This excellent article is far too rational, logical, accurate and erudite to have any impact at all on the Left, where obfuscation, parsing, confusion and disengenuousness are highly prized stock in trade.
The Democrats and the Abortion Wars
-
Posted By: nectanebus @ 08/27/2008 2:12:46 PM
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/27/2008 11:13:43 AM
Rasmussen Tracking 08/24 - 08/26 3000 LV 46 47 McCain +1
Gallup Tracking 08/23 - 08/25 2684 RV 44 46 McCain +2
-
Posted By: smile2 @ 08/26/2008 10:15:41 AM
Why is it that every 4 years the subject of abortion becomes the theme for the republics? Our constitution talks about the separation of church and state and yet, the very subject of abortion, is used to manipulate the masses. I really don't think demos avoid the subject, but this issue should not be politicize just to win the presidency. I think it's a shame the way the republics use this most sensitive and private issue. Whether Obama views are judged to be vague, incomplete etc., no person on this earth have the right to judge anyone's view on when life begins. His response goes right to heart of why the repubs use this subject. What puzzles me is how we can intellectually talk about abortion, yet we kill each other every single day with words, guns, weapons and the sort, what's the difference?
-
Posted By: Grumpy Old Man @ 08/27/2008 9:56:00 AM
See my earlier comment, which is devoid of religious argument. The question of human life is a legal question, which must be determined on the basis of the best scientific knowledge and sound philosophical reasoning. I maintain that we must have religious neutrality. However, we cannot have philosophical neutrality, and the laws we pass are an expression of whatever common philosophy exists in this country.
-
Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 08/26/2008 11:02:27 AM
Actually, the constitution does NOT talk about the separation of church and state. It just says that the government can???t dictate a religion, it doesn???t say anywhere that religion has to be completely vanquished.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:19:01 PM
In your own words: "...says that the government can't dictate a religion..."
Politicians are free to use their own faith or lack thereof to inform their votes on policy. That can't and shouldn't change. What should change is that the fundamentalists want more religion mixing with their governance which has proven, on many occasion to be injurious to both.
-
-
Posted By: Jose52 @ 08/26/2008 11:16:01 AM
2 Smile2, The difference is when a society justifies killing innocents, i.e. Jews in the Final solution, the killing fields of Cambodia,.... and on and on; then that slippery slope starts rolling on the rights of the disabled or innocents babies. Good thing your mother decided to keep you full term; or if it was her right to terminate you, then you could not question the difference?
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:16:51 PM
A fetus is not the same as a born human being. Never was and never will be.
-
-
-
Posted By: dkcloud357 @ 08/26/2008 9:17:29 AM
No , the Democrats are not dodging the abortion issue. Abortion sits on the mantel of the Republican party to be used every four years as a wedge issue to fire up the Religious right. And to use as a diversion to dodge more serious issues facing America.
Secondly , if the Religious right thinks for one minute that the Republican party is on their side when it comes to the issue or Abortion , well , they are being conned. Fact , from 1995 to 2007 , the Republicans had total control of both houses , add to that from 2002 till 2007 , they had not only control of both Houses , but a Republican President to boot. So ask yourself just what have they done about Abortion during all that time.-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:58:42 AM
Another clown who thinks having control of Congress and the Presidency means they can overturn Supreme Court rulings. They cannot. Which is why the Left is trying so hard to win back the presidency. Which is why they have threatened to "Bork" judicial nominees.
What garbage. If you can't figure out basic American civics, why should we care what you have to say about abortion?-
Posted By: Grumpy Old Man @ 08/27/2008 9:50:05 AM
Yes neither the President nor Congress can overturn SCOTUS decisions. However, the President and Congress can, over time, change the composition or the court. The court has reversed itself more than once. Therefore, the composition of Congres and the Presidency matter.
In the mean time, there is ample reason to debate the wisdom or lack thereof, of the court. -
Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 12:59:33 PM
Bork was rejected because he was an extreamist and a drunk unworthy of joining the nations highest court. And the right is trying not to win the Presidency? is that why Mr McCain was nominated? Thank you for that bit of insuder information.
-
-
-
Posted By: TruthForward @ 08/27/2008 7:29:05 AM
McCain could not get campaign finance reform until.... until Obama joined the Senate. That's right they had to get together on it. For a decade McCain could not get it done without Obama.
And McCain can not get Congress on his side on any idea, not even his own party.
-
Posted By: ER78 @ 08/26/2008 2:05:29 PM
I dont belive in abortion. But, I also feel that I do not have the right to force my opinion on someone else. Nor do they have the right to force theirs on me. They are the ones who will have to live with themselves after not me. They are the one who will be judged by God for it, not me. Most women I know who have had it done (and I know several) regret it and never for give themselves. I have a problem with women who use it as a form of birth control. I think there should be a limit to the number of abortion you can have. I say 2 with our repercution. You can have a third if you choose but should be sterilized at that point. If you can kill that many children before they are born you would do it after they are born.
-
Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 3:08:12 PM
The false belief that women have abortions for birth control is perpetuated by the radical right as a reason to see choice as a bad thing. No woman in her right mind finds abortion to be a viable alternative to birth control. The decision to have an abortion is one of the most difficult any person has to make and should be a PRIVATE one between her, her partner, and her doctor. No elected offical or self proclaimed moral authority need be involved.
-
Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 5:56:32 AM
Even if a woman does have multiple abortions to terminate unwanted pregnancies which is a form of birth control it is not the business of government or sectors of civil society who want to impose their religious beliefs on another group to regulate the reproductive decision of that woman. We live in a Constitutional Republic that does not permit either government or groups in civil society to legistate away our fundamental rights.
-
Posted By: ER78 @ 08/26/2008 3:22:33 PM
bwlear , for the record I am not a "radical right" person. I happen to be an independent. Anyway, for the record there are a few who women who do use it as a form of birth control.However it is very rare and they should be sterilized after a set amount.
-
Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 5:51:56 AM
Iit is not for you to determine tha a woman should be sterilized after having a certain number of abortions. A woman is entitled to have as many abortions as she deems necessary. That is her preogative even if it bothers you. This is exactly why we cannot have a full fledged democratic system in place because it would be people like you who would advocate for facist laws in order to oppress the lives of another individual or group. It would lead to the very kind of tyrannical state that the framers of the constitution envisioned would occur without the proper checks and balances between government and civil society.
-
Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 4:25:42 PM
And there are a few people who drink cough medication to get high. Should we outlaw that too? And whos going to do the counting? Are we going to put a mark on her forehead everytime she has one? if you sterilize these imaginary women, how many of the " potentially born " are you condeming to death? You cant base an argument on a false premis and expect support it with logic.
-
-
-
Posted By: Esencia08 @ 08/27/2008 5:45:28 AM
Thats ridiculous! government does not have the power to limit the number of abortions that a woman can have that is outside the scope of the role of government to begin with. Secondly, abortions are a form of birth control because the procedure is done to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but not exclusively so. There are birth control methods that prevent pregnancy and sometimes these are not 100% effective. For thousands of years women in various cultures have utilized herbs to prevent pregnancy and to induce menstration (abortion). Its not a big deal really, its like if the woman does not get her period in a month or two she simply ingests herbs that will induce her menstration to start.
-
Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 08/26/2008 2:17:58 PM
Have you ever seen anyone forcing someone else to have an abortion???? When prolife forces others to have kids they dont want, there will be tragedies. Romania: 20 000 women died in back alley abortions!! Your belief are your own. I believe in sciences, not fairy tales.
-
Posted By: ER78 @ 08/26/2008 2:24:00 PM
Wildlifeusa, you oviously don't know how to read. I said no one has the right to force their "OPINION" on someone else. I said nothing about forceing an abortion. You just attacked me with an idiotic reponse
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:30:10 PM
Hey, at least he believes in sciences, if not reading comprehension.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 08/27/2008 3:34:33 AM
I agree, Lori,, so I reposted what Obamas stance has been on this issue:
. . . or the supposed Christian who continually blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act from passing in his state of Illinois.
Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act
4-2-2008
by Jill Stanek
Article: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm
Even all of the pro-abortion orgs did not object to this humane bill which finally did pass in Illinois once Obama left office.
Here is another (MUST READ) related article by Jill Stanek:
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm
*****************************************************
Feel free to pass the links I provided below onto other bloggers, etc., because that is the only way people are going to get the information out about Obamas past history when he continually blocked the BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT while he served as Illinois state senator. Once he left office, sure enough the bill passed. Obama has been stating that the state bill did not adequately protect Roe v. Wade (his reason why he did not vote for the state bill), when in fact it has been proven that both the State bill back then that he rejected and the Federal bill he has recently been saying he would have voted for if it was State and Federal bill has the exact wording when compared to the Federal bill when compared side by side to the Illinois state bill that Barack rejected more than once. physical proof counters Obamas claim. Obama has been caught in a lie, and the MainStreamMedia is doing everything they can to keep this information suppressed from public consumption. PLEASE, folks, read these articles and pass them onto others. Thanks. ; - D
Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act
4-2-2008
by Jill Stanek
Article: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm
Even all of the abortion orgs did not object to this humane bill which finally did pass in Illinois once Obama left office.
Here is another (MUST READ) related article by Jill Stanek:
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm
-
Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 2:45:49 AM
Wow, this is the first really well written article I have seen on this Newsweek site in many, many months.
Thank you Mr. Weigel! Now please write a follow up article on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and Obama's position that he stated was that it is "too burdensome" to the mother and the abortionist to require the abortionist to call in a doctor to provide care and comfort to an infant that is born alive after a failed late term abortion. Obama claims that it is above his pay grade to decide when life begins but obviously by his own words it is not above his pay grade to decide when death should occur. Mr. Weigel could you please explain to us why the law says it is criminal for a woman to give birth to a live infant and put it in a trash can to die (and it should be criminal) but it is not criminal for Obama to legislate that a baby born alive after an abortion is not criminally liable when her or she (the abortionist) does not seek medical assistance for a live born infant especially one that meets the criteria for viability.
-
Posted By: Omaar @ 08/27/2008 1:13:19 AM
Democrat-Republlcan, Liberatarian, ndependent...its a Damn Political Hustle, A Political Con and Political Monopoly....You Ass Holes !!!
Is the Repubican Party hiding behind being Pro-Choice and Pro Abortion in such cases as.....
1. In cases of Incest ( With No time Limit)
John McCain Agrees with this as well
2. In cases of Rape (With No Time Limits)
John Mccain agrees with this too.
3. In case the Mothers Life is Threatened (With No Time Limits)
John McCain agrees with this as well.
4. Your Current President is Not a Pro Life President, Bush Jr. is also (Pro-Choice)
Explain that ...Hmmmm
5. The Republicans are Not Solely or Strictly (Pro-Life)
6. Republicans consist of Independent Republicans, Moderate Republicans, Indifferent Republicans, yet the FOCUS is Always on the Conservative & Angelical Repulicans, that tend to GARNER all the ATTENTION.
7. Another Major Republican Mis-Conception, that ...
The Republican Party is Anti-Homosexual, when theres a TON of them in the Republican Party.
The Republicans have a Specific Homosexual-Gay Organozation called, now get this Title and Google it Up......
"The Log Cabin Republicans"
An Organization John McCain himself Solicited last month...
Source: www.reuters.com
Or Simply Google it Up !!!!
Theres only a Little Difference in these groups, which indicates a Political Monopoly
The CFR: Controls these Political Parties and David Rockefeller Controls the CFR and The Big Political Monopoly Game is being Played on ....YOU
-
Posted By: mbaynes @ 08/26/2008 8:35:07 PM
While this might be a hot topic, I hope that the nominees don't waste their time on it. As a nation, we should be focused on foreign policies (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Korea etc.) and domestic policies (education, health care, environment) Topics that affect all Americans in some way or another. Stop wasting the voters time on topics that they can't control!
-
Posted By: Christ_Did_Not_Promote_Hate_Speech @ 08/26/2008 12:26:47 AM
Why is this even an issue?! The Republicans are just as much pro-choice as the Democrats or else they would have changed the law when they had total control over the house, senate, and presidency! The fact that both political parties use a woman's womb as a political football when they are dodging the real issues of the economy, healthcare, and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan is appalling. What is even worse is all of us poor schmucks fall for it every election! Have we not realized that when the important issues might sway the election one way or the other, they pull out the heartstring issues of abortion and gay marriage as a distracter? Get real people! Vote for the better of our country and not heartstring issues that niether party has any intention of changing!
-
Posted By: yoink @ 08/26/2008 8:48:10 AM
Amen to that. How about the issue of our country going 50 trillion in debt? You think the abortion issue is more important than the economic collapse of our entire country and our currency? Who gives a crap about such a little issue as what someone else does in their life with their uterus and vagina? Let God sort it out in the end, he didn't put you on this earth to try to figure it out for him. He created us, and he created abortion...You take care of your family and I'll take care of mine. How about we just balance the budget so my children don't have to live in poverty and fear because of a collapsed currency. GET OVER IT and OPEN YOUR EYES to see the real problems in this country today.
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:52:55 AM
I don't think the national debt will much concern the 1.5 million babies killed in the abortion Holocaust each year.
A little issue? How do you get to sleep at night...?-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:25:27 PM
You are right. They aren't concerned. You finally get it.
-
-
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:59:57 AM
I don't think the idiot below realizes that even if you have a Republican House, Senate, and President, you can't overturn a Supreme Court ruling like Roe v. Wade.
-
Posted By: neos @ 08/26/2008 9:00:39 AM
Whoever Says "You Fool!" Shall Be in Danger of Hell Fire Matthew 5:22
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 11:50:20 AM
Being in danger and going are two different things. I think God might make an exception for calling those who support the murder of babies "fools," especially when they aren't up on basic American civics.
-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 1:47:12 PM
I can see that the Bible means what is says, unless it doesn't.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/26/2008 11:52:35 AM
it is an ''issue''because ''pro-choice''Catholics cannot have it both ways. Indeed,American Catholic bishops including the Denver prelate have now demanded that neither Biden nor Pelosi [both Catholics],be allowed communion. To them,this is ''rendering unto God''as demanded by Jesusian scripture rather than backing Caesar. They are sticking to their guns on the deal,and calling out the Democrats on their hypocrisy and ignorance in this area.
-
-
Posted By: Lynnman @ 08/26/2008 9:35:16 AM
This was one of the most thoughfully written articles on abortion and political honesty I have read. I grew up as a Democratic but have had serious issues with that lack of williness of our leaders in the Democratic party to have open and honest discussions and debate on this subject. The Democratic party has worked to focus attention and resources on the needy and most innocent victims and then puts total binders on when it comes to what is reality is the slaughter of the most innocent. Neos take that Repubicans are narrow-minded, simplistic and don't know how the "real" world works is the type of thinking that keeps this subject a political battle vs a human discussion based on facts and respect for life issues on both sides. I don't see this williness and thought process in Obamo today but we can hope for a change.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:23:11 PM
<sarcasm>Republicans have lots of debate about abortion. They are so open to those that are pro-choice.</sarcasm>
This is why I knew Guiliani was doomed. He was pro-choice. The current theocrats that run the Republican party would never accept that.
-
-
Posted By: tbourlon @ 08/26/2008 9:50:18 AM
dkcloud needs to pay more attention. The ban on partial birth abortion was passed during the Bush administration. Yes, the Republicans bring up abortion every four years, but do you really think that those of us who are pro-life don't ever think about abortion EXCEPT every four years? My question is, what's the point in trying to debate the Dems on this, when they don't listen anyway? How many times have I heard that if I don't want an abortion, don't get one - as if that were the only issue? That logic applies to lottery tickets, not unborn babies, so don't waste your or my time saying it. What's really odd about this article is that I have read the Dems are going to try and reclaim the morality of abortion - by arguing that it's for the women, the poor, etc. and that they were dropping the Clinton "safe, legal and rare" language altogether. Good thing, since in the 8 years Bill Clinton was in office he did absolutely NOTHING to make abortion safe, legal or rare. Oh, and DK, after the Republicans took both houses they ran the partial birth abortion ban up not once, but twice, and Clinton vetoed it both times. Pay more attention next time.
-
Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 08/26/2008 11:00:02 AM
Actually, partial-birth abortion hasn't been banned at all - just a specific method of doing it. Even that had the feminists' panties in a bunch. What's really odd to me is that the most liberal countries in Europe have more restrictions on abortion than us. The US and Canada are the only two countries on earth that place virtually no restrictions on abortion. Most countries are more reasonable, cutting it off at least after the 2nd trimester (with exceptions if the mother???s life is in jeopardy). I???ve seen videos of late-term abortions being performed, and they brought tears to my eyes. How anyone doing such a horrific thing can call themselves a doctor is beyond me. As a side note, Roe vs Wade was a bogus ruling. The courts really overstepped their bounds on that one. Morality should be decided at the local level, not by the federal government. Laws regarding pornography, prostitution, drinking age, and even abortion should be specific to the local community.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:20:55 PM
"As a side note, Roe vs Wade was a bogus ruling." We get it. That's your opinion. Fortunately, it's not an opinion shared by the majority of Americans.
-
-
Posted By: baybluv @ 08/26/2008 11:31:37 AM
I don't understand why the Republicans are always worry about other people's decisions. If I'm correct, GOD gave man free will to choose what he would do regardless of if it's right or wrong. The bottom line is people are going to have abortions whether they are legal or not so we may as well allow them to have safe surgeries. The Republicans should focus more on social programs that will help poor people struggling to make end meet from day to day BUT they will be the first to scream about tax increases and how people should learn to take care of themselves. Some how this does not sound GODLY to me.
-
-
Posted By: cstanley0625 @ 08/26/2008 11:35:51 AM
Abortions should be LEGAL, SAFE, and RARE
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 12:02:29 PM
Why, because some politician said so?
How do you make them rare when everyone who screams the "legal safe and rarre" nonsnese only care about the first two? Somehow, when it comes to the rare part, they never get around to do anything about it.
There are 1.5 million babies killed in the US every year.
Your rare nonsense is really a Holocaust.
Besides, murder is murder. If we talked about how rape should be safe, legal, and rare, what an enlightened civilization we'd be!-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:15:30 PM
Abortions went down under Clinton. They went back up under Bush. Clinton did his part to make abortions more rare. Bush did not. He needed the issue to much to inflame his rabid base.
-
-
-
Posted By: EverettKemper @ 08/26/2008 12:07:02 PM
Mr. Weigel,
We all die. What difference the timeline make? If there is a God we will all be judged based on God's terms. We legalize killing during every war, or every conflict decided by murder. Why shouldn't she be allowed to kill that baby anytime she wants. It's hers. George Bush has killed thousand of other human beings, as have leaders of countries around the world. It is legal if you win the war. Let the debate begin when we begin following the Comandment: Thou shall not kill.-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 12:25:25 PM
A child is not hers. It's God's.
By you logic, a parent (and why not the father too) should be able to kill any child any time he wants. Who gives the parent that kind of authority?
The war analogy is nonsense, since many abortion opposers also oppose war. But even if you accept that cannard, you can clearly make the case that Bush saved countless live from Saddam's mass graves. When has an abortion (other than the rare times it's performed to save the life of the mother, which most reasonable people support) ever saved anyone? It doesn't.
1.5 million dead babies per year in this country alone. Many millions more the world over.
No war, even the world wars, can approach it for sheer blood lust.-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 1:42:44 PM
Abortion opposers also oppose war. Only if you're Catholic. Since you're likely a white evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant, you're likely a big fan of wars. The thought of an attack on Iran is likely one of your favorite fantasies--just one more step toward Armageddon and the death of 6 billion people as you cheer on Team Jesus from the heavenly bleachers.
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:00:27 PM
Actually, I'm Catholic. As is Weigel.
-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 2:45:35 PM
One word then: "Crusades." Or another: "Inquisitions." Mother Church can't do wrong.
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:25:29 PM
One word: Stalin. Another. Mao.
Mother Liberalism loves its blood.-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 8:07:55 PM
Stalin and Mao weren't liberals. They were Communists. Liberalism is about its root, liberty. Our Founding Fathers were largely liberal. Creating America and delineating individual rights was a liberal exercise. The opposite of liberalism is authoritarianism. You can have a "communist" authoritarian government, or a fascist one. It comes in lost of flavors. They all amount to oppression of individual liberty and are antithetical to liberalism. There's ignorance and there's willful ignorance. I'll be charitable and assume yours is the former.
-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:42:36 PM
The other reason more people weren't killed in the Crusades is a lack of weapons of mass destruction. Boy, if only, they could have really taught those Muslim infidels a lesson then!
-
Posted By: skeptic67 @ 08/26/2008 3:39:54 PM
"Mother Liberalism loves its blood."
My reply: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! My friend you've been reading too much pap from the likes of Jonah Goldberg. Stalin? Mao? Liberals? BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: skeptic67 @ 08/26/2008 2:56:42 PM
Estimates for the number killed during World War II vary widely, ranging anywhere from 35 million to 72 million. Let's assume the smaller number. 35 million deaths over seven years (WWII began in 1938 for all of you Americans out there) averages out to 5 million per year. So, yes, even the world wars--or at least World War II--can "approach it for sheer blood lust." (Incidentally, "blood lust" is the wrong term to use in regard to abortion. It's simply a medical procedure, the removal of unthinking tissue, nothing more.)
-
-
-
-
Posted By: SphinxatUF1 @ 08/26/2008 11:51:36 AM
Two points:
If you're going to be pro-life, I feel you have to be pro-ALL-life, not just the unborn. What about war? Or the death penalty?
Secondly, THIS IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Obama and all other Democrats should just repeat that over and over again whenever asked. While I am personally against abortions, it is not the FEDERAL government's place to say anything about it. Constitutionally, that decision, if made by the government at all, is left to the states. It would be like my hairdresser telling Buddhist monks what their policies should be-- she has no right to say one way or the other. If republicans were really for smaller government, they wouldn't even be addressing this issue at the federal level.-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 12:37:41 PM
Nobody's going to believe the "it's not a federal issue" thing when Democrats have made it their life's work to see to it that only liberal jusges are ever appointed to the FEDERAL courts.
As for the rest of it-- war can be the self-defense of a nation. The death penalty can be the self-defense of a society. What is abortion the self-defense of?
A career?-
Posted By: tutink777 @ 08/26/2008 2:31:35 PM
Calling a war self-defense is ridiculous. Especially if you are talking about the current war. There was nothing defensive at all about our actions in Iraq.
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 3:29:16 PM
It's only ridiculous because you're practically brainwashed to think it is.
But if you were really paying attention, you'd know that we were clearly acting in our interests and self-defense.
Regardless, the idea that because there's a war, good or bad, you get to slaughter wholesale the unborn is beyond stupid.
Like your mother always said: two wrongs don't make a right.
You know. Your mother. The woman who didn't abort you.-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/26/2008 6:50:31 PM
Exactly. Death is ok sometimes. Well, I'll take a fresh-faced 18-year old soldier over a bundle of unviable cells any day of the week.
-
-
-
Posted By: Young Hickory @ 08/26/2008 2:10:18 PM
Iraq was a war of choice on false pretenses lead by Republicans.
-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 2:54:22 PM
But think how great that Iraq will be--a thousand years from now. McSame says we're in it for the next millennium.
But methinks that China et al. will stop lending money to our bankrupt country to fund the war machine long, long before then. Maybe the neo-cons can run bake sales to buy the bombs and bullets.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: beckyhurley @ 08/26/2008 1:19:33 PM
Won't we be surprised when a new generation of young people rise up and stand against abortion, shaming their parents ridiculus pro-abort views as we once said "for shame" on our parents owning slaves.
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 1:49:59 PM
I won't be surprised, Becky; but you can bet these liberals who are busy murdering their offspring will be surprised when there aren't anything but conservatives left in America.
-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 2:31:30 PM
"surprised when there aren't anything but conservatives left in America" Translation: When all us white people get back the power God gave us, we'll show all those liberals and minorities whose is the boss--at the end of the barrel of a gun.
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 2:37:33 PM
Your translation is as faulty as your logic.
And it's hardly my fault if the left is aborting itself into extinction.-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 3:10:57 PM
Do you conservatives think we never hear the things that you say about what you'd like to do--if you could somehow avoid a prison sentence.
And if abortion is murder, why aren't you out killing the murderers? If you can kill to prevent a murder, but don't, doesn't that make you culpable? It's your logic we're talking about here. Or do you lack the courage of your convictions?-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 4:09:44 PM
Conservatives believe in the rule of law.
We aren't radicals. We don't glorify muderers and revolutionaries like the left did and does with Che and Castro and Stalin and Mao and so on...
Again, two wrongs do not make a right, and the only thing killing people will do is distract people from the real murderers-- the abortionists.-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:36:51 PM
And you believe in the rule of law when it's to your advantage, Otherwise, to hell with it.
-
Posted By: JimKetzle @ 08/26/2008 5:43:29 PM
Um, where did I ever encourage anyone to break the rule of law?
You talk a lot for someone who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
-
-
Posted By: just_askin @ 08/26/2008 4:33:48 PM
So you'd like to make the execution of doctors safe, rare, and legal?
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 08/26/2008 2:33:20 PM
why you and the ones like you don't go live in the middle east??? that would be a good place for you! religion guides every thing in their lives..Religions takes away people's freedom, not only that, it takes away their abilitiy to think and common sense.
-
Posted By: bwlear @ 08/26/2008 2:08:28 PM
We dont have to worry about that because you cant even get along with yourselfs. You will either shoot each other or make it illegal to have sex and wonder where all of you went.
-
-
-
Posted By: misterharban @ 08/26/2008 5:06:31 PM
Partisans can argue until the cows come home about whether life begins at conception. There is no doubt whatsoever that, at the very least, life begins when a human being presents itself live and out of the womb. There is no punt in this determination, no nuance.
Obama chose to oppose legislation which would have required that such a human being be accorded all the rights to which other newborn human beings are entitled. Depending on which iteration of Obama???s explanation one goes with, Obama either opposed the legislation (which passed unanimously at the national level) because it would have been an unnecessary burden to the mother or because it was proposed with the ulterior motive to undermine broader abortion rights. Both perfectly acceptable reasons for an Illinois senator, a little less acceptable at the national level.
Prochoice advocates should get over the gnashing of teeth which is accompanying the debate over this. Obama, when given the chance to legislate, acted (and has always acted) exactly as prochoice advocates would have had him do. He weighed the protection which should be afforded a few accidentally newborn infants against the interests of those who would seek abortions and sided with those who would seek abortions. Nothing more. Nothing less.
He acted to satisfy the vast constituency in this country who believe that this was the right choice. He obviously offended the constituency which believes that he was wrong. So why can???t partisans let it rest. As it stands now, it seems that he and his supporters are trying to present a choice as something that it was not. His supporters would like to put lipstick on this pig and make it a little prettier with that stuff called nuance. But the truth is that when he acted, there was little or no nuance, simply a decision to act on behalf of the constituency that would take him where he wanted to go.
There may be many explanations for his action, but only one reason ??? to get votes. And before everyone starts howling some more about nuance, why don???t we all get honest and concede that it is the American political way. You vote to keep the people who support you happy and ignore the rest (or try to spin some yarn about why they are simply ignorant liars).
-
Posted By: Omaar @ 08/26/2008 4:38:31 PM
Is the Repubican Party hiding behind being Pro-Choice and Pro Abortion in such cases as.....
1. In cases of Incest ( With No time Limit)
John McCain Agrees with this as well
2. In cases of Rape (With No Time Limits)
John Mccain agrees with this too.
3. In case the Mothers Life is Threatened (With No Time Limits)
John McCain agrees with this as well.
4. Your Current President is Not a Pro Life President, Bush Jr. is also (Pro-Choice)
Explain that ...Hmmmm
5. The Republicans are Not Solely or Strictly (Pro-Life)
6. Republicans consist of Independent Republicans, Moderate Republicans, Indifferent Republicans, yet the FOCUS is Always on the Conservative & Angelical Repulicans, that tend to GARNER all the ATTENTION.
7. Another Major Republican Mis-Conception, that ...
The Republican Party is Anti-Homosexual, when theres a TON of them in the Republican Party.
The Republicans have a Specific Homosexual-Gay Organozation called, now get this Title and Google it Up......
"The Log Cabin Republicans"
An Organization John McCain himself Solicited last month...
Source: www.reuters.com
Or Simply Google it Up !!!!
Theres only a Little Difference in these groups, which indicates a Political Monopoly
The CFR: Controls these Political Parties and David Rockefeller Controls the CFR and The Big Political Monopoly Game is being Played on ....YOU
-
Posted By: Omaar @ 08/26/2008 4:34:20 PM
Is the Repubican Party hiding behind being Pro-Choice and Pro Abortion in such cases as.....
1. In cases of Incest ( With No time Limit)
John McCain Agrees with this as well
2. In cases of Rape (With No Time Limits)
John Mccain agrees with this too.
3. In case the Mothers Life is Threatened (With No Time Limits)
John McCain agrees with this as well.
4. Your Current President is a (Pro Life President) Explain that ...Hmmmm
5. The Republicans are Not Solely or Strictly (Pro-Life)
6. Republicans consist of Independent Republicans, Moderate Republicans, Indifferent Republicans, yet the FOCUS is Always on the Conservative & Angelical Repulicans, that tend to GARNER all the ATTENTION.
7. Another Major Republican Mis-Conception, that ...
The Republican Party is Anti-Homosexual, when theres a TON of them in the Republican Party.
The Republicans have a Specific Homosexual-Gay Organozation called, now get this Title and Google it Up......
"The Log Cabin Republicans"
An Organization John McCain himself Solicited last month...
Source: www.reuters.com
Or Simply Google it Up !!!!
Theres only a Little Difference in these groups, which indicates a Political Monopoly
The CFR: Controls these Political Parties and David Rockefeller Controls the CFR and The Big Political Monopoly Game is being Played on ....YOU
------------------------------------
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
Discuss