Methinks that the person quoted at the beginning of this article is a little bit silly.
Furthermore, if one must be a single issue voter, abortion is a stupid single issue to choose. When it comes down to it, if the Bush presidency could not get anything done on abortion, why would one think McCain will?
Veteran Democrat David Carlin knows what he’s going to do if Illinois Sen. Barack Obama becomes his party’s presidential nomineeWe get this story every 4 years. "Oh my! The Democrat is for abortion. I am a Democrat, but I cannot vote for someone who is not against abortion." I am sorry, if one is a single issue voter and one's position on that issue is consistently opposite that of the party one claims to be a member of, one should not, for all practical purposes, consider oneself a member of that parter.
He’s going to vote for the presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.
“Any Catholic who takes the abortion issue seriously will not vote for Obama,” said Carlin, who served as majority leader of the Rhode Island Senate in 1989-90.
Furthermore, if one must be a single issue voter, abortion is a stupid single issue to choose. When it comes down to it, if the Bush presidency could not get anything done on abortion, why would one think McCain will?
Two observations:
The best way to get someone to stop replying to you on a message board is to give a well reasoned argument and act friendly.
People who use pictures of aborted fetuses to try to "prove" their anti-abortion stance is the right one are actually making the same distinction between children before and after birth that they decry in pro-choice advocates. By showing these pictures and using them to push their agenda, they show that they are willing to use image of a person's dead body as a prop in their agenda pushing. My judgment of character may be completely wrong, but I suspect that even these people would think it disrespectful to show pictures of bloody dead children (from say, Iraq or New Orleans after Katrina), even if it helps prove their point. Yet the pictures of these unborn children are somehow different. It is showing that, on some level, unborn life is not the same as born life to people who stoop to such tactics, whatever they claim to the contrary.
The best way to get someone to stop replying to you on a message board is to give a well reasoned argument and act friendly.
People who use pictures of aborted fetuses to try to "prove" their anti-abortion stance is the right one are actually making the same distinction between children before and after birth that they decry in pro-choice advocates. By showing these pictures and using them to push their agenda, they show that they are willing to use image of a person's dead body as a prop in their agenda pushing. My judgment of character may be completely wrong, but I suspect that even these people would think it disrespectful to show pictures of bloody dead children (from say, Iraq or New Orleans after Katrina), even if it helps prove their point. Yet the pictures of these unborn children are somehow different. It is showing that, on some level, unborn life is not the same as born life to people who stoop to such tactics, whatever they claim to the contrary.
