Published 6 hours ago
Last Update 2 hours ago
Pete Buttigieg faces backlash from pro-life women after infanticide answer: ‘You’re extremely radical’
“What if a woman wanted to invoke infanticide after a baby was born – you’d be comfortable with that?” co-host Meghan McCain asked. Buttigieg balked at McCain’s argument.
“We’re talking about families that may have picked out a name – may be assembling a crib – and they learn something excruciating and are faced with this terrible choice – and I don’t know what to tell them morally about what they should do,” he said. “I just know that I trust her and her decision medically or morally isn’t going to be any better because the government is commanding her to do it in a certain way.”
Live Action President Lila Rose blasted Buttigieg . . .
. . . Buttigieg’s comments came amid a nationwide battle over legal access to abortion. Officials like Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam have come under fire for statements supporting looser restrictions on the procedure. Northam, in particular, backed the decision to withhold care from infants based on the decision of mothers… . .
. . . Buttigieg previously faced scrutiny over the issue when Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, asked him whether there was room in the party for pro-lifers like her. As with McCain, Buttigieg told Day that he thought women should be able to make the decision.
On Thursday, Day said Buttigieg’s comments were “shameful.” “It is shameful to see Democratic Candidates continue to dismiss the humanity of viable preborn babies in the later stages of pregnancy and excuse the practice because it is rare. Tens of thousands of babies’ lives are ended in the later stages of pregnancy and even the Guttmacher Institue admits that most are not for reasons of fetal anomalies,” she told Fox News. . . . .
Well, so much for the “moderate” mayor.
Looking forward to reading the justifications from those you describe…many of who post here.
The whole Democratic platform is disgusting on this. So are the views of each candidate.
Capital punishment- I generally oppose it, though war time and anti-terrorism are justifications.
Anti-war. - I assume they don’t mean defeating the Nazis was a bad thing.
Anti-gun. - they claim to be, but they’re not. They are in favor of government having all the guns. It kind of undermines the anti-war stance.
Pro-Helping the poor. - by some definitions, this only means supporting government programs. If you don’t support the welfare state, then you aren’t pro-life.
Pro-immigration- not really. By some definitions, it is really pro-open borders / anti-sovereignty.
Yeah, I’m disappointed.
But, on the other hand, the election is really about electing a tyrant or someone else. I will go with “someone else” unless they are totally abhorrent and their view could make it into law.
We used to have a member here, EstesBob, who would post the following.
EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
- National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
- Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party
- All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
- The Pope believes in Global warming, the Pro-life candidate does not so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
At least they’re honest about it unlike the Republicans.
I miss EstesBob
So its a moral good for the Dem party to be honest about their support for an intrinsic evil? I don’t think that is what you meant…perhaps elaborate a bit more.
Tyrant. lol. This is the “tyrant” who is , at every turn, trying to reduce central government power.
Not really, I also don’t even find your arguments sincere or logical as far as that goes. In my opinion, you use rationalizations to really, aid an evil platform. You repeat these arguments like a canned speech… Debating with what I consider to be false equivalences does not sound very sincere at all. Always bringing up Governor Rauner or bringing up something that happened in 1973. If all one can find over 50 years are two examples, that doesn’t sound too bad by the Republicans.
Right here, the very right to life is at stake.
I will admit, my answer was probably excessive. Some Democrats do well on some issues like Foreign Policy to a degree like Senator Robert Menendez however, I"m still unsure about domestic issues.
Your debate seems to wholly be aimed at the Republican party versus reading about World Events, an example of this is concerning Soleimani from earlier this year.
PaulinVA . . . .
But, on the other hand, the election is really about electing a tyrant or someone else.
If he was a “tyrant” Paul, you would not be allowed to write this in society.
Just today he is getting LTC Vidmann reassigned.
Disappointed in President Trump here on this one.
I would fire Vindman.
What proposals is Trump working on that will prevent you from writing something critical of him? Please be specific, and provide links.
PaulinVA . . .
So, Bolton is going around giving manuscripts to people that he knows are under scrutiny?
You either did not read my post completely or you are unaware that Vindman’s brother works in a Government security office in charge of reviewing books for potential security breaches.
They are to be censored in the relevant sections if that occurs.
Bolton’s book had portions leaked to the press.
If Bolton leaked I don’t have a problem.
If Government offices are leaking I have a big problem.
If Government offices are leaking to hurt our Government (including our President) they need to be jailed.
I’m still waiting for your links PaulinVA to show me your comments were PRINCIPLED and not made for political manipulation of me.
That’s not being a tyrant. Being a tyrant is planning to eliminate the right to access healthcare without government interference. Being a tyrant is trying to confiscate civilian firearms. Being a tyrant is spying on an opposition party’s campaign. Being a tyrant is imposing rules on religious organizations that are contrary to their beliefs.
Reassigning an employee who has stated disapproval of the president’s foreign policy is not tyranny.
You seem to forget who these folks work for. Obama fired McChrystal and people mostly shrugged. He is the President of the United States, and many positions work at his behest. There are always going to be people who don’t like someone being reassigned or fired, but none of us are the President, so our opinion on those matters is irrelevant. It is patently obvious that because you dislike Trumpo the man, you will not allow him the same ability to operate as CINC as you do other Presidents whose motives you don’t impugn.
You not liking his motives for doing what he is allowed and at times obligated to do does not make him a tyrant, nor does it make you right.
JonNC, you make great points. Much like how Bernie Sanders is trying to change the term “socialist” from the negative it is, to something good…And much like how you are being told XX chromosomes aren’t really the definition of a woman…what is being asserted is a new definition of “tyrant”.
“Tyrant” is now a president to puts on his team those who align with his strategy.
Didn’t know that. That does put it into a different light.
But, can you take adverse action against him without proof?
Totally not following.