A truce on abortion?

“President calls for truce on abortion” (5/18, A-1). Really? A truce on abortion? Did Lincoln call for a truce on slavery? He called for it to be abolished, as abortion should be.

President Obama acts as if he is not an abortion advocate, yet he supports the Freedom of Choice Act and one of his first acts as president was to sign the bill allowing our federal dollars to be used in other countries to abort children.

If his intent was to try to silence the voices of those who dare to stand up for the unborn, who have no voice, by making them appear to be demonizers, then he should know this: As long as our children continue to be killed for convenience and profit, we will not be silent.

Fran Crouch
Independence

Comments

[KC Educator]

"He never said HOW the abortion issue should be resolved. He just shrugged his socialistic shoulders, smiled and conceded to "agree to disagree" on the matter."

C.S.

The answer that satisfies everyone is not out there. For you to expect him to have the perfect answer to the abortion question is unrealistic. What his speech basicaly said was that we need to find ways to reduce abortions. It satisfied no one on the extremes of either side, but those people will not be totally satisfied unless they get their way completely. If you have a better answer, that will satisfy everyone, please share it.

[Common Sense]

Obama's speech at Notre Dame was a dismal attempt to play both sides of the middle. It was grand standing and political posturing at it's highest level.
READ the speech. He never said HOW the abortion issue should be resolved. He just shrugged his socialistic shoulders, smiled and conceded to "agree to disagree" on the matter.

[KC Educator]

If there was no tobacco production in the English colonies, there would be no English colonies. The first colonies were structured as corporate colonies, for profit. Tobacco gave the stock holders the product they needed to continue to fund the project. Without slaves there would be no tobacco, hence no English colonies and no United States of America.

The wealth of the country was founded on textile manufacturing. The factories in the north were able to make cloth cheaply and sell the products around the world at prices that no one else could match. The reason that manufactures were able to produce the product so inexpensively was for two reasons. First they had an immigrant labor force that they were able to take advantage of. These laborers worked in the most horrible conditions imaginable for long hours at wages that barely sustained them. The second reason for the inexpensive production was because of the ready availability of high quality inexpensive cotton from the south. Needless to say, without guaranteed inexpensive labor, “slaves’, there would be no cotton and no wealth.

Slavery existed around the world up into the 19th century. There is a difference between world slavery and the uniquely American experience. World slavery was forced labor, but the difference was that slaves had opportunities at freedom that US slaves did not have. Families were not torn apart throughout the world as they were here and slaves in other lands had opportunities for freedom than slaves had here. Once a slave here, not only were they almost certainly condemned to slavery for the rest of their life, every generation that followed was also condemned to slavery. In other countries if a freeman and a slave had a child, the child would be considered a freeman. Here, the child would be property. Freed slaves in other countries were afforded legal rights. Here freedmen had no legal standing and if they were found without the proper documentation they could be sold back into slavery, and documentation confirms that they often were. Slavery here was a system of forced generational servitude without any hope of providing a better future for your family. No where else in the world were slaves afforded the same conditions.

Africa prior to European intervention was a thriving prosperous continent. They did not have the same tools as the Europeans though. The Europeans wanted access to the labor of the Africans in the new world. They provided access to advanced weaponry to competing tribes in order to get them to feed on each other by providing slaves to the Europeans. When the Europeans colonized Africa, tribes with physical features that resembled European features were afforded more privileges than those that had more traditional African features. Animosity developed because Africans were used to oppress the rights of other Africans. Africa was not only ravaged by the kidnapping of millions of their children, the wars and the tribal violence that exist today are a direct result of European intervention on the continent.

The prosperity and standard of living of this country was built more than anything else on the labor of slaves who were denied the opportunity to enjoy that wealth and prosperity for over three hundred years. Forced cycles of generational poverty continued even after the slaves were freed. The destruction that continues in Africa was a direct result of European intervention. It is no wonder that people of African descent seem angry today.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

I would not refure the harsh and tragic episode of slavery and I for one certainly dispise what occured. However, why then why is Africa still so sub-par to America?
You do realize African kings sold their own people off, right? I invite you to review how many mmillionaires there are in Africa versus the United States. They don't afford you the NBA, free college degrees, hip hop record deals, etc in Africa. Africans are not the ONLY group that was part of building this nation, Asians (i.e. railroads), many poor Europeans. Slavery of the old was abolished, finally after decades of ignorant racism, we now have reverse racism. Racism is not gone and never will be, it just depends on who and how they define it. Double standards across the board. From now on i am going to start using the race card to my benefit.

[Keith Williams3]

Wow, that's the lamest thing I ever heard, Africa was thriving until the devils came and forced all the strong hard working men & women (kings, rich, and need I say more) out from their families. forced them onto a boat, they didn't volunteer. Africa was strong in agriculture and gold, you name it Africa had it. when there was no America so if you need to say anything those dutch traders and this country didn't have a chance with out Africans.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Picture what life would be like for African-Americans today if they had been sent back to their homeland. Last time I checked Africa is not exactly the land of opportunity in cmparison to this hirrble, mean, racist, oppresive country called the USA.

[Wild Man]

"Typical bullet point party hack speak."GCYL

You want to frame this as party talk, so that you can justify your self centered attitude. No where has a political party been mentioned except by you and other conservatives that have no arguements.

[GCYL]

“You see, it is you that is illogical. What conservatives think changes over time. Liberals will always be stuck in the past unwilling to compromise with the present.” - Wild Man

[Sigh]

Typical bullet point party hack speak. So predictable and with two changes they become their opposition.

[Wild Man]

"A Conservative in Lincoln's time does not believe the same thing a Conservative today believe. Same for liberals."

You see, it is you that is illogical. What liberals think changes over time. Conservatives will always be stuck in the past unwilling to compromise with the present.

[beaker]

Wild Man -

And the democrats in the South supported Jim Crow laws up until the late 60s. Who give a cr__? What you fail to understand is that conservative is a term as is liberal that describes a point in time. A Conservative in Lincoln's time does not believe the same thing a Conservative today believe. Same for liberals.

You give a long winded dissertation with no logic and no ability to really tie what a conservative was then to what it is now, except for the name.

Nice try.

[Keith Williams3]

He also favored sending Afrians back to the Mother Land as well.

[Wild Man]

“President calls for truce on abortion” (5/18, A-1). Really? A truce on abortion? Did Lincoln call for a truce on slavery? He called for it to be abolished, as abortion should be.
“President calls for truce on abortion” (5/18, A-1). Really? A truce on abortion? Did Lincoln call for a truce on slavery? He called for it to be abolished, as abortion should be."

Actually, Lincoln did call for a truce on slavery. Lincoln opposed slavery, but knew that trying to abolish it would fracture the nation. When elected and Fort Sumter was surrounded, he proposed a compromise to the Southerners of not attempting to abolish slavery where it already existed but rather changing the Constitution to where it would not be allowed to spread into the territories. The conservative South however, was not willing to compromise on the issue, much like conservatives are unwilling to compromise on issues today. The Emancipation Proclamation was another attempt at compromise. The executive order freed only the slaves residing in states still in rebellion at a future date. Lincoln tried to give Southern States a way to end the war and save face. At the end of the war, there was still slavery in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, as well as in Missouri. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery in the South if the South would lay down their arms. Again the conservatives were unwilling to compromise. Slavery was abolished after the South laid in ruin and Lincoln was dead by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The war was fought to preserve the Union, and Lincoln was willing to compromise on the issue of slavery in order accomplish that goal.

The founders of this country, many of whom were vehemently opposed to slavery, and Lincoln all understood that in order for a democracy to work compromises must be made. Conservatives today speak in reverence of the Constitution, as they should. It is a document that has withstood the test of time. It is also a document that was written as a testament to compromise. I find it hard to understand how a group, such as the conservatives in this country, can be so supportive of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution while being so entrenched in their single issues with no room for compromise. We are as politically divided now as we were at the beginning of the Civil War.

Conservatives today try to wrap themselves in the flag and declare how patriotic they are. If you take a historical look at conservatives you will find that their own issues are more important than the preservation of this country. During the Revolutionary War conservatives, called Tories, opposed independence. During the Civil War slave owning conservatives supported session. During the Civil Rights movement racist conservatives opposed granting human rights to minority groups in this country. It’s time for people that call themselves conservatives to look at what you really believe in.

The party of Lincoln was conceived on liberal principals. It amazes me that it has become so rigidly conservative.

[ggbridge]

You know what was interesting about the most recent Gallup poll that found 51% of americans called themselves prolife? It also showed that around 73% of americans believe abortion should be legal in limited circumstances. Americans are pragmatic. This is a number prolifers should be looking at very closely.

I don't get how out of Obama's speech at Notre Dame you heard you were supposed to be silent. That's not what I heard at all. You heard what you wanted to hear, what fits your far right, Obama bashing agenda. A little better listening might ease tensions on both sides of this issue. The letter writer is correct on one thing - there is no truce, and until you can have a conversation like a grownup, abortion wins. Yuck.

[Keith Williams3]

I don’t see how someone can claim religion and still kill a living being/baby. Its alive!!!!!!!!!! Anyway Life begins at conception

[Mark Robertson]

Great letter Fran. Great example with Lincoln.
There isn't much "middle ground" between alive and dead. So "narrow viewed" am I.
Thankyou.

Mark Robertson
Independence

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

So many pro-abortion/murder advocates always claim religion as the reason for being against murder or the excuse of a woman's right to make choices about her body. Unfortunately she is making a choice about someone elses body. Maybe Obama should allow children to be murdered once they are alive and well outside the womb at any age. Muder is murder no matter how one side attempts to justify their acts of slefish convenience. I calim moral compas, not religion for my stance against abortion.
You have choice BEFORE becoming pregnant. Abstain or use birth control, it's that simple. Neither one of these requires an Ivy League degree.

[Keith Williams3]

No common ground indeed, its unfortunate, taking my religious views out of it I would even go for gay couples adopting before abortion but those are just my thoughts so don’t massacre me :>)

[GCYL]

Another letter printed by The Star based on it’s entertainment value.

Excluding our current President, we all understand that each side have large flags waving in the air and rally cries can be heard. This letter is an example of those rally cries. For the opposing extremes no middle ground can be found. Neither side is looking for middle ground.

When The Star prints these narrow viewed rally cries from either camp it undercuts what ever the President was trying to accomplish from his speech.