Thoughtful Article on Obama and Abortion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Andy T., Oct 19, 2008.

  1. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/v...George_Robert_Obama's Abortion Extremism_.xml

    From the Article:

    But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.


    From me:

    May God have mercy on us as a nation and on those who support Obama and his heinous views.
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    And Obama opposed the Infant Born Alive act for one single reason:

    "it is a bill designed to frustrate the mothers original decision"
     
  3. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    From me: May God have mercy on us as a nation and on those who give a free pass to the Republican from their pits of hell policy on abortion. The Republican's hands are just as blood soaked as the Democrats.

    What is worse, pandering every two and four years for Christians votes on the backs of the innocent lives of the unborn, or coming right out and saying you will push the abortion agenda? The Republicans could care less about preserving life. They care about preserving their power and their self indulgent life style.

    It is time for Christians to stop giving them a free pass. Eight years a Republican President, six years a Republican Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court. Nothing happens.

    Neither party is worthy of our vote.
     
  4. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where do you get this? The S.C. as currently constituted is not conservative. At most, we have 4 conservatives on the Court, and we can thank GWB that we have that many. Had Gore or Kerry selected the last two S.C. justices, we would only have 2 conservatives on the Court - that you can be sure of. And if Obama is elected, depending on which current justices retire, the Court will become even more liberal and abortion rights more thoroughly entrenched.
     
  5. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, while we are at it, since you keep making these rhetorical accusations: Please list 5 Republicans (Congress, Presidential, state level, whatever) who gave a specific campaign promise to do ________ about abortion, and then went against that campaign promise. Since you say the Republicans are just as guilty as the Dems on this issue, it should be quite easy for you to come up with 5 examples of where a Repub. intentionally duped the electorate and reneged on a specific promise related to abortion.

    I look forward to your analysis on the matter on not more rhetoric of both parties being "the same."
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not so, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Suiter, Alito all appointed by your conservative Republican party.
     
    #6 saturneptune, Oct 20, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2008
  7. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are playing with words. Every election, every election, candidates for President, Vice President, the Congress, governors, etc send out mailer after mailer, do commerical after commercial accusing their Democratic opponents of being murders, which in essence they are.

    Your buddy inept President Bush is the worst. He pandered for Christian votes in 00 and 04 on the issue of abortion. His six year Republican Congress did nothing.

    Not to get off the subject, but Bush has governed this nation like a flaming liberal for eight years, on top of not knowing how to lead. Why do you think Obama is ahead?

    Pandering for votes in exchange for the lives of the unborn is a concept from hell. They stand right along side the Democrats.
     
  8. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kennedy has drifted left since his appointment. Same with Souter. So we have 4 conservatives on the court - Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts. All of whom were appointed by GOP presidents. However, if Mondale or Carter or Gore or Kerry would have had the opportunity to appoint those same 4 justices, then we would have zero conservatives on the court. It would be a 9-0 liberal court. Is that what you prefer? My point is, your heated rhetoric is quite meaningless, because it is easy to see that there is some difference between the GOP and the Dems on abortion. Now, it may not be as much of a difference that you or I would like, but to say there is "no difference" is a gross misunderstanding at best or an outright lie at worst.
     
  9. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    So no specific examples of a Repub. going back on a campaign promise regarding abortion? That's what I expected. Your heated rhetoric is nothing more than a bad temper borne out of little or no understanding of the the political process and the complexity of trying to reverse the entrenched nature of abortion laws.

    BTW, GWB is not my "buddy."
     
  10. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Andy, amen!!!!!!!
     
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you're not looking for a SCOTUS who interprets law and constitution as it is written, you are looking for one will make decisions you support?

    In my view, this takes much of the validity out of the SC. It says if I stack the deck just right I will get my way.
     
  12. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    The four justices mentioned by Andy as conservatives are called that very thing because they all hold to the originalist position regarding the US Constitution. They are not called conservatives because they make decisions we support.

    The stacking of the justices on the SCOTUS to gain a majority who can be counted on to make decisions with a certain bent to a Liberal MO. Its funny to see you try and turn the table.:tonofbricks:
     
  13. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    He might as well be. Your tolerance and acceptance of a party that claims to be pro-life and has the same results as the Democrats is outrageous. This is exactly why we have two pathetic choices today. Over the years, we have accepted increasingly liberal Republican candidates, and given them a pass. The last eight years at best are embarrassing.

    As far as your comment about the Supreme Court, a red herring reason. Republican Presidents that appointed them did so on the promise of being conservative. Also, you mischaracterize Souter and Kennedy. They are conservative to moderate. There are only three true liberals left on the court, all very old at that.

    The exact reason why Obama is going to win this year is the failure of conservatives to hold their leaders accountable until the public perceives no difference with the Democrats, because there is none. This is the only way the Democrats can win, because they have no ideas. They only win off the ineptness of Republicans, of which Bush is a master.

    So pat yourself on the back. Your mindset of tolerating liberal Republicans is exactly why in two weeks Obama is going to be elected POTUS.
     
  14. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why would Kennedy views be questions? "Kennedy has drifted left since his appointment".

    So what I said is right, you hope to see the SC stacked so you can get your way. You can mask it how you want but in the end you're not supporting a SCOTUS that interprets the constitution and law as it is written. You are looking for one who supports your view.

    Then you mask it further under the title originalist. Which again implies the original constitution is only rightly viewed by people who see it like you. No one else can have a right interpretation.

    The problem is we have a democracy which means the original document can and has been changed (amended). The constitution clearly says, "We the People" not we the originalist or we the ones who see things as I do. Instead you go right past that statement and go on to explain how you see the rest of the document. If you don't understand the part that says, "We the People" then you will never understand the remainder. It is about the people. It is about being a democracy.

    It's not about what an originilist thinks the constitution said on day 1 it's about what the majority feels it says today. Democracy...
     
  15. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe you will understand if I ask the question this way. You have a blank up there for an example of 5 Republicans that have promised to do something about abortion. My question to you is, if there are none, why are you supporting that party?

    The reason there are not isolated promises is becuase there are none. It is a statement in the platform. Every four years, Republicans use abortion as a pandering tool against the Democrats. Then, NOTHING gets done. No bills passed to test at the bench of the Supreme Court, no states rights issues in the matter, nothing. And the blood continues to flow.
     
  16. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frankly, you have no idea of how tolerant or accepting I am of the GOP. All that I have done in this thread is successfully refute your silly "no difference" rhetoric. I'm not here to carry water for the GOP. I'm simply here to refute your nonsensical statements.

    I agree to a certain extent, although I don't think the last 8 years have been a complete embarrassment. But I agree that the trend to nominate more and more liberal Repubs is hurting the GOP.

    Kennedy and Souter are conservative to moderate?! I strongly disagree, and so would most S.C. watchers. Kennedy is moderate to liberal, and Souter is solidly liberal.

    I agree that the public (and you) largely see little difference between the two. But that is not reality. There is a difference. Again, they are not as different as I would like them to be, but to say there is no difference is just idiotic.

    Thanks again for the wild assumptions of what I do and do not tolerate. You're a real peach.
     
  17. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seem to recall a few partial-birth abortion bans that were vetoed by Bill Clinton, and then when it did pass in South Dakota, was ruled unconstitutional by a liberal federal court. I also recall that federal funds were used to fund abortions under Clinton, which Bush reversed to the extent it was within his power to do so. So again, you can keep telling yourself that nothing gets done, but you are just telling a lie.

    Have you ever read the story of William Wilberforce and his fight against the slave trade in Britain? It took him years and years to make any headway. It wasn't until the end of his life was he successful. It would be useful for you to read his story.
     
  18. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, I must have missed that part in the Constitution that says the Judicial Branch is supposed to do the bidding of the current majority public opinion. Can you point that out to me? Or is that only in your fantasy world version?

    What if the majority wants slavery to be legal - is the S.C. supposed to succumb to that wish?

    Seriously, you do know that the Judicial Branch was devised, in part, to counter against the tendency of mob rule where the majority opinion forms a tyranny against the minority, don't you? The Judicial Branch is to govern by the rule of law, not the whims of the people. But your liberal friends in the courts do not govern by the rule of law - they play the all-wise ones and make new laws from the bench.

    You need to take a remedial course in civics. Seriously.
     
  19. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, that is exactly what I am looking for.

    This is a tautology, but a SCOTUS who interprets the Constitution as it is written, will make decisions that I support, because I believe the SCOTUS should merely interpret and not legislate, like they have been legislating for the last generation or so.

    Your reasoning is all over the board, so it's hard to know what you actually believe. In another post, you said the majority public opinion should be the basis of SCOTUS decisions. Now you say that my opinion should have no bearing on the SCOTUS. So if I gather enough people who think like me and we petition the SCOTUS, then they should do our bidding?

    Again, please go take a remedial course on the Constitution and American History.
     
  20. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Exactly. And babies (born or unborn) are clearly people.


    Exactly. It is about people, including those who are murdered inside and outside of the womb. They are denied their constitutional rights with Roe v Wade.
     

Share This Page

Loading...