Republican Candidate Michele Bachmann: “I am 100% pro-life.”
I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life…
And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take…
And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.
~ Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) stating her pro-life position during the GOP 2012 debate hosted by CNN, as quoted by LifeNews, June 14
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
That last phrase “natural death” catches my attention. I believe that capital punishment for the crime of murder is just and right. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). And Romans 13 makes clear that the civil government has the power of the sword; the exercise of justice is its responsibility; the punishment must fit the crime.
Capital punishment for the crime of murder is 100% pro-life because only it treats human life–and God’s image–with the respect they deserve.
I thank God she’s in the race.
I used to believe in capital punishment (justice) but when I saw the mercies of God in my life and how God can spiritually save all sorts of evil people, then I changed my mind. We should let an all-wise, all-holy God execute His will as He sees fit.
I agree, Laura Loo, that we should let an “all-wise, all-holy God execute His will as He sees fit.” If you read Genesis 9 and Romans 6, then you will see that capital punishment for murder is His will. The civil government represents Him; it is His agent of justice. (And God most certainly is just; that’s one reason that He became a man and suffered death to pay the wages of sin.)
@ Jon If the punishment for murder is death then why didn’t God kill or have someone kill Cain? His punishment was to be banished not killed and he killed his own brother out of jealousy! Jesus said no more eye for an eye!
Cain was the first murderer. Perhaps God was giving a warning, having never explicitly forbidden murder. (In one sense, didn’t Cain experience something like death, being banished and destined to wander, as Adam and Eve were from the garden. Death always involves separation.) God had made the world good, without the strange contradiction of sin. After Cain, though, the violence of the world got so bad that God sent the Flood–and that’s when we also get the words of Genesis 9:6. You see, capital punishment was meant to protect human life.
As you point out, though, Jesus came much later, long after the Flood. When He spoke of no more eye for an eye, I think He was speaking of personal relations. Now look at Romans 12, where this theme is repeated: “Vengeance is Mine,” the Lord says, “I will repay.” Then comes Romans 13 and the civil government’s power of the sword, which is only used to kill. Paul says that the civil government is God’s minister and does not bear the sword in vain. In Old Testament Israel the avenger of blood was a relative of the murdered person, but the New Testament only speaks of the civil government, I think (and perhaps only in Romans 12 and 13, but quite clearly there).
Oh, I hope she wins the nomination, if Palin doesn’t. The list of stupid and/or insane things she has said is at least as long as Palin’s, and even crazier.
wow – she has my attention. Very beautiful – to have a candidate speak frankly about the pro-life issue!
I did enjoy her bit about marriage being a State’s Right issue followed up by her support for a constitutional amendment for DOMA. To be fair though, I don’t think she actually knows what “state’s rights” or “constitutional amendment” /actually/ mean.
This candidate needs to win the ticket. If Romney gets it, there is a good chance he can compete against Obama and take the independent Vote.
I like her stance on prolife, but isn’t she anti-gay? Once again, I say LEAVE THE GAYS ALONE!
But I’m glad that she’s taken in foster children. What’s that about prolifers not caring about children after they’re born again?
She is for the traditional family. One man, One woman.
No thank you to a 398+ comment thread about homosexuality. :)
Volunteer,
It IS a states’ rights issue right now. That’s why you would need a constitutional amendment to lay it out in the US constitution.
In other words, she would very much like to change it from being a state issue to a federal one. I wonder if the people who shriek about the federal government being too big and intrusive have a problem with that? Probably not, the “states’ rights” movement in modern conservative circles was always a sham to begin with. See also, decades-long push to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.
CT, Joan,
It is in play as both due to DOMA not being equally enforced.
Bachmann said “Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states.
I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.”
“I’m running for the presidency of the United States. And I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.”
She then added: “John, I do support a constitutional amendment on — on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.”
You can’t be simultaneously in favor of State’s Rights for the marriage issue AND in favor of removing state’s rights via constitutional amendment.
Again though, I don’t believe for a second she actually knows what either of the terms means and is merely trying to hit as many buzzwords as she can.
Volunteer,
Yeah I noticed that too. Total hypocrisy. I’m glad she’s pro-life (or at least claims to be), but I don’t like her stance on marriage.
Although in regards to the marriage issue, Ron Paul’s answer was by far the best. Take government out of all marriage – homo and heterosexual. Let it be up to the churches. That would get rid of this whole issue.
I agree LibertyBelle. The only business the government has is in Civil Unions for legal purposes. Sign the certificate and you’re together under the law for any legal matter pertaining to couples. Churches can perform whatever ceremony they want for who ever they want. You can call marriage between a Man and a Woman, the government needs to call it a civil union. We need to seperate the social ceremony from the Legal union.
Um, you can allow for states to determine the marital status of their citizens and have a Constitutional Amendment that declares that the United States Government only recognizes marriages as between 1 man and 1 woman. That isn’t contradictory.
Right, volunteer! I mean, for legal purposes, it would be good to have civil unions of some sort so that your spouse/partner can handle any legal or financial issues on your behalf or if anything happens to you, that person can have access to your records or other documents… but that’s it. No tax credits.
I’m a Christian and do in fact believe that marriage is between one man and one woman but it was God that invented that and it should be up to the church to perform that ceremony. The question of homosexuality should be a social issue left up to the culture to decide what is acceptable. The government needs to stay out.
Then you aren’t allowing states to determine the marital status of their citizens, Michael.
If a state has a law allowing same sex marriage, Michele says she, as president, “would not be going into the states to overturn their state law”. She also supports a constitutional amendment which would overturn state law….
…
No thank you to a 398+ comment thread about homosexuality
Sorry, Carla!
No worries, phillymiss.
I just don’t go there anymore. :)
Michelle Bachmann gets my vote.
I really, really hope she wins the republican nomination. Years of fodder for the cartoonists!
“marriage is between one man and one woman but it was God that invented that and it should be up to the church to perform that ceremony” – wow, that’s almost two wrongs making a right, remarkable.
Marriage wasn’t invented by any god.
Marriage hasn’t always been only between one man and one woman.
Yet according to the fable, god made marriage between one man and one woman!
LibertyBelle, you sound very confused! If you are “a Christian and do in fact believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” then how can “the question of homosexuality… be a social issue left up to the culture to decide what is acceptable”? Shouldn’t God’s Word determine culture? God in Romans 1 says that homosexuality is unnatural, foolish, shameful, and debauched.
You say that God invented marriage. How does it follow that only the church should perform weddings and not the state? According to Romans 13, the state is a minister of God. Are you a Roman Catholic or a Protestant? I do not believe that marriage is a sacrament. It is, however, the beginning of a family (planned parenthood), and the family is the building block of society. The state has an interest–and a responsibility–to promote strong families for a country’s prosperous future. In licensing marriage, the state is only recognizing the natural order as God created it.
There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage.” That ridiculous term has been invented to further disparage and denigrate marriage. As a symptom of social decay, the widespread tolerance of homosexuality indicates that Western civilization is coming to an end. Divorce did most of the damage, though.
“In licensing marriage, the state is only recognizing the natural order as God created it” – it wasn’t created by any god.
“That ridiculous term has been invented to further disparage and denigrate marriage” – well, we shouldn’t need to speak of ‘homosexual marriage’, just ‘marriage’, equally available to all. I think it’s more disparaged and denigrated by evangelicals who ‘wander’ and have multiple marriages.
“the widespread tolerance of homosexuality indicates that Western civilization is coming to an end” – I disagree. It is indicative of an ever-more civilised society.
“Reality,” your reality is what I call hell. I do agree that “evangelicals who ‘wander’ and have multiple marriages” have also greatly disparaged and denigrated marriage. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention wrote an article blaming evangelical churches for ignoring divorce and focussing only on hot-button social topics like homosexuality.
I don’t believe in any ‘hell’ Jon. What would your vision of a more ‘heavenly’ society incorporate?
That’s why there’s a gulf between heaven and hell, Reality. We can’t talk to each other because we don’t speak the same language. My “heavenly society” is similar to that of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but it is full of people. Please note that there was no marriage of Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden.
I’ve read that Bachmann, Cain and Santorum (and perhaps more) all received ‘messages from god’ telling them they must run for president. What does this mean? Does god want three presidents? Or is he having a joke on two of them? How does that work?
There is no heaven or hell Jon. We both seem to be speaking english. I can understand what you are saying and likewise you seem to be able to understand me.
Are they clothed? Do they vote? What happens when one murders another? Were Adam and Eve married? Adam and Steve weren’t there but there may have been a Gregory and a Roger, who knows.
No, there weren’t, Reality. As I said, we don’t talk the same language. Have you ever read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis?
While it would most likely be easier to agree with you Jon, I can’t. We do speak the same language, we just have different ideas.
No, I have not read that book. Have you read The White Plague by Frank Herbert? (it’s not a color thing)
Can you say that your imaginery ‘garden of eden’ full of people would not include Gergory and Roger? Quite possibly not if it’s only your imagination. Who else would your ‘garden of eden full of people’ exclude?
No, I haven’t read The White Plague. I asked about The Great Divorce because if you had read it maybe you would understand what I meant when I said we do not speak the same language. You are what you read. The fact that we don’t read each other’s literature again suggests that we do not speak the same language.
And, once again, there is no “homosexual marriage” in my language.
The Grapes of Wrath?
Waiting for Godot?
Catcher in the Rye?
To Kill a Mockingbird?
The bible?
Shakespeare?
Lord of the Flies?
While I’m intrigued by the idea of the state “getting out of marriage”, we still end up with the question of who can enter into civil unions. Can you have polygamous unions (assuming all participants are adults)? What prevents you from creating a civil union with a friend to obtain some of the benefits?
Ultimately the state is not a registry of friendships or really awesome relationships. Why does the state privilege marital relationships with the nexus of rights that attach to it? It’s because that relationship has value and the state wants to encourage it. They can certainly take the stance that there is nothing to encourage, but if that’s the stance, why have civil unions at all? Let the state get out entirely, let people arrange their affairs via contract, and religious institutions perform ceremonial marriages.
Ploygamy? Sure
What prevents friends from creating a union just for benefits? Nothing. Same amount that prevents them from marrying for benefits.
Why does the state privilage relationships with rights? Because the state recognizes that extra rights should be given to those committed to each other such as hospital visitation, parenting, right to marital assets after the death of one, etc. A relationship is a more stable unit and beneficial to promote.
The hospital visitation issue is not unique to same sex couples nor does it require civil unions to overcome. Most hospitals have no restrictions at all in terms of visitors. I have visited many people in the hospital both in ICU and in regular rooms and have never been asked to identify myself or prove my relationship. To the extent it is a problem, it’s an easy fix to require that hospitals only limit access to patients for medical necessity. (President Obama took a step in this direction already – and his efforts help everyone including those who would not be helped by civil unions).
In terms of assigning the right to make health decisions and division of joint assets, that can be accomplished by contract. Parental rights are always determined in family court – a civil union doesn’t give you parental rights over a child that is not yours biologically or through adoption.
When you say a relationship is a more stable union….more stable than what? Since any relationship/s can be registered as civil unions it seems like you mean any relationship of any two or more individuals is more stable than a single individual. What is the state trying to encourage that deserves benefit? Not being alone? Presumably people will create those relationships regardless of state benefit or encouragement.
Which is my point – all of these things can be accomplished via contract. If the state is “getting out of the marriage business”, why shouldn’t it really GET OUT? Why shouldn’t couples (same sex or opposite sex, or polygamous, or friends, or polygamous friends or whatever) who want to make a commitment to each other(s), arrange their affairs via contract. What does the state get from its registry of relationships that will exist anyway and the bureaucracy associated with it?
I am 100% pro-family. And the foundation of the family is marriage. And I stand for that institution. I stand for the lifelong marriage of one man and one woman. The very few cases that deal with obvious perversions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the genuine issue of rampant divorce and family break-up. I stand for marriage from the wedding until the death of one spouse.
Read any of the books I mentioned Jon?
And what do you do on sundays Jon?
What are ‘obvious perversions’? Whose?
“Why does the state privilege marital relationships with the nexus of rights that attach to it? It’s because that relationship has value and the state wants to encourage it.”
This is true, and this is why the state has a rational interest in regulating marital relationships to begin with (and why it is unrealistic to suggest that the state should not have a role in doing so), but the value derived from those relationships is not exclusive to opposite-sex configurations. From the perspective of the state, it makes perfect sense to encourage same-sex couples to seek stable, long-term relationships by giving them access to civil marriage.
CT, I probably shouldn’t spend much more time debating here (there’s work to do), but your question seems irresistible. Suppose that the government did limit legal marriage to one man and one woman (as it once did). Suppose that divorce was more difficult to obtain (as it once was). Suppose that adoption was only available to these married couples (as I think it once was). Suppose that there were substantial tax benefits associated with marriage (as I think there once were). Suppose that only a married man could vote (but I think this has never been the case). Such a situation would have enormous benefits for the state because it would encourage strong families which would raise disciplined, well-educated, healthy citizens.
Michelle gave a TESTIMONY and a political statement deep from her convictions. So clear, so clear. There is no mistaking her position, and why? She explained why from her faith, her “knowing” as a mother, and from the purest political position you can have in this country, a political position based squarely on the Declaration of Independence. THE reason for America is life, LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Isn’t truth, when delivered so clearly and simply, isn’t truth INSPIRING?
Hey, I guess I’m the only one here who gave their full name. OK, anyway, to the person above who is making fun of Bachmann and Santorum and Cain as having heard that God told them to run for President and only one can be President. …you don’t understand SO much…I am sorry for you. Remember, running for President, if you are true to your convictions, it is like any true calling. You are God’s witness and a testimony when you are doing what God calls you to do. We all can have the power of a President in others lives if we hear Him and follow Him in any walk of life. So, it’s wonderful to know that all 3 are called to RUN for President. Running for President is this modern culture’s ultimate platform to proclaim truth and that God is ultimately the One who directs history and He allows some to rule. All leaders and rulers rule under the authority of God.
All but one of them will have to lose David. So why would god call them all to run? What is his purpose? Will they damage each other to the extent that an obama victory is assured? Is that god’s plan?
Suppose that women couldn’t vote (as was once the case)
Suppose blacks couldn’t vote (as was once the case)
Suppose women couldn’t work after marriage (as was once the case)
Suppose women earned less for the same work as men (as was once the case)
Are these and many other similar factors part of your nirvana too Jon?
since humanity move out the caves they started to form Family Clans that evolved into communities, small towns small cities and so on. heterosexuality is the base of any society of any religion. homosexuality appears with a stronger emphasis (always is been around (but that doesn’t make right)) in cultures when they become dominant of other cultures-civilizations. just as an indicator of that Culture becoming more ARROGANT. If we want to pass away like other powerful cultures we should do nothing about our Arrogance, but if we want to prevail as a Great Nation we have to fight our Arrogance. Homosexuality just is a bad mark as is our Peace Novel Prize President Obama bombing another nation or forcing tax payers to fund something they don’t want to. forcing minority ideas into majorities and call it democracy!! taking the resources from other nations!! and so on. I’m sure you all can think in much more!!! homosexuals today are so arrogant that purposely ignore the fact that they came forth from heterosexuality. basically they don’t care about homosexuals in the future. No society has and will be based on homosexuality. heterosexuality doesn’t need homosexuality to prevail. homosexuality NEEDS heterosexuality to have existence. Why we have to bend our knee to it? much more : if we tolerate unions on the “Consenting Adult” terminology, How we can manage man-to-man-to-man, woman-to-man-to-man, and so on unions? They way I see it : They want Us to De-Civilize Us!!! wake up!!
“homosexuality appears with a stronger emphasis in cultures when they become dominant of other cultures-civilizations” – where did you get that from?
“bombing another nation or forcing tax payers to fund something they don’t want to” – what, like George W. did and republicans do?
“forcing minority ideas into majorities and call it democracy!!” – you’re being forced into homosexuality?!?!?
“basically they don’t care about homosexuals in the future” – are you kidding? Homosexuals don’t exclude heterosexuals. Heterosexuals will continue to have babies, some of whom will be homosexual.
“Why we have to bend our knee to it?” – how about you just take your foot off it’s throat?
“How we can manage man-to-man-to-man, woman-to-man-to-man, and so on unions?” – yeah, next thing you know, someone will want to allow miscegenation. Gay marriage is the union of two individuals; just two, not three or more. Nor to animals, or anything else. Two people who love each other, the same as heterosexual marriage.
Some of us are actually trying to advance civilisation.
Many, many beneficiaries of western civilization loathe that civilization – and the media are generally inclined to blur the extent of that loathing. At last year’s Democratic Convention, when the Oscar-winning crockumentarian Michael Moore was given the seat of honor in the Presidential box next to Jimmy Carter, I wonder how many TV viewers knew that the terrorist “insurgents” – the guys who kidnap and murder aid workers, hack the heads off foreigners, load Down’s syndrome youths up with explosives and send them off to detonate in shopping markets – are regarded by Moore as Iraq’s Minutemen. I wonder how many viewers knew that on September 11th itself Moore’s only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and Washington instead of Texas or Mississippi: “They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the plane’s destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!” (excerpt from Mark Steyn’s 2005 “A Flag Has To Be Worth Burning”)
Wow, Reality, I am not a Christian either, but you really seem to be going at other people’s beliefs. People are entitled to religious beliefs whether you or I agree or not.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with homosexuality personally. I don’t think they deserve to be mistreated or denied any rights, I don’t think they are perverted or awful. I wouldn’t support gay marriage, however. Civil unions giving them the rights that they need to have equal families is fine with me, seems a lot easier than forcing through a marriage ammendment when public opinion is so split. There should be no question that churches should be able to decide who they want to recognize as being a legitimate marriage. I firmly believe in the establishment clause, religion shouldn’t tell the state what to do and vice versa.
I don’t mind Bachman, really. I would vote for her over Obama.
Suppose women earned less for the same work as men (as was once the case)
Correction: the wage gap still exists. Women on average still earn less than men for doing the exact same job.
Hi Kel, in one of my comments somewhere on one of these threads in the last couple of days I alluded to what you are saying. Yes, women still aren’t being paid equally. I was just referring to the concept in light of Jon’s apparent desire for a past version of society.
Jack, my aim was to try to get Jon to actually answer some questions rather than his repeated pamphleteering. Like the fact that he wants a garden of eden existence but with lots of people. I’m attempting to get him to elucidate on what that would actually look like given the vagaries which emerge in larger population groups.
He also claimed that we didn’t speak the same language because we didn’t read the same books. Yet I’m quite sure he has read at least some of those that I suggested which I have read.
Oh Jon – I totally agree with you. My point is if the state is just creating civil unions, then all they really have is a registry of relationships. Vahdrok seems willing to let that be any relationship between any amount of people sexual or platonic. Joan seems to think that sexual relationships only should be privileged, no word on polygamous relationships. But my question remains – in those scenarios, what is the benefit the state receives from the bureaucracy associated w/ this registry of unions? It can’t just be that people in relationships are more stable for society than single people b/c I don’t think the nexus of rights provided by the state is really what instigates or prolongs romantic relationships.
That’s right, CT, and I’ve read–though this was a long time ago–that the stated goal of some homosexual groups is to empty the institution of marriage of any real meaning and effectually eradicate it from society. Why should homosexuals be interested in “committed relationships”? Their behaviour (at least between males) is physically unhealthy and dramatically reduces their lifespan. Any real charity between homosexual partners would lead to sexual abstinence. However, a homosexual couple that abstains is really only friends.
Reality, I had answered some of your questions, but you don’t really seem interested in a genuine discussion. You were beginning to twist and mock what I said. If you really want some pictures of a “heavenly society,” then you can read the book of Revelation, especially chapters 21 and 22.
I asked questions Jon, that’s all.
Have you read any of the books I cited or not?
What do you think would/could go on in a garden of eden with a large population?