Skip to main content

Hi to my Friends Ministry Friends and to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

While I am sure that a vast majority of you watched the Vice Presidential Debates last evening; I want to give you my "unbiased" (just joking) opinion. How did Sarah Palin do in this debate?

Personally, while both were able to get across the points they wanted to make; I believe Sarah Palin came off as the hands down winner. Why do I say this? Well, on one hand, Joe Biden is the consummate politician -- thirty years experience in politics, knows when to smile and when to grimace, to make a point. Yes, Biden is a professional politician. But, ask yourself -- do we need more professional politicians, each with their own personal agenda, in Washington DC -- or do we need fresh thoughts, fresh ideas, new blood in Washington -- to change the course of out national downfall?

Sarah Palin came across very relaxed, very confidant, and very much speaking to the American people -- as fellow Americans. Her assured demeanor and her low key self confidence -- rang out loud and clear. Personally, while watching Sarah Palin; I was reminded of Ronald Reagan during his Presidential Debates. Do we have a female Ronald Reagan to do battle for us with the Liberal Democrats? I honestly do think so.

Sarah Palin was down to earth, sincere, spoke to "we the people" -- and her Reaganesque humor clearly surfaced. I loved it when she told Biden, "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again -- pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we plan to do for them in the future."

Can anyone else hear the ringing sound of that historic comment by Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter during their 1980 presidential debate, "There you go again."

Yes, in my view, Sarah Palin came across as down to earth -- yet, strong. I can envision her saying, as Ronald Reagan did years ago, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" -- or, in our current world, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes statements such as these quoted by BBC News, "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map" -- and regarding the holocaust, "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions, and the prophets" -- I can envision Sarah Palin telling him, "Mr. Ahmadinejad, Israel is our friend and ally. We WILL stand with her against your attempts to destroy her."

Look at some of the statements made by Sarah Palin last night:

ON REDEFINING MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE GAY MARRIAGE:

PALIN: But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.

But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my nonsupport for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage . We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

BILL GRAY COMMENT: This is your consummate politician -- spinning, but never giving a straight answer. Palin gave a straight answer. Biden gave us spin.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

ON THE WAR IN IRAQ:

PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. And it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.

We'll know when we're finished in Iraq, when the Iraqi government can govern its people, and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also, in working with us, are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

PALIN: Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war -- and now you oppose the war. You're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it -- before I was against it -- or vice versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution.

And you had supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race -- and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama's military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops, that attempt, all through the primary.

PALIN: I beg to disagree with you, again, here -- on whether you supported Barack Obama or John McCain's strategies. Here again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are asked to vote on this, but we listened to the (primary) debates.

I think tomorrow morning, the pundits are going to start do(ing) the "who said what at what time" and we'll have proof of some of this, but, again, John McCain knows how to win a war. (It is he)who's been there -- and he's faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military.

He knows to learn from the mistakes and blunders we have seen -- in the war in Iraq, especially. He will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders, and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. He'll know how to win a war.

ON GOVERNMENT AND TAXES:

PALIN: So that people there can understand how the average working class family is viewing bureaucracy in the federal government and Congress and (the) inaction of Congress.

Just everyday working class Americans saying, "You know, government, just get out of my way. If you're going to do any harm, and mandate more things on me, and take more of my money and income tax and business taxes."

You're going to have a choice in just a few weeks -- on either supporting a ticket that wants to create jobs and bolster our economy and win the war -- or you're going to be supporting a ticket that wants to increase taxes, which ultimately kills jobs, and is going to hurt our economy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, my Friends, last night, I could hear the echoes of -- "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," said by Ronald Reagan. And, it came loud and clear from SARAH PALIN.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray

Attachments

Images (1)
  • VP-Debate_TEXT
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Sarah Palin is so "real" that most everyone can relate to her. She's the downhome practical tell-it-like-it-is, not afraid of anyone candidate...who, I think, should be running for PRESIDENT with McCain as her V.P.
Biden, who is the seasoned politician was hard pressed to out debate her.
Last night after the debate when the newsmen usually tear conservatives apart telling us what they 'really said', I noticed they all seemed impressed by her. I was shocked by the positive feedback.
quote:
Originally posted by Monet-Lisa:
Sarah Palin is so "real" that most everyone can relate to her. She's the downhome practical tell-it-like-it-is, not afraid of anyone candidate...who, I think, should be running for PRESIDENT with McCain as her V.P.
Biden, who is the seasoned politician was hard pressed to out debate her.
Last night after the debate when the newsmen usually tear conservatives apart telling us what they 'really said', I noticed they all seemed impressed by her. I was shocked by the positive feedback.


I don't see it.
quote:
Originally posted by Monet-Lisa:
Sarah Palin is so "real" that most everyone can relate to her. She's the downhome practical tell-it-like-it-is, not afraid of anyone candidate...who, I think, should be running for PRESIDENT with McCain as her V.P.

Biden, who is the seasoned politician was hard pressed to out debate her.

Last night after the debate when the newsmen usually tear conservatives apart telling us what they 'really said', I noticed they all seemed impressed by her. I was shocked by the positive feedback.

Hi Monet,

Funny you should mention Palin For President -- for, last night, after the debate -- I was thinking exactly the same thing.

But, we will just get her elected V.P. for now -- and in four or eight years -- she will be the President. I have never felt more certain about a person in my entire life of politics watching.

We need to keep praying for her -- and telling the world how lucky we are to have Palin in the race.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • VP-Debate_TEXT
I just don't get it. How can any of you think that woman is ready to help run this country. She know NOTHING! She comes from a fishing village in Alaska! She knows NOTHING about foreign policy. This country is in enough trouble without putting her smart mouth in a leadership role. In the debate she tried too hard to be cutesy, with her winking.
She didn't wear a cheerleader outfit, or freeze up, so I reckon it to have been better than I expected given the Couric interview train wreck of an "interview."
Speaking of facial "work," noticed Pappy's frozen Botox face alongside his lovely daughter -- je m'ajust -- wife's? Too bad they could do nothing about his liver spots on the hands and his Deputy Dawg turkey waddles under the neck.
All La Palin did was repeat her talking points, if that passes for "debate," then I nominate Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to be the next God's Own Party nominees. La Palin can go be Sec of Defense.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
quote:
Originally posted by Monet-Lisa:
Sarah Palin is so "real" that most everyone can relate to her. She's the downhome practical tell-it-like-it-is, not afraid of anyone candidate...who, I think, should be running for PRESIDENT with McCain as her V.P.
Biden, who is the seasoned politician was hard pressed to out debate her.
Last night after the debate when the newsmen usually tear conservatives apart telling us what they 'really said', I noticed they all seemed impressed by her. I was shocked by the positive feedback.


I don't see it.


Yeah, David's right, I suppose if you can relate to her then you must be as ignorant on what goes on in Washington as she is.
Last edited by Eye-gor
quote:
Originally posted by Eye-gor:
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Hmmmmmm, the last I heard Ms. Palin got double the amount of facts wrong than Biden. I guess a cheery smile and fashionable glasses make up for that! Roll Eyes

Link


I heard the same thing.

Your article left out Biden Said Pakistan was more of a threat because it can shoot missles at Israel, it can't.
The $5000 health credit goes to insurance companies because it is supposed to.
BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.
quote:
Originally posted by IDunno:
I just don't get it. How can any of you think that woman is ready to help run this country. She know NOTHING! She comes from a fishing village in Alaska! She knows NOTHING about foreign policy. This country is in enough trouble without putting her smart mouth in a leadership role. In the debate she tried too hard to be cutesy, with her winking.

Hi Idunno,

Very appropriate name. But, back to President Sarah Palin's demeanor -- she reminds me very much, in that respect, of Ronald Reagan. And, everyone knows that Reagan could never be a good president. After all, he comes from a midwestern town, was only an actor in Hollywood (which should have disqualified him) and got his jumpstart in politics by stumping for Barry Goldwater -- who lost to Liberal Liar Lyndon Johnson.

Boy, we know Reagan could never make it as president; how could he know anything about foreign relations. We saw how little he knew when he told Russia, "Mr. Chairman, take down that wall" -- and they took it down. I guess cutesy worked.

Get used to it my Friend. Sarah Palin will be our next Vice President -- and after that, our first Woman President. She already has my vote.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • VP-Debate_TEXT
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Shouldn't this be in politics? Oh wait, some folks have a hard time separating the two.

Just a quick reminder, Jesus was not a Republican.

Hi Nash,

Why should we separate them? A nation with strong Christian leadership is a strong nation. Sarah Palin is a strong Christian; therefore, she belongs in the Religion Forum.

Another reason is that anything posted in the Politics Forum gets immediately lost in all the trash posts by JJPAUL and all his alter-egos.

If you don't mind, I will just stay in the Religion Forum; where I do not always have to be alert not to step in any JJPAUL droppings.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-_Snoopy_Running
quote:
Originally posted by Neal Hughes: Speaking of facial "work," noticed Pappy's frozen Botox face alongside his lovely daughter? Too bad they could do nothing about his liver spots on the hands and his Deputy Dawg turkey waddles under the neck.
Hi Neal,

You remind me very much of a young man I worked with some years ago. I was in my mid-forties and was Director of Sales for a computer company. The president asked me to interview this young man for a position in my department. After the one hour interview, I told the president that I would not hire him. When asked my reason; I told him that I did not feel I could trust the man. During the one hour interview, every time I asked him a question -- he would look down at his shoes as he answered. Not even on one single question could he look me in the eye and answer. This made me feel that he was not to be trusted.

So, over a few drinks at a bar, the president hired him in another position. And, to make a long story short -- within less than a year, this young man had gone behind the back of the president, to the board of directors -- and caused the president to be fired from the company he started.

This young man was in his mid-twenties -- and felt that anyone over thirty was ready for the graveyard. I often wondered what happened to him when he hit thirty, then forty, then fifty --- and now, God help him -- he must be in his sixties. I wonder if he still considers anyone over thirty to be ready for the graveyard?

And, Neal, I wonder how you will react when you grow up; when you mature? Only time will tell; but, watch out for those liver spots and wrinkles -- and especially, with you, watch out for that beer belly. Yes, my Friend, it would be fun to watch you grow up.

And, in comparison with the young man who could not look me in the eye and answer me -- SARAH PALIN looked we Americans straight in the eye and talked to us in the debate. And, as Vice President, and then President -- she will be just as straightforward with us.

You might as well vote for her -- for she is here to stay.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Old-Geezer-Red-Longjohns-TEXT-1
quote:
Why should we separate them? A nation with strong Christian leadership is a strong nation.


Wrong. When politics and religion mix, you get disaster. The crusades during the middle ages is a good example of when religious leaders have too much political power and their greed causes wars. Every time they sent an army to the middle east, the returning soldiers brought back lots of loot. The Spanish inquisition mixed political leadership with religion, how many people did that kill?

That's why our founding fathers were so genius. They made sure the federal government stayed out of religion, yet granted freedom of religion and expression.

Religion should stay out of politics and politics out of religion. Theocracies historically have been about as oppressive and murderous as communism. The fact that there are still people out there who want America to become a theocracy scares the hell out of me. America was intended to allow it's citizens to be free, and the type of country you want eliminates freedom.
quote:
Originally posted by KatyBug:
I would vote for her if she were running for President. Since she will be McCains VP, I'll vote the other way. We've had enough of Bush, lets try the other way for the next four years...after all, it can't do any worse damage

Socialism is a lot worse, first step to communism. The bailout was a step to socialism too, heavily supported by the democrats.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Why should we separate them? A nation with strong Christian leadership is a strong nation.
Wrong. When politics and religion mix, you get disaster. The crusades during the middle ages is a good example of when religious leaders have too much political power and their greed causes wars. Every time they sent an army to the middle east, the returning soldiers brought back lots of loot. The Spanish inquisition mixed political leadership with religion, how many people did that kill?

That's why our founding fathers were so genius. They made sure the federal government stayed out of religion, yet granted freedom of religion and expression.

Religion should stay out of politics and politics out of religion. Theocracies historically have been about as oppressive and murderous as communism. The fact that there are still people out there who want America to become a theocracy scares the hell out of me. America was intended to allow it's citizens to be free, and the type of country you want eliminates freedom.
Hi Nash,

You are speaking of having church leaders ruling a country. That is a theocracy and that is not what anyone in their right mind would want. However, to have strong Christians in the governing bodies makes good sense. Consider this. In a governing body, if you have no Christians; then what you have is a 100% secular body of leaders. That would be like having all Democrats or all Republicans -- no balance of power. That is why the founding fathers gave us three bodies: legislative, judicial, and executive -- to give balance to the governing of America. So, we need to have strong Christians in government leadership.

True, our founding fathers did give us the First Amendment, which says that government will not interfere with anyone's right to worship or not to worship, as they see fit. However, the First Amendment does not say that Christians cannot participate in governing the country. And, it does not say that Christian political leaders cannot use their Christian judgment in making decisions about how our country should be run.

This does not eliminate freedom -- this assures freedom; for no one is as dedicated to seeing that the people remain free to pursue their dreams as are Christians.

Now, if you say that because we do not want same-sex marriage; that is depriving gays from getting married -- that is not so. They have the same right to get married as you and I. The difference is -- they want to change the laws to allow them to do what has always been unlawful in America. Would you change the law to allow farmer John to marry his favorite sheep? Of course not; that is silly. And, so is changing the laws about traditional marriage.

Or, perhaps, you say that because we want the infanticide, abortion, stopped -- that is depriving people who want to kill their babies. You are right we want that mass murder stopped. Killing anyone should be illegal -- whether it be an unborn baby or an adult. That is not depriving anyone of their freedom. That is stopping them from taking the freedom to live from a helpless baby.

Sorry, Nash, your arguments are all the same old worn out arguments that Liberals have been using for decades -- and they are still just as impotent as the day the Liberals invented them.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-_Bible-Declaration-USFlag_1a_TEXT
Last edited by Bill Gray
Hi Skeptic:

In my original post, I stated, "Or, perhaps, you say that because we want the infanticide, abortion, stopped -- that is depriving people who want to kill their babies. You are right we want that mass murder stopped. Killing anyone should be illegal -- whether it be an unborn baby or an adult. That is not depriving anyone of their freedom. That is stopping them from taking the freedom to live from a helpless baby."

And, you respond, "Curious, Bill: A 12 year old is the victim of incest and is pregnant. Is it "murder" to abort this baby?"

Any young girl who is the victim of incest or rape will carry that scar for the rest of her life. Should society add an additional scar to her burden -- by telling her she should kill the baby?

It is a proven fact that women, well at least most women (we will not count those who use abortion as a form of birth control) -- carry that psychological scar with them throughout life.

Picture that young girl -- maybe fifteen years later, married, and she has another child. As she watches her young child, a child she so adores, run around, playing, happy, healthy -- don't you think that her mind plays with the thought, "I wonder what my first child would be like today -- if I had allow him/her to live?" Yes, that is a burden; a burden a twelve year old child should not have to shoulder.

My wife is a good example. In her first marriage in the Philippines, she had a baby, a little boy. The baby died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) when just a couple of months old. Today, Noel would be fifty -- and to this day, Dory still wonders about him, thinks about him, and tries to imagine what he would be like today if he had lived. Can you imagine her pain if she had been the cause of his death?

Who suffers the most, the baby or the mother? The baby suffers intense pain for a short while and then dies; going into the arms of Jesus Christ. The mother carries the pain with her the rest of her life. There are definitely two victims.

You ask if it is murder to kill an unborn child. Yes, but, today in America and in many other countries -- it is legal murder; no penalties -- except those carried by the mother in her soul, in her mind, in her heart -- maybe not now; but, most certainly in later years.

Skeptic, I pray that answers your question. I realize it is not the answer you were seeking; for you were hoping to back me, and all conservatives and Christians who believe the same, into a corner in your feeble attempt to paint our viewpoint as primitive and evil. It is not; for we support and believe that everyone, especially unborn infants who cannot speak for themselves -- deserve the same opportunity to experience life that you and I enjoy.

Let me add one closing thought. In my viewpoint, Sarah Palin stands head and shoulders above everyone else in this Presidential Race -- because she not only talks the talk about being Pro-Life; she definitely WALKS THE WALK. God bless her for her stance on protecting the life of unborn babies.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-_VP-Debate_TEXT
quote:
Any young girl who is the victim of incest or rape will carry that scar for the rest of her life. Should society add an additional scar to her burden -- by telling her she should kill the baby?

First, I apologize for trying to answer Bill with reason. It is an exercise in futility, as it means nothing to him.

Bill,

Society does not tell anyone to have an abortion. Society does, and should, tell women that, if it is what they consider the right thing to do, they CAN have an abortion.

The 12 year old girl in question did not ask to become pregnant. Many, or most, people are convinced that a pregnancy in the early stages is only privileged to proceed to term at the discretion of the woman carrying the fetus.

Women do, or at least should, have control over their reproductive function, to a point. The legal, and common sense, point is that at which the fetus is naturally viable outside the womb.

Bill, neither you or I are women. For us to abrogate the reproductive rights of women is entirely wrong, ethically and morally. Not religiously, but that has become irrelevant.

You know very well that if men could have abortions, we could get one at the barber shop.


DF
quote:
Skeptic, I pray that answers your question. I realize it is not the answer you were seeking;


Honestly, I was expecting an answer. What I got was a rambling Obama-ish ramble that didn't answer anyhting.

It's a yes or no: "A 12 year old is the victim of incest and is pregnant. Is it "murder" to abort this baby?"

Circle one: YES or NO.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Now, if you say that because we do not want same-sex marriage; that is depriving gays from getting married -- that is not so. They have the same right to get married as you and I. The difference is -- they want to change the laws to allow them to do what has always been unlawful in America. Would you change the law to allow farmer John to marry his favorite sheep? Of course not; that is silly. And, so is changing the laws about traditional marriage.



Wow. Just wow.

The REALLY sad thing is, I believe that you honestly believe that allowing homosexual couples to marry IS just as "silly" as people marrying animals.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed@Bama:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Now, if you say that because we do not want same-sex marriage; that is depriving gays from getting married -- that is not so. They have the same right to get married as you and I. The difference is -- they want to change the laws to allow them to do what has always been unlawful in America. Would you change the law to allow farmer John to marry his favorite sheep? Of course not; that is silly. And, so is changing the laws about traditional marriage.



Wow. Just wow.

The REALLY sad thing is, I believe that you honestly believe that allowing homosexual couples to marry IS just as "silly" as people marrying animals.


Ed don't bother, Bill is a special kind of stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed@Bama:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Now, if you say that because we do not want same-sex marriage; that is depriving gays from getting married -- that is not so. They have the same right to get married as you and I. The difference is -- they want to change the laws to allow them to do what has always been unlawful in America. Would you change the law to allow farmer John to marry his favorite sheep? Of course not; that is silly. And, so is changing the laws about traditional marriage.

Wow. Just wow.

The REALLY sad thing is, I believe that you honestly believe that allowing homosexual couples to marry IS just as "silly" as people marrying animals.

Hi Ed,

I know that both are an abomination, a detestable act, and an unnatural act before God. So, in that sense, yes, they are equally wrong.

Is murder more of a sin that adultery? No, in God's eye they are both disobedience and are equally wrong. Sin is sin -- and it is wrong in the eyes of God.

You may attempt to put the secular atheist spin on it all you want -- but, that does not change facts. In the Bible, our Christian User's Manual, God tells us these things are wrong.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB
quote:
Picture that young girl -- maybe fifteen years later, married, and she has another child. As she watches her young child, a child she so adores, run around, playing, happy, healthy -- don't you think that her mind plays with the thought, "I wonder what my first child would be like today -- if I had allow him/her to live?" Yes, that is a burden; a burden a twelve year old child should not have to shoulder.


Or vice versa. Wouldn't that baby remind the rape victim of something horrific that happened? Could she possibly despise the baby because of that?

Making a child have a child as a result of a frightening, despicable thing that happened to her beyond her control is sickening. You cannot presume to predict her future love and regret for aborting that fetus. What it seems is that you are wanting to force your law on her because of your beliefs.

If you had a 12 year old daughter be a victim of rape, what would you do? Would you encourage her to go through with the birth? What if she wanted the abortion, would you prevent her, as her legal guardian, from letting her have one?

I think it's completely wrong to say she shouldn't have to be burdened because she might wonder what the child might be like. What I think should be said is she shouldn't be burdened from the rape.
Hi Just,

My original statement was, "Picture that young girl -- maybe fifteen years later, married, and she has another child. As she watches her young child, a child she so adores, run around, playing, happy, healthy -- don't you think that her mind plays with the thought, "I wonder what my first child would be like today -- if I had allow him/her to live?" Yes, that is a burden; a burden a twelve year old child should not have to shoulder."

And, you responded, "Or vice versa. Wouldn't that baby remind the rape victim of something horrific that happened? Could she possibly despise the baby because of that?"

Yes, that could very likely her reaction -- and no one could blame her for that. However, does two wrongs make a right? Possibly the child conceived from a rape or incest crime should be put up for adoption -- without the birth mother having to see the child. At least this way, in later years, she will not have the burden of remembering that she had chosen to kill the baby -- and that she, and her family, had made sure the baby had a loving home. This way, she can move on with her life without that burden.

You tell me, "Making a child have a child as a result of a frightening, despicable thing that happened to her beyond her control is sickening. You cannot presume to predict her future love and regret for aborting that fetus.

A young girl who has been the victim of rape or incest has more than enough psychological burdens to carry throughout her life -- without adding the burden of a baby's life cut short before it had an opportunity to live. Regardless of what our Liberal Friends may say; many studies have shown that most women do suffer psychologically in later years over abortions done in their youth.

And, you tell me,"What it seems is that you are wanting to force your law on her because of your beliefs."

No, whether you believe it or not -- I am thinking of that young girl's future. I am thinking of what it will do to her in later years -- as she watches her young children play in the park, run after butterflies, swing high on the swing -- and her mind brings back thoughts of that baby who was aborted. True, not all women have this reaction; but, many, many do.

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion; my wife had an infant son die of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). That was fifty years ago -- and hardly a day goes by that she does not wonder what Noel would have been like if he had lived. Can you imagine what she would be thinking if she had aborted him?

Next, you ask, "If you had a 12 year old daughter be a victim of rape, what would you do? Would you encourage her to go through with the birth? What if she wanted the abortion, would you prevent her, as her legal guardian, from letting her have one?"

That is a tough question. However, I have to say that, yes, I would encourage her to give birth to the child. I would give my daughter every comfort possible at that painful time in her life -- but, I have to keep in mind that my concern is with my daughter's entire life; not just this one year of her life. I would have to realize that, by making it easy on her at this short, critical time in her life -- will most likely negatively impact the rest of her entire life.

So, yes, I would tell her to have the child. Then, we would sit together and talk about what she wanted to do after she had given birth: keep the child and raise it -- or -- give the child up for adoption. Killing the child should never be an option.

A wonderful example of making such a hard decision is Sarah Palin. First, she gave birth herself to a child with Downs Syndrome. And, at an extremely critical time in her political career, her teenage daughter becomes pregnant. For Sarah Palin, the easy route would have been to secretly have her daughter get an abortion -- and go on as though nothing had happened. But, praise God, Sarah Palin, and her daughter, chose to have her have the baby -- regardless of what impact this might have on Palin's political career. Sarah Palin put the life of that unborn child above her own desires. Sarah Palin put the emotional life of her teenage daughter above her own desires. And they are doing the right thing.

Finally, you say,"I think it's completely wrong to say she shouldn't have to be burdened because she might wonder what the child might be like. What I think should be said is she shouldn't be burdened from the rape."

First, it is not me saying that the young girl will most likely be burdened. It is a proven fact honed from many studies. It is also a proven fact proven by my wife's own life.

On you second point, that the young girl should never have been burdened by the rape -- I could not agree more. Rape is one of the most despicable, most cowardly acts a male can commit. While I do not believe in the death penalty; rape is one act which could change my mind.

However, we must keep in mind that the death penalty, like abortion, is an act of finality. Once it has been accomplished -- nothing in the world can reverse it. There have been many cases of people being on death row -- and DNA or another person confessing to the crime -- have shown the original person to have been innocent all along. If he is still on death row; he can be released. If he has already been executed -- all we can do is say, "Oops. We are sorry" -- which means little to the family of the dead person.

In the same way, the act of abortion if an act of finality. No amount of remorse or sorrow later can bring that dead baby back to life.

Yes, the young girl has a burden at that time which may seem to be too large to bear. However, it is the parent's responsibility to prevent her from having a burden the size of a mountain to carry with her throughout her entire life.

Possibly you have experienced this in your life or through someone in your family or among your friends -- who have not had this reaction. But, what about later in their life? And, maybe this person will not have the regret -- just as many women have no regret about using abortion as a form of birth control.

However, the later remorse is a common result; regardless of what your Liberal friends want to tell you.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Family2_Blue-1

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×