How Pro-life is John McCain? This is a part of the full article.
by Wesley Strackbein and Bob Renaud, Vision Forum Staff
Sen. McCain’s record on abortion has largely been “buried” this election cycle, and it indeed “speaks volumes,” but not for the reasons that Ertelt has suggested. A more careful look at Sen. McCain’s formal voting record and statements indicate that he will not make the protection of life a priority in a McCain presidential administration. While Sen. McCain voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban in 2003 (as did Senators Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, and sixty-one others)[2] and has often stated that he does not “support Roe versus Wade” and would like to see it “overturned,”[3] the Arizona senator has actually stated his opposition to take active measures to overturn Roe for fear that such a move would endanger the lives of women.[4]
Moreover, Sen. McCain supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and he has actively campaigned to strike the prohibition of abortion in these cases from the Republican Party Platform.[5] In addition, Sen. McCain has voted to confirm radical pro-abortion judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and has recently affirmed that he would vote for pro-abortion judges under a McCain presidency, so long as they met basic “qualifications.”[6] He also has been outspoken in his support for embryonic stem cell research and has voted in favor of funding for Planned Parenthood.[7]
The point is this: Attempts to paint Sen. John McCain as a pro-life candidate are grossly misleading. Mr. Ertelt of LifeNews.com and other pro-life groups such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) have “buried” widely known aspects of Sen. McCain’s record on life that demonstrate — while Sen. John McCain may not be as far to the left as Sen. Barack Obama on the life issue — he is not a champion of the unborn, and, should he be elected to the presidency, his past record and recent claims offer no confidence that he will do anything to advance the ethic of life as president of the United States.
We agree with the National Right to Life Committee’s conclusion of eight years ago — a position that they have now suppressed due to political expediency — that “John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause”[8]; and as a service to voters in this 2008 election cycle, we have brought to light key facts on Sen. McCain’s record on abortion for readers to consider in forming their own conclusions regarding his stance on this critically important issue.
Full Article http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/10/4542.aspx
Friends, I think it is safe to say that who ever wins this election will not be fighting for life.
自分でも出来るの？スマホの防水加工にチャレンジしてみよう
5 years ago
1 comment:
Wesley Strackbein and Bob Renaud, in their paper criticizing LifeNews.com and me, offer an incomplete presentation of McCain's views on abortions and our reasoning for endorsing him.
McCain has been dogged heavily by the pro-life movement over the years for his championing campaign finance reform and for his votes in favor of embryonic stem cell research funding. That has left an indelible impression that he is somehow not pro-life on abortion. That's wrong.
McCain has also consistently championed the reversal of Roe v. Wade in recent years. The senator has come around fully on this issue after taking a tenuous position a decade ago. But he proved his pro-life credentials when he voted against a resolution honoring Roe that the Senate hoped to attach to the partial-birth abortion ban. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4489.html)
Yes, McCain supports abortions in the very rare cases of rape and incest -- something I and LifeNews.com strenuously oppose.
At the same time, we have an election featuring a candidate who supports 100% of abortions (Obama) and one who opposes 99% (McCain). With those as the only two realistic options for president, McCain is certainly the clear choice for the pro-life movement.
Undoubtedly it would be nice to protect every single baby from every single abortion and to do so immediately. But Strackbein and Renaud literally throw the baby out with the bathwater by adopting the notion that only candidates with perfect pro-life positions are worthy of support against candidates who will keep 100% of abortions legal for decades.
Certainly it would be better to have a candidate who opposes 100% of abortions (and we do in McCain's running mate Sarah Palin) but we don't have those options. Ending the abortions that happen on 99% of babies matter to those babies and forsaking stopping those abortions for the pursuit of the perfect is morally bankrupt.
Certainly we can agree we should save the 99% if we can and get the job done with the rest later rather than putting off saving any unborn children by waiting for the perfect candidate.
The condemnation of voting for McCain despite his flaws misses the Biblical notion that politics is not the answer. We're to give to Ceaser what is his, but Christ didn't offer a political solution for the ills of the world, including abortion. He offered a spiritual one. In the realm of politics, we're confronted sometimes by sinful choices where neither one lines up absolutely fully with the Biblical principles we endorse. But to condemn the saving of 99% of babies from abortion by not supporting McCain and allowing Obama to win is even more out of step with Biblical principles in my mind and the minds of most pro-life advocates.
The authors claim McCain has actively worked to strike the language from the platform that calls for a human life amendment to include rape and incest exceptions. They ignore that McCain gave his approval for the GOP platform to keep the same pro-life language it has had for decades. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4222.html)
With regard to the votes for Supreme Court judges the pro-life movement disapproves of, McCain has repeatedly stated that he votes for all judges because he believes presidents should have their judges confirmed. Personally, I would not vote for judges, but the consistency of the argument is there.
The pro-life movement made the same point -- that judges are due a proper vote -- when our pro-life nominees were up for votes. When abortion advocates declined to give them votes or voted them down, we complained. I may not agree with McCain's votes, but his thinking that presidents should get their nominees confirmed does NOT meant that he wants pro-abortion nominees.
What does McCain want? He's laid that out very consistently over and over again that he wants judges in the mold of the pro-life ones who have already said Roe must be overturned. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4489.html) That, of course, is contrasted with the pro-abortion litmus test Obama has.
The authors also mention McCain's ESCR position and LifeNews.com has repeatedly condemned it. But, I urge readers to consider the comments in our endorsement of McCain (http://www.LifeNews.com/johnmccainprolife.html) that talk about his view likely changing, his opposition to other anti-life aspects of the bioethics debate, and how abortion is so important that we must vote for McCain anyway.
The authors also question National Right to Life for its older articles about McCain. I do not speak for the organization and it can represent its own views, but I would point out that NRLC said in its own endorsement of McCain that any disagreement about campaign finance reform is MUCH less important than the agreement that 1.2 million abortions a year is a travesty. Surely the authors would agree on that point.
I'm saddened to see that Wesley Strackbein and Bob Renaud call "shameful" those who see things differently. While the authors spend an entire article bringing up objections to McCain's record, the millions of pro-life people and than many pro-life groups that support him have equally lengthy writings about how he has championed the pro-life cause.
Curiously, the authors leave out any explanation of his voting record, do not include several of the points made above, and say nothing of McCain's family's adoption, his lengthy speeches touting the pro-life message, his writings or anything else that is critical in evaluating a candidate's position.
Fortunately, the authors do not engage in the ad hominem attacks by claiming we are not pro-life. They could have castigated the millions of pro-life people who recognize that McCain is an imperfect candidate but worthy of support because he, unlike Obama, will help us get to our goal of protecting unborn children (or at least not stand in the way as Obama would).
Ultimately, their pro-life viewpoint is obvious as well as their desire to protect unborn children. As is ours.
While we disagree on McCain's worthiness and political strategy, we vehemently agree on the end goal, and that is babies deserve complete and total legal protection from the time of conception forward.
Post a Comment