The Democrats and the Abortion Wars

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: whyme?? @ 08/26/2008 2:47:15 PM

    i have no doubt that Obama understands many sides of the question he was asked. That is precisely the reason he answered the way he did. It has been my experience, in my 63 years, that people who have all the answers very often have not thought deeply enough about the questions.

    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:03:16 PM

      The only way he understands the issue is that to give a definitive answer will lose him votes. Otherwise, this is THE most pro-choice candidate in the history of America, a person who would refuse medical care even to a living baby of a botched abortion. There is no subtlety of thought here. Obama is an extremist.

      • Posted By: neos @ 08/26/2008 3:10:58 PM

        And you are...?

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:15:15 PM

          Just a guy telling the truth.

          Exactly what Obama isn't.

          • Posted By: neos @ 08/26/2008 3:27:09 PM

            Ah, the arrogance of certainty....

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:32:50 PM

              Certain I'm telling the truth? Certainly.

              This is what I think, and I'm saying it.

              Obama-- not so much.

              • Posted By: neos @ 08/26/2008 3:47:16 PM

                You tell your biased version of the truth, as do I. f you are truly against abortions, as I am, and serious about decreasing the incidence of abortions rather than simply spouting off to show how morally superior you are, then you will vote Democratic. Republican policies ensure decreased health education, simplistic and failed planned parenthood policies, poor health care, continued poverty and the widening seperation between rich and poor - factors insuring the continuation of abortions, It would be great if preaching responsibility to teenagers were enough, but in our real world that hasn't worked. Let's work together to eliminate the social and economic causes of abortion instead of being worried about who wins the debate.

                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:53:28 PM

                  Social problems do not cause abortion. Selfishness and immorality cauise abortions.

                  Otherwise there would be no rich women who have abortions.

                  And we know that's not true.

                  • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:16:09 PM

                    "Selfishness and immorality cauise abortions." It also apparently causes pedophilia and the tolerance thereof.

                    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:37:43 AM

                      That doesn't even make sense.

                      Unless you're making a confession.

                • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 5:20:02 AM

                  Neo social and economic problems do not seem to be strongly correlated with women having abortions. Alot of poor women tend to have children while women who have more wealth actually bear less children.

              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:01:48 PM

                I take it you are speaking ex cathedra--so you can't be wrong.

          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:30:06 PM

            Wow, and I bet he is a member of Al-Queda too. He must be cause he's got one of them there funny sounding names. Barrack Hussein Osama. Ooops, my bad.

            And what this is all really about: Did I mention that Obama is BLACK. Black, I tell you. One of those coloreds. Man, once those people had equal access to drinking fountains and bus seats, it was all downhill from there. No, actually it was the Emancipation Proclamation--a repudiation of the biblically approved practice of slavery imposed on our great nation by one of those activist liberal presidents and his judges.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:35:01 PM

              Do you notice the strawman arguments? I never once said anything about his middle name, never once brought up his race, but this guy can't win the real debate and so sets up a strawman argument he feels more certain of winning.

              Even you pro-choicers have to recognize this as nonsense.

              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:00:36 PM

                You don't have to say it--your conservative pals speak for you.

                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 4:12:17 PM

                  Ah, well, you do not have to say you're a child molestor.

                  Your fellow liberals say it for you.

                  • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:22:56 PM

                    Oooh, burn! And libelous defamation for good measure.

          • Posted By: metzlerd @ 08/26/2008 3:40:07 PM

            Ironically you base your judgement on lies. Amusing!

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 08/26/2008 3:39:16 PM

        You don't know what you're talking about.
        There was nothing in the legislation that dictated refusing medical care. It was about whether the parent and doctor could make medical decisions related to the child after it was born

        You should learn about it before you make judgements..

  • Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 08/26/2008 2:25:55 PM

    Population control this is what we need! human beings have been reproducing like rats.. and they need to stop! how many more human beings do we need??? 6 billions not enough for you??? what about 10 billions, 15 billions??? how do you think we will be able to feed, shelter all these people??? We are already runing out of clean water in many part of the world, food shortage will happen more frequently, and lets not talk about the environmental damages. Other species are going extint at a rate never seen before, Just to let you know, we already are the cause of the 6th extinction of all species..It is time for people to educate themselves and stop believing in the fairy tales of the bible and superstitions!

    • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 2:29:11 PM

      Amen! Most of these people who are clamoring for more births are the same people who don't seem to get along very well with the people who are already here! If you want to care for a helpless individual go volunteer at your local nursing home. I know for a fact they could use some help.

      • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:34:25 PM

        If you don't like the number of people on the planet, you can give up your places.

        Not some child's...

        But as it stands, we are actually below replacement levels in most western countries. Meaning we are not growing, we are shrinking. In America we are barely at replacement levels-- or would be if not for immigration. In places like Russia half the population is disappearing every generation. In 100 years, unless things change, there will hardly be a European left in Europe.

        The old overpopulation argument is garbage.

        • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 2:59:25 PM

          And what exactly is a European? Dosent that just mean you were born there or is there some other requirement that Im missing?

          • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:13:53 PM

            Well, Europe is not just being born there. There's a culture and a history. And new immigrants and unassimilated immigrats do not carry on that culture or history. Which will be quite fun for you liberals when Europe falls prey to Sharia Law and the radical Muslims take over the nuclear arsenal of France.

            • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 3:37:15 PM

              Wow! You are really showing your hand now. How paranoid! Sounds like you are really just afraid of being outbred and out numbered by people of color. Let's outbreed them and kill the rest in crusades sounds like your motto. How forward thinking! Just because certain areas are decreasing in population doesn't mean the earth's population as a whole isn't growing exponentially.

              • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 4:03:51 PM

                Gee, since when did the Japanese, also a western nation with serious demographic fall off, become "white."

                • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 6:35:53 PM

                  He didn't say the word "white". You did. Calling Dr. Freud.

                  • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:35:55 AM

                    Semantics. That's all you got?

                    Sad.

            • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:33:57 PM

              Muslims will have nuclear weapons in France? Let's nuke France now--you know, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. And besides, the French talk funny, don't they.

              • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 4:05:02 PM

                You can;t stay on topic. Repeat after me:

                I will talk about the subject without bring up Bush every other word.

                I will talk about the subject without bring up Bush every other word.

                I will talk about the subject without bring up Bush every other word.

                I will talk about the subject without bring up Bush every other word.

                I will talk about the subject without bring up Bush every other word.

                • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:17:33 PM

                  You so funny. Did you steal that from Expelled the Movie, or the Simpsons?

                  • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 4:21:16 PM

                    Does it matter?

                    Will it help your Bush Derangement Syndrome?

                    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:31:40 PM

                      I'm sorry, do I fail to honor Caesar?

                      • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 5:23:44 PM

                        No, you just fail to have honor.

                        • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 5:29:30 PM

                          Ow, that hurts. You're so mean!

                          • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 5:32:31 PM

                            Well, maybe. But at least I don't want to cut the limbs off an unborn baby...

                            Or something non-mean like that.

                            • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 5:40:31 PM

                              Or God letting babies be born with no brain, one eye, a head growing out of a head, etc. Or letting little children die of leukemia or AIDS. Or something non-mean like that.

                              • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:34:44 AM

                                Birth defects are often caused by human factors, like malnutrition and poor genetic diversity. Actually, it's pretty amazing more babies don't come out wrong. But God is merciful.

                                He even let you live all these years with half a brain.

        • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 4:42:33 AM

          So what Jim? We are talking about overpopulation on a global scale not within an individual nation. Women are not breeding machines! Humans are supposed to mix genetically because the variation in DNA actually promotes a robust species that can adapt to environmental changes. So this is not an ethnic thing where a certain group has to maintain a certain population level.

        • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 2:58:46 PM

          Once again, not enough white people! Maybe you can get them to breed by showing them human porn, much like they do with the pandas at zoos.

          • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:11:12 PM

            Actually, the country in the most trouble is Japan. But hey-- you're such a racist that you think all western countries are white.

            You should really not embarrass yourself with such displays of bigorty.

            • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:31:41 PM

              But it's whitey you care about.

              • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:36:11 PM

                You have some real racism problems.

                • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:09:36 PM

                  I see--I, being white and privileged and grateful--am a racist because I don't think whites should have all the advantages or favored positions in this world just because of their skin color. Or is it because I do not see individuals of Middle Eastern origin and sometimes different religion as an invading horde bent on the destruction of Europe?

                  So what you're saying is that I'm a traitor to my "race" or my "cultural heritage."

                  • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 4:18:09 PM

                    No, you're a racist because you read race into everything, whther it matters or not.

                    You're the same as the KKK. Only instead of burning crosses on black lawns, you burn them on white lawns. The impulse is the same. Only the target is different.

                    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:25:38 PM

                      Oh yeah, like that happens all the time. As if. If that ever happened, Fox News would surely have a documentary about it.

            • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:37:25 PM

              Bigotry? Psychological projection is such a fascinating thing, isn't it?

              Do you have a list handy of the people you would like to see reproduce more? And a list of those you'd like to see go away--besides any Muslims?

    • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 4:35:35 AM

      Yes! this is the other issue in regards to controlling the female's reproductive activities, one of the consequences is overpopulation of the species. Natural disaters and disease alone cannot solve this problem because medical science also has develoiped cures for lots of diseases. Right now as it stands humans have been causing all of the ecological problems that exist on earth including the extinction of other plant and animal species as you correctly point out.

    • Posted By: ER78 @ 08/26/2008 2:32:34 PM

      population control already exists in nature. Things like cancer and natural hurricanes that kill thousands of people every year are natures population control.

      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:00:11 PM

        Just God "calling people home"--to hell.

  • Posted By: smile2 @ 08/26/2008 2:18:54 PM

    It's a same how the abortion issue becomes politicize every 4 years. We can have these intellectual conversation on pro-life and pro-choice, yet our constitution clearly talks about the separation of church and state, yet the repubs apply this double standard. I don't think the demos avoid abortion issue, this is a very private and senstive subject. Obama's response to the comment during the faith forum go right to the heart, as to why the repubs and or the "conservative" target this point. Obama's point may have been vague or incomplete to most of the masses, but do this really define if a person is ready to be president? Furthermore, we talk about life and when life starts, but we kill and destroy each other lies all the time with guns, weapons,

    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:23:39 PM

      The Constitution does not clearly say anything about a separation of Church and State. It says that we should not establish a national Church and we should not prevent the free practice of religion.

      It says nothing at all about infusing our law with religious morality.

      Did any of you liberals finish high school?

      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:21:53 PM

        Oh, the lame insult--how it stings! It's like me saying: "Have you ever read a book without pictures."

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:46:22 PM

          Doesn't change the fact pro-choicers repeatedly are unable to understand what is and is not in the Constitution.

          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:29:18 PM

            Or pro-lifers don't understand what is and is not in the Bible. Funny how abortion is never mentioned in the New Testament. But killing is, lots of it. I know Catholics don't read the Apocalypse literally, but there sure is a lot of figurative, metaphorical killing of a large portion of Earth's population in that book--mostly by God.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:31:30 AM

              Abortion wasn't in the New Testament?

              Wow, that changes everything. 2000 years the Catholic Church has been calling abortion an evil, but whew-- if it isn't in the Book of John it's time for all pro-lifers to close up shop and join the infanticide glee club.

      • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 5:35:40 AM

        So whose religious morality gets to be infused in the laws jim? The christian majority? this would be a violation of the constitution which specifies that the States are a union of republics and laws cannot be created which deny the constitutional rights of individuals. This was designed to safeguard the propensity for a majority group to enact laws against minority groups who may not share the same religious, political or cultural beliefs as the majority group. The US is a pluralistic society comprised of different ethnic groups who do not all share the same religious and political beliefs or social customs. You need to respect the rights of others, especially the rights that women have fought for. A woman having an abortion in no way infringes on any of your individual rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:27:49 AM

          Like it or not religious morality is already infused into the law. It has been since our founding. You just fail to recognize it. And of course it's the majority's morality that is infused into the law, with some "rights" for minorities. Who else should make the laws if not the majority? You?

          That's democracy, dummy. Deal with it.

  • Posted By: No Pain No Gain 101 @ 08/26/2008 1:45:30 PM

    Voting for republicans because of your beliefs on abortion is certainly one way to go. Those who do may feel they are making the ultimate statements about their moral beliefs. If these same voters feel so strongly why are they not pickiting at inner city health clinics to shame the patients into going home and giving these babies up for adoption. These would just become unwanted and uncared for human beings. Voting is a way to express your views and change your cercumstances, but overturning Roe v. Wade with a vote is too easy and does not show moral strength. Put your life where your vote is and adopt one the many unwanted children already, and then vote for canidates who help you raise this child to be loving and caring for their fellow man.

    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 1:48:23 PM

      According to this one, you can only be alive if you are cared for and wanted.

      Otherwise, you need to be dead.

      • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 2:09:00 PM

        Do you mean like the brain damaged veterans from Iraq that Republicans refuse to provide for with adequate funding? They were rounded up and stuck in rat infested hovels. Before Republicans suggest bringing more people into the world they should help care for those they sent of to war. It is easy to spout of caring words for people who have never been born and who you will never meet.

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:19:16 PM

          Sure, there's always some equivalency argument, some strawman you can set up why it's okay for you to murder innocent babies.

          • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 6:23:50 AM

            jim you are a white supremacist who said in another post that you wanted to kill all blacks! You know what? you need to spend some time in a penitentiary doing pennance for your sins! You expressed a desire to murder a group of innocent blacks!

            I bet you learned that in the bible in your white supremacist church didnt ya? where they teach you to hate people of other ethnic groups and murder them because they are different from you just like in the old testament right?

            You need liberation desperately! There can be no salvation without liberation!

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:21:54 AM

              Garbage. I never said any such thing.

              I'm a Catholic. A very white supremacist church, especially all of them in Africa.

          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:19:45 PM

            Hey kids, today's word is "strawman." Use it and you can deflect any criticism that comes at you.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:19:29 AM

              Well, any criticism that's a strawman.

              Which amounts to all your arguments that aren't ad hominem.

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 6:09:48 PM

            People are murdering babies? That's awful. They should be thrown under the jail. However, abortion is not "murdering babies".

      • Posted By: No Pain No Gain 101 @ 08/26/2008 3:05:06 PM

        So you believe the Republicans will increase taxes to pay for 1.5 million unwanted children to insure they have medical care and child care. Or, they will support the parent(s) so that they can clothe, feed, and house their child. They will create ways for the parent(s) to become financially able to support the child. They will put in place all the support unwilling parent(s) would need to raise the child in a safe environment. Or, 1.5 million unwanted children will become wards of the state and magically grow up to become loving and caring human beings. Oh, by the way, how would the following 1.5 million unwanted children be taken care of. I do not complain about sharing what I have, but according to most voters they already barely can afford cable, booze, tobacco, SUV, fast food, central air, etc... Voting to bring unwanted children into the world may put you first in line at the Pearly Gates, but somehow I wonder what Jesus would think of our priorities. You are living in a one room residence and devoting all your wealth to help the less fortunate right? You must be using the computer at the orphanage you helped establish right? I am not advocating abortion, but I am wondering why preventing them is more important than taking care of the unwanted children already here! That makes about as much sense as worrying about terrorists when we have open borders and ports. First things first!

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:20:57 PM

          We are not here talking about taking care of children. That is an entirely separate issue, used only to dilute the fact that you want to continue the practice of murdering the unborn for your own selfish reasons.

          I do not know what kind of life an unwanted child would have, but how am I to know it will be terrible? Maybe it would be wonderful, And maybe, just maybe, you don't get to decide.

          There are lots of people in this world whose lives I think are wretched-- does that give me the right to kill them?

          Your argument is just plain dumb.

          • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 6:06:30 AM

            You are not in charge of carrying and birthing children that is not your biological role so you are not qualified to speak about the issue of abortion as far as I am concerned. And you are not entitled to make decisions about reproduction for women either even though you have been wrongly indoctrinated by your religion to belive that you are supposed to emotionally manipulate women with guilt in order to control their reproductive choices. If you are so concerned about the abortions that women have do women a favor and get a vasectomy so that you wont spread your seed around like a pollenating bee!

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 6:08:25 PM

            It's not murder. We don't accept your stupid premise and thus your argument is moot. You can think of abortion as murder. Go for it. In fact, don't have one if you are so against it. Meanwhile, the majority of us rational folks will continue to set rational policy.

          • Posted By: No Pain No Gain 101 @ 08/26/2008 6:02:22 PM

            Of course we are talking about taking care of children. When a pregnency is carried to term they usually end with the birth of a child.

            You are comfortable with 1.5 million unwanted children maybe having a wretched life because it just may be possible for them to have a wonderful life? This trumps taking care of the unwanted children already here. No serious discussion of the views and beliefs of the unwilling parents. You are the final word because you are absolutely sure God wants to mass produce without compassion for those who made poor choices in the first place. Free will is the burden the human species is stuck with and we often make horrible decisions. You may be correct that God wants us to procreate as all his other life on earth and merely further by way of survival of the fitist.

            You know what is in my heart and the heart of anyone who would rather take care of our own lifes and others who are already in need. My free will is to urge my fellow man to leave this planet better than we found it and show compassion for those who need comfort and aid. God will judge how selfish I am and if your accusing people of murder justifies looking the other way about every other exploytation of man. Voters can decide for themselves if abortion beliefs outway all other qualities for creating a society we can all live in. And maybe, just maybe, you don't get to decide.

            You say abortion is the practice of murdering the unborn for selfish reasons. Instead you will urge the public to overturn Roe v. Wade and bring 1.5 million unwanted children into the world every year. Is this to dilute the fact that you are selfish and desire to prove to God that you are more holy than the misguided who become pregnant and at this particular time in their life they feel it is their only option and currently they lack your moral fortitude?

            By the way, your argument is just plain dumb.

  • Posted By: PollySigh @ 08/26/2008 1:14:15 PM

    The principle that 'the laws must extend to everyone' means they must extend to ev ery PERSON. A fetus is not a person. I'm not saying it is not a human being.. that is a semantic or philosopical argument. 'Person' is a legal term, and a human becaomes a person at birth, and that is not at all 'arbitrary'. Furthermore antiabortionsist refues to look at the insurmountable diffculties of declaring an embryo to be a person. For the first two weeks of its existence no one knows it exists.. not a doctor, not the woman carrying it, no one!
    The embryo/fetus is indeed distinct biologically from the woman carrying it. Anti-abortionsists think this should settle the srgumant. IT DOES NOT! the issue is about forced childbirth. And as for the reader who said 'any woman who has sex is consenting to childbirth' then presumably he would allow abortion in cases of rape? But most antiabortiionists oppose a rape exception.
    Antiabortuionsists refuse to recognize that their stance puts a burden on women which is not only unfair, but outrageous. Yes, women should use contraception. Yes, they should avoid casual sex. But even if they fail in these objectives, 9 months of pregnancy, 70 hours of labor and a lifetime drastically altered is much too high a punishment for this 'mistake'. This was what Obama was talking about when he said that he very much hoped his daughters woul dbehave responsibly, but if they faioed too, forced motherhood was much too great a punishment. Abortion must remain legal.. and no biological lectures are going to change that. This is indeed a legal and ethical debate, not a biological one.

    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 1:46:21 PM

      According to this one, if no one knows you exist, you are not a person.

      You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

      • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 2:05:17 PM

        Actually, George W. Bush uses this logic to imprison citizens of western democracies in secret Eastern European prisons. Because no one knew they existed, he felt free to torture human beings without trial or evidence. So you actually could come up with this stuff. Bush already did.

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:06:55 PM

          How are you people going to justify your bankrupt souls once George Bush leaves office?

          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 2:41:28 PM

            By putting Bush and Cheney on trial at the Hague.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:53:52 PM

              Yeah, good luck with that.

              Talk about believing in fairy tales.

              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:11:51 PM

                You're right, most evil in this world goes unpunished.

                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:18:23 AM

                  Right, like you abortion murderers won't pay for your crimes.

                  Well, not right away anyway.

          • Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 08/26/2008 2:38:26 PM

            Obviously you are a man! and not a very intelligent one.. Keep belieing in your fairy tales and superstitions, but please, don't force force them down our throats. You will never, ever stop women from having a abortion if they want to. by the way, how many unwanted kids have you adopted??? Your hypocrisy is mind boggling!

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:53:16 PM

              This is the internet, so I could say I adopted 6.

              But I won't. Because I've only adopted 2.

              • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:03:32 PM

                Two children who have to grow up with you as a father? Yikes. At least it's not six.

                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:17:28 AM

                  Another strong argument for abortion.

                  Best you can do, I guess.

                  Still, from a guy who flatters himself every other post as a genius, you'd think ad hominem attacks would be beneath your super large intellect.

                  Rather, it's all you have.

  • Posted By: Serenla @ 08/26/2008 12:38:48 PM

    If you believe in God and the immortal human soul and heaven and hell, you probably believe that life begins at conception. There are Americans who don???t believe the same way. (Yes, yes, my fundamentalist friends, I know we???re all wrong and should listen to you because YOU have the TRUTH.)

    There are those of us who believe that there should be legal late-term, even yes, partial-birth abortions in instances where the mother???s health will be compromised, or the child faces horrible birth defects.

    Further, I don???t consider a fetus to be a child. My view is that a fetus is a parasite up until it can support itself outside the womb, and it should be nurtured or disposed of at a pregnant woman's discretion. (And in some cases, even if it CAN support itself, a partial birth abortion (call it infanticide, I still hold with it) still might be the more humane option. Your argument that a kid with a horrible painful deformation that probably has little chance of surviving past 5 years old has the right to be born and live in agony every second??? it doesn???t ring true for everyone.

    It???s a horrible thing to suggest that we force a woman into motherhood who has no desire to ever bear children. Even forcing her to go through a pregnancy and then put the offspring up for adoption is a horrible affront to her civil liberties. With the globe already suffering from overpopulation, it???s time to put your ???be fruitful and multiply??? dogma to rest. Let those of us who don???t buy into your beliefs opt out of the reproductive cycle and self-extinguish. Leave abortions legal. Repeal the ban on partial-birth abortions.

    • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 7:20:33 AM

      There are women in hunter-gatherer societies in Africa who practice abortion because the child has a horrible birth defect. This is not criminalized by the community at all because it is a private matter for the woman. If she comes out of that bush after giving labor without a child, no one will attack her for it or force her to keep the child. That would be ridiculous since she is the one who assumes the risk of pregancy.

      • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:15:09 AM

        Yes, let us pretend there has not been thousands of years of civilization and follow along with a bunch of people who haven't yet invented the midwife.

        This is what passes for intelligence amoung leftists.

    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 12:42:13 PM

      Nobody forces a mother into chldbirth.

      She forces herself into it when she chooses to have sex.

      • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 7:25:50 AM

        Screw you jim! women are not breeding machines and procreation is not the only goal of having sex. I can tell how much organized religion has brainwashed you from your statements! You should practice celibacy and not have sex with women, in fact I cant imagine any woman that would want to lay down with you! Yuck!

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:12:43 AM

          Believe me, I can;t imagine there's anyone here who'd sleep with you.

          Seeing how you think so little of both your mate and your offspring.

          Also, you're stupid.

      • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 1:03:19 PM

        Perhaps if your party did not fight so hard against birth control and sexual education women would be in a position to make more informed decisions about sexual activity.

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 1:43:06 PM

          Sure, it's everybody's fault a woman gets pregnant except the person spreading her legs.

          • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 2:11:03 PM

            I don't think you will ever have to worry about a woman spreading her legs as long as you are around.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:10:27 AM

              This is the intellectual argument for abortion.

              Meaning: there is none.

            • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 7:28:16 AM

              HAHAHAHA, right on!

          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 1:53:12 PM

            Of course the man doesn't have anything to do with this, right. Oppose birth control for women, but Viva Viagra!!!

            Here's a fun fact from the Bible: After a battle, God let you kill all the males, "experienced" women, but the virgins were yours for the taking. Little girls weren't jail bait back then, they were plunder. Ah, the good old days of yore.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 1:57:51 PM

              Well, I think it's the pro-choicers who say the man has nothing to do with it-- since he has nothing to say, according to them, about the life and death of his own offspring.

              And keep hating on the Bible. I have made no arguments here that use the Bible as a moral agent. Your own blind bigotry is all you're really showing.

              • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 7:37:08 AM

                Well now to be fair a man can choose in the life and death of his own offspring when he can bear them on his own....but as long as the female is the owner of the womb of creation, I think that its very fair for her to make that decision whether the man agrees or not. And if the man insists that the woman have the child then he should sign an agreement committing to provide generous support to "his" offspring until the age of 21.

                Do you think the folks that believe in pro-life including the government will be ready to step up to the plate and provide substantial material and social support for a child until s/he reaches adulthood? If the pro-life folks, the men who inseminate the women and the government cannot assure these guarantees then they need to shut the hell up and stop trying to infringe on the woman's right to choose!

                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:09:45 AM

                  She agrees to the responsibility of carrying a baby when she chooses to have sex with a man.

                  After that, sorry, his child is just as much his as it is hers.

              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 2:42:49 PM

                Your cloaking device is not working. Your religious motivations are obvious, as is your desire to enforce your version of morality on others.

                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:58:57 PM

                  I have just as much right to try and force my version of morality as you have.

                  So far, you have not made a single cogent arguemnt why your morality is even moral.

                  Basically, it amounts to we should be able to murder babies because we feel like it.

                  Well, there are laws against murder and there will soon be laws against abortion.

                  And that will be a happy day for everyone who has a shred of human decency left in them.

                  • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 7:41:36 AM

                    The day that Roe VS Wade is overturned is the day that women will engineer a social revolution of the likes that you could never imagine. You will end up losing your civil rights if you continue to make those kinds of threats.

                  • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:14:30 PM

                    Cogent is apparently in the eye of the beholder. As Stephen Colbert has said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

                    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:24:19 PM

                      Yes, Colbert, that great western philosopher.

                      Maybe you can dig further into your studies and quote the Simpsons next.

                      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:40:23 PM

                        I know you favor Ann Coulter. She's your kind of intellectual. And she's hot!

          • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 1:50:03 PM

            And the intellegence of your argument demonstrates the merit of your view.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 1:53:54 PM

              And pray tell, where does the intelligence of my argument fail?

              Seem to me you have no answer at all for the pro-life argument and are reduced to blaming government funding for your total lack of decency and morality.

              • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 4:13:43 PM

                The are answers but you have to LISTEN to hear them. You are too convinced that you are correct to hear anything other then your own voice. You are not pro life, you are anti abortion. The difference being that your concern for life and moral superiority ends at birth.
                What gives you the impression that because you belive one way that anyone who has another opinion lacks decency and morality? Oh, I remember, you are a Republican, how can you be wrong?

                • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 7:46:01 AM

                  Good point because jimmy boy made another post saying how much he would love to kill all black people! He doesnt care about life at all he only wants to have a psychopathic control over who gets to live and who gets to die because he has womb envy and was taught how to hate and destroy anything different from the white supremacist worldview.

                  • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/29/2008 1:07:28 AM

                    I said no such thing you piece of garbage.

  • Posted By: JoanR @ 08/27/2008 10:48:31 PM

    The issue they are dodging is much more fundamental than abortion.Their crazed supporters in pressure groups like Planned Parenthood make no distinction between abortion and infanticide and Democrats like Obama are their prisoner.The idea that a baby who has survived the abortion process should be denied medical attention or have its brain suctioned out is repulsive and so are the Democrats who promote these atrocities

    • Posted By: dark.energy363 @ 08/28/2008 1:49:39 PM

      Crazed supporters...like those who kill doctors, becuase "god" told them to. You people need to keep your religion off of other peoples bodies.

      • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/28/2008 7:22:17 PM

        dark,

        Jean didn't mention people who kill doctors, God, or religion for that matter.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/28/2008 7:28:36 PM

          My apologies.. It's Joan.

      • Posted By: oakdog6079 @ 08/28/2008 6:42:46 PM

        Ok... the point of this article was that people like you stop using the straw man argument that the pro-life side is all about religion and that you start engaging the actual pro-life arguments that are both scientific and philosophical (reason based). So please keep this discussion on target.

  • Posted By: Davole @ 08/28/2008 6:28:20 PM

    Dems choose Obama in thunderous acclamation
    Yahoo News by David Espo, AP Special Correspondent Wed Aug 27, 7:18 PM ET

    Clinton's call for Obama to be approved by acclamation ??? midway through the traditional roll call of the states ??? was the culmination of a painstaking agreement worked out between the two camps to present a unified front.


    My commentary:

    So, democrats, in order to portray a false unification, schemed to allow politics to trump the democratic process.

    And they are insulted when people don???t refer to them as the democrat(ic) party!

    Yes, the truth is offensive to the democrat party!

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/28/2008 6:41:06 PM

      There is nothing un-democratic by a voice vote. It is done in Congress a lot of the time. I am sorry you were disapointed that no one voted "ney"

  • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 3:31:24 AM

    Neither the legislative nor judicial branches or government have the authority to abridge the reproductive choices of women. The catholic church does not have the moral authority to impose its hypocritical sanctity of life doctrine on women either as it has been used as a tool of patriarchal oppression of women for over two thousand years while tyrannical heads of tribes or nation states have engaged in endless holy wars committing acts of genocide, murdering innocent women and children who actually exist as human beings outside of the womb. Ask the tens of thousands of innocent children who have been killed in Iraq if they wanted to live , would they have said no? Did these children have a choice? Are their lives just as valuable as the life of an American citizen? Why is it that the media does not show the christian majority population of the United States the reality of war and the loss of innocent lives through pictures and stories from the families who have experienced this horror?

    I can hardly imagine that aborting a fetus, (which although may be a living organism in a biological sense is not a full fledged, developed human being), would be regarded as murder compared to the example presented above.

    In addition, we have a grave problem with overpopulation that places stresses on the natural environment. The continued growth of worldwide populations will exacerbate the ecological problems we are faced with currently. Global warming is just one of our ecological crises the other is the continued growth of human population groups. Women are central to curbing overpopulation around the world using various family planning- reproductive strategies which must include the choice of abortion. But men should and can assist by obtaining vasectomies and other technologies that are innovated by scientific discovery. Abstinence alone does not work, and it is not natural to humans.

    In conclusion, a woman who chooses to obtain an abortion is not in violation of any spiritual or natural law because the woman is the divine embodiment of creation and has the power over life and death. Whether the woman chooses to bring forth life or not has no bearing on her morality. In fact, she would be working in cooperation with nature to regulate the species of the planet understanding that in the natural world there are limits to natural resources. As as biological organism we ought to comprehend that everything has a life cycle and that death and life are merely part of the same continuum. However, deliberately killing innocent human beings that exist outside of the womb in wars of conquest and for territorial expansion is the real moral issue, but is correlated to overpopulation and societies where males seek to control the female's reproductive choices.


    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/27/2008 4:38:57 PM

      In addition, we have a grave problem with overpopulation that places stresses on the natural environment. The continued growth of worldwide populations will exacerbate the ecological problems we are faced with currently. Global warming is just one of our ecological crises the other is the continued growth of human population groups. Women are central to curbing overpopulation around the world using various family planning- reproductive strategies which must include the choice of abortion. But men should and can assist by obtaining vasectomies and other technologies that are innovated by scientific discovery. Abstinence alone does not work, and it is not natural to humans.

      So your justification is to save the planet instead of human life???. Your form of Eugenics is mindboggling??? so when it comes down to saving the planet which race should be exterminated first?

      In conclusion, a woman who chooses to obtain an abortion is not in violation of any spiritual or natural law because the woman is the divine embodiment of creation and has the power over life and death. Whether the woman chooses to bring forth life or not has no bearing on her morality. In fact, she would be working in cooperation with nature to regulate the species of the planet understanding that in the natural world there are limits to natural resources. As as biological organism we ought to comprehend that everything has a life cycle and that death and life are merely part of the same continuum.

      So you are saying that only woman have this choice over life and death? Who appointed her this supreme authority? Then why should men be forced to pay child support if they didn???t have the choice of bringing life into this world?
      However, deliberately killing innocent human beings that exist outside of the womb in wars of conquest and for territorial expansion is the real moral issue, but is correlated to overpopulation and societies where males seek to control the female's reproductive choices.

      Your sense of what is moral and what is not moral is in total disregard of common sense and only showcases your self-centeredness and lack of compassion for others???.

      • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/28/2008 12:05:00 AM

        bojack, I am scratching my head wondering if you have reading comprehension issues to extract the conclusions that you did from my statements. I recommend that you re-read and slowly digest my comments so as to fully comprendend the core issues that I have presented.

        Meanwhile, to answer your question about the supreme authority of the female in matters of reproductive and sexual selection yes she does have that natural authority as a biological endowment by virtue of being female. That is a law of nature that at one time was perverted in western culture, but not all cultures have violated this natural law. The abortion issue really has nothing to do with men so I wonder why so many men think that they are entititled to have a say in the reproductive choices of women.

        Why dont you instead focus on controlling your sexual urges to spead your seed and then you wont have to worry about abortion. If you personally are concerned about women becoming pregnant and having a baby because you dont want to pay child support, then use a condom, get a vastecomy or take the male birth control pill. You have reproductive choices too! But stop trying to usurp female authority in her own reproductive choices ok?

        Otherwise, women may have to press for legislation to mandate that males wear condoms, get a vasectomy or take male birth control bills to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Or as the present laws justly require, that men pay child support in the event that they get a woman pregnant and she decides to NOT have an abortion.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 11:11:58 AM

          Comment: bojack, I am scratching my head wondering if you have reading comprehension issues to extract the conclusions that you did from my statements. I recommend that you re-read and slowly digest my comments so as to fully comprendend the core issues that I have presented.

          There is no need to re-read your post this is what you proclaimed from the offset that you and only you have the right to decide the outcome of the population???. ???Women are central to curbing overpopulation around the world using various family planning- reproductive strategies which must include the choice of abortion.???

          Meanwhile, to answer your question about the supreme authority of the female in matters of reproductive and sexual selection yes she does have that natural authority as a biological endowment by virtue of being female.

          The only authority that a woman has is to provide a safe environment (womb) where a child is to flourish and develop???. You totally disregard the fact that a woman cannot get pregnant by herself??? she must receive the seed from the man???. And when she receives something that is from another it doesn???t just make it hers alone but both are responsible for the unborn??? No one gave a woman control over another human???s life and neither should a man have control over the un-born??? the unborn are to be treated with dignity and not at the whimsical emotions of a female bent on a grasp for supreme power over mankind! We should as a whole respect all life and give no one power over the choice of who lives and who doesn???t??? Your Eugenic viewpoints are disturbing and are bent on racist philosophies of a superior race???.

          • Posted By: venusian424 @ 08/28/2008 12:26:59 PM

            You are unreal. You are misunderstandig the concepts and viewpoints this woman is pointing out. Who said anything about race? She is talking about the SPECIES! The human species. She is essentially pointing out the natural rights that a woman possesses through being ordained the function of procreation from a biological perspective. And because Essencia points that out that does not mean she is a racist. What she is saying has nothing to do with racism. I see you have great difficulty comprehending what she has written.

            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 3:13:40 PM

              Comment: You are unreal. You are misunderstandig the concepts and viewpoints this woman is pointing out. Who said anything about race?

              Do I misunderstand or do I expound on them more??? she stated this ???In addition, we have a grave problem with overpopulation that places stresses on the natural environment. The continued growth of worldwide populations will exacerbate the ecological problems we are faced with currently. Global warming is just one of our ecological crises the other is the continued growth of human population groups. Women are central to curbing overpopulation around the world using various family planning- reproductive strategies which must include the choice of abortion.???

              Here is the definition of Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[2] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

              Now here is what she stated about resources ???In fact, she would be working in cooperation with nature to regulate the species of the planet understanding that in the natural world there are limits to natural resources.???

              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 3:18:08 PM

                She is talking about the SPECIES! The human species. She is essentially pointing out the natural rights that a woman possesses through being ordained the function of procreation from a biological perspective.

                I also pointed out that the woman cannot procreate without the function of receiving sperm from a male donor and thus both are ordained to carry out the role from a biological perspective. The woman alone doesn???t bare this sole responsibility but shares it with the man. Her role is to safe guards that which is given to her and not claim sole possession of the right to terminate a man???s seed base upon her whimsical feelings.

                And because Essencia points that out that does not mean she is a racist.
                I didn???t call her a racist ??? I said, ???Your Eugenic viewpoints are disturbing and are bent on racist philosophies of a superior race.??? And I stand by what I said???. Hitler used Eugenics in his justification of killing Jews???.

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 3:26:43 PM

                  Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories:
                  Positive eugenics is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[10]
                  Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[10]
                  Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by "fit" women was illegal in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign.
                  During the 20th century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including:
                  ??? Genetic screening
                  ??? Birth control
                  ??? Promoting differential birth rates
                  ??? Marriage restrictions
                  ??? Segregation (both racial segregation as well as segregation of the mentally ill from the normal)
                  ??? Compulsory sterilization
                  ??? Forced abortions, or, conversely, forced pregnancies
                  ??? Genocide
                  Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive and/or restrictive, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labeled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance (however labeled). However, some private organizations assist people in genetic counseling, and reprogenetics may be considered as a form of non-state-enforced "liberal" eugenics.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 3:30:10 PM

                    What she is saying has nothing to do with racism. I see you have great difficulty comprehending what she has written.

                    What she is saying goes beyond racism???. It goes into infanticide, worshipping nature, placing resources above human life, playing God and making herself a goddess???




                    The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies influential during the early twentieth century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. Some forms of infanticide in ancient societies, present-day reprogenetics, preemptive abortions and designer babies have been (sometimes controversially) referred to as eugenic.
                    Because of its normative goals and historical association with scientific racism, as well as the development of the science of genetics, the western scientific community has mostly disassociated itself from the term "eugenics", although one can find advocates of what is now known as liberal eugenics. Despite its ongoing criticism in the United States, several regions globally practice different forms of eugenics.
                    Eugenicists advocate specific policies that (if successful) they believe will lead to a perceived improvement of the human gene pool. Since defining what improvements are desired or beneficial is perceived by many as a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively (e.g., by empirical, scientific inquiry), eugenics has often been deemed a pseudoscience[9]. The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. This aspect of eugenics has historically been tainted with scientific racism.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 3:34:14 PM

                      Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors that often correlated strongly with social class. Many eugenicists took inspiration from the selective breeding of animals (where purebreds are often strived for) as their analogy for improving human society. The mixing of races (or miscegenation) was usually considered as something to be avoided in the name of racial purity. At the time this concept appeared to have some scientific support, and it remained a contentious issue until the advanced development of genetics led to a scientific consensus that the division of the human species into unequal races is unjustifiable.

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 3:23:37 PM

                  Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories:
                  Positive eugenics is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[10]
                  Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[10]
                  Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by "fit" women was illegal in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign.
                  During the 20th century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including:
                  ??? Genetic screening
                  ??? Birth control
                  ??? Promoting differential birth rates
                  ??? Marriage restrictions
                  ??? Segregation (both racial segregation as well as segregation of the mentally ill from the normal)
                  ??? Compulsory sterilization
                  ??? Forced abortions, or, conversely, forced pregnancies
                  ??? Genocide
                  Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive and/or restrictive, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labeled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance (however labeled). However, some private organizations assist people in genetic counseling, and reprogenetics may be considered as a form of non-state-enforced "liberal" eugenics.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 11:13:36 AM

          Otherwise, women may have to press for legislation to mandate that males wear condoms, get a vasectomy or take male birth control bills to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Or as the present laws justly require, that men pay child support in the event that they get a woman pregnant and she decides to NOT have an abortion.

          Maybe we have to get legislation on the mental stability of a woman to see if she can be fit to raise a child???. If found un-fit then we could sterilize those who don???t want children???. Sounds just as stupid as what you have said above???. As our constitution dictates that all men are created equal then one sex shouldn???t have control over the life or death of the unborn but the male should either since all are created equal???. Even the unborn???. The laws you describe are correct in making men pay child support???.. but it is also wrong in allowing a woman to abort a child???.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/28/2008 11:12:44 AM

          That is a law of nature that at one time was perverted in western culture, but not all cultures have violated this natural law. The abortion issue really has nothing to do with men so I wonder why so many men think that they are entititled to have a say in the reproductive choices of women.
          If a man kills a woman who is with child?????? Read the news,???. It happens almost every month that some man is killing a pregnant woman because he doesn???t want to be held down with responsibilities or some other stupid reason??? yet you say that they have no right according to the natural law???. So would you advise men to kill woman? The laws of nature say it is the survival of the fittest???. The laws of nature says kill or be killed??? the laws of nature says there is no law giving rights to anyone???. Even male lions killed the young of other males once they take over a tribe???. So when following the laws of nature we are to kill the young of woman and ??????. Etc???. See how stupid your laws of nature sounds if you literally believe and follow the true laws of nature???


          Why dont you instead focus on controlling your sexual urges to spead your seed and then you wont have to worry about abortion. If you personally are concerned about women becoming pregnant and having a baby because you dont want to pay child support, then use a condom, get a vastecomy or take the male birth control pill. You have reproductive choices too! But stop trying to usurp female authority in her own reproductive choices ok?

          Why don???t you close your legs then you would have total control over when you want to get pregnant! Child support is irrelevant because I wouldn???t kill an innocent child like you ???. Usurp means to take by deceitful means???. If you had legitimate authority over the life of the unborn then and only then could I usurp your so-called authority???

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 08/27/2008 4:38:15 PM

      Comment:

      Neither the legislative nor judicial branches or government have the authority to abridge the reproductive choices of women.

      If this statement is true then why did the judicial branch give the right to women to abort children?

      Ask the tens of thousands of innocent children who have been killed in Iraq if they wanted to live , would they have said no?

      Why don???t you ask the million of children around the world (42 million a year) did they want to live?

      Did these children have a choice?
      Do the unborn have a choice?

      Are their lives just as valuable as the life of an American citizen?
      All life is valuable even the unborn!

      Why is it that the media does not show the christian majority population of the United States the reality of war and the loss of innocent lives through pictures and stories from the families who have experienced this horror?
      We see the pictures of war???.. do you see the pictures of abortion?

      I can hardly imagine that aborting a fetus, (which although may be a living organism in a biological sense is not a full fledged, developed human being), would be regarded as murder compared to the example presented above.

      You are wrong???. So with people who are handicap you don???t consider them to be full fledged, developed human beings? Neither did Hitler and he murdered them???

  • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 08/27/2008 1:44:29 PM

    Pelosi and Obama , with Biden are running for cover! Biden shed his alligator tears! This ticket is entirely Left-Wing and it don't care about life. Biden allowed crime and violence until Americans grasped his views of gun control. Until we agreed with Biden we would be stabbed, beat raped shot and broke into, or so that was his plan!
    ( Luckily the states took unilateral anti- crime measures!).
    Why should Biden care about the innocent victims of abortion or street crime when the leftist, radical view is revolution must come threw violence!
    Ask Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist! Abortions victims, street crimes victims?We're all just the bleeding fodder of the attainment of weird world views entertained by losers and friends of Obama.

    • Posted By: dark.energy363 @ 08/28/2008 2:23:16 PM

      And the right cares about life. Give me a break. Isnt this the same party who concocted a reason to invade a soverign country in order to make it into a national gas station. You guys condemned thousand of our young men to their deaths, for what? To fatten your wallets. How dare you criticize anyone, you have NO moral authority.

    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 4:43:33 PM

      So what's your world view? How do things work in your fantasy of America? I would really like to know.

      Ok, let's say you ban all abortions. Are you then going to ban all forms of birth control too? And should abstinence be made illegal for married couples? Should women have to establish their virginity prior to marriage? Should miscarriages and still births be routinely be investigated for evidence of "murder?" Should sex education--including abstinence--be banned in all schools, because if your even mention sex, it will make the kids think about it? Should HIV-positive people be branded with a red A on their forehead? Should adulterers be stoned at the city limits? Would you like to televise the execution of abortion providerers and recipients? Would you like to serve as the executioner? Can a father kill his born children if they are disobedient and still be pro-life? Is genocide acceptable if the targeted people are Muslim? Should all minorities be presumed guilty until proved otherwise? Would you like to see a nuclear attack on Iran in the next few months? Would you like to send all liberals (Democrats) to concentration camps? How about a final solution for all those people who you think hate America--and make you the the-un-happyamerican?

      Just askin'.

      • Posted By: venusian424 @ 08/27/2008 9:59:29 PM

        It's a MAD MAD MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD isn't it? And when I listen people's logic and reasoning on some of these issues its frightening to say the least!

  • Posted By: Phil08 @ 08/28/2008 1:18:33 PM

    BAMBI BUILDS BUCHENWALD

    BAMBI stands up and say's, I am the one who voted yes to the born alive bill-I was the chairman and voted yes to save the children-he is a liar .He was question on this bill and his day camp said no, that bill was not the same. All three were the
    same and BAMBI votes to inject multiculturalism into the U.S. with all diabolizing elements.

    The Socialists knows the Bible better than America when they strive for, ??? A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND???



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

    http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p7zsxXnNldU

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SAgu0gUODKU&feature=related

    IS AMERICA THAT ELITIST, THAT WE CAN SCOLD HITLER FOR WHAT HE
    HAS DONE TO HUMAN LIFE, WHILE WE HERE IN AMERICA SLAUGHTER LIFE IN THE VERY
    PLACE WHERE IT BEGINS?

    WHAT IS THE MODUS THAT GRIPS A FEMALE//POLITICIAN TO COMMITT//SANCTION THE ACT OF HUMAN ABORTION?

    http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Induced-abortion-results-in-years-of-trauma--6221-1/



  • Posted By: Phil08 @ 08/28/2008 1:18:11 PM

    BAMBI BUILDS BUCHENWALD

    BAMBI stands up and say's, I am the one who voted yes to the born alive bill-I was the chairman and voted yes to save the children-he is a liar .He was question on this bill and his day camp said no, that bill was not the same. All three were the
    same and BAMBI votes to inject multiculturalism into the U.S. with all diabolizing elements.

    The Socialists knows the Bible better than America when they strive for, ??? A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND???



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

    http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p7zsxXnNldU

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SAgu0gUODKU&feature=related

    IS AMERICA THAT ELITIST, THAT WE CAN SCOLD HITLER FOR WHAT HE
    HAS DONE TO HUMAN LIFE, WHILE WE HERE IN AMERICA SLAUGHTER LIFE IN THE VERY
    PLACE WHERE IT BEGINS?

    WHAT IS THE MODUS THAT GRIPS A FEMALE//POLITICIAN TO COMMITT//SANCTION THE ACT OF HUMAN ABORTION?

    http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Induced-abortion-results-in-years-of-trauma--6221-1/



  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 08/26/2008 8:47:53 PM

    NEW YORK TIMES September 11, 2001

    No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen
    By DINITIA SMITH
    Published: September 11, 2001

    '"I don't regret setting bombs,'" Bill Ayers said. '"I feel we didn't do enough.'" Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

    HUSSEIN...YOU HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP, WITH THIS TRASH......TELL THE TRUTH......We feel YOU haven't done enough.....

    NOBAMA!!!

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:49:08 PM

      He's back...and the collective IQ of the board drops precipitously.

      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 8:55:22 PM

        Didn't the guys that shot doctors and bombed clinics pretty much feel the same way? They didn't do enough, and they wished they could kill more people?

        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:26:25 PM

          Yeah, and if John McCain was buddies with them, I'd seriously question his judgement.

          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 11:39:20 PM

            Yeah but he was buddies with the minister John Hagee, a man who dreams of a day when the Israel and America will work together to nuke the Middle East and thereby bring Armageddon to the Earth.

            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:43:55 PM

              Please, the Hagee business is a joke. Especially with the Rev Wright's book about to come out.

              Won't that be fun.

              Obama should drop 10 points the minute those quotes become available.

              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 11:48:30 PM

                Hagee's wish might just come to fruition. Bomb, bomb, bomb--bomb, bomb Iran.

                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:54:44 PM

                  It won't work. The Hagee nonsense falls flat. He was thrown out there ot make an equivalency argument and it failed miserably. The tactic will continue to fail miserably, But Wright and his racist and anti-American rhetoric will be the anchor that drags down Obama. And no amount of screaming about Hagee will change that.

                  • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 12:05:58 AM

                    Bomb, bomb, bomb--bomb, bomb Iran. Here's to $300 a barrel oil in 2009! At least McCain won't have to worry about running for re-election in 2012.

                    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/27/2008 12:12:46 AM

                      Bomb, bomb, bomb.

                      Like Clinton bombing an aspirin factory. And Kosovo.

                      And a bunch of tents.

                      And Iraq dozens of times.

                      And, well, those bombs don;t matter.

                      Only Republican bombs matter.

                      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 12:21:34 AM

                        Hey what ever happened to that bad guy, Osama? I hear he's alive and well in NW Pakistan. W said he wanted him dead or alive. Looks like "alive" won out. Matters in Iraq were obviously much more pressing.

                        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 7:25:59 AM

                          And your point? In case you haven't noticed, Bl is ineffective. No attacks in 8 years... You fret way too much over him. He is either dead, or he's hiding under a hijab somewhere in Pakistan. Either way, I could care less.

                          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 4:54:31 PM

                            WTC, 1993 to 2001--8 years. "You fret ..." Wow, he's re-grouping in Pakistan and he might even be able to overthrow the government and gain access to their nuclear arsenal. I don't know if you've been following current events in Pakistan over the last year, Sparky, but you should be scared (scared as in unable to defecate).

                            Of course, why worry if the intelligence reports indicate terrorists are still dead set on attacking us--there's brush to clear around the ranch!

                            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 5:44:54 PM

                              Re-grouping? lol We were getting hit on a regular basis until 9/11. But... we'll go ahead and use your Clintonism...

                              "After Bin laden got his ass kicked, he cowered to Pakistan where he hasn't been seen in 8 years. Since then, he has "chosen" not to attack the US.

                              Happy now?

                              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 8:46:09 PM

                                It's your choice to close your eyes, the rest of us know where America's real enemy is. Osama kills close to 3000 people and your like, whatever, that was then, this is now, nothing's happened in 8 years so we're safe. What are you, one of them pacifists?

                                And he has chosen to attack the US, just he's doing in Iraq and now Afghanistan. A dead American GI from an IED is still a dead American. Or is it that your glad it's somebody else's kid that is dying for your freedom (and complacence)?

                                Yea and tell me you know anything about the volatile situation in Pakistan. I'm sure you know that the new government is trying to make peace with the members of the tribal areas that shelter Bin Laden.

                                • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 9:38:02 PM

                                  Ok, babel all you want.... proof is proof... we haven't had an attack in eight years. I know you would like to have seen an attack on the US since 9/11 to prove your point, but it just hasn't happened.

                                  Give it up, why don't you?

                                  • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 9:42:51 PM

                                    And so you hate the Iraq war... all of us do. Take to an 'I hate the Iraq War' board here at Newsweek... there's plenty of them.

                                    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 9:49:47 PM

                                      The 100 kiloton airburst above your city--it will likely be a bomb with its origin in Pakistan. Maybe you should educate yourself about A.Q. Khan is. Point of information--he's not the bad guy in the Star Trek movie.

                                      • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 11:03:31 PM

                                        Wow! you're a fortune teller too!

                                        • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 12:28:44 AM

                                          No, I just read the foreign policy and military literature. This is not exactly a secret.

                                          • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/28/2008 7:21:10 AM

                                            Once more.... and the best you have for no attacks on the US in eight years is because BL hasn't wanted to?

                                            • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 12:33:24 PM

                                              So correlation equals causation.

                                              1. Bush has been president for the last 8 years.
                                              2. During that time, 9/11, Katrina, the tanking of the economy happened, and the Cubs still haven't made it to the world series.

                                              Therefore, Bush is to blame for the events of these 8 years, right? I don't believe this, do you?

                                              Of course, should Obama be elected, and there is a terrorist attack, then IT'S THE FAULT OF OBAMA AND THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

                                              I McCain is elected and it happens, then it's a justification for attacking Iran (the next state over from Pakistan).

                                    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 10:00:02 PM

                                      Where's the inept planning for the Iraq board at Newsweek. Where you can discuss why it took 5 years to come up for the surge strategy? Oh well, at least the upcoming invasion of Iran will be a cake walk.

                                      • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 11:02:49 PM

                                        No one has said the war was perfect... wars don't usually go that way. But unlike you, most of us want a solution to end the conflict. You want to find fault and assign blame.

                                        • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 12:37:31 AM

                                          Hell yes,. Those who do not learn from their mistakes are condemned to repeat them (perhaps soon). I think ineptitude in the government and military (let alone FEMA, let's see how they do in New Orleans, round 2) should be frowned upon and people responsible for that ineptitude held accountable.

                                          This was a perfect example of not heeding the wisdom of the Powell doctrine.

                          • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/27/2008 10:04:28 AM

                            This argument that we have not been attacked in eight years does not hold much weight if you consider the timing between the first attack on the twin towers and the second was over 8 years. Just because Al qaeda has not attacked does not mean it is because of George Bush. It may mean they just haven't chosen to attack yet.

                            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 5:47:56 PM

                              Not chosen to attack? Laughable.. see above, 'Young'.

                              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 12:43:45 AM

                                There's a basic principle: Correlation does not equal causation.

                      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 12:18:03 AM

                        So who says Clinton wasn't an ass too?

                        • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/27/2008 12:20:53 AM

                          Gotcha, you're one of those moderate Republicans who thought Clinton wasn't liberal enough.

                          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 12:23:44 AM

                            But we sure had a damn fine economy then. Surplus to deficit in 8 years, and war without end. You've really got to hand it to W. Things are so much better than when Clinton left office.

                            • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/27/2008 12:26:07 AM

                              Amazing what a Republican congress with some balls will accomplish.

                              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 12:45:21 AM

                                Especially after they were whipped by Clinton.

                                • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/27/2008 12:48:02 AM

                                  Was that whipping before or after he was impeached?

                                  • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 1:04:52 AM

                                    Before, and just think how he successful he would have been if he wasn't such a lech. But then again, that kind of thinking-with-the-little-head stupidity seems to infect men of both parties, now doesn't it? Clinton was impeached, deservedly for lying. But when the morality of Republicans comes up short, they appear with grimacing wives and talk about how they're working through problems in their marriages. No impeachment proceedings for them detailing their sexual misbehavior. Sure it comes out in the press, but it doesn't get that special Ken Starr treatment.

                                    Even if McCain wins, Democrats will likely tighten their control of Congress, largely as a result of the misdeeds and corruption of certain members of the Republican party.

                                    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/27/2008 1:27:35 AM

                                      I wish I could argue with you, but I really can't. There are some garbage Republicans in congress. But don't make the mistake of thinking because they're garbage, that Republican values are garbage. They are not one and the same.

                                      I disagree, however, that Republicans pay a lesser price for scandal. Trent Lott had to give up his Senate Majority seat for one kind comment to an old man, Byrd has a KKK past and goes about his merry way. The governor of New Jersey gives his male lover a position in Homeland Security and he merely has to step down. And let's not mention Teddy Kennedy's crimes for which he was punish with lifelong tenure in the Senate.

                                      Corrupt politicians suck, no matter who they are. But we generally get rid of ours, like Nixon. While you generally let yours stick around like a hero, like Clinton.

      • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:19:15 PM

        Will someone please explain to me why this dope is so in love with the intellect he hasn't yet democstrated once?

        • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 11:33:37 PM

          Keep on with the hypocrisy: Calling people names and then crying foul when your adversaries give as good as they got. Typical double-standard exhibited by Republicans: no special treatment for others, but demand special treatment for themselves. No tolerance of others, but others have to tolerate their hate speech.

      • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:21:28 PM

        I mean, really, he goes from post to post, declaring the person who disagrees with him stupid and himself brilliant.

        That's his whole argument for abortion. He's smart; nobody else is.

        No wonder he likes abortion. Nobody deserves to share a planet with such a genius.

    • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 12:54:32 PM

      You have been playing that record for some time, this is not the first blog...worse...its almost as if you cut and paste it.

      Once again, Obama was FOUR YEARS OLD watching Sesame Street when that took place by the time they met he was a respected professor.

      Stick with Wright people will almost believe that.. He is in the book of records as being the first pastor ever to repeat the same line consistently for 20 years.

    • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 08/26/2008 11:08:27 PM

      The Weather Undergound...a documentary by Sam Green and Bill Siegel on DVD. www. theweatherunderground.com...
      Hear and see what these people are really all about!

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 08/27/2008 7:24:12 PM

    Oprahma; the great baloney slicer. He will say, do, promise, zig, zag, jump up and down to get himself elected. He doesn't care what issue or what other person he has to 'throw under the bus' to get himself elected. Oprahma supporters obviously are easily tricked. Gee, wonder why we haven't heard or gotten any video tapes from that slimball osama bin laden in the last several months...let me think....

    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 7:54:43 PM

      You're a great American. A real standup guy.

      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 7:56:09 PM

        For me to poop on.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 9:31:38 PM

          Great... the twelve year old just dropped in. Always the skunk at the picnic.

          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 9:33:41 PM

            Fight feces with feces--that's what I say.

            Hey, and your mom is still yelling for you to get off the computer and take out the trash.

            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 9:46:25 PM

              So you really are twelve... you're reduced to using mom jokes...

              Pathetic.

              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 9:55:32 PM

                Hey Skypoint, Skyler, or Skyline, or whatever your name is--maybe you should call for help from your buddy Jim. He seemed to feel you were in need of help last night. He obviously thought you were foundering.

                Oh, and the age insult--it's so freaking devastating. What possible reply could I make?

                Now that's what I call pathetic--and completely harmless.

                • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 10:09:33 PM

                  And so now you've reduced yourself further to reinventing usernames...

                  Whatever.

                  • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 10:27:41 PM

                    Don't you hate it when people play the game by the same rules that you use? Man that's so unfair. But hey, it's not too late to sound the call for reinforcements.

                    The new conservatives (I do have to differentiate them from the Goidwater Republican conservatives I respect) always claim to own the moral high ground, but they constantly take the low road. You can deny it all you want, but whoomp, there it is.

                    Nice double-standard, SP, but we're wise to your ways. No more Marquess of Queensberry rules. if it's a street fight you want, that's what you'll have. Rhetorically speaking, of course.

                    Harry S said it best: "I never gave anybody hell! I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."

                    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 10:58:05 PM

                      just_askin.. though you think you own this board by way of your double standard, you don't.

                      Once again, you're just angry that someone has actually called you on your own BS!

                      Give yourself a break and stop whining.

                      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 12:13:17 AM

                        Early on there was a discussion of the issue addressed in the article--but it quickly became apparent that anyone arguing for choice was chacterized as either stupid or evil. And abortion and the Iraq war are part of the same issue--just ask the Catholics (or is the Pope ignorant when he has made that argument?). Many of the protests that preceded the invasion of Iraq were driven by Catholic clergy or lay people who are most assuredly pro-choice. You may compartmentalize the issues, but not everybody does.

                        And as to calling out BS ... why not apply your mad skillz to the half-baked and irrelevant Obam-Osama posts on this blog. Do you agree with the post at the beginning of this thread that Obama is in league with Osama? Or any of the other I-hate-Obama posts, how are these relevant. You feel obligated to chastise others for being off-topic, so why do these get a bye? Or do they indeed make a substantive contribution to this debate? If so, explain.

                        You do that and I'll take you seriously. I do give you props for being pro-choice with the caveat you state. But Jim et al. apparently gave you a pass on that because you did not directly contradict their assertion that a human person is fully present in the zygote formed at the point of conception. You just said you didn't, but anyone who actually did explain their reasoning faced the full fury of pro-life contingent.

                        Nuf said.

                        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/28/2008 7:32:41 AM

                          I agree, "Nuf said".

                          You actually became irrelevant when you 'defecated' on another poster for having a different opinion.


                          • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 10:02:35 AM

                            I take that (and your other behavior) as a tacit agreement with the person having a different opinion.

                            • Posted By: catspaw @ 08/28/2008 11:47:11 AM

                              Just, why do you want to fight?

                              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 12:21:42 PM

                                It just_askin. And as I mention above, I see you expect people to fall in line with your way of thinking. And if they don't, they're itchin' for a fight.

                              • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/28/2008 12:15:26 PM

                                Oh, I see I not being compliant enough for you. Sorry, I thought this was a forum. I was intending to express and point of view, but then I learned that those presumed to be liberals are open season here, and you can dismiss anything they say by directly saying or insinuating that they stupid, selfish and evil. Return the favor, and then you must just want to fight.

                                It's just odd that crazy statements like 'OSAMA-OBAMA WANTZ TO RIP THE LIVING BABY FROM YOUR WOMANZ BODYS AND STOMP IT TO DEATH--STUPID LIBERALZ" type of comments get a pass from commenters like Skypoint, but if *I* call them out as BS (and all we're really talking about is the style of how), then I'm infringing on their opinion. And then the guardians of truth here spend their time labeling you as 'boy." That's long been used as a way to emasculate their presumed male adversary. What's wrong with you, boy, don't you understand? Just hush your mouth, boy, you don't know nothing.

                                So, I'll go away--I see you want a love-fest here, not a debate. It might be useful for you to review the rough and tumble nature of political discourse in America throughout its history. I'm not getting anywhere near what was standard practice in the rhetorical assaults employed the 19th century.

  • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 2:13:57 PM

    On a scale,, one side being a women that makes the decision that she will not be able to take care of her child and ends her pregnancy; on the other side a woman worrying everyday that her child will not come back from the war and if they do come back they will not mentally adjust back into society.

    One side a woman that will forever regret the decision she made but learns from it and is motivated to better herself so she will never have to make that decision again; on the other side a woman worried that even though her child survived and is coming back home from the war; there is the possiblity that they will be redeployed again because the war is not over yet..

    The choice becomes do care for a fetus that the mother did not want above my own chid whom I love dearly. This will not pertain to you if you add 8 years to your child and they are sitll under 18, otherwise it does.

    If you STILL prefer someone elses unwanted fetus over your child,, choose McCain..

    • Posted By: DaveDiana @ 08/27/2008 9:35:37 PM

      This is a simplistic comment. You assume you must either accept that a woman can have an abortion and learn from it, or worry that her son will come back from war physically or mentally scarred. Why only those two choices? If I abhor abortion I must be a war monger because I vote for McCain?

      I challenge you to think beyond that. How about a society that respects ALL life. Would not such a society by definition be less likely to pursue violence as a way to solve problems? Whether you believe life spontaniously evolved or you believe in God the Creator, why can't you embrace the idea that life is a precious gift? In either case, it's absolutely amazing that a human being can develop from such a modest beginning. Why don't we stop looking at sex as a simple recreational activity and recognize it as also the capacity to create new human life that has value? I feel too many people look at a pregnancy as an unfortunate side effect of just trying to have a good time. Our culture needs to grow beyond that selfishness and accept the responsability of having a sexual relationship. Isn't it common sense that if you aren't ready to raise and support a child you shouldn't engage in an activity thats primary function is the creation of a child? Don't tell me it's not possible. I'm not niave enough to believe people don't get swept up in the moment, but just accept the responsability. Respect the power we have to create life whether you believe it wasgiven by God or not.

  • Posted By: ReligiousInstitute @ 08/27/2008 10:40:57 AM

    I am one of tens of thousands of religious leaders who are pro-faith, pro-family, pro-choice, pro-full inclusion, pro-marriage equality, pro-women's rights...and I believe with all my heart and being the words of the Religious Declaration: that "sexuality is God's life-giving and life-fulfilling gift" and that we all have the right and the obligation to celebrate our "sexuality with holiness and integrity."http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com

    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/27/2008 12:14:18 PM

      You forgot pro-stitution and pro-zac.

      • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 8:31:07 PM

        Not to mention, pro-ctologist.

  • Posted By: Phil08 @ 08/27/2008 12:29:59 PM

    BAMBI BUILDS BUCHENWALD

    BAMBI stands up and say's, I am the one who voted yes to the born alive bill-I was the chairman and voted yes to save the children-he is a liar .He was question on this bill and his day camp said no, that bill was not the same. All three were the
    same and BAMBI votes to inject multiculturalism into the U.S. with all diabolizing elements.

    The Socialists knows the Bible better than America when they strive for, ??? A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND???



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

    http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p7zsxXnNldU

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SAgu0gUODKU&feature=related

    IS AMERICA THAT ELITIST, THAT WE CAN SCOLD HITLER FOR WHAT HE
    HAS DONE TO HUMAN LIFE, WHILE WE HERE IN AMERICA SLAUGHTER LIFE IN THE VERY
    PLACE WHERE IT BEGINS?

    WHAT IS THE MODUS THAT GRIPS A FEMALE//POLITICIAN TO COMMITT//SANCTION THE ACT OF HUMAN ABORTION?

    http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Induced-abortion-results-in-years-of-trauma--6221-1/

    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/27/2008 8:03:47 PM

      Patience Dr. Phil, but 2050 you be a minority and will be able to reclaim all those super-special privileges you've lost. Then you can inject uniculturalism into the U.S.

  • Posted By: repub4obama @ 08/27/2008 4:21:01 PM

    The right wing conservatives wont be happy until all of our rights are taken away and no one has any personal freedoms. McBush and the McBushites are all fascists hiding behind the mask of democracy. They are everything they claim not to be, it is suprising how people are still fooled by these idiots.

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/27/2008 6:32:09 PM

      Please, tell us exactly what rights and personal freedoms are you speaking of that will be eliminated?

    • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/27/2008 5:59:04 PM

      This,of course,is hysterical nonsense,unproven by fact. As it is,it is the leftwingers marching in Denver who accuse Democrats of the ''removal''of such rights.[''we are being caged like animals'',quoteth one wit]. Who then turn around and deny these rights to others[chanting ''Kill Michelle Malkin'',rather than allowing her a free speech platform,they ,in a mob,chased the conservative figure for nearly a block before police intervened].
      The United States Supreme Court has ruled in HELLER,the 2nd Amendment case. Yet rather than bestow the rights enshrined in the amendment and upheld by the nations highest law decision-maker ,the liberal-dominated DC city council is defying this right and this decision and is continuing to forbid private ownership of otherwise federally legal weapons.
      When a vote in the US House of Representatives came up for a rollcall,majority Democrats, in an obscene violation of the Document,shut down the vote when it appeared they were going to lose,over the objections of the minority Republicans.
      Campuses run by leftwinged radicals utilize ''speech codes''that are applied to student conservative organizations,but not to leftists and others of their ideological ilk.[In Joe Bidens Delaware, conservative students at the University were forced to sign diversity ''loyalty oaths''until blocked by threat of lawsuit by the student rights organization FIRE].
      The chief irony is that these are instances of rights abridgement that are occuring in a Bush America,but they are not engineered by Republicans. Hence the wariness surrounding Obama and what he and the dominant political party may do in this area.

  • Posted By: agnstheflow @ 08/26/2008 1:06:42 AM



    If Roe v. Wade is to be overturned it would mean half our population admitting they???ve supported and taken part in the murder of innocent children. On a religious point of view there is forgiveness readily available through Jesus Christ. I have nothing against any woman who has had an abortion due to the lies and deceitful push of this excepted practice. (I'm a mother by the way.) If this could ever happen we could focus more of our attention to teaching abstinence in schools and portraying healthier lifestyles on television and movies instead of rampant casual sex. Realistically we could also work harder to prevent unwanted pregnancies by providing easier access and encouraging the use of contraceptives and other forms of birth control that prevent the egg from being fertilized. I also believe if we were a society that did not perform abortions this itself would promote responsibility among couples and would reduce the amount of unwanted children coming into the world. Who's to say that every child (that has been aborted would have been worthless to society anyway? Because of abortion how many doctors, artists, hardworking taxpayers, and great leaders don't exist today? Obama himself was not born into a perfect environment.
    It's mind boggling how Obama (who himself was not born into a perfect environment) can call himself a "Christian" and be who he says he is and still be such a staunch supporter of gov. funded abortion on demand. Makes me wonder who is really pulling the strings here?

    Abortion kills on average 46,000,000 children a year! Numbers compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the statistical wing of the largest and deadliest abortion institution in America, Planned Parenthood. Do a google search on Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood. Click on the first link that shows up! You will see what her purpose was for abortion.

    Roe v. Wade----we must never forget how this ruling was accomplished. We know it was done by using fraudulent facts, and a perjured rape testimony. It was furthered by the lie, given to expectant mothers, that what is in their womb is not a baby. This coupled with the lie that abortion has no negative consequences for women, these lies have been told millions of times over.

    • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 2:27:36 AM

      Two thirds of all "babies" (fertilized eggs) never make it to be born--even apart from "abortion-on-demand". Just think, for every child that is born, two never made it. What's going on here? Poor quality control? What's it like to be in heaven when you never even made it past the embryo stage? Does God invent a life for you based on what you would have been?

      Obama is not a Christian, but I assume you think you are. How do you explain the divinely-ordained murder of innocent women and children in the Old Testament? Was God pro-life or pro-death then? Did Jesus love the little children then, all the children of the world, red or yellow, black and white, were they precious in his sight? Of course, maybe God thought needed killin', cause they were all bad people who even as children would corrupt God's chosen people (or some other sick rationalization for ethnic cleansing/genocide).. And why wasn't causing a women to have an abortion by injuring her result in a monetary fine. Isn't it murder by your way of thinking? Of course if women and children are just property of the husband, it's purely a financial consideration. No bigee.

      • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 4:10:07 AM

        Well, according to your two-thirds logic, since we all die, why should murder be a crime?

        There is a difference between God deciding to call someone home and we taking it into our own hands. Here's a very simple way for you to remember it. God is God. You are not God. God gets to kill what he created. You do not.

        Pretty simple when you have a brain.

        • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 4:20:10 PM

          For your information women are the embodiment of the divine creation on earth. Yes women do have the power to chose life or death, to decide when a soul will pass through the womb of creation or whether that soul will remain in the realm of non-physical emodiment. That is the female's inherent spiritual and biological right that cannot be taken away by man-made religion or laws. You just suffer from womb envy! Do you not see a problem with a religious authority that on the one hand professes a Gospel of Life doctrine while simultaneously enacting mass destruction of human beings through brutality and warfare?

          Such a schizoid way of thinking could have only come from psychologically disturbed males who seemed to harbor a muderous envy toward the female essence of the divine and who in their egotism wanted to replace the divine creatrix with an image of the creator that reflects the male animal nature.

          Here is some more food for thought: Since a man cannot bring life into existence he should not have the final say about war either! I say that we pass a law which gives women the ultimate authority in matters concerning both life and death. Because preventing life at conception can make a world of difference in the preservation of the species and the prevention of wars which result in millions of deaths and suffering for innocent women and children!

        • Posted By: tutink777 @ 08/26/2008 1:58:53 PM

          I am going to assume that you have never been pregnant Jim. If you had, I bet you would not be so quick to give up the credit of "creating" the baby to God. I created my children. My husband helped get it going, but I did the heavy lifting. If God did anything, it was creating the soul of my children. But I certainly made the bodies, brains, etc. That was all me and my nine extremely long months of hard work. Don't be so quick to take away my miracle. Not God's, mine.

        • Posted By: tutink777 @ 08/26/2008 1:41:46 PM

          I was thinking that since you call abortion murder, then you would probably be for calling a miscarriage "involuntary manslaughter". I also noticed that you have commented on almost every pro-choice comment, however, you did not reply to the comment of a pro-lifer who said that all pro-lifers should vote Democratic because the Repuglican policies concerning sex education, contraception, governement healthcare, etc have increased abortions, not decreased them.

        • Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 1:37:21 PM

          "Well, according to your two-thirds logic, since we all die, why should murder be a crime?" Your statement makes no sense at all, no more that the pro-death inclinations of many people who claim to be pro-life.

          What you fail to address is why God isn't *more* pro-life, in fact the evidence (biblical, historical) supports quite the opposite. If we are intelligently designed, then why is reproduction so inefficient. By your way of thinking, isn't it a terrible fate for most babies to end up in the toilet? Maybe it's the mother's fault--she did something wrong, ate the wrong thing, didn't take care of herself, etc. Why not test all women of child-bearing age each month to see if they are pregnant, and if they lose the pregnancy, arraign them for manslaughter or murder. That's the kind of intrusive role for big government you could get behind, right?

          And as to God "calling someone home"--such a beautiful euphemism for killing--isn't it odd that it's usually humans that make that decision as to who lives or dies based on what they imagine God told them. So I guess you would agree that genocide is OK, as long as God tells you to do it. And as to God gets to kill what he created ... I would also guess that you likewise don't have a problem with captial punishment or war. From what I can tell those means of killing are carried out by human beings. And if you had secular power, tell me, aren't there some people you would like to "call home?"

          Nothing is simple, even if you have a brain. Of course it can be, if you let other people do your thinking for you. Sheeple have little to worry about. Bahhh!

  • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 11:44:44 AM

    I think Democrats should flip this issue on Republicans. The majority of Americans are pro-choice. I say, go ahead Republicans and overturn Roe vs. Wade. Leave it up to the states to decide. Most states would vote to keep some access to reasonable medical procedures and it would be the worst thing to ever happen to the Republican party because they couldn't use the issue every 4 years. Call their bluff. The whole abortion issue is a paper tiger.

    • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 3:45:01 PM

      Even if the issue was turned over to the States to decide, no State in the union of the US can legislate or judicially pass laws against abortion because of the constitutional issues involved. All of the States are republics and therefore cannot pass laws which abridge the fundamental constitutional rights of individuals.

    • Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 12:07:12 PM

      For some reason Democrats do not seem to get it through their heads that Republicans cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

      I'm starting to think it's not a bunch of them, but one clown with a lot of names.

      In any case, we welcome the overturn of Roe v. Wade. At least you can work to elect pro-life candidates. You cannot work to overturn a judge's edict. But trust me, Republicans would not lose votes. You can bet there would be a lot of babies born who will grow up to realize they're only alive because Republicans wanted them to be.

      • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 1:57:29 PM

        Republicans are on the Supreme Court. Yes, I know they should be non-partisan but they obviously declared their hand by selecting Bush as president along partisan lines in 2000 against the will of the majority of voters who voted for Gore. To say that Alito and Scalia and Roberts are not Republicans is ridiculous. They violated constitutional protocol by violating states rights and the right of Florida to have a recount. Go ahead make our day. Use abortion as a lithmus test so that Roe v. Wade is overturned, you will never see more pro-choice sentiment in the United States than on that day.

    • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/26/2008 12:02:41 PM

      Yet the majority of Americans[75% -GALLUP],are opposed to late-term abortions that remove themselves from the scope of the original ROE decision. Forget the ''collectio of cells''.What took place in Chicago while Obama was a state senator was that fully developed babies,and not ''fetuses''were being killed in botched abortion surgeries. Hence,BAIPA[which even todays FACTCHECK,seen elsewhere here,has been unable to refute Obamas original positions on the bill as provided in a white paper by the right-to-lifers]. Again,this is not ROE. Abortion partisans are moving beyond the second into the third trimesters into live birth and are illogically upset that they are being called on a barbaric practice,that is absolutist and rejects compromise.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse