economic stimulus bill. Isn’t it good not to have those do-nothing Republicans in control any more?
It must be awful to be in the minority.
Ender
W
wynnejj
Guest
I’m sorry that I didn’t see this video prior to the elections. I think that I would have voted for Chuck Baldwin. I really didn’t look at the third party candidates thoroughly enough, other than the one-liner fact sheets about their positions. If I had known that the Republicans had sat on a “Sanctity of Life” bill without pushing it forward, it would have definitely convinced me not to be too quick to vote for either major party or, or any candidate that didn’t push for the bill. I will be much more thorough in my research next time around. Thanks, grampben, for pointing out the video. It is an eye-opener.
If all Christians would vote for a true Pro-Life candidate, it would change the major parties abruptly the next time around.
If all Christians would vote for a true Pro-Life candidate, it would change the major parties abruptly the next time around.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I agree.It appears quite clear that the Republicans have long used Roe as a political tool to garner votes, without having any intention of overturning Roe if elected. They were elected and had control and did nothing.
The republicans could have passed a bill overturning Roe. And in this bill, take away jurisdiction about abortion cases from the federal courts. That would have done it. Not permanently, because a democratic president + democratic congress could repeal that law easily.
However, they never even tried.
E
Ender
Guest
They could no more have passed a bill overturning Roe than they could have passed a bill outlawing cancer. Once the Supreme Court rules that a right is protected by the Constitution - as they did in Roe - then only a Constitutional amendment can overturn such a ruling.The republicans could have passed a bill overturning Roe. And in this bill, take away jurisdiction about abortion cases from the federal courts. That would have done it. Not permanently, because a democratic president + democratic congress could repeal that law easily.
However, they never even tried.
Assuming, however, that Congress actually could pass a law reversing Roe, how would you expect Republicans to get such a law through the Senate given that the Democrats always had more than sufficient numbers to sustain a filibuster? I am happy to give Republicans credit for all their foolish actions but this particular complaint is simply nonsense.
Ender
G
grampben
Guest
Care to tell me why Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life act was not even looked at by most congressional republicans? And he’s the biggest constitutionalist in the who US capitol!They could no more have passed a bill overturning Roe than they could have passed a bill outlawing cancer. Once the Supreme Court rules that a right is protected by the Constitution - as they did in Roe - then only a Constitutional amendment can overturn such a ruling.
Assuming, however, that Congress actually could pass a law reversing Roe, how would you expect Republicans to get such a law through the Senate given that the Democrats always had more than sufficient numbers to sustain a filibuster? I am happy to give Republicans credit for all their foolish actions but this particular complaint is simply nonsense.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
It is a fact of life that a majority of citizens in the US do not want all abortions banned even though (I suspect) most would surely support restrictions. This bill is simply too big a step. I agree with it and would like to see it implemented but there is simply no possibility of Americans supporting it at this time. All it would do would be to open up its supporters to the reasonable charge that they want an absolute ban on abortion. It would be suicidal for any politician in a closely contested seat to support it.Care to tell me why Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life act was not even looked at by most congressional republicans? And he’s the biggest constitutionalist in the who US capitol!
Given that there is a considerable risk for supporting it with absolutely no chance of it passing, just exactly what is the rationale for complaining that Republicans didn’t get behind it? (And this doesn’t even touch the problem of attempting to wall the issue off from the Supreme Court - something we have not done in our entire history.)
Ender
G
grampben
Guest
But what about all those congressmen with high NRLC ratings?It is a fact of life that a majority of citizens in the US do not want all abortions banned even though (I suspect) most would surely support restrictions. This bill is simply too big a step. I agree with it and would like to see it implemented but there is simply no possibility of Americans supporting it at this time. All it would do would be to open up its supporters to the reasonable charge that they want an absolute ban on abortion. It would be suicidal for any politician in a closely contested seat to support it.
Given that there is a considerable risk for supporting it with absolutely no chance of it passing, just exactly what is the rationale for complaining that Republicans didn’t get behind it? (And this doesn’t even touch the problem of attempting to wall the issue off from the Supreme Court - something we have not done in our entire history.)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
The NRLC knows who its friends are and I’m sure has no desire to diminish the good they do by demanding the impossible. They, at least, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.But what about all those congressmen with high NRLC ratings?
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.