« Withdraw, or Engage? | Main | B16 on Authentic Culture »

September 15, 2008



Tim J.,

Are you saying that we should allow Obama to win and that it matters NOT the thousands of additional victims that Obama will lay waste to under his Administration?

For what's it worth -- those victims ARE 'real' people!

When did innocent babies themselves suddenly become merely a commodity that can be sacrificed ever so callously?

Sleeping Beastly

You're assuming that a McCain presidency actually will prevent a single abortion, which I think is doubtful.

Also, I heard an interview today with Sarah Palin in which she expressed the opinion that abortion should be decided on a state level. While that might prevent some abortions, I think your question could be pointed in both directions. Are you willing to sacrifice all the children who will be killed because we, the people, preferred a lesser evil to sticking to our guns?

The question is really one of strategy. Where do we retreat, and where do we stand fast?


Sleeping Beastly,

Do you DOUBT that there will be thousands of more innocent casualties under an Obama administration or not?

Are you aware of Obama's FOCA or even his sworn statement as to achieving a Pro-Abort majority on the Supreme Court?

The way the 2 of you vote is entirely up to you. However, kindly reflect on the REAL consequences that will result from an Obama Presidency and the multitudes of victims that WILL be sacrificed on account of his Pro-Abort Policies.

GO here:

And here:

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion.

As to Obama's reiterated pledges for preserving and multiplying Pro-Abort policies:


“Gov. Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement issued before McCain had stepped out on the stage in Dayton, Ohio, with Palin.

“She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” agreed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi two hours later.

“Gov. Palin and John McCain are a good match because they both want to overturn Roe v. Wade,” chimed in Ellen Malcolm, a Hillary Clinton adviser and president of the Democratic group Emily’s List, which backs women abortion rights candidates.

“The last thing women need is a president — and vice president — who are prepared to turn back the clock on women’s rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which backs mostly Democratic candidates.

If McCain were to win the election but not serve out his term, it would be Palin nominating justices for any Supreme Court vacancies.


ST. PAUL, Minn. — Barack Obama has launched a broadside against John McCain’s opposition to abortion rights and moved one of the most divisive issues in modern American politics to the airwaves on a large scale for the first time in this presidential campaign.

Obama’s new radio ad, airing widely in at least seven swing states, tells voters McCain “will make abortion illegal.”

An announcer then claims that “as president, John McCain will make abortion illegal,” before playing an exchange on “Meet the Press” in which McCain told moderator Tim Russert that he favors “a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions.”


Sleeping Beastly,

Please clarify your question below:

"Are you willing to sacrifice all the children who will be killed because we, the people, preferred a lesser evil to sticking to our guns?"

You had best refer to the following as far as McCain's ESCR support:

"Should McCain refrain from public funding, it would be a return of sorts to his original position against embryonic stem cell research funding, adopted before Nancy Reagan lobbied him on the issue in 2005, The Hill indicates.

While McCain supports public funding, HE OPPOSES the purposeful creation of human embryos for destruction, he supports funding adult stem cell research and opposes both forms of human cloning.

That's a contrast to the position pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama takes -- as he has said he would use an executive order to mandate funding for the grisly research as soon as he takes office."


Tim J.


as I pointed out, Obama is the most pro-harvesting-babies-for-body-parts candidate.

I have not yet taken a position on whether I can give McCain my vote in good conscience. That's what I'm trying to hash out here.

I'm not sure how I could manage to look in the mirror if I voted third party and woke up to an Obama presidency the next morning. It is only pure disgust for Obama's policies (as far as anyone knows them) that could tempt me to put such a hopeful spin on McCain's candidacy that I'm still open to voting for him.

Sleeping Beastly

I doubt that Obama would have any more success getting such an act passed than he did last year.

I am not sure whether an Obama presidency would result in more abortions. I really am not. Perhaps it would; perhaps not.

But let's go ahead and talk expediency and numbers for a minute. Whether I vote in my current state of residence or my future state of residence (California or Colorado) I am not going to change the results of the election one way or another. California is going to Obama, and Colorado is going to McCain. Will my vote for Keyes change that? Naturally not. Will my financial and verbal support for Keyes change other things? I hope so.

Tim J.

e. -

did you miss the part where I was still contemplating volunteering for the McCain/Palin ticket?

I have to admit, it's looking less likely now, but it still seems (possibly) a viable way of going beyond voting in terms of trying to influence things.

Still, I begin to hear a voice in my head... "We must join with him. It would be wise, my friend..."

Sleeping Beastly

To clarify my question:

For years now, the GOP has been regarding the anti-abortion vote as "in the bag" and has been busy trying to court the middle. I believe that this has resulted in more and more ground lost gradually to the pro-abortion front. The GOP has been weakening its anti-abortion position more and more, and rather than insisting on a consistent and principled position, those opposed to abortion have been holding our noses and voting for the GOP candidate because they are the lesser of the two evils presented us by the MSM and the political machine.

I wonder whether we might have produced some seriously principled leaders and legislators if we had insisted on a higher standard from them.

My question is whether we have actually contributed to more death by supporting the lesser of two evils than we would have had we simply refused to back anyone who was willing to compromise on the issue. It's a valid question, and it's really the central question in determining how I vote in November.


Tim J.

Put it this way, if more folks were of the right conscience and did not actually vote FOR Obama (most especially, Catholics -- e.g., Vox Novans); I would not be so much for voting for the Opposition.

You have a SIGNIFICANT point about McCain's ESCR views, which is utterly flawed.

One that we all MUST not take ever so lightly.

However, the tremendous extent to which Obama can not only preserve but, worse, multiply the ravages of Roe v. Wade as President is too much of a likelihood that cannot be overlooked or neglected.

In my view (which can be wrong), such a heinous Pro-Abort agenda needs to be prevented from ever taking shape at the national level.

Unfortunately, it means voting for McCain since Obama's Defeat can only happen if his Opposition has MORE VOTES than he does.

Sleeping Beastly

Glad to see I'm not the only Tolkien nerd around. The older I get (and the more I re-read the trilogy) the more relevant his books seem.


Tim J.,

FWIW, Dr. Liccione has provided rebuttal to Zippy's assertion that a Vote for McCain is a Vote for a "Human Cannibal":


"Why a vote for McCain isn't a vote for cannibalism"


I think that forming folks' consciences with regard to abortion (which includes passing laws against it) is the thing that can lead to getting rid of ESCR.



"I think that forming folks' consciences with regard to abortion (which includes passing laws against it) is the thing that can lead to getting rid of ESCR."

Do you really think that (legalized) Slavery itself would've been eradicated had they merely operated on your contention here?


Tim--obviously McCain's position on ESCR is a problem, but if what is upsetting you is his recent ad, I don't think that ad is pro-ESCR. In fact it is arguably a stealth adult SCR ad, and is something that our side could easily have created in similar context.

Allegedly McCain has all but backed off his ESCR position. I'm not asking you to buy that, but it is relevant.

Palin is against it totally and she is the near-future of the party if they win this race. She goes nowhere if she loses, I think, because she will still lack experience and she will have lost.

But if she gets VP she will immediately be the most experienced candidate for the future, in both parties, completing her total package of electable qualities, to go along with her uncompromising pro-life position.

Before picking her I think this ticket took the R party down the slipepry slope. Now I think you can consider a vote for their ticket not so much a vote for McCain as a vote for her. That's easier to swallow.

By picking her McCain has doomed the future of his own wishy-washyness on social conservative issues in a way that is more tangibly possible than it has ever been in this party.

One heartbeat away.


e., I'm not sure what you're asking. Tim seems to be afraid that we could focus too much on abortion, so much that ESCR is forgotten and allowed to go on/expand. I'm saying that it seems to me that swaying people on abortion is the first step toward getting rid of ESCR since the principles behind opposition to the both of them are the same. In other words, no one is likely going to oppose ESCR who isn't already against abortion.



"I'm saying that it seems to me that swaying people on abortion is the first step toward getting rid of ESCR since the principles behind opposition to the both of them are the same."


Sleeping Beastly

"Do you really think that (legalized) Slavery itself would've been eradicated had they merely operated on your contention here?"

The end of slavery came about because the slaveowning electorate had a very real fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery. A secession, a civil war, an executive order, and two constitutional amendments later we had an end to the institution.

I sometimes wonder why we think it will be any easier this time.


Sleeping Beastly,

That's my point:

Slavery itself, was only won due to the individual battles that were fought and won along the way; it was by means of such "little steps" in both its legal and popular history that slavery was once and for all banished.

You should take the example of William Wilberforce and the successive small inroads he made with The Slave Trade Act of 1807 which helped to pave the way for the very abolition of Slavery altogether.

Mind you, The Slave Trade Act of 1807 abolished only the slave trade and did not abolish Slavery itself; although, it ultimately helped to achieve the latter.

Sleeping Beastly

I read Dr. Liccione's post, and it has nothing to say that I didn't already know.

I don't think his argument is terribly relevant to this conversation. I was already aware that it is not immoral to vote for either candidate, as long as we're doing it for a proportionate reason, but that doesn't shed any light on my personal dilemma about how to cast my vote. If I'd been convinced that any vote for any pro-abortion candidate was immoral, I'd never vote for any viable candidate, since they're all at least somewhat pro-abortion.

On the abortion issue alone, I'm not too thrilled with either ticket, but I think what inclines me to vote for a third-party candidate is the way both presidential candidates seem eager to kill my brothers and sisters in Tehran and Islamabad.

Sleeping Beastly

Interesting point about slavery. I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I'll chew on that for a few days and see if it changes my mind. It actually might.


Jon Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court Justice, is 88. He's probably not going to make it through the next President's term. McCain will nominate a pro-life judge. That will give conservatives a 5-4 majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's the first step, and it will not happen under Obama, who doesn't want his daughters "punished with a baby."

The Western Patriot



Sleeping Beastly,

Interesting point about slavery. I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I'll chew on that for a few days and see if it changes my mind. It actually might."


I think that this is particularly salient given our times.

With due respect to Zippy, I am wondering if he & those who hold similarly rigid views would have been against The Slave Trade Act of 1807 since it only abolished the Slave Trade & not Slavery itself.

One cannot deny though that it ultimately helped pave the way to end Slavery far, far sooner in Britain as compared to the United States.

Now, imagine if the 1807 The Slave Trade Act was not passed because folks either thought IT DID NOT DO ENOUGH (anti-McCain) or those who thought that IT DID TOO MUCH (Obamans)?

I would argue that Slavery would not have been abolished in Britain sooner than it did.

Sleeping Beastly

Not sure I follow you quite that far down the road. Refusing to vote for a somewhat objectionable candidate is one thing; refusing to vote for semi-adequate legislation is another. I am loath to vote for a candidate who supports abortion prior to 20 weeks, but would be perfectly happy enacting legislation that outlaws abortion after 20 weeks. The one is an unreliable representative; the other is a simple legislative step in the right direction.

I do see a connection, of sorts, which is why I'm thinking you may be right on this election. But I do still understand why Zippy doesn't want to vote for a Republican with a half-baked opposition to abortion. The GOP has a lousy record of taking the abortion issue seriously, and if he thinks sitting out the election may get their attention... he may be right.


Tim--apparently McCain's staff is now saying the ad includes ESCR, so it is a problem after all. I hope to see some of the "Catholics for McCain" respond to it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2005

October 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31