Senator Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for the Office of the President of the United States.
It was a hard-fought contest and some harsh things were said by both sides and so emotions may still be a little raw on both sides (even on this blog). Fact of the matter is that in this contest between two Democrats, one Democrat won and one Democrat lost. This is one reality that's not going to change.
There'a another reality that isn't going to be changing, either - Senator John McCain is the Republican candidate. He's still there. The big race is not over, in fact it's only just begun. We should be looking at the positions he's taken in his campaign.
This can be found at Senator McCain's website:
That's something to ponder. A vote for John McCain will be a vote to endanger the privacy protections guaranteed by Roe v Wade.[He] believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As [he] has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."
Then there's this from his website:
Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of an arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power. For that reason, a judge's decisions must rest on more than his subjective conviction that he is right, or his eagerness to address a perceived social ill.Which acts as a nice back drop to this new McCain flip-flop from today's New York Times:
What was that again about the "arbitrary executive"?A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.
John McCain - we don't need another four years of Bush policies.
12 comments:
John K. says: Yep, it is all over except for the voting. But why let something like counting votes get in the way of an election.
Another completely useless comment from John K.
David, as a general rule, we as a nation-- as a human race, for that matter-- view the killing of an innocent person as wrong.
So why do you think it is about a person's privacy? Is it "privately" okay to kill that person, just not publicly?
Although abortion SHOULD be a public issue... after all, it affects the whole of society. Certainly, the effects are many-fold (is that a word?).
The important "right" the mother has is not the right to privacy; it is to allow her child all the rights that he or she is entitled to. And that includes the right to be born.
Whether one defines a fertilized egg as "a person" (innocent or otherwise) is, indeed, a private matter.
Some (SOME) religious traditions say it is, some say it isn't.
I can't see how it would be morally acceptable to impose one religious tradition over another on such a private matter.
When is it ever morally acceptable to force a woman to be pregnant when she does not wish to be?
no one can convince me that a fertilized egg is a person.
now, if i choose to believe it is because of my religion, or personal belief that's fine but to force me to accept the premise that it has the same rights as i do, or my mom, grandmam, daughter granddaughter or the woman next door. no.
to allow any government to determine that?
there is the ultimate dictatorship.
imagine if it were a reverse situation. you want the govenment to force abortions?
the government and any one else can stay out of my uterus and my decisions about my body.
The important and very private right a woman has is the right to live out her own faith without an old grey-haired man telling her how to do it. I personally do not agree with abortion, but I don't need anyone to tell me HOW and in what way to exercise my own faith.
If you feel the need for such governmental intervention on your own behalf, please empower your Church to do this. You could use shunning. Leave the rest of us out of your attempt to turn the government into a faith dispenser, because I, for one, have absolutely no desire to see the government in the business of personal faith enforcement.
Kim
Interestingly, abortion is not, and has never been, a religious issue. Certainly, it is informed by religion, but it is essentially a human rights issue.
I have not mentioned anything about religion here. This is about what is true. If one's religion also happens to teach what is true, then cool. But religion does not have to come into this.
As for "convincing" anyone that an unborn human is a person, this is something that is almost impossible to NOT know already. Anyone who knows anything about human reproduction would know this fact (the fact of the personhood of the unborn child).
However, I suppose that some people choose to remain ignorant.... sadly.
Yes, ignorance is sad, L.K., but it's not too late for you.
Here's my advice: Give up your dependence on extremist religion for your experience and opinions, begin to think for yourself rather than letting your priests do it for you, and you might actually become a real person yourself.
If you actually hold the demented belief that any cell containing human chromosomes constitues a human being, I trust you will stop cutting your hair. Also, stop scratching any itches as this brutal practice can force thousands of formerly living human beings to die under the onslaught of your murderous fingernails.
L.K.-- first, make is mandatory that every father is required to give blood or an organ for the sake of their living child's life, then tell me that this is not a faith-based decision. Perhaps you are unaware that any parent can refuse a simple life-saving blood transfusion to their child and suffer no penalty.
Also, you seem oddly unaware that many cultures and religions do NOT believe that a fertilized egg is a person -- you see, they believe that a person BECOMES a person when God gives that egg a soul; relgions differ as to when the ensouling process occurs. Obviously, if you are relgious, a person without a soul, is not a person -- but then, perhaps you are not and hence, you do not understand why this is a question of faith and a question of turning the government into "faith enforcers."
I meant religious. I shouldn't type when I am aggravated, which this subject often makes me.
I would not have an abortion as my own faith forbids it, but I do NOT want anyone enforcing my faith for me -- that is up to me!
Hmm... I have to laugh!
I find many of your collective comments humorous for various reasons. Some, because of the EXTREME ignorance of biology and human reproduction (I mention this primarily for the dear person who mentions the "hair and nails" argument). No offense, kind soul, but... WHAT??? You would do well to study more. Please, I mean no offense. But please try and think about these things from a scientific and/or medical perspective.
Another reason I am humored is because everyone seems to be mentioning "religion" and "faith", etc... that is, everyone except ME. I mentioned it briefly in one post simply to explain that abortion is not a religious issue.
I also laugh because I am flattered that my opinion matters so much. No, just kidding. I know this is a hot-button issue, and I appreciate all of your comments.
But let's try and be civil, shall we?
Gotta go-- I need to post a response to the "McCain clinic" information.... Come on, you didn't think I was going to ignore that one, did you?
Libertarians for Life
No religion, extreme or otherwise, is required to see abortion as forceful taking of human lives.
Post a Comment