We noted on this blog over a month ago, Mike Frerichs has been cozying up to the pro abortion folks. In yesterday's News-Gazette, Tom Kacich goes straight to Frerichs and gets his new position, or at least part of it. We have no indication from the Kacich article what Frerichs now feels about parental notification and partial birth abortion, however, since Personal PAC is so committed to his race, we can assume that he's lined up with them, at least for this election.
Kacich also muddies the issue in a way. Interestingly, when he wrote about the money of Emil Jones, he failed to note that Frerichs had received $10,000 from Jones less than two years ago. Some on this blog dismissed that as unimportant because that was a different race. Now, Kacich reaches back to Frerichs first race for positions, when he could just as easily have gone back to Frerichs positions when he first announced. Here is how the NG reported it last fall.
Frerichs said he favors parental notification laws for women under age 18 seeking an abortion and opposes the so-called partial-birth abortion procedures.
This is not a change in position from 8 years ago, it's a change from 12 months ago.
Of course, most of us saw this coming. Frerichs' principles, to the extent he has them, would never get in the way of his ambition. He saw Democrats abandoning him and figured he had to do something to stem the bleeding.
What was shocking, is that Frerichs used such an offensive anecdote to help explain his change.
One that stood out, he said, was a discussion with "an older Catholic woman who said that you're not to stop them, they're just going to be more dangerous" if government tries to impose more restrictions on abortions.
As a serious minded Catholic who believes, supports, and follows the teaching of the church on abortion, I'm astounded that he would actually use a Catholic woman to support his new found position on abortion. Did he have to bring up the fact that she was Catholic? What did that accomplish? Is he trying to point out the divisions that exist on this issue, even within the Catholic Church? That's well and good, but it seems like the debate on this from a Catholic view point is well left to Catholics and doesn't need his input. (Frerichs is Lutheran) Frerichs is following in the media line that many Catholics find very offensive: find a single Catholic "leader" (Richard McBrien is on the speed dial of all the major news networks) who will oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church, and make it sound like it represents mainstream views of the church.
Mike, I'm sorry your "older Catholic woman" feels that way. I'm more sorry though that you used her as an example.
Again, it is always good to see that our County Clerk has nothing better to do than post a long, hate-filled diatribe about a Democrat. Makes you wonder how the taxes get collected at all.
For the record, no one cares. No one cares about the Nursing-Home-Scandal-That-Could(n't). Nobody cares that Freirichs has a nuanced view of abortion, and has changed his position in the last few years.
Much more interesting is Mrs. Meyer's position, which is something like "no abortion ever unless you've been raped or had sex with your dad". When asked for a comment, Judy says she "has no idea if this is pro-life or pro-choice"?
Is she that dumb, or is she just manipulating the issue as much as Freirichs? And Shelden, come on ... don't you have some taxes to raise or something?
Oops. Apologies. That should be taxes to collect. You are, after all a tax collector not a tax raiser.
Hey Wow! Says: I can tell you many people in my area do care. And you should sharpen up a little on your facts. Shelden is a keeper of records not a tax collector, that is another office. I'm guessing by your ridiculously stupid statement that you abviously aren't a tax payer or you would know who you write your check to, and it isn't Sheldens office.
Whether you like Shelden or not, at least have some clue as to what you are saying.
"Makes you wonder how the taxes get collected at all."
Mark doesn't collect the County's taxes.
Nice attack on the messenger, though.
"Much more interesting is Mrs. Meyer's position, which is something like “no abortion ever unless you've been raped or had sex with your dad”ÂÂ. When asked for a comment, Judy says she “has no idea if this is pro-life or pro-choice”ÂÂ?"
That quote was in reference to whether the district polls more Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Please read the entire paragraph, and you'll see what I mean.
Mark, chill out. My guess is that Frerichs mentioned lots of women he's talked with about abortion since he decided to run for State Senate, and, rather than printing the 30 minute conversation and the list or description of people Frerichs mentioned that he had spoken with, Kacich took out one snippit. Why did Kacich pick that one person? Maybe because he's Catholic. Maybe because the perception is that Catholics don't agree with abortion (though I've seen surveys that show that a really high percentage to agree that women should have the right to an abortion.) Maybe that statement left an impression on Kacich too.
Mark, you must know that people at St. Pat's don't all agree with your position on abortion, but they're still Catholic. Heck, even Dick Durbin is Catholic. Would you suggest that Catholics who believe in using condoms should not be considered real "serious minded" Catholics? What about those who believe in the death penalty? In abortion (you already answered that one).
Your tunnel vision and obvious lack of interaction and discussion with women of different ages (like those who know what life was like when abortion was a crime) and experiences, makes me certain that you should not be appointed to take Judy Meyer's place in the State Senate if she wins her election and serves the last few months until she can collect her highest pension, as the State Republicans have planned.
Wow--I'm interested in the nursing home issue. You will be, too, when your taxes have to go up to finish this project, much less run it. And I'm also interested in the positions that the candidates for local office have on various issues; their source of funding; and whether they've changes their positions on any issues. I'ts called being an informed voter.
Wow, glad you're so up on the functions of county government.
Wow! Says:
September 14th, 2006 at 8:24 am
"Again, it is always good to see that our County Clerk has nothing better to do than post a long, hate-filled diatribe about a Democrat. Makes you wonder how the taxes get collected at all."
Wow! Says:
"Is she that dumb, or is she just manipulating the issue as much as Freirichs? And Shelden, come on ”¦ don't you have some taxes to raise or something?"
Who has hate filled diatribe? I believe you use the phrase, as referenced above, referring to someone being "that dumb". Mark spelled out the facts. Glass houses come to mind. Obviously you must be slow, articles in the paper are written a 5th grade level, and you couldn't figure out she was refering to the make up (pro-life or pro-chioce) of the 52nd district? Who is dumb here? In the words of Red Foreman, "you dumb ass".
Chill out,
trying to make up some pretend "agreement to replace Judy" must be an indication of how poorly the frerichs campaign is going when you're resorting to making up things that have absolutley no basis. Keep trying though, keep on trying.
Hasn't Judy openly pledged to serve two terms?
Nutso,
Sure, just everyone in Springfield knows that's why Shelden decided not to challenge Meyers in the 52nd district Republican primary. I think Shelden would have been a much harder person to Frerichs to beat, but that's water under the bridge now.
Nuts -- I may be younger than you, but I wasn't born yesterday. Just because a republican blog and a republican newspaper won't cover or admit to what everyone else knows to be true doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Chill out,
First, its MYers...
Second, your source?
Third, If you don't like what's written here...go somewhere else.
Chill out, Mark Says:
"Your tunnel vision and obvious lack of interaction and discussion with women of different ages (like those who know what life was like when abortion was a crime) and experiences, makes me certain that you should not be appointed to take Judy Meyer's place in the State Senate if she wins her election and serves the last few months until she can collect her highest pension, as the State Republicans have planned."
Judy Myers will not be eligible for the General Assembly pension until she has another 4.5 years in at the General Assembly. In other words, she isn't even eligible for the GA pension until after she serves her full term after winning this cycle against Frerichs.
Should the person responsible for overseeing elections in this county be dragging a candidate through the mud? Probably not.
Am I surprised that he is dragging a candidate throught the mud? Not really.
Man the Chicago crowd is working the boards hard today they must really be worried that Mike's new abortion stance will hurt him in the flats. I guess their afraid when those Catholics and Lutherans find out they would be voting to put Mike in Springfield to vote for public funding of abortion they won't want to vote for him.
I agree with Mark I have spoke to many Pro-Life people though out the state and have found Catholics to be some of the most eloquent, passionate and educated. I find it a real affront to them for Mike to use the comments of one to try to gain cover for his change in position as if many agreed especially as conservative as this area is. To say that Mike didn't know Tom wouldn't print it is silly the first thing you learn in politics is don't say it if you don't want it printed.
Gee from what I see of Mel and Judy I don't think they need a pension. I do however see how much they love their grandchildren and want to make sure they have a better future which is the reason they say she is running.
Chill out,
how do you know what everyone in Springfield knows or thinks for that matter. Your attempt to smear Myers has absolutely no merit. If Shelden was such a lock then he would have just run as opposed to concocting some goofy back room deal to get appointed later.
From what I understand Judy has openly pledged to serve two terms. Not only that she isn't even eligible for this so called inflated pension you keep spouting off about.
now go back to the kiddie pool until the big people are done swimming.
You're nuts,
And you're a bully. Keep wasting your time talking to the incestuous republican crowd that spends its days talking about how the Republicans want less government, and ignore the fact that under their Republican presidents, the government has grown larger than under any of the Democratic presidents. Keep talking about how the Republicans want less government intrusion - unless it means that they can listen in on your phone conversations and control what decisions you and your wife make about your family's reproduction. Whatever works for you, Mr. Nuts. Whatever works for you.
there are those in Iran, and other places around the world, that think it is ok (proper and required actually) to kill their teen-age daughters for talking to a boy after school, or refusing to marry the man selected by their fathers. I know you wouldn't do such a thing, but should every family be free to make this decision?
And despite your desperate attempts to move the discussion off-topic to his EVILNESS, Chimpy W. McBushitler, people in the 52nd District will still want to know about each candidates position on the abortion issue, and why Mr. Frerichs' position has changed.
Chill Out,
First, I can understand how you might think I was a little thin skinned on the Catholic point. Sorry, but its getting annoying for many Catholics to see this stuff. Reasonable can disagree on the appropriateness of the statement.
Second, it's laughable to assume there was a deal between me and Myers. Would I have liked to have run? Yes. Did I believe that Judy was our best chance to keep this seat? Yes. Am I glad that I didn't run? More than ever. Do I want to join the state senate and take a $20,000 pay cut? Maybe some day I would. Would my wife want me to? We'll talk about when the time comes. Does it shock me that so many Democrats have to find a conspiracy in the most simple of situations? It used to, but not anymore.
How *dare* Mike Frerichs quote a Catholic who doesn't agree with Mark Shelden!
Next thing you know, Frerichs will be calling some dirty condom-user a "a Catholic"!
Or calling someone who supported Bush's Iraq war "a Catholic"!
Or calling someone who opposes raising the minimum wage "a Catholic"!
Let us all hope that from now on Freichs will only refer to such persons as "heretics" or "idolators," rather than scandalize the august mother Church.
... people in the 52nd District will still want to know about each candidates position on the abortion issue, and why Mr. Frerichs' position has changed.
I agree they'll want to know the positions. They'll be especially interested in your candidate's "no abortions except rape and incest" position.
Would I rather vote for someone who has changed his mind but now agrees with me (and pretty much everyone I know) about the issue, or someone who has consistently stated that she is against women's reproductive rights?
Hmmm.
So, you see, no one cares. Go to a diner on Saturday morning and ask ten people what they know about the Nursing Home Scandal That Could(n't). You'll get eight blank stares, one guy who says "oh yeah!" and a troll on this blog who will spew coffee across the counter in his zest to blame it all on Freirichs.
No one cares.
As for "Run For Cover Liberal!" - if anyone is worried about this issue it must be Mr. Shelden. He has spent plenty of hours trying to dig up non-existent scandals on Freirichs. With the recent polling, and a dud-like candidate in Judy Myers, one would imagine that Freirichs could take this thing. Unless the man responsible for running the elections (and collecting shitloads of fees on the average Joe Citizen) can somehow, someway, swear the candidate.
But really, election fraud? Why should we worry?
"Unless the man responsible for running the elections (and collecting shitloads of fees on the average Joe Citizen) can somehow, someway, swear the candidate."
I'm not even sure what this means - "swear the candidate?"
You're not even lucid.
The position of any politician that will be serving in Springfield and have an impact on any policy concerning abortion in Illinois is important to know and more so if that person has changed their position. For someone to use Catholics as Frerichs has done only serves to bring up the debate within the Catholic Church. People like that have found refuge in the Catholic offshoot Paulist Centers, like John Keery, that is really Catholic in name only. There you will find those who only believe in church teaching what they want to believe in and allow abortion yet still call themselves Catholic, but in essence they are better described as Episcopal or Unitarian.
It's also nice to see our resident fringe liberal wow/foleyma/pinky winky, and whatever other screen names he's using today, chiming in. Interesting concern about Shelden's job, don't you have some kids to teach? And people do care where their tax dollars are going foley.
Chill out,
exactly what does anything in this discussion have to do with the President or even federal politics for that matter. Just like a dem, as soon as you realize you don't have an actual argument to the point at hand just start bashing the president.
First off all, I'm not Foley. I know him, but I am not him (I think a check of IP addresses could comfirm this if necessary?).
Secondly, I misspelled "smear" - though I hardly think that makes my arguments unclear.
Finally, VVL - do you ever get these name games right?
Unless you're doing it from school. Two guys who know each other use the same screen name. I'm not buying it.
You're nuts. The example about the president was an example. this is a blog and people bring up side issues to give examples. If you can't handle talking about or considering more than one issue at a time, well, I'm not sure what to do in my conversations with you.
The base line, as I see it, is that Catholics have different views on abortion (and lots of other issues (death penalty, birth control, etc.), as to Jews, Protestants, athiests, etc. Whether that makes them 'good' Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Athiests, or whatever depends on who makes the rules.
It wasn't out of line for Frerichs to discuss his conversations with constituents, nor would it be out of iline for Myers to talk about her conversations with constituents and for each of the candidates to discuss how those conversations have influenced their thoughts and understandings of a variety of issues.
This seems clear to me. I don't know how to express it more simply, but I've tried not to bring in too many other issues since Mr. Nuts wants only one issue to be discussed at a time.
Hey wait! Can't I be one of Wow!'s liberal disguises, too?
I'm not using anyone's screen name. If Mr. Foley has used "Wow" before, I have no idea. Great minds think alike?
And paranoid minds don't think at all?
Wow--I don't know where you're hanging out, but people I talk to want to know more about the nursing home and whether money has been spent appropriately; and asking Frerichs to tell us what the source of his funding is and why he has changed his postion on an issue is what a responsible person does.
listen chilly, I can handle anything you want to throw out there. Don't you worry about little ole me.
To the point: Examples are fine when you are using them to illustrate a point that has some sort of relevance to the discussion at hand.
The discussion at hand here is MR. Frerichs FLIP-FLOPPING on the abortion issue to cater to whatever office he decides to run for at the time. You have (poorly) attempted to spin the discussion to a federal debate regarding the limited role of government.
I believe that most people would agree with my statement regarding the use of examples in a debate. So could you please let all of us know exactly how Preisdent Bush increasing the size of government has anything to do with MR. Frerichs FLIP-FLOPPING on abortion or any other issue?
A word of advice when preparing a book report on the "Dick and Jane go to the zoo" Don't use examples of "Clifford the Big Red Dog" the teacher won't be able to follow your logic.
Sure, sure. It's merely a coincidence. I understand. ;-)
I think I get it.
Frerichs is tall according to the literature his volunteer left in my door. That must be important.
Frerichs "serves" on a volunteer fire department in Gifford, which must be important because I saw it in an ad.
Frerichs went to Yale, so that must be important because I saw it in the literature.
Frerichs has ever changing positions on abortion but that's not important because it's not in his literature.
Frerichs hasn't done a thing to fix the nursing home problems or to hold accountable those who screwed it up. That's not important because it's not in his TV ads.
Frerichs called out John Piland for buying a dishwasher 3 and half years ago but hasn't criticized a single expenditure since then, but that's not important because it's not in his radio ads.
Mike will tell us what's important. Anyone who thinks other things are important is a partisan hack. I think I understand the rules.
If Mark Shelden thinks it is so important to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (who doesn't mention abortion) and the Catholic Church:
a.) Blessed be the peacemaker. Why is he part of a political party that is waging an unjust war in Iraq denounced by two successive popes that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
b.) Does he disagree with the church's teaching on the Death penalty and the Republican Party's staunch support of it
c.) Does he disagree with the near-entirety of the New Testament discussing Jesus's teachings about the poor and helping the less fortunate. I do not remember Capital gains tax cuts being one of the prescriptions.
Sure, sure. It's merely a coincidence. I understand.
Things are going well in Iraq, tax cuts are good for the economy, poor folks have no one but themselves to blame, Wal-Mart is good for America, Jesus hates Muslims ...
And I am Mr. Foley?
I guess the paranoia fits the persona.
Wow. The Frerichs abortion position(s) is a clunker so lets divert the focus to Washington politics & religion! When you can't defend, instead deflect!
Man from Gifford to Iraq in a few short posts you guys sure can't get away from this topic fast enough.
I've seen Frerichs' ads--apparently he's looking out for our money (using Emil Jones' money to do it).
Reality Check, as soon as the Democrat party abandons the abortion plank of the platform, we can start talking about those other issues. There is nothing more egregious than the killing of innocent unborn children.
I just want to make one clerification. I don't beleive that there is anyone - not one single person in the Democratic Party or for ANY party that is "pro abortion". I, in my 45 years, have never met someone who is pro abortion, however, I have met a lot of people who are pro freedom of choice. I argue that there is a difference.
Thanks,
Joe Serra
"I'm not even sure what this means - “swear the candidate?”ÂÂ
You're not even lucid. "
Gordy, That's funny stuff :)
I know this post was supposed to be serious (and some comments were also), but reading a majority of the comments turned into quite the comedy! All over the board! Yikes!
I am more for freedom of choice about taking care of cheating spouses than distracting babies. Does that make me for freedom of choice or not?
Hey redstate, how about the killing of innocent, real children in Iraq over weapons that did not exist? How about our soldiers coming home dead or without legs, arms, faces, or genitalia after attempting to mediate a religious civil war?
It always has to come back to Iraq, doesn't it?
Desperate.
Wait a minute, Gordy, I thought "this is a nation that is at war," as our self-styled "war president" keeps insisting.
We are at war. What does that have to do with Frerichs' "evolving" position on abortion in a State Senate race?
Nothing. The fact is that you can't change the subject fast enough - the flip flop embarasses both you and your candidate, so you're reverting to the tried-and-true tactic of attacking President Bush.
It's desperate. Clumsy, weak, and desperate.
Well I believe it was RSW who said that abortion is the only issue that matters. To me, that just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Global War on Terra (TM).
How Mark Shelden can make Something out of Nothing, in 3 easy steps:
1. Mark acknowledges there's nothing in Kacich's article to contradict Mike's earlier statements on parental notification and late-term abortion. ("We have no indication from the Kacich article what Frerichs now feels about parental notification and partial birth abortion...").
2. Mark then invents ("assumes") a position for Mike that differs from what Mike has actually said publicly on the subject.
3. Finally, Mark attacks Frerichs for flip flopping, because the two positions (What Shelden Made Up vs. What Frerichs Actually Said) don't agree.
Put the headline "Flip Flop" at the top, and you've made a big, heaping pile of Something out of Nothing. We could all learn a lot from Mark Shelden (but maybe we shouldn't...).
# reality Check Says:
If Mark Shelden thinks it is so important to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (who doesn't mention abortion) and the Catholic Church:
a.) Blessed be the peacemaker. Why is he part of a political party that is waging an unjust war in Iraq denounced by two successive popes that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
b.) Does he disagree with the church's teaching on the Death penalty and the Republican Party's staunch support of it
c.) Does he disagree with the near-entirety of the New Testament discussing Jesus's teachings about the poor and helping the less fortunate. I do not remember Capital gains tax cuts being one of the prescriptions.
I am generally against the death penalty unless it is necessary to prevent the loss of innocent life, which would be rare. An example would be a prisoner who conspires to kill someone, or actually kills a prison guard.
I totally agree with Jesus's teaching on helping the poor. That teaching was not to the government, but to people. It did not involve forcibly taking money from some people and giving it to others. It also did not involve class warfare. Read the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I could write for months on Catholic social teaching, especially the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, but I instead who recommend that you read Centesimus Annus, by Pope John Paul II which you can download from the EWTN website.
As to the war, there is no doubt that our last two Popes felt that further efforts for a diplomatic solution should have been tried to get Saddam Hussein to obey the terms of his cease fire that he had violated for over a decade. However, it is important to read this in light of #2309 of the Catechism.
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."
I believe on balance that the decision to take out a murderous dictator who has been proven to be a supporter of terrorism was a good decision, although I respect those who disagree with that position. I have no respect for those who refuse to recognize that Saddam was murderous and supported terrorism.
As to having "nothing to do...." I can guarantee you I am very busy, but I still have plenty of time for friends, family, church, and blogging.
Well, I would have liked to have had Kacich spell this out, but I believe Personal PAC is clear on what positions you must have to be endorsed. Supporting parental notification is not something Personal PAC will stand for. But hey, if Frerichs is still for parental notification I'll be the first to apologize. Just tell Personal PAC to send his survey down to me.
Gordy,
Are you saying Myers has never "evolved" on any issue, ever? Or are you saying that her position on abortion has never changed? And either way, are you saying that's a good thing?
True Blue,
Nice try.
Are you saying that Mike Frerichs is currently supportive or opposed to parental notification laws?
I'm also confused by your saying that Mark Shelden is making up positions for Mike Frerichs that he didn't actually take. Are you saying that Frerichs wasn't previously Pro-Life? That the entire premise of Kacich's column was wrong?
I'm not willing to speak for Mike, or for Personal PAC. It would be nice if you guys didn't, either.
On the other hand, Gordy should be able to speak for Myers' campaign. Does she think there's virtue in (to use your word) never "evolving" on an issue? And if so, is it true that she's never "evolved" on any issue (abortion or otherwise)?
Heh. Clumsy, weak and desperate about sums it up.
Remember, Mark. It's all Mike Frerichs' fault. Because he's a Democrat. And he's tall. And he went to college.
You don't need to waste any more of your time trying to fabricate any other attacks.
Now get back to work. For a change
Again, you shoot the messenger.
No discussion of the "evolving" position on abortion. No justification. No explanation of how changing his position will help Frerichs or hurt Frerichs. No analysis of the involvement of Personal PAC in the campaign.
Just attack, attack, attack. The targets change (Senator Myers, President Bush, Mark Shelden), but the desperation remains the same.
Rest assured, I'm not the one who's desperate. Someone, however, spends most of his day attempting to justify just about everything.
Just calling someone desperate doesn't make it so, Gordy.
Your attacks and lack of any cohesive arguments speak for themselves.
Sounds pretty paranoid and desperate to me. I'm outta here. Off to find sanity and open minds rather than tired campaign rhetoric.
Damn, I miss the old IlliniPundit. At least there was a little intelligence here then.
Does anyone else think it's funny how when someone makes a point, Gordy just dismisses them with a "Nice try" or a "Clumsy, weak, and desperate."?
I wish winning all arguments was that easy. I for one would like to see a response to True Blue's questions.
"Does anyone else think it's funny how when someone makes a point, Gordy just dismisses them with a “Nice try” or a “Clumsy, weak, and desperate.”ÂÂ?"
If you can show me that True Blue had a point other than attacking Senator Myers and changing the subject away from his candidate's flip-flop, I'll address it. But he didn't have a point. He was just desperate to do whatever he could to protect Mr. Frerichs.
"Damn, I miss the old IlliniPundit. At least there was a little intelligence here then."
I miss IP, too. He was better than me at keeping the discussions on topic.
Blame game, Nice try. It's your candidate that has flip floped on a pretty major issue and has proved to his neighbors from small town Gifford which he has championed that he's ready to kick them to the curb to get an endorsement and a little money. Don't try to deflect responsibility by blaming everyone else but Mike Frerichs.
"If you can show me that True Blue had a point other than attacking Senator Myers and changing the subject away from his candidate's flip-flop, I'll address it. But he didn't have a point. He was just desperate to do whatever he could to protect Mr. Frerichs."
This whole thread is just an attack on Frerichs anyway, why not let Myers get attacked a bit too?
If the only attack on Frerichs here is that he has "evolved" on certain issues, then it's every bit reasonable to ask if you're claiming your candidate has never "evolved" on anything, and it's reasonable to ask why this would be a virtue if so.
Nice try--not really--Why attack Myers she didn't flip flop on Abortion Mike did. When Mike get's his next contribution are you going to give Judy half?
I love the "evolved" comment gee what you mean is I don't believe what I am saying today so don't listen to closely next week I might "evolve" this principled belief. I wonder if you would accept that answer from Bush, “I went to Iraq because of WMD's but really my reason has "evolved" to gee we have to fight terrorism”ÂÂ.
I think voters want to know what their State Senator really stands for before they send them to Springfield and I don't think they want them to evolve once they get there
Evolving involves thought and reason. I can see why most of the pro-Myers posters here can't grasp that point.
Yes, We think that our candidate should take a position on an issue and stick to it. Kind of like Blagojivech accepting labor help then getting elected and stabbing labor in the back.
Abortion is a medical procedure that brings about an end to an unwanted pregnancy. I don't like abortion. I think it is always a trajedy, not to mention a very poor form of birth control.
As bad as I think abortion is, I think that bringing unwanted children into the world is worse. I also think that overpopulation and its consequences is the most serious problems facing the world today. To that extent, I think that people having more than two or three children are committing a much greater evil than a person making a thought out decision to terminate a pregnancy.
To that extent, I am looking for candidates who are concerned about ecology, overpopulation, working conditions, and believe that reproductive rights and smoking after dinner (without leaving the table) are matters of personal choice. If anyone knows of any candidates that meet these criteria, please let me know. After reading about the candidates, I wonder why I even bothered to register to vote.
Once again, my apologies for grammatical errors....
Overpopulation and its consequences "are" the most serious problems....
I is very sorry for my mistake.
Just thinking,
- just because a child's birth parents are not ready/willing to raise the child in no way makes that child "unwanted". There are thousands of couples desparate for a child to adopt and love.
- there is no moral equivalence between killing an innocent unborn human life and your determination that the child will become a burden upon the world.
- murdering unborn babies seems much more palatable when it is simply deemed "terminating a pregnancy".
- as to your search for a candidate that fits your criteria, simply stop anyone in Urbana wearing Birkenstocks and holding a cigarette. Not too difficult.
Thinking again,
I think that life is very precious. If you read the Old Testament, which I don't, but have, one of the hallmarks of Judaism is that it put an end to child sacrifice (infanticide) which was a common religious practice in the Middle East (and also served as a form of population control whether advertently or inadvertently).
Ending infanticide is a good thing, but it leaves mankind with limited options for controlling population. If we don't want wars, or plagues, or natural disasters, we have to find alternative methods of limiting population growth.
I'll agree, infanticide is bad. But where do we draw the line? At conception? If so, what about all those frozen embryos at fertility clinics? Is that okay? What about the ones that are never used? What happens to them when they aren't used? Are they just discarded? Or do they stay frozen forever? Do they have a shelf life?
If we feel abortion is "bad" or "wrong" or "immoral", what about if instead of extracting the embryo and discarding it, we extracted it and froze it? Would that be okay?
I don't like abortion, but why draw the line? Why is a "joined" sperm/egg combination sacred, when the egg itself and the sperm are just considered human discharge? Who are we to play God and make determinations regarding the morality of our fellow citizens?