Fred Thompson has picked up not only the endorsement of the National Right to Life, but also so many of its affiliates that I think it would be hard to say that he does not have the support of pro-lifers across the country.
I read this Fred blog talking about him making a comeback and taking Iowa. I certainly hope they are on to something. I believe it.
Fred did a tremendous job at that last debate. Kudos to him for refusing to answer the ridiculously over-simplified question regarding climate change.
13.12.07
19.11.07
Interesting
How interesting it is that this Washington Times editorial finds it so interesting that the National Right to Life endorsed Fred Thompson. Interesting because the same publication, in the same edition, carried the comments of Romney supporter Paul Weyrich who outright accused NRLC of taking money for their endorsement.
I would say it's interesting that bribery is the first place Mr. Weyrich's mind goes when he hears the word endorsement. I would also say that it's interesting that the Washington Times found it necessary to reiterate all the possible complaints about this endorsement for which NRLC provided concrete answers.
In other news, I was encouraged to see somebody making more sense about the endorsement.
I would say it's interesting that bribery is the first place Mr. Weyrich's mind goes when he hears the word endorsement. I would also say that it's interesting that the Washington Times found it necessary to reiterate all the possible complaints about this endorsement for which NRLC provided concrete answers.
In other news, I was encouraged to see somebody making more sense about the endorsement.
17.11.07
HLA
Thank you, Kathryn Jean Lopez! At least somebody's paying attention to the fact that recent Human Life Amendment initiatives are going nowhere fast.
And items like this do seem to be turning out rather quickly. The Colorado Supreme Court recently allowed the language of a ballot initiative there that could put to a referendum vote whether their state constitution should be amended to recognize fertilized human embryos as persons. It's a beautiful sentiment. It truly is, because they are human persons. But considering the fact that it will end up doing nothing means that it's only a sentiment. I guess that kind of sentimentality would at least be in time for Christmas.
Oh, I guess it wouldn't do nothing. Let's see, they need to collect a little over 76,000 signatures in a state with a population of 4,753,500 (which also the mega church capitol of the country, so they can probably get the signatures without too much trouble). That means they're looking for a little more than 1.5% of the population to sign on and bring it to a vote where it will likely fail. Even if it didn't, it would be struck down by the US Supreme Court. So I guess it would set a pretty nasty precedent in the Supreme Court for how to decide on the personhood of the unborn.
Well, even if they ruin the chances for ultimately protecting the lives of the unborn, they can always pretend that these personhood petitions and votes were some sort of moral victory and fund raise off of it. I can hear it now: "This past year, millions of Americans came together to defend the humanity of the unborn...send help/contribute/donate now!" Talk about blood money.
And items like this do seem to be turning out rather quickly. The Colorado Supreme Court recently allowed the language of a ballot initiative there that could put to a referendum vote whether their state constitution should be amended to recognize fertilized human embryos as persons. It's a beautiful sentiment. It truly is, because they are human persons. But considering the fact that it will end up doing nothing means that it's only a sentiment. I guess that kind of sentimentality would at least be in time for Christmas.
Oh, I guess it wouldn't do nothing. Let's see, they need to collect a little over 76,000 signatures in a state with a population of 4,753,500 (which also the mega church capitol of the country, so they can probably get the signatures without too much trouble). That means they're looking for a little more than 1.5% of the population to sign on and bring it to a vote where it will likely fail. Even if it didn't, it would be struck down by the US Supreme Court. So I guess it would set a pretty nasty precedent in the Supreme Court for how to decide on the personhood of the unborn.
Well, even if they ruin the chances for ultimately protecting the lives of the unborn, they can always pretend that these personhood petitions and votes were some sort of moral victory and fund raise off of it. I can hear it now: "This past year, millions of Americans came together to defend the humanity of the unborn...send help/contribute/donate now!" Talk about blood money.
14.11.07
Incrementalism
Rhetoric criticizing incrementalism in the pro-life movement is rampant, especially as we approach elections. As a pro-lifer, I'm offended at the insult to my intelligence and that of my fellow pro-lifers that position represents.
Anti-incrementalists have nothing to offer the pro-life movement other than their product: an oversimplified, impractical, non-plan. That's not fair...they have a "plan," but it involves pushing for a human life amendment without any votes to support it, thus making it not a plan. I like how they advertise this "no compromise" position assuming the pro-life community is totally clueless about the amendment process. (If you happen to be of the anti-incrementalist persuasion... here's a little description of how it goes.) Talk about shoot first, and ask questions later.
Speaking of no compromises, you ought to check out some of the nifty things the anti-incrementalist camp has to offer like Pastor Bob Enyart's biblically-based Cosmo-like quiz to assist you in determining when it's appropriate to use lethal force against abortionists. Ah, the high road! (In case you haven't noticed, I'm being completely sarcastic. I do not condone the killing of any person.)
Anti-incrementalists have nothing to offer the pro-life movement other than their product: an oversimplified, impractical, non-plan. That's not fair...they have a "plan," but it involves pushing for a human life amendment without any votes to support it, thus making it not a plan. I like how they advertise this "no compromise" position assuming the pro-life community is totally clueless about the amendment process. (If you happen to be of the anti-incrementalist persuasion... here's a little description of how it goes.) Talk about shoot first, and ask questions later.
Speaking of no compromises, you ought to check out some of the nifty things the anti-incrementalist camp has to offer like Pastor Bob Enyart's biblically-based Cosmo-like quiz to assist you in determining when it's appropriate to use lethal force against abortionists. Ah, the high road! (In case you haven't noticed, I'm being completely sarcastic. I do not condone the killing of any person.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
