[Editor's note: By the time of the War of the Ring, Théoden, King of the Rohan, was becoming weak with age. He was controlled by Wormtongue, his chief advisor, (in the secret employ of Isengaard). Rohan was being overrun by enemies. His adopted son Éomer and soon to be Théoden's heir, is banished by Wormtongue, in service to Isengaard's corrupt ruler, Sauruman. Éomer, along with riders loyal to him, track and destroy the Uruk-hai, who are on their way to Sauuman with captives Merry & Pippin.] (more…)
Archive for the ‘Pro-life Reasoning’ Category
Posted in Pro-life Reasoning, Republican Liberty Caucus, Republican Party Reform, tagged Abb Stone, Bill Westmiller, Brian Landsberger, Clayton Strang, Dave Nalle, Freedom Agenda, Mark Buse, Michelle McIntyre, Republicans for Choice, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, SAndi Belzer Brendale on May 20, 2013 | 4 Comments »
Life must be honored first. Because without life there can’t be Liberty.
The yet unborn inherit their liberty from us.
Yakima, May 15, 2013.
Posted in Pro-life Reasoning, Republican Liberty Caucus, Republican Party Reform, Right to Life, Ron Paul Legacy, tagged Republican Liberty Caucus, RLCWA, SAndi Belzer Brendale, Snohomish County Republican Liberty Caucus on May 13, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
Last December liberty activists from Snohomish County gathered to form the Snohomish County charter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Posted in 2012 Presidential Race, Candidates and Campaigns, Counterfeit Conservatives, Mitt Romney, Moral Relativism, Pro-life Reasoning, tagged Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, nobel peace prize on November 5, 2012 | 5 Comments »
[This article is a response to a friend's Facebook post describing his reasons for voting for the Governor against the President in the upcoming election, and another friend's argument against his reasoning, who asked me to back her up.]
[Ed Note: Emphases ours]
I see three issues here: A moral issue as to oath-keeping, a moral issue as to blood-letting, and a practical issue. (more…)
The night before the precinct caucuses (2/12), Life of the Party held a Senate Candidate’s forum to “vet” the candidates’ positions on human life. The planned videographer didn’t make it and volunteers have been patching together disjointed scraps of amateur video from different memory cards. This clip is some good footage.
These are the answers to a central question and, despite general agreement supporting life and opposing abortion, astute activists will be able to discern significant differences in the candidate’s approaches. The Candidates who came, or sent representatives, were Paul Akers, Clint Didier, Art Coday, Rodney Rieger and Craig Williams. Sean Salazar, Chris Widener and Don Benton chose not to come and not to be represented. To be fair, Benton had only declared a few days earlier, but on the other hand, he is the only political professional in the crowd, presumably with a “posse” and funds, and Akers, announcing simultaneously with Benton, managed to attend personally with the same lead time and responsibility for running several businesses. Dave Reichert, reportedly, is still in hiding, attempting to change his appearance without trading his cap.
There were some “fireworks” later on, but that’s another story.
Something to consider when you listen to Gary Johnson
Pro-lifers foolishly make the mistake of elevating the issue of abortion above all others. A candidate for office who claims to be pro-life can get a pass on just about anything else. Yet, someone can be pro-life and statist to the core, as many pro-lifers no doubt are. . . I submit to you that I would rather have someone in elective office who was indifferent to the abortion issue, yet was a strict constitutionalist and advocate of liberty and limited government, than the typical pro-life, red-state fascist.
Don’t you dare include baby-killing funds in health care or in any other legislation.
We will throw you all the hell out, we’ll throw you the hell out, so help us God! Massachusetts will look like a picnic! . . . It’s time to say enough is enough! . . .US governors, wake up. It’s up to you. Who will be the first Moses to let our babies grow?
~Rabbi Yehuda Levin at the National March for Life Rally.
Pay particular attention to the rabbi’s call to action on how to close down the abortion clinics by the use of interposition and nullification:
Cross posted at Life of the Party.
Before the piece went public, I was even contacted and given the chance to respond, (more…)
Posted in 2008 Pesidential Race, A Winning Issue, Abortion, Candidate Information, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Illegal Immigration, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Pro-Death Republicans, Pro-life Activism, Pro-Life Profiles, Pro-life Reasoning, Reagan Legacy, Republican Principles, Right to Life, RINOs, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo on November 9, 2007 | 4 Comments »
Politics Jaded. Prayer Works. Who Knew?
It started Sunday, November 4th. Fred Thompson, the man whom many conservatives hoped would be “the next Ronald Reagan”, committed the un-Reaganesque thumbing of nose at the pro-life plank of the Republican Party platform. It happened on “Meet the Press”. Tim Russert, his persistent interviewer, read the entire plank aloud, and asked for Thompson’s position on it. He opposed it. It was a serious blow to many of his pro-life supporters.
Committed pro-lifers who are fairly new to the 30 year debate over how best to strategically end legalized abortion, might consider his mere opposition to supporting a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution acceptable, especially in light of his support for overturning Roe vs. Wade. If one considered it long enough, one would realize that his position, supporting the overturning of Roe, and then leaving it to the states, would have allowed slavery to continue in some states.
But it gets worse. When pressed, Thompson said, that although he believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion is the taking of a human life, he doesn’t believe it ought to be “criminalized” (read: made illegal).
The blow set off…. (more…)
Posted in Candidate Information, Cosmetically "Pro-Life", John McCain, Mitt Romney, Pro-Death Republicans, Pro-life Activism, Pro-life Reasoning, Rudy Giuliani, Take Action on March 1, 2007 | Leave a Comment »
(The morning after the 2008 Republican National Convention, that is)
By Colleen Parro, Executive Director of RNC for Life
Pro-life Republicans are being wined and dined, courted and wooed by an ever-growing assortment of candidates for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. They all want us to think they are pro-life, or at least pro-life enough to garner our support in this or that presidential primary. Those who are flipping and flopping serve as testimony to the power and influence pro-life activists have within the Republican Party. They need us. They need us to win the nomination and, because the American people are split right down the middle, they need us to win back the White House.
While it’s nice to know we’re needed, and that finally the establishment politicians have been forced to recognize that, let’s be careful to not get carried away. There are a few true-blue pro-lifers seeking the Republican nomination, and there are others who will say what they have to say to get where they want to go. We have to let them know that we are not interested in platitudes. We want to know what they are actually going to DO to advance the cause of life.
The case of Senator John McCain comes to mind. Senator McCain, who justifies abortion (more…)
Though the previous South Dakota abortion ban passed both the state House and Senate, and was signed by Governor Rounds, their Plan B (that included exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother) was rejected Wednesday by a Senate legislative committee.
Some pro-life supporters of the previous ban that was put to the voters, rejected this one because of possible court challenges and that it was potentially unconstitutional. While the reports do not specify what their argument is for its “unconstitutionality”, the fact is, the exceptions make the proposed law inconsistent, and some of the safeguards in the measure are convoluted. The bill is not dead yet, one legislator is talking about a “smoke out” that would put it to the vote of the full senate anyway.
What is promising about this news is that South Dakota pro-lifers do not show any sign of giving up. One legislator declared that this issue is “not going away”. Perhaps they will follow the advice of Judie Brown and come back with the original version in two years.
The following article appeared in Catholic Exchange in November 13, 2006, courtesy of the American Life League. My good friend and neighbor just sent it to me as a reminder today, and I think it is good for all of us to remember the argument the pro-life movement still needs to make if we are ever going to end legalized abortion in our nation.
If it is true that the party which frames the argument is halfway to winning the debate, then the perception that the pro-abortion side is winning the abortion debate may be accurate. For the pro-life side has stopped (more…)
The elitism that drives “pro-choice” thinking on abortion, slavery and “guest worker”/amnesty! Greed, classism, racism and selfishness all rolled into one big gaffe from….. Karl Rove!
“I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.”
Senator Brownback, are you paying attention? Now that Karl Rove has “accidentally ripped the mask off the vicious social inegalitarianism of Bush’s immigration plan,” will you continue to support it?
Update: Mark Krikorian at The Corner has similiar thoughts.
On Lincoln’s birthday, it’s a good time to remember the founding of the Republican Party. We were founded on a moral issue. We were founded on the principle that no man should ever be considered the property of another. Ronald Reagan, who’s birthday we also celebrated recently, saw the correlation between slavery and abortion. As he wrote in Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation:
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred
Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to —any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the
issue is clearly framed and presented.
We now remember the words of President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address:
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth
upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether
that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . .
can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place
for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . .
we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead,
who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember,
what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining
before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion
to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . .
that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . .
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . .
and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . .
shall not perish from the earth.
In honor of President Lincoln, let’s renew our “dedication to the promise that all men are created equal.” Let’s dedicate ourselves with “increased devotion” to the “unfinished work”.
Let’s rediscover our roots as Republicans. We are not merely about lower taxes. If we are, we deserve every bit of criticism for being greedy pigs, out to help “the rich get richer”. Our party doesn’t exist “to win elections” either. Rather, we are about what is right, and we exist to do what’s right. Let’s choose our leaders, candidates and issues accordingly.
After South Dakota’s voters rejected the abortion ban last November, the legislature is now offering a “plan b”. This time, the bill they’re introducing has exceptions for rape and incest. Polling data of South Dakotans said that the bill would have passed overwhelmingly if the ban had included those exceptions in the first place. Judie Brown, President of American Life League expressed her concern on her blog for “South Dakota’s Spirit of Despair“.
When the people of South Dakota voted last year to reject the state’s
abortion ban, they did so by a margin of ten percent (55% to 45%). What
that should have told the pro-life people of the state is that they
were nearly there, and with a little more education, a little more
explanation of why rape and incest exceptions are never a good thing,
and a whole lot of prayer, they could have come back in two years and
… perhaps won
But no, instead they have capitulated to the vocal demands for exceptions that we heard during the campaign last year.
What a rotten shame. Let us pray for the people of South Dakota;
that their despair may be replaced by a courageous commitment to babies.
Then and only then will “public opinion” change.
I’m inclined to agree with her. As she points out, we are almost there. In fact, that 75% of the SD voters say they are pro-life is a good indication that atleast 10% might be persuaded, probably more, that the exceptions don’t make sense. Most people who are in favor of the exceptions, haven’t really given it much thought. It’s more like a knee-jerk reaction. I mean who doesn’t have sympathy for a woman who is victimized by rape or incest? But upon further reflection, does it make the baby any less of a person? Does the baby deserve to be punished for the crime of the father? Does aborting the baby help the mother cope with what has happened to her? Evidence says the contrary. Couldn’t a little more discussion on this help sway public opinion?
The exceptions of rape and incest contradict the truth of the matter, that the unborn child is a human being with the unalienable right to life. That’s the principled reason for opposing such exceptions, and will probably be the reason the supreme court will consider the law ill written. How can you say that the unborn child is a person, worthy of protecting their unalienable right to life, and then turn around and say that it’s lawful to violate that right, though he has committed no crime?
Many in the pro-life movement will argue that “we have to deal with reality” and since the majority of the voters would support a ban with the exceptions, “shouldn’t we attempt to save some lives, even if we can’t save all of them?” Many of these same pro-lifers said that it wasn’t the time to introduce a ban, because we didn’t yet have a majority on the supreme court on our side. Perhaps they should be considering whether or not we could wait anther two years and work really hard to persuade that small percentage who would have been with us, had it not been for the lack of exceptions. How do they know that this law won’t be challenged in court, and eventually be thrown out.
Jill Stanek poses some challenges to the two camps in the pro-life movement in her column today, Quanderies for Pro-Life Incrementalists and Purists. She equally criticizes both camps. I believe those with my position and Judie Brown’s are being called the “purists”. But I think she mischaractarizes us. For example I’ve not heard anyone say the following quote of hers from an un-named “purist”.
In response to the revised ban, one purist wrote, “I’m tempted to see the exceptions over no law at all, but that is temporal politics, and politics is
compromise, so morally and publicly I say, ‘no exceptions!’, even if it
means no ban!”
She concludes about the “purists”:
This all-or-nothing approach would seem to reject
Holocaust rescuers or the Underground Railroad, but it is only applied
to politics. For instance, it is acceptable to picket abortion mills as
a last attempt to save babies rather than focus all energies on
shutting mills down.
I have not been able to verify the source
of that comment. I don’t think those of us who would prefer to work toward a total
ban would rather see no ban at all, but we do want to make sure that we put our
efforts into the best solution, which is to end all legalized abortion. And
sometimes, we feel our energy is wasted on contradictory laws. And in some cases, not all, these incremental approaches work to further enshrine abortion in the law.
In today’s earlier post, The Abortion/Illegal Immigration Connection: Not What You May Think, a great deal of ground was covered, but missing in the discussion, was the void of contributers to the Social Security system resulting from all of the babies Americans have aborted. (more…)
In Republican and pro-life circles, there’s an unfortunate talking point you might hear frequently. It goes like this: “The reason we have so many illegal immigrants in the United States, is that we have aborted so many babies. Now there’s a deficit of workers, especially for industries that depend on ‘cheap labor’ (ie. ‘the factories and fields of America’).” Former Congressional candidate, Nathan Tabor wrote an August 2005 column, Believe it or not, Abortion Causes Illegal Immigration that presented a seemingly plausible case for this theory, pointing out the similiar number in estimated number of illegal aliens vs. estimated number of babies who’ve been aborted who would be working age by now. I commend him for his effort to defend life, but the law of supply and demand has been left out of this argument. So, while it’s true that our nation has aborted 12 million babies that would be of working age right now, it has also aborted over 40 million consumers for the goods and services those workers would provide.
And what of the notion that those 12 million workers would be “doing the jobs that Americans won’t do?” What does that say about our respect (more…)
Pruning is good for growth. We took care of some of that in the November elections. Some of it was easy for us. Some of it was quite painful and was more of an act of Divine Providence than the collective will of the pro-life movement. In this dormant season, let’s continue to assess where pruning is necessary. "Pro-life" organizations and "Republican" politicians alike.
“Fetus” is a latin word meaning “offspring” or “young one” (even tiny one). There is clever rhetoric spreading that pro-lifers are “fetus worshipers“. As a Catholic preparing through Advent for the coming of the Christ Child, I confess that I do indeed worship a Fetus!
This thought struck me while listening to Christmas Carols, especially the Coventry Carol (I highly reccomend Donna Cori Gibson’s rendition–#13 on A Traditional Christmas), and hearing the phrase “Thou Little Tiny Child”.
Below is the story behind this beautiful hymn and the lyrics. (more…)
The South Dakota abortion ban lost for many reasons. We have not yet persuaded the majority of citizens that the pre-born child is indeed a human person and therefore, has an unalienable Right to LIfe that shall not be infringed. That is partly due to politicians who refuse to debate the issue (South Dakota sources say Govornor Rounds (R) and Senator Jim Thune (R) stayed neutral during the prop. 6 campaign and President Bush (R) never bothered to come and campaign for the Pro-Life side). National Right to Life did not mention a word about it on their website, and was MIA in South Dakota too. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood dumped $8 Million dollars into a campaign designed to deceive voters on the issue.
Marie Dietz offers some explanation of what is going wrong in the debate in her column, “When it Comes to Abortion, Exceptions Break the Rule“. She explains the forgotten or ignored fact that the exception provided in Texas law gave amunition to Justice Blackmun and his cohorts for their reasoning in Roe vs. Wade. That is why the pro-life movement must unite in saying that there are no exceptions when it comes to protecting innocent human life. To favor laws with exceptions only undermines the cause.