35,000 Obama lovers see truth about abortion
On October 17 President Obama campaigned at Ohio State University in Columbus for beleaguered Gov. Ted Strickland, trailing in the polls to pro-life Republican John Kasich. (Click photos to enlarge.)
Crowd estimates were 35,000. And there were only 2 ways in, both covered by volunteers for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Midwest. Reported leader Mark Harrington:
There were 2 huge lines of people feeding into the security checkpoints and we had pro-life signs at both of them for 3+ hours. We had a captive audience….
Most Americans have no idea how extreme President Obama views are on abortion.
We used a low amplification speaker to read quotes from Obama…. The best Obama quote is, “I did not want my children to be punished with a baby.” Obama thinks children are a punishment! Shocking.
For those who think “protests are a waste of time and ineffective,” I ask, “Where else could you get thousands of abortion advocates to come see the truth about abortion and talk to pro-lifers?”
The fact is: They won’t come to us – we must go to them.
Here’s video of the event…
Love how Strickland supporters tried to obscure the truth…
Donate to help CBR Midwest continue educating a usually unwilling public here.
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.
If just one person’s heart was changed that day, it was worth it.
John 8:31, 32 “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Amen.
I really dig the “future serial rapist” look that guy in the foreground of the first pic holding the classy OBAMA’S “CHOICE” sign has going on there. I’d definitely want to stop and have a chat with such a pleasant young man holding up such a pleasant sign. You pro-lifers have such such a keen PR sense, I’m shocked that your movement hasn’t really had any successes in 30 years.
Of course, Joan can’t argue with the truth abortion, so she has to make snide remarks about THE WAY PEOPLE LOOK. Nice. Funny, Joan, but the pro-life movement has been gaining more momentum in the last 5 years, partly because of technology, but also because people realize how ridiculous, cruel, and superficial pro-aborts really are.
Also, someone should warn “Patricia” about this post.
Wow…as an Ohioan closely following this election, I don’t know what to say. Seriously, have you considered a thorough mental health evaluation? I don’t mean that to be snide…it really seems like a mental imbalance to possibly think your extreme beliefs and the manner in which you’re trying to communicate them are rational and effective.
Joan calls the guy in the first picture a “future serial rapist.” What does Joan know about serial rapists?
“Of course, Joan can’t argue with the truth abortion, so she has to make snide remarks about THE WAY PEOPLE LOOK.”
Turns out you kind of invite that sort of thing when you stand around holding 4-foot tall pictures of whatever the hell that pic is supposed to be.
Christina,
Who are you referring to? Pro-lifers or Pro-aborts?
Joan, that is the “right” you fight for so violently. It’s a baby, all cut up. It’s little body parts. I’m sorry, should I draw you a diagram? I’ll send you my biology books. From high school. With the glossaries. I’ll also send you a dictionary, too, because you’ll need it.
Yeah, no remorse for you, eh? No “sorry my bad I should use valid debate tactics.” Send us a picture of yourself, Joan. We’ll be just as frank with you.
Christina,
what are our extreme beliefs? and why would we need a mental health evaluation?
I wonder though. Let me be serious for a moment. Thinking objectively, here, how many of those tens of thousands of people who showed up to see the President speak are generally independent or politically casual types who are not die-hard Democrats but simply curious about the political process, including the upcoming election for governor–potential voters who could swing either way. Probably a fairly substantial number. What do you think their reaction is when they see people holding up signs and staging a “protest” like this, and then put 2 and 2 together and realize that these people are on the same side of the political spectrum as the Republican nominee for governor? Do you think the actions of these “protesters” here could maybe, just maybe, reflect poorly on the guy you want to win and not on President Obama and Governor Strickland?
The man in the first photo is nice-looking. I hope he isn’t insulted by Joan’s comment.
Seriously Joan. Abortion is an issue that transcends politics.
If by “nice-looking” you mean “looks like he’s done hard time” then I agree.
Funny how people who think murdering children is unacceptable are called “extremists”. If it’s not a human being growing inside of a mother’s womb, then what is it? It doesn’t magically become human when it comes out and you can see it. The baby was a person from the very beginning whose life deserved protection. I guess this is what we have come to — calling evil good and calling good evil. People have ignored their consciences for so long now that they don’t even feel remorse when they look upon the dead bodies of the most innocent and vulnerable among us.
Kudos to this group of pro-lifers so courageous in the face of such incredible ignorance!
As for “Joan”… I’m not sure a sadder person has ever commented on here. How many abortions have you had, Joan? How many of your children have you paid someone to chop to bits? Or, is it that you are a deathscort, escorting vulnerable and scared women to do something that will hurt them so deeply, some will then “choose” to take their own life?
I’ll pray for you that you might find the courage to forgive yourself.
Oh for Pete’s sake, Joan. The protesters were there to protest Obama’s radical opinion on the unborn. They were there to show what you really are getting when you support choice, bloody babies killed for your convenience. Like most pro-aborts, you seem not to be able to stick with the truth in the picture, and need to comment on the adults behind the BLOODY DISMEMBERED BABY.
Thank you to all those brave souls showing the truth!!
Let me ask this. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that fetuses are indeed “people”. Isn’t this deeply exploitive to take pictures of these hacked up “people” and use them for signs like this? After all, they cannot consent to having their likenesses used in this way.
It really bothers you that your side’s propaganda isn’t very effective, doesn’t it Jane?
I think there is some success in the sad pictures and how they get people to face the real violence of abortion.
If there was no reaction, no thought, then why hog half the comments, Joan?
To Joan:
I am no Republican. I am also not a fan of these kinds of explicit pictures and posters, most of the time. I think discernment should be used when giving these types of protests, for several reasons.
I think this is one time that I completely agree with the timing and type of protest.
I don’t care what party affiliation someone is from, but it concerns me that so many can look at these types of posters and pictures, and still call the tiny victim a “fetus”, a piece of “tissue”. I am pregnant with our 4th child, and I have felt this little man inside of me moving around since around 13 weeks. He has always been growing into a little man, never a frog or an ape or a tree… always a human male, since conception and all the cells started doing their natural baby-building thing.
Scientists can name each baby phase of growth whatever they choose, but it doesn’t change the fact that he/she is still a baby and will never grow into anything but a baby, when allowed to go through the natural growing process and his/her life is not snuffed out before he/she has the chance to actually fully form, come out into the world, and live as you were allowed to do.
Joan, 6:46p, seriously? You complain that babies who have been chopped up by abortion didn’t give permission for their post mortem photos to be taken? Do you really want to discuss consent?
Answer the question. If the aborted fetuses are people then it seems patently unethical and even exploitive to me to use their likenesses in this context.
@Joan. Yes — I think it is horrible to see these babies hacked up into pieces on giant posters. There is no dignity afforded to these particular human beings. But the thing is – they have no voice left. They cannot speak on their own behalf. They were never allowed the right to cry, to coo, to smile, to say “dada”, to suck a pacifier. Their lives were snuffed out because, to someone, their existence was burdensome and inconvenient. As a person who is pro-abortion, what would you suggest one do to expose the reality of abortion? Have all of the “Choose Life” smiley face signs swayed you? No! Abortion is ugly — it is cruel — it is the stripping away of dignity of a human being who is precious — who wasn’t deemed worthy of even their own life. These signs are the only way anyone will get to see what is really going on in the name of “choice”. I think it is clear that one of the people affected by “choice” had none. Before you were born, Joan, God knew you. He knit you together in your mother’s womb. You are valuable to Him and His love for you is beyond measure. Until you really get that — really KNOW it inside, every effort to make you see the value of each human life no matter how small will be useless. You must first know how much YOU are valued and loved before you can extend it to any other human being — especially those you cannot see (except for their little lifeless, mutilated bodies) and who cannot speak for themselves.
I am quite sure that thousands of people were deeply moved by the signs that day.
*Yawn*
I wish I could have been there to see Obama speak – wish we could clone the guy and put him in every office of government.
Answer the question. If the aborted fetuses are people then it seems patently unethical and even exploitive to me to use their likenesses in this context.
Out of curiousity, do you have similar objections to pictures of concentration camp survivers? Starving, skeletal children in Africa? Crime scene photos? Sometimes people have to see the photographic evidence in order to understand how horrific something is.
If by “nice-looking” you mean “looks like he’s done hard time” then I agree.
Lolz. Being stocky and bearded clearly says so much about one’s criminal record.
People like you make me so glad I’ve stuck with law school.
Wow Joan! Wonder at what point in ur mothers pregnancy did she refer to u as a baby? Do u have children? or is there soomeone that u really love? Well do me a favor, go to this site..www.herestheblood.org…..just humor me and watch the video. Then please come back and post how u would feel if this was done right now to the person u love!
“@Joan. Yes — I think it is horrible to see these babies hacked up into pieces on giant posters. There is no dignity afforded to these particular human beings. But the thing is – they have no voice left.”
Regardless of whether or not you feel that they are human beings, they are dead. As such, they have no further interests to promote here, and so if you believe that they are human beings, then using their likenesses in this way can only be exploitation, because it is impossible for them to give consent. What’s more, you are denying them their individuality by treating them as a collective whose faceless members can be interchanged for political purposes in precisely the way the pictures are depicting.
“As a person who is pro-abortion, what would you suggest one do to expose the reality of abortion? Have all of the “Choose Life” smiley face signs swayed you?”
None of your propaganda has swayed me. I’m an educated adult; you’re not going to intellectually engage me by shoving pictures in my face, and if you can’t intellectually engage me, then you aren’t going to be able to change my opinions on anything either. It’s laughable to me that you think the mechanics of abortion are this huge secret that most people are not aware of, and it’s insulting to the people there for the same reason. So not only are these “protesters” huge hypocrites, but they’re tone deaf and counter-productive too.
“Out of curiousity, do you have similar objections to pictures of concentration camp survivers? Starving, skeletal children in Africa? Crime scene photos? Sometimes people have to see the photographic evidence in order to understand how horrific something is.”
When was the last time any of those things were paraded around at a political protest? I’ve never once seen someone carry around Holocaust photos, pictures of starving African children, or crime scene pictures at a protest. I think most people would find that tasteless as well. I would. Additionally, there is a key difference here that you’re ignoring: the people in those pictures, or at least their surviving relatives and friends, could consent to their images being used in that way. Aborted fetuses obviously could not.
http://www.google.com/images?q=darfur+protest&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DKUS_en&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=4XjHTKivK47CsAP37rmMDQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CA4Q_AU&biw=1260&bih=605
Alright. That’s one example. Ostensibly those people depicted in the pictures are (A) still alive, and thus could theoretically consent to their likenesses being used, and (B) could at least benefit from attracting additional attention to their plight. Neither of those two things apply here. The aborted fetuses are categorically incapable of providing consent and, because they are dead, have nothing whatsoever to gain from their images being used. The former example could still be exploitive (and I’m sure many would argue that not all of the people making the most noise about Darfur have the purest of intentions), but if you believe that fetuses are human beings with inherent value, the pictures we’re discussing here are necessarily exploitive.
Joan — you are deceived and your logic is flawed. I see that you are not here to consider your ways, but to needle those who stand for life. The only difference between one who is aborted and one who is not — is that one child was wanted and one wasn’t. How sad………
You’re certainly free to explain to me how my logic is flawed.
Joan
You need to read a biology textbook that includes embryology. Human beings create human beings, tiny persons.
A person is a person no MATTER HOW SMALL.
BTW, Slave owners did not consider their BORN SLAVES to be HUMAN PERSONS.
That is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand, Liz.
Quit wasting time throwing pearls to joan.
This testimony is more to her intellectual summit….
“I didn’t have to be a man because I hauled my babymamma down to the clinic. Party on dude.”
or
”it is a lot of work raising a child. Whew, what a relief, and hey, free glow in the dark condoms too!”
and so she continues to make the world is a better place.
It was well thought out to set up at the only two places everyone has to pass to get in. At least everyone had an opportunity to see what abortion really is about, killing children.
**Answer the question. If the aborted fetuses are people then it seems patently unethical and even exploitive to me to use their likenesses in this context.**
I can’t even *get* to answering your question because by your logic, if we are *first* considering these “fetuses” as babies {as you said before, ‘for the sake of argument’} then wouldn’t you FIRST be more concerned why they were murdered in the womb?? Wouldn’t, for the sake of argument, your first duty as a fellow human who is interested in the welfare of ALL humans, particularly unborn women, be to protect those babies {for the sake of argument who are no longer called fetuses but babies/humans/unborn children}.
*THIS* is how deeply flawed your logic is.
Pro-life is not a simple political stand – pro-abortion/choice is. Sadly, you opt for the political stand rather than the moral and ethical right. Pro-aborts go to bat for a ‘right’, one that is subjective in nature and rooted in ‘want’.
I feel sorry for you Joan. I pity your worldview…it’s one that would make Hitler proud.
Well said, Martina!
Isn’t this deeply exploitive to take pictures of these hacked up “people” and use them for signs like this? After all, they cannot consent to having their likenesses used in this way.
Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice for them to have had a CHOICE? Oh yeah, their mother killed them before they could have a choice, and that is how these pics came into being.
40 Days for Life says they’ve saved over 400 babies in the last 35 days. Joan has not seen any success in the pro-life movement in the last 30 years.
Joan’s measure of success clearly is not the same as what a pro-lifer measures as success.
Therefor Joan knows absolutely nothing about pro-lifers.
That’s my logic.
Joan’s measure of success clearly is not the same as what a pro-lifer measures as success.
You can say that again, Double C.
If 40 Days saved 400 babies from abortion, they saved their mommies too!! :)
Oh! Carla! That’s right and that is so sweet! 400 babies and their mamas! YAY!!!!!!!!
Joan,
“Let’s assume for the sake of argument that fetuses are indeed “people”. Isn’t this deeply exploitive to take pictures of these hacked up “people” and use them for signs like this? After all, they cannot consent to having their likenesses used in this way.”
It is no more exploitative than showing newsreels of the mounds of bodies in the German camps. Atrocities committed on vast scales carry a proportionate reason to show the atrocity, and issues of consent only apply to the living.
Parents give implied consent to have their babies’ bodies thrown away as waste. Inasmuch as the parents have abandoned their obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of their children, have not provided for dignified and suitable burial, and consented to have them classified as waste, there is no ethical issue here.
The law provides for the legality of dumpster diving, with ownership of waste ending in the can.
Therefore, it is both legal, and a moral and ethical imperative to show the victims of mass murder in an attempt to halt those murders. This is longstanding in the civilized world.
“It is no more exploitative than showing newsreels of the mounds of bodies in the German camps.”
Newsreels of bodies in concentration camps are documentation. They’re not being used to promote a political cause. You’re confounding the ideologically neutral act of documenting something by recording or photographing it with taking such existing documentation and using it to make a political statement.
“Parents give implied consent to have their babies’ bodies thrown away as waste. Inasmuch as the parents have abandoned their obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of their children, have not provided for dignified and suitable burial, and consented to have them classified as waste, there is no ethical issue here.
The law provides for the legality of dumpster diving, with ownership of waste ending in the can.”
This is all completely irrelevant. The consent of the parents doesn’t enter into the equation; it’s not a legal issue. My point that nobody here is willing to directly respond to is simple: if you believe that aborted fetuses are people, then it stands to reason that taking pictures of these people, mangled as they are, without their consent, and using them to promote a political cause is unethical and exploitive. Particularly when you consider that they’re not being portrayed as individuals so much as they’re being portrayed as viscera; the byproduct of the act that is being protested. It’s an act of dehumanization. They’re being used as tools or proxies to prompt a cheap emotional reaction because the protesters don’t believe that they can engage their target audience on an intellectual level instead.
“Therefore, it is both legal, and a moral and ethical imperative to show the victims of mass murder in an attempt to halt those murders. This is longstanding in the civilized world.”
Really? Do people protest recent escalations of violent crime by walking around with giant pictures of homicide victims? If you believe that you have a legitimate moral or logical argument to make then you don’t have to resort to shock tactics, period. Yet shock tactics and emotional appeals seem to be the primary weapon in this movement’s arsenal. That could help to explain its repeated political failures, but more than anything I think it really underscores the fact that at the end of the day there isn’t a serious argument to be made in favor of banning abortion, and if there is the people who are agitating the most loudly about doing so are not aware of it.
Dr. Nadal,
The image you brought up is always the starting point for me on the subject of abortion.
When one comes across surgery footage on television, one often says: “Well, that’s unpleasant!” And you move on. But you know it was a necessary, good act.
But when you see film of those bulldozers pushing those bodies of concentration camp victims into trenches like so many rag dolls – yes, it was necessary to prevent an outbreak of disease. But you know something very wrong went on here.
Both unpleasant sights. But one with that twist in your gut. Something Wicked This Way Comes.
Images of abortion fit in the latter category. I look away. But I know it is there, and I won’t forget. I will always proudly be an abortion foe.
Joan,
Are you truly serious in your arguments? Do you actually expect us to humor the idea that it is the PRO-LIFERS who are dehumanizing babies and stripping them of their rights? The reason you are not getting a direct answer is because it is a completely absurd question. If the baby had instead lived, there would be nothing disgusting and horrible to show.
You need to understand that this is not a mere political issue. Pro-aborts see it that way, but the fact is that these are PEOPLE, not taxes or policies. This is a HUMANITY issue, and that is why you are hearing about slavery and concentration camps and Darfur. When millions are being brutally killed, the public NEEDS to know so that the atrocities can stop.
For the record, the pro-life movement is absolutely making strides because God is the author of life. When He is for us, who can be against? I, too, used to buy into these lies that it is about choice, but the truth speaks for itself. Thou shalt not kill. Even a LITTLE BIT!
Cardinal Arinze makes this topic extremely simple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv3MRyKfEHA&feature=player_embedded
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
We are instructed to warn a divisive person once, warn them a second time, the third time have nothing to do with them.
There is no need to even entertain conversation with Joan and such foolishness.
I challenge all who have posted to take just 2 min and lift her and her fellow “pro-murder” believers up in prayer.
“whatever that pic is supposed to be.”
A child killed by abortion, which you support.
Joan,
You are a horribly confused and ethically illiterate human being.
First, you need to stop prattling like a fourth-grader and listen to yourself. Babies are unable to give their consent. If they were, then you conveniently gloss over the first issue of consent to which they are entitled, which is consenting to be torn apart by a butcher.
Parents act on behalf of the child. So we revert to my explanation of legality and ethics in that regard.
Next, abortion is NOT, I repeat NOT a political issue. It is a human rights issue, the same as the issue of the concentration camps. The Nazis were prosecuted for crimes against humanity, which is what abortion is. The world recognized Natural Moral Law as superseding all manmade law(positive law). In so doing, the world at Nuremberg made a pronouncement:
No crimes against humanity can be defended by an appeal to politics (e.g. I was just following lawful orders from the Fuhrer, whose word was law under the German Constitution, ratified by the electorate).
We decided that human rights abuses could NOT be granted protection under law or politics, and appealed to the Natural Moral Law spoken of by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
The issue of abortion involves politics to the extent that the pro-abort crowd has illegally (under the Natural Moral Law ratified at Nuremberg and today’s World Court) hijacked the political process to enact and protect this system of mass murder of citizens (over 3,000 per day). But hijacking the political process to press human rights violations does not reduce the issue of human rights to mere politics. Rather, the nobility of government is gutted by the perversion of the political process in using it to advance and cover crimes against humanity.
That’s the reason why the newsreels of the camps are used. They are not used as a political statement, but a statement to ratify our human identity and dignity (which is universal), and to warn tyrants that mass murder will never be tolerated. Not even under the guise of politics. And that’s why these pictures serve the same moral/ethical/legal purpose.
If you want to argue ethics, I suggest that you go study ethics first, Joan.
Don’t be hard on Joan. Joan may have gone to Fort Lewis College.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2010/10/planned-parenthood-bloopers-the-heart-begins-beating-at-24-wks-and-xyfemale-but-never-mind-science/
I was disappointed that Joan did not comment on my post since she seemed to make an effort to post and dismantle the other arguments against her.
Maybe something gelled? Who knows…in any case, to the other posters here, this has become a case of pearls before swine {as someone else pointed out} and to engage fruitless conversation becomes a waste and drain on everyone. Not that it’s not important to share, but it’s clearly falling on Joan’s deaf ears.
The *only* reason to continue might be for the lookie loos who are on the fence and see how illogical and twisted Joan’s arguments can be. Otherwise…time to move along, Joan.
Joan should consider the following: Abortion is wrong because it intentionally kills innocent human beings.
“First, you need to stop prattling like a fourth-grader and listen to yourself. Babies are unable to give their consent. If they were, then you conveniently gloss over the first issue of consent to which they are entitled, which is consenting to be torn apart by a butcher.”
I’m not glossing over anything; that’s not a concern to me because I do not believe that fetuses are in any way people or that they have rights. Your side does; what I’m asking you to do is live up to your own ethical standards and “respect the humanity of the unborn”. You know, by not exploiting their corpses for political points.
“Parents act on behalf of the child. So we revert to my explanation of legality and ethics in that regard.”
The “parents” of these fetuses, whoever they may be, have obviously disowned them. You are claiming that this is somehow a positive act of consent that completely satisfies any relevant ethical considerations, which is nonsense.
“Next, abortion is NOT, I repeat NOT a political issue. It is a human rights issue, the same as the issue of the concentration camps. The Nazis were prosecuted for crimes against humanity, which is what abortion is. The world recognized Natural Moral Law as superseding all manmade law(positive law). In so doing, the world at Nuremberg made a pronouncement:”
Of course it’s a political issue. Does this movement have goals rooted in pressing the government to take a particular course of action or behave in a certain way? Then it’s necessarily political.
As for the concentration camp example, that is complete nonsense. The world did not “recognize Natural Moral Law” in prosecuting Nazi war criminals: it was an act of sheer martial force, self-justifying by its own show of authority. “Natural law” can never “supersede” positive law because the simple act of “enforcing” natural law inherently implicates positive law. If a jurisdiction creates a law that it claims is based on “natural law” then what they have made is positive law with a particular ideological motivation.
“We decided that human rights abuses could NOT be granted protection under law or politics”
Except for our allies the Soviets, who immediately picked up right where the Nazis left off, literally taking over many of the former Nazi concentration camps and converting them into Soviet prison camps, all with our tacit consent.
“The issue of abortion involves politics to the extent that the pro-abort crowd has illegally (under the Natural Moral Law ratified at Nuremberg and today’s World Court) hijacked the political process to enact and protect this system of mass murder of citizens (over 3,000 per day).”
Ah, you got me. All but half a dozen countries in the world are now acting in violation of the “Natural Moral Law” and the pronouncements of the World Court. All hail the natural law.
“If you want to argue ethics, I suggest that you go study ethics first, Joan.”
By this you mean “accept my premise that there is such a thing as natural law and that it binds all of us”. No thanks.
“that’s not a concern to me because I do not believe that fetuses are in any way people or that they have rights”
The ultrasound I just saw this week of the “fetus” inside of me looks suspiciously like a person… LOL Seriously, what are they if not people? :-) It must help murderers sleep at night to not call a person a person because there truly is no other explanation. Is there?
Joan,
It’s impossible to have a conversation when you willfully ignore the arguments presented, pretending that they don’t exist. Your bloodlust blinds you to the truth.
You don’t understand ethics, its precepts, or its process. That is evident in your comments and responses. So you have no basis for assessing our ethical standards or how we live up to them.
Your ignorance is galling.
Congratulations, Molly!! :)
40 Days for Life says they’ve saved over 400 babies in the last 35 days. Joan has not seen any success in the pro-life movement in the last 30 years.
Well, if that’s true, that’s a good thing, but I’m not sure how they’re keeping a tally.
Joan, if one woman is dissuaded from having an abortion, that’s a success. If the abortion rate drops even by 1 percent, that’s a success. And I do care about babies after they’re born.
And don’t forget the thousands of pregnancy resource centers around the country that your side is so busy trying to shut down — they help thousands of women every year. They are the biggest success of all!
Thanks, Carla!!!
By this you mean “accept my premise that there is such a thing as natural law and that it binds all of us”. No thanks.
So, you’re not willing to step outside of your limited world view to look at something that has been examined and argued by some the greatest philosophers humanity has birthed…all because of your narcissism? That’s intelligence for you! *high five*
Do people protest recent escalations of violent crime by walking around with giant pictures of homicide victims?
I’d sure like to think they would if homocide became legalized in our country joan.
phillymiss,
I get the 40 Days email updates. There have been women that go in the clinic and then leave and tell the vigil participants that they changed their minds. Many pass by and and tell the praying folks that when they saw them praying they knew they couldn’t do it.
I am guessing that is where the number 400 comes from. 400 we know about. I am thinking there are MANY more we don’t know about! :)
“Joan,
It’s impossible to have a conversation when you willfully ignore the arguments presented, pretending that they don’t exist. Your bloodlust blinds you to the truth.
You don’t understand ethics, its precepts, or its process. That is evident in your comments and responses. So you have no basis for assessing our ethical standards or how we live up to them.
Your ignorance is galling.”
This is just one big gussied up personal attack: “you moron! you just don’t understand my argument! And how dare you question my scruples!” Yet it is you that have not been able to address my main point on the merits, instead trying to derail the conversation by bringing in irrelevant talking points and baselessly smearing me as ignorant. To state that I don’t understand “ethics” when you seem to believe that it starts and ends with the “natural moral law”, which of course means whatever you want it to mean, is just absurd.
I told y’all not to leave the kibble bin open and unattended, and now look! For the life of me, I don’t know where to begin. So, who’s going to shovel the pens? I’m not, I shovelled last week. At first, even if you say, I shovel well, and that’s also my conception, someone else should do it this week.
Here, I’ll kick in a can of troll spray. Sorry, not sure how to get the image to display here.
www.http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f152/PeteESC07/trollspray1.jpg
Life begins at conception, ninek. Agreed!!
I did not throw out any troll kibble on this thread. No shoveling for me either.
I will say the pictures stunned me. I had no idea. I was changed completely, by the little hand on the dime. I still cry just thinking about it.
I support the people who are brave enough to face the crowds, testifying with those pictures. They are braver and more compassionate than I have ever even thought of being.
While I’m at it- the photos of the German concentration camps? The photographers who took the pictures? Were changed, for life. The officers and military men who encountered the death camps? Changed for life. Eisenhower had to use his power to insist that those photos be taken, so that there would never, ever be doubts about the holocaust. He could imagine deniers. And, there were. There are.
These photos are testimony in the same way. there are deniers. There were. There are.
Fed up. big LOL! I had to delete the first http to see the picture, but it was worth the effort.
My mother always told me to wear my hood up when it begins to rain. When there is not much sun, I can be so lazy. Got everything ready for Halloween. Treats only!
ari,
I filmed Faces of Abortion a few years ago and then had quite a few post abortive women film their stories in my state for the show. We had a man volunteer to videotape the abortion stories. About halfway through filming, this precious man broke down sobbing. He could hardly bear the stories of what these women had been through. We gathered around him, prayed for him and hugged him and continued filming.
I doubt that he will ever forget what he heard that day.
http://www.operationoutcry.org/pages.asp?pageid=27773
My story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VbQRvx8nAE
Carla, You are an angel!
Oh.Stop.It.
Joan,
I stand by my assessment of you based upon your performance here. If it seems personal, it is. I’s about you and how you function. Pro-aborts can dish up the artillery but can’t stand the heat when countered with ethics, science, history and logic. That’s because you have nothing of substance beyond your own predilections regarding the butchery of babies. So can the faux outrage and learn how to debate by addressing the issues presented to you and not just dismissing them.
You paraphrased me beautifully.
Ninek,
I can’t think when the last time was I dressed up for Halloween. My daughter said she needs a new wig for her costume. I will have to do some exercising to wear off the Halloween candy or otherwise my costume will be too small. (:
Have a safe and Happy Halloween!
“Pro-aborts can dish up the artillery but can’t stand the heat when countered with ethics, science, history and logic.”
You have nothing but empty platitudes and cheap personal shots. You should demand your money back from whatever institution of higher learning you mail ordered your PhD from.
“So can the faux outrage and learn how to debate by addressing the issues presented to you and not just dismissing them.”
Oh, that’s rich, coming from you. I still haven’t been able to get you to directly address my one single primary point of contention here, instead being treated to a bizarre rambling discourse on natural law and Nuremberg and the World Court that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I’m even asking about.
Here, I’ll recapitulate and simplify my argument and give you one final chance to actually address it instead of impugning me as a vicious baby killer and ranting about natural law:
1. Pro-lifers consider fetuses to be, for all intents and purposes, “people”
2. Using images of people without their consent to promote a political cause is exploitive; especially so when they (A) are dead and could not potentially benefit from their likenesses used in such way, (B) would be categorically incapable of giving consent even if they were alive, and (C) are portrayed not as individuals but interchangeable, nameless victims
3. All of those conditions in 2 are met here
Conclusion: pro-lifers who use pictures of aborted fetuses to promote their cause are hypocritically exploiting the unborn.
Sweet Joan,
While many are very frustrated with you here, I’ll attempt to “directly address” your point. You’re reaction to the physically violent photos used in protest is appropriate. You recoil in distaste. Totally understandable!
The argument that follows is to accuse pro-lifers of hypocrisy: it is wrong to see these bodies as people then use photos of them to try to save the lives of those that go after them. Do I follow you so far? You use the pretense of dehumanization and politics.
Let me first suggest that it is reasonable to believe that those precious lost lives, had they still a voice, would disagree with you. And if you won’t buy that, then let me humbly ask that you accept that it is worth the “exploitation” in order to save the millions and millions of lives that would follow down their path if this “political issue” is not “taken care of” (if you know what I mean).
I understand that this type of protest is not effective on you. It is not meant for everyone. However, that does not automatically mean it is not effective at all. Go to one of these rallies. Listen to the educated men and women who are seeing these photos for the first time. Better yet, avoid the photos and call a CPC counselor and Planned Parenthood counselor and compare notes. You may find lots more “exploitation” even more distasteful than the photos above.
Let us know how it all works out. I wish the best to you.
Sincerely,
GMC
As a father of three, I just find it disappointing to see to use shock value pictures that aren’t something most parents would want their kids to see. For a society that values children so little, it is tough seeing one of the few groups you would hope would uphold children to put out a message that, I’ve personally, driven a different direction to avoid them seeing.
Joan,
Your conscience will obviously give you no peace. Your protests are more to convince yourself than discredit the pro-life movement. I pray that your restless conscience will lead you to conversion, otherwise you will continue to be a self-deceived, restless, empty soul. How sad.
Ex-GOP said,
“For a society that values children so little, it is tough seeing one of the few groups you would hope would uphold children to put out a message that, I’ve personally, driven a different direction to avoid them seeing.”
Ex-GOP, if you are so repulsed by those photos then then how can you be such a freaking Obama supporter? You figure Obamacare with government funding of abortion is better than no Obamacare? It makes no sense. Liberal’s perogative. Like the Catholics for Choice crowd who hold the right to commit abortion on a pedestal above their Christian religion. It is astonishng to witness the slippery tongued crock of crap liberals spew. Like those Colorado pro-aborts who put science aside and saying abortion is a matter of belief. Like the RINOs who support the Democrats and give power to the party of death and praise to the Supreme Merchant of Death, your fearless leader Barack Hussein Obama.
But you drive the other way rather than be subjected to the result of your votes. Your support of the party of death brings those photos into this world. Think about it; you can’t even stomach looking at it but you vote for Obamacare and bring it upon the rest us. It is twisted to the point of multiple personality disorder.
Truth – I didn’t say that I (me, an adult) couldn’t stomach it – I’m saying that I have three small children, and as a father, I don’t need or want my kids subjected to images like that. I also think WW2 was a good idea, but wouldn’t want them subjected to images of the war.
That is what I am saying. The very argument used is meant to be repulsive and shocking and it is anti-parent if you ask me.
Also for the first amendment, but don’t need somebody providing it with hate speech, swearing, or lewd photos around my kids.
So a lady walks into the Dr’s office with her 1 year old blue eyed bouncy little boy. Waits a bit until she is called back to the exam room. The dr comes in and asks the reason for her visit 2day. She explains that she just found out she is pregnant and she doesn’t want to have babies that close in age. So the doc ask what she expects him to do about it. She replied, “I don’t know just get rid of it”. So the doc sits and thinks for a min or so and says he has an idea. “We’ll get rid of the one sitting on ur lap and let the other one come on,it would be much easier and that way there is no medical risk to ur health”. He proceeds to elaborate, “just lay the little boy on the table face down and we’ll jab this knife into the base of his skull, she just needed to turn her head the other way.” She jumps up and screams one word, “Murderer!”. U see, its the same crime just different ages of the victim.
@ex gop voter how would u have felt if ur wife decided she didn’t want one of ur three children, its her choice right?!
Hi Joan.
I would disagree with your premise 2. I think there are many situations where it is justified to use images of people who have died without their express permission if they are killed and brutalized in such a horrible manner that it may stop that same kind of violence from happening again. To address your point A, the purpose of teh images is not to benefit teh dead, but the living and those who might someday be victim of this same brutal destruction. Many people do many, many things to help those who are alive after they are dead. We write careful wills, we leave all our money to charitable organizations who help those in need with a particular problem we sympathize with. How much more might those who were killed by abortion wish to stop others from being killed by abortion?
Now this begins to touch on your point B, which has to do with consent. True, there is no way of knowing what they would have liked, but it is much more reasonable than not to assume they would not want their tragedy to go unnoticed and hence, do everything they could to stop this from occurring to others. We take liberties with kind of thinking all teh time. There is that famous picture that is used by pro-chociers of the woman who tragically died from an illegal abortion maybe in the 1960s. I can’t remember too much about it. I think she was in a hotel, and the picture is black and white, she is bent over, naked, with her bottom in the air over a pool of her own blood. I know I”ve seen it here on Jill’s site before. Very tragic. Alas, we can safely assume that she would want her picture used to try and change teh “political” issue of abortion even though she could not benefit in any way from it nor give her permission.
Perhaps you would argue that if she was asked 1 minute before she died if she WOULD give her permission, then she could have said yes whereas the unborn cannot answer this. I agree, here is a distinction. But I do not see why the fact that you could potentially get an answer from one person while potentially not get an answer from another person makes any difference in the morality of the question at hand when neither one is even asked. In both cases, we neglect to ask the victims. In one case, the victim had teh potential to answer. IN teh other case, they did not. I don’t see that as any sort of important moral distinction when addressing this question.
There are other examples. I can’t remember all the details of this one, but I believe there is a famous story about a 12 (or so) year old black boy who went down south to visit some family in the mid 1900s. He whistled at a white girl. and later that day, some white men murdered him and mutilated him. When it was time for the funeral, his mother insisted on having on open casket because she wanted everyone to see teh horribleness of what these savages did to her son. I would not at all say that she was unjustified in doing this or that this was an immoral choice on her part to display teh graphic image of her son at his own funeral to make a point about violence against blacks.
Finally, your point C. We see this all the time in pictures of war atrocities and evil governments. Sometimes we hear about all the killing going on in some way far off country and we think “yeah yeah.” But then we see the pictures of bodies stacked upon bodies. Think about (or google) the Cambodian killing fields. There is a horrible sight, where indeed, we do have “nameless victims” but it shows the horror and abomination of what is going on there. Just because we, unfortunately, do not know the names of the victims, does not mean we should be able to use these horrible images to show teh depth evilness that is going on in certain parts of the world.
Thus, I think there are good reasons not to accept your second premise. I, and most other pro-lifers do not accept your second premise. Hence, it does not follow that we are hypocrites. At best, what you can argue is that we are misguided in not accepting premise 2. In fact, maybe I am wrong about accepting premise 2. If I am, I and most other pro-lfers would gladly stop supporting the use of graphic images. Only if we BOTH accept premise 2 and still support the use of graphic images is there any grounds for calling us hypocrites. Again, at best, we are misguided when it comes to our rejection of premise 2, but if that is the very best teh pro-choice side has to offer against us, I am happy to accept that since it proves absolutely nothing about teh ontological status of the unborn nor does it indite us as inconsistent or hypocrites. All it would say is that we have a misguided understanding about teh morality of using graphic images, which is no blow against teh pro-life movement whatsoever.
joan,
Sounds like you are trying to defend the dignity of fetuses. Good for you! I am happy to know that there is someone as concerned as you about how the fetuses dignity is being exploited by hypocrite pro-lifers. I will suggest you go to your local abortion clinic and bring a sign stating what you are standing for: “THESE PRO-LIFERS ARE HYPOCRITE! LOOK AT HOW THEY USE ABORTED FETUSES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. LOOK AT HOW THEY EXPLOIT THE UNBORN. ALL FOR POLITICAL REASONS”
Bobby Bambino,
The black child you are referring to is Emmett Till. I HATE when I see that picture- it is so disturbing- but thank God it existed.
Also, Joan, people do use pictures of Holocaust victims for political purposes. Just last week a group at my college used photos of Holocaust and other genocide victims to try to influence political policy toward Darfur. I have seen a lot of similar protest/ displays.
I used to be against protests with graphic abortion pictures, but now I am starting to favor them. Yes, they are very unpleasant to look at, but they are necessary.
“The black child you are referring to is Emmett Till. I HATE when I see that picture- it is so disturbing- but thank God it existed. ”
Thank you Adair. I knew I had heard this story several times, but sadly could not remember the details. What a horrible, horrible event in human history.
joan
October 26th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I really dig the “future serial rapist” look that guy in the foreground of the first pic holding the classy OBAMA’S “CHOICE” sign has going on there.
joan
October 27th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
You have nothing but empty platitudes and cheap personal shots. You should demand your money back from whatever institution of higher learning you mail ordered your PhD from.
Here’s a website about the case. There’s a pic of him in his coffin on the site, if you can bear to look. Pretty terrible stuff, he doesn’t even look human anymore. But his death wasn’t in vain, because it galvanized the civil rights movement.
http://www.emmetttillmurder.com/
phillymiss,
I remember reading that Emmett’s mother insisted on an open casket so the world could see what had been done to her precious boy.
I can hardly bear to look again but THANK GOD the mother stood firm. That the world may know.
Christa – sigh…let me try to spell it out for the THIRD time.
I am an ADULT – a tall person with a job, money, and a family.
I have KIDS – they are small version of adults – they do not have jobs, or much money. In my case, they are 7, 5, and 6 weeks old.
Me – ADULT
What I’m saying now for the THIRD time is that I don’t want my KIDS subjected to it. Like I said, already, at 6:38AM (Truth – I didn’t say that I (me, an adult) couldn’t stomach it – I’m saying that I have three small children, and as a father, I don’t need or want my kids subjected to images like that. I also think WW2 was a good idea, but wouldn’t want them subjected to images of the war. That is what I am saying. The very argument used is meant to be repulsive and shocking and it is anti-parent if you ask me. Also for the first amendment, but don’t need somebody providing it with hate speech, swearing, or lewd photos around my kids.)
Does that make sense? I’m not trying to be rude or anything – it is just that you made a very dramatic point against something that isn’t even part of the argument here.
To sum up – Me – ADULT. Okay.
My kids – little people – not okay.
Ex-GOP voter. I find it interesting that you want to protect your children from the ‘lewd’ pictures of aborted people. WW2 was a great tragedy, but it was necessary for the US to get involved and to show the horrors of what the bad people were doing. Back then the US made a choice and well the rest is history. In our time, abortion is legal and it is necessary for people to see the horrors of what happens to real unborn people in the US. I commend you for trying to shelter your kids from lewdness, which I am sure includes slasher films and such stuff. However, you cannot shelter them from the reality that abortion happens legally in the US. To turn a blind eye to that reality is the same as when many German citizens turned a blind eye to the Holocaust.
Carlos – they are FIVE and SEVEN. Don’t find it interesting – find it as good parenting.
Tell me about the times you showed your under 10 year old kids abortion pictures. Did you also show them war pictures and pictures of slaughterhouses? Let me know about it – very interested to know what it was like for them.
Ex-GOP,
The first time my daughter, then three but now five years old saw those pictures of aborted babies she asked what the people holding the signs were doing. I told her that there are bad people who hurt these babies and the people with the signs wanted to get other people to join in helping babies like this. She understood and wanted to help hold a sign.
And I do not show them pictures of WW2, they’ll get that in History class. But that to me is completely different cause WW2 is no longer a current crisis/cause for protest one way or the other; but if everybody in society denied the holocaust I would show my children pictures of what really happened so that they would not be deceived into believing the lies.
“future serial rapist”???
Wow. Did it hurt that bad to see evidence of the truth, joan?
Quotes from the article:
Most Americans have no idea how extreme President Obama views are on abortion.
This is true. Long before he blew off Rick Warren’s pointed question with “That’s above my pay grade”, he was making horrific decisions about the purposeful taking of human lives — and not only before birth, but afterward, as well.
The best Obama quote is, “I did not want my children to be punished with a baby.” Obama thinks children are a punishment! Shocking.
Unfortunately, his statement about his daughter(s) wasn’t shocking to me, at all. Though my dad was not a Christian until late in life, still, he had the basic decency to recognize the worth of human beings — all human beings, including those in the womb.
For those who think “protests are a waste of time and ineffective,” I ask, “Where else could you get thousands of abortion advocates to come see the truth about abortion and talk to pro-lifers?”
Absolutely. Every one of them need to see the truth about babies in the womb.
Bobby Bambino — you’re right about that young black guy whose body was horribly mutilated, and his mom decided to have his casket open so that all could see the results of racism. His name was Emmitt Till and he was 14yo when he was brutally murdered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
This is indeed analagous to the picture of the poor baby who was brutally murdered — except the baby’s mom DID want him killed and she did NOT want the public to know the truth about his brutal end. Forgetting for a moment all the other horrors of abortion: HOW can a mom be so heartless toward her own child???
Joan — think for a moment: Racism in the mid-1950s was a political hot potato. You keep trying to deny any connection between these issues, but there is a clear-cut connection, and it is this:
It is terribly common for people who seek to devalue others’ importance in order to thus devalue and deny their humanity. Slave owners did it, Nazis did it, Communists have done it, and today people who are FOR killing innocent babies do it.
Ex-GOP Voter — you are in favor of abortion, but you don’t want your children to have to see the reality of it? Sounds like your heart is acknowledging the horror which your mind is not willing to admit.
Claire – where did I say I was in favor of abortion?
Truth – your choice as a parent, and I respect that…and I hope you respect my choice as a parent to want to ease my kids into information. I’m just not the type of parent to give them the horrors of life slideshow at four years old to have them see everything screwed up in this world.
Ex-GOP,
You are really protecting yourself and not your children. If your children saw those signs you might have to own the handiwork. They might question you on how you could possibly support your fearless leader Barack Obama and his party of death. It wouldn’t be good for YOU would it on the day your children find out that Daddy is one of the people supporting the people who commit these atrocities.
Ex-GOP Voter, please correct me if I’m wrong: Unless I’ve mixed you up with someone else, you have expressed support for abortion rights.
If this is true, how will you explain abortion to your child when s/he is 14yo? Will you deny the humanity of the nascent children? One of my parents did this, but when I carried my first child in my womb, that argument went out the window.
I already knew abortion was wrong, though I couldn’t have articulated then why that was so. Since then, though, as I’ve learned more and more biological fact, I have grown in the knowledge of the truth.
I was more tired than I realized yesterday evening. I’m posting this to correct a grammatical error in a message I posted then:
It is terribly common for people to seek to devalue others’ importance in order to thus devalue and deny their humanity. Slave owners did it, Nazis did it, Communists have done it, and today people who are not against killing innocent babies do it.
Nope Truth – again, keep seeking. I have no issue looking at them myself – just trying to protect my kids. I know you keep trying to make the issue stick, but there’s really no fundamental difference between the two parties when it comes to abortion. Sure, there’s some funding differences here and there – but the GOP help the white house 20 of 28 years…how did that work out for you? And now, with abortion polling better than ever, it gets left out of the “Pledge to America”. So how’s that GOP working out for you?
Claire –
You’ve mixed me with somebody else on this board – sorry to disappoint – you’ll have to save your post for another day and another person.
Ex-GOP.
Your ability to live outside reality when necessary is a very liberal trait. How many pro-life Democrats voted against Obamacare cause the pro-aborts refused to put Hyde like language in it? To say there is no difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party on the issue of abortion is ludicrous. True that the Republican party was not able ti right this issue in the past. This issue is going to get righted as part of a generational sea change where children, adolescents and young adults are raised to recognize the scientific truth about what abortion really is. Precisely one of the things necessary in order for this issue to get righted is fewer Democrats in positions of power to oppose it and fewer Democratic allies like Planned parenthood feeding our children lies and manipulating them into adolescent sex and unwanted pregnancies. When I was outside the abortion mill praying most of the girls entering that place for abortions looked like minors or close to it. It is the future Repulican party, grown greater by the integration of a new generations of people, that will right ths wrong and that is where we are headed as a party and as a nation. Your ability to vote Democrat and say you are pro-life shows that you are presently without conviction and also that you are well practiced in liber mind bend.
So, your basic argument is if we have years and years of Republican victories, along with years and years of young people learning that abortion is bad, then eventually the Republicans will start to actually do something in regards to the laws? That is an interesting argument.
Now, I’d say to accomplish that, elect more Democrats. Nothing has been better for abortion polling then having a Democrat in the white house. In fact, you could say that for the long term chances of abortion being outlawed, the best thing to happen would be to get a real radical pro-choicer in the white house where the populace would really stand up and take notice.
But again, I’m sitting here looking at reality. Reagan 8, Bush 4, Clinton 8, Bush 8. 20 of 28 years – no progress.
Obama 2 – the polls finally start moving in a direction…and the GOP’s “Pledge to America”…we’d rather make sure rich people get their fair share.
What am I missing Truth? Fact is, babies don’t vote and babies can’t slip money into politician’s pockets.
I can vote Democrat and feel good about myself because the laws aren’t going to change anyways, and the issue is only going to get lip service – so I’m voting for whoever I think gives us the strongest nation and best economic standing – because that has a greater impact on abortion numbers than any lip service the GOP is offering up these days.
Ex-GOP voter,
I don’t remember any children under seven aske me about abortion pictures, at least not while I am drivng with them. My little niece is five and she likes to look at baby pictures in the womb because she wants to know where she came from. She is quite smart. Most kids I know usually don’t like abortion because it is mean (their words).
The one that is kind of hard for me to explain is the one about those buildings with the SEX sign. Children are more attracted to bright neon signs than to pictures on the road. How do you handle that one? Because I find it difficult. The reality is that pornographic material is legal and abortion is legal so whether you like it or not your children will recieve some exposure to what is legal, even if you don’t like it. You can not shelter your children from that reality. But you can educate them and prepare them to face the reality as they grow up. Your children are five and seven now but in ten years they will be in a situation where they will have to make choices that might affect the rest of their life. Think about this, in ten years would you like your children to be the ones holding the abortion pictures sign or the ones that made the abortion on the picture happen?
I’m voting for whoever I think gives us the strongest nation and best economic standing – because that has a greater impact on abortion numbers than any lip service the GOP is offering up these days.
I call Baloney. Violence begets more violence. Greed begets more greed. In comparison to others, we are a strong nation. A strong nation who kills many preborn humans because we want more, more, more. The emphasis is on STUFF, not on PEOPLE.
Carlos, great post! I believe the parents who are so upset about little ones seeing abortion photos often think nothing of them seeing all the crap on tv that objectifies girls/women. The commercials alone are degrading. Where is the outcry from the proaborts about this?
Ex-GOP said,
I can vote Democrat and feel good about myself because the laws aren’t going to change anyways, and the issue is only going to get lip service – so I’m voting for whoever I think gives us the strongest nation and best economic standing – because that has a greater impact on abortion numbers than any lip service the GOP is offering up these days.
Ex-GOP,
Obama has already appointed two more pro-aborts to the Supreme Court. Just when you could have made the greatest difference in the abortion battle you bailed out and voted for the radical most-pro-abort politician in the US. Saying that you feel ok voting Democrat because your vote makes no difference makes you look ridiculous. Your vote has gotten you not only pro-abort federal judges appointed throughout society; but Obama’s 3 trillion dollar deficits in two years. And next year doesn’t even have a budget yet; our Democrat controlled government (with super-majoritys in all branches) is currently runnning on an emergency appropriation authorizing any funds necessary while they are on recess campaigning for re-election. How is that working out for you? Oh, and how about it being end of October and all businesses and all people across the board facing huge tax increases on everything from losing the child tax-credit, to a 50% increase on the inheritance tax, to income taxes going up across the board’ to health care tax (my employer will have to start paying 35-40% tax on their share of my health plan next year), to taking aware the tax-free status on mortgage interest rates. That is not working out too well for anybody but the ones making a living off of Democratic slush funds.
Carlos (with a little to Prax) – I agree – there are a lot of things to introduce to kids overtime. Not sure where you are located, but I’m in a Midwest small city – so in regards to sex shops and signs and such – we haven’t had any issues. And our kids don’t watch much for non-cartoons – so again, have not had an issue there. It is tough being a parent these days – we need more folks like us though, trying to give kids a moral foundation and working them through these situations like you describe.
Prax – I’m not going to give your whole post a reply – I’m just saying that if we all said, “look, abortion is going to be here for the next 50 years legally – what should we do to reduce it” – number one is economic factors. That is all I’m saying.
Truth – wow, you sure do know how to go off on a tangent!
Just a couple of points to stay on target:
– R v Wade – what was the breakdown of Republican vs Democratic appointed judges in that decision?
– Furthermore, what sort of state is going to offer up a challenge to RvWade? Colorado is about to fail yet again. Even South Dakota…SOUTH DAKOTA couldn’t get it through. And with the numbers finally polling better for pro-lifers, how many other ballot initiatives are there this election? A big zero, right?
– You lack of knowledge on the tax situation and budget situation is downright startling – I’d seek the truth a little bit more in that area if I were you! Simply put, most of the deficit issue comes from the Bush administration – there hasn’t been tons of new programs put in or anything (we had the stimulus, but the GOP was arguing for one as well – just a smaller one). The tax cuts coming due are because congress and Bush set the tax cuts to expire – not long term. They’d be done and extended already if it wasn’t for the GOP insistence that we expand the deficit another trillion (over a decade) to put money in the richest folks pockets in society.
Ex-GOP. You liberals are a fascinating breed to listen to when you speak from your hearts. Open yourself to listening for just a moment. Tax cuts does not mean insisting we put money into rich peoples pockets. Tax cuts means stopping the government from taking money out of peoples pockets. Only within the your liberal mind does tax cuts mean putting money into peoples pockets. I have even heard other Democrats call tax cuts an increase in deficit spending. Would you also agree with that statement? Do you realize that you have just taken the notion of letting people keep more of their own money and used liberal mind-bending to call it putting more money into peoples pockets. Do you feel as though you are entitled to other peoples money? I knew the left could twist logic but when seeing it applied to taxes the you have helped me to see the deception spawns from a deep seated feeling of entitlement that you deserve other peoples money.
K truth – lets run with your logic. Let’s do no taxes at all – none what-so-ever. Is that what you are for?
Tax cuts aren’t an increase in deficit spending – but they do increase the deficit IF they aren’t matched with spending decreases. That is where the Bush tax cuts were so lame and cowardly – they cut taxes but didn’t do a thing about spending. Budget wise, it is the EXACT same thing as raising spending without taxes – you create a revenue problem in relation to spending. We all know that government has to spend money. Right now both parties aren’t real good at matching up what comes in and what goes out.
Reagan at least had the guts to adjust taxes and raise them back up in some situations. Today’s GOP is mind-boggling… they want to raise the deficit 4 trillion by extending the cuts (to be fair, the Dems want to raise it 3 trillion) over the next decade. What to cut though? Military? No. Medicare? No. Social Security? No.
So cut education funding? Is that pro-family?
You are right – tax cuts let people keep more money – but you have to balance it out with spending decreases then, which the GOP doesn’t seem to be able to pinpoint what they’d cut except for some token dollars here and there.
Start by repealing the deficit monster entitlement called Obamacare. That begins to reduce the annual costs associted with bureaucracy and IRS etc by trillions. Next you can find ways to actually reduce insurance costs and prescription drug costs for everyone by removing interstate barriers to insurance coverage and stopping the practice of forcing US citizens to pay twice as much as everybidy else for prescrition drugs. Stop all funding of Planned Parenthood and Acorn. There is a lot more but I ask you to please finish by showing me you have at least the basic logic by understanding that there is a difference between letting people keep their own money (tax cuts) and putting money into peoples pockets. If you can’t admit that then what is the point of discussion at all except to watch you look like a fool. lol
EGV wrote:
So cut education funding? Is that pro-family?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Truth – CBO scored out health care reform as something that actually was a positive effect on the deficit.
Interstate insurance is a terrible idea without some sort of regulation of what a policy must cover – which GOP is against (what was said during reform – one Senator didn’t even thing childbirth should be covered?
Acorn? See, that is what drives me crazy. So your deficit cut saving idea is Acorn, a group in which there is a ban of federal funding against!
Your last question needs to be rephrased – when you say putting money in people’s pockets, are you talking about things like stimulus checks?
Ex-GOP said, “Truth – CBO scored out health care reform as something that actually was a positive effect on the deficit.”
And CBO scores exactly the projections Congress gives to them. When was the last time a government project worked out on budget? And that projection is out the window already cause they are having to give all kinds of businesses with service employees (McDonalds for example) breaks on their tax mandates already otherwise they would have had to cut people off insurance. Even Obama now admits it would be foolish to think this health care boondoggle isn’t going to cost us something, What CBO scored stole money from Social Security and Medicare to pay for Obamacare and counted that as cost savings. But I digress.
You requested further assistance; The stimulus checks were government taking money out of peoples pockets and then putting a portion of it back. I hope that helps you understand what it means to put money into somebody’s pocket but I am dissappointed that you still needed clarification. Maybe you should stop drinking the Kool-aid for a while and things might be clear again.
Truth – but you said trillions – so that sounds at least two trillion – the CBO projected it would save a lot the other way – so where exactly is the $2.5 trillion shift? I’m sure if will shift some – you never know exactly what will happen – but you seem quite sure of yourself.
This is the sentence that I’m wondering about: “have at least the basic logic by understanding that there is a difference between letting people keep their own money (tax cuts) and putting money into peoples pockets.”
Scenario 1 is a tax cut.
Scenario 2 – do you mean, for instance, when the US government sent checks to every household – putting money back in their pockets?
I just don’t get it though – you are a fierce anti-tax person, but yet you’ve offered very little to cut – a program that actually scored out budget positive, and you want to cut funds to an organization that already doesn’t get funds. I tell you – you are quite the deficit slasher! Maybe you could also cut other funding that doesn’t exist – that would help the numbers even further!
Ex-GOP,
Here is a plan to end deficit spending:
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
The truth about the cost of Obamacare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u45IETzTqqQ&NR=1
Here is Senator Paul Ryan talking about his plan to end deficit spending spiral. If you have 30 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_YIqufhbNo
RINO, what do you think of the Ryan plan? Does it make sense to you? He had it scored by CBO and they confirm the projections and surplus’ and you seemed to see that as a seal of truth in cost when you were expressing your support of Obamacare.
truth – I have seen his plan – I’ve read parts of it but not all of it. I LOVE that somebody put something out there as a thought. I’m sure I’d agree with parts and not agree with parts – I’ve read assessments that say there’s some very shoddy numbers in there (he only ran portions past the CBO for assessment)…BUT, he did SOMETHING and put it down.
Now Ryan’s plan came before the “Pledge to America”. How do you compare the two documents? One is an actual plan – the other is campaign fluff not worthy of even breaking down.
We need more people like Ryan bringing ideas to the table, and less people like those involved in the “pledge to America”.
Well, I suppose we could also bring Clinton back – he did a heck of a job ending deficit spending. Too bad Bush happened.
Ex-GOP, I think I am going to call you PLINO from now on. That is Pro Life In Name Only. The definition would be – someone who votes Democrat because they were disgusted that Repulicans haven’t banned abortion yet. Lets start over here and find a point of agreement. Is there any part of the Ryan Roadmap that you agree with?
truth – on RINO – I wasn’t just in name, I was in vote as well (and plan on voting for two Republicans in Tuesday’s election).
On Ryan’s plan – I haven’t browsed it since it first came out, so give me some time to rereview it.
You a big fan of everything in it?
I’m a big fan if Ryan. His economic insight and his staunchly pro-life insight. He could tear Obama up on pro-life issues and on the economics of Obamacare if he ran in 2012.
truth – on RINO – I wasn’t just in name, I was in vote as well (and plan on voting for two Republicans in Tuesday’s election).
WOW. Then maybe you should change your moniker too…lol Oh, you call yourself pro-life and vote Democrat so I guess you also feel entitled to vote GOP and call yourself Ex-GOP..rotflmao
One big thing I like about Ryan’s roadmap is the tax reform. It makes the system much more clear cut, without loop holes and would encourage business in the USA and revive the entrepenurial spirit in America.
Ha – maybe I should change my name. People know and love me as this one though!
Ryan – a couple of thoughts after reading through it and reading some analysis:
– He relies pretty heavily on deep, future cuts in Medicare. But the GOP says Obama relies on cuts in Medicare, which aren’t as deep, and the GOP says that politicians will never let happen. So why would the GOP let Ryan’s happen, which are much deeper than Obamas? One assessment from Chait – “Conservatives have sneered at the idea that Obama could compel cuts at such far-off dates at 2018. (Continetti: “We don’t know what will happen tomorrow. How can we say with any certainty what will happen 11 to 20 years from now?”) But they feel totally comfortable with Ryan’s plan to slash taxes now, and they assume that future Congresses will feel compelled to abide by his call to reduce the projected size of Medicare by 75% by 2080.”
– The CBO pretty much tore Ryan’s plans to shreds. Did you read the back and forth?
– Pretty common belief that we would have higher deficits than under Obama for the next decade, and the future cuts are something the GOP have been against (an ambiguous cap on defense spending, cuts in Medicare…)
– Top 1% of earners right now make 21% of the income in this country and pay 25% of the taxes. Under Ryan’s plan, they’d pay 13% of the revenue. Guess the rest of us can just live off the land!
Ryan does have an opportunity to come through now though – Ryan said the GOP can come up with the cuts to offset keeping Bush taxes in place for the wealthiest 1% (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/117083-paul-ryan-plenty-of-room-to-cut-700b-from-budget-to-extend-high-end-tax-cuts).
As of now though, no details. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20spend.html
I still give credit to Ryan for trying, but it appears, after further research, nothing more than a huge attack on the middle class. I’ll leave you from this, from the CBO:
About three-quarters of Americans — those with incomes between $20,000 and $200,000 — would face tax increases. For example, households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 would face an average tax increase of $900. (These estimated changes in taxes are relative to the taxes that would be paid under a continuation of current policy — i.e., what tax liabilities would be if the President and Congress make permanent the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and relief from the alternative minimum tax.)
The plan would shift tax burdens so substantially from the wealthy to the middle class that people with incomes over $1 million would face much lower effective tax rates than middle-income families would. That is, they would pay much smaller percentages of their income in federal taxes.
I don’t know what plan you are reading but here is what it actually does to individual income tax. We would pay a flat 10% on the first 100,000 and then 25% on income over 100,000. Sounds like the rich are paying at level 2.5 times that of the less fortunate. Here is what it actually does. It simplifies tax rates to 10 percent on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).
Truth – have you read the whole plan? Much more from the CBO on it:
The Ryan proposal would make sweeping changes to the federal tax system. It would:
Lower the top marginal income tax rate to 25 percent from the 35 percent rate set by President George W. Bush’s tax cuts — and the 39.6 percent top rate that will take effect if the Bush tax cuts for high-income households are allowed to expire on schedule at the end of this year. The plan would set up an optional alternative tax system in which families could pay at a 25 percent rate for all income above $100,000 but would give up most existing itemized tax deductions and credits;
Entirely exempt capital gains, dividends, and interest from taxation;
Repeal federal estate and gift taxes;
Repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT);
Repeal the corporate income tax and replace it with an 8.5-percent value-added tax, a form of sales tax on most goods and services; and
Replace the tax exclusion for employer payments for health insurance with a refundable tax credit of $5,700 for families ($2,300 for individuals) that people could apply toward the purchase of insurance.
These changes would dramatically lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans, while increasing the tax burden for middle-income groups, according to the estimates the Tax Policy Center issued this week.[3] The numbers are breathtaking. Average tax cuts under the plan would equal:
$1.7 million a year for the highest-income 0.1 percent of Americans (those with incomes over $2.9 million a year in 2009 dollars);
$502,000 a year for people with incomes over $1 million; and
$280,000 a year for people in the top 1 percent of the population (those with incomes over $633,000).
A further breakdown down by ITEP was pretty impressive:
Top 1% – avg salary 1.4 million – would see an average tax cut of $211K
Folks between $20,063 and $33,171 – average tax hike of $2,032
Every tax payer up to $127K would see an increase.
Every tax payer over $127 would see a decrease, with more money decreased for those making over a couple million a year.
Yes – quite the assault on the middle class.
Ex-GOP, All those things seem positive to me. And the repeal of the death tax is great for everybody. If I work hard and want to leave my money to whoever I decide should the government be able to take 50% of it for themselves? This is a great plan. Entrepeneurs would get to keep more of their money to invest and hire. And foreign companies would be drawn back into opening businesses in he US. It also erases deficit spending and balances the budget. Tell me precisely which part you see as an assault on the poor? Do you think the less wealthy paying 10% income tax is an assault on them? And your using liberal logic again when you deem letting somebody keep their own money as an assault on other people. Do you think the less wealthy paying 10% income tax is an assault on them?
Ex-GOP said:
The plan would shift tax burdens so substantially from the wealthy to the middle class that people with incomes over $1 million would face much lower effective tax rates than middle-income families would. That is, they would pay much smaller percentages of their income in federal taxes.
RINO, Tell me please, what liberal mind-bending is used to claim that 10% is a much greater percentage than 25%?
But it doesn’t balance the budget until what, 2080 – and that is IF the Medicare cuts would stay (which the GOP says they won’t in the case of Obamacare), if we have no wars, if growth is very strong…over the next few decades though, it would ADD to the deficit – again, it might be good to read some of the analysis from the CBO on it (Ryan submitted it himself to them).
I don’t know what tax bracket you are in, but I’m guessing 95-98% of Americans won’t be in favor of paying drastically more taxes so that the upper folks can pay less – and at a lower marginal rate than everyone else. That is just crazy.
You really need to read the plan – the rate is 25%, but when you subtract out all the things that only rich people will get advantage of – and then further put in the consumption tax of 8.5%, which will hit middle and lower class folks higher (in proportion) – that is where you get the amount.
Again, under Ryan’s plan, a person making 25K a year would see their taxes increase over $2,000. A person making over $1.4 million a year would see their taxes decrease over $200,000 a year.
“You really need to read the plan – the rate is 25%, but when you subtract out all the things that only rich people will get advantage of”
You seem to feel an entitlement to other peoples money just cause they have more than you do. Does it irk you to see the estate tax eliminated because rich people have larger estates so they beneft proportionally more than the poor? Or what about the reductioon of taxes on ALL businesses. That would be terrible because the successful businesses would end up seeing greater benefit than the ones that fail. I disagree with you. You are not entitled to a share of people’s money just cause they have more than you do. The fact they are paying income tax at a rate 2.5 times greater is just not enough for you to be able to keep everybody down. On Ryans plan their would be no taxes on captal gains. By your logic you are against this because only the rich would see any advantage from it. But bthe American dream is made up from one of these poor being worth a $100,000 some day and getting tax free growth on their retirement fund. Your way would keep the government in control of the people and keep people down.
Michael Savage’s book trickle up poverty comes to mind.
But to swing so far the other way? Would you feel it would be right it somebody making 50K a year is paying a higher marginal rate than somebody making $1 million a year? I’m really shocked quite frankly – but hey, maybe that is our fundamental difference – you’d like to tax more of the poor and give to the rich, and I believe in taxing the rich more to help the poor. If that really is the divide, then we can move on from this debate.
Lets look at this scenario and see, Guy #1 making 50k pays 5k in taxes. Guy#2 is making a $1,000,000 and pays 250k in taxes. And you are saying that is unfair because guy #2 is paying less in taxes then Guy#1. If guy #2 were paying the same marginal tax rate as guy #1 he would only be paying 100k in taxes not $250k. This is simple math. And it leaves more money in the hands of ALL peoples.
I’m not saying that is unfair – because guy number 2 in your scenario is paying 25% as compared to 10%.
What Ryan is basically advocating though is guy number 1 makes $50K and pays $10K (20%) while guy who makes $1.5 million pays $150K (10%). He wants folks under $127K to pay a larger percentage of their money to taxes than people over $127K.
Do you agree with Ryan’s stating that our biggest economic problem we face is entitlements? And what did you think about the specific part of his Roadmap that fixes the problem for generations to come?
Yes – but one more time…the GOP has been critical of Obamacare because the savings (that you even say don’t exist), in part exist because of future Medicare cuts. Ryan cuts them sharper than Obama, and much further in the future – so if you doubt Obamacare, you certainly would have to doubt Ryan’s medicare cuts.
In Ryan’s plan making under 100k means 10% tax rate and over 100k means 25%.
I am leaving the tax question for now because you seem to be mathematically challenged.
Sorry for talking hypotheticals – seems like it got us twisted.
Thanks also for being a real peach – I thought we were having a civil conversation – no need to start getting cranky.
I’ll just throw it out one more time as you dodged it before – “I’m really shocked quite frankly – but hey, maybe that is our fundamental difference – you’d like to tax more of the poor and give to the rich, and I believe in taxing the rich more to help the poor. If that really is the divide, then we can move on from this debate.”
RINO said,
“Yes – but one more time…the GOP has been critical of Obamacare because the savings (that you even say don’t exist), in part exist because of future Medicare cuts.”
Obamacare took $5,000,000,000 out of Medicare savings. Ryan’s plan weans people off of medicare and onto private plans by letting people keep more of their own money and invest it into PRIVATE Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s) which would accumulate tax free wealth the value of which remains property of the person even to leave as an inheritance if desired. Quite a dramatic difference in ideology and function huh? Obama and the Democratic party do things completely the opposite.
They tax more, Obamacare reduced the amount of tax sheltered money we can put into HSA’s, and put a 50% tax on inheritance. It takes an elastic mind to think Obamacare and Ryan’s plan have much in common.
RINO said,
“I’ll just throw it out one more time as you dodged it before – “I’m really shocked quite frankly – but hey, maybe that is our fundamental difference – you’d like to tax more of the poor and give to the rich, and I believe in taxing the rich more to help the poor. If that really is the divide, then we can move on from this debate.”
RINO, I believe people should be taxed equitably and as little as possible. The 10% on the first 100k and 25% on income over 100k sounds fair to me. But there is no excuse for taking other peoples money, even if they have more then you, it is still stealing.
And to be clear, there is no excuse for any government to take one persons money just cause they have more then somebody else. That is still called stealing.
But truth, maybe third time is the charm – you are in favor of Ryan’s plan of adding a new national sales tax (the Europeans call it a Value Added Tax), raising taxes on everyone under $127K a year and cutting taxes for the wealthy. You are in favor of that? Yes or No?
Ex-GOP, if you only ask one question I would be more likely to give you a yes or no.
1) Where did you see this value-added tax you are referring to? Can you point me to it in the Roadmap? How much would the federal sales tax increase under the Ryan plan?
2) NO, I am not in favor of raising taxes on anybody. People who make under $100,000 currently pay more than the 10% they would pay under the Ryan Roadmap. And they would end up with solvent entitlements. What a deal.
And a correction from above; Obamacare actually took $500,000,000,000 out of Medicare savings, not the 5,000,000,000 I had posted. It is such a large number that I lost a couple of zeroes.
The consumption tax – google it and you’ll find 50 articles – http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/29/4365389.html
On the Medicare – are you trying to use that against me or for you? You can’ talk bad about Obama looking for Medicare savings while touting a system that would completely gut Medicare over the next 70 years.
Ryan’s plan does not take money from Medicare savings, it leaves it there for the people who contributed to Medicare to use for Medicare benefits. Instead future generations would put their monies into private HSA’s instead of Medicare and they would retaing control of their own monies. Huge difference. Ryan is NOT taking monies from the Medicare funds that have been given. Medicare is already insolven and that is part of why it takes so many years for his plan to become deficit neutral; his plan has to begin by paying the Medicare expenses of the people who have already donated to the insolvent entitlement. Obamacare takes funds from Medicare savings, do you truly not see the difference?
Again truth – might be good for you to research things a bit – unless you have an article that I’ve missed on this $500 billion.
The $500 billion is a slowedown of future growth – not money in savings already – http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/22/dan-coats/health-care-law-forces-seniors-barack-obamas-gover/
“The $500 billion in cuts is actually a reduction in the future growth of Medicare costs over 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase over that time — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. But it won’t increase as fast as it would have otherwise. The cost reductions have two aims: to make Medicare more efficient and to help fund coverage for the uninsured.”
Also, I missed a massively wrong statement by you 10:56PM yesterday – http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114
“About three-quarters of Americans — those with incomes between $20,000 and $200,000 — would face tax increases. For example, households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 would face an average tax increase of $900. (These estimated changes in taxes are relative to the taxes that would be paid under a continuation of current policy — i.e., what tax liabilities would be if the President and Congress make permanent the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and relief from the alternative minimum tax.)”
RINO,
Reducing the benefits of people who already paid into Medicare is stealing money from Medicare savings. Not not only does Obamacare claim $500,000.000.000 of money from “cutting Medicare benefits’ but it also claims it saves $500,000,000,000 in Medicare costs by reducing Medicare payouts. It is a million dollar scam. Obamacare is full of accounting gimmicks. The first 10 year cost you tout actually counts 10 years of reduced Medicare benefits and ten years of tax increaes to pay for six years of Obamacare. Obamacare is loaded with voodoo economics and snake oil.
And I can’t explain it any clearer then I did two posts ago. Do you really not see the difference between Obamacare reducing Medicare benefits to seniors and the Ryan Roadmap which leaves Medicare benefits in place for the existing participants and weans future generations off of Medicare and onto HSA’s?
Again truth – it is a decrease in the increase of spending – something McCain and other GOP folks argued for as well – some of it is cracking down on fraud – some from shifting people from a bad program to another. I would think anyone who is a true conservative would applaud the plan.
Though it is still odd that the conservatives are so in favor of raising the taxes on everyone making less than $127K a year and putting that in the pockets of rich people – I wonder if that is why the Pledge to America moved so far away from Ryan’s plan – that it was an attack on most of America? Thoughts? Do you still support raising taxes for the majority of Americans?
RINO,
For your benefit I will copy my response to you from three days ago.
“NO, I am not in favor of raising taxes on anybody. People who make under $100,000 currently pay more than the 10% they would pay under the Ryan Roadmap. And they would end up with solvent entitlements. What a deal.”
But you put false information – people who make under $100K would pay more under Ryan’s plan – plus they better get their savings in order, because anyone under 55 will be losing Medicare and Social Security.
So I’m still not sure how to take the response – I’ll assume you are against that portion of Ryan’s tax plan.