FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: More Information that Palin is Pro-Choice
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Palin’s Pro-abortion Appointee/ The Christian’s Response ?
When John McCain was running for President last year, some folks like me opposed him in favor of 3rd Party candidates or write ins. The response was often the typical “Obama’s the boogie man; he’s going to win if we don’t support McCain”. Obama won in spite of this support. Duty is ours, results are God’s.
Two of the major reason given for this support was Sarah Palin & Judicial Nominees. Many Christians had lukewarm feelings about McCain. But, for some these lukewarm feelings changed to giddy excitement when he named Gov Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate.
Sarah Palin is Pro-life !
Sarah Palin is a real Conservative !
Sarah Palin will have the President’s ear — and we’ll have hers; she’s one of us !
Sarah Palin will make sure we get good Judges — and then we can overturn Roe-v-Wade !
Based on the latest news from her home state, this excitement may have been ill founded. According to this article from the Anchorage Daily News, Gov. Palin bucked the Alaska Family Council and pro-life Christians in Alaska by appointing a former Planned Parenthood board member to the state Supreme Court : http://www.adn.com/news/government/story/711378.html
In her defense, Alaska’s law does not allow the governor to pick whomever they want for the court. “Under the state Constitution, Palin had to select from among the nominees sent to her by the seven-member Alaska Judicial Council, made up of lawyers, public members appointed by governors and the Supreme Court chief justice, currently Dana Fabe.”
So the governor has limited choices. The panel only gave Gov. Palin two nominees to choose from :
The eventual nominee was Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen. She “will be just the second woman named to the high court in the 50 years since statehood.” And she has served on the Board of Planned Parenthood — the world’s largest abortion provider, and one of the most well-funded, politically powerful, and outspoken anti-family/ ant-life, ant-Christ entities in the states and globally.
The other nominee was no stalwart conservative. In the 80’s Palmer Superior Court Judge Eric Smith “was executive director of the public interest environmental law firm, Trustees for Alaska. The group currently is on the opposite side of Palin over the listing of Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered.
But the fact is, when given the choice of a candidate who was wrong on abortion and a candidate who Palin disagreed with on environmental issues, Gov. Palin picked the pro-abort.

This in spite of the fact that “The head of the Alaska Family Council — a Christian pro-family, anti-abortion group — on Wednesday sent an e-mail to thousands of people asking them to urge Palin to pick Smith, not Christen.
The Family Council, while decrying the system that does not allow the governor more liberty to chose a nominee pragmatically urged Palin to name Smith — who had ties to the green lobby — over Christen who was stained with the red of the blood of innocents. “The family council plea, from group president Jim Minnery, said Smith was ‘more conservative’ and that Christen would be ‘another activist on the Court.‘”
There is some precedent, however, for a governor not allowing this system to force him to chose the lesser of two evils (or in this case three). Former Gov. Frank Murkowski once rejected all three nominees sent to him. He eventually blinked and nominated one of the suggested candidates when no others were offered.
From this, we can gain great insight into how Vice President or President Palin would act when it came to Judicial nominees; what her priorities are and who she would listen to .
It is past time that we as Believers quit trusting in party politics and pragmatism. It is past time that we quit jockeying for position and trying to be wise political sages. It is past time that we quit trusting Washington and WAITING until we have just the right mix of a Republican President, a Republican Congress, and Judicial Nominees appointed by Republicans. We had that for 5 out of the last 8 years.
Let us trust God — for our only hope is in Him. And, let us live as if we believe that He still can, and will move. Christ is most glorified when His people live as if He truly were an all powerful Saviour and an all Sovereign King.
We are His image in our culture. His image & great Name has, for too long, been drug through the mud of trusting in political parties and pragmatic approaches to change our culture.
We must speak the truth in love to all areas of life. We must take every thought captive and develop a truly Biblical, Christ-centered life and world view — not merely a conservative or traditionalist or a slightly to the right of Hollywood and Socialism worldview. THEN we must act upon this life and worldview. We must die to self. We must love God and our neighbors. We must reach out to the least of these and have our hearts broken by the cry of the fatherless. When we hear this cry, we must act. Following our Lord’s example, if we want to lead, we must serve.
IF we are to be involved in political and cultural activism — and I believe we MUST — then we cannot merely practice a Baptised version of conservatism (or liberalism) . We must base our political views and involvement on God’s Word — not the latest from Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh or Republican headquarters (but I repeat myself [Image: icon_smile.gif] ).
Who can win the next election ? How will the Democrats react ? Will this help build the Party (Republican or Constitution or other)? Cannot be the questions that guide us .
The right questions for Christians involved in political or cultural issues are things like :
What does God’s Word say about this (directly or in principle) ? How can we best glorify & honor Christ ? What best reflects to the world His character and our grateful, loving obedience to Him ? How does this cause me to lay down my rights and my life — and lift up Christ ? How will this affect the family & the church and the work of the Kingdom ? How does this affect the oppressed, the voiceless, the helpless ? Does this declare that Christ is King and that all men, nations, and governments are under His authority ? How can we best love God & love our neighbors in this area ?
For example, in dealing with the issue of abortion, pro-lifers have largely focused their efforts in the political/ legal realm on Washington & helping Republican politicians locally & nationally. Top down. Centralized. Pragmatic. Failed. Some victories, some regulation of murder, but nonetheless unsuccessful in overturning Roe and protecting all human beings under law.
But in the cultural arena we have opened Crisis Pregnancy Centers and taken to the streets to do sidewalk counselling. Although not nearly enough, these efforts have been much more fruitful.
If we want to see abortion end, let us redouble and increase our efforts to reach out to the hurting; to help single mothers; to be willing to adopt; generally to go to the streets and get our hands dirty through self-denying, uncomfortable, grass roots, bottom-up, truth declaring, trusting-in-God-to-give-the-increase, servant leadership.
And on the political/ legal side may I suggest a different approach as well.
Here in Mississippi — as in several other states, we are again seeking to try the grassroots, bottom up approach through the Mississippi Personhood Amendment : http://personhoodmississippi.com/
This is non-partisan, decentralized, bottom up. It is not aimed at electing some candidate, or building some party or organization. We are making every effort to remain Christ centered. If you are a pro-life Mississippian, or know someone who is, we need help. If you are in another state, find out about Personhood efforts in your state (or start one).
May He alone receive glory !
Les Riley
Belloc Wrote:But the fact is, when given the choice of a candidate who was wrong on abortion and a candidate who Palin disagreed with on environmental issues, Gov. Palin picked the pro-abort.
 That doesn't realy follow, unless we know more about the other candidate.  He may be pro-abortion also.  Besides, the position of any state supreme court justice may be irrelevant, because the federal courts have turned abortion into a federal constitutional right.
Thanks for the heads-up Belloc.

I don't mean to be spiteful or vindictive toward anyone (and I'm certainly not glad Palin did this, not in the least), but I'm glad I didn't vote for McCain. This shows that Republicans' campaign promises are one thing - actual legislature and works are often quite different when it comes to push-and-shove.
I agree with you. I'm also tired of all of these stupid Palin rumors. All of them have been debunked so far and its getting annoying to still listen to them.
I wish people would do their homework before putting fingers to the keyboard.

Palin was presented with two candidates from a Democrat-dominated selection committee. They basically presented her with two different flavors of baby killers and told her "Pick one."

Apparently, a previous Alaskan governor said "Neither" and it triggered a governmental crisis in Alaska. Perhaps, with the current meltdown underway Palin didn't feel like triggering a second crisis. I dunno, but it's not as though she has the same nominating powers as Obama.
spasiisochrani Wrote:
Belloc Wrote:But the fact is, when given the choice of a candidate who was wrong on abortion and a candidate who Palin disagreed with on environmental issues, Gov. Palin picked the pro-abort.
 That doesn't realy follow, unless we know more about the other candidate.  He may be pro-abortion also.  Besides, the position of any state supreme court justice may be irrelevant, because the federal courts have turned abortion into a federal constitutional right.

Agreed. All or some of the candidates in question may have been pro-abortion in some respect.
Furthermore, there is no such word as "pro-choice". If people are for abortion, they are pro-abortion. The choice in question is life or death. No one should should be flatted with the misleading title of "pro-choice" so as to take the sting off of their dreadful opinion.
Just my thoughts.
OKinyobe Wrote:
spasiisochrani Wrote:
Belloc Wrote:But the fact is, when given the choice of a candidate who was wrong on abortion and a candidate who Palin disagreed with on environmental issues, Gov. Palin picked the pro-abort.
 That doesn't realy follow, unless we know more about the other candidate.  He may be pro-abortion also.  Besides, the position of any state supreme court justice may be irrelevant, because the federal courts have turned abortion into a federal constitutional right.

Agreed. All or some of the candidates in question may have been pro-abortion in some respect.
Furthermore, there is no such word as "pro-choice". If people are for abortion, they are pro-abortion. The choice in question is life or death. No one should should be flatted with the misleading title of "pro-choice" so as to take the sting off of their dreadful opinion.
Just my thoughts.
I agree completly OKinyobe. Somehow by refering to murdering the unborn as a "choice", it seem's to make it easy for people to forget that they are talking about human lives. You are either pro-life or Pro-death, the only true choice is life. 
Just curious...but why have you adopted the liberal, modern attempt to cover up what abortion really is...by using the words "pro choice"?

How about "Pro baby killer" or "Pro abortion"?



"Pro-Choice" is just the common and official term for those who are pro-aborts. Why critcise someone for using the universally recognized term? You don't have to say 'pro-death'. Everyone including the Pro-Choice crowd know exactly what abortion is.


And for the record: this article was lame. Palin, though far from perfect, is one of the most pro-life politicians out there. Unlike John McCain she is against stem cell research, abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and is even against the morning after pill. Most 'pro-life' politicians are just against surgical abortions "on demand" and "partial birth abortions." Basically, as long as it doesn't 'look' like a baby they're ok with abortion. Palin isn't.
Quote:Why critcise someone for using the universally recognized term?

I didn't criticize the OP. If you notice, I said "just curious but..."

Like I said, I'm curious.

As far as the term, I call a spade a spade. "Pro choice" is made to sound fuzzy and warm and GOOD, because choosing is GOOD. It's a euphemism for something terrible.



Pages: 1 2