Brown Was the Lessor of Two Evils... Really!

Be fair MP, this is just proof that neither side has a monopoly on moral relativism or situation ethics. This is politics.

 

I know you are addressing someone else, but from what I've read, Brown is also for abortion for other reasons. The only abortion he opposes is late term abortion.

 

Can you direct me to the source of your understanding of his position?

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Scott_Brown_Abortion.htm

 

Thank you.

MP can stop misrepresenting Brown's positions now. Everyone can read them for themselves.

 

This one might be of interest also; at least to some folk!

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=32084

 

I was just going to post that..

 

From that link

There you go - he believes it should be legal to kill children in the right circumstances.

Does everyone who supports him accept that view? Of course not. No more than the idea that any one who voted for President Obama supports killing children.

 

The difference between being that Obama talks about and then acts to INCREASE abortion - even to the point of wanting to consign the newly born to the trash.

Brown has worked to place restrictions and limits on it and does not advocate expanding it.

 

But back to my point...the partisan moral relativists on this board have made a huge deal out of calling people who supported the President in the last election "baby killers", and saying the overarching issue is abortion; now find themselves defending a politician who does not hold the absolute view they have espoused. Moral relativism is alive and well on the right, as demonstrated in this thread.

 

If ya vote for 'em, , you support what they stand for.

There is no explaining it away.

 

He still accepts the murder of innocent children. Is it acceptable that he approves of the murder of less children than the president?

 

Would you rather vote for a Brown type politician who has worked to restrict abortions or another politician who says that he is against all abortion at all times without exception - but does nothing to restrict or limit abortion?

 

OR iow, would C4K prefer a politician who lies when he says he'll end abortions and wil do nothing vs one who has already taken a stand requiring parental notification and regulation to require a 24 hr decision process which stipulates a fully informed consent before the procedure is allowed, and would move to stop late term abortions?

Let's tell the truth!

In the Presidential election ...... where many of us labeled Obama as a baby killer... it was not only because he supported abortion 'rights' but because he would EXPAND abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and publicaly fund, and because... HE KNEW THERE WAS EVIDENCE AND EYE WITNESS REPORTS of babies, intended to be aborted late term.... who were born live and left to die...... and he stopped legislation from coming to a vote which would protect their life. To the Christian against abortion... conception is the beginning of life.... But to most anyone regardless of belief or not, or positions on abortion... a live birth with a baby left to die or deliberately killed after birth represents murder ......and Obama refused to release legislation for a vote which would declare such acts as criminal or prevent this from happening.

ALSO, in spite of the party rhetoric on this board... there were many of us on this board, informing others ON THIS BB BOARD, that the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PRESENTED 3RD PARTY VOTING CHOICES in which ABORTION WAS AN ISSUE AND THE 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE(S) TOOK A DEFINITE STAND AGAINST.

The MASS ELECTION OFFERED NO SUCH COMPLETE OPTION...... therefore, the only option left was to not vote or to choose the only candidate which seemed to have demonstrated some adversions to abortion... in hopes that between his conscience and prior attempts to retrict or regulate this adbominal procedure might be built upon ....as steps to end abortion and/or stop any proposed public funding of abortions.

You dern right! When you say that some who stood against abortions still looked on the Presidential Race as a 2 Party issue and a choice between the 'two evils' ......when they did have a 3rd choice candidate which was on some ballots and in some states would have required a write-in..... BUT many of those are the very ones who would only choose between the 2 parties when they had a 3 and more principal choice in the Presidential election, and then ridicule those of us who feel encouraged by Brown's election, because there was no better choice.

In the Presidential election, a vote for Chuck Baldwin or Allen Keyes might not have gotten either elected.... but there was a distinction in both faith and character from the other choices presented by Dems vs Repubs. But some of you were angry at those of us who said to bolt the 2 party monopoly and make a vote and take a stand against abortion and principle based stand... even if there was no chance of winning.

In the Mass. election the 3rd party candidate neither stood a chance of winning nor did a vote for him make a significant statement regarding abortion and his stand on other issues on his campaign sight are not expressed sufficiently to give confidence of his contact with reality.....to an outsider Maybe C4K et al have piorities more concerned with taxes and use of marijuanna.... which was the only big difference the 3rd party represented...... even if he couldn't win. That said.... there is a question of character in any candidate (Brown-Repub) who strips his clothes for money.... even if it was 30 years ago.

In summary.... we had a REAL CHOICE in the Presidential Election. In MASS. the people really had choices limited in all3 candidates..... and the best choice which could be hoped for was...... anyone but the dominanting party representing this current administration..... so the choice was between the 2 who represented the opposition and that based upon our own priorities regarding their position on major issues.

Mind you, Roger et al, most of the membership on this board don't live in or near MASS. so we weren't close enough to follow this campaign and its nuances nor effect the choice made by the people of Mass. BUT, we were aware of who had tied up and previously filled that position ..... and are glad to see it dispossessed of the previous spirit, and to see the people slap the faces of those who dominate the Democrat monopoly of Congress and this Administration and the direction they'er taking us.

 

This discussion reminds me of the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28

Scott Brown is like the son who says "no" to his father but then does as his father asks.

He says that abortion should be legal but then he works to restrict it.

Christians that voted for Obama are like the son who says "yes" to his father but then does not do as his father asks.

They say abortion is a sin but then voted for Obama anyway.

 

Windcatcher sez:

And, contrary to one poster, I DO THANK GOD for this result!!!

 

To think that the almighty fixes our elections is the height of arrogance.

 

To think that He doesn't have a purpose for the result is a lack of faith.

 

Carpro is absolutely correct! Nothing happens except by the will of God. He either permits it or directs it. He may will to use evil men to accomplish His good will. He is sovereign. The mistake we make is in thinking that we can chose when God is in control and when we're in control. The truth is that he's always in control even as we make our choices and exercise the degree of free will he gave us. The bible teaches that all government is ordained by God which can be taken to mean that the institution of civil government is by His design and, again, that nothing - including the outcome of elections in a "free" nation such as ours - happens without His permission or direction. He made bless a nation or condemn a nation through the leaders we selection. He may do that based upon whatever reasons He desires including how the citizens of nation honor or do not honor Him or just because it fits into His long term plan the ages. He may bring us to our knees to remind us just who He is and who we are. We have a duty to exercise our free will responsibly but, at the same time, being ever mindful that we are doing so only as He permits or directs. We become very arrogant when we think we can carve out a portion of His creation and claim He has no control over it.

 

It is still a pro-choice position. As I said before, supporting parental notification and parental consent laws mean little because
1. Many states do not have these
2. States that have them usually have notification for only one parent
3. Parental consent laws are usually challenged in court
4. Parental laws only apply to minors and so have no effect on abortions for someone 18 or over
5. There are ways to bypass the parental notification and consent laws in many states by simply going to court and telling a judge you are afraid of telling your parents you are pregnant

Brown's support of the 24 hour waiting period is good, but also not very impressive in light of the fact he still supports the right to abortion. It's like saying you believe in robbing a bank, but want to limit it by allowing it only on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Saturdays.


PS It's "lesser" of the two evils