Follow Up

Please forgive me for not posting this sooner. In what is probably the most glaringly obvious statement of the year, blogging is in fact just a hobby of mine (hello, Captain Obvious!) Therefore, it certainly takes a backseat to all the things that mommies/wives/rabid Alabama fans are responsible for. Also probably painfully obvious is the fact that I don't usually have time to thoroughly research then persuasively convey all my thoughts, arguments, opinions on the topics but I'm glad some of you still choose to tune in and read. I appreciate it and apologize in advance if I ever seem to get all Julia Sugarbaker in my posts (really, was there any other clip to use?) It's just that I'm quite *ahem* animated in real life and very few things stoke my fire quite like politics and football... imagine that. :) Anyway, with that little prologue out of the way, here are some of my "rebuttals" (picture me using the Joey air quotes from Friends) to a few of the comments left on my "Don't Call Me Pro-Life" post.



In order:


Lacey, I want to reiterate that I know abortion to be murder and I feel that science does not even allows us to argue such a point (not that anyone was). So, to me, if it is murder then the focus should be on the victim (read: very small defenseless unborn human being) and not the mother. With that in mind, I don't see why our laws should be framed around a small percentage of women who are so hellbent on killing their child that they are stupid/desperate/both enough to use a butcher in a back alley. Again, why can't the focus be on free birth control to avoid the pregnancy in the first place (though abstinence WILL ALWAYS WORK, people!) but if that fails then you will just have to live with the consequence. Maybe that will actually act as a deterrent... imagine that. As far as enforcement is concerned, I believe it would be very easy to enforce bans on abortions and backalley abortionists, it's not a procedure you can perform via a handshake (like a drug deal) or from the back of your car. Plus, I'm sure there would be plenty of folks to come forward once their loved one was butchered. Regardless, I just do not feel that the protection should be given to the women who are at least obviously physically old enough to reproduce, especially since they have numerous options in this country. And sometimes I think people believe these children are going to starve to death if they are allowed to be born. Do we not have an abundance of social services in this country (with probably more to come under the next administration)? That's in addition to private (usually faith-based) organizations that stand willing and able to help once contacted. Death via abortion is never, EVER, (did I say EVER?!?!) in the best interest of the child and that's 100% who I'm dedicated to protecting. Pro "choice" as ironic since the babies so clearly have no choice!


Stacie: My guess is, if polled, the numbers would overwhelmingly suggest that women eventually regret their decision to terminate their child's life. However, I don't know that you could ever accurately find out because very few media outlets would want to point out such a fact and meanwhile, I don't know that the Christian community as a whole has done a good enough job of showing compassion to such women. I can only imagine how their misery is compounded by having no one to talk to about such things, though I'm a proud supporter of a clinic that offers a support group to such women. Anyway, I shudder to think who this country has aborted along with all their potential impact... literally, God only knows.


LR: You certainly gave me the most to chew on. I'll see what I can do with what you've given me... I covered some of this already in response to Lacey. You are both right that legal or not, many women will still seek out an abortion. Again, my concern is not with them at all. They currently have other options (usually free, courtesy of the tax-payers but I gladly pay those taxes!) that would result in a win-win for all involved (except for the babydaddy who would then have to pay child-support but I have no pity there) Again, if they are dumb enough to go to someone using dirty equipment on a fold-up table in a back alley then I defer to Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest." I do agree that even under W we still face a legal abortion industry but as Randy Alcorn states in his blog post on the topic (he did an infinitely better job than me but hey, he's a professional writer!), he has appointed two Supreme Court Justices to lifetime appointments. I too would have loved to have seen more action during his administration but I still have hope for his 11th hour. Nonetheless, I was wrong for not pointing out that he has done more to chip away at Roe v. Wade than any other US President since 1973. Still, even the secular mainstream media admits that the next prez will likely de facto decide this issue for the next generation with the next court appointments. If you are a Christian, it is of utmost importance that you pray about your vote. I believe God would have you cast your vote on Tuesday for the candidate who feels that Roe v. Wade should be overturned (that's John McCain if you're not keeping up with such matters) but that's between you and Him. If you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus, you have MUCH BIGGER issues than this presidential election. Email me! Anyway, it won't happen overnight but please remember that these are lifetime appointments with two very old liberal-leaning justices getting ready to step down (or keel over, whichever happens first!) My apologies for not raising that issue earlier. LR, you are right that there are probably bones of contention to pick with either candidate but for me personally, I find such issues with Obama to be egregious for me personally. That is to say I find so many things that disgust me that I can't even see any good in him. (But that is not to say that I think he's the "anti-Christ" like some "evangelicals," though if he were then great... that means Jesus is on His way!) As far as Sarah Palin's disputed $150,000 wardrobe, it pales in comparision to the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. If you're relatively new here, you should visit this post. Unfortunately, McCain is too much of a gentleman or whatever to play up Obama's intimate ties with Wright. That's a shame because it is very much relevent as it gives us a glimpse not only to his personal character ("Show me the friends and I'll show you the man" or something like that, I don't know... I heard it on Army Wives but I think it's true), it foreshadows his administration. Can you imagine what Obama'scabinet will look like? Besides, don't be fooled into believing that Obama and company are "common folk" who share your plight. Politics is a rich man's sport, regardless of race. Neither him nor his wife attended a community college and Obama's step father was an oil exec for Mobil Oil so I doubt he ever went without food on the table, ya know? All I'm saying is that Obama does not represent the average black man's struggle by any stretch of the imagination. And I LOVE how people tend to forget that he's every bit as much white as he is black. He was raised by his white mother and grandparents (thus, his white mother is also the one responsible for his dangerously skewed world views) but that's neither here nor there. As far as Palin goes, I don't think she's a saint by any means either but she's a lot closer in my book. I absolutely think she tried to have her brother-in-law canned and may have even participated in some smallscale cover-up of the issue. Apparently her kids have some issues as well but I'm not voting for Mother of the Year, that's for dang sure. She has been absolutely hammered in the media (which, unless you meet her personally, is the only way we'll know anything about her) and it's obvious they have an agenda. (Just by and by, the same thing happened to Nick Saban, give or take a degree of scrutiny!) As far as experience goes, Obama has virtually none to speak of and we're voting for President, not VP, right? It is obvious to me that she has been mishandled to say the least by the McCain campaign. I've read a few articles that allude to such but I guess we'll never know the full behind-the-scenes story regarding their campaign. McCain's folks should have done a MUCH better job of preparing her for interviews or better yet, just let her be herself without the fear of walking into a trap. But let's all be honest here, do you know what the VP does? Well, for one thing, in the event of a tie they cast the deciding vote in the Senate (don't shrug off the importance of that in the current political climate!) and I definitely don't trust Joe Biden with that vote! Anyway, you can learn all about the office here if you so desire. I think it's best to vote based on the top of the ticket but with one caveat... the VP is only a heartbeat away from the presidency. I personally relish the thought of Sarah Palin as president as she's even more outspoken in her unwavering devotion to overturning Roe v. Wade.

Back to Lacey: I will personally continue to vote primarily based on the abortion issue because at 1 million+ a year, the term "holocaust" does not even begin to cover the number of lives lost. In fact, I did not use that term in my original post precisely because the holocaust of WWII only claimed approximately 6 to 10 million lives (depends on the source... regardless, it's a staggering loss) and we're already up at 35 to 40 million lives lost to abortion. That needs to stop... as in yesterday but I'll settle for tomorrow. We as a nation lose a few thousand troops over several years' in combat yet people deem that an important enough issue to vote on. As far as looking at a candidate's stands on other issues, I would ask this rhetorical question: Does anyone know what sort of economic policies Hitler favored? I believe that sometimes there are things that are so very wrong about a candidate that it overshadows everything else they do. Obama's desire to appoint justice(s) who would uphold Roe v. Wade is just that for me.

Troll: Yes, I too believe that if any changes in abortion policy ever come to pass, it would in fact become a states issue. I'm disappointed with that because I believe murder is murder is murder, regardless of the state in which said murder occured but I suppose some restriction is better than no restriction at all. Of course my goal is for a federal ban on abortion in whatever form that entails but McCain doesn't support that. I believe he's only looking to alter the Supreme Court's political makeup with his appointments. However, I believe with all my heart that Sarah Palin would be much more aggressive in her efforts if she ever had a friendly, filibuster-proof majority with Congress. A girl can dream, can't she? (And congrats on the win, by the way!)

So, to summarize: I vote based on the abortion issue and will continue to do so. It is my litmus test and I will not feign otherwise. Again, I believe a flawed view on abortion lessens (or flat-out negates) any likelihood that you will make wise decisions on anything important in the future. It's not exactly along the same lines but I think about how clouded Bill Clinton's judgment must have been during his tenure in the Oval Office. Have you ever read the transcripts of testimony from his impeachment? Let's all just pray he didn't have to make any important decisions during his "meetings" (insert more Joey air quotes here) with Monica Lewinsky. I find character and wise-decision-making ability to be of the utmost importance when voting for anything (including PTA president) so I find that I'm never being swayed by ridiculous campaing promises they never have any intention of keeping. Besides, do we ever really know what the next president will face while in office? The last time we elected a new president was November 7, 2000. Anybody think this country is a much different place now than it was then?