Thursday, June 15, 2006

Babies' Lives as Fluffy Little Political Footballs

John Brummett commented today about abortion as a "wedge issue". I have some comments myself.

First of all, what Democratic Attorney General nominee Dustin McDaniel did with this issue should show even nominal Democrats that this man cannot be trusted with the Attorney General's office. He beat Paul Suskie (who tried to weasel-word his way through the issue himself) by telling pro-abortion Democratic voters that Suskie was pro-life and that he, Dustin McDaniel, was going to aggressively defend their "right" to execute the inconvenient unborn. It was his "front and center" issue in the run-off. The next day after the election he flip-flops and claims that it is a personal issue that should have no bearing in the Attorney General's race.

That should tell even pro-aborts that they can't trust Dustin McDaniel, but you know what, you can't trust any pro-abortion politician. Not one of them. Do you know why? Because if they are willing to trade away the rights and interests of the unborn for political gain you can rest assured that, when the doors are closed and they think they can get away with it, they will trade away your rights and interests for political gain as well. Today they trade away the rights of those who can't vote, and tomorrow they will trade away the rights of those who are out-voted.

You can only trust candidates who view human rights as God-given, and therefore non-negotiable. These people are referred to as "extremists" by the liberal media, and other members of the population who demand more "moral flexibility" in their "leaders".

(click THURSDAY below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent straight here just scroll down)

13 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Like all great evils, abortion has costs that go far beyond the acts themselves. We once lived in a society where when a man got a woman pregnant he felt great obligation to marry her. Within a single lifetime we have gone from that to a society where the man feels downright noble if he offers to pay for half of the abortion. Tell me again that this is a "woman's rights" issue.

Abortion has a staggering pschycological cost on women. Until recently (young people today are overwhelmingly pro-life) one of the most pro-abortion groups in American has been males 18-24. It is what one calls "rational self interest" you see. Abortion is not a "women's issue" (except for those who want to misuse the power that their sexuality gives them) so much as a "male cad's" issue. These groups wish to behave irresponsibly and immorally and shift the costs of their actions onto their unborn children. I can't seem to find room in my heart to be overly accommodating to such folks.

There are other more indirect macro-costs to our decision to dehumanize unborn babies that are hurting America on a scale similar to the costs associated with our decision to dehumanize slaves. America has lost 45 million of its children since 1973. This has produced an imbalance between "entry level" workers and older more established workers. This in turn has caused an economic demand for entry-level workers that we are attempting to satisfy by bringing in illegal aliens. Do you think there are too many illegal aliens in America? Can you believe that we have aborted four times that number of our own young people? The illegal aliens are here to fill those entry level jobs that our children are no longer alive to fill. Of course, in their coming they bring lots of other problems as well.

Social Security and Medicare are in trouble. Beginning only a few years from now it seems that there will not be enough younger workers in the system to keep payouts at their current levels. We aborted those workers. Perhaps the generation that gave us Roe and first dehumanized the unborn will be shocked to discover at the end of their lives that some will press for them to be euthanized because we can't afford to pay their medical bills. Reaping and sowing is a spritual law that cannot be annulled by any legislature known to man.

But let us move back to application of these truths to state government. AG Mike Bebee is pro-abortion. The whole Democratic ticket is pro-abortion and against protecting innocent unborn life, though they will come up with all kinds of double-talk about personal decisions and such to mask it. If you have seen the footage from films like "Silent Scream" you realize that the baby, if it knows nothing else as that instrument is tearing away at them, knows at least that it wants to live.

Let us here no more babble from politicians about how they are "against abortion but respect the right to choose". That is a sham. It leads to intellectual absurdities like the Bob Mathis bill making it a crime for a woman to smoke while pregnant. So Democrats want to arrest the woman if she smokes while pregnant but support her if she decides to have the baby torn limb from limb!

Now we come full circle to the crux of Brummett's article. Well, he had two cruxes but the first is dealt with quite easily. He said, "I believe a politician can have a Pryor-like nuanced position on abortion - opposing it personally and generally but ultimately not wanting to undo Roe v. Wade - and still be a sufficient cultural conservative to connect widely with Arkansas voters. " He cites Mark Pryor as an example. I would say that American is getting more pro-life every day as more facts are getting out there and the segment of our population that are abortion fans literally kills off their own next generation. There is still a number of people that don't pay very close attention that can be taken in by positions like that, but that group of people is getting smaller every day. As a political issue, abortion has a thin fence. You can't sit it for long.

I have found that every political campaign is not just an outer struggle where a candidate seeks an office, but an inner struggle in which the man decides who he really is. Asa Hutchinson is like all the others, facing this internal struggle. The Republican Party has been using pro-lifers for years. Taking their votes and their labors but giving little or nothing in return. I know that in the past they have advised candidates to just say they were pro-life when asked and let it go at that. That is NOT being pro-life. That is using babie's lives as fluffy little political footballs. In my book, only candidates who are actually and seriously interested in ending abortion need apply as "pro-life" candidates, regardless of what they call themselves.

By that standard, John Brummett makes a case that Asa Hutchinson is not pro-life either. He writes, "So, then, let me tell you about someone else who is not really pro-life, ultimately and unequivocally and thoroughly.

That'd be Asa Hutchinson.

In that Pine Bluff semi-debate before editors, as Hutchinson pestered Beebe over the fullness and legitimacy of his pro-life pronouncements, I asked Hutchinson a simple question. Would he as governor seek to have Arkansas join South Dakota in passing an outright repeal of the right to abortion to defy Roe v. Wade and dare the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the law?

Asa hesitated, evaded and said, eventually, no.

If we're going to play abortion as an all-or-nothing game, then let's really play it."

In addition to South Dakota, Loisianna, Ohio, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee have also proposed abortion bans. I'd like to think a "pro-life" candidate- as opposed to a politician just using the issue for personal gain- would be willing to do the same. Now maybe Asa just said something like "Let's let theirs get through the courts first, and if it fails we will try a slightly different version". If so, he is still pro-life. Maybe he said, "I am glad they did it. I don't think we need to repeat their efforts but I applaud them and hope they win. As soon as the courts reverse Roe v. Wade I will call for a similar law here in Arkansas". THAT would be a nuaunced pro-life position, but still pro-life. What is NOT pro-life (and would make J. Brummett correct) is for someone to go around the state saying "I am pro-life and my opponent is not" but then fail to support any specific proposals that would actually save baby's lives.

Every campaign is a battle not only for the office, but for the candidate's own soul. I am pulling for you Asa.

12:16 PM, June 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ASA said that ARKANSAS DIDN'T NEED TO PASS A LAW BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTION ALREADY OUTLAWS IT AND SO IF THE S.C. OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE, ARKANSAS IS ALREADY A PRO-LIFE STATE BY CONSTITUTION - UNTIL THE DEMS TRY TO REPEAL THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The bottom line is that Asa has been pro-life since the seventies and was the first state wide candidate to ever march in the march for life. Mark, you and Jim Holt are great leaders in the pro-life movement, but please don't ever question Asa's pro-life position because of something John Brummett said. That makes us lifers who have been standing by Asa long before you guys ever joined the fight very upset.

2:58 PM, June 15, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I am glad that you were finally able to find that unlock caps key.

I appreciate that you can get angry. Many of us who have been fighting to save babies over the last several decades can get angry too- angry at politicians who use the issue to get to the top of the ladder then "de-emphasize" it once there.

Any fair observor will admit that pro-lifers have been fooled before multiple times. Any fair observor will admit that lots of politicians have "gone hollywood" after a few years in DC. We are well within our rights to publically and firmly insist that this NOT happen again with any candidate for office.

If all I had was a Brummett column to go on, maybe I would not be concerned, but John is not wrong just because he is John. Asa keeps bringing in these Republican Pro-Abortion officeholders like John McCain (he stinks on border control too) and Rudy Giuliani to Arkansas. That is not very reassuring to people who are pro-life rather than simply pro-Republican.

Now I am going to turn your own argument back around on you. Since we are already a pro-life state by constitution, why does it even matter what Mike Bebee's position is on abortion? What if he says, "if elected I will faithfully uphold the laws of this state and won't seek to change the constitution's provsion on abortion." Is that enough to remove abortion as an issue in this race?

Despite Brummett thinking that a politician who can have it both ways is a good thing, a lot of us feel that it is not. Asa can't use abortion as a reason to vote for him over Bebee unless he is willing to say what he would try to do to actually reduce the number of abortions in this state. If nothing, then what does it matter?

Politican "A" says that he thinks it should be legal to feed kittens to Rotwielers but will still protect kittens once it becomes legal to do so because the Constitution says we should. Politician "B" says he is "pro-kitten" but does not have any specific proposals in mind to end the feeding of kittens to Rotwielers, instead pointing to the same laws that Candidate "A" noted will protect kittens at some future date once the Supreme Court decides they deserve protecting. Which candidate should the pro-kitten people get behind? Neither of those losers.

4:20 PM, June 15, 2006  
Anonymous ot99 said...

Preach it mark.

4:24 PM, June 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good point. Did you guys get this story from ArkFam? Seems so.

4:56 PM, June 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good story either way.

4:56 PM, June 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good story either way.

4:56 PM, June 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, the screaming single-issue values voters come out of the woodwork. Wake up, you're being played! When will you realize that? You won't overturn Roe v. Wade no matter what you do, and these guys will either keep telling you what they think you want to hear (then voting against your rights as property holders or smokers or whatever else you are) and keep laughing behind your backs on election day. Your single issue focus shows you for your true selves -- fringe, special interest activists. Get off it -- we've got other things to worry about right now, and if you lick up this abortion propaganda from any of these pols, (and quick -- which ones do you really believe -- they'd all tell you what they think you want to hear) the state will continue to fall in education, business and every other measure that determines an administrative success. You guys who spend all your time and money on the "pro-life" movement -- you don't count, this isn't aimed at you -- it's aimed at Ma and Pa voter who have other concerns.

5:20 PM, June 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, Asa has been trying to lower the number of abortions in Arkansas and across the country for 30 years. Why can't you guys accept that we have a strong conservative running for Governor and be happy. We have a great ticket. I don't know why you guys insist on manufacturing concerns with Asa. He is Pro-Life and is as committed to it, if not more, than Jim Holt.

He brings in moderate republicans, because he is so conservative that he needs to expand the base. This is simple politics. It does not mean that he agrees with everything he says - just like Jim Holt probably does not agree with everything Phyllis Schlaffly says.

5:49 PM, June 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

5:20

"When will you realize that? You won't overturn Roe v. Wade no matter what you do"

South Dakota is doing something, may God bless them for it. SOME STATE has to get the ball rolling for the case that will overturn Roe, if it is to ever be overturned. Sounds like you want us to just throw up our hands and quit fighting for the lives of these babies so that we can move on to "more important matters".

Whoever you are, I don't like guys like you.

9:35 PM, June 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"Asa has been trying to lower the number of abortions in Arkansas and across the country for 30 years"

Asa has benefitted from the support of pro-lifers for 30 years. He is now one step away from really doing something about it, and the silence is deafining. If he wants to use the issue against Bebee, and he SHOULD, then he needs to be able to say what it is that he would actually DO to save the lives of babies than Mike Bebee would not DO.

This crap where they say "I'm pro-life" but then that is all they are willing to say about it is straight from Richard Bearden's playbook. Do you want to bet the farm on his track record? Yes I think Asa believes the right things, I just think he has been in Washington so long that he is afraid to SAY what he believes.

Abortion is the great moral issue of our age. It is our defining moral issue. Tiptoeing around it would be like a Republican in 1856 playing footsie with the pro-slavery folks.

9:43 PM, June 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, Mark, yeah, I know you hate guys like me, but I'm a realist. With the numbers we have now, we'll never overturn Roe, and to keep wasting effort on it is freaking Don Quixote crap that'll keep groups like the Constitutional Party (or whatever you call yourselves) outside of political power on the sidelines with the Nazis, instead of making legislation and really doing something substantive.

Hate me or not -- you apparently get the message, as you wrote:

Asa has benefitted from the support of pro-lifers for 30 years. He is now one step away from really doing something about it, and the silence is deafining.(your sp)

Why do you think it's deafening, Mark? Because he's using you and people like him, including the galoot in the White House, like to use people like you all the time -- they have no respect for you values, for your feelings, for your beliefs -- they just think they can con you out of a vote, while they're cheating someone else out of another.

Wake up and do something with your time, don't waste it on "I've been fighting abortion for 30 years, but I've got nothing to show for it and I'll never get anything done on it because I don't really care" Asa! Or are you willing to let your state go to hell?

9:36 AM, June 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

"Oh, Mark, yeah, I know you hate guys like me"

I hate your ways, because they are crooked and perverse. The reason we are in trouble as a country is that too many like you are deluded into thinking morality does not count. Well, if not, then why shouldn't 51% of the population use "theft by democracy" to raid the goods of the other 49%? I mean, you are unwilling to respect the LIVES of others, so who are you to complain when the majority does not respect YOUR right to mere property and income?

If we are to have a just society, it will have to be because men like you are outvoted by men like me. You will have to have good government imposed on you by men and women more righteous than you are. Your philosophy will not sustain it.

"I'm a realist. With the numbers we have now, we'll never overturn Roe"

We are getting closer every day to getting those numbers. The only thing that can stop or slow it down is that our "leaders" start refusing to talk about it. They refuse to publically defend the pro-life postion, they just mumble "I'm pro-life" when pressed.

"Because he's using you and people like him, including the galoot in the White House, like to use people like you all the time -- they have no respect for you values, for your feelings, for your beliefs -- they just think they can con you out of a vote, while they're cheating someone else out of another."

You make an excellent point for people like me to form a new party, which we are in the process of doing. I am not sure that Asa is using me, though I think Bush did. I think Asa is conflicted, as all men are. My prayers are with him.

12:46 PM, June 20, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home