Behind in the polls and perhaps looking for a way to connect with voters without resorting to Barack Obama "is palling around a terrorist" speech she gave last week, Gov. Sarah Palin has shifted her focus to abortion, referring to Senator Obama as a "radical" who has "left behind even the middle ground when it comes to the issue of life" at a rally in Jonestown, PA yesterday. "In times like these with wars and financial crisis, I know that it may be easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life, and it seems that our opponent kind of hopes you will forget that," Palin warned the crowd, "He hopes that you won't notice how radical, absolutely radical his idea is on this, and his record is, until it's too late." But between the two candidates, which one really takes a more "radical" stance on abortion?Barack Obama is pro-choice; he does not support a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe vs. Wade, he supports sex education, access to contraception, providing information about emergency contraception to rape victims, and he once sponsored a bill that would provide contraceptives to low-income women. In his book, The Audacity of Hope Obama explains his pro-choice position to a Christian protestor by explaining to the protestor that he "feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place." Sarah Palin is pro-life; she believes that abortion should always be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. The only time Palin believes abortion is warranted is when the mother's life is physically at stake. Palin believes that "the legislature should do all it can to protect human life," but why does the protection of human life only relate to unborn children? Is asking an incest victim to carry her father's, or brother's, or uncle's child really a protection of life? Or is it a protection of some lives, but a denial of the harm it may do, psychologically, emotionally, and physically to others? As the election winds down, the rhetoric on both sides will undoubtedly heat up; while the economy is the issue on everyone's minds, abortion is the issue that can be counted on to be divisive and controversial for both candidates, and it's not incredibly surprising that Palin, at a time when her running mate is struggling, is going back to an issue that has rallied her base for many years. But it should also serve as a means to rally pro-choice activists as well, and to continue a national discussion on how to find a common ground on an issue that has split our nation for so long. As Obama has said, "People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ." If that is "radical" thinking, I only hope to see more of it over the next four years. Palin Heightens Rhetoric On Abortion[CNN] Sarah Palin On Abortion [On The Issues] Barack Obama On Abortion [On The Issues]
And god said unto adam and eve: BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. But avoid the hangers, ya'll, cause I'll be sendin' some rainz soon and killing all yer babiez anyway.
It's Sunday, I feel the need to preach the word.
My dad pulled out this line the other day: "You say that now but just wait until you look your own child in the eye. You won't been so keen on killing everyone else's babies after that."
Mmm, I love me some baby killing.