Obama ad slams McCain on abortion
UPDATE, 7:45p: Hear the ad.
Obama’s got a lot of nerve, but what else can he do? He’s attempting to pull himself out of defensive mode on abortion by going on the offense. From Politico, September 2:
Barack Obama has launched a broadside against John McCain’s opposition to abortion rights and moved one of the most divisive issues in modern American politics to the airwaves on a large scale for the first time in this presidential campaign.
Obama’s new radio ad, airing widely in at least 7 swing states, tells voters McCain “will make abortion illegal.” It’s airing as McCain courts female voters with the addition of the staunchly anti-abortion governor of AK, Sarah Palin, to his ticket.
Democrats had, until now, sought to appeal to women primarily on economic issues such as health care and workplace discrimination; abortion rights were hardly mentioned at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last week….
But women’s rights groups have been urging Obama to attack McCain on the issue, pointing to polling showing that some women who support McCain think he supports abortion rights. In fact, the AZ senator has long supported a ban on abortions, with exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and for pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother. Palin has an even firmer anti-abortion stance: She would require rape and incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term.
“Let me tell you: If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That’s why this election is so important,” says the nurse-practitioner who narrates Obama’s ad. “John McCain’s out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose. That’s what women need to understand. That’s how high the stakes are.”
An announcer then claims that “as president, John McCain will make abortion illegal,” before playing an exchange on Meet the Press in which McCain told moderator Tim Russert that he favors “a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions.”
“We can’t let John McCain take away our right to choose. We can’t let him take us back,” says the ad….
Republican Party communications director Danny Diaz responded by attacking Obama’s opposition to an IL bill that advocates said would protect babies who survived abortions, and critics said was an attempt to limit all abortions.
“Barack Obama voted against a bill that would have protected infants born alive having survived an abortion attempt,” said Diaz. “He has offered misleading statements on the issue and is now trying to confuse voters by attacking Senator McCain.”
Kate Michelman, an informal Obama adviser who is the former president of the abortion-rights group NARAL… said she expected the campaign to expand its appeal to women on issues of abortion rights.
“This is a door opened to a longer campaign and strategic effort to ensure that women know the truth about John McCain and Gov. Palin,” she said, suggesting it would come “on the radio, in the mail, on the phones, and in the organizing on the ground.”…
“By his nomination of Gov. Palin, McCain has made his opposition to a woman’s right to decide a major campaign issue,” she said.
Abortion has been a “major campaign issue” for several weeks now, with revelations Obama is pro-infanticide if he thinks it would otherwise impinge on abortion. But MSM hasn’t thought it so until Obama thought it so.
Coincidentally, I just heard this ad while on hold for an interview with a CO radio station, and the ad’s “nurse practitioner” spokesperson states she is with Planned Parenthood. Of course.
The ad also falsely states, “As president, John McCain will make abortion illegal.” He can’t do that. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Where are the fact checkers?
[HT: proofreader Laura Loo; photos courtesy of Politico]
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.
” Palin has an even firmer anti-abortion stance: She would require rape and incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term.”
All thinking woman will now be pulling the Dem lever. Thanks for putting it in print like that, Jill.
And just so no one misunderstands, in more realistic language:
” Palin has an even firmer anti-abortion stance: She would ‘force’ rape and incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term.”
All the while following in Shrub’s footsteps? Shrub, who cut funding for contraception. And appealing to the reactionary extremist right that wants to outlaw hormonal contraception and IUD’s. Barracuda Sarah wants to make it open season on women – maybe she’ll allow aerial hunting of women, too?
phylosopher opined:
And just so no one misunderstands, in more realistic language:
“Palin has an even firmer anti-abortion stance: She would ‘force’ rape and incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term.”
And just so no one misunderstands, in more accurate language:
“Palin has an even firmer pro-life stance: She would protect all unborn children — even those whose fathers committed horrific crimes — from summary execution.”
Once again, a pro-choicer completely misunderstands the pro-life point of view by forgetting the central point of our concern: the unborn child. And they call themselves the “reality-based community”….
Exactly, Naaman. And of course, “forcing women to carry their babies to term” is proabort code speak for “punishing those who electively kill their babies in the womb”.
But we can’t actually say things like they are, can we?
Wow. Now I’m thinking about how I felt after I was raped. If I’d gotten pregnant and been forced to carry to term, there’s no doubt in my mind that baby wouldn’t have made it because neither would I. I became majorly depressed and was thisclose to suicide. The idea of carrying that inhumane monster’s child would have pushed me over the edge.
I understand the pro-life philosophy quite well but lament the total lack of consideration by some for rape and incest victims. Yes, the baby is innocent, but forcing a woman who’s likely already on edge because of her experiences is cruel.
I suspect it’s hard for a lot of people to truly understand how damaging rape is unless they’ve experienced it. I’d imagine that’s true for incest also.
Oh, and on the subject of the thread, I think it’s a very good thing to get the contrast between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin on abortion out in the open, for all to see. Prolife always wins when this subject is aired out in public, proaborts always lose.
Lucy says: “Yes, the baby is innocent, but forcing a woman who’s likely already on edge because of her experiences is cruel.”
It’s cruel to not kill a baby? A baby that is half your lineage, that does not know anything about what happened to you, a baby that is wanted by couples who are on waiting lists to adopt?
Your concept of cruelty seems upside down to me.
I am so sorry Lucy for what you have endured. I can hardly fathom what you have gone through. Thank you for commenting.
I can only go on what I know to be true for friends of mine that have been raped and become pregnant. One has a beautiful son and the other regrets her abortion deeply.
I am not forcing a woman to do anything by standing beside her through the trauma of rape. An innocent child’s life is at stake.
Lucy 8:37am
First of all, my heart goes out to you that you were the victim of so despicable a crime.
While I am certainly thankful you did not become pregnant, and I hope you were not infected with some disease as well, you nonetheless suffered an horrific trauma. One can only guess how many women before, and after you, this animal attacked.
Was your attacker caught and severely punished?
Do you feel you rec’d humane and compassionate care?
Did you get the support you needed from family, friends, co-workers?
I hope your answer to the above questions is a resounding YES!!
Do you support capital punishment for rapists?
I can only say I wish our society was as repulsed by the crime of rape itself as it is by the child conceived of it.
It is a horrible thing all around, and I have frequently sat on both sides of the fence on the issue of rape when involved with abortion. I have to say that, as hard as it is to believe, that abortion even in the case of rape really has no ethical support, unless it can be established that there will be irrepable harm to the mother….and I feel that in most cases it either is not going to cause such harm, or it cannot be established that it will in fact cause such harm.
It basically boils down to a horrible accident. No one, not even liberal doctors, would punish one member of a horrible accident over the other. The right path is to uphold as many rights as possible. Abortion would violate the rights of the preborn to the greastest extent, whereas a prengancy, even with labor and delivery, would not violate anyone’s right even close to the degree of abortion.
Well said Naaman.
And phylosopher, just to clarifiy, neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin can make abortion illiegal. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue simply returns to the state legislatures to determine whether or not abortion will be legal in a given state. In case you don’t remember from your basic civics class, that would be the proper venue for abortion law to be decided upon.
There will be plenty of sick minded blue states still willing to hack up and butcher your children, so no worries. You guys really need to stop all the fear mongering.
Be not afraid, phylosopher, be not afraid.
Exactly, Naaman. And of course, “forcing women to carry their babies to term” is proabort code speak for “punishing those who electively kill their babies in the womb”.
But we can’t actually say things like they are, can we?
Posted by: Doyle at September 3, 2008 8:35 AM
Oh Doyle you just can’t get anything right, can you? Forcing rape victims to carry rapist offspring to term is antichoice speak for punishing women for a host of sins – like being out after dark, wearing the wrong clothing (even though it has been shown that rape is crime of power/violence, not lust) or even , angering “teh man.”
Lesson over, you can crawl back under your rock now.
What?? No mention of “back alley abortions”??!! When is that ad coming out??
Phylosopher: “Oh Doyle you just can’t get anything right, can you? Forcing rape victims to carry rapist offspring to term is antichoice speak for punishing women for a host of sins – like being out after dark, wearing the wrong clothing (even though it has been shown that rape is crime of power/violence, not lust) or even , angering “teh man.””
Hahahahahaha….REALLY??? Do tell Phylosopher!! Were you one of the “anarchists” who were busting out windows at the RNC? Youre so edgy and in your face!
Sometimes the ignorance of others will be so great that I am amazed! Im suprised you didnt say “Yeah but the preborn isnt a human life.”
By the way Phylosopher…look up the latin phrase Ad Hominem. It may help you to not look so foolish in the future.
“Forcing rape victims to carry rapist offspring to term is antichoice speak for punishing women for a host of sins – like being out after dark, wearing the wrong clothing (even though it has been shown that rape is crime of power/violence, not lust) or even , angering “teh man.””
Except that Doyle is an agnostic who doesn’t believe in sin (at least not the way Christians understand it) nor “teh man.”
Your concept of cruelty seems upside down to me.
It seems to me that not being able to acknowledge anything whatsoever about the difficulty facing the woman who has been raped is an indication of an upside-down concept of cruelty. Or at least a one-sided concept of cruelty. You gain nothing by caring about the child over the mother — even if your intent is to remind someone else not to care about the mother over the child.
Rape is horrible — just about the only thing worse is murder. THAT is the point you should make if you want to convince a woman who has been raped that abortion is not an option. Can you best fight cruelty with more cruelty? What is to be gained by going above and beyond what you “deserve” to go through, by refusing to meet violence with violence? Things like that are more effective, often, than merely saying, “Yeah well you’re the cruelest of them all, what about the baby!”
Your point of view, if it’s worth anything, does not get weaker if you take a second to first acknowledge the extreme pain, and the overwhelming sense of powerlessness and injustice, that a victim of rape is feeling. It is not indicative of upside-down morals for a woman to be entirely concerned with saving her own sanity in a time like that. Telling a woman who is just trying not to kill herself every day that she has upside-down concepts of cruelty will not make her want to listen to you.
Lucy, I’m very sorry for what you went through.
I understand now why phylosopher has to replace the “i” with a “y” in his name….
Lucy:
They don’t call her Barracuda Sarah for nothing. I hope all is now improving on your road to recovery.
Deel: Support and the bully pulpit (how appropriate a term) of POTUS as well as the appointees of SCOTUS, albeit with Senate confirmation, are the concerns. So the technical nitpicking when the argument parameters are already defined just shows that you have little else to offer in support of your argument. As for where a rights issue belongs, it isn’t the states – we tried that one with slavery; remember your history lessons?
Oliver, “[Rape and resultant pregnancy] is a horrible accident?” Your idiocy is so obvious that only brain damage could account for it. Are you also of the idiotic opinion prevalent on this board that hormonal bc be banned- so that it becomes open season on impregnating women? Reactionary extremists like you are simply not worth the time of day.
Lucy,
I am so sorry for your pain. Rape is a terrible assault against a woman and nobody should have to endure it.
With regard to carrying a child who was conceived as a result of rape, a psychologist friend of mine once told me that the consensus in the field once was that they could counsel women successfully through the rape but it would be much more difficult to help them get past the abortion. With the rape, the woman is a victim and there is no guilt to contend with. With the abortion, a woman goes against her very nature, which is to protect her child, and huge amounts of guilt make the counseling much more complex and difficult.
I am grateful that this was a decision you did not have to face.
May you continue to find peace and healing.
Phylosopher: “Are you also of the idiotic opinion prevalent on this board that hormonal bc be banned- so that it becomes open season on impregnating women?”
Nope. I support BC much like Namaan, and Gov Palin does.
You dont engage me in conversation because you know I would make you look like an idiot. This is however flawed reasoning Phyl. You make yourself look like an idiot without my commentary.
Welcome to the blog, Lucy, and I am sorry to hear of your traumatic experience.
phylosopher said: “Oh Doyle you just can’t get anything right, can you? Forcing rape victims to carry rapist offspring to term is antichoice speak for punishing women for a host of sins -”
As Bobby mentioned, I am agnostic so I’m not concerned with “sins”. I take it that you join Barak in calling an unborn baby a “punishment”? To me, that is a despicable way of dehumanizing an innocent human being….. It’s a baby, NOT A PUNISHMENT!
0h, btw, personal insults don’t make your weak argument any stronger, just thought I’d mention that.
What?? No mention of “back alley abortions”??!! When is that ad coming out??
Get ready for the coat hangers Carla.
How are you by the way? I checked out your blog. It’s adorable as are your cherubs.
“Reactionary extremists like you are simply not worth the time of day.”
then screw, go to a hike off a short pier.
Phylosopher: “Oliver, “[Rape and resultant pregnancy] is a horrible accident?” ”
Just to clarify for everyone here, because Phylosopher does not know how to properly quote. (It isnt an excepted practice to just make stuff up and put it into brackets as if it were an obviously derived meaning by the wat Phyl.)
I did not say “rape” was an accident. I said that the baby and mother caught in a pregnancy induced from rape are in a situation that is analogous to a horrible accident. In other words, neither of the two is at fault in their predicament, hence the analogy to an accident.
Alexandra said: “It seems to me that not being able to acknowledge anything whatsoever about the difficulty facing the woman who has been raped is an indication of an upside-down concept of cruelty.”
Was there ever any doubt about that to begin with?
Why do you put the value of that “recognition” above the value of an innocent human life? Just how low is your opinion of the value of innocent human life?
Just how low is your opinion of the value of innocent human life?
Babies are punishment Doyle. How much lower can her opinion go?
Alexandra 9:04am
In many ways we agree. Despite the vast changes I have seen in my lifetime concerning the rape victim, the mistreatment, ridicule, and humiliation of the rape victim remains. What I often refer to as The Neanderthal Mentality.
All too often our society views sending the victim to the abortion clinic as a great way to wash its hands of her. Gee, aren’t we compassionate? This will solve everything.
Also, let a victim be mutilated( a horrific case occured not too far from me), tortured, horribly traumatized, infected with AIDS, even murdered, and she’s just another crime stat. I have even heard some breathe a sigh of relief that such victims didn’t become pregnant!! Good lord people what about what did happen to them??
Focusing on the rare pregnancy trivializes the crime itself.
For the record, I think rapists should be strung up upsidedown, and not by their feet, and left there for the vultures.
There was a situation near us where an NFL player was accused of raping a high school girl at a graduation party. I heard comments on how “loose” she was. Ah, excuse me folks, what is a grown man doing in the hottub with a bunch of teenagers half his age? For some reason men are never held responsible. Also, I don’t care if she’s the Whore of Babylon, no one has the right to sexually assault her.
Doyle,
Its called Ad hominem. Instead of attacking the argument, he attacks either the motives or the character of the supporter of the argument. Its a common tactic that gains no real traction in a debate. Think of it as a smoke screen…hes just trying to say SOMETHING, even if it has no relevance.
Let me give an example.
Lets pretend that I own a business and I dont want to give my employees a raise. I may say “I dont want to give them a raise because they are lazy and they do not deserve it. If I give them a raise it may in fact encourage lazy behavior.” A classic (see phyl like) response would be to say “You stand to gain by not giving a raise to your employees. Because your motives are based on financial concerns your argument is not sound.”
The truth is that even if it were the case that my real motives were financially based, it wouldnt matter to the argument. The only thing that matters is whether or not my proposed logic is sound. The person calling into question my motives is invoking an Ad Hominem. This is Phylosopher’s technique because he has nothing to say.
Was there ever any doubt about that to begin with?
Well, you’ve got someone telling you that she was raped and that she thinks it’s cruel to force pregnancy on women like her. And you tell her she has an upside-down concept of cruelty. That seems awfully dismissive, to me. I’m just saying, you won’t win any converts that way. If you want to save innocent lives then perhaps it’s best not to go around accusing people of being morally deficient when all they believe they’re trying to do is take care of themselves.
@Mary at September 3, 2008 9:22 AM
Oh that was beautiful, Mary. You put the issues beautifully into perspective.
Brad and Angelina’s adopted Ethiopian daughter Zahara is the product of a rape. Should she have been killed?
I see only a strikingly beautiful child who was every bit the innocent victim her mother was.
Also, how many of us descended from rape pregnancies? Likely we all are.
I know I descended from a little premarital romping on the part of my grandmother.
Dee: I have never said babies are a punishment.
Mary: it does sound like we agree on this, on a few counts. I think we still do have a ways to go as far as how the general population views and deals with women who are sexually assaulted.
Bobby 9:26am
Thank you for your kind words.
What???
Abortion is being made a key issue in this race??
OMGosh! Over the last several months the PCers have said that abortion really wasn’t even on the radar for voters. What happened????
Could they have been wrong? (again?)
Dee: I have never said babies are a punishment.
Sorry Alexandra, I mistakingly thought Doyle’s comment was to phylosopher.
Lucy, I feel great compassion for you. Nobody should ever be attacked and violated as you were. You have my utmost sympathy. I am glad that you have avoided the abyss of despair, and I pray that you might find true healing for what you have suffered.
That said, if you had conceived, your child would have been blameless. Monsters who prey upon women deserve every single punishment that the law can provide … but an innocent child does not deserve to die for her father’s crimes.
“We can’t let John McCain take away our right to choose. We can’t let him take us back,” says the ad….
Funny, I think he’d be taking us FORWARD! Killing our own children is something the Aztecs did. Ancient civilizations did this. Sacrificing their kids to gods. Making abortion legal was going BACKWARD.
Regardless of rape, circumstance, day of the week, whatever…
I sincerely would like someone on the anti-choice side to PLEASE tactically detail for me what it looks like when abortion is completely abolished. No loop holes like one or two states in the union who still offer it – not that. If you all really got your way and completely wiped out all access to abortion, nationwide.
Think about what that looks like. Walk me thru the moment a woman discovers she’s pregnant and doesn’t want to keep or have it. Think about how you would have to enforce your new law. Tell me how you would protect your unborn, at all costs, even while it is still inside the woman.
Think about how each and every pregnant female in the union would need to be consistently monitored to ensure her fetus was protected and she wasn’t a threat to it. Consider how you may have to physically restrain those who voice opposition to pregnancy and childbirth to protect your unborn. Consider how in some instances you would have to incarcerate them.
That’s the new day you want, right? No more abortion. Period. Just explain to me how you enforce it and then ask yourself if that’s the kind of country you want to live in.
Hi DeeL,
How are you?
I am wonderful!! The Bigs are off to school and The Littles and I are doing what we do. :) Thanks for checking out my blog.
Ah, yes. Coat hangers. I have tons. I should probably start boxing them up and shipping them out for The Cause.
Sandy,9:38 in fairness, NO ONE predicted McCain would select an anti-choice, anti-sex education anti-birth control religious extremist as his running mate (with a pregnant 17 year old daughter to back up her convictions). So now the Republican’s radical and extremist positions on those subjects are election issues.
Since Mc Cain did not make that decision, or know anything about his “soul mate” until last Thursday, EVERYONE was caught flat-footed by his impulsive decision, and was “wrong”.
Danielle,
That’s the new day you want, right? No more abortion. Period. Just explain to me how you enforce it and then ask yourself if that’s the kind of country you want to live in.
More than I’ve ever wanted anything.
How would it look? The same way it looked prior to 1973. You must be young. You probably never knew our country before we started killing our kids. I did. Many of us did. How would it look?
BEAUTIFUL. That’s how.
phylosopher opined:
Support and the bully pulpit (how appropriate a term) of POTUS as well as the appointees of SCOTUS, albeit with Senate confirmation, are the concerns. So the technical nitpicking when the argument parameters are already defined just shows that you have little else to offer in support of your argument. As for where a rights issue belongs, it isn’t the states – we tried that one with slavery; remember your history lessons?
Except that DeeL is right. Overturning Roe would simply put abortion back into the states’ hands. That’s the facts of abortion law in this country. If you’re going to debate abortion with people, you should get to know the facts.
Now, there are steps that could take abortion law out of the states’ hands. One such step would be the Human Life Amendment, which would change our Constitution to specify that unborn human beings have the right to live. I support the Human Life Amendment — as do many pro-lifers — but it’s not likely to pass any time soon. The bar to passing a Constitutional amendment is very high. By the time the HLA could gain the necessary support, it would be a moot point, because the country would already be solidly pro-life.
Another possible way for the federal government to override the states would be to pass a national abortion ban that isn’t a Constitutional amendment. That’s more likely than the HLA, but still not very likely. Pro-choicers hold majorities in both the House and the Senate, and that won’t change in 2008. :( Even if it could change, there’s still the significant point that neither the President nor the VP can actually submit legislation. They can encourage, cajole, or pressure legislators into submitting legislation on their behalf, but they cannot actually submit anything on their own. In other words, if you truly fear a nationwide abortion ban, you need to focus on the Congress … not the VP.
The third way to take abortion out of the states’ hands would require the Supreme Court to not just overturn Roe, but to actually discover a Right to Life in the “living” Constitution. I can understand why a liberal would be worried about that possibility, because y’all seem to think that judges should just rewrite laws to suit their preferences. However, conservatives know better. A judge’s proper role is to interpret the laws, not to rewrite them. Therefore, conservative judges are not likely to stretch our existing laws to prohibit abortion … even if they want such a prohibition. It’s simply not an issue for the courts to decide. That’s a big part of the problem with Roe in the first place!
I want to pick up the last point that you made:
As for where a rights issue belongs, it isn’t the states – we tried that one with slavery; remember your history lessons?
Actually, I agree with you here. It’s nonsense for an unborn child to have a right to life in one state, but to be a clump of cells in another state. Such inconsistency defies logic. That’s the same reason I’m not a big fan of the states’ rights argument concerning same-sex marriage. If Adam & Steve are married in Massachusetts, then their marriage should be recognized by the other states. What happens if a same-sex couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage? Is it annulled? What if they want a divorce?
These sorts of basic questions about our society should be decided as a nation, not as a collection of Red states and Blue states. That way lies madness. However, for the reasons I provided earlier, I don’t think abortion (or same-sex marriage) is going to get a national verdict in the near future, and certainly not as a result of the 2008 election. DeeL is correct about where these things are decided right now.
“How would it look? The same way it looked prior to 1973. You must be young. You probably never knew our country before we started killing our kids. I did. Many of us did. How would it look?BEAUTIFUL. That’s how.”
Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 10:18 AM
-That’s not answer. I know you think it would be beautiful not to have any more abortions.
I want to know how you enforce a repeal of a Supreme Court law that’s been on the books since ’73. What do you do with those who want an abortion? What do you do to those who try to have one?
Sandy, “OMGosh! Over the last several months the PCers have said that abortion really wasn’t even on the radar for voters. What happened????”
What happened is that McCain picked someone so pro-life as his running mate that the American people can now imagine an assault on abortion rights. McCain handed this issue to Obama, and he’s running with it. Good for him.
Jill, “The ad also falsely states, “As president, John McCain will make abortion illegal.” He can’t do that. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Where are the fact checkers?”
Jill, everyone does this. It bothers me too, but it’s shorthand for saying he’ll try to accomplish that. It’s like saying, “McCain will cut your taxes, Obama will raise them.” Presidents don’t cut or raise taxes, Congress does. Same thing.
McCain also (at one point at least) supported a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, which would take the issue away from the Supreme Court.
Love Fred Thompson’s speech, esp this :
Thompson made this case:
Danielle: I want to know how you enforce a repeal of a Supreme Court law that’s been on the books since ’73.
The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to make law Danielle, it’s supposed to apply it.
Lucy, my heart hurts for you.
Rape is ugly. God hates rape. Rape is absolutely wrong. However, murder is ugly, God hates murder, and murder is also wrong. And as it would feel like God has abandoned someone who has been raped, He is there. We only need to look up from the devastation and see.
But God, who is soveriegn over all things, even bad things, gives us these instructions on how to deal with the good and bad things that happen to us in Romans 8:28:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose”.
“What did you just say God? All things, even something like rape can be turned into a good thing? God, this is hard, this goes against every fiber of my being. I’ve just been violated God, help me”. And He responds, “My child, my ways are not your ways, I can see the end from the beginning, trust me and I will use this to change you into the likeness of my precious Son”.
So, as difficult as it is to understand, rape should be seen as an opportunity for tremendous good. What better way to rebel and make a heroic statement against the absolute evil of rape than to allow the innocent and unknowing result of it, a precious uborn child, be born?
Peace.
Beautifully stated HisMan
Danielle wrote:
Think about what that looks like. Walk me thru the moment a woman discovers she’s pregnant and doesn’t want to keep or have it. Think about how you would have to enforce your new law. Tell me how you would protect your unborn, at all costs, even while it is still inside the woman.
Is this a variant of the “How much time should she do?” question…?
Anyway, the answer is much simpler than you seem to fear. Pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal. Therefore, anyone who is suspected of committing an abortion would be investigated by the police. If sufficient evidence can be found, they would be arrested. If the case can be proven, they would pay the legal penalty for their acts.
It’s not much different from …say … our laws concerning armed robbery.
Think about how each and every pregnant female in the union would need to be consistently monitored to ensure her fetus was protected and she wasn’t a threat to it. Consider how you may have to physically restrain those who voice opposition to pregnancy and childbirth to protect your unborn. Consider how in some instances you would have to incarcerate them.
Um, what? Why do you think anyone wants a police state like you’ve described? We already have lots of laws that are enforced without the sort of heavy-handed regulation that you have anticipated.
For example, rape is already illegal in the US. However, we don’t have roving “Rape Police” squads to follow all men around everywhere we go and prevent us from committing rape. We don’t lock up men who might be thinking about rape. And we certainly don’t squash free speech simply because it might have something to do with rape.
(Actually, there is a thriving porn market which caters to rape fantasies. Sick, but true. And this is Constitutionally-protected free speech.)
We understand that the price of a free society is that some crimes will be committed. Because we don’t imprison everyone who has a tendency toward pedophilia, we have to accept the sad fact that some children will be abused. Could we prevent child abuse by locking up every pedophile (or anyone with any leanings in that direction) for life? Sure, we probably could. But the cost would be a police state, and we have decided that the cost would be too high.
In the same way, the massive control and surveillance that you have described would probably be the only way to prevent abortions altogether. But it would destroy our society, eliminate our freedom, and transform the United States of America into a totalitarian regime. Even to save lives, it wouldn’t be worth it. So we’ll accept the fact that some abortions (and some murders, and some robberies, etcetera) will still happen. It’s the price of freedom.
So no Womb Police. Sorry. Gilead isn’t coming to the USA any time soon.
That’s the new day you want, right? No more abortion. Period. Just explain to me how you enforce it and then ask yourself if that’s the kind of country you want to live in.
We won’t be 100% successful in preventing abortion, any more than we have been 100% successful in preventing murder. The important point is that we take a stand as a society on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves….
If we can simply send abortionists to prison, I’ll be content.
Danielle 10:13am
Since I’m the dinosaur of the blog, I’ll take up your challenge.
The death rate from illegal abortion had been steadily declining for years and was at an all time low in the year prior to Roe v Wade(1973).
Contrary to popular misconception, most abortions were done in doctor’s offices, with doctors who had to be extremely careful or face prosecution. They certainly did not do abortions on an assembly line basis.
Also advances in sterile technique, blood and fluid therapy, and most important antibiotics, also contributed to the decline in the death rate.
The number of illegal abortions performed was at best, anyone’s guess. The “abortion reform” (as it was called back then) leadership made up stats on the number of illegal abortions as well as on the death rate. Stats they knew were a total falsehood or totally made up. After all the truth would not generate much sympathy or support. Their allies in the media picked up this misinformation and ran with it.
Likely a woman looking for an illegal abortion would hear via word of mouth of a doctor who performed them in his/her office.
I knew a nurse who planned to abort herself and was told by her doctor how to do it. By the way, this was after abortion was legal. She figured this beat the expense and hassle of a legal abortion.
Let’s face it, if we want to find someone who will do something we want badly enough, be it sell us drugs or help us dispose of an unwanted spouse, we can find them.
It should also be pointed out that if a woman’s health or life were at risk, she could legally and safely seek out and receive whatever care was necessary to preserve her life. I worked in secular and religious hospitals before and after Roe and NEVER saw a situation where any woman was allowed to die or that everything necessary was not done to save her life. Legal abortion being a necessity to save a woman’s life was totally bogus. Thankfully with better technology and diagnostic tools, such situations are rare.
Also, there are now over 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers to help women with support, medical referral, clothing, etc. There are rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, and mothers and infants homes to shelter women and assist them in getting their lives in order.
Few if any of these existed when I was growing up.
There were unwed mothers homes where women were “put away” until birth, then their children often forcibly removed. Women truly had few options, little to no support, and a lot of social stigma.
We now have abortion clinics run by people with no credentials, George Tiller staffs his clinic with people who have no training or credentials, who are allowed to supervise patient care and administer drugs. Unlicensed “doctors” turning a quick buck with no fear or concern for legal consequences. They are after all doing nothing illegal. Clinics that have closed because of unsanitary and unsafe conditions, including rusted instruments, roach infestation, and fire hazards.
It seems that legal abortion only allowed the very worst of the abortion hacks to put up a shingle and conduct their business legally.
We have some silly and naive notion that legalizing something puts the dregs and criminal element out of business. All too often it only makes it easier for them to conduct business.
What happened is that McCain picked someone so pro-life as his running mate that the American people can now imagine an assault on abortion rights. McCain handed this issue to Obama, and he’s running with it. Good for him.
Let him run with it right back into BAIPA ;-)
It’s like saying, “McCain will cut your taxes, Obama will raise them.” Presidents don’t cut or raise taxes, Congress does. Same thing.
Not the same thing. The difference being that with a Democratic congress, Obama as president will raise your taxes. With veto power, John McCain as president, can at least exercise some control on taxes.
McCain also (at one point at least) supported a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, which would take the issue away from the Supreme Court.
Our Constitution does not provide for law to be written in the courts. The fact is that the 1973 SC improperly took this issue out of its proper venue, the legislature.
Danielle later wrote:
I want to know how you enforce a repeal of a Supreme Court law that’s been on the books since ’73. What do you do with those who want an abortion? What do you do to those who try to have one?
Firstly, as DeeL rightly corrected, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make laws. That’s a big part of the problem with our courts today. But that’s not really your point, so I’ll move on….
Slavery had been legal since before the founding of our republic. Many Americans had based their livelihoods and fortunes on slavery. Yet the injustice of slavery demanded a response. We fought a Civil War to end it! Slavery was abolished, and the republic survived.
An injustice that has become familiar is no less unjust. America survived without slavery. We will also survive without legal abortion.
To answer your specific questions:
What do you do with those who want an abortion?
We would do what we’re already doing. We would provide them with every opportunity to have a good life for themselves and their children. Imagine how many more pregnancy resource centers we could run if we didn’t have to keep pouring time & effort into fighting the injustice of legal abortion!
What do you do to those who try to have one?
Aha, that is the “How much time should she do?” question….
Previous laws concerning abortion were only concerned with the abortionists themselves. The woman who got the abortion was not prosecuted.
There are many practical reasons for targetting abortionists….
Firstly, it’s a matter of scale. One abortionist can kill thousands of children. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (for example) has estimated that he was personally responsible for about 75,000 abortions. On the other hand, a woman who wants an abortion will only be responsible for the deaths of her unborn children. We have limited law-enforcement resources, so it makes good sense to focus those resources where they’ll save the most lives. That means targetting abortionists.
Secondly, if the laws exempt women who abort, then those women are more likely to seek medical treatment if something goes wrong. By that point, the unborn child is already dead. At least we can try to save the mother.
Thirdly, if the laws exempt women who abort, then those women are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement in busting the abortionists. True, many women aren’t going to cooperate anyway, but some will. In particular, a woman who comes to regret her abortion would be very likely to cooperate in prosecuting the abortionist who used her. As far as eyewitness testimony to abortion goes, it’s hard to beat the testimony of the woman who lost her child to abortion….
As a matter of pure justice, it seems inconsistent to exempt women who abort from prosecution. I agree. But our laws are rarely pure, because we live in an imperfect world. For the reasons above, I would be perfectly happy with an abortion ban that targetted abortionists only.
“Anyway, the answer is much simpler than you seem to fear. Pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal. Therefore, anyone who is suspected of committing an abortion would be investigated by the police. If sufficient evidence can be found, they would be arrested. If the case can be proven, they would pay the legal penalty for their acts.”
-Yeah, that’s what I thought. I’m picturing all of the jails that would be filled with women and girls who didn’t want to be pregnant or mothers (side by side with other criminals, of course). Naturally, this occurs after a trial or investigation that exposes the utmost private and intimate aspects of her life, state of mind, sex life, body, etc. I wonder what happens to the baby afterward.
I know to you this doesn’t sound like a big sacrifice…and that’s what’s so frightening to me.
“We understand that the price of a free society is that some crimes will be committed. Because we don’t imprison everyone who has a tendency toward pedophilia, we have to accept the sad fact that some children will be abused. Could we prevent child abuse by locking up every pedophile (or anyone with any leanings in that direction) for life? Sure, we probably could. But the cost would be a police state, and we have decided that the cost would be too high.”
Posted by: Naaman at September 3, 2008 10:42 AM
-I appreciate the sensibility in this comment. At least you recognize what kind of environment a total enforcement of this law would mean for all of us – although some on the anti-choice side would welcome it.
So, ok. Thanks for someone offering to answer my questions. Doesn’t make me feel any better, but, I always wanted to ask.
Danielle:
No doubt, eliminating abortion creates challenges. I say, bring them on. I would rather be found faithful dealing wiht the challenges of doing the right thing then to be found facing a Holy God having done teh wrong thing.
However, the advocacy for great evil is never justified by the challenges its elimination presents. In fact, the advocacy of evil always results in greater and greater evil as we seen being played out in our society today. In fact all those who commit and support abortion are partners with the evil that is created. We reap what we sow.
Should we not confront evil? Perhaps we should eliminate poverty by just killing all poor people? Why stop there, old people are a pain too. Perhaps we should not confront Islamic fascism? Perhaps we should have just let Hitler roll through Europe and Japan to just invade us without so much as a wimper? Yes, in not confronting and dealing with the challenges of and result of eliminating evil we lose our humanity, our freedom, our God given rights, we become cowards.
Perhaps Jesus should have never died on the cross for the pain and discomfort He had to endure? “Oh my God, thank you for my Lord and Savior, thank you, thank you, thank you”.
Hebrews 12:1-3, “1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.”
Revelation 2:2-4 “2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. 4Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love.”
Matthew 25:21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
If abortion is eliminated, the birth rate will rise. There will be fewer women with mental illness. The new baby boom will inspire economic prosperity, new schools will have to be built, more textbooks printed, more food will will need to be grown and yes, God will provide.
And abortion as solution is the “Audacity of Hope” your candidate espouses? Murder as hope, good as evil, evil as good, the facade is evident. It is the “Audacity of Despair”, the “Audacity of Faithlessness”, the “Audacity of Fear”, the “Audacity of Surrender”.
Naaman, I think you articulated that perfectly. Thank you.
Any Liberman fans out there??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTJbqKuDDM&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/lieberman-on-ob.html
Naaman,
I knew you’d say it better than I could. Thanks.
As I said…how would it look? Just like it did before 1973. What would women who found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy? The same thing they did before Roe V Wade. Give birth. Then they had homes for unwed mothers (many of which were run by the Catholic Church – I was adopted out of one of them), now we have CPC’s which would probably evovle into homes for unwed mothers.
It’s not like pregnancy is new. We’ve got men on the moon, and a woman running for VP. I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to figure out how to get women through 9 months of pregnancy.
Hi folks,
can’t begin to fathom the depth of Lucy’s pain. However, there is a way of coming to terms with all forms of trauma.
Part of the problem with trauma is that emotions are typically governed by the intellect … eg. why we don’t pee wherever and whenever we ‘feel’ like it. … This control shifts or disappears with trauma. So emotional-triggers, like a smell or a color can make us relive the traumatic event.
Some psychiatrists now use a pulsing green light bar to overcome this trauma. And YES, rape is one such event. It works (how/why is not known.) but the traumatized person seems to achieve some ‘distance’ and is able to perceive the event in a rational manner.
I wish every voter (especially every woman voter) could read the posts on this thread, for a chilling insight into the Brave New World of McCain/Palin and the GOP extremist agenda.
LTL:
That is my wish too.
So that women will realize the terrible evil that abortion is.
“As I said…how would it look? Just like it did before 1973. What would women who found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy? The same thing they did before Roe V Wade. Give birth… I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to figure out how to get women through 9 months of pregnancy.”
Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 11:22 AM
-Yes, and as I’m sure you’re aware, plenty of other women will figure out how to get OUT of 9 months of pregnancy. But, then again, the baby is more important, so…
“I wish every voter (especially every woman voter) could read the posts on this thread, for a chilling insight into the Brave New World of McCain/Palin and the GOP extremist agenda.”
Sure. And I can point women voters to blogs and newsgroups where the unborn are regularly characterized as parasites — a purposeful pejorative most voting women would find offensive.
Killing the unborn is extreme. Get it?
LTL wrote:
I wish every voter (especially every woman voter) could read the posts on this thread, for a chilling insight into the Brave New World of McCain/Palin and the GOP extremist agenda.
I agree with you. I wish that every voter who has been scared by the fearmongering pro-choice movement would read the posts on this thread and realize that:
1) We do not want to send women to prison.
2) We do not want to create a theocracy or totalitarian state.
3) We want to help pregnant women and their babies … and we refuse to sacrifice one for the other.
4) Pro-choicers have lied to them about all of the above.
You know that this is a public blog with public comments, right? So do your part! Send this URL to every woman you know:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/09/obama_ad_slams.html
Invite them to participate in the discussion. Truth is never afraid of the Light, but lies flourish in the darkness….
Hal,
Any Liberman fans out there??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTJbqKuDDM&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/lieberman-on-ob.html
I know! Isn’t it wonderful? We hope all democrats do like Joe, and change their minds and votes. If he can do it, so can you!
This is exactly what we are hoping for. People seeing that they are being manipulated by Obama, and coming into the light.
Hey, that’s what we’re hoping for on the abortion issue too!
Danielle:
But, then again, the baby is more important, so…
No, that’s wrong. Pro-lifers consider the woman and her baby to be equally important. We refuse to sacrifice one for the other.
Who runs all of the pregnancy-care centers now? Pro-lifers!
I see MK, not a flip flop, but “changed his mind.”
Okay.
Like Palin supporting the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it. I haven’t stopped smiling since last Friday. Life is grand.
Yes, and as I’m sure you’re aware, plenty of other women will figure out how to get OUT of 9 months of pregnancy. But, then again, the baby is more important, so…
If that’s the way you choose to see it, then I guess that’s the way you choose to see it.
I don’t really know how much more clear we can be.
You don’t need to sacrifice one for the other.
You can care about both.
You don’t need to sacrifice one for the other.
You can care about both.
You don’t need to sacrifice one for the other.
You can care about both.
You don’t need to sacrifice one for the other.
You can care about both.
You don’t need to sacrifice one for the other.
You can care about both.
You don’t need to sacrifice one for the other.
You can care about both.
Maybe if you read it enough, you’ll understand.
-Yes, and as I’m sure you’re aware, plenty of other women will figure out how to get OUT of 9 months of pregnancy.
Yes, lots of people figure out how to get money for drugs by stealing it. Or how to get sex by raping women. Or how to get home by driving drunk.
But that doesn’t make these actions right. I don’t really understand (never have) this line of reasoning.
People will do it anyway…
Past the age of 7, that just sounds like foot stamping.
“No, that’s wrong. Pro-lifers consider the woman and her baby to be equally important. We refuse to sacrifice one for the other.”
Posted by: Naaman at September 3, 2008 11:59 AM
-By eliminating the option of abortion you ARE making the choice of one over the other – the baby trumps all. Or as I see it (brace yourself), the potential baby.
And that’s fine if you feel that way – by default, I chose the woman’s choice, if pushed to make a decision – but just be honest about it. The whole point of this (never-ending) battle is that one side thinks that the baby/fetus/unborn is more important than giving people the legal option not to have one and the ther feels the opposite.
I feel discouraged. Not about the issues or my position, but more so…perplexed – dumbfounded, really – as to how we can all see the same issue SO differently. So starkly. At every point! I shake my head at your rationale as much as you do mine.
I feel like if I saw some of you on the street and this topic never came up, we’d probably be friendly. But then realizing that those same people are fighting for the very things I am against…makes me feel weird.
Sorry for the touchy-feely moment, I just needed to put it out there. For some reason today’s discussion is making me feel so emotional!
Why do the Palin’s hate America?
Wow. Now I’m thinking about how I felt after I was raped. If I’d gotten pregnant and been forced to carry to term, there’s no doubt in my mind that baby wouldn’t have made it because neither would I. I became majorly depressed and was thisclose to suicide. The idea of carrying that inhumane monster’s child would have pushed me over the edge.
I understand the pro-life philosophy quite well but lament the total lack of consideration by some for rape and incest victims. Yes, the baby is innocent, but forcing a woman who’s likely already on edge because of her experiences is cruel.
I suspect it’s hard for a lot of people to truly understand how damaging rape is unless they’ve experienced it. I’d imagine that’s true for incest also.
Posted by: Lucy at September 3, 2008 8:37
Lucy, I haven’t read all the comments on this thread but I wonder how much support was available for you and were you able to get counselling afterwards? (You don’t have to answer these questions, they are simply hypothetical ones!) I am truly sorry that you have had this terrible experience in your life and my heart goes out to you.
However, do you believe that if you did become pregnant after the rape that an abortion would have been a solution to the anger, grief and fear that you were feeling? Can you see that killing the child would have only been punishing an innocent baby for the crime of his father? Is that right and how does that make YOU any different from the rapist? The rapist violated your bodily autonomy and now you will do the same to the baby? Why are these two cases different? You didn’t give your consent for the man to use your body like this and the baby cannot give his consent to your killing him. You survived the rape, the baby will not survive the abortion. The rapist maybe the monster, the baby IS NOT.
From Danielle:
I sincerely would like someone on the anti-choice side to PLEASE tactically detail for me what it looks like when abortion is completely abolished. No loop holes like one or two states in the union who still offer it – not that. If you all really got your way and completely wiped out all access to abortion, nationwide.
Think about what that looks like. Walk me thru the moment a woman discovers she’s pregnant and doesn’t want to keep or have it. Think about how you would have to enforce your new law. Tell me how you would protect your unborn, at all costs, even while it is still inside the woman.
Think about how each and every pregnant female in the union would need to be consistently monitored to ensure her fetus was protected and she wasn’t a threat to it. Consider how you may have to physically restrain those who voice opposition to pregnancy and childbirth to protect your unborn. Consider how in some instances you would have to incarcerate them.
First of all, the last part is simply hysterical proabort rhetoric masked as intelligence.
First of all maybe women and men will be a little more careful in their “private” lives and think twice before becoming sexually active. Secondly, I’m betting that society will have to develop more fully some of the many resources that are already available to pregnant and distress women.
Thirdly, social and economic policies will have to be revised to help women, babies and fathers too.
Fourthly, maybe couples who can’t have children will rethink the trauma of IVF treatments and open their hearts to adopt some of these babies.
oh and BTW, it’s prolife. We are for the choice for the baby to live EVERY time!
Hal —
Yes, like you wanted your first kids DEAD and then decided to have a couple of pregnancies proceed.
You are such a flip-flopper….
Hal,
I have never used the term flip flop. I don’t think Obama flip flops. I think Obama takes opposing views at the same time, rendering all of his views void. He doesn’t have any views.
Abortion is wrong. ( Let’s do it.( We gotta leave the war immediately (after we finish fighting)
I’m a Christian who doesn’t believe anything that Christians believe.
Rich folk don’t understand little folk. (I’m a rich folk). Little folk shouldn’t run the country.
I am not for infanticide. I just think that unwanted born babies should be left to die.
He doesn’t say I used to be for infanticide, but have changed my mind. Or I was against the war, but now see the merits of staying longer.
He contradicts his own views with opposing views.
Can’t you see that?
Danielle,
I appreciate your honesty and your questions. I understand what you are saying because I do shake my head sometimes at what is said by PC. I have to remind myself that I once was prochoice. Fell for all of the BS that I was told and had my baby killed by abortion. I have righteous anger about being lied to about fetal development, a quick and painless abortion, and how it would solve everything. I was lied to and I believed it all. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. Now I will fight as hard as I can for babies who CAN survive pregnancy if their moms get the support and help they need.
You have my permission to like us. :)
The Mc Cain Palin strategy: She will not be allowed to be interviewed by anyone not “friendly” to her, and all of the revelations about her and her family will be blamed on “the media”, who are lying.
Since the “blame the media” strategy was so spectacularly successful for John Edwards, I’m sure it will work here as well.
Peach pit values —
Kill babies- profit from murder
— put down motherhood
— attack young women who you disagree with
— lap up milk from a saucer and preen your fur.
And that’s fine if you feel that way – by default, I chose the woman’s choice, if pushed to make a decision – but just be honest about it.
See, this is where you are going astray.
The choice isn’t the baby has to die OR the mother has to die, with us choosing the baby. And you choosing the mother.
The choice is the baby has to die, or the mother has to be inconvenienced.
We say death is more serious than inconvenience.
If we were all for killing mothers so that babies could live, you might have a point, but we aren’t.
You are arguing two different things.
We say two people, equal rights. No one should die to protect the rights of one. WHether that “one” is the mother or the child. It doesn’t matter. NO ONE should have to die, so that another’s life can be easier.
Unless of course, they volunteer, as in the military.
If anyone’s view is being forced it yours. Your view is being forced on the mother.
WE are looking out for both parties. Carry the child, give it away. Case closed.
YOU say, kill the child, it’s expendable. My only concern is for the mothers COMFORT!
“First of all maybe women and men will be a little more careful in their “private” lives and think twice before becoming sexually active.”
Sometimes this seems to be the agenda.
Obama media strategy — only be interviewed by adoring media (not hard to find). Throw any inconvenient friends, relatives, spiritual leaders or personal beliefs under the bus. Make sure no one researches your voting record, community board service or past political writings.
If anyone disagrees with you or finds an inconvenient fact – denounce that person as a liar.
I guess if anything is inconvenient — kill it somehow — just like any babies who survive a brutal abortion attempt. You know Death you can believe in.
Obama supporters — stay classy.
“You have my permission to like us. :)”
Posted by: Carla at September 3, 2008 12:23 PM
-Well, next weekend starts my 2nd season as a clinic volunteer at my local PP (I had to take the summer off). After lots of dialogue here and in light of our leadership choices in November, I feel more energized than ever to get back in the trenches. Hope you can give yourself permission to like me, then.
I also hope we can still have a civil discourse, should I decide to continue dialoging on this board (the heartburn ya’ll cause me…oy vey).
Sometimes this seems to be the agenda..
You haven’t been paying attention.
Take away the “sometimes” and you’ve got it.
Taking responsibility for your actions and acting responsibly. Simple, really.
Why do you volunteer at PP, Danielle? What is at the heart of your volunteering?
“First of all maybe women and men will be a little more careful in their “private” lives and think twice before becoming sexually active.”
Sometimes this seems to be the agenda.
Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2008 12:32 PM
you have a problem with responsibility? Why am I NOT surprised.
If you get pregnant, it really doesn’t seem like killing the child is a responsible action. It’s an action of cowardice to abort the baby.
Oh and I must say that reading your comments has energized me as well. I will be volunteering at our local Pregnancy Care Center. :)
yeah Carla! :-D
LB, he is going on Bill O Pervy on Thursday….get your facts straight.
“First of all maybe women and men will be a little more careful in their “private” lives and think twice before becoming sexually active.”
Sometimes this seems to be the agenda.
Really?
Yes, he will be on O’Reilly — he really tried avoiding it, but he needs to try to get back the spotlight. Kind of like how he only went overseas when he was goaded into it, and they only as a tourist.
Danielle wrote:
By eliminating the option of abortion you ARE making the choice of one over the other – the baby trumps all.
No, no we’re not. We’re not saying that the baby is more important than the woman. We are saying that one right is more important than the other. Specifically, we’re saying that the baby’s right to not be killed is more important than the woman’s right to absolute bodily autonomy.
A proper hierarchy of rights is important, because our rights frequently come into conflict with each other. For example, I have the right to free speech. However, the nation also has a right to maintain its security. Therefore, I am not allowed to use my free-speech right to post classified information on the Daily Kos. That’s not saying that the government is more important than the individual. (May it never be so!) It is saying that our national security — which allows us to protect everyone’s rights — is more important than my right to blab state secrets. Got it?
In any sensible hierarchy of rights, the right to life (more specifically, the right to not be arbitrarily killed) must be at or near the very top. After all, if you can be arbitrarily killed, then all of your other rights are moot. Freedom of speech & religion mean very little if you’re dead. The right to bodily autonomy is on that list, too, but it has to come below the right to life. Bodily autonomy also means very little if you’re dead.
As I wrote, pro-lifers see the woman and her baby as equally important. However, we see the baby’s right to life as being more important than the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Not because the woman doesn’t matter, and not because we don’t recognize her right to bodily autonomy, but because we know that the right to life has to come first.
Danielle further wrote:
Or as I see it (brace yourself), the potential baby.
Therein lies the source of our disagreement. If an unborn child is only a “potential” baby, at what point does it become an actual baby? And why is that point (whatever it may be) a sensible place to establish the right to life?
As you know, pro-lifers consider that human rights (especially the right to life) begin at conception. The science of embryology supports this conclusion. At the moment of conception, the egg & sperm unite to form a complete human being. The DNA has been determined (and is unique from that of the parents), and all of the chromosomes are set. The embryonic human being will grow and develop if left unharmed. Eventually, that little “potential” human being will become an infant, then a toddler, then a teenager … etcetera. The key point is that the human being is complete & unique at the moment of conception. From that point forward, all she needs is a hospitable environment, sufficient nutrients, and a safe place to grow. Like us, really.
Danielle further wrote:
And that’s fine if you feel that way – by default, I chose the woman’s choice, if pushed to make a decision – but just be honest about it.
I have been nothing but honest from the moment we started this conversation. I am afraid that you might have misunderstood me, but I am trying to be as clear as I can be. :)
Danielle further wrote:
I feel discouraged. Not about the issues or my position, but more so…perplexed – dumbfounded, really – as to how we can all see the same issue SO differently. So starkly. At every point! I shake my head at your rationale as much as you do mine.
I suspect that our central point of disagreement is the nature of the unborn. If we could only agree on the identity of those little critters inside women’s wombs, we might be able to agree about a lot more than that.
What do you believe the unborn child to be?
I’m not shaking my head at you. I have been in (or near) your shoes. I was once fanatically pro-choice. I even volunteered as a clinic escort:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/conversion_stor.html
I’m also not the only former pro-choicer who is now pro-life. I suspect that we might understand you a little better than you give us credit for doing….
Danielle further wrote:
I feel like if I saw some of you on the street and this topic never came up, we’d probably be friendly. But then realizing that those same people are fighting for the very things I am against…makes me feel weird.
I strongly doubt that we will ever convince anyone to become pro-life via internet discussion. Such worldview changes usually require a lot more than simply reading arguments on one’s computer screen.
However, if we can undo some of the hatred and lies that have been spread by the abortion lobby, then we have done a good thing. Pro-lifers are not the stereotypical misogynists that NARAL would like you to believe. We’re decent people who care just as much about women as you do. Our worldview causes us to express that care in other ways.
I have many (many!) pro-choice friends. My parents are also pro-choice. For what it’s worth, I agree with you. If we met each other outside of the context of the Great Abortion Debate, we might become friends. :)
Hal is DEFINITELY not for men and women being responsible in how they use their sexuality. That comes AFTER the fact and at the expense of the baby. That’s why abortion is needed.
Despite what proaborts state, abortion IS their backup contraception. Even proabort doctors know this and are becoming increasingly appalled by it all. That’s why as a solution to the evidence that men and women are too lazy, stupid, and careless to take their pills,condoms,jellies and foams, some are now suggesting a more permanent and longlasting form of BC – implants and shots!
“Why do you volunteer at PP, Danielle? What is at the heart of your volunteering?”
Posted by: Carla at September 3, 2008 12:38 PM
-A vast answer (none of which will impress you, but c’est la vie):
When I lived in the midwest (where I was raised), I volunteered at the lobbying level (phone banking, letters, petition, legistative ed, etc) because the challenges are greatest at that level in that part of the country.
Now that I’m on the coast, I chose to volunteer at the clinic/patient level. Mainly so I got a 360 view of the organization, challenge stereotypes that some may have, and also since being exposed to the clinic side, I see so many young women – girls, really – faced with really big, big issues (not just abortion – but health and emotional issues as well). Some seem to have support, some don’t. Some seem at peace, some don’t. Some are in for procedures, free meds, counseling, questions, etc. I’m not a physician or nurse, so my assistance can only go so far. I just felt like they could use some support (a friendly face, a hand to hold, someone to ask a question to) so I can surely do that.
In the spirit of honesty, don’t get me wrong – Seasame St this ain’t. We’re in a big city and some patients are rude, the escorts in the waiting rooms can be combative and the staff overworked. But, we all do our part and staff is there because they feel they need to be and the idea of a kid (figuratively) walking in there alone without an advocate…is too much for me.
This is my long way of saying I like being a woman helping other women (but, I know this statement throws you into apoplexy).
Danielle
What would you think of a woman being shown an ultrasound prior to her abortion?
What happened is that McCain picked someone so pro-life as his running mate that the American people can now imagine an assault on abortion rights. McCain handed this issue to Obama, and he’s running with it. Good for him.
Hal,
So Obama being the most pro-abort liberal and voting against the BAIPA has nothing to do with it?
“What would you think of a woman being shown an ultrasound prior to her abortion?”
Posted by: Patricia at September 3, 2008 1:09 PM
-That makes no difference to me, but I’m not clear on the motive. What is the point, exactly? To show her she’s pregnant with a baby? To try and show them, ‘see? It’s a baby! You’re going to kill your son or daughter!’
Everyone should have a clear sense of what’s happening. Yes, you have a life inside – it moves, turns, has a heart, etc – and by aborting, you’re taking it out. If you hadn’t, it would be a baby in 40 weeks. If someone needs an ultrasound to get that (particularly women who already have children), I’d have some reservations about their decision and why their making it.
But, most women get that already. I don’t know any PC women who use the ‘its just cells’ argument. It’s a life that’s growing to become a baby. You should at least be solid about that before making a decision.
Who’s trying to strong arm someone into an abortion? Not me. Not anyone I know.
Naaman,
Interesting conversion story. I wish I could say that I had been a member of the “other side” when I was younger myself. It must be a great insight, and probably explains why your posts are so particularly cogent.
I look up this thread and see a lot of (mostly) men literally salivating at the prospect of being able to poke their nose into women’s private lives and tell them what to do…
Danielle, thanks for your thoughtful insights.
Prepare to be ripped to shreds by the “pro-lifers”. the nastiest, most judgmental, most hateful people on Earth.
Everyone should have a clear sense of what’s happening. Yes, you have a life inside – it moves, turns, has a heart, etc – and by aborting, you’re taking it out. If you hadn’t, it would be a baby in 40 weeks. If someone needs an ultrasound to get that (particularly women who already have children), I’d have some reservations about their decision and why their making it.
But, most women get that already. I don’t know any PC women who use the ‘its just cells’ argument. It’s a life that’s growing to become a baby. You should at least be solid about that before making a decision.
Yes maybe many women KNOW that they have a baby inside them but many women are also quite ignorant of fetal development. Many women do not realize for example, that a baby’s heart is beating at 4 to 6 weeks. Heck, apparently some doctors believe that the heart isn’t beating regularly until the 26th week! So the point would be to show them what is living and developing inside them. The point would be to make sure that they are absolutely certain that this IS the right decision for them.
Do you think that staff should tell women the risks of abortion?
I’m reposting so it makes sense:
Everyone should have a clear sense of what’s happening. Yes, you have a life inside – it moves, turns, has a heart, etc – and by aborting, you’re taking it out. If you hadn’t, it would be a baby in 40 weeks. If someone needs an ultrasound to get that (particularly women who already have children), I’d have some reservations about their decision and why their making it.
But, most women get that already. I don’t know any PC women who use the ‘its just cells’ argument. It’s a life that’s growing to become a baby. You should at least be solid about that before making a decision.
Yes maybe many women KNOW that they have a baby inside them but many women are also quite ignorant of fetal development. Many women do not realize for example, that a baby’s heart is beating at 4 to 6 weeks. Heck, apparently some doctors believe that the heart isn’t beating regularly until the 26th week! So the point would be to show them what is living and developing inside them. The point would be to make sure that they are absolutely certain that this IS the right decision for them.
Do you think that staff should tell women the risks of abortion?
Posted by: Patricia at September 3, 2008 1:37 PM
What about adoption referrals, Danielle? Do you do those?
LTL —
so ironic that you said —
“Prepare to be ripped to shreds” now, now isn’t that the pro-abort method…
“Do you think that staff should tell women the risks of abortion?”
Posted by: Patricia at September 3, 2008 1:37 PM
-It’s a medical procedure, so yes, you do receive information as to the risks. As you would with any surgery or med. procedure.
“What about adoption referrals, Danielle? Do you do those?”
Posted by: Carla at September 3, 2008 1:44 PM
-I can’t offer up specific counseling, only licensed staff members could do that, and I can’t confirm if they do or not. If I was with a patient who was really upset I would ask them if they’d like to speak to a counselor and get one for them.
What I can say is that if someone came in and they were unsure, you would be seeing a counselor way before anything else happened, if they go thru it at all.
Remember all the talk about offering services to young mothers with unplanned preganncies to reduce abortion rates and embrace “life.”
ST. PAUL — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.
After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation — “SP” — Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.
According to Passage House’s web site, its purpose is to provide “young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives” and help teen moms “become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families.”
LTL,
Yeah! Its my business if I want to make my children do slave labor! Stay out of my business!
Hal: “Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.”
What else does Covenant House do? Maybe she supports Passage House, but not their other aspects? Did you ever think that the slash was to the other parts? Its a common reasoning flaw Hal, but keep in mind that the part does not necessarily reflect the whole and visa versa.
sure, Oliver. I know. It’s just so fun to read about Gov. Palin. As I stated earlier, I’m loving every moment. I hope the rumours of her withdrawing her name are false.
Apparently Covenant House spends the majority of their work on helping the homeless get back on their feet. As amazing as this charity turns out to be, I am not at all appaled that she slashed a 5 million govt assistance to a 3.9 million assistance. Maybe she felt that the govt was giving too much. It definitely does not support the notion that she does not want to give help to pregnant teens. Nice try though Hal. I know thinking about the alternative explanations is real hard when you are fueled by hatred.
I am curious to if McCain really researched her before picking her name out of a hat…
Hal: “sure, Oliver. I know.”
Sure Hal…Im sure you do. So you openly admit you are just trying to slander as much as possible? Or is it really just that you have some serious reasoning flaws?
Midnite…there have been some pretty indepth articles explaining the vetting process, and in fact when most of the so called “scandals” surfaced. Do some research before making such a wild and inaccurate assumption.
Oliver, i’m just cutting and pasting from an AP article. It’s not slander if it’s true. Anyway, I’m sure censoring books was more fun then slashing aid to pregnant teenagers who want to continue their pregnancies.
McCain has sunk his ship. Once the Republican Convention starts I think there will be quite a undercurrent of discontent.
Is Romney really going to fall in line?
wild and inaccurate assumption
I dont think I made a wile and inaccurate assumption Oliver. I asked a simple question.
And you claim that Hal is filled with hatred. Look in the mirror buddy.
*wild not wile… Silly fingers wont keep up with my thoughts today.
:o)
Hal: “Oliver, i’m just cutting and pasting from an AP article. It’s not slander if it’s true. Anyway, I’m sure censoring books was more fun then slashing aid to pregnant teenagers who want to continue their pregnancies. ”
Sigh…do I need to explain how her slashing of funds to Covenant House was not necessarily a slash of funds to one of their programs? You are part of the reason I fear being wrongfully accussed. The average American is too blockheaded to properly reason about anything…even when explained in detail. I think that jury members should have to take a test based on logic. That would make me feel so much better. Of course…no one would end up on the jury…
Oliver, it must be difficult being so wise and educated in a world of ignorant people.
Whats up Hal?
How ya been lately?
Its irritation on my part actually.
Your question implied that it was a reasonable possibility that he did not “vet” her. This lets me know that you are at least in question over the issue, which lets me know that you are making the assumption that McCain may not have vetted her…which is in fact completely unreasonable, and not supported by any research.
Hal is just cutting and pasting — more quality work and incisive thoughts.
I love that this pick has panicked our ‘friends’ on the left. It’s so difficult for them to confront people with real convictions. People who face up to life’s challenges.
The whole person of character vs. empty suit thing. People who don’t have to convene with lobbyists to come up with the risky strategy to vote present.
You know Hal, on a personal level, people who don’t kill their children because of possible financial handicap for themselves.
howdy Midnite. I’ve been great. Happy and content with life. Just counting the days until November 4th. How about you?
Hal: “Oliver, it must be difficult being so wise and educated in a world of ignorant people.”
No, it sucks being a world where most people dont even want to use reason, such as yourself. It scares me because when you dont want to use reason, you end up not knowing how.
Its irritation on my part actually.
Your question implied that it was a reasonable possibility that he did not “vet” her. This lets me know that you are at least in question over the issue, which lets me know that you are making the assumption that McCain may not have vetted her…which is in fact completely unreasonable, and not supported by any research.
First off Oliver, It was not my intention to irritate you. I asked a simple question.
It is quite apparent that McCain chose her as his VP. I never made an assumption that he did not “vet” her (seriously, if he didnt do it, then who did? The Aliens?) I was simply wondering if he did any in depth research. Now, seeing as I am in school full time and work full time, I dont have the patience or the time to actually research something that I am not that concerned about.
With that said, I know a couple of people on this site quite well, and also know that they would know the answer to this question; so to save myself time and a migraine, I asked the above question.
Oliver 2:26PM
Good point. She didn’t leave them high and dry. Also, this charity solicits funds. Its possible their needs were being met by private donations and the gov’t funds could be spent elsewhere, maybe helping another worthwhile organization.
Not everyone shares Oliver’s views on the vetting process:
http://slate.com/id/2199121
The press is merely doing on short notice what the McCain campaign’s vetting team should have done between March
Midnite: “It is quite apparent that McCain chose her as his VP. I never made an assumption that he did not “vet” her (seriously, if he didnt do it, then who did? The Aliens?) I was simply wondering if he did any in depth research. Now, seeing as I am in school full time and work full time, I dont have the patience or the time to actually research something that I am not that concerned about.”
Vetting means to do an indepth background check.
If you are not so concerned about it, why would you even post? Besides, why ask a question if you dont think its a reasonable posibility to receive multiple answers? If you honestly think he just randomly picked her, you are making the assumption that McCain COULD do something like that, which is of course very insulting.
Think about it like this. What if I asked “Hey I am curious if Obama REALLY is a muslim terrorist afterall”
That would be a silly question and would be insulting considering the low probability of it being anything other than “No. Of course he isnt a Muslim terrorist.”
The only reasonable response to your query would be “No. Of course he vetted his Vice President.”
Surely you can see the packaged insult, even if it were unintentional. If you truly meant it out of curiousity, I do apologize, but you have to understand how LTL, Amanda, and Hal have been on this site with their tangental accusations.
McCain made a poor decision out of desperation and will pay dearly for it.(except he couldn’t win anyway, so maybe the Hail Mary was called for)
Shows what a complete failure his theoretical administration would have been. “four more years” indeed.
Hal,
Palin stepping down is wishful thinking on the democrats part. I haven’t heard one Republican even bring it up.
Character counts. McCain is no McGovern who backed away from Eagleton because he had been treated for depression.
All heart there with the Democrats — such open-minded folks. So willing to embrace diversity, not!
Hal,
For a second I was impressed with your writing, only to figure out about halfway through that all you did was copy paste.
By the way, the article you quoted did not refute the notion that Palin was vetted. It was just a tirade against how horrible she is and how the media is correct in devouring every inch of McCain. Of course it handily avoided the subject that the media has been implicated by even Democrats as promoting Obama specifically. Members of the press were cheering at his nomination speech. Biased? Maybe not, but apparently 75-88% of Americans think so.
Correction…
“For a second I was impressed with your writing, only to figure out about halfway through that all you did was copy paste. Again”
Better.
“Once the Republican Convention starts I think there will be quite a undercurrent of discontent.”
I take it then, Hal, that you’re unaware that the RNC is now in Day Three?
I’m not sure if you’re really convincing anyone else here that McCain/Palin is sinking — though it appears your main objective is convincing YOURSELF.
Hal wrote:
Anyway, I’m sure censoring books was more fun then slashing aid to pregnant teenagers who want to continue their pregnancies.
Your logic is fallacious.
On “censoring books”: Not wanting to carry a book in the public library is no-way, no-how the same as censoring that book. Want an example? Public libraries don’t currently carry Hustler magazine. Is Hustler being censored? Of course not.
On “cutting aid to teenage mothers”: Firstly, you might want to consider Oliver’s point about the part not being the same as the whole. Simply cutting funds to a public-assistance program that does several different things does not necessarily indicate a lack of support for any one of those things. In fact, it doesn’t indicate a lack of support for anything! What if Governor Palin simply thought that Covenant House Alaska was inefficient and spent too much money?
More importantly, you’re committing the classic liberal error of confusing “I care about X” with “I want to spend government money on X”. There are lots of causes about which I care very deeply. For example, I care deeply about my church. However, I don’t want to spend government money on my church. I’d rather give that money back to the taxpayers, so that I can use my share of it to increase my tithe. (Yes, I tithe, and I’d like to give more.)
Conservatives see matters differently. We do not think that government should cure every ill. “Compassionate Conservatism” is one of the big failures of the current President. Most problems are better solved by the free market, charity, and/or private individuals. Government is too slow, cumbersome, and inefficient. Furthermore, the government’s hands are too tied.
Pregnancy-care centers are a great example of this principle. If the government ran the pregnancy-care centers, they’d be run with all of the care and love of the average DMV branch office. Women and children would be funneled through like cattle. Worse yet, the centers would not be able to share the love of Jesus with the wounded women in their care. No thanks! I want my money to go to a pregnancy-care center that is staffed by loving volunteers, run as a ministry, and able to lead women into the grace of God.
Bmmg,
I dont know about you, but Im actually really excited about Palin. It makes me laugh that the left is so concerned with attacking her. Its been a few days and we all(including the McCain campaign) knew random things would surface to make her “look bad.” McCain thought it was worth it, and I do too. Almost all of the things the left is attacking Palin on are present in the Obama-Biden ticket. When all the muck comes up and everything cools down, we will really see the impact she is going to have. I cant wait to see her debate Biden, and I am already going to DVR her speech tonight so I can watch it after I teach.
“I take it then, Hal, that you’re unaware that the RNC is now in Day Three?”
I think most of America is unaware. Compared to last week’s magnificance, the RNC is bound to be a let down.
“Palin stepping down is wishful thinking on the democrats part. I haven’t heard one Republican even bring it up.”
Well, he probably doesn’t qualify as a “Republican” but Michael Savage was all over it last night. He was definitely calling for her to drop out. Like I said, I’m overjoyed with the pick.
Naaman,
You sir are brilliant.
Oliver, once again (as I said earlier) I did not mean to irritate anyone or insult anyone. I was curious; hence why I asked a question.
You have to understand how LTL, Amanda, and Hal have been on this site with their tangental accusations.
-Yes, I do understand that some of yall believe their posts to be tangental accusations.Instead of just accusing me of doing the same, why not ask me if I was being a smart a$*, or if it was a serious question?
I’m sure she’ll give a great speech. Sorry I’ll have to miss it to play some tennis. Interesting that in the last four days she has avoided all press questions except “People.”
Did you copy paste that from somewhere Hal?
Even if you actually made it up yourself this time, you are making the assumption that because Michael Savage supports a notion, that the particular notion is indeed not “wishful thinking.”
Let me give you an example that weakens that idea.
Michael Savage supports the notion of making English the only language used in school. Good luck on that one! Id definitely call that wishful thinking. I overheard a teacher the other day explaining that there 7 first grade teachers…3 for English speaking kids and 4 for Spanish speaking kids. I wont say that this is necessarily representative for the whole nation, but I feel pretty confident that it recurs in other schools across the border states. But hey, Michael Savage thinks so…it musnt be wishful thinking then!
Please Please leave poor bristol alone, please?
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father”.
-John McCain, 1998
Michael Savage is a vicious shock-jock. His political views have a lot more in common with Ayn Rand than they do with the mainstream of the GOP. If Savage is demanding that Palin drop, then I’d say that’s good evidence that she will do no such thing. :)
Michael Savage does not speak for most conservatives. If you really knew us, you’d know that.
The FBI has confirmed that the McCain camp claim that they did a “background check” on Palin is a lie-they don’t do that for political campaigns.
A reporter for the Washington Independent showed up at the Wasilla City Clerk’s office yesterday and was told no one had ever sought any infomation on her teunure as councilperson or Mayor, and the editor of the local paper said the same. Since none of this information is on line, there was no effort to check her record as mayor by the Mc Cain camp.
The “story” on Palin consists of outright lies, and gross exaggerations. Instead of being “for the people”, she was a petty tyrant in Wasilla, firing the sheriff and for gosh sakes the town librarian for “not supporting her”. As Governor there of course was Troopergate, her personal vendetta against her ex brother in law.
She is touted as an opponent of government spending, but hired a lobbyist to get $33 million in pork for Wasilla, population 8,000. She tried and tried to get $400 million for the “Bridge to Nowhere”, until it became a national joke.
Mc Cain touted her as the “commander in chief” of the AK National Guard, but the head of the AK National Guard confirms she has no role whatsoever in their military operations, and is not even briefed on them.
She is claimed to have “fought corruption” but in fact ran a 527 for indicted Senator Stevens and was chummy with him until the indictment last month.
McCain thinks that because he made no effort to vet Palin that everyone else will also be too lazy to do so. Wrong!
Hal,
Why do you think this was an irrational last ditch attempt that will fail?
Every single Republican I have spoken to is beyond excited about this pick. I have spoken to many people who were not necessarily going to support McCain with a vote but would not vote for Obama. They are now more excited than EVER to go to the polls.
Can you admit for a moment that the Democrats are enraged and acting nasty out of the real fear and jealousy that they didn’t pick Hillary for VP?
The media has been dispicable to Sarah Palin and her family. They are only helping to prove the fact that she has the courage to move ahead.
Have you heard that some A-list reporters have actually asked her and her husband to submit DNA to prove her son is really her son?
This has gone beyond nutty.
LTL, spin artist in the making! I normally would respond to all of your points…but you never actually respond back, so I dont think there is any point to them but to flood the “blogsphere.” Hence my question to you whether or not you are a paid commentor by Obama?
Hal —
21.5 million people tuned in last night for the RNC Convention and neither of the candidates spoke. Tonight is sure to top it.
Enjoy your tennis — I’m sure you will be served there too! :)
Like I said, I’m overjoyed with the pick.
Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2008 3:16 PM
Yeah! You will be celebrating when she moves her family to Washington!
Sweet LB. I didnt know that. I really wish I could watch tonight! I hate that most of my classes are “night classes.”
Sandy, I could be wrong. Maybe McCain/Palin will pull it off. Hey, I never, ever, thought Bush would win a second term, so I’m no political genius.
I will be very very disappointed, however, if Obama doesn’t make it.
Hopefully you can catch the speeches later via youtube.
Good luck in your classes, I enjoy your comments here. They are well reasoned and passionate.
LTL,
LOL. Palin, like the governor of any state is commander in chief of the state’s national guard. Its highly unlikely she, or any other governor is briefed on routine military exercises or is going to have any role in them, just as the president, as commander in chief of the US military, is not briefed on routine exercises or is directly involved in them.
Don’t forget the foreign policy experience she has becuase Alaska is close to Russia. And she once stopped in Ireland for refueling.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/03/sarah-palins-refueling-stop-in-ireland-was-it-a-visit/
Hal,
….and Obama took a see and learn tour of the Middle East and Europe, mainly to try to impress people like yourself with his foreign policy experience.
Hal,
Let me know…what kind of experience do you get in the foriegn policy realm working as a Senator for less than one term?
Even though Canada is not exactly a “hot button” country…Palin did coordinate with them to help build her pipeline. It goes to show that she knows how to deal with outside countries more than Obama.
Also, I cant find the information on it, but didnt Palin also organize fishing rights with Russia? I need the source on that….
Regardless, Obama has no experience whatsoever. She at the minimum has experience dealing with Canada.
Hal,
Take a look at a map, Alaska is not part of the continental 48 states (or is it 57).
Much that goes on in Alaska, including the newly approved gas pipeline is done in partnership with Canada. Russia is also pretty close. I’m sure she is aware of those affairs as it impacts her state.
Obama has been to Africa — I’ll give you that. He looked interested while he was there, but didn’t manage to help out even his own brother.
He went to Europe, ran down the US in his comments and failed to visit American troops because he couldn’t turn it into a photo-op. I’m sure he is well prepared to lead our 57 states forward and guard against any problems that could come from a “tiny country” like Iran or gallantly lead an invasion of Pakistan (an ally). Yes, he is really impressive!
Hal, you are right, McCain was truthful in stating that Alaska is a few hundred miles from Russia. To say that gives Palin foreign policy experience is a gross exaggeration.
I drank a beer with my Irish neighbor recently. I’m not sure is that is more or less “foreign policy experience” than a fueling stop.
By the way, the speech Palin will read tonight was written for a different person, who was male, so they are furiously doing the “hockey mom” edit right now. If Palin claims to be the Governor of Minnesota, it will be clerical error, not a lie.
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/636762683.shtml
LTL —
What’s your insight into the speech? Are you in the inner circle? Are you there at the convention?
You are really on a roll. It must be great to spend your day re-gurgitating talking points; keeps your mind free for humming.
Acutally LTL — how about this…
Sitting around a dining room table, the McCain team has talked to her about Iraq, energy and the economy, but has focused on what she should say in her speech, struggling almost as hard as she has to prepare for what will be, along with a debate in October, her main opportunity to shape the way she is viewed by voters. Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was “very masculine,” according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and “we had to start from scratch.”
-WashingtonPost.com
Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was “very masculine,” according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and “we had to start from scratch.”
Did you make that up or do you have a direct link? What is your PROBLEM with that?
“I think most of America is unaware. Compared to last week’s magnificance, the RNC is bound to be a let down.”
You keep telling yourself that.
“I think most of America is unaware. Compared to last week’s magnificance, the RNC is bound to be a let down.”
Well, yeah, if you’re a Democrat, you’ll probably be disappointed.
I think Republicans will appreciate the fact that OUR tax-payer dollars are not being WASTED on elaborate stages and expensive venues.
“I think most of America is unaware. Compared to last week’s magnificance, the RNC is bound to be a let down.”
I just looked up the ratings for night 2 of both the DNC and RNC. Night 2 of the DNC had HRC speaking, RNC had Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman. As much as I like Fred Thompson (both politically and his acting ability) he doesn’t really have the star power Hillary does. So okay, 4 million less viewers doesn’t seem terrible to me for the RNC. Especially since the woman I work with – who was a HUGE Hillary supporter – tuned in just to listen to Hillary. She’s voting for McCain. Not to mention I watched the DNC as well but there’s no way in heck I’m voting for Obama.
Do you really think that everyone who watched is voting for Obama? I think a lot of us McCain supporters watched the DNC but I’ve been told by Obama supporters they’d never watch the RNC. TV ratings are TV ratings. They have nothing to do with who supports who, don’t kid yourself.
tax payer dollars????
what are you talking about?
I’m sure some Obama people are watching the train wreck in St. Paul.
I hope they are watching, they may learn something. :)
Hal,
By train wreck do you mean all of the anarchists who have been throwing urine, feces and rocks at delegates and police?
Are you talking about the protesters who admittedly planned on bombing the Excel Center and kidnapping delegates?
Are you talking about all of the damage these people have wrought onto our Capitol City by breaking windows and spraying chemicals at innocent bystanders?
What has occurred thus far that would qualify the RNC as a train wreck, Hal? Or is this just more cheerleading on your part?
Hal, you are the most disgusting person on this blog (since somg left). You’ve killed two of your own children yet all you can do is mock a woman who is very well respected and who has shown incredible courage and integrity by giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome – a very counter-cultural action since over 90% of Down children are aborted. I have no respect for you.
tax payer dollars????
what are you talking about?
Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2008 6:51 PM
Sorry, I meant “political contributions”…. I thought I had corrected that post…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*Sarah Palin should be speaking in 5 minutes.*
Bmmg: “What has occurred thus far that would qualify the RNC as a train wreck, Hal? Or is this just more cheerleading on your part?”
Cheerleading of course! Hal only knows how to copy paste.
Patricia, Gov. Palin is not that well respected.
what “courage and integrity” is shown by someone who opposes abortion in all circumstances “by giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome” what options did she have?
Hal —
I don’t think you should present yourself as a judge of courage and integrity.
You killed your children and are proud of it. Your opinion in these matter is of no value.
Good night!
Hal: “what “courage and integrity” is shown by someone who opposes abortion in all circumstances “by giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome” what options did she have?”
I figured I would look up the definition of integrity for you Hal.
Integrity: “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic”
I would say that by not having an abortion when 90% of people decide to, she has shown firm adherence to her moral code.
Does that explain it Hal?
Oh also I went ahead for extra bonus points decided to give you the definition for courage.
Courage: “mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty”
I would also say that by withstanding…no persevering through…the difficulty in her life, the news of the down syndrome child, she has fit this definition as well.
Anyone else find it funny that Hal quite literally doesnt even know the definition of courage or integrity?
“By the way, the speech Palin will read tonight was written for a different person, who was male, so they are furiously doing the “hockey mom” edit right now. If Palin claims to be the Governor of Minnesota, it will be clerical error, not a lie.
according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and “we had to start from scratch.”
-WashingtonPost.com
See what I mean Hal??? Two opposing views at the same time.
Her speech was written for someone else and edited to fit the “hockey mom”. Her speech was written from scratch.
Couldn’t even get that right. Incredible.
Here in Sunny Minnesota it’s pouring rain…
Traffic was so bad on the empty streets…
I turned off the lights because it was so dark…
Do you really think that everyone who watched is voting for Obama? I think a lot of us McCain supporters watched the DNC but I’ve been told by Obama supporters they’d never watch the RNC.
I’m so glad you brought that up! Hal keeps saying that we need to LISTEN to Obama…we should GO TO his website and really LOOK at what he stands for (because as of yet, Hal himself hasn’t been able to articulate it), yet he’s off to play tennis during the republican convention.
I watched the DNC, Jill covered the DNC…because to be fair you have to see BOTH sides. That’s the only way you can make an INFORMED CHOICE…ooooh, sounds like something else we talk about…but Hal, has made his choice by looking only at the side he already “picked”…
You’re full of criticism Hal. Yet, you can’t tell me what your candidate stands for…except for cliches and platitudes…and you can’t tell us what our side stands for…except what you’ve heard from your side.
I can tell you what Obama stands for…because I DID go to his site. I can tell you what my side stands for, because they’ve told me.
Personally, I think if Obama was smart, he’d do a final “change” of mind and vote for McCain/Palin. It would be the first time he actually stood for something and made a decision. I might actually respect him.
“Present” indeed.
Phooey.
“I’m so glad you brought that up! Hal keeps saying that we need to LISTEN to Obama…we should GO TO his website and really LOOK at what he stands for (because as of yet, Hal himself hasn’t been able to articulate it), yet he’s off to play tennis during the republican convention.”
Good point. It’s that old mantra, “That’s different.”
Come on bmmg39,
Hope and change. Doesn’t that make what he stands for perfectly clear?
Posted by: mk at September 4, 2008 6:14 AM
Did you hear Guiliani’s speech about the 130 times Obama voted “present” in the IL Senate? It was hilarious! He said (something like) he couldn’t vote “yes” or “no” it was too hard. I wish that I knew about that “present” vote when I was mayor.
I laughed so hard! And I can’t remember who said it, maybe Palin, about how Obama said one thing, changed his mind, then changed it again to what McCain had been saying for days.
Then they said: “Next time just ask John McCain first.”
“You’re full of criticism Hal. Yet, you can’t tell me what your candidate stands for…except for cliches and platitudes…and you can’t tell us what our side stands for…except what you’ve heard from your side.”
MK, You don’t need to go Obama’s website. Obama is pro-choice. Pro-life is the most important issue for you. Don’t vote for him. End of story. You are also a social conservative on other issues, Obama isn’t. Fine.
Just don’t expect me to go for McCain/Palin. Despite my jabs, I do know a lot about them. I disagree with them on tax policy, foreign policy, gay rights, enviornmental issues, energy issues, judicial nominations, and overall philosophy of life and government. I think they would be almost as bad as the last 8 years (but not quite).
Hal,
How does Obama feel on those things?
Dont copy paste either!
By the way, care to take back your comment about Palin not having integrity or courage by giving birth to a down syndrome child?
Okay, without cutting and pasting.
Taxes. Obama wants Congress to cut taxes on middle class voters, end tax breaks to corporations who export jobs, and cut taxes for corporations who create jobs in the U.S.
Foreign Policy: Obama favors fighting terrorists where they are, strong military presence where it’s needed, and has apparently convinced Bush to get out of Iraq with a “timetable.”
Gay Rights. Obama supports rights for gay Americans. He was against gay marriage, but I think he’s warming up to it. He opposes the initiative in CA to outlaw it.
Enviornmental Issues. McCain votes against efforts to encourage alternative energy. McCain, unlike Palin, does not want to drill in ANWR. Obama supports a variety of enviornmental policies I support.
pro choice. Obama is pro choice.
Now, about Palin’s child. I didn’t say having her baby showed a lack of courage or integrity, just that it didn’t prove anything. Someone who is 100% anti-abortion, like she is, doesn’t struggle with the question of whether or not to abort. It’s not an option. If it’s not an option, she doesn’t get any points, becausse she didn’t make a decision.
Her daughter, however, had a choice. According to Palin, deciding to have that baby was “her decision.” Therefore, she acknowledges the “choice.” Bristol decided not to abort. That, perhaps, showed some courage.
I’m always amused by liberals who believe that conservatives are somehow insulated from the Left. Hah!
Almost all of the organs of the mainstream media in this country are Leftist. Fox News, the Washington Times, the WSJ, and some talk-radio shows are the exceptions. On the Left, we have:
* the “big three” networks (NBC, CBS, & ABC)
* MSNBC
* CNN
* the NYT, the WaPo, and nearly every other newspaper in America
* the wire services (AP & Reuters)
* PBS & NPR (“public” broadcasting indeed!)
* Time, Newsweek, and a bunch of other news magazines
* Us Magazine (quality journalism!)
Every time we conservatives read a newspaper, flip through a magazine, or turn on the television, we have an overwhelming chance of getting the liberal viewpoint. We can’t avoid it! It’s in the very air we breathe.
Conservatives are not isolated or ignorant of liberal talking points. On the contrary, we’ve probably heard all of them multiple times. Guess what? We’re still not buying it!
Hal wrote:
Taxes. Obama wants Congress to cut taxes on middle class voters, end tax breaks to corporations who export jobs, and cut taxes for corporations who create jobs in the U.S.
I know that’s what Obama said, but I’m not buying it. Too much of his promise depends on vague terms, like “middle class.” Who exactly is middle class? How do you define it?
I live in Loudoun County in Northern Virginia. My family’s income is below the median income for the county. However, if you took my income to Little Rock, Arkansas … we’d be quite wealthy. Am I middle-class?
Promising to help the “middle class” is one of the worst lies in American politics. Politicians say it because they know that like 90% of Americans believe themselves to be middle class. (Clearly, we can’t all be right.) But they rarely define the middle class in precise terms. That allows everyone to think, “He’s going to cut my taxes!” without ever making any specific commitments.
His promises for corporate taxes aren’t much better. Just because a company exports a number of jobs overseas does not preclude the same company from also creating jobs right here in the USA. Actually, every company that does business in the USA has to create some American jobs. Think about it! Do we really want to punish a company that employs 100 Americans just because that same company also employs 1000 people in Bangalore?
I don’t trust “targetted” tax proposals. There’s always too much wiggle room, and the American taxpayer is usually left holding the bag. Forget it.
Here’s what I want: Cut taxes. All taxes. Cut everyone’s taxes, and I’m sure to get my share. Cut everyone’s taxes, and we all benefit. A rising tide lifts all boats.
“I know that’s what Obama said, but I’m not buying it”
Well, if you don’t believe he’ll do what he says,(or at least try) then why are we even talking about his platform?
Hal wrote:
Well, if you don’t believe he’ll do what he says,(or at least try) then why are we even talking about his platform?
Two reasons….
Firstly, unbelievable promises in your platform show a lack of character. Be honest about what you plan to do.
Secondly, I do believe some of the other planks in Obama’s platform. For example, I believe that Obama strongly supports legal abortion into the fourth trimester. And that support marks him as evil.
I see, you believe the parts you don’t like and disbelieve the parts you would otherwise agree with. Professor Oliver probably has a name for that kind of faulty reasoning.
Hal wrote:
I see, you believe the parts you don’t like and disbelieve the parts you would otherwise agree with.
Experience. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I do not believe Obama’s promises to cut my taxes because liberals don’t cut my taxes. They have never cut my taxes up to this point. Obama has established himself as a true-blue liberal. Therefore, I think his promises to cut my taxes are just that … promises.
I wouldn’t trust my dog to stay away from an unattended sandwich.
I wouldn’t trust Bill Clinton with my daughter.
And I won’t trust a liberal to cut my taxes.
If a woman’s health and welfare were really at risk without available abortion why would anyone be against it?
Maybe because abortion is NOT about health and welfare, but about the SELFISH CHOICE TO KILL.
I love how some of you make jokes about coat hangers, and completely disregard the women who have DIED because abortions weren’t available to them.
So, the message here is,
MOM DIES = PERFECTLY FINE
BABY DIES = OH NO! WHAT A TRAVESTY!
Get a clue. If you’re going to preach how life is important, how about you START WITH THE VICTIM?
And to all those who berated a rape victim… I only hope you will never have to experience such a horrible crime against yourselves. And to the males: honestly, you don’t know what you’re talking about unless you’ve been raped AND impregnated, and (based on the ignorance here) I sincerely doubt either applies to any of you.