Time Magazine’s Nancy Gibbs writes Understanding America’s Shift on Abortion today, attempting to explain to Americans why they are not really Pro-Life.
Do these people really get paid for this crap?!
She writes,
“At either extreme, slightly more people now believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (23%) than legal under all circumstances (22%).
So what’s changed? Gallup attributes the new numbers to Republicans purifying their views: 70% now call themselves pro-life, up 10 points in a year. But that’s to be expected; when fewer people call themselves Republican, the party condenses into a pool of true believers.”
In other words, the purification of the Republican Party increases the percentage of pro-life individuals within the party, and that somehow translates to a 100% increase in strict pro-lifers (those who think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances) across the board since the mid 90′s.
Come on, Nancy. We’re not that stupid.
Her “analysis” assumes that the people leaving the Republican Party are more Pro-choice than those remaining. But my gut tells me (yes, that is entirely unscientific, so sue me) more people are leaving the Republican Party because it has shifted farther to the Left and, among other compaints I have heard, taken a more Pro-choice position.
Thanks for the “explanation,” Ms. Gibbs. I think I’ll stick with the facts.
So, if only 22 percent of Americans think Abortion should be legal under any circumstances, why do our laws reflect their wishes, and not those of the majority? More people think that Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, than the number who think it should be freely available.
The more moderate position, that Abortion should be allowed only under very specific circumstances, is held by 53% of us.
Put another way, 76% of people surveyed think Abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.
So, again, why are we allowing a 22% minority to kill our children whenever they want?
There is a great article by George Neumayr in the American Spectator. He points out that Obama is spending much more time and energy defending the indefensible in favor of the inalienable. Where terrorists get his comfort, his aid, and his sympathy, unborn children are relegated to another form of torture and Obama is OK with that because it’s for the greater good.
“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature — that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance — and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”
Enjoy the read.
Planned Parenthood is still at it, meaning they are not reporting rapes of underage girls. Check out Jill Stanek’s blog.
Glenn Beck interviewed David Freddoso, author of a new book called The Case Against Barak Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate. If you didn’t get a chance to hear it the first time, you can read the transcript here. Here’s an excerpt:
FREDDOSO: Barbara Boxer had stood up and said, “I support this bill, everyone should vote for this bill.” Obama voted against it and that puts him on the very fringes when it comes to issues of human life at its very beginning.
GLENN: So wait a minute. He is Barbara Boxer was on the other side of this issue?
FREDDOSO: Yes, that’s right. Hillary Clinton was also on the other side. The vote was 98 0 and the two guys who weren’t there to vote were pro life Republicans. So basically every abortion proponent in the United States Senate is more protective of human life in its early stages than Senator Obama.
I am now horrified at the thought of this evil man becoming President of this country. He is not just mistaken; he is not just misguided or wrongheaded. There is no other valid description of Barak Obama than evil. Yes, that sounds terribly partisan and maybe unfair. But go read the transcript and see of you don’t agree with me afterwards. No-one with any sense of right and wrong could make the conscious decisions Obama has made in his political career and be called “simply misguided.”
The man or woman who takes up the mantle of the President of the United States must be prepared to “preserve and defend the Constitution,” which includes in the preamble our national intent to “secure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity…”
In plain terms, the Founders recognized the Rights of the millions of the unborn that would follow after them; the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Our President must defend this. He must not be of the opinion that we can leave our babies to die, unloved and alone on a cold, metal slab in a medical supply closet, with only a blanket for companionship in their few moments of life. The man who serves in our highest office must be a man of the highest feelings and nobility towards his fellow man. Not one who so indifferently disposes of our most helpless citizens as a “punishment” for a mistake, or relief from inconvenience.
Having lost a child within this past year, my soul is inflamed with passion against this great evil. I held my beautiful, precious daughter in my arms as her death approached, prepared to give everything I had if I could stop it. I am offended that anyone would consider me part of that same family of beings who, were they in that situation, would turn away and leave that little one to die without even a tear shed for her loss. Yet, so it is.
I am left wondering, saddened and angered, at how the human mind can become so twisted and perverse as this, the heart so bereft of that natural affection which should dwell there. The President must not be of this low quality. Beyond the beautiful speeches and lofty rhetoric, he must be greater than most of us in his mind, and the “servant of all” in his heart. Barak Obama is neither.
Recent Comments