Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIssue divides do not get much more stark than the one that Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama outlined when both presidential candidates took the stage Saturday at pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in Lakeside, California.
The high-profile "values forum" was a must appearance for both contenders.
And the right to choose was the must "ask."
Here's Obama's response: "One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And, so I think anyone who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue is not paying attention." Obama said. "I am pro-choice, I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They struggle with these decisions profoundly."
Here's McCain's: "I will be a pro-life president."
And yet Grandpa only gets 67% of them...could it be because they realize his statement of faith is not matched by his actions? Grandpa is supposedly a member of a megachurch in Arizona (actually Cindy's) and isn't known for being a churchgoer or advancing the cause of Christ. I think they smell Christian when it's convenient when they can smell it.
Posted by yutsano at 08/17/2008 @ 12:29am
round 17,546,345 begins!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:47am
it makes no difference in practice, does it? Next!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/17/2008 @ 12:46am
ah, but it's a wedgie........
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:50am
I just hope that women were paying attention that they heard John McCain said he is Pro Life and that life starts at conception and that he will have a Pro life administration. I dont know what that means but I do know it scared the dickens out of me. I had to double up my donation to Obama.
I thought another stark contrast was how they would address evil would they negoitate confront or destroy. McCain didnt hesistate he said destroy it. I thougth wow what a self righteous hypocrite. I simply cannot believe that someone who might be President of the United States a superpower while living in the 21st century would give such a basic simplistic answer. We will destroy evil and evil is Al Queada and Islamic extremist.
Obama on the other hand took that question to mean something totally different and to me thats very telling. Obama sees evil everywhere and NOT once did he mention Al Queada and Islamic Extremist. In fact he gave I qoute I dont remember it exactly but he said that evil can be found in do gooders. The way these men think are so DIFFERENT.
McCain is Bush times 300 he is a throw back to the past his thinking is so simple I said to myself good grief this is NOT what a President in the US in the 21st century should sound like. We are just going backwards.
I hope organizations such as Moveon.org was paying close attention to McCain because there is some doozies os sound bytes there that are begging to produced into an ad.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 08/17/2008 @ 01:57am
Obama had a conversation, whereas McCa could not stop pandering.
McCa's simplistic one dimensional answers appealed to the lowest brain cell in the audience obviously, but when he started answering before Warren even finished asking the question, it did nothing but beg the question of whether McCa having had some big time rehearsing of the questions way ahead of time-- especially as the moderator stressed the point that McCa was in the 'cone of silence' for no undue advantage. The overly simplistic answers are a dead giveaway as McCa can no longer memorize anything too complicated...
Sad that the 'religious right' once again exposes it's desperation for having to deal with a McCa and no other options.
Honesty is/was/will never be an option for the 'religious right' as they see themselves as god, and as such - can do no wrong, esp as they do wrong.
Thusly Obama's quote and the need to be humble in heart pursuing evil; a la 'the road to hell is paved...
But since McCa never left hell, he has no prob taking the rest of our nation there.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2008 @ 02:01am
We need to change the rhetoric from "Pro-Life" to "Anti-Choice". I don't know too many people who are not pro-life. In fact the "Anti-Choice" crowd seem to be more interested in protecting a fetus than they do in protecting the person and his/her rights that the fetus will become at birth. That is the reason it bothers me when Obama indicated that he had changed his position of opposition to welfare reform. We need to take care of the living and breathing and stop spending so much time debating the rights of the not yet born.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2008 @ 03:52am
"We need to change the rhetoric from "Pro-Life" to "Anti-Choice". I don't know too many people who are not pro-life."
Yes, we often must be specific on whose lives some people are against.
I think an equally good way to put it is that they are anti-woman.
Posted by onthehelm at 08/17/2008 @ 10:14am
Religious folks see a huge moral crisis with abortion.
But see if they have any issue whatsoever with using military force (privatized at US taxpayers' expense, no less) to invade and occupy foreign lands, and then strip mine and privatize every last resource and source for the citizens' livelihood.
Posted by FcukReagan at 08/17/2008 @ 10:15am
Yes, FrostyZoom is correct that this issue, like all "values" issues, primarily serves to distract voters from the number one issue anywhere-- economics.
Ride the tails of a lofty and moral anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-immigration campaign into unfettered Friedmanism the world 'round!
Posted by FcukReagan at 08/17/2008 @ 10:30am
Yup, McCain had the crowd, not only that but he seems to have the great television audiences of "ditto headed" talking heads as well. Did anyone, in their right minds, think that the "amen" crowd was going to vote for Obama in the first place. Hey folks didn't you hear? the pope said that life begins at conception. Kerry is still trying to find some priest to give him communion. Every news media has kept saying that McCain was clearly the best. I listened to the interviews twice and I still think that McCain sounded like a foggy brained old pow and war hero. Is their going to be a similar interview on a college campus soon?
Posted by julien38 at 08/17/2008 @ 11:05am
All one needs to know is that McCa will continue the petty corporate dic'tatorship and war profiteering, which cowardly whining new con repubs need for their # 1 top obsession-- their 'own' financial security.
They'll throw everyone else under the bus, especially their own women, the constitution, our infrastructure, our troops, all other peoples of the world in order to 'secure' their preciousness, their gold, their secret creed of greed.
What sick lowly hype-critters new con repubs are-- professing to be so clean of conscience as to speak for god to protect the yet unborn in 'his' name, but willing to kill and maim 10's of millions for their no-bid coin. Cowards, why not let the truth out?
New con repubs say no need to help the poor as the poor would be dependent on the help-- yet say the rich, big corporations, that benefit the most from our nation, need ever more money, tax break, bail-outs, no-bid contracts, corporate lobby rights, as the 'rich's' dependence on coin is not dependence, but 'only right'.
New con repubs need to come clean and openly profess allegiance to their worship of the golden calf. But then again that 'honesty' might disappoint their satanic god of deception...
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2008 @ 11:19am
"pro Lifers' need to be called out on what EXACTLY they consider Life! Just conception to birth, nothing afterwards. These Con artists have proven they are nothing more than '2nd coming ' zealots- they don't care anything about life after birth- and poverty and dispair are great antedotes for their "messiahs" story line. If they really wanted to end abortion- THEy would be pushing for every birth control method which elimiates Unwanted pregancies. They'd be spending all their money on helping children (SCHIP),they would support prevention education and fed funded contraceptives. Thye don't care about kids, their parents or their grandparents...they are breathlessly waiting for THEIR 'savior'. In return for their zealous efforts the Corps get the added bonus of increasing the population, thus a 'supply side' economic benefit of cheap labor. So who is it these "pro lifers" are really working for ..One who is Not 'mighty' enough to assure 'His' messenger survives and is not aborted, or the corps who benefit from this cheap commodity called Labor?
Posted by Purple girl at 08/17/2008 @ 11:53am
You religious people are so fucking dumb. I thought all a candidate had to do was declare himself Christian to get your votes. Yet McCain, the relative agnostic, will still get your vote, won't he? Why is this? Because he and Jesus stand together on cashing in on calamity and declaring economic victory wherever disaster strikes? Or is it because the other guy, the Christian one, lived in Indonesia and (of all foreign places) HAWAII?? Or maybe it's because he's black, after all.
Posted by FcukReagan at 08/17/2008 @ 12:44pm
All of the discussion regarding abortion revolves around the legality - using a stick. Rarely in that same conversation is there mention of a carrot approach. The discussion totally ignores the hardships a mother may face raising her children. A part of the conversation should include making it easier to choose the "keep the child option". There never seems to be dialoge about childrens healthcare or better inexpensive daycare/preschool. One way to reduce abortions is to make it easier to make the other choice.
Posted by VaDem1960 at 08/17/2008 @ 12:45pm
`It' maybe very, very or mostest "stark" of an issue, but it makes no difference in practice, does it? Next! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/17/2008 @ 12:46am
Gonna agree with Happy on this one. Doesn't make a difference if McCain is "Pro-Life" he isn't going to change Roe v. Wade. Bush is Pro-life and has been President for 8 years still hasn't managed to do it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2008 @ 12:48pm
Obama did not dodge the question about when life begins. He suggested that the question has no right or unequivocal answer. It's a question with which the pregnant woman wrestles, and it's best for her to come to her own decision in in the first two trimesters in which the fetus is not viable. A
What Obama suggested is that a woman should not be economically pressured to have an abortion. That is the best pro life policy I have ever heard, and it will drive the technocratic, eugenicist Republicans crazy. The Republicans are not at all coherent on abortion--the evangelicals are opposed to it, the racist technocrats are against any possibly pro-natalist policy for the poor. The Democrats however have a consistent position--a woman has the right to choose, and to have a real right to choose the mother should not be economically pressured into an abortion.
The best pro life policy is in fact the best pro-choice policy.
Obama has solved the puzzle. He is a genius, and the Republicans are simple minded ranters at war with each other.
Posted by hartal at 08/17/2008 @ 1:48pm
If life begins at conception as the pro-lifer's claim. What does that mean for:
In-vitro fertilization, where many ova are fertilized only to languish in petri dishes until they can no longer develop into viable fetuses? How many pro-lifers have ever used this procedure for getting pregnant but who also oppose abortion? And why are they not adopting all of those millions of orphaned children around the world rather than creating life and then destroying it?
What is the plan for birth control, much of which does not prevent fertilization, but rather, prevents the fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus? If life begins at conception, are all forms of birth control that prevent implantaion also going to be illegal if life is defined as beginning at conception?
Posted by spikey11 at 08/17/2008 @ 2:24pm
"Doesn't make a difference if McCain is "Pro-Life" he isn't going to change Roe v. Wade. Bush is Pro-life and has been President for 8 years still hasn't managed to do it."---Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2008 @ 12:48pm
Yes...WITH a GOP Congress for 4 years as well.
The question the pro-lifers should ask is...
Why didn't they???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/17/2008 @ 4:20pm
Any pro-life voter actually sold by Mc Cain's performance at this session needs an enema. After claiming that he believes that human life begins at conception, McCain turned right around two minutes later and declared his support for embryonic stem-cell research! You kill kids just as surely through embryonic stem-cell research as though abortion. No, no, John McCain isn't pro-life, he's simply a latter day Josef Mengele.
So if you don't like former Nazi's, try this high-sounding ca-ca from the bacterial Barak Obama on for size:
"One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And, so I think anyone who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue is not paying attention."
Having thus avered how terribly concerned he is for the morals of the abortion question, this filth goes on to demonstrate precisely how unconcerned he is with them when it comes to his promised voting behavior. Given the track record of this slime since he sewed up the Democratic nomination, I think it would be safe to say that American politics hasn't produced a less realiable, more oily figure in many years. And, from the polls, it looks as though quite a few are beginning to figure that out.
Pro-life people, if they intend to vote this time, need to support Chuck Baldwin. McCain is a Nazi and Obama an amoral slug.
Posted by john lowell at 08/17/2008 @ 5:05pm
I can always count on any discussion on abortion on this website bringing out all of the baby killers. And they do it with such glee.
There will be hopefully a special place in hell for all of those who are pro-abortion, and even more so for the doctors who perform them.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:24pm
There will be hopefully a special place in hell for all of those who are pro-abortion, and even more so for the doctors who perform them.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:24pm
and cluster bomb manufacturers?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:33pm
and cluster bomb manufacturers?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:33pm
Working in support of the defense of your country is not a sin. Murdering babies is.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:37pm
Working in support of the defense of your country is not a sin. Murdering babies is.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:37pm
but don't the bombs blow up babies?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:45pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:37pm ' Yeah, I'm sure none of those cluster bombs hit babies, hahahahahahaha.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2008 @ 11:10pm
McCain is a Nazi and Obama an amoral slug.
What an imbecile.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2008 @ 12:40am
Oh and by the way LVL don't bother with the typical "Cluster bombs aren't used in populated areas" argument. I disproved that long ago.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 12:52am
Few points...
1. "odd", huh, that FRANKGRITS made no appearance on THIS thread to defend McCain and attack Obama?
2. LVLIB will put down those "few incidents" where his cluster bombs killed babies as "regretable but not deliberate like abortion is". Which of course would be great comfort to the fathers and mothers of those babies (that survived) that it's "okay" morally that THEIR DELIVERED child got killed.
3. The abortion war is over, only the battles remained. South Dakota showed that outright bans have no public support and every poll shows the public favoring SOME kind of abortion rights, ergo the "pro-lifers" are the extremists since they brook NO compromises.
McCain, like Bush and the GOP Congress, will do little if anything to change things...(A) because he can't and (B) because the Republicans want to keep this an issue to rally their LVLIB base and if Roe were ACTUALLY threatened, they'd lose bigger than 1974 or 1932....and they know it.
The "lifers" are naive and actually think the GOP WANTS to overturn Roe.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 09:13am
McCain, like Bush and the GOP Congress, will do little if anything to change things...(A) because he can't and (B) because the Republicans want to keep this an issue to rally their LVLIB base and if Roe were ACTUALLY threatened, they'd lose bigger than 1974 or 1932....and they know it.
The "lifers" are naive and actually think the GOP WANTS to overturn Roe.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 09:13am
Being opposed to abortion as I am is on the principle of preserving the life of the innocent, not political gain. Do you think that abolitionists in the Republican party in the 1800's were only interested in seizing power?
You are the one operating from a position of moral bankruptcy on this Mask (and the rest of the baby killers with you). I would rather stay with my principles of trying to save the lives of those babies, even if not successful than to abandon them completely. At least my conscience will stay clean on this. What others do will be upon them.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:18am
Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2008 @ 12:40am
Hit home, did I schlub?
Posted by john lowell at 08/18/2008 @ 10:46am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:18am
Ah, but even YOU have surrendered on the issue, LVLIB.
Did you not tell us that you were in the "win over hearts and minds" not the "make it illegal" camp?
Or have you changed your mind and think that abortion should be banned legislatively now?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 11:59am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:18am
BTW, as noted on the other thread, your "principles" and "conscience" have NO problem with babies being killed by your cluster bombs.....you just say "that wasn't deliberate", which (as I said) I'm sure is a big relief to those mothers and fathers that survive.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/18/2008 @ 10:09am
By that time thought they will just be able to change his gene code to make him straight.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 12:42pm
All the standard stuff is in here by the "pro-choice" advocates. It does not hold up.
We see comments about how pro-life people are "wrong" because we want to save babies but don't want to help people after they are born, and we thought killing in Iraq is OK. (I am summarizing the views above in my own words)
This is false liberal analogy based on liberal beliefs. We are against socialist utopian ideas because they harm people rather than help people. And we were in favor of action in Iraq to save catastrophic loss of life down the road.
So the conservative position is consistent here, pro-life, in favor of lifting people out of poverty and creating equality by promoting self-capability and opportunity, not by making people wards of the state, and in favor of peace and democracy and life by stopping Saddam and fighting terrorists.
It is then said, as always, that pro-life people are anti-Woman. Liberals always overlook that many women do not agree they have a "right to choose". What they do NOT have is a voice in the Democrat party or in "Women's groups", which are not really "Women's groups" but groups of liberal women.
We then hear how it is an emotionally wrenching situation to have an abortion. This is true, for some. What is overlooked by Liberals though, is that for many it is simply an option for convenience, when a person is confronted with a situation (a baby) that interrupts their life's plans. So the baby is nuked, and life's plans go on. Liberals will not admit that this is the case far too often.
All these "pro-choice" advocates do not want to be told what to do with their lives, they want complete "freedom" to get rid of an unborn child if they want. The liberal arguments making Conservatives the moral monsters here are totally wrong.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 12:54pm
You are the one operating from a position of moral bankruptcy on this Mask (and the rest of the baby killers with you).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:18am
When are you folks going to learn that morals are relative. You act from moral bankruptcy because what is moral to you may be immoral to me. For instance you consider building cluster bombs to be moral. I and much of the world considers it to be immoral.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 1:00pm
"And we were in favor of action in Iraq to save catastrophic loss of life down the road."
Can't prove that.
"This is true, for some. What is overlooked by Liberals though, is that for many it is simply an option for convenience, when a person is confronted with a situation (a baby) that interrupts their life's plans. So the baby is nuked, and life's plans go on. Liberals will not admit that this is the case far too often."
Oh, I'll admit it. But does this overall the times when it is needed. Like when a baby is going to grow up to suffer for whatever short life it has? Or when the baby is a result of a father raping his daughter?
"All these "pro-choice" advocates do not want to be told what to do with their lives, they want complete "freedom" to get rid of an unborn child if they want. The liberal arguments making Conservatives the moral monsters here are totally wrong."
Nope. Like I pointed out. Morals are relative. The religious like to try to apply their moral code to everyone. That is not how it works. What is moral to you is immoral to me, what is moral to me is immoral to you.
This question is not one of right and wrong. This question is one of when does life begin. It's that simple and complicated. I think life begins when a baby is cognitive and can feel and survive on its own. You think life begins at contraception. Who's right? Who knows. But I know what I support.
"moral monsters "
You say we paint you as moral monsters but you call us baby killers. Who's painting who?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 1:06pm
Why is it Christian's can never follow simple rules of the Bible:
"1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
If I interpret that literally, without interpreting it like the religious enjoy doing, it means to me do not tell others what they are doing wrong because you YOURSELF are doing wrong. It makes you a hypocrite to judge others without ever noticing that for every sin you judge others for you have tons of your own.
(Continued)
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 1:18pm
"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."]
A simple one also. They even give the pre-assertion that these men are quoting the law of Moses and therefore the law of God. These men are making their judgments based on the law of God himself yet Jesus says they can not judge her. Isn't this what the religious love to say? That they are only judging based on the law of God, therefore they are backed by a higher power? Such simple lessons yet people can rarely follow them. Why? Because they just interpret them until they don't have to follow them anymore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 1:20pm
I agree with Obama in that aybe if we take away the obstacles taht may influencea woman to abort a child, there would be less abortions. The problem I see is the Republicans haven't brought anything to the table other than, "don't do it". Okay, now that I know you don't want me to do it, how are you going to help this baby once it's born? Is there going to be job training for the parent, childcare vouchers, or anything that gives the mother hope that bringing a child into the world will not plunge the mother and baby into poverty. True, if one can't support a child financially, one shouldn't put themselves in a position to get pregnant. Unfortunately, life doesn't and people don't work like that. Shit happens and it would be nice if both parties looked at all facets of the abortion issue( before and after) instead of what is most politically viable. As far as me going to hell, I'll leave that judgement up to GOD since he's the only entity that can make that call.
Posted by k330k at 08/18/2008 @ 1:28pm
Hello Cccomfor1,
I didn't call anybody a baby killer.
I brought up Iraq (not to re-hash the whole Iraq question again) and domestic poverty because I have seen far too many times where those on the Left immediately bring in topics like that in order to paint Conservatives as hypocrites for being pro-life. The implication is that Conservatives are "pro-death" or don't want to help people who need help after they are born. The conservative viewpoint on those issues is not the same as the liberal and we resent being painted as hypocrites for our opinions.
I don't agree abortion is needed. Even if a baby winds up having a short life, that is not our call to say the life should not take place anyway.
There are people whose baby has birth defects or who even adopt a baby with birth defects who view it as a blessing because they spirtually learn from having such a baby.
As far as a baby being able to survive on it's own, it can not do that for a long time after an acutal physical birth. If a baby was born and not fed and cared for it would die very quickly even after a physical birth.
You mentioned that a literal interpretation of the Bible would indicate that I have tons of my own sins.
I know that already. I am about the biggest screw-up I know. I can only speak for myself, but I am not attempting to judge anybody else with my opinion on this. I have enough trouble running my own life.
It is not my place nor do I try to tell others what to do. If my tone above was nasty, it's because when pro-life opinions are expressed, they are blasted immediately and pro-lifers are painted as hypocrites, etc, and some on the left say we are anti-woman, etc.
I am just trying to speak up for the unborn baby, who has no say in what happens. That is not fair
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 1:55pm
My claims were not squarely leveled at you. I meant your breatheren more than anything. Look at LVL if you want a perspective on the people I'm talking about. He can't have a calm rational conversation about abortion without calling people murderers and baby killers. If you call him a racist though in a conversation he will say you are being emotional and can't have a calm rational conversation. Never sees the irony.
"I don't agree abortion is needed. Even if a baby winds up having a short life, that is not our call to say the life should not take place anyway."
As the parent, it is your place to decide. It is not for me to decide for you if you want YOUR child to live a suffering life.
"As far as a baby being able to survive on it's own, it can not do that for a long time after an acutal physical birth. If a baby was born and not fed and cared for it would die very quickly even after a physical birth."
By on it's own I mean outside the mothers body. Not on it's own in the wild. Obviously I know a baby can't get food for itself. But when up until 3 months or so before the birth the baby can't survive outside of the mothers body even with proper care. That is what I mean by survive on its own.
And for a little perspective on this I defend abortion but I would never do it myself. If I got a girl pregnant I would attempt to convince her to not have an abortion. However I do believe that sometimes there are situations where it is better to let the baby die than to let it suffer. If I was going to be born into a world of nothing but suffering and pain until I eventually died I would not want to be born at all.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 2:12pm
'Q. THE COURTS. LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. WHICH EXISTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WOULD YOU NOT HAVE NOMINATED?
A: I WOULD NOT HAVE NOMINATED CLARENCE THOMAS. I DON'T THINK THAT HE. I DON'T THINK THAT HE WAS A STRONG ENOUGH JURIST OR LEGAL THINKER AT THE TIME FOR THAT ELEVATION.' -- Barack Obama/Rick Warren Interview transcript
'...Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama's Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified "white" candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?' -- Christopher Hitchens -- 18 January 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/18/2008 @ 2:13pm
I think Psalm 139 explains a lot. It talks about God knowing us in the womb as our bodies are being knitted which is the basis for a lot of the "life at conception " argument. On the other hand it also says God knows all of what we are and will be, that our paths are set and our lives are pretty much an open book to the creator.
I assume that means God knows when we will die too, whether it's in utero or after we're born. Maybe abortion is just destiny for some souls, like being stillborn or dying of SIDS. Just playing devil's advocate-that would be figurative, not literal thank you very much
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 2:17pm
Hello CCComfor1,
I know you were not leveling at me.
I am just trying to say what it is like for a Conservative who is pro-life, and then gets blasted by Liberals who bring in stuff like Iraq, domestic poverty etc in the discussion of abortion.
And this gets worse if a pro-lifer is arguing with a woman who gets angry and implies that pro-life Conservatives are taking away Women's rights, etc. - a bitter pill to swallow given the fact that many women do not agree with the legality of abortion. What I see is the Left forcing it's opinion on all women as though the Left speaks for all women.
And any pro-life Democrat has no voice. The late Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, a Democrat (his son is now a senator) wanted to speak at a Democrat convention years ago, and was denied.
And other problem area I have with this "third rail" topic of abortion is that the legality of it was imposed by judges, a judicial ruling by the Supreme Court which effectively made law from the bench, which is not supposed to be a prerogative of judges, who are there according to the Constitution to rule on law, not make law.
Even some legal scholars and lawyers who are pro-choice have admitted that Roe v Wade was "bad law". They are pro-choice but do not agree that it should have been implemented through Roe v Wade.
And since the makeup of the Supreme Court is essential to the continuation of Roe v. Wade, nominees who are constructionist judges and do not believe in law-making from the bench are crucified by Democrats in confirmation hearings, not just recently but for a long time now.
I have to admit some of these circumstances really tick me off. Some of these Democrats take no prisoners with their invective, especially those in the Senate.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 12:54pm
SJCHER, you're great at the "pro-life" rhetoric, but the proof is in the pudding...or in that case...YOUR "solution" to the problem?
Are you a
(A) win hearts and minds type pro-lifer?
or (B) a "change the law and make it illegal again" pro-lifer?
If (A)....fine. Rant away, but accept that your speeches fall on deaf ears to a majority of Americans who, in poll after poll, support SOME basic abortion rights....and a Republican Party who USES the issue to win elections and doesn't do anything about it.
If (B)...explain how, after South Dakota last year, you expect that to happen in the next 15-20 years, given no popular support and political inertia AT BEST from the political party that atleast rhetorically shares your view?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 3:19pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 2:42pm
While it is true that law should not be made from the bench at the same time it would not be illegal if they Supreme Court had not addressed it. So because there was no law on the books abortion would still be legal until it was brought up to the Senate. The problem is that often times the Supreme Court has things brought before them that is not their prerogative but they still have to make a ruling on it. They could have rejected the case but at the same time abortion would not have been illegalized because there is no law against it. Unless you are saying that it constitutes murder in which case it IS left up to the Supremem Court because they have to decided if abortion falls under that law or not.
It's a complicated issue to say the least.
Generally when I point out something that's off topic it is to show the moral selectivity of those who preach morals. Like LVL who often times sits on a high horse and preaches to those beneath him as if he is morally superior. Then when you point out that he is just as "morally bankrupt" as the ones he is talking about.
Many people cherry pick the Bible for what they want it to mean. They ignore one lesson in favor another. If there are contradictory codes of moral in the Bible doesn't that invalidate the entire book? Many things in the Bible don't NEED to be interpreted and can be taken at face value. Yet those who WANT it to mean something else choose to interpret things because it saves they use it to justify their wrong beliefs. I hate people quoting the Bible to me just as much as you hate people using those arguments against you because often times the people who are quoting are wrong.
It's a frustrating thing.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:25pm
Ah, but even YOU have surrendered on the issue, LVLIB.
Did you not tell us that you were in the "win over hearts and minds" not the "make it illegal" camp?
Or have you changed your mind and think that abortion should be banned legislatively now?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 11:59am
I Haven't surrendered at all Mask. As I have stated previously, murder is illegal but we haven't stopped murder from occurring in this country. The only effective way to stop the murder of babies will be the same as we did with blacks in this country. When people started acknowledging that blacks are people just as equally as anyone else, the lynchings and murders began to stop. It took a long time to change the hearts of many in the population, but eventually we have been successful overall in bringing recognition to blacks as equal citizens in the minds of most people (can't say all because bigots still exist).
One day, people in the US will hopefully to the the same conclusion about the unborn.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:26pm
When are you folks going to learn that morals are relative. You act from moral bankruptcy because what is moral to you may be immoral to me. For instance you consider building cluster bombs to be moral. I and much of the world considers it to be immoral.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 1:00pm
There is no such thing as moral relevancy except in anarchy. Then it just becomes whoever is strongest determines the morals.
Moral Relevancy was used by Hitler and other tyrants whenever they want to eliminate a people they don't consider human.
Mankind is incapable of determining moral standards on their own. That indeed is what produces the disaster known as moral relevancy.
Making cluster bombs is a moral act in that the instinct for survival is the strongest moral instinct that we have as human beings. Now perhaps you don't believe in a moral right to self defense and to survival?
And furthermore, as to your cities claim and the morality of cluster bombs, I think I am in a better position to judge on this. Since I was one of the engineers who developed our modern cluster bombs in the US, I know precisely what their intended use is and where they are most effective. NEVER
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
lvliberty-abortions will end when medical science makes them a thing of the past and not before.In fact,the increase in the worlds population and talk about food shortages will increase the number of those who are pro or apathetic about the issue.In fact,it's not even as big an issue for your type as it was.These days gays are the in thing with much of your crowd and they are,now,blamed for terrorist attacks and natural disasters and not abortion.It's not even much of an issue for this election.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 3:41pm
And furthermore, as to your cities claim and the morality of cluster bombs, I think I am in a better position to judge on this. Since I was one of the engineers who developed our modern cluster bombs in the US, I know precisely what their intended use is and where they are most effective. NEVER Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Uhh. I cited you examples of people being killed IN cities. So whether you like deny it or not it's untrue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2946054.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/01/iraq.foreignpolicy1
WRONG.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:47pm
And furthermore, as to your cities claim and the morality of cluster bombs, I think I am in a better position to judge on this. Since I was one of the engineers who developed our modern cluster bombs in the US, I know precisely what their intended use is and where they are most effective. NEVER Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Uhh. I cited you examples of people being killed IN cities. So whether you like deny it or not it's untrue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2946054.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/01/iraq.foreignpolicy1
WRONG.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Don't you understand, haven't you learned from history that just because what YOU want a weapon to be used for doesn't mean that is what it will actually be used for. Hell the developers of the nuke decided they didn't even want it to be used.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:49pm
More to CCC on Cluster Bombs.
Never was there ever a discussion internally or with the military about urban use of the weapon. I was there; I worked with the military to develop this weapon. I was in the field looking at duds after bombing runs. Not you.
The whole concept of the cluster bomb was the reduction of losses of American forces in combat. If you don't find that moral, then perhaps you support greater loss of life for American troops. I know that many on this site seem to have that preference.
And counter to the idiocy of Mask, no soldier, no one engaged in decisions affecting war strategies and the loss of human life takes them with a "I don't care, or I like seeing others die attitude". That is pure leftist hogwash. It shows an ignorance for who people really are and leads to the hatred of our men and women in uniform.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:51pm
There is no such thing as moral relevancy except in anarchy. Then it just becomes whoever is strongest determines the morals.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Ahh but then the problem of WHO determines the morals?
If you say God then all you are arguing is that the strongest determines the morals. Essentially you are saying that because Christianity is the most powerful religion therefore we get to determine the moral set.
The problem is your morals are not shared by everyone in the world. Whether you like to face it or not there is moral relevancy. Now I don't believe it justifies acts like Hitlers but there is some relevance of morals depending on where you come from. To you sex outside of marriage is immoral. To some people marriage itself is immoral.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:51pm
And counter to the idiocy of Mask, no soldier, no one engaged in decisions affecting war strategies and the loss of human life takes them with a "I don't care, or I like seeing others die attitude". That is pure leftist hogwash. It shows an ignorance for who people really are and leads to the hatred of our men and women in uniform. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:51pm
Oh I don't believe that at all. I think the generals DO care. But I think that to do their job they HAVE to block out a certain portion of that in order to just stay sane. Like a doctor has to block out a certain portion of things to stay sane. Sometimes they HAVE to sacrifice men in order to save an objective. It has been done throughout history. I know they feel bad about it though, what human being wouldn't? I know those people who dropped the nuke felt bad about their decision to do so.
"Never was there ever a discussion internally or with the military about urban use of the weapon. I was there; I worked with the military to develop this weapon. I was in the field looking at duds after bombing runs. Not you."
You may have been. But what you THINK and what has been shown to be fact is very different. What did the Iraqis pick up the unexploded cluster bombs and PLANT them in the city?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:58pm
"The whole concept of the cluster bomb was the reduction of losses of American forces in combat. If you don't find that moral, then perhaps you support greater loss of life for American troops. I know that many on this site seem to have that preference."
No I appreciate our men and women in uniform, but I also oppose the thought of a group of people being thought of as nothing but collateral damage. Which ends begging the question LVL and maybe you can answer it or me. Who's life is more important, an American soldier or an Iraqi child?
Because when it comes down to it that is what you are deciding when you drop a cluster bomb into a populated area. You are deciding who's life means more. Who's life is more important. Is it more important to save the American soldier. Or is it more important to save the Iraqi child, mother, daughter, grandmother, man whatever.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 4:00pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:26pm
So, long story short, you're in the "win hearts and minds" camp.
Fine....you're irrelevant then. If you actually were trying to get abortion illegal again...it'd matter.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 4:36pm
BTW, CCC...aside from saying "That's not what they were made for" or "I don't BELIEVE that they would be used that way"....
as LVLIB actually refuted your contention that cluster bombs were used in civilian, even urban areas?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 4:38pm
LVL, I don't know when you designed the cluster bombs you designed but now they have versions that can rip through 4 inch thick tank armor before exploding. THAT is more than affective against buildings. They have versions now that could be used to level a small town. All of them are becoming more and more useful in urban environments because increasingly our fighting is taking place in urban environments.
I know you have lived a long life but there is something you have missed in your examinations of history and your experience on this earth, rarely are inventions only used to the intents of their inventors. Arthur Nobel invented dynamite in the assumption that it would only be used to aid miners. It is now one of the most dangerous things to have ever bee invented. He didn't intend for it to be a weapon but it is. You didn't think that cluster bombs would be used in highly populated urban areas but they are.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 4:56pm
Also LVL one more question of logic. Why is it that if these are in fact NOT being used in cities and populated areas was the bill sent before Congress to prevent their use in populated areas struck down? Obviously they are being used and intend to be used more in civilian regions otherwise Congress would not have bothered striking down that bill.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 5:31pm
Hello Maskdelta,
You said above:
"and a Republican Party who USES the issue to win elections and doesn't do anything about it. "
But some in the Republican party do try to do something about it, by nominating constructionist judges to the Supreme Court when a vacancy occurs. This obviously causes a great deal of argument in the Senate, from Democrats who don't want to see those judges on the bench.
And yes, I will admit, I throughly defend President Bush but I do not understand why he nominated Harriet Miers to the court - it was not known if she would have been a constructionist judge or drift towards making law on the bench over time - but the President was pressured to withdraw her nomination.
With it's current makeup, the Supreme Court would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, even with the 2 new recent judges. It would require at least one more vacancy filled by another constructionist judge, plus I doubt they can just decide themselves to overturn a past ruling - probably a case would have to come before the court that would cause a ruling overtuning Roe v Wade to happen.
All that can be done has been done except to elect John McCain this November because if Barack Obama wins, certainly any judge put up by Democrats would be one favorable to the pro-choice view.
And then Republicans could be counted on to just accept the judge. As best as I can remember, when Bill Clinton put up Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the court, a leftist former lawyer for the ACLU, there was no real Republican opposition.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 5:52pm
For the poster who thinks it's tough having a woman "rip" into him because she thinks her right to choose is being threatened I must say it's a lot tougher to be ripped into for having made the choice.
I had an abortion. I also had a miscarriage, gave birth to my first child and adopted my second. In between I raised foster children. I still have had pro-life MEN in my face lecturing me about the sanctity and blessings of motherhood as though it has never occurred to me. Holy frijoles, what gives anyone the right to question a decision I prayed over, pondered and struggled with?
Me, my doctor and God. I know you mean well, but it is no one's business but mine.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 6:16pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 5:52pm
SJCHER, the "Human Life Amendment" to the Constitution has sat in Committee in the House for decades.
Bush had the White House, House, and Senate from 2003-2006.
That amendment still sat there.
Why?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 7:10pm
"Human Life Amendment" to the Constitution has sat in Committee in the House for decades.
Bush had the White House, House, and Senate from 2003-2006.
That amendment still sat there.
Why?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 7:10pm
hsuB/cHeney are satan.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2008 @ 7:39pm
"Me, my doctor and God. I know you mean well, but it is no one's business but mine."
Can't agree more.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 8:01pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2008 @ 7:39pm
No, they just know what most Republican politicians know...and even some in the pro-life leadership...
that actually overturning Roe would be the biggest political mistake the GOP could make outside of coming out openly for more taxes.
It would mean the issue is "off the table" (we know THAT phrase, don't we, HSUB) on a national level and it would go back to the States.
It also would mean a HELLUVA lot of Repubs would lose the next go-round as a public who supports some basic abortion rights would see that it was about to be taken away and the Repubs would either have to reject their Religious Right base...or lose everybody else.
Sooooooooooooooo....they TALK about it (since Reagan) and keep fooling Joe and Mary Fundy Church-goer into thinking "just one more election and we'll end the scourage of abortion"....and rinse, lather, repeat for 28 years.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 8:22pm
Children Killed and Maimed in Cluster Bomb Attack on Town by Robert Fisk in Baghdad
At least 11 civilians, nine of them children, were killed in Hilla in central Iraq yesterday, according to reporters in the town who said they appeared to be the victims of bombing.
Reporters from the Reuters news agency said they counted the bodies of 11 civilians and two Iraqi fighters in the Babylon suburb, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Nine of the dead were children, one a baby. Hospital workers said as many as 33 civilians were killed.
Terrifying film of women and children later emerged after Reuters and the Associated Press were permitted by the Iraqi authorities to take their cameras into the town. Their pictures – the first by Western news agencies from the Iraqi side of the battlefront – showed babies cut in half and children with amputation wounds, apparently caused by American shellfire and cluster bombs.
Much of the videotape was too terrible to show on television and the agencies' Baghdad editors felt able to send only a few minutes of a 21-minute tape that included a father holding out pieces of his baby and screaming "cowards, cowards'' into the camera. Two lorryloads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, could be seen outside the Hilla hospital.
Dr Nazem el-Adali, who was trained in Edinburgh, said almost all the patients were victims of cluster bombs dropped around Hella and in the neighboring village of Mazarak. One woman is seen lying wounded on a bed; she lost six of her children and her husband in the attacks. Another man is seen with an arm missing, and a second man, Majeed Djelil, whose wife and two of his children were killed, can be seen sitting next to his third and surviving child, whose foot is missing.
lvlib, did you say you worked on du, too?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:30pm
yes, larry, you previously said you felt remorse about this article's assertions and so i was somewhat reluctant to repost.
however, your present argument about "baby killers" seemed a tad hypocritical.
personally, i want nothing to do with either.
i find it hard to see someone who says they believe in jesus' teachings choosing such a horrible path.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:36pm
then perhaps you support greater loss of life for American troops. I know that many on this site seem to have that preference.
lvliberty
what hyperbolic drivel!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:38pm
There will be hopefully a special place in hell for all of those who are pro-abortion, and even more so for the doctors who perform them.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:24pm
careful with that karma.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:39pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:24pm
Dare you to answer the following Liver,and no cherrypicking.All or nothing.
If abortion is illegal, who will be prosecuted?
If a man doesn't turn in his pregnant wife or girlfriend is he also accountable? Does spousal privilege apply?
Will licensed physicians and midwives be held more or less accountable than a back street butcher?
If a woman induces miscarriage with a blow to the stomach or a well-planned drug overdose-both popular pre-Roe solutions-is she still culpable?
If a lay person suggests a method that may cause a miscarriage are they culpable?
How will pregnancy be enforced?
If incarceration is necessary to protect the fetus do we have the facilities?
Will the man, if he is involved in the decision that led to this incarceration be incarcerated for the duration of the pregnancy as well?
Who pays for extraordinary medical measures if they are necessary to treat an unwanted fetus?
If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy and dies as a result do her remaining children or spouse have the right to bring a wrongful death suit?
Will legislation be necessary to protect the government from wrongful life suits brought by severely disabled children if they reach adulthood?
Many unwanted pregnancies result in unwanted children. What is the best estimate as to how much we will need to expand the foster care system and Medicaid? Will the state or federal government fund it?
This is why GWB did nothing significant about abortion when he could have. Too complicated, made his brain hurt.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 9:04pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:24pm
Is the value of the fetus related to the circumstances of its conception? Is a child born of rape or incest of less value than a child resulting from a loving marriage?
If a fetus has the same rights as the mother why should it lose its life to protect the mother's life or health?
John McCain trying to make the abortion issue disappear by crowing "I'm pro-life" is cowardly and simple minded. I have never met an anti-choice advocate who could answer PRACTICAL questions about the consequences of not having legal abortions and John McCain is no exception. Not that anyone would have the cajones to actually ask him a practical question. Wouldn't want to embarrass a former POW. Wussies.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 9:20pm
Hello Maskdelta and Pogge,
First, Maskdelta continues to imply that most Americans support abortion rights.
This poll says otherwise. ==============================
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07051509.html
CNN conducted the massive poll, released on May 9th, which covered wide-ranging issues with an anti-conservative bent. Question 43 addressed abortion, asking respondents, "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"
The largest percentage--50 percent--of respondents indicated they considered themselves to be pro-life, compared to 45 percent who said they considered themselves to be pro-choice.
That question was not discussed in CNN's coverage of the poll. Despite citing response percentages for questions dealing with issues such as the Iraq war, national health insurance and economics, CNN glossed over the abortion response by stating that "Americans are divided over abortion rights" and "abortion-rights opponents have intensity on their side."
===========================
You both keep implying that Republicans have done nothing about abortion. But when they try, they meet full-throttle oppositon from the Left. Try promoting the teaching of abstinence in the schools and watch the fur really fly.
I know, this is a subject with no easy answers. But there are alternatives, such as adoption. Many couples want to have a child but can't, and want to adopt, but have to wait a long time to be able to do so.
I would be interested what you think, Pogge, about what I said earlier, how Liberalism imposes the "pro-choice" belief on all women effectively, we keep hearing about how this is a womens' issue, but what about the women who are not pro-choice? Why are their voices silenced?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 9:56pm
SJCHER, hard as it is to comprehend..."lifesitenews.com" isn't exactly impartial when it concerns abortion.
read this
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 10:05pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 9:56pm
So promoting abstinence-only sex ed (which fails by the way in studies done on it)....is the SOLE fight against abortion you can cite from the Republicans???
Kinda proves my point, huh?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 10:06pm
from sjchermak's cited cnn poll:
Extremely Very Moderately Not that No Important Important Important Important Opinion
The situation in Iraq 51% 37% 9% 2% *
Abortion 27% 24% 24% 24% 1%
seems not that many people care.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 10:14pm
Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?
May 4-6 2007
Yes 64%
No 35%
No opinion 2%
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 10:16pm
sjchermak
I cannot speak for other women, but neither Liberalism nor any other "ism" imposes any belief on me. As I said in a prior post I had an abortion, a miscarriage, gave birth and adopted as well as being a foster parent. My beliefs are based on my own experience and the experiences of those closest to me.
I have friends who are anti-choice whose motives are as pure as the driven snow and more power to them, but this is my body-my body for God's sake-not theirs! And what man would ever willingly give up control of his body for any purpose moral or medical? Yet a woman is expected to let the church, the state or both make decisions for her for the greater good. It ain't working for me Adolph.
You didn't address any of the questions I posed to Liver. Stop being patronizing and cough up some answers.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 10:17pm
Me, my doctor and God. I know you mean well, but it is no one's business but mine.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 6:16pm
I couldn't have said it better myself.
"Try promoting the teaching of abstinence in the schools and watch the fur really fly." Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2008 @ 9:56pm
If you think that's hard, try teaching abstinence in schools.
Posted by k330k at 08/18/2008 @ 10:28pm
www.lifesitenews.com
McDonald's Restaurants Continue to Promote Homosexuality Sponsors training for homosexuals on how to promote their agenda among corporations from the inside
Westminster Exorcist Says Promiscuity can Lead to Demonic Possession
2008 UNAIDS Report: Condoms, Condoms, Condoms (Did We Mention Condoms?) and…Drugs
Brazil's Plummeting Birth Rate Linked to Influence of Soap Operas
Under Influence of Harry Potter, Kids are Being Drawn into the "Language and Mechanics" of the Occult
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 10:37pm
Posted by k330k at 08/18/2008 @ 10:28pm
Hey, try BEING abstinent in school. Sometimes when I listen to the nieces talking about their "hot" high school crushes I feel a wave of deja vu wash over me like a lukewarm flood of phermones, Clearasil and Boones Farm. I can still hear the little devil on one shoulder saying "Oooh he is sooo cute and you know ya want him, want him want him!" while the angel on the other shoulder said....well, something less compelling. :)
Adolescence. What a nightmare.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 10:40pm
pheromones, boone's farm?
hmmmm?
where do i sign up?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 11:00pm
Don't know frosty, but I will tell you one thing, I don't regret one stupid minute of my misspent youth. Sure I could have gotten better grades or been more constructive, but in the end we are only young enough to be so blissfully, blindly foolish once and I am glad I dove right in.
My sister looked at decadent things and said "ewwwww, no way" while I always said "hmmmmmm, maybe just this once".
If God really wanted me to be good I would have been created with a little less appreciation for temptation.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 11:10pm
"Under Influence of Harry Potter, Kids are Being Drawn into the "Language and Mechanics" of the Occult"?!?!??!?
Do those guys let their kids watch "The Wizard of Oz"? Or are they THAT nutty as well?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 11:12pm
Do those guys let their kids watch "The Wizard of Oz"? Or are they THAT nutty as well?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 11:12pm
well,
i DO see that lots of people let their kids watch SAW17 an' such,
so, i don't know who's nuttier.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 11:23pm
One of my neighbors never allowed her kids to trick or treat because she thought it was "evil". Naturally, she also hated the Harry Potter books and movies, because Jesus was not called upon to fight Voldemort. However, calling on a lion to fight a witch in "The Chronicles of Narnia" was A-OK because C.S.Lewis was.....aggressively Christian? I don't know. I never could follow the logic.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 11:31pm
Hello Pogge,
I am not patronizing you, nor was my post intended to answer your questions. I posed a question to you - since you are a woman what do you think of the fact that the Left claims to speak for all women on this issue when all women do not agree with abortion.
What is proclaimed to be a woman's issue is really leftist belief, whether a male or female expresses that belief.
I am tired of some person such as yourself acting as the PC police and laying down some penalty flag that I am patronizing you by asking you a question, just because you are a woman.
You on the left have a habit of deciding what is speech that is patronizing, offensive, etc - all based on ground rules you set down. You obviously are pro-choice so I can see there was no point in asking you the question I did, but I would think there are plenty pro-life women that are quite ticked that this is framed as a "women's issue" when they as women do not agree with it.
And I am tired of hearing about how it is your body and your decision only, etc. What about the BABY? God forbid, anybody mention that - they are condemned and skewered by you on the Left for imposing morality, etc. As I said earlier in this thread, I do not try to impose my beliefs on others and it is not up to me to tell YOU what to do, but - WHAT ABOUT THE BABY? Why is it OK that the baby has no say?
You called me Adolph up above. I get the inference. You have nerve beyond belief to say that. I am tired of foul-mouthed libs such as yourself (NOT ALL LIBERALS ON THIS SITE ARE FOUL MOUTHED LIKE YOU) preaching morality and imposing speech codes and throwing penalty flags for patronizing when there was none when your mouth belongs in the sewer or the landfill.
What say you about that, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 08:01am
Hello Maskdelta,
You said above "Kinda proves my point, huh?"
Acutally, no.
We can go all day throwing polls at each other and there is no point, for every poll we each find the other can find a poll supporting the opposite.
You continue on the theme that Republicans didn't do anything. I said above, the only thing that can be done is for the Supreme Court to have a case come before it where their ruling effectively overturns Roe v Wade.
That ruling, by judges acting outside the bounds of their Constitutional charter, imposed that abortion was legal, whereas before it was deemed not to be. So people at the ballot box or through their town councils or state legislatures, etc, did not decide this in their localities, unlike other countries.
This question is a question of morality, but - like it or not liberals, it is a matter of public law and policy as well. As such, everybody has a right to "weigh in" on this issue, and participate in the decisions about it.
Yet, the collective sentiment from the Left (in my own words and NOT a quote from anybody on this site or anywhere else -but my summation of the apparent sentiment) is that this a private personal matter and nobody other than the individual person has a say in the matter. The Left's collective sentiment to the right is to shut up, along with implication that people on the right are hypocrites because of opinions in other areas (Iraq, domestic policy, etc), and the demand that Conservatives stop preaching morality.
However, given that this is a matter of public policy and law, this CAN NOT be.
It's not appropriate to order the "Right" or Conservatives to shut up, on matters of public policy and law everbody has a say in this country. It is not up to the left to decide who can speak.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 08:44am
We can go all day throwing polls at each other and there is no point, for every poll we each find the other can find a poll supporting the opposite.----Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 08:44am
No, SJCHER, that won't fly. The polls I showed were MANY showing public support for some basic abortion rights. The ONE poll you cited showed people by a slim majority saying they were "pro-life"....and I don't dispute it.
It simply means that in THEIR personal life, those people wouldn't haven an abortion...but the same polling data shows that they DON'T want that choice imposed on other people. Contradictory as it sounds, those people are "pro-life"...but just for themselves and don't want it made illegal.
So the "We can argue all day" argument doesn't hold water. Poll after poll shows Americans are NOT vehement "pro-lifers" such as yourself and for further proof look at the debacle in South Dakota where they had to overturn their ban almost immediately (and where, like any ban, it proved irrelevant anyway because Indian reservations, outside of state law, immediately offered abortion services.).
Second..."the only thing that can be done is for the Supreme Court to have a case come before it where their ruling effectively overturns Roe v Wade."...
no...that's not the "only thing". A Constitutional Amendment banning abortion could be enacted, hence my reference to the "Human Life Amendment" offered up first in NINETEEN-SEVENTY-THREE (1973) by Laurence Hogan and continually updated since then.
And for over two decades, it has stayed in the House Committee, never reaching the floor for a vote.
Why? The Repubs had the House and Senate from 2003-2006 and a "pro-life" President in the White House???
Because Repubs NEED it to be kept legal.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 09:04am
Maskdelta,
A Constitutional Amendment banning abortion is not necessary to make abortion illegal.
Abortion was made legal because of judges making law from the bench, in Roe v Wade.
Before that abortion was deemed to be illegal. If Roe v Wade were ever overturned, then it would be up to individual communities or states to decide to legalize it or not.
Although I would oppose it being legal, it would then be the will of the people in a given locality.
This is apparently, from my understanding, what has happened in the U.K.
So whatever you say is totally moot. What needs to happen is for a constructionist judge to be put on the Supreme Court when the next vacancy occurs, which would then tilt the court towards a ruling, when a related case comes before them, that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Then the people would decide in their localities, if they are of a mind to do so, to legalize it or not. The will of the people.
It is not appropriate to try and patchwork around what was an inappropriate ruling by the court to begin with, for reasons other than the question of abortion. (Judges making interpretations of the law that are so loose that the judges are effectively making law from the bench).
You contend that many support abortion rights, but are you willing to allow Roe v Wade to be overturned and then let the people decide? If you are not, then why not, given your apparent confidence that people support "abortion rights"?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 09:34am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 09:34am
SJ, are you being deliberately obtuse?
A Constitutional amendment would CIRCUMVENT any "judicial activism" since it would make abortion illegaly in the US Constitution and therefore end all debate on it (unless the Amendment were recinded).
Now...AGAIN...why didn't the GOP Congress and GOP White House SOMETIME between 2003 and 2006...move that Amendment out of Committee and to the Congress for a vote?
And remember, you've already CLAIMED that "most Americans are pro-choice", so saying "It wouldn't pass" would mean you contradict yourself.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 10:50am
And remember, you've already CLAIMED that "most Americans are pro-choice", so saying "It wouldn't pass" would mean you contradict yourself.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 10:50am
Correction...CLAIMED that "most Americans are pro-life"...sorry.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 10:51am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 08:01am
Foul mouthed? Sure you have the right poster? Give examples please because I have no clue what you are referring to.
Abortion IS a woman's issue, so are birth control, pregnancy, breast cancer and a host of other things. Men can have concerns, men can be supportive, but come on, do you think most of us spend our days worrying about enlarged prostates or erectile dysfunction?
I have never said any woman needed to agree with me. That goes against feminist principles. But telling me what to do with my body or my baby while it is still part of that body is no one's business-right or left. If a woman wants to have 18 kids or have one knowing she will die in the process she has every right to MAKE THAT CHOICE no matter what I think, also a feminist principle.
That answers your question, so how about tackling at least one of mine?
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 11:02am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 09:34am
Actually it's neither illegal or legal because there is no law covering it. If you say it is covered by murder then it IS the Supreme Court who can rule on it because they are now deciding if abortion is covered under another law. That's why it's complicated. If it gets overturned it's still not illegal because there is no law stating that it is illegal to have an abortion.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 11:53am
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 11:02am
So essentially you are saying you don't care if a person is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice all you care about is no one telling YOU what to do.
I agree. I as a male would never urge a woman to have an abortion if I got her pregnant. I would support her in whatever decision she made but I personally wouldn't want her to do it. However I DON'T want to take that choice away from others just because I choose to not do it in my own life.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 11:55am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 11:55am
Yup.
If all men were like you there would be fewer abortions and isn't that really the whole point? I've known a couple of doctors and nurses who perform abortions. Every one of them said that even in cases of extreme medical necessity it's a terribly, terribly hard thing to do. They all expressed the hope that someday it would be so rare they could talk about abortion like we talk about iron lungs. They aren't hard-hearted or avaricious, just painfully aware that human beings have their limits and not every problem has a nice tidy solution.
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 1:03pm
Hello Cccomfor1,
It isn't me saying it was legal or illegal, it seems that was the prevailing belief - that Roe v. Wade legalized it. I am not saying everybody believed that, but that seems to be the way this has been presented over the recent years.
If you are of the opinion that it is neither illegal or legal because there was no law covering it, that is an argument way beyond me, that is an argument you would have with a lawyer or someone in law school or someone who had been trained in the law in the past, as far as what the law covers.
Where I come from about the Supreme Courts decision is that Roe v Wade was based on a loose interpretation by the court of what it said in the Constitution about privacy rights. There is nothing in the Constitution that comes close to commenting on abortion specifically, and I have seen mentioned in the public domain several times over the years that there are legal scholars who are pro-choice but think Roe v Wade was bad law.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 2:50pm
Hello Pogge,
You said above "Foul mouthed? Sure you have the right poster? Give examples please because I have no clue what you are referring to."
Here is your earlier post:
==================================
sjchermak
I cannot speak for other women, but neither Liberalism nor any other "ism" imposes any belief on me. As I said in a prior post I had an abortion, a miscarriage, gave birth and adopted as well as being a foster parent. My beliefs are based on my own experience and the experiences of those closest to me.
I have friends who are anti-choice whose motives are as pure as the driven snow and more power to them, but this is my body-my body for God's sake-not theirs! And what man would ever willingly give up control of his body for any purpose moral or medical? Yet a woman is expected to let the church, the state or both make decisions for her for the greater good. It ain't working for me Adolph.
You didn't address any of the questions I posed to Liver. Stop being patronizing and cough up some answers.
Posted by Pogge at 08/18/2008 @ 10:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
============================
Pogge, who is Adolph? If you meant Adolph Barnes, or Adolph Smith or Adolph Wilson or Adolph Gonzales or Adolph whoever other than the leader of the Nazis, then I apologize for calling you foul mouthed. If you meant the leader of the Nazis, then you are foul mouthed.
It also ticks me off to be told not to patronize you, as I already mentioned. The question I was rasing was asking about the view from a woman's perspective about how Libs impose leftist belief about abortion on all women, or imply that Lib belief is Women's belief.
How is asking a woman what a woman thinks about an issue patronizing?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 2:58pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 2:50pm
This is true. There is no law on the books besides the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. So states could have illegalized it but there was no blanket law across the country saying it was illegal. Most states try to say it fell under murder. But there is no blanket law that ever said abortion was illegal. It was just the popular thought at the time that it should be. But there hasn't been a law specifically addressing it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 1:03pm
I have known a few women around me who have gotten abortions. It's such a misconception that these women just go into the decision like it's a joke. This isn't a light decision and I know most women battle with it. They don't need someone screaming at them that they are a baby killer. Some Christians, and emphasize SOME, can be the most judgmental people even though their religion urges them to not judge others.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:04pm
The political reality of abortion is...it's chief opponents are simply pawns of the Republican Party, used every election cycle...."fired up" with dreams of "overturning Roe" and "stopping those lib'ruls from making it Federally-funded and taking your 13 year old daughter to a clinic without your knowledge"....
and it's been going on for almost THIRTY years.
As noted to SJCHR, the Human Life Amendment stays in Committee....never moving, even under GOP Congresses, even under GOP Congresses and a BUSH White House!
Now...guys like CHERMAK might not think to hard on it....some other "pro-lifers" may, but realize they have no choice BUT be used to keep this DREAM of "banning abortion" alive.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 3:57pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 2:58pm
Adolph Menjou and still no answers.
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 4:10pm
If you mean the "other Adolph", Pogge...
don't slip into "Godwin's Law". Never bodes well.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 4:32pm
Pogge,
Your questions were put to somebody else other than me and I find it arrogant that you demand I answer them. However, here goes, but it will require more than one post due to the word limit.
=====================
"If abortion is illegal, who will be prosecuted? "
ANSWER: A doctor or the person who caused the abortion would be liable. I will mention, however, that all of your questions approach this subject from the perspective that abortion is legal now and from paranoia that it would be rigidly prosecuted if Roe v Wade were overturned.
What the real situation is, unfortunately abortion did not begin with Roe v Wade, and in the past there was not rigid enforcement or prosecution on this topic. What has happened in recent times, with it being codified into law (through wrong judicial practices) is that abortion is now to some degree encouraged, and any attempts to limit it discouraged, or condemned. In the past it was discouraged, but not rigidly enforced. So that probably put some limit on it. Now if you dare suggest alternatives to abortion to a pregnant woman, you get skewered and condemned. It seems much of the Left wants this wide open.
==========================
see next post, ctd.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 4:53pm
Pogge,
comments, continued.
The next block of questions are:
==========================
If abortion is illegal, who will be prosecuted?
If a man doesn't turn in his pregnant wife or girlfriend is he also accountable? Does spousal privilege apply?
Will licensed physicians and midwives be held more or less accountable than a back street butcher?
If a woman induces miscarriage with a blow to the stomach or a well-planned drug overdose-both popular pre-Roe solutions-is she still culpable?
If a lay person suggests a method that may cause a miscarriage are they culpable?
How will pregnancy be enforced?
If incarceration is necessary to protect the fetus do we have the facilities?
Will the man, if he is involved in the decision that led to this incarceration be incarcerated for the duration of the pregnancy as well?
========================
I say these are a block, because they really are all driven by obsession on your part that there will be hyper-enforcement of law regarding abortion were it to be made illegal, a perspective that is unfounded.
Someone, you or Maskdelta or somebody else will ask that if it is not enforced than what is the point of making it illegal. The point, as I said in my last post, is that pushing to make it legal removes the effort to discourage the practice.
=======================
"Who pays for extraordinary medical measures if they are necessary to treat an unwanted fetus? "
Adoption should be encouraged, and there are couples who want to adopt children but have to wait a long time to do so.
=============================
continued on next post
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 4:58pm
Pogge,
answers, continued:
==========================
"If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy and dies as a result do her remaining children or spouse have the right to bring a wrongful death suit?
Will legislation be necessary to protect the government from wrongful life suits brought by severely disabled children if they reach adulthood? "
One should not be terminating a pregnancy, thus no basis for a wrongful death suit.
Wrongful life? I have to remember I am on The Nation website, and when one comes here one is usually tempted to say, as Dorothy did when arriving in Oz, "Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore!"
Wrongful life? The idea that somebody can sue the government because their Mom did not kill them? Wrongful life? Right now Oz is looking a lot more normal than The Nation website!
===========================
"Many unwanted pregnancies result in unwanted children. What is the best estimate as to how much we will need to expand the foster care system and Medicaid? Will the state or federal government fund it? "
Adoption should be encouraged, and there are plenty of people who want to adopt kids. We do not need the expansion of any kind of government, but it is also wrong to establish a cost/benefit analysis to keeping people alive.
Liberals sometimes head in this direction, such as were euthanasia is OK in the Netherlands now, and since Liberals think everthing in Europe is good and what we should do here, it will no doubt be promoted here someday. ============================
Happy now? I have answered your questions.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 5:05pm
In the past it was discouraged, but not rigidly enforced. So that probably put some limit on it. Now if you dare suggest alternatives to abortion to a pregnant woman, you get skewered and condemned. It seems much of the Left wants this wide open. ========================== see next post, ctd. Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 4:53pm
That's actually not true. In the past it WAS enforced. That was why women were instead getting punched in the stomach or having back alley abortions. Because anyone who did it suffered consequences. Abortion is not encouraged now it is just not discouraged. The people who discourage abortions tend to pass along false information and lies to try to dissuade women from doing it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 5:07pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 4:58pm
When my hubby and I decided to adopt it took one phone call to find a child, less than three months for placement plus a six month wait for finalization.
Of course we wanted a child. The only couples I know who "have to wait a long time" are waiting for a healthy white infant.
BTW Sorry Liver didn't respond, but you are basically saying a serious response isn't necessary because even if abortion were illegal the laws won't be enforced. My point is that they can't be enforced universally,and the GOP knows it, but these laws can be used to punish some women for political expediency.
You're right about the practice never stopping entirely. Wealthy women have always had access to safe abortions, always will.
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 5:17pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 4:58pm
So basically you want a "toothless" abortion ban...just because it will make you feel better?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 7:55pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 7:55pm
I may be giving Cher more credit than he deserves here, but there is some merit to the idea that if the law merely encourages disapproval it will tend to curb bad behavior in the meekest and most conformist souls. I remember how effective the "Don't be a litterbug" campaign was and it sure wasn't because there was any real danger of being caught.
It's the same strategy the anti-gun lobby uses, though fighting the death culture in this country is probably a losing battle. For all the right to life rhetoric it's Jesus in a manger and then straight to the cross for most of them. The man's life between those two events means very little.
Neither do ours me bucko. We're a helpless fetus, an adorable baby then public enemy #1 for a few decades before we have the good grace to die and go straight to hell. :)
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 8:39pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 8:39pm
I SERIOUSLY doubt the "pro-lifers" are going to settle for a "toothless" abortion ban where "sure, it's illegal, but nobody is ever REALLY busted for it!"
I've seen some of those guys admit that if a woman has a self-induced abortion (RU-486, etc.)...they'd want to see her given Man-1 or even Murder-1.
Which means in a death penalty state, you COULD see a woman be executed for giving herself an abortion!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 9:15pm