Kerry's Support for Partial-Birth Abortion

"If Peroutka were President". Never happen. People have better sense than to let him in. He's like Kerry and Edwards in some respects. He'll say anything that he thinks sounds good to the people. Won't happen but it sounds good. Peroutka can't and won't end abortion. People won't just get out of wheelchairs because Kerry is president. Pure pie in the sky.

 

Not at all, I appreciate the questions and continued debate.

If Peroutka were President, he would run the administration on a constitutional basis, and one of his policies would be to use every means at hand to outlaw abortion.

On that particular issue, the Democrats would oppose him. Then, the GOP would be put in a position to either support or oppose him.

They would either have to come down on the side of the unborn, and millions of lives would be savd, or else they would have to expose themselves as cheap hypocrites.

Wouldn't that be nice? </font>[/QUOTE]In other words Pertoutka will have to look to Republicans for his support. And not just on this issue but on all of them.

They can get a bill passed again banning partial birth abortion. Pertoutka can sign it just like Bush did. Then the courts will tie it up just like they already have with Bush. They will do that with any abortion bill that opposes it. Pertoutka knows that but insists that on his first day in office abortion will end.

All Pertoutka has ever done is to rail against this or that. No actual accomplishments. As bad as Kerry's record is he does at least have one. Bush has already proven he would take steps towards ending abortion when he got the bill banning partial birth abortion passed.

If you truly want to end abortions the only way is to amend the constitution so judges can't just declare the law unconstitutional. Democrats won't do it. Pertoutka doesn't have a real party behind him. Republicans would do it but don't have enough votes to pass an amendment. Put them in so it can be done. The choice is simple. Would you rather stop abortion or would you rather just bash Bush? I think perhaps you would rather bash Bush wouldn't you?

 

Judges ignore the plain meaning of the constitution all the time. An amendment wouldn't change it.

Congress passed a bill protecting the pledge of allegiance by prohibiting the courts from ruling on it. They should do the same for abortion. Why don't they? Because the pledge had little political risk.

I resent your implication that I don't care about banning abortion. I have lost patience with political excuses and will no longer tolerate politicians who pander for votes with vague promises, and then do nothing to stop abortion. You seem to be ok with it. Maybe you should get a mirror. You have no idea how much (or how lttle, for that matter) I have done in defense of the unborn.

PLEASE LOOK AT BUSH'S OFFICIAL AGENDA, AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE THAT LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE INTENDS TUTLAW ABORTION.

 

If you listened carefully to his description at the time of the approval and I believe he said it in the debate as well, he made it clear that he approved research on lines already existing. In other words, these lives were already destroyed. He specifically prohibited the destruction of new lives.

It would be similar to an organ transplant. While we should not kill someone to perform a liver transplant, if the person is already dead, it is perfectly acceptable to use their liver to prolong someone else's life. With stem cells, the lives are already gone. Rather than simply throw them away, Bush decided to use them, but to not kill more lives to get more. Kerry's response was that the problem was that there were only 70 lines of stem cells, and only about 20 were actually usable.

So Bush was pretty consistent ... Use the ones where the life is already gone; do not kill more lives to get more stem cells. That is the difference between him and Kerry. Kerry would allow the killing of people in order to get their stem cells for research. Bush would not allow it.

 

So you're really more interested in bashing Bush. You know Kerry won't ban it and you also know Pertoutka doesn't have a chance. All thats left is Bush bashing.

Did Bush ask for and sign the partial birth abortion bill? Yep. The courts then tied it up.

Whether you'll admit it or not the only way is a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.

So waste your vote, bash Bush and let abortion continue on. At least you'll be enjoying yourself.

Just remember that without the Republicans there is no chance of banning abortion.

 

So, what is your proposal:

A) Nobody should criticize the President.

or

B) People should only criticize the President if he's a Democrat.

 

Ballfan, how many babies do you figure have been saved by the PBA ban?

One percent? Thet would be about 40 per day, out of 4000 or so.

No, not that many.

A tenth of a percent? That would be 4.

Nope.

A quarter of a percent would at least be one per day...

Nope.

None. Zero.

Still 4000 being killed, every day.

Any you will support a politician as "pro-life", who calls that an accomplishment.

And then you accuse others of playing politics with the unborn.

 

Thats not the point. Stopping abortion has to start somewhere. The PBA ban was a good starting point. It points out though how useless the attempt will be without the numbers to back it up. If the PBA ban couldn't make it through the courts nothing will. You just can't pass a law saying abortion is outlawed. It won't stick. You have to place it into the constitution in such a way the judges have to say its illegal. It has to be a constitutional amendment.

 

I still think you're giving the Republicans way too much credit. Legislatively, it will not happen in our lifetime. Notice how during the third debate, President Bush never came out and said that he was for an amdendment to ban abortion? The vast majority of GOP leaders are the same way...they'll never vote for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion...pass a law to ban partial-birth, sure; outright ban, no way. Tell voters they are against abortion, sure. Put their words into action, you gotta be kidding.

The Supreme Court nominees are the best hope, but they will only turn the matter back over to the states...they will not outlaw abortion throughout the country.

 

Ballfan, I'm all for starting somewhere. When are we going to start? A few thousand have died alredy since you woke up this morning.

RockRambler, Balfan, the only chance that the GOP will do something about abortion is if pro-lifers start to vote for someone else. We're only prolonging the killing by giving away our votes for nothing.

 

Thats not the point. </font>[/QUOTE]

It's precisely the point. We've had 31 years of excuses and phony action such as the PBA ban, and my patience has run out. I'm no longer voting for politicians who will not put up a fight.

The PBA ban was a safe politial move for cheap politicians to claim that they are pro-life, while not stopping any abortions and stirring up political opposition. Its net effect is that it will delay any real action and cost thousands or millions more lives. You can think otherwise if you want, but someday you'll realize that you've been taken.

Right. Congress needs to clean out the courts. But that would be a costly political fight, and their pensions are too important to risk on a few million innocent children who don't vote.

OK, I'll go for an amendment. Too bad Bush doesn't push congress for it; but I've read his agenda, and abortion isn't even on it. Too bad the GOP doesn't bring it up for a vote; then we'd see who stands where. THAT would be a start, as you say.

But, they are doing NOTHING of any actual effect. If you want that, just continue to vote for it.

 

And if you want to do absolutely NOTHING, vote for Peroutka.

 

The GOP controls the White House.
The GOP controls the House of Representatives.
The GOP controls the Senate.
The GOP (essentially) controls the Supreme Court.

Now, given that it has been this way for over three years, what exactly is preventing the GOP from ending abortion? If they were going to do it, it would have been done by now.

As for a Constitutional Amendment, do you know what is required for an Amendment?

 

For one thing, the balance in the Senate. If every single Republican in Congress was for a ban on abortion, the 48 Senate Democrats would prevent it from coming to a vote.

 

It didn't stop the debate on partial-birth abortions......

 

Everyone points fingers at someone else. But when they don't act themselves, I highly suspect their sincerity. Republicans blame the Democrats. House members blame the Senate. The Senate blames the President, if he's a Democrat. Everyone blames the courts, but do nothing to change them.

I say, "put up or shut up"...submit the legislation and vote on it, and cut out the manure. The fight from there, and lets see where everyone really stands.

But I suspect that abortion is, to them, more of a campaign prop than a holocaust.

 

Do you have any evidence of insincerity or inconsistency on his part, or are you just slandering him for political purposes?

 

Because the PBA ban was something that there was great agreement on. You will not have that kind of agreement on an abortion ban in general.

I, with Jim, think there is a lot of blaming going on. People blame others. But the fact remains that right now, a vote on an abortion ban would fail. That may not be a reason to not bring it up, but it would fail.

We have to 1) change the courts and 2) change the culture. I appreciate the President's position that every child should be protected by law and welcomed into life. I hope he pursues it harder in the next term.

 

It's not even on his agenda.

 

Because the PBA ban was something that there was great agreement on. You will not have that kind of agreement on an abortion ban in general.

I, with Jim, think there is a lot of blaming going on. People blame others. But the fact remains that right now, a vote on an abortion ban would fail. That may not be a reason to not bring it up, but it would fail.

We have to 1) change the courts and 2) change the culture. I appreciate the President's position that every child should be protected by law and welcomed into life. I hope he pursues it harder in the next term. </font>[/QUOTE]I would not disagree with you on several points. But one thing is for sure: if they were going to do anything about it, they should have done it by now. Does anyone doubt that Obama is going to trounce Keyes in Illinois? Now the Senator in Kentucky is apparently having a political meltdown. The odds are against it if the GOP loses the Senate.

BTW, the Sundance Channel has been running a commercial with a great quote from Calvin Coolidge regarding politics? Has anyone else seen it?