In an interview with evangelical leader James Dobson that aired Wednesday Palin said she thought Republican presidential candidate John McCain would implement the GOP platform if elected - "I do, from the bottom of my heart" - but McCain doesn't support the platform on three issues important to evangelicals: abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research.Interesting that McCain believes that the rights and person-hood of the unborn is one that should be relegated to the states. Got to wonder if he understands this issue at all.. or if his pro-life position is just another case of pandering for the votes of folks that have deep felt and strongly held beliefs that the rights of the unborn are ones endowed to them by their creator.
The platform calls for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, an issue McCain says should be left to individual states. Similarly, the platform seeks a constitutional ban on all abortions; again, McCain supports allowing states to decide the question. McCain supports research using embryonic stem cells, which the platform opposes.
Pages
▼
McCain on Unborn Babies
According to this article:
9 comments:
I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.
The article says, "Similarly, the platform seeks a constitutional ban on all abortions; again, McCain supports allowing states to decide the question."
ReplyDeleteThat is accurate to a degree, but not sure it is an entirely fair assessment to say he doesn't understand the issue.
McCain's website states, "John McCain 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."
It goes on to say "However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion." (emphasis mine)
Obviously, states have been bound from passing anti-abortion laws because the courts stood ready to strike them down. If Roe v. Wade is out of the way, we no longer have to wait for Congress to do something. States could begin to pass significant legislation against abortion without the certainty that the court system would immediately negate it.
From reading his position on this, I'd say he DOES understand the issue, and the strategy is not a bad one. There are things I don't like about McCain, but I remain unconvinced that this is one of them.
I'm with nephos. We're not faced with a situation where it isn't going to make much of a difference one way or the other no matter who wins the presidency. Even if McCain represented the status quo (which I don't believe he does), that is much better than where Obama plans to take us. Do we really want to take an all-or-nothing approach and resign ourselves to defeat? Do we as prolifers really want to start paying for abortions? Do we really want to elect someone who is going to eliminate all restrictions on abortion and set the movement back another 20 years?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nephos and Casey. Even if all he does is veto pro-abortion legislation that is far better than what Obama will do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of them guys. Federalizing abortion and ESCR and gay marriage is a TERRIBLE idea. Returning particularly abortion to the states gives everyone a chance to limit it, to return parental notification to more states, to provide waiting periods and ultrasounds, and in general make the whole decision more informed, and by definition more informed is less performed. When you KNOW it's a baby with a beating heart and a wake-and-sleep cycle, whether you are walking with Christ or not, you KNOW you're killing a person.
ReplyDeleteI think that we all agree that an unborn baby is a life that has rights.. possibly we don't all agree that these rights are not those granted by the states.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of a constitutional ban on all abortions.. I do not think that the rights of unborn babies is a states issue.. no matter how pragmatic it may seem.
We fought a civil war because people believed that human rights was not a right that should be given/taken-away by a state.
The civil war was fought so that it could not be taken away, but states were already giving freedom to slaves before the federal government ever did. Were they wrong to do so? I don't believe so, and I doubt any of the slaves freed by their laws would either.
ReplyDeleteI'll be the first to point out the slavery/abortion analogy, but there is a distinction here. The federal government didn't restrain states that wanted to free slaves. Many of the Northern states freed them in the early 1800's. Now, if a state tries to give life rights to the unborn, it will be struck down because of the judicial precedent. In the current state of things, I suspect any attempt by Congress would likewise be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Reversing Roe v. Wade would free the states to begin doing what the federal government can't or won't do now. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, a constitutional ban would require ratification by the states anyway.
Either way you cut it (constitutional ban or state laws) neither can be done until the SC reverses Roe. Either way, McCain's plan is a step in the right direction. Either way, Obama's policies are a step in the wrong direction.
I hope if you ban abortion you ban war, the death penalty, drug traffiking, guns, rape and incest too.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Steph on the banning of war. I've never understood how pro-life people could seem so pro-war. Personally, I consider myself to be both pro-life and pro-Obama. I believe that there is evidence that abortion rates decrease when assistance is given to poor parents, wear as abortion rates do not go down in countries that outlaw abortions.
ReplyDeleteNear as I can tell, all of these already are either banned (rape, drug trafficking, incest) or restricted (guns and death penalty, or war). I'd be for banning war, except that on occasion (WWII for example) it is necessary.
ReplyDelete