McCain’s right answer on Supreme Court picks
CBS News’ Bob Schieffer asked this during last night’s presidential debate:
Sen. McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Sen. Obama, you believe it shouldn’t. Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue?
McCain began with the Republicans’ wimpy, worn response. Democrats have no problem saying one’s position on Roe v. Wade is a deal maker or breaker; why don’t we?…
McCain: I would never and have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do.
Schieffer: But you don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?
McCain: I thought it was a bad decision….
Schieffer: But even if it was someone – even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?
McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications….
I held my breath, preparing to have to punch my dashboard, which really hurts…
McCain: … I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
Disregarding the lame close, which, of course was silly given the fact McCain had just acknowledged he had a litmus test, I was elated.
Then came Obama, whose answer was so bad on many counts I’m overwhelmed at the prospect of dissecting all of it.
But here’s the germane nugget:
Obama: Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided.
Monday morning quarterbacking, I think McCain should have responded:
How in the world can someone who doesn’t know when life begins believe Roe v. Wade was “rightly decided”?
[Top photo courtesy of About.com; bottom photo courtesy of Gary Hershorn-Pool/Getty Images]
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.
I think McCain should of stressed that he picked Sarah Palin so all this abortion talk would go away since he’s not any good at it. Just like the economy…go away please!
Jill-
Because the judges in Roe v Wade said they didn’t know when life began, nor would they make a judement on it. If Obama was as boned up on Roe v Wade as he should have been for this debate (given social issues hadn’t come up yet) then I’m sure he would’ve gone for the jugular with that remark.
Obama is alreday planning his victory party:
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/obama.election.night.2.841341.html
McCain is moving up in the polls, only down by 4 in Rasmussen’s latest.
Fetal Development information has come a LONG way since 1973. Ultrasound technology was introduced just 3 years after R Vs W. We now have 3D and 4D ultrasounds which show incredible details. Life definitely begins BEFORE birth!
OH yeah..go with Rasmussen’s poll…that will get you far!
Jasper-
First off, there’s nothing there about a victory party, you turned it into that. Each side always has some sort of election night shin dig waiting for the results to come in, you’re blowing it up.
Second, Rassumen is 1 poll. The national average still has Obama up by 7 points (a loss of half a point since yesterday, whether or not that’s a trend we’ll see later on). However, everyone has been saying on each side that polls this election have proven untrustworthy. It’s nice to see the numbers go up or down, but its really not all that easy to conduct a reliable poll in America today.
Didn’t Stephano poll is
post the poll on the debate before it happened?
Seems like MSM decides who won in advance and pull out comments to support their conclusion.
I agree with Dan – at this point I don’t think polls are even close to reliable because words are so overloaded.
It might be better to look at other indicators.
Quick lesson on how overloaded words can really skew things – true story: A gang war broke out in a nearby city high school because one gang member complimented an opposing gang member’s article of clothing. The receiver of the “compliment” took it as an extreme insult (which happened to be how his gang used that particular word). After a year-long fight with several deaths, when the gang special investigations team discovered the diametrical language glitch, it simply blew them away. True diversity is deadly, when true unity should be desired.
Our country is dividing – it’s diverse, and has no desire for unity behind the idea of human life being defended when a choice has been made to kill someone.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Remember when everyone is saying that a crazed McCain supporter yelled “kill him”
Yeah, that never happened.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
The Rasmussen poll in 2004 was very accurate. I believe they wre less than 1% off and predicted a Bush vicory.
What you’re doing Dan is mixing in reliable polls like Zogby and Rasmussen with unreliable polls like CBS/NYtimes that has Obama up by 14 points.
Lauren-
there’s video of it, it happened. However there are doubts as to whether it was truly aimed at Obama, or whether it was actually aimed at Ayers.
I LOVE sarah palin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IS0PJdE0Cs
Dan, the supposed video is on HuffPo. That’s not exactly a credible source. You do realize that you can easily edit in audio right?
If no one but Huffington can produce a video, and the secret service said it never happened, I’m inclined to believe them.
Not that it matters in the slightest. People call for the deaths of politicians all the time. Of course, when it’s Obama, everything changes.
This is from a black Pastor:
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown
Dear Friends,
A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an e-mail with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but its worth repeating..
First I must say who ever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.
I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means he leads I follow. I can’t dictate the terms he does because he is the leader.
I can’t vote black because I am black I have to vote Christian because that’s who I am. Christian first black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I wont be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I know Jesus and accepted him as Lord and savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King’s words don’t judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don’t know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.
His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing.
Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100% ratings.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the BAIPA infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted NO on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted NOon the partial birth abortion ban.
There is a reason he voted NO on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Lets take a look at the practice he wanted to continue:
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposes parent notification laws.
Think about this you can’t give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years.
Obama tells us he has good judgement but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wrights sermons. I wonder why now?
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28 v 19 – 20 Go and make disciples of all nations. This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenants that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.”
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenents of Obama’s former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist? Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can’t be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can’t have a value system based on race. The church’s value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it’s a white church or a black church, it’s still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book, “A Black Theology of Liberation”. Cone once wrote: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Cone is the man Obama’s mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing: judgement.
Read 1 Samuel 8. When Israel asked for a king:
First God says 1 Samuel 1 v 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”
Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18-22 “When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king
you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day. 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
Here is what we know for sure:
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in Scripture so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion.
He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you.
I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama’s positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone’s value system has to be placed on the nation, 1) Whose value system should be placed on the nation? 2) Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
Wow Lauren, you sound SO smart there…Justifying the calling of death for a politician. You are so PRO LIFE.
God forbid anyone says anything against the messiah!
I don’t understand why they can say all that they want against us, but when we say something there is a huge blow up!
To me, electing Obama would be one step away from becoming a Communist USA. No more religion allowed. Forced abortions. Child limit policy. Forced sterilization.
How ANYONE could defend Partial Birth Abortion is disgusting!
“To me, electing Obama would be one step away from becoming a Communist USA. No more religion allowed. Forced abortions. Child limit policy. Forced sterilization.”
This has no basis in reality.
Maybe the reason that Huntley Brown can’t vote for Obama is Mr. Brown may not be a citizen of the US.
He is Jamaican, his wife is from Barbodos, and I found no indication in my research that he has been naturalized as a citizen of the US.
How ANYONE could defend Partial Birth Abortion is disgusting!
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 16, 2008 11:15 AM
I heard Obama say he was okay with prohibiting all late term abortions, partial birth or otherwise, as long as there was an exception for the health or life of the mother.
This seems accurate:
Conservatives and the Debate
John Podhoretz – 10.16.2008 – 7:11 AM
The general feeling on the right side of the blogosphere is that this was McCain’s best debate and he did himself a lot of good. I think people on the Right were so relieved that the debate finally turned to matters of ideological and partisan moment — abortion, ACORN, Ayers, trade, spending — that, perhaps for the first time in his political career, they graded him on a curve. The problem, in my view, is that the shorthand in which McCain spoke about these matters made them comprehensible only to those of us who are already schooled in them. In almost every case, Obama answered McCain’s shorthand with longhand — with detailed, even long-winded answers that gave the distinct impression he was more in command of the details of these charges than the man who was trying to go after him on them.
We’re not the audience for these debates. Undecided voters are, and undecided voters are, or so studies tell us, often astonishingly ill-informed. You can only bring up new issues if you’re able pithily to explain the context and meaning of them. It is not a rap on McCain to say he’s not good at it; he doesn’t want to bother with the introduction. But in a setting like that, the introduction is what matters, far more than the attack.
I was really happy about McCain’s performance on this issue. I think a lot of moderates out there had the mistaken belief that McCain was either neutral or pro-choice. The absolute contempt that he showed for women’s health and women’s issues (including Ledbetter) last night was highly instructive.
I think this will go a long way towards alienating the few remaining moderates who were planning on voting for him.
Well if you believe all the “mainstream media” and talking heads, McCain is finnished. He has no hope whatsoever of winning according to them.
It sickens me to say this but it could be true. McCain finally had the chance to tell people about BAIPA and even that hasnt changed things apparently. That is barely getting a mention anywhere. Apparently Nobama’s culture of death does not seem to be repelling people as I thought it would.
People are living in fear of the economy, and as a result blaming Bush and planning on giving Democrats big majorities in the house and possibly senate too. Again according to the media, but I think almost anyone would agree its an uphill battle for Republicans, and lets not forget Nobama is going to be greatly outspending McCain from now until election day. Even half an hour of TV time on the major networks.
How chilling it is to think of this possibility, Democrats controlling all branches of government, and the irony is the Democrats are primarily responsible for the economic meltdown, not Republicans. But Republicans are getting blamed because of Bush.
I cannot forget Nobama’s words that the first thing he would do would be to sign FOCA. And Pelosi and Reid standing at his side.
This is too awful to contemplate.
PeachPit @ 10:44 AM:
Joanne,
It ain’t over till it’s over. :)
Turn off the tv, stop reading MSM, PPC and Yo.
“Apparently Nobama’s culture of death does not seem to be repelling people as I thought it would.”
Exactly. That’s what I’ve been saying. Not in those words, of course.
Must be very frustrating for the Obama haters-they scream and yell and nobody cares, sort of like a 2 year old in time out.
Joanne,
It ain’t over till it’s over. :)
Turn off the tv, stop reading MSM, PPC and Yo.
Posted by: Carla at October 16, 2008 12:01 PM
Good point Carla, but for sure Nobama is going to be outspending McCain by a huge amount these last three weeks, and that isnt going to help.
I’m gonna say one word: “OHIO”!!!!
…when McCain picked Palin as his running mate, he pretty much strapped on the cement shoes and let himself fall right off the pier.
He may as well have picked Ann Coulter, as there’s very little difference between the two.
Health or life of the mother? There is no reason for a three day abortion procedure for “life of the mother”. If the baby is at least 23 or 24 weeks, then the baby could be delivered via c-section and put in NICU. No need for the baby to be stabbed in the head and suffer a painful death.
Same goes for health: “I want to go to a rock concert” or “I have to go surfing” is NOT a health reason.
Partial Birth Abortion is especially barbaric.
PPC:
You’re a liar.
Here’s the snopes.com on Huntley Brown
It is obvious that you, PeachPit and Hal are all liberal hacks who are more than likely paid by the likes of MoveOn, PlannedParenthood, and NARAL to counter any and all truth that is posted on this site.
Jill:
I am now asking you to ban Hal, PeachPit and PPC from your site.
Lol, I think you’re getting a bit hysterical, HisMan.
HisMan-
There is no doubt in my mind McCain will take Ohio, I’ve thought this from the beginning. Of course, that’s irrelevant considering Obama is likely taking PA. However, I also think McCain is going to take Florida in the end as well, heck, I think he’ll take most of the remaining battleground states (of which there are few) and still lose.
I think in the end itll be a decisive win for Obama, or come down to VA, and for the first time in decades, it might just go Democratic. McCain and Palin are trying to recover lost ground in what were typically reliably Republican states, and seem to be failing in many cases
I’m gonna say one word: “OHIO”!!!!
You mean this Ohio?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html
The one that real clear politics is giving to Obama by approx. 3.4 points? The one where all the recent polls show an Obama lead?
Wow, did I miss something, or did you? McCain said he would NOT have a litmus test. In other words, he wouldn’t even ASK if a prospective Supreme Court judge was against Roe v. Wade. He said it was WRONG to choose a judge based on his (or her) ideology. He used Ginsburg as an example of his policy on this issue. He proudly stated that he voted for Ginsburg! He did mumble a little something ambiguous about qualifications, but his overall point was that he would not, and HAS NOT, made a decision based on ideology. John Lofton said it right today on The American View radio program – “You say you’re pro-life, and you say you’re for McCain. Which is it?” You can’t be both!
Now, you’re all going to start shouting at me and say that we have to vote for McCain because Obama is SO HORRIBLE. Here’s how it goes: McCain isn’t really pro-life, but we’re going to pretend that he is, and talk as if he is, because Obama is sooooo scary that we need to be really, really scared and so we need to vote Republican. Guess what, though? The “lesser of two evils” is still evil.
Some of you have claimed that Bush is pro-life. Tell that to the Schindlers. Tell that to the millions of babies that have been slaughtered on his watch. McCain will be NO different. He’s for exceptions. He’s for murder! Wake up!
And then there’s Palin. She’s a “pro-life champion”. Because why? Because she had a baby with special needs? Because she chose not to murder her baby? Sorry, but a champion should have a more impressive record than that. What has she actually done? How did she stop abortions in Alaska? What did she do? Have a baby? She’s the governor! She could have stopped abortions in Alaska, if she was truly a pro-life champion. She did nothing!
And in her TV interviews with Couric and Gibson, she was very clear about several things. Her pro-life views are her “personal opinion”. She was, and has been clear that she would not do anything! Research it, folks. She even said that we should never use embryonic stem cells, as long as there is another option. So, I guess, if there is “no other option”, then she’s okay with killing the babies. Look at her actual record. Look at her speeches. She never mentions life, unless pressed. She never pushed for any pro-life legislation in Alaska. She’s done nothing!
Good points Vickie.
Although Obama fans are called kool-aid drinkers, McCain voters don’t really want to look at his positions. He’s not Obama, that’s all they need to know.
Oh Chris, that is cute of you to write your own commercial that would play in your dreamworld…
Liz, continuing to spew false crazy untrue statements is starting to make you look like McCain and Palin. You need to stop your lying and grand assumptions and go harvest the corn.
Jill:
I am now asking you to ban Hal, PeachPit and PPC from your site.
Posted by: HisMan at October 16, 2008 12:17 PM
Can I second that?
So many Obots in here, but I would like to say that I’m glad the topic of abortion finally came up in the debate. Also Obama’s pals. At least it’s out there.
Hey Joe the Plumber is making a name too.
Thanks Jill for all your help.
Joanne, HisMan, I’ve yet to see any of those three break a single rule. Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they should be banned. Sorry.
McCain should have paid more attention to Jill’s blogging. He would have been able to counter Obama’s lies about BAIPA, with the fact that there was a loophole that did not fully protect unborn babies from abortionists. That, plus the fact that he didn’t bring up FOCA makes me wonder if McCain really wants to win this election.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On a different note, a one year-old little girl, a nurse and 2 pilots died last night in a helicopter crash, in Aurora, Il not far from the Aurora Planned Parenthood. Please keep them and their families in your prayers. God bless you.
Joe the plumber was sued by the state of Ohio for not paying taxes….just came out…good job Joe!
PeachPit @ 12:35 PM
Oh – glad you like it – want another one?
Feathers a little ruffled HisMan? you ok? you going to be alright? Just checking in on you…
I live in the CITY, Peachpit. How interesting you just assume I am a farmer because I’m from Nebraska. A little assuming? Just like pro lifers are all painted as religious. Xalisae is not religious and there are at least two other pro lifers on this site that aren’t religious.
And it is true that someone said “rock concert” as a reason for an abortion. Its one of the more obscure reasons someone aborts.
Erin-
I second your motion for them to stay.
Nebraska City doesn’t count Liz. Did you like me assuming? Like you saying we will be communists etc…All assumptions based on nothing. It won’t work.
What concert was it?
That’s it for McCain
By Joan Vennochi
Boston Globe / October 16, 2008
IT’S OVER. John McCain still hasn’t told the country why he should be president.
He has talking points. He is against taxes, earmarks, and pork. But he can’t knit what he opposes into a coherent economic philosophy that would inspire voters to get behind him in the final days of this presidential campaign.
He has an inspirational life story. But in this campaign, he never connected his biography to his presidential ambition, and he never told voters how it would shape a McCain administration and make him a better president than his opponent.
McCain has long years of political experience, exactly what Democrat Barack Obama lacks. But McCain is unable to explain why his experience makes him better able to lead the country.
McCain had at least one good line last night: “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush you should’ve run four years ago.” But one good line isn’t a lifeline.
The Arizona senator finally mentioned Bill Ayers and ACORN to his opponent’s face. But he can’t link Obama to Ayers and domestic terrorism, or to the controversial community group called Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, as tightly as Obama can link McCain to Bush. And that remains one of Obama’s biggest advantages in this race.
The Democrat has other advantages, from the economy to his own eloquence. He also has the ability to do what McCain can’t do: look and sound presidential.
Enjoying a surge in the polls, Obama was confident, maybe a bit overconfident in this final debate.
Obama grinned; McCain grimaced.
Each knows his destiny. One man is walking to the White House. The other is just a politically dead man walking.
Since when is continually and consistently posting lies as paid liberal hacks not justification for being banned?
HisMan,
The trolls are running rampant here today.
I think they smell a “victory” and are here to gloat.
How could anyone who is well aware of Nobama’s culture of death voting record consider even for one second supporting him???
HisMan, Joanne,
I feel your pain. Obama supporters don’t care about the truth. If they did, they would expect their candidate account for his actions instead of glossing over them.
PeachPit
I live in the **state capital** of Nebraska where an abortionist kills around 40 innocent babies every week. Two days a week babies are killed in the name of ‘choice’.
I’m not a hick. I’m educated. I know where babies come from (I’m an Aunt to 6 children). I know they aren’t “Balls of cells” or “blood clots”.
And I know there are ways to help many of these girls, who are scared and need emotional support during this time when they are pregnant.
Idaho Mother Gets 10-Year Sentence After Boyfriend Impregnates 9-Year-Old Daughter
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho — An eastern Idaho woman whose boyfriend impregnated her 9-year-old daughter has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Isabel Chasarez, 27, must serve at least one year in prison before she is eligible for parole, 7th District Judge Brent Moss ordered Tuesday at the sentencing hearing.
Chasarez pleaded guilty in August to failing to provide proper prenatal care for her daughter.
Her 38-year-old boyfriend, Guadalupe Gutierrez-Juarez, pleaded guilty to rape in September. He is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 28 and faces life in prison.
The girl became pregnant at age 9, sometime between Aug. 1 and Sept. 30 2007, authorities say, and gave birth in April.
——-
Okay pro-abortion choicers – please explain to the class why the judge was wrong in this case and that the mother should have considered the 9 year old’s health by taking her for an abortion, and how it was awful for the grandmother to punish her daughter with a baby. Fully explain how abortion would benefit the grandmother’s health, the boyfriend’s sexual health and the young mother/daughter’s health and the baby’s health by removing from the little 9 year-old the baby’s pesky presence. (Hey, isn’t that the age of your O’Great Leader™’s young daughters?)
PeachPit – please tell the class why abortion and Obama is the only acceptable answer.
Your answer must include the approved technique for covering up states evidence of statutory rape, and must describe at least one of the 4 techniques for media spinning such stories.
For added bonus points go on a PC campaign against the judge or describe a special creative way of putting the blame for this event on the pro-life movement.
Do you guys realize that Obama is calling for a return to a welfare state? Does that benefit anyone??
How could anyone who is well aware of Nobama’s culture of death voting record consider even for one second supporting him???
Because Obama recognizes that a woman’s choice to continue a pregnancy or not is none of his d@@n business, none of government’s d@@n business, and certainly none of your d@@n business.
He clearly recognizes, unlike McCain, that a woman’s health concerns are legitimized by that woman and her health care professionals, NOT by you, or him, or anyone else.
You call it a “culture of death,” which is fine, that’s your opinion. However, as Roe v. Wade recognizes, at least within the first trimester, the pregnant woman’s rights and interests ABSOLUTELY trump the zygote/embryo/fetus’, and even more absolutely trump any state interest in interfering on the zygote/embryo/fetus’ behalf.
Joe the plumber was sued by the state of Ohio for not paying taxes….just came out…good job Joe!
Posted by: PeachPit at October 16, 2008 12:43 PM
Why don’t you refrain from insulting perfect strangers? Thank you.
Jill:
I am now asking you to ban Hal, PeachPit and PPC from your site.
Posted by: HisMan at October 16, 2008 12:17 PM
You’re breaking my heart.
Obama: Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided.
Monday morning quarterbacking, I think McCain should have responded:
How in the world can someone who doesn’t know when life begins believe Roe v. Wade was “rightly decided”?
Exactly. Someone needs to ask Obama the question again. “When do you think life begins?
Also, McCain should have asked “You want to enact FOCA as soon as you get into office. Why is there a need to take away all restrictions on abortion, even PBA and BAIPA?
Janet, it is good for McCain that he DIDN’T say anything remotely like that. Sure, it would have powered up the conservative base. But McCain ALREADY HAS the conservative base. Last night, like all debates, was about winning undecided voters. And undecided voters are a vast majority pro-choice.
Exactly. Someone needs to ask Obama the question again. “When do you think life begins?
People aren’t asking that question, because frankly, it’s a dumb question.
The issue in Roe isn’t “when life begins” as the functionally brain-dead would have people believe. The issue is when RIGHTS or legal personhood begins.
I’ve heard “life begins at 40”
Is Joe Plumber behind on taxes? What till Obama puts a 3 inch pipe into his bank account and gets even more tax money. Obama is smackin his lips with all the social programs he has in mind. Joe plumber can start paying for abortions of strangers and pay for Obama’s carbon footprint.
I didn’t watch much of the debate, but if I had watched the abortion issue raised, I would ask that exact question, Janet.
“It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
Please don’t ban me, I am not here to gloat. I am here to help the McCain supporters through the 7 stages of grief. Most of you are currently in stage one- “Shock and Denial”
My goal is to have you to step 7 “Acceptance and Hope” by November 5, 2008. That gives us only about 3 days per stage, so try to keep up.
PPC at October 16, 2008 1:43 PM
Working on an indoctrination committee already PPC?
And undecided voters are a vast majority pro-choice.
I suffered through eight years of Clinton. I was angered and appalled when he allowed the FDA to approve the RU-486.
If Clinton did that, I can’t imagine what Messiabama might do.
I want to help pregnant women so they don’t chose abortion thinking its their ONLY choice.
Doesn’t anyone else want to HELP women so they don’t “have to abort”?
Abortion hasn’t ended world hunger. It hasn’t solved this financial mess. It doesn’t balance the budget. It doesn’t solve the energy crisis in regards to oil.
Redo of 1:55 post:
Erin,
“And undecided voters are a vast majority pro-choice.”
Source?
xppc at October 16, 2008 1:40 PM
Of course you apparently know that the Government can sweep any and every bank account without letting people know what’s happening.
Prayer to St. Therese – for Life
St. Therese, our holy sister and ever faithful friend,
remember your promise to do good upon earth…
enfold in the mantle of your protection all our children,
the unborn babies in danger of abortion,
those suffering unspeakable abuses, our troubled youth,
the unloved and unwanted,
and those struggling with teenage pregnancy.
Ask your own loving parents, Zelie and Louis Martin,
to pray for restoration of respect for family life
and for God’s blessing and help
for all parents everywhere.
Implore Our Heavenly Father
to quiet the fears of our children,
return peace, innocence and security to their hearts,
and give them the comforting awareness of His love.
Make our cries of outrage heard
by officials of every land,
as we pray for an end to the violence and evils
that besiege our society.
We earnestly pray that the true understanding
and value of life be made known and respected by all.
We thank you, dear St. Therese, for all the graces
you will obtain for us and for our precious children
during this Centenary Year of your holy death
and throughout the years to come.
We ask all this from Our Heavenly Father,
in the name of Jesus His Beloved Son,
and through Their Holy Spirit.
Amen.
With Ecclesiastical Approval
Idaho Mother Gets 10-Year Sentence After Boyfriend Impregnates 9-Year-Old Daughter
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Okay pro-abortion choicers – please explain to the class why the judge was wrong in this case and that the mother should have considered the 9 year old’s health by taking her for an abortion, and how it was awful for the grandmother to punish her daughter with a baby. Fully explain how abortion would benefit the grandmother’s health, the boyfriend’s sexual health and the young mother/daughter’s health and the baby’s health by removing from the little 9 year-old the baby’s pesky presence.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 16, 2008 1:04 PM
-Why the judge was wrong in this case:
Don’t understand why the mother was jailed – unless it was as a culpable party to the rape of her 9yo daughter.
That the mother should have considered the 9 year old’s health by taking her for an abortion, and how it was awful for the grandmother to punish her daughter with a baby:
Chris, seriously. What do you think? You want your NINE YEAR OLD CHILD to be a mother? I’m dumbfounded that the child could get pregnant in the first place (all kinds of wrong). Undoubtedly and unapologetically…my 9yr old child would not be a mother. Period. End of story. Many other parents would agree with me.
Fully explain how abortion would benefit the grandmother’s health, the boyfriend’s sexual health and the young mother/daughter’s health and the baby’s health by removing from the little 9 year-old the baby’s pesky presence:
I don’t know how abortion would help the g’mother’s health, I don’t really think that’s supposed to be the point. As for the health of child…her emotional and mental health is probably so damaged from the sexual abuse. I believe both abortion AND a pregnancy/childbirth at that age would be equally traumatic. However, for my family, I’ve already stated what our decision as parents would be. As for the health of the fetus…not a issue.
The cheeky, flippant sarcasm that many PL’ers use to describe the PC viewpoint as somehow frivolous and superficial is getting old. Theer is nothing frivolous about considering an abortion for a 9yr old rape victim. You have to admit the subject of this article is a stretch for even moderates on either side of the PL/PC debate. Again, I would argue that facing a pregnant 9yr old daughter would give MOST people pause and their decisions would not be entered lightly – even if it was abortion. A baby for a 9year old is a little bit more than a ‘pesky situation’. That type of language is not useful or impactful in this situation.
Hal: I’ve heard “life begins at 40”
I’ve also heard that “60 is the new 40.”
I suffered through eight years of Clinton. I was angered and appalled when he allowed the FDA to approve the RU-486.If Clinton did that, I can’t imagine what Messiabama might do. I want to help pregnant women so they don’t chose abortion thinking its their ONLY choice. Doesn’t anyone else want to HELP women so they don’t “have to abort”? Abortion hasn’t ended world hunger. It hasn’t solved this financial mess. It doesn’t balance the budget. It doesn’t solve the energy crisis in regards to oil.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 16, 2008 1:58 PM
-Liz, we are in agreement!! I have suffered through eight years of Bush. I was angered and appalled when he was elected, 2x, and appointed two conservative judges to the Supreme Court in the hopes of overturning RvW, repealed years of legislative access to healthcare practices that help women and children and many, many, many…sigh…many other things.
I mean, if Bush did that, I can’t imagine what McCain might do.
I commend your desire to help pregnant women so they don’t chose abortion thinking its their ONLY choice. You’re right they shouldn’t think it’s the only choice…they should know that it is A choice.
Doesn’t anyone else want to HELP women so they don’t “have to abort”? Yes! Me! I want them to have access to health care, education, safe sex practices and birth control in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion hasn’t ended world hunger. It hasn’t solved this financial mess. It doesn’t balance the budget. It doesn’t solve the energy crisis in regards to oil.
Right on, right on, right on.
Birth control is pushed **way** too much. I’d rather they focus on Self Esteem, empowering girls to say NO to sex (especially pressures to have sex just because “everyone is doing it”), knowing that sometimes guys USE them for sex. And especially teaching young men to respect themselves and women.
We’d definitely have less men saying “Get rid of it” or “Abort or I’ll leave you”. There are stories where women don’t want to abort, but the “father” tries to FORCE them to, even going as far as attacking them to cause the unborn baby’s death.
Idaho story: A child should not suffer because her who his or her father was. My guess in that story, the baby may have been placed for adoption?
I think “girls” (those 18 and older anyway) should be emppowered to say NO or YES, depending on their wishes. They should not be pressured to say yes, nor pressured to say no.
I wish people would stop implying that their something immoral about non-marital sex.
“I’d rather they focus on Self Esteem, empowering girls to say NO to sex (especially pressures to have sex just because “everyone is doing it”), knowing that sometimes guys USE them for sex.”
Idaho story: A child should not suffer because her who his or her father was. My guess in that story, the baby may have been placed for adoption?
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 16, 2008 2:33 PM
-I also agree with you on the 1st point – self-esteem pillars and teaching girls to be empowered in their relationships is absolutely what I consider to be a part of sex ed.
And, we’ll have to disagree on the 2nd point. My 9 yr old child isn’t having a baby. Sorry.
Posted by: Erin at October 16, 2008 1:37 PM
Janet, it is good for McCain that he DIDN’T say anything remotely like that. Sure, it would have powered up the conservative base. But McCain ALREADY HAS the conservative base. Last night, like all debates, was about winning undecided voters. And undecided voters are a vast majority pro-choice.
++++++++++++
But, Erin, that’s just it…the vast majority of people who call themselves “pro-choice” all have vastly different definitions of what “pro-choice” actually means. If people were aware of what the consequences of enacting FOCA really are, they would no doubt have SERIOUS problems with it. Read on:
++++++
Poll: Over 90% of Americans Want Limits on Abortion
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
NEW HAVEN, Connecticut, October 15, 2008
– A new poll conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion between Sept. 24 and Oct. 3, 2008 showed that almost all Americans think abortion should be restricted. The pollsters conducted over 1700 interviews with Americans across the country.
The purpose of the poll was to enable comparisons of the views of Catholic voters with those of the general electorate. The poll asked respondents to state which of six statements came closest to describing their opinion on abortion.
Only 8% chose option 1, which said that abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy, whereas 13% chose option 6, that abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance.
8 percent chose option 2, that abortion should be allowed only during the first 6 months of pregnancy and 24% chose option 3, that abortion should be allowed only during the first 3 months of pregnancy.
The highest number, 32%, chose option 4, that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, while 15% chose statement 5, that abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother.
The poll also revealed that only 15 percent of those describing themselves as “pro-choice” favored unrestricted abortion throughout a pregnancy.
71 percent of pro-choice respondents said they would significantly restrict abortions. Of these, 43 percent would restrict abortion to the first trimester and 23 percent would restrict abortion only to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson described the poll results as “indicative of the fact that the term ‘pro-choice’ – when applied broadly – needlessly polarizes the discussion of abortion and masks the fact that there is broad consensus among Americans that abortion should be significantly restricted.”
Link to full text of poll:
http://www.kofc.org/un/cmf/resource/Communications/documents/moralissues.pdf
View Story on http://www.LifeSiteNews.com
Obama seems to support a ban on third trimester abortions except in cases where it is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Seems pretty moderate to me.
Interesting information, PJMama. Thanks for posting it.
So Danielle, you don’t mind killing your grandchildren. Do you tell your kids that?
Rape? What rape? You’re telling us there was a rape? Why wasn’t the sex with the consent of the mother? Why was it wrong?
If a parent can give consent for an abortion, which is clearly killing a child – remember she delivered the baby, why can’t she give consent to pimp her daughter out for sex?
Why is rape morally wrong, but murder of the innocent morally right?
You’re asking me to be rational, even in my sarcasm?
Being pro-abortion is purely insane, by any measure of the imagination – it’s a complete perversion of morality and turns moral logic on it’s head. Your response is typical – switch topics and feign I’m irrational.
Danielle, seriously. Killing innocent babies, even when they are the product of rape of a baby is morally wrong. The 9 year old carried the child to birth, didn’t die and yet you’re demanding that she kill her new daughter, because like Obama, you don’t want her to be “punished” with a baby – regardless of how that child came to be.
Put yourself in the baby’s place: you truly believe that if your father committed a crime against your mother, it would be okay for your mother to kill you? And have the blessing and consent of your grandmother and your government?
Is your heart that cold?
Danielle, if your 9 year old daughter wanted to have the baby – would you respect her choice?
Obama seems to support a ban on third trimester abortions except in cases where it is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Seems pretty moderate to me.
Posted by: Hal at October 16, 2008 2:53 PM
Obama seems to support providing an toxic injection prior to ripping the fetus apart where it’s necessary to fulfill the choice of the mother and to protect the profits of Planned Parenthood. Seems moderate to me.
Wait – actually he doesn’t. Silly me.
Chris, your 3:06 post is very interesting.
Very difficult. Force an abortion on a nine year old? I don’t know about that. I sure would try to convince her that an abortion was the way to go (more than I would try to convince a 15 year old, for example)
Why is it difficult Hal? Why kill another human being?
I’l grant you from a medical perspective that such a young aged mother that the risks to miscarry are higher, but apparently in the case I posted above the girl was physically mature enough to carry to birth.
I know a 14 yr old who was raped – she put her child up for adoption and met her child a few years ago. There’s a complete family that wouldn’t have existed had that 14 yr old aborted her child.
When you justify killing, there’s no end to what’s possible. You should know that.
I just reread the account of Maximilian Kolbe who substituted himself for a prisoner and died in a starvation/dehydration pit in Auschwitz.
We’re supposed to sacrifice ourselves for our children, not sacrifice them for ourselves.
Chris,
I feel like we’re about to fall down the rabbit hole into one of those never ending, rhetorical, circular online arguments, so I’m going to try to be as clear as possible to prevent that. I am pro-choice, but you know this. Let me say first, that I appreciate the discourse I have here with the PL side and often find commonality with some opinions here. This is not one of those times.
Without question and hesitation, I tell you (and everyone reading our discussion) that under no circumstances, would a 9 year old child of mine give birth to a baby – regardless if it were the product of a rape or not (which is what I referred to above – my understanding of the article was that the child was raped by the mother’s BF. 2ndly, I don’t see a scenario where a 9yr old would get pregnant WITHOUT being raped). This is a theoretical argument, given that I don’t have a 9 year old; however, I can assure you, that if this very serious and sobering topic came up in discussion with her, she would know my position very clearly.
Yes, I do believe that a 9 year old child is punished by being raped, impregnanted and forced to give birth to ANOTHER child merely 9 1/2 years her junior. Yes, I do believe that an abortion would be a scary, traumatic and confusing experience for any child (as it sometimes is for adult women). Does this change my viewpoint on whether or not it would be the best option for my 9 year old? Not at all.
Yes, I do believe rape if morally wrong. No, I do not believe that abortion is morally wrong. Even if I did, it is not my business what other women choose to do with their bodies. The baby requires her body for life. Yes, pre-natal babies rely on the nutrition, oxygen and physical protection of their mothers’ bodies to continue to grow. This is not an either-or proposition.
To answer your last question, if God forbid, I was the product of a rape, and my mother tried to kill me as a baby after my birth, I would sincerely hope that the both of us would recieve the care and assistance we would both clearly need. I would expect something like this to be against the law – which it is. If I had NOT been born because my mother chose abortion rather than have me, then…well…nothing. I would have never known the difference because I was not alive. The trajectory of her life would have been entirely different and depending on your spiritual views, I would have either ‘died’ and become a soul somewhere in heaven – or I simply would cease to exist. Again – I would not know this. That is my belief, I don’t expect for anyone else here to agree with me.
I hope that I’ve been as honest and direct as you needed me to be in order to clarify any questions that may remain on my viewpoint. You can now pray for me, or cry for me, or request to ban me, wish me sterile, vomit, ignore me, what have you. Hopefully in the near future, you and I can find other pillars of discussion that we can agree on, however this one is not it.
Maximilian Kolbe – a great Saint. A Great Man.
My 19 month old nephew is named after him – his name is Kolbe.
Mme. Janet, for you:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E0DA1530F932A25755C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
That was me :-P
Danielle,
I don’t know if you answered this or not, but what if your 9-year old wanted to have the baby and give it up for adoption? What if that’s what she WANTS?
Also, I don’t know how long a pregnancy for a 9-year old would actually last as I don’t really think their bodies are equipped at this point to handle such a thing. Do girls get their period at 9 years old these days??!!!
YES! Elizabeth! My daughter is 8 and I would flip if she got it next year! I have read up on a lot of theories about why the onset is so young.(My mom was 18!!)
A couple of theories is hormones in meat, the age where girls reach 100 pounds is getting younger as menstruation has to do with body fat, and also nutrition.
I don’t know which to believe but it seems so strange.
Also, I can hardly imagine what that 9 year old girl went through. I hope she is getting the help she needs. :(
Also,
If my almost 9 year old daughter were pregnant because of rape I would never force an abortion on her. No big surprise there I guess. But I wonder if I could raise the baby myself? Does that seem strange? To raise my grandchild and her mom is my daughter and they are raised as sisters and now I have a headache….
It could also be artificial hormones not filtered out of the water supply. Its pretty scary – I have a 9 year old niece myself. Luckily, she lives in an okay neighborhood, but the other night she was at a friend’s house w/o telling her mom exactly where she was going and it made my sister pretty upset.
Danielle,
We’re not talking about the woman’s body. We’re talking about the baby’s body. Fine, let’s not tell the woman what to do with her body, but let’s not slice up the baby’s body in the process. Hello, two human beings at stake here. Two separate bodies.
The woman who has an abortion after rape accepts a second rape, and seriously impairs her chances of recovery.
Danielle @ 3:37 PM
Danielle – here’s some observations:
• You need to go study embryology, because scientifically, from the moment of conception on, human beings are alive and growing. So this quote can’t be taken seriously:
(You’re stating here you would only had been alive when you were born? Were you dead during your 9 months gestation? How could you even claim to be growing in your mom’s womb?) How do you know you weren’t self-aware? Why would it be necessary to express yourself to other to prove self-awareness? Isn’t that judging other’s self-autonomy by our own criteria? You’re making some gross assumptions. Next observation:
• You’re begging the question – assuming what you are trying to prove in your case about a nine-year old re: abortion.
So rape requires judgement, but murder doesn’t? Where’d the baby go? Are you suggesting that the baby is actually the woman’s body?
Is abortion a self-inflicted wound? Naw… you can’t be saying that. Tell me why it’s morally wrong for a rapist to inflict violence upon a woman, yet it’s morally right for a murderer to inflict violence upon a woman (albeit an unborn one). Time is not relevent because rape is never morally right at any age, and neither is murder. Killing innocent human beings is morally wrong. Abortion kills an innocent human being, therefore abortion is morally wrong.
With abortion, you’re simply assuming you’re morally right, which is actually the argument you’re trying to make with me. You can’t subjectively assume truth.
• Moral truth isn’t subjective. If morality is subjective, then you can’t draw a distinction between right and wrong, and, absent a distinction, right and wrong cease to be. That makes such an argument self-refuting and invalid.
Danielle, you’re not even presenting a serious argument, nevermind a valid argument.
I’ve avoided arguing with a lot of people on this website because they go logically circular – (like Doug) or when faced with positively direct evidence of their moral relativity (such as Alexandra), they simply refuse to concede the point that life and law do have absolutes. SoMG went into absolutely flat denial about an irrefutable point. Denial doesn’t make an argument, and neither does lack of facts.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t ban abortion-choicers unless their behavior requires it. I think Doug is, at times, quite funny, and despite my disagreement with him about this issue, he’s not evil incarnate (Obama is…;-). I don’t find Hal to be objectionable (when he’s not worshipping Obama ;-) and Alexandra is very well tempered, considerate, and thoughtful, even though I disagree with her. As I said before, the true test of civil conversation is whether that conversation could be held in your living room or out on the back deck, and at the end of the evening you find the other person to be inherently valuable.
Danielle, I think your response is sincere, but seriously flawed. If you’re truly sincere, you’ll do some more research on the subject and perhaps we can cordially continue this conversation. Okay?
KB,
“The woman who has an abortion after rape accepts a second rape, and seriously impairs her chances of recovery.”
Technically, this statement is untrue. Rape is rape precisely because of the lack of consent. If there is consent, it cannot be rape (note that I’m not addressing statutory here, in which the participant is deemed unable to give consent). So if you want to make the argument that a woman who has consented to having an abortion is being “raped,” you’d have to first establish why she is not qualified to make what is presently considered to be a legitimate medical decision for herself.
KB,
And then you’d have to establish why you (or others who share your view) are more qualified than the woman involved to make a decision about her life.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 16, 2008 5:12 PM
“You’re stating here you would only had been alive when you were born? Were you dead during your 9 months gestation? How could you even claim to be growing in your mom’s womb? How do you know you weren’t self-aware? Why would it be necessary to express yourself to other to prove self-awareness? Isn’t that judging other’s self-autonomy by our own criteria?”
-I’m aware that what pregnant women have inside them is a living fetus of the human species that is growing to become a newborn infant. What I’m challenging is the concept of existentialism. And no, it is not tied to a science, it’s tied to what I believe spiritually.
We are living entities before birth…but it is not the same as being a living child. TO ME. I do not speak for the entire PC side, here. You are forming as a person, scientifically. You will become one if you are born. But do I believe you have a soul? Emotional connection? Self awareness? No. Therefore, if I would have been aborted, would have ‘known’? The answer is no. The emotional and spiritual impact belongs to the people who existed – mother, father, etc. No, I do not have any memory of my existence pre natally (I seriously challenge someone who claims to). My 1st memories began around 3, because my brain was mature enough at that time to process them. That’s due to our physical growth and maturity. And that process is not possible in a fetus, that we know of.
Did I just put forth a really sound legal/philosophical argument? Probably not. Am I giving you insight into why I’m not morally opposed to abortion? Yes. Best I can do.
Second point on whether a baby/fetus needs a woman’s body to survive – I think we’re splitting hairs here. If you pulled a 12 week old fetus out of a woman, it would not survive. This is my point. It may be a separate being, but you have to concede that it requires some form of human protection to continue growing – and that’s where her body comes in. I have dominion over what comes in and out of my body – therefore, I choose what happens to my body.
And someone asked before if I would allow my 9yr old to choose motherhood over abortion. As a woman, this was hard for me because my platform is choice…but my answer is no. I would not allow a 9 yr old to make a life changing decision for herself. As a parent it would be my responsibility to protect my child from harm, and even from herself if need be. No, the choice would NOT be hers. PC’ers here will disagree with me, but fine.
Posted by: Danielle at October 16, 2008 5:56 PM
We are living entities before birth…but it is not the same as being a living child. TO ME. I do not speak for the entire PC side, here. You are forming as a person, scientifically. You will become one if you are born. But do I believe you have a soul? Emotional connection? Self awareness? No. Therefore, if I would have been aborted, would have ‘known’? The answer is no. The emotional and spiritual impact belongs to the people who existed – mother, father, etc. No, I do not have any memory of my existence pre natally (I seriously challenge someone who claims to). My 1st memories began around 3, because my brain was mature enough at that time to process them. That’s due to our physical growth and maturity. And that process is not possible in a fetus, that we know of.
++++++
So, let me get this straight. Because we don’t have any memories or self-awareness in the womb, it is therefore acceptable to kill us. You yourself admit that this is also true for most people up until about the age of 3. So, by your logic, a human being can be killed up to the age at which he or she achieves self-awareness. Sounds like a formula for infanticide.
I’ve avoided arguing with a lot of people on this website because they go logically circular – (like Doug) or when faced with positively direct evidence of their moral relativity (such as Alexandra), they simply refuse to concede the point that life and law do have absolutes. SoMG went into absolutely flat denial about an irrefutable point. Denial doesn’t make an argument, and neither does lack of facts.
:: sticking tongue out at Chris ::
The “circular” part is you saying that your take on right/wrong/good/bad is the “absolute” way….because you say so.
You saying that a thing is an “absolute” in no way makes it so.
We are living entities before birth…but it is not the same as being a living child. TO ME. I do not speak for the entire PC side, here. You are forming as a person, scientifically. You will become one if you are born. But do I believe you have a soul? Emotional connection? Self awareness? No. Therefore, if I would have been aborted, would have ‘known’? The answer is no. The emotional and spiritual impact belongs to the people who existed – mother, father, etc.
Well said, Danielle.
Had you or I not been born, there never would have been an “us” to conceive of anything. The debate is between born people, and should we allow the “suffering” of some – who are against abortion and don’t like that it’s legal – to outweigh the feelings of the woman who is actually pregnant? I say no, heck no.
So, let me get this straight. Because we don’t have any memories or self-awareness in the womb, it is therefore acceptable to kill us. You yourself admit that this is also true for most people up until about the age of 3. So, by your logic, a human being can be killed up to the age at which he or she achieves self-awareness. Sounds like a formula for infanticide.
Posted by: PJMama at October 16, 2008 6:35 PM
-Way to misconstrue what I wrote and twist the meaning around. If you walked away from my post believing that I endorse or believe in the infanticide of children, then there’s really nothing more I can explain. If you’re implying that abortion is the same as infanticide – that is the difference in our belief systems.
Danielle,
I don’t know if you answered this or not, but what if your 9-year old wanted to have the baby and give it up for adoption? What if that’s what she WANTS?
Also, I don’t know how long a pregnancy for a 9-year old would actually last as I don’t really think their bodies are equipped at this point to handle such a thing. Do girls get their period at 9 years old these days??!!!
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at October 16, 2008 4:15 PM
———————————————–
Not all or even most but yes, some do. I was very grateful that my oldest daughter did not get her first menses until she was 14. (I am even more grateful that at 16 she is obsessed with her education to become a veterinarian and has many friends of both genders but her group of friends hangs out as friends, not couples. Since she has been present for all five of her younger siblings’ births, she is extremely aware of the end-result of sexual activity and she shakes her head when she hears of girls her age who try to get pregnant on purpose to “have someone to love me”… her comment? “Babies are a lot of work!”)
But if any of my daughters were to be raped we would certainly safeguard her health through scrupulous attention to nutrition and prenatal care and would encourage her to give the baby up for adoption. Their father is adopted and we feel that it is a true gift for another family to be created through the gift of adoption.
I would not impose the death penalty on my unborn grandchild due to the crime its father committed.
Enigma,
Hey ol’ pal!
Erin,
Your link was from the 2004 election, and while the points in the article may still have merit, Obama is so far left of being pro-choice, I don’t think he can count on the “typical” pro-choice voter.
PJ Mama said it better than I could. See her post @ 2:44.
Danielle @ 5:56 PM
Wow.
Insight – why yes. Your world circles around you. My time is better spent elsewhere, because your comment isn’t even worth the time to finish reading.
http://www.consequences.org/
Had you or I not been born, there never would have been an “us” to conceive of anything. The debate is between born people, and should we allow the “suffering” of some – who are against abortion and don’t like that it’s legal – to outweigh the feelings of the woman who is actually pregnant? I say no, heck no.
Posted by: Doug at October 16, 2008 6:43 PM
This is a scientifically invalid statement. If you were conceived but not born due to abortion you still existed at some point Doug. What a stupid notion you have presented here. Everything that was (and today is) the entity Doug existed at conception – in your DNA. The only difference is one of development. Instead you are defining people by their ability to function – quite a scary notion.
As for suffering I don’t think there is ANy way that we can compare the “suffering” of a pregnant woman to that of the “suffering” a baby undergoes being aborted. Especially since many women can be sedated during the procedure.
This is the height of arrogance to say the least.
Quoth Patricia in response to Doug’s (accurate) statement that people who were never born would never have a “self” to conceive of:
This is a scientifically invalid statement.
One might think that Patricia would follow up on this statement with something scientifically valid. One would be wrong.
If you were conceived but not born due to abortion you still existed at some point Doug. What a stupid notion you have presented here. Everything that was (and today is) the entity Doug existed at conception – in your DNA.
Well, no, that’s not true at all. The potential for the person who is now Doug existed, but “Doug” did not exist at conception. You are making the absolutely unsupportable assertion that DNA and DNA only is determinative of personhood and personality. That is utterly and completely wrong. Not to mention, doesn’t that kind of fly in the face of your own mythology about souls?
The only difference is one of development. Instead you are defining people by their ability to function – quite a scary notion.
….says the scold who insists that female can only be a real woman if she functions at some point as a biological mother….what a hypocrite.
Hah! DNA is separate from the mother and the fathers – this is a unique individual that did not exist before but now exists. The coding for every characteristic of this new individual exists at this moment. All it’s bodily systems develop independent from the mother’s.
You split hairs to further your secular fundamentalist agenda.
I have said nothing about souls. What’s your point?
It is a hypocrite that claims bodily autonomy for women, but not for her unborn sisters in the womb.
I note that you glossed over the suffering of the unborn baby – maybe because you just don’t give a damn.
And your statement summarizing Doug’s position is even stupider than his. Are you implying that a baby, moments from birth has no self-awareness? If not, then why are birthed babies persons? Is it a matter of location? Personhood based on location. Yup, better hope your state doesn’t change it’s laws on personhood and deny to people who live on your street.
I’m turning in for the night. Gotta work tomorrow. If there were sentient proaborts to debate here, I’d maybe stay……
Elisabeth,
Again, awesome post. Personally, if my 9-year old got pregnant by my boyfriend, I think I would need to do some serious re-evaluating of MYSELF about how I could let such a screwed up person around my kid.
What are the chances that a 9-year old can actually carry a pregnancy to term? I have never even heard of that happening so I don’t know how likely it is we would even get to the point of giving birth. Either way, I would encourage her the best way I could to go through with it, and I would do whatever I could for her. I would also offer to adopt the baby if given the chance.
Carla,
I’ve heard of parents adopting their children’s children. My momma told me when I was pregnant that if I wasn’t ready to be a mom that she would adopt my baby. :)
Danielle,
I do not believe a 9 year old is “ready for motherhood.” She is a child. A child cannot parent.
I seriously would consider putting the baby up for adoption or raising my grandbabe. I would not be “forcing” my daughter to carry a child. She trusts me enough to know that I have her best interests at heart.
Elizabeth,
I really do not know if a 9 year olds body can carry a baby to term and deliver. The 9 year old girl we are talking about did. I love your mom!!
Bobby,
Hi. How’ve you been?
I know I haven’t been on much; I’ve been slowly drowning in an ever-expanding pit of impending doom. Seriously, though, I’ve been majorly overworked. And I’m slowly starting to go insane–though I love the stuff dearly, there is only so much political philosophy that one can take!
Not sure why, but the reference link I put in my post on 10/16/08 at 2:44pm was broken. Here is a working link to the article and another link to the actual poll data. HTH.
Nationwide Poll Shows 84% of Americans Favor Significant Restrictions on Abortion
article
http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/news/releases/detail/548040.html
poll data pdf
http://www.kofc.org/un/cmf/resources/Communications/documents/moralissues.pdf
Vickie-
Saw your post a ways up there and good job.
Danielle, your comments were very insightful. Thank you.
“Had you or I not been born, there never would have been an “us” to conceive of anything. The debate is between born people, and should we allow the “suffering” of some – who are against abortion and don’t like that it’s legal – to outweigh the feelings of the woman who is actually pregnant? I say no, heck no.”
Patricia: This is a scientifically invalid statement.
No it’s not – we are talking about awareness.
…..
If you were conceived but not born due to abortion you still existed at some point Doug.
Not as a conscious entity. Not as having sensation, thoughts, feelings, etc.
…..
What a stupid notion you have presented here.
The stupidity is starting out with a falsehood, as you did, and wasting time building upon it.
…..
Everything that was (and today is) the entity Doug existed at conception – in your DNA. The only difference is one of development. Instead you are defining people by their ability to function – quite a scary notion.
What makes us ‘people’ is our brains. There are plenty of singular species on earth, and without the development that can occur, without our tool-making and using abilities, without our capacity to pass knowledge to others, we’d not be the race we are, at all.
A person is formed by both genetic and environmental things, and it’s vastly incorrect to say that “I” was there at conception. There was a human organism there, yes, but that alone is not what makes us ‘people.’ We that post on this board for example – take away the mind, the personality, and while there could still be a “human being” there, the person would be long gone.
Obama is so far left of being pro-choice, I don’t think he can count on the “typical” pro-choice voter.
Janet, he’s really not – he’s for leaving it up to the woman to a point in gestation, same as Pro-Choicers in general.
I’d say he can certainly count on the typical Pro-Choice vote. McCain has said some pretty good things in the past, as with his daughter being hypothetically pregnant – a question that was put to him, and him saying, “It would be up to her,” but still – him going on about the Roe decision is enough to have Obama get the Pro-Choice votes.
For McCain’s part, he cannot win without quite a few moderates and independents, and he’s not done well enough there.
I’ve avoided arguing with a lot of people on this website because they go logically circular – (like Doug) or when faced with positively direct evidence of their moral relativity (such as Alexandra), they simply refuse to concede the point that life and law do have absolutes.
Wait, what? I only remember discussing this with you once but we couldn’t agree on what the word “objective” means.
Oh, never mind. I don’t currently have the time to devote to whatever discussion may follow. Hope you’re well, Chris.
Doug,
This won’t make sense to you, but for the sake of others who may be reading ,
“Obama is so far left of being pro-choice, I don’t think he can count on the “typical” pro-choice voter.”
Janet, he’s really not – he’s for leaving it up to the woman to a point in gestation, same as Pro-Choicers in general.
Obama is so far left, he’s rubbing elbows with the right. (Think a bunch of people standing in a circle….) The “typical pro-choice” voter is what I’d also call “middle of the road” – believes abortion is wrong but doesn’t want to take the choice away from a woman.
Obama is extremely pro-abortion because he doesn’t believe abortion is intrinsically wrong.
BIG DIFFERENCE in most people’s eyes. For this reason, I don’t think Obama can count on all votes of typical pro-choice voters.
Doug: I’m sorry but your post is just so stupid, I really can’t even be bothered to refute it.
You’ve convinced me – you are a man totally lacking in any substance whatsoever.
And you’re right – a chimp could write your comments, EASILY.
My statement is derived from the evidence of medical studies. Abortion is associated with a marked increase in suicide rate.
Studies also show that most women who have been made pregnant from rape would choose not to abort. However society now expects women to abort in this circumstance. Similarly society now expects women to abort in the instance of untoward fetal diagnosis.
The decision to abort involves the life of another being. For the reasons of coercion, and the instinct against killing one’s own offspring, the women has impaired chances of recovery from rape if she aborts.
A duty to abort has been created in the minds of women under the circumstances of rape, untoward fetal diagnosis, multiparity, and pregnancy in early or in advanced age.
The public comments made about Sarah Palin and her family brought many of these issues to light.
I believe the increase in psychiatric problems I see in my health care practice have some relation to the conflict caused by this feeling of duty to abort.
kb,
Thank you for your comments.
Studies also show that most women who have been made pregnant from rape would choose not to abort. However society now expects women to abort in this circumstance. Similarly society now expects women to abort in the instance of untoward fetal diagnosis.
I never thought about it like this but I do think you are correct. Society EXPECTS women to abort in certain circumstances. Hence the people who have criticized Palin for “knowingly” carrying a Down Syndrome child to birth (how stupid of her – just some dumb honky red-neck woman).
Patricia,
I think some women don’t like Palin because she’s cute. You know the whole high school thing all over again. Personally, I like her positive energy and confidence, and hope others can appreciate that too. I can’t wait to see her on SNL. I bet she does a mean (as in “good”) Tina Fey!
I think people tend to project their thoughts, feelings and emotions onto women who are raped and become pregnant. The thought process seems to be:I would NEVER want to carry a rapist’s child! How can I force a woman to carry a rapist’s child? etc.
We are not allowing a woman to receive the care she needs to work through the rape only focusing on “getting rid of it.” As though an abortion cures a rape.
Also, I can’t stand that more and more find it only natural to offer Plan B to any woman who has been assaulted “just in case” she may be pregnant.
I am praying that those who have been raped and allowed their children to live SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS that they are so glad they didn’t abort!! I have read some amazing stories.
Oh, and it’s not “a rapist’s child” it’s HER CHILD.
Patricia,
I think some women don’t like Palin because she’s cute. You know the whole high school thing all over again. Personally, I like her positive energy and confidence, and hope others can appreciate that too. I can’t wait to see her on SNL. I bet she does a mean (as in “good”) Tina Fey!
Posted by: Janet at October 17, 2008 3:32 PM
yes I heard she’s gonna be on SNL
Carla: I have been reading a great deal about women in Muslim countries and in Africa. The women there always mention how happy they are to have the baby (of the rapist) with them. They see the baby as the one good thing that came out of the rape. I have been quite astonished by the attitude of some of the women. It is not a “western” one that’s for sure and I think us western women probably don’t understand therefore judge these women according to our values….
Wow Patricia! Beauty from pain, joy from horrifying circumstances. That lifted my heart today. Thank you.
Patricia: I’m sorry but your post is just so stupid, I really can’t even be bothered to refute it.
Translation: “I can’t refute it.”
The contest is turning since Uhbama and Biden have been talking about the economy. When Biden said that people should be patriotic and pay more in taxes; and then Uhbama followed it up by telling Joe the Plumber “we need to spread the wealth”. People in America really don’t like government taking their money in order to distribute to others. We feel as though we earned the money so we should get to give it to the charity of our choice. Uhbama and Biden obviously don’t understand this. It will cost them the election.
It will cost them the election.
Geez, Truthseeker, are you now worshipping at the shrine of St. Hormel?
I sure think you’re wrong about the election, as with so many other things.