Everyone is anxiously awaiting the news
Published on August 20, 2008 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Politics

I am axiously awaiting the naming of the VP positions especially for McCain.  There still could be a chance I'm not going to the polls this year.   Hopefully this won't happen but alot hinges on the VP choice McCain makes.

During this past weekend's Q&A with Rick Warren of the Saddleback church John McCain answered very simply to the "when does life begin"  question.  He came right out and said life begins with conception. 

Obama, on the other hand, gave this long convoluted answer which in my book was really a  "I don't know" answer.  But then again, Obama has extreme pro-abort ideas and he's sticking by that pro-choice position. I like Ronald Reagan's stance on this issue.  If we don't really "know" and there is much debate on this "when does life begin" issue shouldn't we NOT abort and err on the side of life?  He said we don't bury a "seemingly" dead person until we first make darn sure he's dead first.  So why kill a human being if we're undecided on when he becomes human first? 

There has been some talk about McCain choosing a pro-abortion VP.  I guess what he'd be saying, by doing so, is that abortion is not that big of an issue and if his VP is a pro-abort guy than so be it. 

I would have a problem with that.  

Because if McCain really believed that life begins at conception, he'd do all he can do to protect unborn life and picking a VP who is ok with murdering babies in the womb, in my book, is hyprocrisy.  How can two walk together if they can't agree on the most basic of all basic things? 

At least, Obama is upfront with his belief even if, in my book, he doesn't have a clue about many things including the abortion matter.   He's not being hypocritical but only relaying what he believes to be true,  At least Obama (and I cringe when I say this) is sticking to his beliefs and is honest with us on this issue. 

Somebody told me this week that if McCain picks a pro-abort VP then he will vote for Obama even though he strongly disagrees with him.  His reasoning would be if McCain goes against what he believes  (or says what he believes) by picking a pro-abortion VP  then he deserves to lose.   I'm not sure why McCain would go against his own belief and that of  the majority of the party that supports him.  To me it would be political suicide.

I know one thing.  I will NOT vote for Obama for any reason.  If anything a  NO vote for McCain is a vote for Obama anyhow. 

We will know soon enough. 

What do you think? 

 

 

 

 

 


Comments (Page 3)
8 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Aug 22, 2008

Please! Before he destroys this state!

Yeah, well he has the least experience and almost no accomplishments to speak of... that makes him a perfect fit.

on Aug 22, 2008

almost no accomplishments

No Accomplishments???????  He turned a billion dollar surplus into a billion dollar deficit - twice!  He thoroughly destroyed the IT infrastructure of the commonwealth and sold it down the river to line the pockets of his cronies and made sure it cost as much as 5 times more!

How can you say no accomplishments?

on Aug 22, 2008

How can you say no accomplishments?

Not in the rude way, but just in a way to define my meaning of 'accomplishment'

ac·com·plish·ment Audio Help (ə-kŏm'plĭsh-mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1. The act of accomplishing or the state of being accomplished; completion.

2. Something completed successfully; an achievement.

3. An acquired skill or expertise: a singer known for his accomplishment in vocal technique.

4. Social poise and grace.

My use of the word falls in line with the second definition...  so nothing has changed

on Aug 22, 2008

I doubt those things you listed would be considered 'success.' More like disasterous consequence.

on Aug 22, 2008

I doubt those things you listed would be considered 'success.' More like disasterous consequence

Hey!  I did not say they were "good" successes!

on Aug 22, 2008

All along I don't usually like to do this (and never have), because I know he's a spoiler but when you feel like you don't have a choice, it's a way to voice it I suppose.

If you are voting for the person you most want to see in office then that candidate is NOT a spoiler.  The notion that the third party candidates "steal" votes from the major parties is insane.  The third party candidates fill a void that has been left by the divisivness of the two major parties.

We were tricked basically.

I honestly don't care how abortion was legalized at this point I just know that without one my wife would have died and as such abortion was, and still is, a necessary evil.

 

That is difficult. If this is about the rights of the unborn wife, why should the unborn baby be punished for his biological father's (or in the case of incest for his biological parents') crime?

It's not that difficult.  Are you really going to force a woman to carry a 9 month reminder around of a horrible event that happened to her?  Then force her to go through the painful labor only to have to either raise an unwanted baby or have to give up a child for adoption that she has been bonding with for 9 months.  No matter how you cut it it is torture for the woman to have to deal with, and she shouldn't be forced to.

In cases where the woman's health is at risk it is essential.
Yes. But I don't think that has ever been the issue.

But if abortion were made illegal it would become an issue.  For one thing how do you define "when the woman's health is at risk"?  Some states have attempted to make it so that it is only when death is imminent, meaning if the fetus isn't aborted then the woman has less than a day to live.  If you ask me it should be aborted long before that if the woman starts having complications that are known to be life threatening.

I don't follow that logic.
If we allowed abortion under certain circumstances, why would it have to be legal under all circumstances?

Quite simply because there might not be any doctors around to perform the needed abortion.  If a woman in Idaho needs an abotion because she is dieing and the only way to save her is with an abortion yet Idaho doesn't have any doctors that perform the necessary operation what is that woman going to do?

 

Keeping Religion out of it

Unfortunately this is something that some people are incapable of but is necessary to really talk about the issue.

 

Willful murder is a sin that cries out for God's vengeance.

And here we get into the nuanced debate of when life actually begins.  I will refrain from that in this debate because you and I will never see eye to eye on that.

 

on Aug 22, 2008

And here we get into the nuanced debate of when life actually begins.

and that is the crux of the whole matter.  Until we know for sure the murder should stop.  We wouldn't bury a dead person until we KNOW FOR A FACT he's dead right?  So why kill an unborn baby if we don't know for sure when life begins? 

Besides all that, the death of the unborn is just the beginning for the parents do a bit of dying themselves that day when they make this unethical choice to snuff out the life of another. 

Don't give me the "rape" or "life of the mother" cry because we all know that it's almost negliglbe that this is the norm.  It's the rally cry of the pro-abortion cause and just another lie they put on the forefront to help others make a decision based on emtion rather than logic. 

I was almost raped 11 years ago (but got away)  and had it happened I most likely would have had a child today out of it.  I knew in my heart immediately after the attack that I would NOT have aborted the child had it happened.   Two wrongs never make it right.  We are dealt things in our lives I believe as a test and how we respond is very crucial to our well being here and for eternity. 

 

on Aug 22, 2008

The following seems almost religious instead of politics per usual.
That should make you ecstatic!

I don't believe in a one issue vote.
Good for you!

on Aug 22, 2008

And here we get into the nuanced debate of when life actually begins. I will refrain from that in this debate because you and I will never see eye to eye on that.
Thank you for your very sensitive and intelligent commentary.

on Aug 22, 2008

Thank you for your very sensitive and intelligent commentary.

ahhhhhh liberal?  Let's just not discuss this part eh?  We don't really want to know where the truth may lead us?

That should make you ecstatic!

actually no because I'm really "anti-religious." 

 

 

on Aug 22, 2008

and that is the crux of the whole matter. Until we know for sure the murder should stop.

To you it is murder, it isn't to me.  The question of when life begins is a philosophical one not one that will satisfactorily be answered by science for you which is why I am attempting to avoid the whole discussion.

We wouldn't bury a dead person until we KNOW FOR A FACT he's dead right? So why kill an unborn baby if we don't know for sure when life begins?

Because it is much easier to define when death occurs, you can more easily see it.  When life begins is like asking when does a man start to have a beard, how many wiskers are involved and what length, etc.

 

Besides all that, the death of the unborn is just the beginning for the parents do a bit of dying themselves that day when they make this unethical choice to snuff out the life of another.

Why my wife and I had to make this decision a few years ago it wasn't easy, but don't you for a minute claim it was unethical.  Our choice was between both my wife and the fetus (which was never going to be viable anyway) dieing or simply aborting and saving my wifes life.  There was nothing unethical about that decision.  Now using abortion as a primary birth control method is unethical, but that doesn't make all abortions unethical which is what you appear to be implying.

 

Don't give me the "rape" or "life of the mother" cry because we all know that it's almost negliglbe that this is the norm. It's the rally cry of the pro-abortion cause and just another lie they put on the forefront to help others make a decision based on emtion rather than logic.

It doesn't matter whether it is the norm or not, because it exists we must allow for abortion to be safe and legal, it is the logical choice not an emotional one.


I was almost raped 11 years ago (but got away) and had it happened I most likely would have had a child today out of it. I knew in my heart immediately after the attack that I would NOT have aborted the child had it happened. Two wrongs never make it right. We are dealt things in our lives I believe as a test and how we respond is very crucial to our well being here and for eternity.

While I am sorry that you had that experience "almost" being raped isn't anywhere near the same as actually being raped.  My wife was raped (many times over the course of many years) and she still suffers the scars from those events.  Luckily she didn't get pregnant any of the times that she was raped otherwise she would have physical lifelong reminders of those events.

Don't get me wrong I would never say that you would have to get an abortion under any circcumstances, if you don't feel that you could or would ever get one that's fine but that doesn't give you the right to deny someone else the ability to do so.

on Aug 23, 2008

How is picking a VP candidate who is in favour of abortion betraying McCains beliefs? To impose the straightjacket that his VP candidate must agree with him outright on every single conceivable moral issue means that he may not really have anyone left that qualifies to pick! Since McCain would be the president, it would be his views on abortion that matter, not his VP's. The VP's would matter more if McCain was to die from a cold winter leaving the VP to take charge. It also seems rather bizarre logic to not vote McCain because he picks a pro-abortion VP, and instead vote for Obama when he is pro-abortion.. A bit like clinton supporters saying they will vote McCain out of spite for Obama, even though Clinton+Obama's policies are far more similar than Clinton+McCain's - a 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' type of mentality.

on Aug 23, 2008

Well it's official Obama has chosen a VP (Bidden) that has more experience than he does for president. That's like having your eight year old drive you to work, and finding out he's your boss too.

Anyway here's a bumper stick for the duo:

Obama, Bidden into your take home pay.

on Aug 23, 2008

Moving onto the issue of abortion (since that's being discussed here along with VP picks),

I wish the issue of abortion was not involved in the presidential process.  Regardless of one's views, I feel that it's an issue that should be deciced by "the people" and not the president or the supreme court.  It shouldn't matter what the President believes about abortion.  It should matter if the President will abide by the will of the people on what *they* believe about abortion

A fairly big problem with this (actually it's more a flaw with the method proposed, the majority rule) - it can lead to minorities and those without a voice/vote being hurt at the majorities expense. For example a law that taxes all African immigrants at 50% and gives their money to everyone born in the US could in theory be popular with the majority (who benefit) while being deeply unfair to the minority. It's an extreme example, but is there to illustrate the point that the mob, or majority, decision is not always the best one. You also have problems in some cases of poor information and judgement, with the population often proving fickle on issues and changing their views frequently. In the case of abortion and whether people are in favour or against it, the very phrasing of the question asked can have a big impact (e.g. ask whether it's ok to abort a foetus and I expect you'd find more people saying yes than if you ask whether it's ok to kill an unborn child). Not to say that having just 1 person making the decision is any better of course, more that neither is perfect.

 

Abortion is a necessary evil.  Yes abortion is not pleasent and anyone who thinks it is an easy decision for a woman to make is fooling themselves, but it is necessary.  In cases of rape and incest it is essential.  In cases where the woman's health is at risk it is essential.  And because it is essential in those cases it needs to be safe and legal in all cases so that there are enough doctors around to do the procedure on those women that need it.

My own personal views are that while abortion generally is wrong, there are exceptions. Where the mothers life is in danger is a clear one, since then you are weighing up one life against another. It's a terrible decision to be faced with, but in that situation I would say the mother has every right to choose whether to have an abortion. Rape is another very difficult area and my views on it are not solid. Practically I know that it wouldn't be all that feasible to ban abortion but allow it for rape, but equally it seems wrong to force childbirth (and the inherrant risks of it), along with a child that could bring back memories of a terrible ordeal onto someone. Therefore my stance is that in cases of rape a woman too should have a choice, up to the point at which the child has a viable chance of life outside the mother (although any such law would need to have some flexibility, which would inevitably lead to some regrettable situations such as where women would cry rape in order to obtain an abortion. However it would IMO be better than the alternative of allowing mass legalised killing of children). However you don't need to legalise it in all cases, including a worrying increasing amount of times where it is used as a method of birth control. You could still have doctors trained in abortion procedures so that in the rarer cases they could carry them out, and of course you could have specialised units if it became a really rare occurance in the above exceptions (IMO unlikely though). To carry on from a later point you then made (e.g. of no doctors being trained), aside from making it mandatory that doctors are trained (so such a situation would be highly unlikely to ever arise) you could always then airlift the woman to the nearest doctor who was.

 

For one thing how do you define "when the woman's health is at risk"?...If you ask me it should be aborted long before that if the woman starts having complications that are known to be life threatening

I'd agree - I'd probably classify it as any situation where it would be expected that the mother would suffer an increased risk of life threatening complications as a result of continuing with the pregnancy. It would obviously in part be a judgement call on the doctors part, but if someone's life is at risk from continuing a pregnancy (and not just the standard very low risk that would arise from any normal pregnancy) then an abortion should be available.  However I doubt few if any people would have an objection against that, since to deny abortions in such cases is to make a judgement about which life is more valuable for every such situation. When the persons life is not at risk (and it's not a case of rape which then brings up the tortue issues you mentioned) then it is no longer about weighing up one life against another, since there is only one life in danger, and hence I feel that life should be protected, and not deemed less worthy than convenience, or avoidance of childbirth pain resulting from a persons own actions (typically from having unprotected sex, although even in the case of contraception if you choose to have sex you are aware there is a chance that a pregnancy may result).

on Aug 23, 2008

Hmm.  Interesting thoughts.  Well, not really, it's all mostly saying the same thing.  I'm not going to get into the comments because it's not worth fighting over in my opinion. 

 

In response to the article itself:

1.  I don't like either candidate.  Vote Nader in '08!!!

2.  While I am vehemently anti-abortion, I know that there are some cases, such as saving the mother's life, where I believe it is, as was said, a neccessary evil. 

3.  I'm also not a one issue voter.  There is a much bigger picture at stake right now.  The country, as far as I can see, is in turmoil and lots more than abortion stances must be considered in order to make a well informed decision about who can lead this country out of the puddle we're in.

4.  Last thing.  whether or not the next President is pro-life, I don't really think Roe vs. Wade will be reversed.  I don't really think it ever will.  And though I strongly disagree with it on moral grounds, at least legalizing it prevents "back alley" abortions that could kill not only the unborn but the mother as well.  In this case, I'd prefer the lesser of two evils.

8 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last