View Thread Return to Index Previous Next

MiYard Cyber Club Message Board Archive

Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of human
By:Lola
Date: 10/19/08 12:21pm

Posted below is an excerpt from an article that provides just a brief summary of the concerns - which are much more than keeping abortion legal. If you think that is all that is at stake (as I did), you need to look into the issues more deeply. You can read this article in full at: http://townhall.com/Columnists/RobertGeorge/2008/10/15/obamas_abortion_extremism

"Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ''that question is above my pay grade.'' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then."

Messages In This Thread

Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of human -- Lola -- 10/19/08 12:21pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- ray -- 10/19/08 1:41pm
Both say no litmus test but both have one -- Lola -- 10/20/08 10:59am
Re: Both say no litmus test but both have one -- Roger -- 10/20/08 1:33pm
Re: Both say no litmus test but both have one -- ray -- 10/20/08 2:52pm
Re: Both say no litmus test but both have one -- Roger -- 10/20/08 3:05pm
Well Roger, we simply... -- ray -- 10/20/08 4:01pm
Re: Well Roger, we simply... -- Roger -- 10/20/08 4:05pm
Uh, simply, I see no need to as... -- ray -- 10/20/08 6:31pm
Re: Uh, simply, I see no need to as... -- Roger -- 10/20/08 6:44pm
Re: Come on Ray -- BMD -- 10/19/08 10:43pm
I would agree... -- ray -- 10/20/08 2:29pm
Litmus test semantics -- MilwaukeeMike -- 10/19/08 7:37pm
Re: Litmus test semantics -- georgiajan -- 10/19/08 7:55pm
Re: Litmus test semantics -- BMD -- 10/19/08 10:50pm
Roe was wrong! -- ray -- 10/19/08 8:22pm
Supreme Court legislating from the bench -- MilwaukeeMike -- 10/19/08 10:42pm
Uh...the issue was one of federalism -- ray -- 10/20/08 2:18pm
Re: Uh...the issue was one of federalism -- Roger -- 10/20/08 2:30pm
Ah....but you know McCain never said that *NM* -- ray -- 10/19/08 7:42pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- Roger -- 10/19/08 5:06pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- ray -- 10/19/08 6:22pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- Roger -- 10/19/08 6:31pm
Well, I would say... -- ray -- 10/19/08 7:30pm
Re: Well, I would say... -- Roger -- 10/19/08 7:49pm
Thanks again *NM* -- ray -- 10/19/08 8:24pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- queenb -- 10/19/08 1:29pm
Ummm, did you read any of it? -- Lola -- 10/19/08 1:38pm
This is one of the topics that. . . -- Col. Andy & "Wildcat" Pam -- 10/19/08 2:50pm