Obama and partial-birth abortion
March 3rd, 2008Rick Santorum has an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he examines Barack Obama’s voting history on the issue of partial-birth abortion.
Let’s be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he’ll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: “Yes, we can.”
Hat tip: Justin Taylor
We’ve covered the morality abortion topic in great detail in other threads before, so I’m going to try to comment on abortion in the broader political sense and how conservatives treat it. When a Rick Santorum supported said to me…
“However, I am glad that the supreme court is getting more conservative so that we can stop the killing of our own children.”
I responded with…
Great points, Cineaste. The religious right and the Republican party at large has pretty much become a 2 issue party…to the neglect of many other things.
Great points, Cineaste. The religious right and the Republican party at large has pretty much become a 2 issue party…to the neglect of many other things.
And so it’s OK to go out and vote for a wicked man like Obama who supports infanticide?
Once someone gets the Republican nomination, all they have to say is that they are pro-life and they automatically get the right wing vote.
You’re right. That’s why James Dobson immediately endorsed McCai … oh wait.
I’m bothered by two things in Cineaste’s comments.
It concerns me, but doesn’t surprise me, that liberals think that many/all conservatives are one-issue voters. It’s condescending and untrue.
It saddens me that liberals feel a need to separate politics and morality. This mindset implies that my morality and my politics are “on a shelf” with other things (my economic views, my patriotism, my charity) and that I take one down for this discussion then replace with another for the next. My views on politics are not separate from my morality….they can’t be. My views on politics, the economy, my patriotism, etc….spring FROM my morality. They are not separate from it.
It’s not surprising to hear these things from Cineaste, however. It’s typical liberal drivel.
There is a news story making the rounds about a youtube video showing a military officer horribly mistreating a puppy and then throwing it off a cliff. You can read about it here if you want. The thought of it kind of makes you sick doesn’t it? Yeah, me too. Our nation is a nation of pet lovers. We have a TV channel (Animal Planet) that is dedicated to them. I love animals to. We have a dog and I’m sure I’ll be very sad when she dies. Her name is Molly and she is a spaz, but very sweet.
Here is the kicker:
Should we not be all the more outraged that this kind of abuse and murder happens to human babies thousands of times a day? Should not this puppy story awaken us to these atrocities and show us how backwards are values are? The problem is that we don’t see abortions on youtube. Most doctors don’t even want the mother to see the ultrasound. Reason? The eyes don’t lie. If abortion is not wrong, why not put it up on youtube? Maybe we should. Why not?
But let me break it down for you like this… Ask yourself an honest question: Would you vote for a president that was in favor of legalized animal abuse? A president who said, “Who cares, they are just animals. Have your way with them!” Consider the outrage at Michael Vick for killing those pit bulls and the fury that is coming from this story. That candidate would never make it past the first primary.
But this is worse yet. We have a presidential candidate that is most likely going to get elected that votes for infanticide. Not puppy abuse, infanticide. (At least he is the only one who is honest about the logical outworking of abortion… infanticide) Most of us would never vote for a candidate that is in favor off puppy abuse, but for some odd, backwards reason we are goo goo nuts over Obama who would allow a mother to kill her baby even after the abortion failed and the baby was still alive outside of the mother. If you are voting for Obama, please explain this to me.
Think about this long and hard and don’t tell me that presidents can’t make any difference about abortion either way. Presidents = supreme court judges. How did we get abortion legalized in the first place? Supreme court judges, in 1973 with a little case called, Roe vs. Wade.
Our selfishness and backwards values are on full display with this story my friends. Think long and hard about what this says about the values of our country which is reflected in those we elect.
Santorum’s article is a great example of how McCain will have to run in order to beat Obama: contrast the lofty rhetoric with Obama’s record, which is remarkably thin but consistently liberal, even on issues where the rest of his party has found common ground with conservatives.
This hasn’t work for Hillary, since her positions on the issues aren’t all that different from Obama’s. Not so with McCain (despite what the GOP purists might say).
Cineeaste- what does any of that have to do with Obama and PBA?
Since you went there… for every conservative that votes repub simply for the pro-life angle, there are an equal amount of drones that vote dem just for the pro-choice issue.
Furthermore, there are a considerable amount of other drones voting for Obama the person, not his record or his stance on issues. Watch the people behind him on stage. It’s like Elvis. It’s icky.
And while Bush is not a fiscal conservative, that’s part of what he ran on.
And so it’s OK to go out and vote for a wicked man like Obama who supports infanticide?
LOL. Tim, you prove my point for me. So protecting a woman’s right to choose makes someone wicked but going to war to protect oil interests doesn’t? Or cutting aid to the poor doesn’t? Or funneling so much money into military that we outspend the next 50 nations in that area at the neglect of the millions who die daily of basic hunger, thirst, and medical needs? Your comment perfectly typifies the conservative evangelical position on this issue…and I disagree with it.
I, too, want to see as few abortions as possible. But, even if abortion was outlawed tomorrow, that would not entirely solve the problem. We would still have over a million unwanted children next year. The problem is much deeper than a law. Some of us think there may be better ways to go about reducing abortions than by voting republican all the time.
Thanks for listening.
“So protecting a woman’s right to choose…” If that what you tell the kids as a youth pastor?
You cite things like aid to the poor, feeding the hungry, etc., and I certainly think those should be done. I’d just disagree with you about the way that should be done.
You’ll say the same thing about abortion, but it’s not even in the same ballpark. Obama believes in infanticide, Nick. He thinks babies who are born alive should be denied medical treatment so they will die. It’s really that simple. You can try to nuance it and dance around it, but the facts speak for themselves.
If you can go out and vote for someone like that and give an adequate answer to God for why you did, then go right ahead. As for me, I will not have something like that on my conscience.
Your comment perfectly typifies the conservative evangelical position on this issue
Just like yours typify the Democrat party platform. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Some of us think there may be better ways to go about reducing abortions than by voting republican all the time.
So your position is that there will be fewer abortions once Obama is elected? You want to put money on that?
“Obama believes in infanticide, Nick.”
Oh, please! You may as well just draw horns, a mustache, and a pointed tail on every Barak Obama picture you see and call him the anti-Christ. You act as if he owns a personal baby blender at home. I expect right wingers to beat themselves over the head with the abortion issue to work themselves into a partisan frenzy, but this is ridiculous.
And what do you call the denial of medical treatment to a living baby? Or a partial-birth abortion?
Oh, that’s right — you call that “choice.” And yet I’m the one being ridiculous.
And this partisan stuff is just nonsense, as others have already pointed out to you. If the Democrats would run a pro-life candidate for office, I’d seriously consider voting for that person. I won’t hold my breath on that one, though.
“If the Democrats would run a pro-life candidate for office, I’d seriously consider voting for that person.”
That’s my point! That’s the only issue that really matters to right wing Christians. You’re only confirming what I’ve already said in the first comment.
one quick question - why is it so outrageous to think that voters (particularly, “right-wing Christians”) decide upon a candidate based on the one issue of abortion? why is it so horrible to support a candidate based upon his position of the sanctity of life? what is so wrong with that? i really don’t get that argument, in all honesty. and i all i hear the other side talking about is the war - is that not one issue?
in my opinion, where you stand on the sanctity or value of life determines how you will vote on many other things. not only that, but if you consider human life worth near to nothing (and obama proves this by voting against the partial birth ban), how can you possibly speak about giving every child a chance at an equal education without sounding hypocritical? you can’t. why? because you didn’t even vote to give that child a chance at life in order to receive another chance at the education you received.
i’ve written about obama’s stance on abortion on my blog and received an interesting comment that not only does he support abortion but also supports not allowing babies who SURVIVE abortions to receive any sort of medical treatment to help them live. he says that would be “unconstitutional” (HT: Brooke. um, what’s wrong with that? i would say everything.
as a Christian, God’s law and ethics come before any world or secular government, any constitution, that tells us to obey otherwise. however, i don’t expect unbelievers to understand this - just to respect it. after all, they are usually the ones screaming “intolerance!” about Christians’ points of view when they’re actions are very often intolerant of those Christians. another paradox…
That’s the only issue that really matters to right wing Christians.
So I’m assuming that you’d be critical of your fellow left-wingers who are single-issue voters, correct?
I’ve said this before, but I guess I need to say it again. Were abolitionists in the mid-1800s wrong to make slavery their primary issue? Would you have criticized abolitionists who would say that slavery was the only issue that mattered to them, Cineaste?
Of course not. Why? Because the moral issue they were opposing — slavery — was so great that everything else paled in comparison.
And since the barbarity of abortion makes slavery pale in comparison, protecting the life of the unborn (or even the born, apparently, in the case of Obama) becomes the single-most important moral issue in this country.
I’m glad there were single-issue voters and politicians in the 1800s. We need more people like them today.
Hello eveyone. My name is Tony and I am a right-wing evangelical conservative (resp: “Hello, Tony).
I’m here at this 12-step meeting because I don’t seem to fit into the pigeon-hole that radical liberals wish to place me.
While I hold a candidate’s views on the sanctity of human life as of vital importance, it’s not the only issue I consider when choosing a candidate.
I also believe strongly that a “good” candidate for political office ought to stand for the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms, for the traditional definition of “family” (one man and one woman), and for prayer in public schools. A strong candidate for political office ought to expect parents to raise children and not public education, that we should look to the interests of America first and her sovereignty.
So I’m here tonight to confess that I’m not a “one-trick-pony” when it comes to candidates and the issues. I hope that as a result of this confession and my attendance here that I can get myself back into the stereotype that will make raging tree-huggers comfortable again. May the higher power enable me to accomplish this.
I can easily duck the charge of being a single-issue voter by virtue of the fact that I disagree with Obama on every single policy position he espouses, I think his thin resume lacks even a single qualification to be President, and I find his messiah complex nauseating.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with being a single issue voter. If you think the Iraq war is the greatest moral evil of your lifetime, you’re a bit of a hypocrite if you vote for McCain, aren’t you?
I believe that were it possible to train a dog to “sniff out” ultra conservative judges and then appoint them to the supreme court, you’d vote for the dog over Clinton or Obama. Am I right? So, the competence of a candidate is really irrelevant to the conservative thought process when choosing between political parties.
And the ad hominem hits just keep on coming!
So, you’d vote for Obama or Clinton over the dog?
Cineaste,
I find it odd how you expect someone to answer your question but totally ignore the opposing points above while your premise has already been shot down.
What points you ask? See thread posts by Peter R. and work your way down this thread.
j razz
Cine I find it interesting that when you jump back in, it’s not to acknowledge other points of response, but to further stir the pot. Have you noticed that trend about yourself?
wow j razz…that was weird. Circadian Rhythm!
So, you’d vote for Obama or Clinton over the dog?
According to the U.S. Constitution, the dog isn’t eligible to be President. Of course, four years of Obama picking judges could change that.
I’m in and out today so I can’t respond to everything immediately like I usually do for you guys. I don’t see where my premise has even been touched upon, let alone “shot down.”
If anyone is interested in debating abortion, I’ve already written a lot about it in other posts. It’s a matter of “personhood” and not infanticide. I can’t remember exactly which posts, but they’re around here somewhere.
You dodged the question, Peter R.
Between BHO and Fido, I would leave the ballot blank.
Take a look at this pen letter written by Sherif Girgis.
j razz
pen = open
j razz
I’d probably have to go with Fido.
He might urinate on the Constitution. Obama certainly will.
“It’s a matter of “personhood” and not infanticide.”
Clearly a pit bull is not a person. Yet most Americans felt more compassion for Vick’s dogs than they do for the unborn. There are terrible discrepancies in what Americans are inclined to label unethical. Of course, it doesn’t end there. We’ve got television hosts bawling because a poodle can’t live with her hairdresser. Celebrities are running their mouths constantly about the ethical treatment of animals and pet adoption. Meanwhile, around the world there are 143 million orphan children without families. How did American get to this place where we place more importance, more value on the life of an animal than another human being? It’s disgraceful and unforgivable.
And yes, as a citizen abortion is the one potential deal breaker when I cast my vote. I certainly have the intellectual ability to consider multiple issues, but if pro-life isn’t found anywhere on their resume I look to another candidate.
it’s a matter of personhood? interesting statement…what exactly is “personhood,” by your definition, i’m assuming.
…it’s a matter of personhood? interesting statement…what exactly is “personhood,” by your definition, i’m assuming.
Why would my definition of “personhood” be relevant to this conversation at all? The definition that is most pertinent to Barak Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a legal definition. Legally, what is a person? This question was raised in the Teri Schiavo case. How is it legal to disconnect a person from their feeding tube? That would be murder, right? No, because Teri Schiavo wasn’t a person anymore in the eyes of the law. Why? Because her brain was liquefied. Essentially, the person who was Terri Schiavo had died, but her body lived on. It’s only murder if you kill a person.
In regard to the unborn, when does a zygot, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc. become a legal person with legal rights? This is where all the controversy lives. I’ve written extensively on this controversy. I can’t find the post, but Tim and the others here can vouch for me that I have. I just don’t feel like having the same conversation for the millionth time right now. Please understand.
Now, my opinion regarding Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act is that he was opposed to the language of that law. The legal language of that law was unconstitutional. Here is the transcript from the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly so you can see this for yourselves. If the bill was rewritten with proper language, judging by the transcript, he would have had no problem passing it. But, why did he consider the language unconstitutional? Keep in mind, Barak Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. He could teach constitutional law at any university with that kind of a resume. I think Obama found the language of the law unconstitutional because it would intrude upon the legal definition of person. For example, if the bill prohibited the killing of a baby born alive, the question that is raised is how young should a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc. be considered a baby? Technically, under this language, a woman who expels a fertilized egg from her body if it fails to attach itself to the uterine wall, has just given birth to a live baby. Well, the constitution does not recognize a fertilized egg as a person. And with good reason! If it did, and I’ve said this jokingly before, my girl friend and I could hoard a bunch of fertilized eggs in our freezer and write them off as dependents on our taxes.
Rick Santorum’s op-ed states, “There’s no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None.” This is false. Barak Obama’s “first law,The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.” He’s also passed The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act.
But this is what gets me most. There is this notion that Barak Obama hasn’t passed any significant legislation in his 3 years as U.S. Senator except those 2 bills I mentioned. Well, I have a challenge for John McCain supporters. “After more than 25 years in Washington, McCain mentions just one landmark bill — which he now no longer wants to talk about, because the Republican base hates the legislation.” McCain-Feingold. Tell me, what other significant legislation has John McCain passed other than McCain-Feingold, in his 25 year Senatorial career? I’d really love to know that before I vote for him. And yes, I might vote for John McCain because I agree with his stance on Iraq. But, I want more of a reason. Can any of you McCain supporters help me out with this?
“I’d probably have to go with Fido.”
I hope you’re joking because if not, it just confirms what I thought about conservative thinking all along. One issue party.
“it just confirms what I thought about conservative thinking all along….”
Dang! And here I thought we were just about to change your mind, Cineaste (it being as open as it is and all).
It says nothing about conservatives being a one-issue party. I disagree with Obama and Clinton on a lot more than just abortion.
How about you, Cineaste? If you had to choose between a candidate with whom you disagreed on every single issue imaginable, would you vote for that candidate or vote for Fido?
Hi guys. I just got home from work, so I’m coming back into this a bit late.
Your comment perfectly typifies the conservative evangelical position on this issue…Just like yours typify the Democrat party platform. Pot. Kettle. Black.
You may be right Peter. but, it may be worth noting that I did not mean that as a slam on Tim, just to point out that our discussion was one issue voting, and he proved my point by his statement. That was why it was relevant.
So your position is that there will be fewer abortions once Obama is elected? You want to put money on that?
I suppose it does sound like I am saying that voting for Obama will end (or reduce) abortions. I’m not. I’m just saying that there are more issues involved, like poverty etc.
If that what you tell the kids as a youth pastor?
Not sure if that is a personal attack or not, Zoner. either way, I’m not a youth pastor anymore. I’d be willing to respond to a question if it’s there, but it doesnt seem like there is one.
in my opinion, where you stand on the sanctity or value of life determines how you will vote on many other things. not only that, but if you consider human life worth near to nothing (and obama proves this by voting against the partial birth ban)
I agree whole-heartedly with the first part. it does effect a lot. My point is this: 1) that there are many other “Sanctity of life” issues other than abortion (like poverty, hunger, war, etc.), and 2) that there are sincere, God loving (and people loving) people out there who come at the issue from the other side. That does not exclude them from the Kingdom, or make them bad people, or mean we have to break fellowship, etc.
The second half of this is laughable…to assume life is worth nothing to him because of his stance on this issue. I could say the same about a whole host of other issues (see list above), but it would be crazy to reduce a person to a stance on one political position. right?
Thanks again!
Nick
If you can go out and vote for someone like that and give an adequate answer to God for why you did, then go right ahead. As for me, I will not have something like that on my conscience.
Since you asked, here is what my prayer about that might look like.
“God, I’m saddened by the death and killing that goes on in the world, and I know that you are too. I believe that you wish to see abortion as no longer a reality, and I do as well. I believe you weep at each one, and welcome that unborn soul into your kingdom. But I also believe that all human life is important, life that you created, and that war and greed and hunger squash that. You weep at that stuff too. And so, Lord, with your guidance, I’m going to vote the way I think brings the most good to your earth and your people. Guide me in my actions. Help me to love you, my neighbor, and my enemy in radical ways today. amen.”
Is that what you tell the kids as a youth pastor?
“Not sure if that is a personal attack or not, Zoner. either way, I’m not a youth pastor anymore. I’d be willing to respond to a question if it’s there, but it doesnt seem like there is one.”
I don’t see how that can be viewed as a personal attack. It is indeed a question. So how bout this: if you were still a youth pastor, is that what you would tell them?
I’m just saying that there are more issues involved, like poverty etc.
I agree. Which is why I’m a conservative, not just on abortion but on economic issues. The statist solutions that liberals tend to favor have absolutely made poverty worse in America, especially among those people most likely to have an abortion - poor blacks.
if you were still a youth pastor, is that what you would tell them?
I’m sure I would explain to them both sides of the issue, wanting them to have all the info, and allow them to decide for themselves. I would tell them that there are sincere followers of Christ on both sides of the issue, and that neither side is “the Christian way”. That’s probably what I would tell them, Zoner.
I guess the reason I thought it might be an attack is it seemed really random, and I didnt see how it fit with the discussion. Sorry for accusing.
I’m just saying that there are more issues involved, like poverty etc….I agree. Which is why I’m a conservative, not just on abortion but on economic issues. The statist solutions that liberals tend to favor have absolutely made poverty worse in America, especially among those people most likely to have an abortion - poor blacks.
Fair enough, Peter. And see, we can disagree about this, about the methods and strategies that are involved in the interminglings of this debate and both care about life. That is my point.
“It says nothing about conservatives being a one-issue party. I disagree with Obama and Clinton on a lot more than just abortion.”
Of course. But who cares? There is just one issue almost all conservative Christian republicans agree on, abortion. There is one political issue which you are using as the topic of this post, and many others, that the right fixates on like a moth to the flame. That is your one unifying issue. That’s why I say you are a one issue party.
“How about you, Cineaste? If you had to choose between a candidate with whom you disagreed on every single issue imaginable, would you vote for that candidate or vote for Fido?”
Voting for a dog would be asinine. Sorry, but it’s true. Listen, I loath George W. Bush as much as conservative Christians loath liberals, democratic candidates, environmentalists, atheists, the United Nations, Islam, gays, and science. But I wouldn’t vote for a dog over a person. That’s demeaning, don’t you think? Demeaning or not, it seems many conservatives would rather vote for a pro-life dog than Clinton or Obama. What does that say about the credibility of right wing conservatives? If they’d rather have a dog as POTUS, it just shows they’re extremists.
“Between BHO and Fido, I would leave the ballot blank.”
Careful with the references to Hussein. You might force John McCain into another public apology.
Anyone have any luck finding significant legislation John McCain passed other than McCain-Feingold? If you are voting for him, you should know what Bills he passed. Or, does it even matter as long as he appoints ultra conservative judges?
Voting for a dog would be asinine. Sorry, but it’s true.
If the alternative were a candidate who would make slavery legal again, I don’t think you’d come to the same conclusion.
Abortion is far worse than slavery ever was. I ask again, as I asked above:
Were abolitionists in the mid-1800s wrong to make slavery their primary issue? Would you have criticized abolitionists who would say that slavery was the only issue that mattered to them?
And see, we can disagree about this, about the methods and strategies that are involved in the interminglings of this debate and both care about life.
I don’t think so. You support a candidate whose policies you freely admit won’t reduce the number of abortions performed in America. In fact, given his position on issues like the BAIPA, abortion will likely become more widespread. Organizations who promote abortion will receive increased funding from the government. The courts will be stacked with pro-abortion judges. The partial-birth abortion ban may well be repealed. All of this will happen even if every single one of Obama’s economic policies works and poverty is eradicated from the land (don’t hold your breath). If this is “caring about life” I shudder to think of what “not caring” looks like.
“The statist solutions that liberals tend to favor have absolutely made poverty worse in America…”
For Peter… Tim will see this first hand when he goes to Beijing.
I’m embarrassed that Bush is the President of the U.S. I’m tired of having to apologize for our President.
47% of China’s population (620 million people) live on less than $2/day. 16% live on less than $1/day. Socialism clearly works.
Still need more convince round eye?
Ha Ha Ha America Part 2
Ha Ha Ha America Part 3
I did some fact checking to see if this is accurate. It seems so.
OK. So Nick, you think there are Christians that believe abortion is acceptable?
“Listen, I loath George W. Bush as much as conservative Christians loath liberals, democratic candidates, environmentalists, atheists, the United Nations, Islam, gays, and science.”
That’s so unfair. So stereotypical. So shallow. Par for the course I suppose.
You say it’s shallow, stereotypical and unfair, yet Christian conservatives here have said they’d rather have a dog as president than Clinton or Obama.
I did some fact checking to see if this is accurate.
I didn’t think the trade deficit was exactly breaking news. It would likely be smaller, of course, if close to half of the country didn’t live in extreme poverty.
Since China clearly has the U.S. bent over a rail, maybe you should move there, Cineaste. Of course, you might have to write us all via snail mail since the government-run firewall probably blocks Tim’s site and your Registered Blogger license may take awhile to get approved.
“You say it’s shallow, stereotypical and unfair, yet Christian conservatives here have said they’d rather have a dog as president than Clinton or Obama.”
That has absolutely nothing to do with your unfair comments.
“Since China clearly has the U.S. bent over a rail, maybe you should move there, Cineaste.”
I’d rather fight them economically. Is the economy one of McCain’s strong points? He needs to change the Bush policies which benefit the Chinese more than they do Americans.
“That has absolutely nothing to do with your unfair comments.”
Point out my mistake…
“…conservative Christians loath liberals, democratic candidates, environmentalists, atheists, the United Nations, Islam, gays, and science.”
Is the economy one of McCain’s strong points?
In absolute terms? No. He needs to carefully choose his team. One reason why I preferred Thompson or Romney. Relative to Barack - who wants to restore America’s standing in the world by pulling out of a permanent treaty - absolutely.
We’re very much off-topic so that’s it from me unless Tim wants to fire up a Sino-American relations thread.
Well, when you said, “The statist solutions that liberals tend to favor have absolutely made poverty worse in America…” I had to point out that it’s not liberals doing that, it’s Bush and Republicans. Conservatives have had the power the last 8 years so it’s not fair to blame liberals for Bush’s failed policies. I’ll leave the economic talk at that.
I actually had in mind the liberal economic / poverty policies of the ’60s and ’70s, the effects of which we’re still trying to repair today. And many of which sound remarkably similar to Obama and Clinton’s proposals.
Given that they’ve presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ, I don’t see how you can call Bush and recent Republican Congressional leadership anything but liberals, at least as far as fiscal policy is concerned. You’re a liberal or a conservative by virtue of the policies you support and oppose, not the party you belong to.
“…it would be crazy to reduce a person to a stance on one political position. right?”
uh, no, it wouldn’t. especially when that issue is abortion and your stance supports it at all stages of development (all includes even those babies who make it out of an abortion ALIVE.) i’m really curious to see how obama addresses his stance on abortion with his two children. oh, but wait, they were probably WANTED. and of course that makes all the difference, right?
again, it appears that no one wants to answer tim’s question, which appears valid:
“Were abolitionists in the mid-1800s wrong to make slavery their primary issue? Would you have criticized abolitionists who would say that slavery was the only issue that mattered to them?”
“I don’t see how you can call Bush and recent Republican Congressional leadership anything but liberals, at least as far as fiscal policy is concerned.”
Then that is a reason for you not to vote for McCain since he will continue with the “liberal” Bush economic policies. If you conservatives don’t like Bush’s economic policies then why did you guys put him in office… TWICE! Oh right, abortion.
“again, it appears that no one wants to answer tim’s question”
I’ll take that one. Tim is trying to associate the “pro-life” stance with abolitionists. So, if I criticize the pro-life movement, then ipso facto, I’m criticizing abolitionists. This is a fallacy. I view the “pro-life” movement like I do the prohibitionist movement. People have a right to choose if they want to drink or not. Don’t have the law make that choice for them. I wouldn’t criticize ending slavery like I do people who think that zygotes are people too.
Moreover, the Republican party was not a one issue party in 1860. The radical Republicans were concerned with only one issue. Lincoln had to keep fanaticism in check and attend to the issues at hand. I’d agree with the cause of the radical Republicans though I wouldn’t agree with their narrow mindedness on one issue. I disagree with both the narrow mindedness of “pro-lifers” and their cause.
This is a fallacy. I view the “pro-life” movement like I do the prohibitionist movement.
You’re entitled to seeing it that way, however erroneous that viewpoint is. I view the “pro-choice” movement like I do the slave traders.
For Z,
“Listen, I loath George W. Bush as much as conservative Christians loath liberals, democratic candidates, environmentalists, atheists, the United Nations, Islam, gays, and science.”
That’s so unfair. So stereotypical. So shallow. Par for the course I suppose. - Zoner
Based on Tim’s comment, “I view the “pro-choice” movement like I do the slave traders,” I think it’s appropriate to add people who are “pro-choice” to the list of things conservative Christians loath.
Shall we come up with a list of things that liberals loathe, Cineaste?
How about conservatives, Christians, Republicans, capitalists, the unborn, businessmen, hunters and God?
See, two can play this game, but there’s really no point to it.
Time to shut this one down, as we’ve veered off course. The original point was to show that Obama is more than just an advocate of abortion. He’s also an advocate of partial-birth abortion, and Santorum made the point very well. If the former didn’t already give Christians who support the man something to think about, the latter certainly should.
Thanks to all for your comments.