Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama: The more pro-life candidate?
Even though he has a 100 percent pro-choice Senate voting record, a new website is alleging that Barack Obama is the most pro-life candidate in the race for president. The Pro-Life, Pro-Obama site, started by a group of Christians with the pro-Obama Matthew 25 network, argues that Obama’s proposed programs will do more to reduce abortions in America than the policies of John McCain.
“After 35 years, a new approach is needed,” writes Douglas W. Kmiec, the site’s spokesman. “Too many unborn lives are being lost as we wait for judges to get it right.
“Barack Obama’s strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference,” maintains the former professor and dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America.
But it’s an assertion that has greatly angered pro-life leaders: “The Matthew 25 webpage is a desperate attempt to attract pro-life Christian voters to Obama by misrepresenting and redefining the pro-life cause,” charged Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action. “It’s an insult and affront to every true pro-lifer in the country.”
back to top61 Comments to “Obama: The more pro-life candidate?”
Yeah, that’s a stretch!
Report comment to moderator
Interesting argument. Back when people still used their brains to argue this would have been called “sophistry.”
Anyway, all of Obama’s so-called pro-life policies would be immediately cancelled once he had a Supreme Court chair to fill. That’s why these arguments don’t matter. McCain will appoint someone who has a harder time finding a right to murder in the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
“Barack Obama’s strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference…”
This is ignorant. I deal with “crisis” pregnancies every day, and I’ve never met the woman considering abortion who reasonably claims anything on this list as her reason.
Women in my practice consider abortion usually for one of two reasons. It’s either, “I’ve already got too many,” or “Not with him.”
Report comment to moderator
“Mr. Obama, what were you at conception?“
Report comment to moderator
“McCain will appoint someone who has a harder time finding a right to murder in the constitution.”
People! We have gone over this.
NO HE WON’T.
Right now the projected number of seats Democrats will pick up in the Senate is looking a lot closer to 6-7 than to 5-6. Especially since races in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Oregon have tightened. McCain (should their be a miracle that gives him the White House) would have to deal with the most liberal Senate in 30 years.
You think your 72 year old, one-term president with an economy to “fix,” a war he has to continue single handed, and a “legacy” to carve out of that at some point is going to waste political capital pushing a supreme court nomination show down that he would lose anyway? Think again!
There is no way in hell that McCain could even get Roberts through the Senate post this election and he’s not even going to try. Mark my words, if McCain wins he’ll use the court nominations to be “bi-partisan” and nominate whoever Patrick Leahy tells him to.
You people have already lost the battle for the courts. You should deal with that and move on. Maybe it would help if you backed a candidate that wants to strengthen of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption rather than be a “maverick” and say “hey government, get out of my life.”
Report comment to moderator
Stubob: I find it difficult to believe that you don’t, practically every day deal with girls and women who might have problems arranging child care or keeping a job and a baby.
Babies change lives in so many ways.
Mark Roth: I’ll presume to answer for Mr. Obama. “I” was one solitary cell with no senses, no consciousness, and the potential to, with a lot of luck, become a human being. The chances of my becoming one were not especially good–either fate or nature or a god’s will, take your pick, gave that cell perhaps a 50-50 chance of making it to birth. Stubob might be able to correct that number, though I’m not sure anyone really knows.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t say I don’t see people dealing with those problems, but I don’t see people aborting because of them.
Report comment to moderator
They got Alito through because Alito was competent and held his Italian temper — admirably, I might add. He couldn’t be touched, not even by Kennedy.
Report comment to moderator
I would be ecstatic to see the issue removed entirely from our courts and put back in legislatures where presumably NARAL money donated to legislators’ campaigns would be used to further codify Roe. But there would undoubtedly be states willing to impose at least the same abortion restrictions as we see in even the most progressive socialist welfare states of Europe.
I do tire so of enduring the accusation that conservatives/ProLifers (not identical, as David Stockman and other proAbort Rs would tell you) don’t care anything about kids once they’ve exited the womb.
I equally tire of hearing folks call for a so-called united proLife front, one that posits an equivalence between the rights of innocent unborn children and convicted murderers.
Of course, if letting every man on Death Row free would save the innocent unborn kids, I’d personally throw the cell doors wide open.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s proposed programs will do more to reduce abortions in America than the policies of John McCain
This sort of rhetoric will gain some credence when the policies and programs begin to use abortion rates as a benchmark, making reduction of abortions their stated and measured goal. They haven’t, and don’t, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Report comment to moderator
Let me add that I too hope that once we have recognized the unborn’s right to life that we can all move forward together to enhance other quality of life issues for kids. Yet too often we have proAborts all gungho for them even as proLifers are dismissed for being “mean” and not wanting to spend money for the “little school chirren”
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia says:
“Stubob: I find it difficult to believe that you don’t, practically every day deal with girls and women who might have problems arranging child care or keeping a job and a baby.
“Babies change lives in so many ways.”
That’s a terribly callous thing to say. Babies are inconvenient; let’s kill them!
At least you’re honest enough to show your true stripes here. This is indeed the root of the pro-abortion movement.
Report comment to moderator
“After 35 years, a new approach is needed,” writes Douglas W. Kmiec”
Truer words were never spoken!! Repeal Roe V Wade and let’s get on with appreciating children instead of killing them.
Report comment to moderator
“The Matthew 25 webpage is a desperate attempt to attract pro-life Christian voters to Obama by misrepresenting and redefining the pro-life cause,” charged Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action. “It’s an insult and affront to every true pro-lifer in the country.”
She’s right. Real pro-lifers want laws that say ‘no abortion,’ and that’s all. Whether they’re effective, or whether there are other things that could be done to reduce the number of abortions without changing the laws, is not relevant to them.
They aren’t interested in actually improving things, just in winning the legal battle.
Report comment to moderator
Outlawing abortions would improve things, SteveG, because it would reduce the number of babies being murdered.
Report comment to moderator
4 – in the middle section of the softserve dispenser?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG says, “They aren’t interested in actually improving things, just in winning the legal battle.”
But those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. The point is well taken, though. It would be nice to have a truly pro-life candidate–that is, one who wanted both to make abortion illegal and to nurture an environment in which women would be less inclined to choose abortion in the first place.
Still, between Obama and McCain, the genuine pro-life voter has only one option, and it ain’t the one who voted against keeping living infants alive. Obama prefers that unwanted babies be left on a table in an empty room to die. That’s fact.
Report comment to moderator
Outrageous.
How can anyone be so blind as to say that Obama’s position is Pro-life, when it’s exactly the opposite?
Spin it baby. You liberals dizzy yet?
Report comment to moderator
People this conversation needs to grow up. If you admit that the goal is to reduce the number of abortions performed (the only functional thing that overturning Roe would give you) than you should evaluate the efficacy of your tactics. After 35 years of a strategy aimed solely at over-turning Roe your attempts to reduce abortions have been an absolute failure!
Is there anyone who disputes that? Speak up please, tell us what amazing landmark successes you have had. Because as it stands now a woman still has the legal right to an abortion in every state in the US.
If Mickel believes that a new approach is needed, trying once more at overturning Roe is NOT a new approach.
Everyone would like to reduce the number of abortions we have a year so how are you going to do it? By working with women or by trying to criminalize them?
One candidate wants to strengthen support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption PLUS offer the comprehensive education that actually has had successes at keeping women from getting pregnant when they don’t want to.
And one candidate has so far limited his rhetoric to lying to you (because he is not going to be able to put the judges you want on the bench even if he were willing to try) about continuing the same strategies that NOT ONE OF YOU IS ABLE TO CALL SUCCESSFUL!
So what’s it going to be? Are you going to be adults about this?
Report comment to moderator
“The Matthew 25 webpage is a desperate attempt to attract pro-life Christian voters to Obama by misrepresenting and redefining the pro-life cause,” charged Carrie Gordon Earll”
This is SAD. Some peoples desire for the most explosive rhetoric possible causes them to deliberately speak and act in idiotic and non-nuanced ways.
Carrie Gordon Earll knows perfectly well that Obama isn’t targeting members of Focus on the Family (Lord knows those people aren’t voting for the black guy).
But instead of offering any kind of argument or tactic to convince the pro-life-lite supporters – those people who are pro-life but not comfortable with criminalizing women or who place the issue below the economy, the war, education, energy, or global warming – all she wants to do is misrepresent her constituency.
For those people, Focus on the Family and the rest of you have completely failed to prove yourselves a sound investment.
Name ONE THING, that should inspire someone to confidence that supporting people who are unwilling to abandon a failed 35 year old strategy is a good idea. Clearly Carrie Gordon Earll can’t do it!
Report comment to moderator
Luke, you’re absolutely right, and any Christian would be a fool to disagree with you. When it comes down to brass tacks, the prolife movement has been an absolute failure. And God is judging our nation because of it.
Report comment to moderator
One woman who carries her baby to term that had previously decided on abortion is a success. Do I wish all abortion was eliminated? Sure. But that one woman and her baby is a joy unto the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: If you really believe that, then you should support comprehensive sex education, aid for pre-natal care and for post-birth help for poor mothers. All of those will contribute to at least some women who might consider abortion to choosing not to have it — or to arming them with the information they need to not get pregnant in the first place.
My observation is that most people who call themselves pro-life do not support those things. Do you?
Report comment to moderator
“Carrie Gordon Earll knows perfectly well that Obama isn’t targeting members of Focus on the Family (Lord knows those people aren’t voting for the black guy).”,/i>
Luke,
Are you trying to say that Focus on The Family is a racist organization? Because you would be demonstrably wrong on that score. Egregiously so…
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I don’t know a single pro-life supporter that doesn’t support aid for prenatal care (just not necessarily through tax dollars, but that’s another story) or post-birth help for poor mothers. Haven’t you noticed that most crisis pregnancy centers do both of these?
Or do you just jump to conclusions without looking first.
I would support a limited view of opt-out comprehensive sex ed (is that still comprehensive?) in state schools. Basic biology and explanations of negative consequences are fine. Condoms on cucumbers are not.
Report comment to moderator
McCain will appoint someone who has a harder time finding a right to murder in the constitution.
Luke is right. McCain will do no such thing.
Remember, before his advisors convinced him otherwise, McCain wanted pro-choice Senator Joe Leiberman as his VP. The issue is clearly not one of deep importance to McCain, so he has neither the will nor (as Luke points out) the political capital to push a pro-life justice through the Dem’s 60 seat majority.
Report comment to moderator
Remember, before his advisors convinced him otherwise, McCain wanted pro-choice Senator Joe Leiberman as his VP.
That might be your opinion, JJF, but where’s your support for that?
Report comment to moderator
http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain+wanted+lieberman
Report comment to moderator
“The Matthew 25 webpage is a desperate attempt to attract pro-life Christian voters to Obama by misrepresenting and redefining the pro-life cause,” charged Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action. “It’s an insult and affront to every true pro-lifer in the country.”
That’s true for the radical anti-choice movement. But for the majority of Americans, they’re just plain tired of the abortion wars. They may not particularly like abortion, but they don’t want to make it illegal. Most people would rather focus on reducing the need for abortion.
Let’s also remember that FOF is a staunch supporter of the Republican Party. Their attack on Obama is, to a significant degree, political in nature.
Report comment to moderator
#27 Old Joe’s denomination of Judaism.. doesnt it defend life at conception? How can he be Mr Observant Orthodox and openly flout his religion’s teaching on abortion?
Report comment to moderator
#19 Luke:
I long ago called the bluff of the various RTL groups who call and mail me asking for donations. Candidates for elective office are never never never EVER going to address abortion. The best we can hope for is a 5/4 proLife majority. But the proAborts are a smart crowd. They can “Souterize” a nominee and keep Roe in effect. So then it all comes down to who will pick the Supremes. (To borrow the old 60s Barry McGuire song lyric: “Handful o’ Senators don’t make legislation..”)
These days I tell the phone solicitor that instead of giving them money to hire (ineffective) lobbyists (and more phone solicitors!) I will use it instead to buy diapers and babywipes to donate to the local crisis pregnancy center.
Report comment to moderator
Great answer, Sawgunner.
Report comment to moderator
Re – 29 “Most people would rather focus on reducing the need for abortion.”
Hear, hear. Abstinence works EVERY time it’s tried.
Good call Anlir.
Report comment to moderator
Abstinence is one option, and has a part to play in reducing the need for abortion. Education, birth control, pre-natal services, and counseling are also needed in the mix.
Report comment to moderator
Mickel: And it fails when it isn’t used, and teenagers get pregnant, or bad diseases or even fatal diseases because people like you would rather have them dead than informed.
Report comment to moderator
Luke at #5 says;
“Right now the projected number of seats Democrats will pick up in the Senate is looking a lot closer to 6-7 than to 5-6.”
Given Congress approval rating, you’re whistling past the graveyard. Especially since according to Rasmussen, 50% of Americans want to throw out ALL incumbents.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/59_would_vote_to_replace_entire_congress
“Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sure (see crosstabs).
A separate survey found that just 11% of voters say Congress is doing a good or an excellent job.”
You’re dreaming son.
Report comment to moderator
Re 35 – Gee SteveG, how did you know that I have personally withheld lifesaving techniques/assistance/education etc. to virtually tens of teens and otherwise carnally frivilous fornicators?
You are ridiculous in your suggestion. But I hope you feel better after your little tantrum.
Report comment to moderator
Most people at worldmagblog carefully evaluate all the different opinions and evidence presented in the post and the other comments and then come to a considered and judicial opinion.
I come with my mind made up and just look for evidence that supports the conclusion I have already come to and argumetents that decry the ridiculous claims I have already rejected.
I am just finishing the first of about a dozen books I already checked out of the library on abortion. Most present a variety of articles pro and con.
As I’ve said before, I believe in giving people reasons not to have abortions. So far, I haven’t come across anything that changes my mind.
However, just to be difficult: a) I doubt that most people benefit from government sex uducation. Most figure out by themselves that you put tab a in slot be and … never mind. b) Queer people don’t make many babies, whether or not they are married, unless they are pretending not to be queer. Also, I don’t believe in gay marriage. Marriage is not gay. My wife and I (close to celebrating–if that’s the right word–43 years of marriage–yelled at each other vigorously last night–but then we went to bed and cuddled and went sleep reasonably amicably).
We don’t claim to have a gay marriage, so we don’t see why homosexual people should get to make any such claim either. Anyway, they are seldom pregnant, so they are seldom having abortions.
To all those loyalists who say you help give people reasons for not having abortions, I celebrate, applaud, and admire you.
For all those rebels who expressed sensible and articulate opinions that agree with my sensible but not as articulate opinions, I celebrate, applaud, and admire you.
For everyone who argues and disagrees with me, you have bunny relatives who live on my island and visit my garden, perhaps?
Report comment to moderator
“After 35 years of a strategy aimed solely at over-turning Roe your attempts to reduce abortions have been an absolute failure!
Is there anyone who disputes that? Speak up please, tell us what amazing landmark successes you have had. Because as it stands now a woman still has the legal right to an abortion in every state in the US.”
Let’s see…it took what 90 years after the USA was formed to end slavery…another 100 to grant equality on paper. 35 seems small comparatively in regards to major changes. I dont see many pro-lifers giving up when most consider the issue just as important.
Further, we still have race issues. Can you make the same excuse that ending slavery would be pointless just because it wouldnt change people’s actions immediately? No. Saying women would be criminalized or looked down upon should abortion be made illegal isnt good enough either. They are all just lousy excuses for not adhering to what is right.
“(because he is not going to be able to put the judges you want on the bench even if he were willing to try)”
Maybe, but you certainly know what Obama will put there. McCain at least there is a small hope.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not as though teen pregnancy and STDs screeched to a halt when comprehensive sex ed began sweeping the land…why are some of you so convinced it’s the only way to go?
Report comment to moderator
There’s no tantrum about it, Mickel. People who insist on abstinence-only are in favor of withholding potentially life-saving information from teenagers. Abstinence curriculum sometimes even actively lies to them about the effectiveness of condoms.
The unavoidable conclusion is that it’s preferable to people of that belief that some people end up pregnant or dead than that they get information that could prevent those outcomes. I can understand that it makes you uncomfortable to have that pointed out, but it’s true.
Report comment to moderator
See what I mean? No? OK.
Anyway, to the rebels posting on this thread–your know who you are–I invite you to join me in celebrating Tame Tuesday tomorrow.
We will leave the web site to the loyalists for one day–who will use the day to–what? Speak kindly and respectfully about us behind our backs? Let’s see.
On Wednesday, rebels–having saved up all your ire–release it–so to speak–in one great explosion. Or more than one. Whatever you feel like. You can do it. Restrain your impulses for one day.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: They are all just lousy excuses for not adhering to what is right./i>
Nope, they’re well reasoned reasons for not adhering to or being forced to do what you believe is right.
Report comment to moderator
Why is having sex so important for a person who doesn’t support themselves?
Can they live without it until they support themselves?
Report comment to moderator
Ok AJ since you’re not following the polls or the contests I will enlighten you!
The GOP had one opportunity to a flip a Senate seat (recall that they needed TWO to take back the majority) and they botched it. There is no way that Louisiana will flip, but if you don’t believe me why don’t you offer some reasons why you think John Neely Kennedy can win it?
Beyond that GOP seats are in trouble in Virgina (practically guaranteed to be won by Democratic Mark Warner), New Mexico (which looks equally locked for Tom Udall), Colorado, New Hampshire, Alaska (where Palin has not managed to turn around the reelection prospects of indited Ted Stevens has he faces popular Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich), North Carolina, Oregon, Minnesota, and Mississippi (where the special second election to replace Trent Lott is only getting the rating “leans GOP”)!
John Ensign, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has PUBLICLY called a scenario where the R’s lose ONLY 3-4 seats a great night.
And the prospects of the Dem’s picking up the 60 seat majority have only increased as the election has unfolded.
If you want to tell me I’m dreaming, how about you man up and try to explain why Gilmore, Pearce, Schaffer, Sununu, Stevens, Dole, Smith, Coleman, and Wicker can hang onto their seats or win these elections? Cause right now GOP insiders following the senate races are panicking!
There will be NO anti-Roe judges appointed to the Supreme Court in the next two years!
Report comment to moderator
Politically, I don’t believe either side takes the issue seriously. Neither side is saying “We’re going to end the tragedy of abortion, and here’s how.” Instead we get the usual stuff about overturning RvW from McCain, which isn’t going to happen any time soon. And the word abortion isn’t even found in Obama’s “Blueprint For Change”. So this idea that Obama’s the more pro-life candidate because folks like the Matthew 25 crew can imagine his policies will indirectly reduce abortions, without any stated intent to concretely measure those policies by their effect on abortion, is fuzzy-headed wishful thinking. It’s as empty as the promise to nominate judges who’ll overturn RvW.
Report comment to moderator
The “abstinence only” crowd are today’s “flat earth-ers”. No matter what medical and social evidence is put in front of them, the simply refuse to acknowledge it.
The other part of it is that they see things like STD’s and AIDS as “just punishment” from God. They are the descendants of those who saw birth control and the Pill as evil because they took away the “just punishment” from God. And they are the descendants of those who saw childbirth and even womanhood as “just punishment” from God.
I know it seems silly to the rest of us, but to them it’s very serious and real. There has always been a strain of Christianity that desires to see the consequences of disobeying God’s rules manifested in physical punishment/pain. Some of them have even taken glee in it and even participated in the physical punishment.
Report comment to moderator
McCain believes children should live and Obama believes that they should die, unless the mother just happens to want them. It is as simple as that.
Obama voted ‘present’ on most abortion bills, which is the gutless way of voting no in Illinois, since yes votes are required for passage.
In 1997, Obama finally voted ‘no’ against SB 230, banning partial-birth abortion, & ‘no’ again in 2000 against banning state funding for abortion.
So not only should children have their limbs removed and brains vacuumed out, but the state should pay for it.
Too bad those kids will never know that Obama was there for them.
Report comment to moderator
There is, of course, absolutely no inherent contradiction between supporting a woman’s right to choose under the law, while working to reduce the conditions that make it necessary for her to make that choice.
Abortion is one of those fundamental issues that Americans just disagree about. And people are flat-out tired of the extremists. They would rather focus on reducing the need for a woman to have to make that choice.
And that’s where Barack Obama comes in. He says “Lets quit fighting over whether it should be legal or not and instead focus on helping women who find themselves in difficult circumstances. Let’s focus on educating people so they don’t get pregnant in the first place”. And I think that resonates with the vast majority of Americans.
Is that gonna please the anti-choice fanatics? No. But they’re a small number of people.
Report comment to moderator
#44
We’ve got it! We’ve got it! Nobody have sex until you can afford it! The problem is solved! How come nobody didn’t think of that before?
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L: . . . sophistry.
The argument by the Matthew 25 network is real and in no way fallacious, therefore not sophistry.
If the policies of Obama really will reduce abortion more, that’s a valid argument. McCain’s policy of overturning Roe v. Wade can do nothing more than reduce abortion, because eliminating abortion requires a constitutional amendment, which McCain doesn’t advocate.
David L. could only be correct if reduction were incompatible with elimination. Yet that is not the case. Abortion rights don’t cause abortion. Theoretically, there’s nothing to stop the advocates of reduction from reducing abortion all the way down to zero. Opponents of abortion have themselves to blame for failing to persuade half the population that abortion is murder.
Report comment to moderator
There is no way that Louisiana will flip . . .
And even if Republicans did beat Landrieu, they would not gain another vote to confirm an anti-Roe justice, because they already have her vote for anything that would criminalize abortion.
Report comment to moderator
When Obama comes forward and says that reducing abortions is a fundamental goal of his proposed administration and it’s policies, and that they these policies will be measured by this benchmark, he’ll have some credibility on the issue.
When McCain comes forward and says that reducing abortions is a fundamental goal of his proposed administration and it’s policies, and agrees to take whatever measures are necessary to do so, evaluating them by this benchmark, he’ll have some credibility on the issue.
When Matthew 25 can show that Obama has made reducing death by abortion at any stage a key part of his agenda and voting record, they’ll have some credibility on the issue.
Until then, continue blowing smoke and thinking wishfully.
SG
Report comment to moderator
Abortion is far down the list if most American’s concerns these days. Things like jobs, mortgages, medical insurance, energy, the economy, and the war are far and away more important than abortion. I realize it’s a huge issue on here, but this site is over represented by the fanatical anti-choice movement, not regular Americans.
Barack Obama is giving the issue an appropriate amount of attention.
Report comment to moderator
If a couple of offhand lines in his Blueprint about contraception convey what Obama deems an appropriate amount of attention to the to the matter, you are probably correct about his take on the importance of the issue. So I take it you agree that Matthew 25’s suggestion that this is an important reason to vote for Obama is ludicrous, no?
Report comment to moderator
#50 Random Name
Sometimes Tough Love is the best and only way to handle things.
I’m a grandfather who had to tell his son and daughter-in-law that if they had their children taken from them by the County that we would be good grandparents; we would visit them regularly, we would bring them Christmas and birthday presents, but no, we would not take them into our home and foster-parent them. (We had already had the whole family live in our house for 11 months.) He and his wife would have take care of them. We wouldn’t.
It all worked out for the best.
Report comment to moderator
Liberal programs usually work by removing personal responsibility and make things worse.
The women’s movement wanted to have sex without consequences. So liberal laws now allow you to saw your kid’s arms and legs off.
This created a national baby sawmill.
To fix this new problem, once again the solution is to remove personal responsibility.
Obama’s idea is to have government raise your children for you. You’ll get an increase in your welfare check, free health care, free prenatal care, your own personal in home nurse, free daycare, free education. If you can’t afford a house, we’ll buy you one. If you can’t afford your kids, we’ll pay for everything.
Now, in the end will the abortion rate go down? Doubtful, since the desire to not have children is rarely based on economics. But since there is money to be made, the number of unwed mothers and out-of-wedlock kids will go up. Crime will go up. And responsible people who actually work for a living will need to carry $1 trillion more in taxes.
So then we will need more liberal programs to solve the problems these liberal programs created. And so on …
All this because no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
Report comment to moderator
What’s that smell?
Report comment to moderator
“We’ve got it! We’ve got it! Nobody have sex until you can afford it! The problem is solved! How come nobody didn’t think of that before?”
Don’t forget the terribly effective and historically pertinent option of just going gay!
“And even if Republicans did beat Landrieu, they would not gain another vote to confirm an anti-Roe justice, because they already have her vote for anything that would criminalize abortion.”
Really? I didn’t know that about her, but the leadership is generally pretty good at keeping their anti-choice members off the judicial committee. Mary’s continued caucusing with the Dems, however, highlights just how far away the GOP is from controlling the chair of that committee. They are after all in a political climate where they can’t win a seat in Louisiana!
Also, anti-choice justices are usually not conservative in a vacuum, so there is no guarantee that Landrieu would vote for that confirmation anyway. I don’t know how she voted on Alito.
Report comment to moderator
The real vote on Alito was the cloture vote, and she voted to have “an up or down vote.” She has a 43% NARAL score and a 50% NRLC score. She represents herself as both pro-life and pro-Roe. She votes not to obstruct, if not always to please her anti-abortion constituents.
Report comment to moderator
Been awhile since I posted, but this Ministry is a true Matthew 25 Ministry: http://www.m25m.org/
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!