..and yes, I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-life. go figure. [rquoter]“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child? When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already. Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake. As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed. It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully. I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know. Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong. Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die. In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it. Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical. In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.” In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late. But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade. For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey. He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”[/rquoter]
I am pro-life in a personal sense, but the thing I think is bull**** about pro-lifers in general is they think life just stops after a child is born. They don't take into account that the child may be born in a slum, or by inexperienced parents that sadly do not want to have kids yet. They pin that on women who are caught in a bind, and say tough t***. Also what about the fact that when abortion was illegal, that women resorted to harmful procedures done to themselves to avoid having a child anyways? In a general sense, what have Republicans done to help the quality of life of Americans lately? Is that not life? Is it really any different than worrying about the life of an unborn child? It's so much more than just saying, a child should be born. It should be a stance of Pro-Life, and Pro-quality of life. If you can't support both, you're a hypocrite. Crime has gone down since abortion was an option. Less abortions were performed under a Democratic administration over a Republican one. You can look at that any way you want, but I'd think it would stem with economic policies, which relates to quality of life. Going off on a tangent, but to say Obama is Pro-Abortion is ludicrous. To say Palin is Pro-Life is just as bad. Forcing a woman to pay for her own rape kit? What policies is she looking to enact if abortion becomes illegal? Again where is quality of life factored in, where does the government step in to help? How much help should they provide?
Once upon a time McCain, even though he's pro life, opposed overturning Roe v. Wade for that exact reason. Not surprisingly, he's revised his position in recent years, presumably to align himself closer to the base. What get's me about right wing stances is that they're pro life (which I'm OK with, so am I) but they support abstinence only sex ed instead of REAL sex ed and that results in more unwanted pregnancies which results in more abortions. If you're against abortion then you should be against unwanted/unplanned pregnancies as well and should support effective sex ed programs.
Since when does Palin care about the "middle ground" on abortion? For those that don't know, she opposes the right to choose even in cases of rape and incest. Under Palin, a girl raped by her father and impregnated would be forced to have the baby.
And the girl would have to pay for her own rape kit to prove the crime if she didn't get pregnant. If abortion is Palin's hot button issue then we'd all be happy to discuss it.
I enjoy seeing basso wave his progressive fig leaf of "I''m pro gay-marriage!" around when he then gleeefully endorses/defends the vilest of wingnut hatemongers and asshats, unreels "mock" racist jokes, and then holds himself above the fray as some sort of frustrated pseudo intellectual from the UWS who hides his true self from the rest of society so as to unleash BBS wisdom as part of his patriotic duty. It was funny in 2004 and it's even funnier in 2008. You're pro-suck, and pro-crap. I guess if that makes you pro-gay then cool.
If someone commits a crime that has the penalty of death as it's punishment, it was a choice. If someone is alive, and yet unborn, they don't have a choice to say "let me live." If someone signs up voluntarily, and becomes a paid soldier and goes to war, and God forbid gets killed in action... it was due in part to their own choice. People have a choice to wrap it up or take other precautions to not get preggers. If the choice you are talking about includes the choices I've mentioned, I'm pro choice. If the only way you will defend an unborn child is to limit abortions (partial birth, and elective) to the cases of rape and incest, then I am pro life. I choose life given every choice between it and death. But that's just because my mom intended to have me, and when she found she was with child, she followed through... in a day and age when there was zero sex ed in schools. Funny how generations of people were born with little to no sex ed whatsoever, yet somehow people want the government to teach the responsibility that families and faith-based groups should teach, and have taught for generations. Now re-read my response and see that I'm at least allowing for a right to abortion when life is handing people a completely uncontrollable alternative. That can be argued as somewhat fair... but again, only to the parent. Abortion is killing. But it is not the baby's fault it is there. At least let them be born and given up for adoption. This way, even in the most unwanted scenarios someone who cannot have a child naturally may get the blessing of raising a miraculous gift... and that child never has to know the reasons behind their adoption until they are old enough to decide whether or not they want to. Adults that simply choose death as an option to solve an inconvenience are equally as cold as a murderer that kills without motive. Again, I have allowed for the option in two scenarios... uncontrollable ones. Luxury, irresponsibility in the case of birth control, or social inconvenience should not be equated to an uncontrolled event.
I benefited from not a moment of "formal" sex education and I managed not to have children out of wedlock. How often do people claim not to "know" or "understand" something when they just don't want to be held accountable for their choices? Isn't it just a way to divert resonsibility? So those of you who are pro-Choice would you have preferred to have been aborted yourself rather than to have been born into an impoverished home? Lots of people have raised themselves out of poverty but no one comes back from an abortion....
Good for you, giddyup. You are so righteous that that proves that everybody else will be too. NOT. I'm vegan; anti-death penalty; anti-war except in case of combatting genocide, or defending this country (in other words, anti pre-emptive strikes against countries that pose no threat to us); anti-abortion and pro-choice. Nobody here is more pro-life than I am. Nobody. I didn't read basso's crap article but I know it was crap since basso posted it. (He is very reliable that way.) But if we're going to talk about abortion, let's get away from the BS about who's "for" it or against it. If anybody here is serious about reducing abortions there's more to that than reversing Roe. And everybody knows it. You could reverse Roe tomorrow and it wouldn't reduce abortions. It would just mean that rich women would have them safely and poor women would go back to doing it in alleys with coat hangers. Is that what you guys want? So let's get off the moral BS and try to REDUCE abortions. I am for that. If you really are "pro-life" I'm guessing you are too. Get off your weird moral high horse about condoms, get off your weird moral high horse about sex ed, get off your weird moral high horse about (the fantasy of) abstinence and let's get SERIOUS about reducing abortions. They were way down under Clinton BTW. They went back up under Bush. Think about that. And while we're at it, for those who want people to carry babies they're not prepared to raise and give them up for adoption, get off your weird moral high horse about gay adoption. I'm not talking about anyone here in particular, but so incredibly many of the religious right are so incredibly full of **** on the abortion issue. They absolutely refuse to embrace tried and true methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies, they absolutely oppose the idea of loving gay families adopting (when there is a dearth of good families willing to adopt, resulting in horrible lives spent in foster care), but they want to claim moral high ground on abortion. Listen closely: If you are not really and truly part of the solution you are part of the problem. Want to reduce abortions? Drop everything else to reduce unwanted pregnancies. That includes condoms, sex ed and acknowledging that - while abstinence is a noble goal - insisting and then relying on it results in things far worse than abortion. You actually care about the kids who will be orphaned when unwanted pregnancies are brought to term? Drop your BS homophobic opposition to gay adoption. Do you actually think there's another choice? Do you actually think that if Democrats went extinct this land would be full of Bradys' and Cleavers' waiting to take up the slack. Those families were fictional. This is a real problem. Stop hating and be part of the solution. TIA.
Well thats their problem. Maybe they should have thought of that when they decided to grow a heart before a mouth! If a fetus was smarter than my dog I might have a problem with it.
Awesome. I'm calling BS on you. Are you saying I'm not vegan? What are you saying? I've been vegetarian since 1987 and vegan since 1993.
^In interest of full disclosure, after more than 20 years as a vegetarian and about 15 years as a vegan I did try to reintroduce meat into my diet this year. I did it because I was literally very worried about my health. Before that I was utterly strict, no exceptions. But I got worried about my health and the vitamin and protein deficiencies that come with veganism. So I tried to reintroduce meat for about a week. It was the grossest thing I ever did. I always said I would only change my diet if it became necessary to do so, health-wise. And I really did finally feel it was necessary. But when I tried to eat meat after so long away from it I honestly couldn't stomach it. There was no pleasure from it at all and I was both profoundly grossed out and also felt profoundly compromised personally, with regard to the ethics that had become so much a part of my identity. So I went back to my diet and saw a doctor who could recommend proper supplements. I'm not pretending I'm perfect or morally superior. I force fed myself about three meals that included forms of meat, after over 20 years without. And I decided I absolutely couldn't hack that. So, after those three meals, I'm strictly vegan again. Please tell me, anyone, how you're more "pro-life" than I am.
I'm calling BS on you because you don't know me and you calling BS on my diet is ridiculous and stupid. See above for full disclosure. Anybody can judge somebody else on issues regarding the value of life. But I'm pretty sure I'm the only person on this board who has walked the walk with the strict diet I have for more than 20 years. WTF, by the way, do you mean when you call "BS" on that?
