I like wolves as much as the next guy, but come on....?

Question

Some of the criticism I'm hearing about VP candidate Palin is that she voted for legalizing the hunting of wolves in Alaska.

The irony of this is that the people who criticize her for this support a presidential candidate who wants no restrictions on abortion.

So Obama wants it to be legal to give birth to a live baby and then kill it, while Palin is 100% pro-life.

Call me an ultra conservative or neo-con all you want, but um, isn't killing a human being worse than killing a wolf?

Answer 1

Good point but you also have to remember this feeble attack against Palin is coming from the same people who would defend a known murderer or a tree or a one inch banded mud worm but not an unborn child.

Answer 2

well the hunting of wolves up here is needed actually...

they're destroying the habitats for moose and caribou....

and i'm pro choice.....but i'd still have Palin in there then ******** Biden..

Answer 3

Not when you say that your PRO-LIFE and isn't killing anything considered PRO-DEATH?

Answer 4

McPalin is the better choice over Osama biden Laden

Answer 5

Yes, you are correct, it woudl appear that the ultra liberal put more importance on wolves then humans,  But it should be noted taht you had to support the killing of a certain number of wolves in Alaska as they attck the other speecies such ias polar bears, etc.  This is just land management which is done in every state.  

Answer 6

Yes, and I am glad that someone as smart as you has finally pointed that out.

Answer 7

'So Obama wants it to be legal to give birth to a live baby and then kill it'

Could you spell out a little bit how you arrived at that conclusion?  You don't give any reasoning or evidence to back it, and it sounds a little phony.

Considering that such protection is granted by federal law, including during the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, which Obama pointed out as part of his explanation of his voting record, your conclusion seems even more tenuous.

In fact, the need to protect babies after they're born with legislation itself seems phony.  (see more below)  Are you sure this whole thing isn't a right-wing gullibility test for the rest of us?

As Obama said at Saddleback Church (transcript here:http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript... ) his being pro-choice doesn't mean he's pro-abortion.  Obama wants to reduce the abortion rate, just like the rest of us.  He's just unwilling to take his anti-abortion stance so far as to make illegal a woman's choice in the matter, including in cases of rape, incest, or even the endangerment of the life of the mother.

This doesn't really seem to jive with your claim at all, making your claim increasingly extraordinary.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence you're providing is less than extraordinary.

As for the actual need of such legislation (setting aside that the baby-protection part was already redundant), the perception of a need was triggered by a nurse called Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room.  The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct.  Illegalities aside, Ryan was naturally quite concerned that such heinous activity could be going on in a hospital, as any sentient human being would.  But as one might expect, the story that was so heinous that it couldn't be true, in fact was not true.  The investigation concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."  Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.  Nevertheless, not too credible, huh?

Jill Staneck also says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions.  She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use.  She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China, to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

So why was the legislation put forth in the first place, given that the baby-protection part was redundant?  The act was designed as "wedge" legislation.  It was designed for just for the sort of attack that the journalist you link is making.  When a bill-authoring group does this, they put in one horrible provision (the "infanticide" part of the bill) and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman's right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the "infanticide."

Articles that spin such legislation as infanticide are little more than gullibility tests, and I'm afraid you flunked it.  Didn't this story seem a little implausible to you from the start?

Furthermore, this story has been debunked dozens of times in Yahoo Answers, so  you really don't have an excuse for reposting it here.

If you want to attack Obama for not making abortions illegal, then OK, fine.  If you want to scold him for not doing enough to combat the impulsiveness and short-sightedness that leads to so many abortions and an STD rate among teens of 25%, then OK, fine.  But passing on stuff that's just made up is a bit much.  Trying to keep others from breaking Commandment 6 doesn't give you permission to break Commandment 9.

Furthermore, McCain is hardly one-sided on this matter.  McCain's saying to great applause at Saddleback that life begins at conception (actually it begins before conception; sperm and egg cells are respiring cells) of course doesn't reconcile with his support of embryonic stem cell research.  I don't think the subset of his voters concerned about prohibiting abortion are going to pick up on this discrepancy, so he probably netted political points with his two-word response.

But back to the exceptions: note also that prohibiting abortion even in cases of rape, incest, of even the endangerment of th

Answer 8

Great point. I think that is why Liberals lose a lot of credibility. They act like they are for saving the environment, against the death penalty, and for government sponsored programs to take care of the less fortunate. But then, advocate the murdering of babies. Hypocisy at it's finest.

Answer 9

There is quite ALOT of irony in the choice .....aside from the wolf issue..........

McCain is all over Obama for lack of "experience".........and he picks a former Beauty Queen for VP????  One heart beat away from the President's job?

and considering that heart would be McCain's.......

it's a startling choice............

Answer 10

First of all Obama never said it's ok to kill any thing. He is staying out of it. Why can't we stay on subject, which is wolves not babies. I'm pro-life too, but I don't want to force people to have kids just to abuse them . Most of the people won't give them up for adoption. Look at the adoption lifestyle should one more child have to go threw that. I don't like mccain or obama but here we are