For the past 28 years.. in the last 7 presidential elections I have voted pro-life.. the abortion issue trumped every other issue.. I believed that Ronald Reagan and George Bush (the elder) would nominate pro-life justices.. Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy.. Bush nominated Souter.. and Ford nominated Stevens.. much of the present court make-up can be attributed to these republican presidents.What do you think? Is it the position of the high court to send the legalization of abortion back to state legislatures? Do you think that they would ever rule that unborn babies have a right to life? I am interested in your thoughts.
I understand how strong this issue is but I simply no longer believe that the supreme court is the answer to abortion. I think that the best that they will do is return the issue to the states.. they will not outlaw abortion in our country.
The rights of unborn babies is not a state issue.. it is one which.. like slavery.. demands a national answer. William Wilberforce was a man of integrity who made a change in slavery for England. We fought a civil war to give slaves person-hood.. this led to a change in our constitution.
I do not believe that John McCain has a fire in his belly about the unborn.. he has never introduced legislation to abolish abortion in our country.. his support for unborn babies has been passive at best.. he will do nothing for the unborn if he is elected.. and I don't think that even a pro-life justice nomination is assured.. he makes many decisions by the seat of his pants.. if he had not listened to advisers we would be looking at a pro-choice Ridge or Lieberman VP nomination.
Voting the Supreme Court
Over at Rose's Reasonings we have been having a spirited debate about the presidential campaign. Several of the commenters have asserted that "discerning" Christians could not vote for Barack Obama because he would appoint pro-choice justices. The insinuation and innuendo is that to vote for Obama is tantamount to sinning.. but I digress. Following is a comment I left about presidents and their supreme court nominations:
3 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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's very difficult to argue with history. I, for one, got tired of being used. As long as Roe v Wade exists, these politicians are assured a loyal voting block. Why would they seek to remove that? This was the first time in my life that I did not vote Republican.
ReplyDeleteI voted early this election. I voted for all of life, not just the first 9 months of life in the womb - but *all* of life. I continue to be anti-abortion, but I do believe that there is more to consider than the sanctity of life in the womb. Life outside the womb is sacred too. For example, the suicide rates among our soldiers deeply concerns me.
I don't know how he's voting, but this wise, older gentleman articulated how it is impossible to claim *our* choice is God's choice, whether Republican or Democrat. He titled his post WWJD?http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/2008/10/wwjd.html
You can go with John McCain and at least have the possibility of him appointing constructionist judges, or you can go with Obama who will definitely appoint pro-choice activist judges. Don't punish the unborn for the lack of "fire in the belly" of the poor candidate we have this time around.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the Supreme Court, either. Obama has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will lift all limitations on abortion which are currently in effect (parental notification, waiting periods, etc.).
Say hello to federal funding of abortion, too, under an Obama presidency. Do you want to start paying for abortions, too?
McCain might not have fire in his belly, but Obama does for abortion. Remember, he said he wouldn't want his kids "punished with a baby" if they made a mistake. Obama is overt in his support on abortion and his view that it is a legit way to take care of an inconvenience. A person that sees a baby as an inconvenience might see others in society as an inconvenience, the elderly, handicapped, or mentally challenged.
ReplyDelete