McCain–”Last Hope for Pro-Lifers”
- Posted by Beth on February 19th, 2008 filed in 2008 election, Barack Obama, Candidates, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Politics, Pro-Life
From John Hawkins @ Right Wing News:
Hillary and Obama agree that until a baby is fully from the womb, it can be slaughtered. But, Hillary believes that once the baby is all the way out, you cannot slaughter it. Obama disagrees and supports killing fully born children.
That’s not “just words.” Read why. It is appalling. More about “The Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever” here and here.
I know most of my readers aren’t single-issue pro-lifers, but as a pro-lifer myself, I cannot understand how any pro-lifer with a conscience can even consider not supporting John McCain. (Okay, so you support Mike Huckabee? Will you support McCain when he is the official nominee?)
sierrahome says:
McCain has my vote
auspatriotman says:
I have had personal experience with Pro-life activities Beth. Too much to write now other than to say that when the issue hit me back in 1984 I was really appaled about what was being done to the unborn. It is murder and should be treated as a crime. The Dems have never been for nor will the be pro-life. As Mac goes along and eventually receives the nomination I will be supporting him.
As I have said it the past the “alternative” is NEVER an option. Neither is opting out not to vote.
Terrye says:
Beth:
The Anchoress has a post up at Pajamas Media about socalled true conservatives not supporting McCain. The fanatics are going after her in the comments. She could use some friends who are not afraid to crack heads. Methaphoricaly speaking of course.
OzaoB says:
Well I will vote for anybody but Obama and Hillary, so I guess that leaves McCain.McNinny is out too!
PaulW says:
My position on abortion is more complex than a simple outright ban of it. I recognize that there are cases such as rape and incest where the victim may feel giving birth to a child born of sin to be a greater crime than ending the pregnancy. I also recognize the legitimate concern for the health of the mother (pregnancies are not easy-peasy). With regards to abortion on demand, as a kind of post-pregnancy contraceptive, I have no sympathy for that.
My problem is that the vibe I get from the pro-life movement isn’t that it’s pro-life, it’s more anti-sex. That a good number of pro-lifers also want to ban preventative contraceptives, teach only-abstinence sex ed, stuff like that (I also have argument with pro-lifers who support the death penalty: I guess it’s all in the timing, huh guys…).
My belief is that you don’t get rid of abortion by getting rid of the supply. You get rid of abortion by getting rid of the demand. As long as there’s rape victims, as long as there’s victim of incest, as long as there’s one scared teenage girl who hasn’t thought things out, there’s going to be a demand for abortion. Getting rid of the clinics, getting rid of the doctors, getting rid of the pills… that don’t cut it. You’re just going to be pushing abortion back into the shadows, I do believe that.
We’re going to need better sex ed. Studies are showing abstinence-only sex ed does not work. We need to better inform our kids, and we need to get the parents more involved. We need to recognize the causes of rape (behaviors and attitudes of rapists, for example) and better educate our kids to see about reducing the number. We need to better recognize the signs of incest and do a better job of preventing it (I’m all for chastity belts… for the dads!). We need to improve our society as a whole to where noone has a demand for abortion. And we need to do it in a secular fashion, just so we can appease the Unitarians. ;)
Beth says:
I’m actually more in agreement with you on this than you probably thought, Paul. I’m fiercely opposed to sex ed for very young kids; it’s my job to educate my child and instill MY values in her. That said, older kids? They need it, and it needs to be taught the right way. I realize what I had in a Mississippi public school in the early 80’s probably seems too “conservative” nowadays, but they didn’t teach abstinence only. What they DID do is describe (with graphic photos) what abortion really is about. However, they also taught contraception, and pushed it hard (not to the point of handing out free condoms, but then that was before HIV exploded). I disagree with the segment of the pro-life movement about preventative contraceptives (I agree with them on the “morning after pill” and other such crap like that, though), because while abstinence is of course the safest, it’s simply not realistic in today’s culture. People MUST learn responsibility, and if they’re old enough to have sex, they’re old enough to be responsible about it. I know kids are almost always inherently irresponsible, but adults have to try harder. We HAVE to.
I do, however, believe that making abortion very difficult to obtain will give some incentive to taking responsibility. This isn’t the same culture as pre-Roe v. Wade; we do talk about sex and teach sex ed in schools so I have a hard time envisioning back-alley abortions these days. People do have a choice, and the best choice is to take responsibility for one’s own actions; think before acting. Maybe if a teenager knows an abortion will cost, I don’t know, $1500 or something, and that their parents will be informed, they might think twice. But you’re right; we need to eliminate demand for convenience abortions. Most appalling of all are grown women who have them–they have NO excuse. I realize many don’t see abortion as killing their babies (at least until the abortion is done, anyway) so I don’t see them as evil or whatever; I do see them as inexcusably irresponsible and selfish, though. And for that, I have no pity. (Obviously, I’m not talking about rape or life-endangering pregnancies.)
I do wonder how many “medically necessary” abortions are really not “medically necessary” to save the life of the mother, by the way. I’ve seen women on chemotherapy while pregnant and other women whom you’d normally call high risk survive just fine. Could they abort and legitimately say it’s to save their lives? Sure. But plenty don’t, and still survive. Of course, I recognize there are legitimate cases, but I just think that reason is used a lot more than is truly necessary because people don’t want to be uncomfortable. (You’d be surprised what some women do to avoid discomfort during pregnancy or childbirth, as though it’s supposed to be as inconvenient as a broken fingernail.) In that case, again, I say they should have thought about not getting pregnant in the first place.
Partial birth abortion, though–no f’ing way. Never. Much less the BAIPA–anyone who opposes that (Obama) is a f’ing gruesome, death-mongering MONSTER.
Chris says:
And that is one of many reasons I don’t fear big bad Barak. The more these positions come clear, the easier the win will be.