Obama can’t say babies have human rights
I have to hand it to Rick Warren. Many of his questions last night to presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain were very good. This one was the best:
“At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”
Very simple. But Obama wouldn’t answer it. He wouldn’t even confer human rights to newborns. He couldn’t even say, “at birth,” which should be the pro-abortion position of all but the Peter Singers in the world.
Obama responded…
Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
“Above my pay grade”? And this man wants to be president?
That was an amazing statement. But Obama couldn’t commit to saying even newborns have human rights, you see, because he knew that would give Warren the opening to ask about Obama’s opposition to the ILBorn Alive Infants Protection Act.
Obama should reread his own book, Audacity of Hope, for he had an answer for Warren there (pg. 53, hardcover edition):
… [T]he essential idea behind the Declaration – that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will – is one that every American understands.
No, there is one American who doesn’t understand that, incredibly the writer of that statement.
Even then Obama got it wrong. He had just quoted from the Declaration “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Created equal. Endowed by their Creator. Life. But I digress.
At least in Audacity Obama was willing to commit to rights at birth, something he can no longer do because he’s being painted into a corner by his opposition to Born Alive.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What a joker. He would not answer the first question about when a baby has rights. Instead he gave a bunch of spin, including his statement that he is inserting “reducing the number of abortions” into the Democratic party platform. So Rick Warren responded with a follow-up question, “when have you ever voted for legislation to reduce the number of abortions. Again, rather than give the honest yes or no (which in his case would have been NEVER), instead he goes into a spin about how he is n favor of some restriction on late term abortions. Talk is cheap BHO. Driving drunk is a morally wrenching issue too. But for many it not the morality of the decision, but it is the fact that it is illegal and people go to jail for it that stops most from doing it. Barack is clown without a conscience who says whatever he thinks he needs to ion order to get elected.
On the other hand, John McCain is a man of conscience and conviction so he had no problem fielding the same question; his answer was that babies have rights at the point of conception.
Someone in his camp should tell Obama that his statement, “the fact is that although we’ve had a President who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years… abortions have not gone down,” is incorrect. Abortion rates have gone down ever since the Reagan era.
Unless Obama was referring to Planned Parenthood’s abortion rates, but I doubt it.
Even if Obama were to ever concede that the right to life begins at birth, I bet he’d say that a live baby who survives abortion has no right to live.
Because in Obama’s view, that baby was never “born”, but merely removed from the womb upon the demand of the mother.
And that the mother continues to have property rights over the baby, including the “right” to have that baby killed.
He just can’t say it in public.
What a blind, selfish view.
My favorite question was “Does evil exist and how do we deal with it?”.
A no-brainer for McCain. “We defeat it.” There. End of story.
Obama? (paraphrasing) “It exists, abroad in Darfur, at home, on the streets, kids abused by their parents…” ,And I don’t have the time to insert the uhs, ers, wells, you see’s…
Ugh. I cannot even stomach watching him. He gives me the creeps.
“Truthseeker”, how is driving drunk a morally-wrenching issue? It seems to me quite unambiguous.
Yes, Cranky Catholic, Obama’s wrong, the recorded abortion rate has gone down as the baby-boomers age, but I’m not so sure about the true rate if you count zygotes that are prevented from implanting by b/c as abortions. There’s no way to measure how many those are.
Yeah, McCain is a man of conscience and conviction, who abandons the wife who waited for him while he was a POW, for a young, party-girl heiress to whom he lies about his age. Who votes for torturing prisoners after making a career as a torture survivor. Who says if his daughter wants an abortion it’s up to her but claims to be RTL. Who promised to run a clean campaign, one we could judge him by.
Not that dishonesty and flip-floppery are the worst problems with McCain; they’re not. The worst problem with McCain is his compulsion to make everything that happens a reason for picking a fight.
I see many reasons to vote for Obama but one of the most important is McCain.
http://www.amazon.com/Real-McCain-Conservatives-Independents-Shouldnt/dp/0979482291/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219013398&sr=8-6
Forgot to say: McCain promised to avoid lobbyists and now he’s in bed with Ralph Reed, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Jack Abramoff business.
“On the other hand, John McCain is a man of conscience and conviction”
Indeed, cheating on your injured wife certainly does take conviction…conscience? Well…maybe in his pants.
SoMG:
So McCain isn’t God but an imperfect man who has a 25 year record of faithful service to his country and has not lied about his failures? And his adultery, which is the breaking of a commandement of a God you don’t believe in gives you pause?
In your veiw that makes Obama, a pro-abort liar, your messiah and, wothy of your vote? So you’re no longer an atheist using all these touchy-feely religious anecdotes? I’d bet you wouldn’t be an atheist if you were in an Islamic POW camp and just found out that those guys with rags over their heads were from a more liberal branch of Shiites that weren’t pro-lifers and believed that life didn’t begin until after you crapped your pants and you screamed like a pig coward.
And this from somone who makes a living destroying innocent babies in the womb. Warning, conflict of interest, conflict of interest, dangerous medical professional ahead, Warning!!!!
Tell me what would you do if you couldn’t kill babies SoMG? Wait on tables? I hear Paris Hilton is looking for a press secratary, you know someone like her, that can put a face on an empty head.
You knew that I own a diaper factory here in Phoenix don’t you? I could care less who wins. McCain – more babies, more diapers, I get richer. Obama – less babies, but a lot more crap, tons more crap, I get even richer. Either way I win. I also own a medical clinic in the Bahamas. We’re just waiting for the Obama Man and I hear he bought stock in a Miami ferry company and an anti-sea sickness pill company. Lots of folks will be coming over here for medical attention when all the docs become abortion specialists under the new Obama Health Plan “Will Get Pregnant and Have Abortion for Food Program”. Oh, so many undiscovered scams out there just waiting to be revealed.
Hey have you checked this site out on all the lies Obama has told over his vote against the Born Alive Infant Potection Act? Go here and you may learn something:
http://www.JillStanek.com
What’s that you say? Your blinded by what? You have an aversion to what? Oh, Oh, the truth.
Even if Obama were to ever concede that the right to life begins at birth, I bet he’d say that a live baby who survives abortion has no right to live.
Because in Obama’s view, that baby was never “born”, but merely removed from the womb upon the demand of the mother.
And that the mother continues to have property rights over the baby, including the “right” to have that baby killed.
He just can’t say it in public.
What a blind, selfish view.
Posted by: Nick at August 17, 2008 5:43 PM
Hey Nick:
Ever heard of a straw man? That’s what you’ve just set up. Your view of your interpretation of what Obama didn’t say – then you proceed to criticize that interpretation as if Obama had said it.
Logically laughable ploy – see Gilda Radnre’s Rosannnrosannadanna skits. Hint: your response should be: “Nevermind.”
http://www.JillStanek.com
What’s that you say? Your blinded by what? You have an aversion to what? Oh, Oh, the truth.
Posted by: HisMan at August 17, 2008 6:53 PM
No hisman, it’s just that most people have aversions to ugly, mean -spirited, nasty, narrow-minded vicious, irrational zealots.
But then again, it is fun to play drive-the-semi- through-the-hole in their logical arguments, sometimes.
But it’s such a beautiful evening – at the end of a beautiful day – we should all spend more time outdoors – away from the computer TTFN!
HisMan, I am not an athiest. And McCain’s adultery offends me not because it breaks Your Imaginary Friend’s commandment but because it indicates a willingness to lie and break promises.
And it is indeed funny to hear someone who voted for Governor Bush over Vice-President and Senator and Congressman Al Gore talking about how important long years of “service” are for a presidential candidate.
To SoMG
Put this in your pipe an smoke it:
In April ’08 Newsday reported that Obama took about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees at their Miami offices last October. The firm made headlines when its biggest lobbyist, JACK ABRAMOFF, admitted to several counts of corruption and was sentenced to prison.
Ds, I see, so the fact that some employees of a company that once hired Abramoff gave money to Obama–that he took contributions from someone who works with someone who works with Abramoff–is supposed to somehow counterbalance the fact that McCain who made such a big deal about how lobbyists subvert government and I won’t work with them because I have Integrity (and Conscience and Convictions) is now associating himself with Ralph Reed, an actual co-conspirator named by the court in the same document with which it indicted Abramoff, and incidently one of the most successful and mercenary lobbyists in all of world history? Do you see how different the two are? You must really think your readers are stupid. Which is probably not such a bad assumption given the venue.
LOL-Jill, I couldn’t sleep last night because I was up late blogging about this, too, and I also referenced the Declaration of Independence!
Obama’s comment just made me SO angry. This guy can run, but he can’t hide.
Ever heard of a straw man? That’s what you’ve just set up. Your view of your interpretation of what Obama didn’t say
Hey phylosopher,
Yes, I’ve heard of a straw man. Since Obama refused to answer the question, he leaves us guessing. I simply speculated about his motives. I made it clear that I was speculating, not quoting. Get the difference ?
Now’s your chance to answer a question Obama won’t answer: What do you propose doing with infants who survive abortion ?
Now’s your chance to answer a question Obama won’t answer: What do you propose doing with infants who survive abortion ?
Posted by: Nick at August 17, 2008 11:47 PM
………………..
What would you propose to do with infants born too early to survive birth? Nix nine that early birth? Good luck junior.
Sally,
give them a reasonable fighting chance, not just “comfort care”. Now can you answer Nick’s question?
some stats..
22 weeks: up to 10% survival rate
23 weeks: 10-35% survival rate
24 weeks: 40-70% survival rate
25 weeks: 50-80% survival rate
26 weeks: 80-90% survival rate
Obama wants to be president and McCain thinks he already is. Doesn’t he know that the President sets policy…not him. And doesn’t he know that his buddy Randy being a lobbyist for Georgia is a conflict of interest.
Jasper, does giving them a “reasonable survival rate” include requiring all docs who do induced-labor abortions be close to a facility for sustaining extreme premies, which is a specialty facility? If yes, then this law is just an attempt to make induced-labor abortions, which are sometimes the most gentle and safe way to do the abortion (for the patient), impossible.
It won’t happen anyway because all the BAIPA law will really accomplish is the same thing the PBA ban did: it will cause the relatively few abortion docs who do induced-labor abortions to take measures to cause and document fetal demise (that’s the technical term) in utero before inducing labor. As I said before this may involve putting off the abortion until the fetus gets bigger, responsibility for which will be on the heads of those who support the BAIPA law. I bet they could do it without waiting though–go in through the cervix with a laproscope and mess with the fetus directly. Shove a laproscopic bladed snake up its nose into its brain like an Ancient Egyptian mummy preserver. Does that make you feel better or worse than the comfort room?
“Truthseeker”, how is driving drunk a morally-wrenching issue? It seems to me quite unambiguous?
Posted by: SoMG at August 17, 2008 6:14 PM
SoMG,
It is morally wrenching to an alcoholic who can’t control themselves and put themeslves into those situations.
“On the other hand, John McCain is a man of conscience and conviction”
Indeed, cheating on your injured wife certainly does take conviction…conscience? Well…maybe in his pants.
Posted by: Amanda at August 17, 2008 6:42 PM
Maybe you missed it Amanda. Last night during the Rick Warren interview McCain said the failure of his first marriage was the biggest failure in his life. That shows that he has deep personal regret about it which requires a conscience.
SoMG, what would Hitler do?
No, “Truthseeker” (you who are as innocent and credulous as Bambi or Zerlina or Penelope Pitstop or the girl that gets put in the pit in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS), it shows that his handlers understand something of the political art of minimizing the impact of the candidate’s most obvious weaknesses. Among other things calling it the worst failure of his life is a way of saying it was too long ago to matter.
Now to be really honest I’m willing to give him a pass on what he did after coming home. Call it an aftereffect of being tortured and let it go. I’m much more worried by his pattern of picking and escalating fights, sometimes erratically and compulsively. His approach to every problem seems to be: identify the Enemy and put all your energy into hurting him. His enthusiastic participation in the obviously and predictedly misguided effort to get Georgia into NATO–what did they think would happen???–is just the latest instance. That approach may have hastened the Soviet Union’s collapsing on itself but we are about to face problems against which it will be ineffective and which it may make worse.
For instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/opinion/16bronner.html?ref=opinion
Jon I actually know very little about abortion in Nazi Germany. Beyond the often-repeated fact that one of the first things Hitler did upon getting political power was liberalize abortion laws. I have no idea why he did that and if anyone knows please post. Allowing women to choose whether or not to abort their pregnancies based on their own priorities is certainly antithetical to National Socialism, according to which that decision was up to the State and would most often be made on the basis of racial considerations. (Which is not “Darwinistic”, by the way–it’s ARTIFICIAL selection which everybody already knew about for centuries and maybe millenia before Darwin. Animal breeders and farmers. Darwin’s big idea was that nature could do it too. I don’t know who first came up with the idea of doing it with humans but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Darwin.)
Did the Ancient Greeks breed their slaves? The Egyptians?
SoMG requests: “Beyond the often-repeated fact that one of the first things Hitler did upon getting political power was liberalize abortion laws. I have no idea why he did that and if anyone knows please post.”
It is quite well documented that Adolph Hitler had an appreciation of systematic murder. Also, that he and his associates (including S.S. head, Himmler) were involved in the occult — spiritism, i.e., the demonic. In short, he was iniquitous and evil, motivated by powers beyond human impetus.
Further, abortion was hardly against the “eugenics” inherent in Nazism. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for instance, instilled America’s rampant exploitation of the “freedom” of abortion, as assuredly as Planned Parenthood target markets its “services” in African-American communities. (The Obamas’ Marxist church of the last twenty years cooperates with the same, ironically.) Keep in mind that Hitler was not merely imposing a social order, he was teaching and propagating a belief system. Duping happens and is done by dupers, often massively.
Understand that fascism is not racism, as is commonly misunderstood, though in the above cases racism certainly plays a part. Fascism is social engineering.
SoMG: the often-repeated fact that one of the first things Hitler did upon getting political power was liberalize abortion laws.
I’d never even heard that before.
Hitler was not any big “liberal” on abortion. He was actually profoundly anti-choice, advocating abortions for those he considered unfit, and wanting to prohibit them for Aryans or “the master race.”
I don’t know whether he got any laws passed pursuant to that, however.
“Maybe you missed it Amanda. Last night during the Rick Warren interview McCain said the failure of his first marriage was the biggest failure in his life. That shows that he has deep personal regret about it which requires a conscience.”
Oh please. Like most cheating pigs, his only regret is that he got caught.
TS,
Amanda is desperate now…looking for anything to attack McCain now that her man Obama is going down.
SoMG,
What’s the oldest fetus you’ve had to terminate?
LOL @ Jasper.
You’re right, I fantasized in my head out of desparation that John McCain is a cheating slime ball who had an affair with a younger woman while still married to his seriously injured wife.
Ohhh yeah. He’s PURE class. The whole thing was just a big liberal conspiracy, right?
The loon has returned to its nest. Sweeeeeeeet.
Amanda,
How would you have voted on BAIPA?
Yllas, I have deleted the comment by SOMG and have also taken your post out, as it also had the information in there as well. If you ever see a comment like that, just let me or one of the other mods know and we will be sure to clean it up as soon as possible. That’s our job…please don’t blame Jill.
If Rick Warren had asked, “Do unwanted products of conception have human rights?” Obama would have answered. He would know that such impersonal trash is not human and has no rights. Rick Warren made the mistake of using normal human language. Obama does not know how to speak in simple, commonsense terms. That language is very much above his pay grade.
Katherine, very well said!
Rick Warren on Larry King, tonight @ 9:00 PM Eastern.
[Someday Stanek, your going to get your reward]
Yllas, your ugly tone betrays much about you.
[Outside of the fact that many of your posters appear to be or have taken antidepressants for mental disorders]
“Mental disorders”? LOLOL You’re a twenty-ton pot calling a tea kettle black.
I find it odd that Obama said he wouldn’t nominate Clarence Thomas. He voted against confirming both Roberts and Alito, so they should more quickly come to his mind as people he presumably wouldn’t nominate to the Supreme Court. Perhaps he doesn’t want to remind us or the Saddleback audience that he voted against them.
Or he is saying that he wouldn’t appoint people just because they’re black, which insults Clarence Thomas thoroughly.
Clarence Thomas had almost no qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Roberts and Alito at least had thick resumes.
But Obama is, once again, hiding his record. Shouldn’t he be proud of voting against Alito and Roberts? Those are the type of justices he is truly and obviously against. And exactly the type of judges the Saddleback group prefers.
Obama is a panderer. We don’t need a panderer in the White House.
If Obama wants to say Mr. Thomas is unqualified, since Obama has zero qualifications to be President himself, I wouldn’t bring it up if I were Obama.
Mr. Thomas is just another person Obama threw under the bus. Saying it doesn’t make it true. Again, Alito and Roberts should have immediately come to mind as he voted against them himself. Or is this just another example of Obama being unable to think on his feet.
Obama is a panderer.
Lynn, anybody with a chance of being President is a panderer, a panderer to this or that, but a big panderer..
“Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question (when a baby gets human rights) with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
“Above my pay grade”? And this man wants to be president?
It’s not the President that determines those rights.
Obama may be a panderer but McCain is a worse panderer.
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-McCain-Conservatives-Independents-Shouldnt/dp/0979482291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219125089&sr=8-1
If we don’t need a panderer in the White House then we certainly don’t need John McCain.
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-McCain-Conservatives-Independents-Shouldnt/dp/0979482291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219125089&sr=8-1
Sure Bethany,
My post got your attention, but obviously a post by a person named SOMG, giving info for using a medication for poison, was going to just sit there for thousands to read.
And it was.
I’m going to give you a piece of advise upon which Stanek can act or not. Many web sites separate the news article and comment section.
When one visits this site and clicks on a specific article or page(?), one gets to read the article and see the peanut gallery of propagandist. The typical trolls that infest sites that allow the looney bin of society to comment.
You can go to many sites which throw around propaganda, such as Daily Kos,Media Matters, Pandagon, Newsbusters,PZ Meyers, Huff Pro,etc, and what one finds is a entrenched troll brigade.
Your entrenched troll brigade exist of approximately 30 to 40 trolls(regular,daily,semi-daily commentators). I might add that more then half of your commentators are in fact pro choice.
What does this do for the legitimacy of Stanek being a person finding, and writing pro life news articles? Well, she becomes another site where looons, such as Amanda, pops up and offers nothing that is not any different from Doug, Hal, Jess, PIP, to Midnite with numbers, to your personally admired troll offering poisoning info. And are always “seen” when one reads a article that is pro life.
Want to make your job easier? Maybe have a site where the commments(a home for trolls of Stanek and anti-Stanekistas) are separated from the article she wrote or found on the net,msm,etc.
Take this page. Have the article, then have a “comments button” to click on. Separate the professional article of Stanek, from the platoon of trolls infesting her site. Larger traffic sites have a company of infesting trolls. Then again, maybe Stanek lives and dies upon site traffic, and invites and wants to command a battalion of everyday, in every way, daily posters, of sheer propaganda??
Yes, Yes, I can read this article and not read the troll section, but for first time visitors to this site, one immediately gets the flavor of “just another internet smear, and propaganda site” amongst millions.
As for rewards, Pro Life site named in lawsuit where poster gave poisoning information at site.
After a autopsy was performed on fill in blank of the young adult, and no apparent reason of death was found, investigators continued to dig deeper into the reason for the death.
Eventually, the M.E. was able to find the cause for the death in a previously healthy young adult. It was the grandparents that helped solve the medical mystery by noticing some missing medication at their residence. When asked by the press, why didn’t the medical examiner find the cause of death sooner, his reply was that the drug used as poison, was not commonly screened in a autopsy.
Eventually, the source of the information for using the drug as poison was traced to a poster at Jill Stanek’s Pro Life Pulse, named SOMG.
A poster asked to have the post removed, but was called a “loon”, although a Stanek moderator did what the “loon” requested.
But, the damage was done, and the best friend of
the dead young adult has been arrested for murder. Sucide was first suspected until the M.E found the cause of death, and that the best friend, named Amanda, had visited Stanek’s site as a daily, professional pro choice propagandist “troll”, posting at Stanek’s site.
Stanek’s response was……. I’m not legally responsible for the comments of my personal platoon of trolls at my site. The irony was noted in the lawsuit that a site promoting life, was used a source of information for murder.
Sure Bethany,
My post got your attention, but obviously a post by a person named SOMG, giving info for using a medication for poison, was going to just sit there for thousands to read.
And it was.
I’m going to give you a piece of advise upon which Stanek can act or not. Many web sites separate the news article and comment section.
When one visits this site and clicks on a specific article or page(?), one gets to read the article and see the peanut gallery of propagandist. The typical trolls that infest sites that allow the looney bin of society to comment.
You can go to many sites which throw around propaganda, such as Daily Kos,Media Matters, Pandagon, Newsbusters,PZ Meyers, Huff Pro,etc, and what one finds is a entrenched troll brigade.
Your entrenched troll brigade exist of approximately 30 to 40 trolls(regular,daily,semi-daily commentators). I might add that more then half of your commentators are in fact pro choice.
What does this do for the legitimacy of Stanek being a person finding, and writing pro life news articles? Well, she becomes another site where looons, such as Amanda, pops up and offers nothing that is not any different from Doug, Hal, Jess, PIP, to Midnite with numbers, to your personally admired troll offering poisoning info. And are always “seen” when one reads a article that is pro life.
Want to make your job easier? Maybe have a site where the commments(a home for trolls of Stanek and anti-Stanekistas) are separated from the article she wrote or found on the net,msm,etc.
Take this page. Have the article, then have a “comments button” to click on. Separate the professional article of Stanek, from the platoon of trolls infesting her site. Larger traffic sites have a company of infesting trolls. Then again, maybe Stanek lives and dies upon site traffic, and invites and wants to command a battalion of everyday, in every way, daily posters, of sheer propaganda??
Yes, Yes, I can read this article and not read the troll section, but for first time visitors to this site, one immediately gets the flavor of “just another internet smear, and propaganda site” amongst millions.
As for rewards, Pro Life site named in lawsuit where poster gave poisoning information at site.
After a autopsy was performed on fill in blank of the young adult, and no apparent reason of death was found, investigators continued to dig deeper into the reason for the death.
Eventually, the M.E. was able to find the cause for the death in a previously healthy young adult. It was the grandparents that helped solve the medical mystery by noticing some missing medication at their residence. When asked by the press, why didn’t the medical examiner find the cause of death sooner, his reply was that the drug used as poison, was not commonly screened in a autopsy.
Eventually, the source of the information for using the drug as poison was traced to a poster at Jill Stanek’s Pro Life Pulse, named SOMG.
A poster asked to have the post removed, but was called a “loon”, although a Stanek moderator did what the “loon” requested.
But, the damage was done, and the best friend of
the dead young adult has been arrested for murder. Sucide was first suspected until the M.E found the cause of death, and that the best friend, named Amanda, had visited Stanek’s site as a daily, professional pro choice propagandist “troll”, posting at Stanek’s site.
Stanek’s response was……. I’m not legally responsible for the comments of my personal platoon of trolls at my site. The irony was noted in the lawsuit that a site promoting life, was used a source of information for murder.
Doug,
Answering when a baby gets human rights would be Obama’s opinion wouldn’t it?
His own opinon is above his pay grade?? Huh?
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!
I don’t think you’re a loon, Yllas. I understand your point exactly, and I’m going to send you an email shortly.
Carla, when ensoulment occurs is also above the Pope’s paygrade.
See http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/when-an-embryo.html
Doug, Answering when a baby gets human rights would be Obama’s opinion wouldn’t it?
‘Morning, Carla. Not really – full rights get attributed at birth, so it’s not his opinion.
…..
His own opinon is above his pay grade?? Huh? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!
Okay, you do have a point. He could have said “at birth” or “to a limited extent at viability,” etc.
Morning, Doug.
Ooh, I have a point. Yeeeeessssssss….:)
Bethany.
Unlike most of your propagandist here, I give no personal information about myself at this site. You will not be able to email me because I have deleted the email account given as a contact.
Simply change the site to offer a hide or show comments button, to allow a person to read the articles without the typical anti-Stanek propagandist showing up in the pro life article, which Stanek has written.
Newspapers know a simple fact. They separate the editorial section from their news reporting. Imagine having a newspaper reporter’s work on the front page of the paper, and with it the anti-reporter editorial section, filled with typical anti-reporter propagandaist, commenting on the reporters front page article, ON THE FRONT PAGE ALSO.
Stanek is worth reading, but having the troll patrol included in her articles, merely removes any professionalism Stanek has given to the article, and her pro life reporting.
In fact, it is, and was typical to have a Stanekista always be the first poster to post about any article Stanek brought to her site.
And as any propagandist knows, make up anything, just make sure it is attacking,ridiculing,degrading, the subject and author which you oppose ideologically.
What that does is give a incentive to the most vile professional Stanekista to be on a equal “readership” as the reporter/journalist named Stanek. The article is on even “readership footing” with the editorial page in essense.
Make your life easy, separate the professional anti-Stanek, pro Stanek, propagandist from the news article.
Design a “hide or show comments” button for each article that appears at this pro life site.
First, it gives Stanek the repect due her work and efforts she puts into her writing, and it puts her article first and foremost in readership, not competing with the loons such as Amanda, et al.
As it is now, her personal following of anti-Stanek’s propagandist, are being given equal readership time at this site.
Ghost surfing still Doug, with Terry and that unrepentant old hippie?
Simply change the site to offer a hide or show comments button, to allow a person to read the articles without the typical anti-Stanek propagandist showing up in the pro life article, which Stanek has written.
That is easier said than done. Neither I nor Jill have the knowledge of how this could be achieved. If we can find a way, I’m sure she would be delighted to add the feature.
Do you happen to know of a way that this can be done with the movable type blogs?
Bethany.
Media Matters and Townhall offer such a choice for the reader of news.
In the meantime, “continue reading the story” just sends one to a page where anti-Stanek propaganda removes/lessens any worth to Stanek’s news articles.
Offering up her site for the most vicious ideological haters of her journalism and news is eventually self flagellation in public.
Truth be told, they hate Stanek more then the pro Stanek posters love Stanek. After reading her articles, and then reading the anti-Stanek hate speech posted at her site, one concludes that Stanek drives away more pro life readers of her news, then she attracts new viewers to pro life.
Your peanut gallery reflects it. Many days the pro life posters, and simple readers of Stanek just leave her site. Sometimes for a day, week, month, but sometimes forever. But, the hate speech propagandist stay and stay and get protection by Stanek and her moderators.
As Carder wrote; hey new posters, stay awhile. Of course he was offering up that invitation to pro life posters. At least one hopes soo. Then again, maybe Carder was offering a invitation to “stay awhile”, to those anti-Stanek posters who found her from her national exposure, concerning Obama.
They’ll leave. At least the pro life posters will leave, since it is not their duty to defend ,or even after one visit to her site,to defend every word,thought, and column that Stanek writes. Plus, the new reader might make a post, and after being ridiculed by your professional anti-Stanek trolls, is just a added reason to leave a typical internet site where trolls wait to insult,ridicule, and degrade the site. You know Bethany, that every word and thought of Stanek is always being propagandized at her own site. Catholic posters being one such posters who will simply let Stanek stew in her vile anti-Catholic posters, that are part of her professional troll platoon here.
You know you have come to the bottom of the barrel of intelligence and argument when a person is posting at a site offerng information on poisoning of human beings, and not one person raised a look, a eyebrow, a reply, at what a lesson in murdering human beings by sub rosa reasoning, was being posted by SOMG . And that includes your pro Stanek posters that range in size of two squads, amongst the platoon of permanent posters at her site.
Good luck Bethany, because sooner or latter one of your personal anti-Stanek posters is going to be quoted by a respected national media personality to lessen her credentials and ridicule her career of pro life writing.
Ghost surfing still Doug, with Terry and that unrepentant old hippie?
yllas, my crew and I are still here, and they are over 6,700,000,000 strong.
Your behavior is going to have people respond to you in certain ways, pretty much across the board and across the world.
Best joke of the day – you talking about “trolls” ; )
Anyway….
Ooh, I have a point. Yeeeeessssssss….:)
Yeah, Carla, I’d say answer it like this, since he was feeling that way:
At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
“Full rights are granted at birth, and it could be said that a limited form of rights are there after viability.”
Doug,
Why do you think he didn’t answer it then?
Why do you think he answered it the way he did?
Yllas @ 2:18,
You know Bethany, that every word and thought of Stanek is always being propagandized at her own site. Catholic posters being one such posters who will simply let Stanek stew in her vile anti-Catholic posters, that are part of her professional troll platoon here.
Can you elucidate, please?
Yllas, I like your idea of separating articles from comments. Jill’s writing can definitely stand on its own.
Mods, just curious, how long was SoMG’s post up before it was removed?
Doug, Why do you think he didn’t answer it then? Why do you think he answered it the way he did?
Carla, I guess I’ll have to listen to the whole thing. I’m at a jobsite with a “minimal” internet connection, to say the least. If I can’t do it here I’ll do it later.
I also think the question can be taken in two ways. One is “when does the baby get rights” and the other is “when do you think the baby should get rights?”
I don’t know why he said “scientific” since that doesn’t go to the question, either way.
No worries, Doug. Take care.
Yllas @ 2:18,
You know Bethany, that every word and thought of Stanek is always being propagandized at her own site. Catholic posters being one such posters who will simply let Stanek stew in her vile anti-Catholic posters, that are part of her professional troll platoon here.
Yikes! I thought that I came to Jill’s defense and that of Catholic teaching.
Yllas @ 2:18,
You know Bethany, that every word and thought of Stanek is always being propagandized at her own site. Catholic posters being one such posters who will simply let Stanek stew in her vile anti-Catholic posters, that are part of her professional troll platoon here.
****
You’ve no shame. You can’t even show respect to Jill by calling her by her given name rather than her last name. You bring your oily hatred with you everywhere, and what you said to Jess was fifty times worse than anything said by the people you complain about. Any “friend” like you, an anti-Protestant Nazy, is worse than enemies.
Eileen.
I really detest this paste and copy mentality that is deeply engrained at this site and others.
Let’s back up, since posting a sentence or two of a poster, is act of dumbing down your reason and intellect.
Deconstruction is a propagandist tool of the bland mind unable to concentrate beyond their propaganda efforts. Normally one or two sentences. But, the greatest such deconstructionist propagandist at this site, goes to Doug. Who, in fact, can actually go to the extreme reality narrowing concentration of the bland deconstructionist, by taking three, four, why even five sentences of a multi-paragraph post, and fit them into the absolute consistent fact of reality, he is making appear right before his senses.
What occurs in a deconstructionist mind is a narrowing of intelligence until their own intelligence is narrowed to fit their facts of reality.
By your picking a sentence or two of my post, and then going forward with a declarative statement about your deconstructive conclusions, your welcome to your consistent facts of reality as you have deconstructed and reconstructed amongst yourself.
Or, you can read the whole paragraph and then allow your mind to not deconstruct the paragraph into the parts you have decided that deserve to represent a debate/argument/discussion amongst you, yourself, and your mind.
Or the complete deconstruct of a post.
hey new posters
They’ll leave
new Catholic posters being such posters.
Now, if you put down your pinch bar, and nail puller, and actually read the paragraph before the one your constructing to fit your facts and reality into, one might rise above Doug, and his limited and narrowed interpretation of facts and reality, Eileen.
BTW, self awareness of being mimicked, is one of the attributes and concerns in matters of a keen,clean, openly honest intellect. And you know how I know that Eileen? Because, that’s just the way it is.
the greatest such deconstructionist propagandist at this site, goes to Doug. Who, in fact, can actually go to the extreme reality narrowing concentration of the bland deconstructionist, by taking three, four, why even five sentences of a multi-paragraph post, and fit them into the absolute consistent fact of reality, he is making appear right before his senses.
yllas, thanks for the mention.
There are times when your posts are filled with so many falsehoods that taking them one by one is the best way to go.
There is that of reality that is external to us, and then there are things internal to us, dependent on our perception. You confuse them and I don’t.
Here’s a funny one:
http://tinyurl.com/6c5c7c
“Angry Father Nails Xbox to Tree”
Ecclesiastes 7:9
Let us pray for Jess and her attraction to herself. Vanity of vanities all is vanity. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun, and behold all is vanity and vexation of the spirit of Jess. And when Jess looked upon herself and lusted for her vanity, all is vanity.
As for Protestants and me. Go read Vladimir Soloviev(1853-1900), and his writings concerning Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox Church.
Take a chill pill and be happy, the Church of Christ shall be united. Protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox will become one catholic(universal) church again.
This site exist because of division amongst Protestant’s that came into existence about killing God’s creation in the womb. Mainline Protestants studied the good news, and concluded that killing God’s creation in the womb was part of the good news. Or, that there was no news in the bible about abortion.
You can expand upon some other reason given by Protestants making abortion a God allowed act of their Christianity, but the facts of reality simply come back to the reality that mainline Protestants are united in abortion of God’s creation.
And so death came into the world from pride, and what is pride but vanity, which is love of oneself. Vanity, all is vanity that vexes the spirit.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Pro life, or pro death, it that simple Ecclesiastes.
Doug.
There are times when your posts are filled with so many falsehoods that taking them one by one is the best way to go.
Taking them one by one is hillarious Doug. I’m still laughing at the fact that you can’t see I’m mimicking you and your consistent facts of reality you create from decontruction. Then build a fact based reality of your own whole cloth and fantasies you have reconstructed yourself.
It is a construction of your own mind always going back to your sense perceptions creating external and internal reality.
Look Doug, your pry bar and nail puller reality tools, always must reconstruct whatever fact of reality you want to construct..
You pull the nail, you need to pull, so your mind based reality is increased into a whole cloth construction of self proving facts of reality.
Your invincible Doug.
A liar can’t know he’s lying. He always pulls the nails out of another person’s reality, and then uses those nails to construct a consistent absolute factual reality of his self desiring mind .
Doug shows up and states that it is a consistent fact of his reality,and a objective fact of reality, that Yllas doesn’t have a house.
Immediately Doug takes out his metaphysical pry bar and nail puller and removes parts and pieces of Yllas’s house until Doug has deconstructed what is needed to begin his construction of his fact based reality.
Or, the shorter based facts of reality of the deconstructionist propagandist Doug. What car? That’s nothing but a tire in fact and reality. Look others, Come see, use your eyes, this fool thinks he has a car, when before us all appears a tire. Confirm this tire between us so objective facts of realty can be constructed on Doug’s deconstructionist propaganda facts of reality.
Get it Doug? And you can’t see me mimicking you yet?
“There is that of reality that is external to us, and then there are things internal to us, dependent on our perception. You confuse them and I don’t.”
yllas: Doug shows up and states that it is a consistent fact of his reality,and a objective fact of reality, that Yllas doesn’t have a house.
You’re not mimicking me, you’re just making another straw man argument, and pretending about what other people do.
I don’t do that. Either you have a house or not – that is physical reality. It’s not a matter of opinion. If I don’t know if you have a house, I’ll state that. Whether I know or not, the fact of your house doesn’t change, because that is external reality.
And you would probably agree with that, since it’s physical fact. Your errors come when you pretend that your subjective feelings necessarily apply to other people.