Monday, December 10, 2007

Versace withdrawals from race

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

The following article was published in the Peoria Journal Star on December 3, 2007, page B1. I am quoting it in its entirety.

“Democrat gaffes caught on record

Congressional candidate Dick Versace recently told the Peoria County Democratic newsletter that he considers himself a ‘centrist, independent Democrat.’

On the key issue of abortion (the murder of unborn babies—my addition), he said he personally opposes abortion, but believes the government should stay out of personal and medical decisions. (This is neither a personal nor a medical decision. The fundamental duty of government is to protect its citizens—TO PROTECT ALL of its citizens particularly the most innocent. And who is more innocent than an unborn baby? NO ONE CAN BE BOTH PRO-LIFE AND PRO-DEATH!!! These two choices are on the opposite end of the spectrum of choices—my addition.) ‘I’m pro-choice’ he told the news letter.

But on Nov. 16, he told a reporter for the Quincy Herald Whig, ‘I’m pro-life.’

So, which is it?

Versace said the incident was a gaffe prompted in part by fatigue. He got up at 5a.m. to get to Quincy and had seven other media interviews before the hour-plus-long newspaper interview.

‘I was a little bleary-eyed towards the end of this. I thought I said pro-choice, but I said pro-life,’ Versace said. ‘I was stunned that it came out that way (Would some people call this a Freudian slip?—my addition). We called (the reporter), he played the tape back and I did make a gaffe there, but also, the explanation for why I was pro-choice was there was (I believe the writer meant “as” here but it was printed as “was”—my addition.) well.’

In a transcript provided from a taped interview with Whig reporter Ed Husar, Versace said: ‘I’m pro-life. And the only way I assuage that is that I honestly feel that if you can have the baby, you should have the baby. But if you are the person, you are the woman, that looks at other options—for whatever reasons whether it’s rape, incest, whatever for whatever reasons—it’s not my place to step in and tell this woman what to do. Now, I will say this about abortions (the murder of unborn babies—my addition): If they occur, they should be safe, they should be legal and they should be unnecessary. (I don’t know if he means “necessary” here but the article said “unnecessary.” What murder of an unborn baby is necessary?—my addition)’”

Less than a week later on Saturday, December 8, 2007, the front page story is that Dick Versace is dropping out of the race for the Congressional seat for the 18th Congressional District. Quoting the second paragraph of the news story, “Versace, 67, said he’s ending his bid for the 18th Congressional District for personal reasons. He declined to elaborate on the situation.”

Mr. Versace, of course, has the right not to elaborate on why he is withdrawing from the race for the 18th Congressional District. That refusal to provide an explanation though is bound to lead to speculation on the part of some members of the public.

Is it because of family concerns? Is it because, after touring the district, he decided that it was unlikely that he could win the election? Is it a coincidence that he withdrew from the race less than a week after the article dealing with his position on the murder of unborn babies was printed? Did such groups as Planned Murderhood threaten to withdraw their financial and political support unless he categorically supported the murder of unborn babies without hesitate or qualifications? Did he realize the hypocrisy of declaring that, on the one hand, he personally was pro-life but was pro-death for anyone who wanted to murder their unborn baby?

I hope and pray it was because he did realize that he can not be both pro-life and pro-death at the same time. To claim that stance is the same as declaring that you personally are opposed to murder but you believe that each person should make his own decision in that area. Therefore, if someone decided that it was alright to murder some one, Mr. Versace would support his right to do so. That, of course, is obscene as well and can only lead to anarchy making the position of Congressmen obsolete since each person is responsible for doing that which is right in his own eyes.

However, if Mr. Versace withdrew because of the moral conflict he has over the murder of unborn babies, he has the responsibility to make that public. The public needs to know that not all Democrats can or will continue to support the obscenity of women murdering their unborn babies. If he withdrew for that reason and does not make it public, he was never a fit candidate for the office in the first place. If he withdrew for other reasons and honestly believes that he can have it both ways in relation to the murder of unborn babies—be pro-life personally and be pro-death nationally—he was never a fit candidate for the office in the first place.

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)


Post a Comment

<< Home