Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Defending the innocent . . .

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
~Ronald Reagan,
quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.
~Author Unknown


Nicole said...

I would wager that the majority of those who go in for an abortion do not know what they are really doing. Every other "surgery" requires a doctor to give the patient a detailed account of what is going to happen to them. Not so with abortions.

Mark Harbeson said...

Great quote by Reagan. I think he was our last truly great president.

Dayle James Arceneaux said...

That's exactly right, Nicole.

Bill O'Reilly did a great expose of this doctor (in Kansas) I believe.

He had a former 'patient' on his show who described the ordeal. After the 'procedure', she was ushered into the restroom where she then expelled her baby into the toilet. She was horrified. She had no idea what was involved and they never told her. She had assumed it was a normal, clean, professional, medical procedure.

Now she's emotionally scarred and trying to spread the word. As Christians, we need to reach out to these women.

Dayle James Arceneaux said...

Absolutely, Mark.

I rank him second only behind Washington.

You don't know what you got till it's gone.

I loved how shocked the media was at the outpouring by the American people when Reagan died.

George has to get the nod because he was offered to be King of America but turned it down. And then, set the precedent for only serving two terms as president. Not to mention the miraculous achievement of the Revolution.

Mark Harbeson said...

That Lincoln guy wasn't bad, either. ;)

Dayle James Arceneaux said...

Actually, Mark. This isn't a popular position, but I not a big fan of Lincoln.

Yes, he freed the slaves. Great. But - He said that he'd rather not have freed the slaves. He said that if he could save the union without freeing the slaves, he would do so. And, I think he did it merely to cause revolts in the South for the war effort. Not because he found it morally reprehensible.

Also, he allowed Sherman's march, which I find equivalent to or worse than most modern war crimes.

He also endorsed Grant's policy of throwing men at Lee. They couldn't beat Lee on the battle field even though they had him outgunned, outmanned, and outnumbered. So, they just threw men at him in suicide missions in a war attrition.

The only good thing he did other than hesitantly freeing the slaves was to go and take the South back and keep it part of the U.S.

I'm glad he did it. But technically, it was unconstitutional and wrong. Remember the South didn't attack the North. They concluded that the constitution was a contract that had been breached and declared an end to the agreement.

Mark Harbeson said...

It always amazes me at how, even to this day, there's a real division in the way the Civil War (excuse me, the War Between The States) is viewed between the North and the South.

I don't want to hog your comment space, especially with something off-topic, so maybe I'll email you with a defense of Lincoln.

Dayle James Arceneaux said...

Mark, hog all the comment space you want buddy.

Just to be clear: I'm glad the North won. I don't fly a rebel flag and the abolition of slavery should have taken effect when the constitution was ratified.

Btw, I admire Lincoln's life. I just think he's been a little over-glorified.

Mark Harbeson said...

Allrighty then. I'll try to be brief. And I'm not accusing you of being pro-slavery or anything like that!

Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and said so in several writings. But he felt that his job as President was to preserve the Union and the Constitution above all else. He felt that legally speaking, the Constitution left the slavery decision up to the individual states.

His full quote was that if freeing no slaves preserved the Union, then he wouldn't free them. If freeing all of them preserved the Union, he would free them. Preserving the country was his priority.

However, when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he said, "I never, in all my life felt more sure that I was doing right [than] by signing this paper." He had to wait until the Union gained a decisive victory before he issued it, or else he risked losing the loyalty of the border states.

As far as Grant's war of attrition goes, keep in mind that Lincoln had to endure a host of ineffective, cowardly generals heading up his army before he found one willing to fight in Grant. They didn't have the strategic advantage, so they used their numerical advantage to win. Ugly, and brutal, yes. But his job was to win the war. Was he supposed to wait until he had a smarter general?

With Sherman's march, it's hard to justify it on moral grounds. The circumstances included Lincoln's need to win re-election. He needed Sherman to help strike a decisive blow to the South. This is not to say it was right. I imagine it was a similar decision that Truman faced when he dropped the A-bombs on Japan. It was either that, or prolong the war unnecessarily and indefinitely. I'm glad I don't have to make decisions like that.

Brutal as the war was, Lincoln was also the leader who set the example of showing mercy to the South at the end, and providing generous terms and plans for its Reconstruction. He had to fight the wishes of members of his own Cabinet who wanted the South destroyed.

Also, the South did attack the North. They fired the first shots on Fort Sumter, which of course began the war.

Dayle James Arceneaux said...

Good points, Mark.

I'm not saying Linoln was a bad president, I just don't put him at the top. I'd say more like 6-10 maybe. I'd have to do some research and come up with a comprehensive list.

I knew you'd bring up Fort Sumter. But that wasn't an attack on the North. That was repelling the tresspassers. Dem Yanks were on Southern Soil and didn't want to leave. Fort Sumter is in South Carolina.

Mark Harbeson said...

I'd wager the poor guys sitting in Sumter and having cannon shells rain down might argue with you about whether or not they were attacked. ;)