Bachmann, Gingrich spar on Partial Birth Abortion, Planned Parenthood, support of pro-abortion candidates
Last night an issue that infuriates most pro-lifers – that of Republican leadership promoting pro-abortion candidates – arose by means of the most vile example possible: partial birth abortion.
During Fox’s Republican presidential debate, Michele Bachmann accused Newt Gingrich of campaigning for pro-pba candidates, and just as bad, of using his power as Speaker of the House to squelch an effort to deny campaign funds to candidates who supported partial birth abortion. She also accused him of refusing to defund Planned Parenthood when he had the chance…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_90o61uPD7g&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Gingrich did not respond to Bachmann’s Planned Parenthood accusation and only responded to the partial-birth abortion accusation by saying, “I wouldn’t go out and try to purge Republicans.” This is an inaccurate portrayal of Bachmann’s assertion, which was that Gingrich actively supported candidates who were so extreme as to support killing a half-delivered baby.
According to PolitiFact, Bachmann was correct in this claim. Also, the Bachmann website has more corroboration, with a zinger quote by George Will from that time: “Why is it a virtue to be tolerant of infanticide?”
This was 1998. The outcome of that election? According to Wikipedia:
Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 elections – the worst midterm performance in 64 years for a party that didn’t hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party’s attempt to remove President Clinton from office was deeply unpopular among voters. Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 5, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. Gingrich made this announcement only a day after being elected to an 11th term from his district.
As a related aside, Rick Santorum lost his U.S. Senate seat in 2006 – to a Democrat – in large part because he supported the re-election of pro-abortion Arlen Specter.
Hopefully, pro-lifers are making it tougher and tougher for the Republican political establishment to support pro-aborts.
Thanks to Michele Bachmann for making this an issue last night, and also of keeping Planned Parenthood in the negative spotlight.
Incidentally, it doesn’t appear to me as if Gingrich has changed his view on supporting pro-abortion candidates, if his comments last night are any indication.
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 concur. Thank you Michele Bachmann for holding New Gingrich’s feet to the fire.
I saw once more the stark difference between Bachmann’s consistent commitment to pro-life values in words and deeds and Gingrich’s flip-flopping career. It made me understand why sometimes I hear the comment from friends that “Republicans are not very different from Democrats, they don’t do enough for pro-life”.
It’s true for certain Republicans!
Newt needs to clarify what his current position is on partial-birth abortion and whether he supports other Republicans being pro-partial-birth abortions.
To me, the logic isn’t there for him to be vague about whether he supports fellow Republicans being pro-partial birth abortions. If you want to make all abortion illegal, you can not support fellow Republicans who have a contrary view. Again, a simple clarification would go a long way.
I think Mr. Gingrich and his team need a chance to review his pro-life record, reflect on it, and be prepared to renounce every portion of it that was not 100% pro-life, which, it seems, is his current noble position. So, some work to do, but not impossible to overcome.
Ms. Bachmann impressed with her new determination to be heard. She needs to do more of this. The interviewer was about to speak right over top of her. Not fair to say the least. (I don’t mean she should throw her good manners overboard, but that she should simply be more assertive. In fact, her good manners/etiquette served her well.) But if she plays in this water (of taking the other candidates to task), she better prepare herself for a little splash back, and it now appears she is up for it.
Overall, the strategy of the Republicans to be civil with each other in the debate, to focus on life issues, and to remember that defeating Obama is their common goal was a good idea.
I agree Tyler.
Although, I see Gingrich words of support for pro-lfe as “just words”, since he supported pro-abortion candidates and we already have a President whose words are meaningless!
He doesn’t convince me.
I also didn’t like the fact that Gingrich has tried to smear by accusing Bachmann to have her facts wrong. That tells me something about his character.
One other point, it appears Mr. Gingrich has a better understanding of the embryonic stem cell research issue. This was very good to see.
This made me think that perhaps some of the candidates who didn’t come out immediately as 100% pro-life early-on during the campaign may not have understood all of the science involved in the life debate. It is good to see that the level of the scientific understanding on life issues amongst the Cnadidates has risen as the campaign progressed. Perhaps, Ms. Stanek and her website has contributed to this!!
I agree Richard, Mr. Gingrich’s accusation of Ms. Bachmann was not called for, especially if her facts were true!!!
With that said, his reaction was a far cry from the reaction the old Newt would’ve provided and in that respect, I have to give him so props. It was a lot more respectful. I am impressed with him, in that, I do see him him honestly trying to take a much more complete pro-life stance. I just don’t think he has resolved many of his old anti-life positions. Indeed, it appears he does not recognize that his previous positions on many issues had an important life issue component to them that needed to be recognized and dealt with in a pro-life manner. For example, one cannot recognize the right of one’s colleagues to hold a pro-abortion view if you are 100% pro-life – it is like saying you allow your colleague to support the murder 5 year-old children. Unfortunately, the pro-choice rhetoric has confused many soft pro-lifers to think that they cannot “impose” there view on anyone else, while these some pro-choice people stubbornly assert the woman’s absolute right to forcibly take away the choices, and very life, of the unborn.
If the life issue re-brands itself, it should re-brand itself as a “freedom” issue. The freedom of the unborn needs to protected. Their choice to live needs to be defended. If the unborn aren’t free, none of us are free.
The unborn should not be shackled to the decision of the Mother.
I believe that abortion is the greatest injustice out there. Even greater than wars or poverty. Why?
In the words of President Reagan: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” in New York Times, 22 September 1980
Free the Unborn!!!
Richard, President Reagan had clarity on life issues that is beyond words.
If in the Presidential election the Republicans are not prepared to win the life issue (and that means not allowing the Democrats to relegate it to a side issue as well as not allowing the Democrats to dismiss the pro-life position as intolerant) then the Republicans will lose the election. Some people may think it is a small issue, bit it is THE ideological issue. How the life issue is narrated by the Candidates, themselves (Obama and the Republican candidate) will set the whole tone of the Presidential election.
I think this plays out one of four ways, in order of how I think it will play out:
– Romney wins nomination – Paul stays hot enough to take enough of a chunk out of Newt that Romeny wins some early states and, while not acceptable to many conservatives, benefits from multiple hard righters splitting the votes.
– Newt wins nomination – Romney underwhelms early (or Huntsman surprises and splits some votes) – the bottom feeders drop out, Newt keeps momentum and takes the nomination
– Huntsman wins – Romney underperforms and Newt-Paul split that vote – Huntsman performs better than expected in NH (would take Romney underperforming) and Huntsman becomes the hot hand at the right time
– Somebody from “the field” wins – I think Santorum is the best shot – would take Huntsman/Romney splitting that vote, and a guy like Newt underperforming, and a few other bottom feeders dropping out. A guy like Santorum could boost his profile enough to become the hot hand.
Quite frankly, I think this would be a perfect year for the option of voting for multiple acceptable candidates. I think while Romney will be least acceptable to a lot of conservatives, he has a great shot as long as Paul stays in the race long enough, and Huntsman doesn’t catch fire.
Bachmann? I believe there’s a better chance of a crazy convention where somebody comes in that didn’t even run.
When is Stanek getting into the race?
EX-GOP and Richard who do you think would make the best ticket (Pres and VP)?
I think Newt and Santorum would make a good ticket, tough call who would make the better Pres?
But I think Bachmann might impress later in this race as her confidence continues to build.
Too bad Peggy Hartshorn and Jill Stanek didn’t get into the race – that could’ve been a powerful pro-life team.
Bachmann does not have the national bona fides to sustain a winning campaign through the general election. Santorum could creep up in the rankings, but he is not going to make it this time around. Paul has a dedicated loyal following but will not garner wide support. Huntsman has the look of an Ivy League frat boy that does not resonate with primary voters.
Both Romney and Gingrich have name recognition and the bona fides to conduct a credible and winning general election campaign. Romney carries less baggage, but Gingrich seems to have the edge on taking complex issues and putting them into easily understandable 30 second sound bites.
Tyler, although any of the current hopefuls are better than Barack Obama-Joe Biden duo, Romney & Gingrich are not in my short list. In order of preference: Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry.
Tyler –
The best ticket? As a middle class father with kids, Obama and Biden.
Best chance of beating Obama? Romney and somebody like Rubio or Daniels.
Worst chance of beating Obama? I think Newt would have to have a pretty strong running mate to have a good chance – somebody not in the race. Newt’s VP would be interesting because some think he’s not conservative enough and would need a real conservative VP…while some think he’s too conservative and would need a moderate to pick up some of the independent vote. Romney has it easy – pick somebody more conservative than him (and preferably from the South).
Bachmann and Santorum would make an interesting ticket.
I never thought of it before. They are both strong conservatives and have assets/skills that would help/compliment one another.
Richard, as the debates continue each of the Republican candidates are looking better and better.
And I agree, Obama and Joe need to go.
Jill, in the “for what it’s worth” department, Santorum regrets backing Arlen Specter, and not merely because it cost him reelection. He knows it was a mistake and he should have listened to his wife, Karen, who was adamantly against it. His intentions were good, however wrong the decision turned out to be. Those intentions were two important appointments: Roberts and Alito. We got them because of what Santorum and Specter did.
Just sayin’.
Rick Santorum is still a man who is pro-life down to his bones, and he is trustworthy.
Ex-GOP, as a father of four, I don’t want Obama & Biden in charge. I care about them.
Richard – that’s fine – I know there are many in yours shoes. I just feel like there are certain members of society that really benefited from the running up of the deficit in this country, and now those people want to fix the deficit by attacking the middle and lower class.
I also get a bit nervous looking at the basics of the tax plans of guys like Cain and Perry (which other GOPers supported) – I don’t make over $125K, so it would hit me pretty good.
Ex-GOP, it’s not just a matter of taxes and what the Gov does with them.
It’s first of all a matter of values, true values.
Obama-Biden have managed with the help of the George Soros of the world to damage our society pretty well.
I suppose I don’t see much higher morality out of the GOP than the I do the left – especially now that we’ve seen the death of compassionate conservatism.
What does everyone make of Bachmann accusation of Newt influence peddling for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
I wished she asked him why he was paid the 1.6M.
Tyler: Bachmann and Santorum would make an interesting ticket.
Yeah, and an auto-win for Obama.
I do wonder about Newt – he’s the only one that seems to have some significant chance of challenging Mitt. Until now I was totally sure that Mitt would be the Republican Nominee. Now I’m down to about 95%.
I think the Mittster will be the next President.
Matthew 25
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Doug, I have heard your point many times in the last few months. “Who can beat Obama?” “Who’s electable?”
Personally, I feel that approach might work for sports or fantasy football, but not for elections and our future.
I think that’s the approach the media wants us to have, so they can tell us who we should vote for or support. That’s called conditioning.
I am not looking for someone the media says can beat Obama, I am looking for the person who has the heart in the right place and the willingness to stand up and fight for true values even if it’s not always “popular”.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. This morning when I went outside I found that someone had thrown an egg at the “Choose Life” plate I just installed on my car and I thought that it was a positive thing. The plate had provoked thoughts, not very friendly, but nonetheless they were a consequence of thinking about a true value: “Life”.
So, we don’t always have to go with what others or the media say. If we go by what the media tell us the risk is that we end up with the same people we criticized, saying “they are just like the Democrats” (and I am talking now about Romney and Gingrich).
So, ask yourself what your true values really are and support the person that lives by them. Forget about “who can beat Obama”.
He can beat himself anytime!
America used to be a lot better off because many more people used to think AND act like Richard at 12-17-2011 12:39pm. If the enslaved sheep victims of endless media manipulation ever manage to break free of their mental Orwellian peonage and instead learn to think for themselves, we will all be better off once again.
Richard, I agree with you. If we only vote for those we think will get elected, then we will never get who we want!
I’m voting for Bachman if she makes it to my state.
Is there anyone out there who represents the pro-life stance, yet does not abandon the least of our brethren? Show me a Dem with the courage to stand up for the unborn and reveal the sham that the women’s rights movement has become…show me a GOP-er with the guts to call out his/her party for the blatant pocket-lining of the richest at the expense of the hard working middle class…then and only then will my vote be cast for a worthy candidate. In one way or another, democrat or republican (lower case on purpose here), someone is endorsing the spilling the blood of the weak for the ill gotten gain of the powerful. I see no family values anywhere these days.
tristessa1969: Alan Keyes was betrayed by the Republican Party when he ran for U.S. Senator in Illinois in 2004. They wouldn’t even let him speak at the Republican National Convention. At the same time, the Democrats gave full steam ahead backing and showcasing to Obama so that he could beat Keyes. From there, Obama springboarded into the White House. If the institutional Republican Party had supported Keyes rather than burying him, we could easily have had a much better president than Obama by 2008, and therefore today and into the future. Keyes understands very well the fraudulent labels worn by sell-out “Republicans” who pretend to defend innocent babies, but cynically scheme to betray them and the rest of us at the same time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAvIfWgmGlw (Alan Keyes at Colorado Right to Life, Sept. 2011)
See also Matthew 7:15-29–
True and False Prophets
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
The Wise and Foolish Builders
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
Addendum– Alan Keyes isn’t running this year, but Michele Bachmann is. She is solidly pro-life and doesn’t weasel like some of the others. Gingrich and Romney are already widely known for their doubledealing on various issues including abortion, simply turning in whatever direction the winds seem to be blowing this day or that. Ron Paul will betray children to abortion if this or that state wants legalized abortion under his theories of states’ rights. Perry nominally is pro-life, but he’s from the same sellout power base as George Bush, whose wife and daughter openly came out pro-abortion only AFTER Bush was out of the White House and not needing the votes of trusting suckers any more. Huntsman is a relic of the Obama administration. Santorum talks a good talk, but when push comes to shove he will cut deals and compromise with evil like he did selling out Toomey to benefit Specter, who soon enough defected to the Democrat baby-killing machine and then went down in flames himself. The only consistent trustworthy candidate for protecting innocent babies and a host of other issues is Michele Bachmann. She says what she means, means what she says, and doesn’t cut backroom betrayal deals afterwards.
Randy Crawford said “The only consistent trustworthy candidate for protecting innocent babies and a host of other issues is Michele Bachmann. She says what she means, means what she says, and doesn’t cut backroom betrayal deals afterwards”.
Randy I agree with you 100 %
Richard: Doug, I have heard your point many times in the last few months. “Who can beat Obama?” “Who’s electable?” Personally, I feel that approach might work for sports or fantasy football, but not for elections and our future.
I’d say it depends what you want. If it’s “idealism” that matches your own that is your primary concern, then pick away. If you want a Republican to win in 2012, it may be a whole different deal.
___
I think that’s the approach the media wants us to have, so they can tell us who we should vote for or support. That’s called conditioning.
Well, maybe…. Do you really think the media “wants” one of the potential Republican nominees more than the others?
___
I am not looking for someone the media says can beat Obama, I am looking for the person who has the heart in the right place and the willingness to stand up and fight for true values even if it’s not always “popular”.
In no way do I only think it’s the media. Take Santorum – he’s just plain too darn kooky and scary, a sure loser. Doesn’t matter what the media says.
____
Let me give you an example of what I mean. This morning when I went outside I found that someone had thrown an egg at the “Choose Life” plate I just installed on my car and I thought that it was a positive thing. The plate had provoked thoughts, not very friendly, but nonetheless they were a consequence of thinking about a true value: “Life”. So, we don’t always have to go with what others or the media say. If we go by what the media tell us the risk is that we end up with the same people we criticized, saying “they are just like the Democrats” (and I am talking now about Romney and Gingrich). So, ask yourself what your true values really are and support the person that lives by them. Forget about “who can beat Obama”. He can beat himself anytime!
Anybody can “beat themself” any time. McCain’s “Hail Mary” attempt with Palin nailed his election coffin shut, and – unfairly – that weighs on Bachmann’s chances some now.
You certainly don’t have to go with what others or the media say, but again – many pro-lifers are looking at potential Supreme Court nominees, and they think that having a Republican as President is their best hope. Not saying that’s a “sure thing” for pro-lifers, either. Nixon was a lawyer, and had a good legal mind, and he appointed good Supreme Court justices. They ended up making the Roe decision.
I’m Pro-Choice, and thus am not really “beating the drum” for Romney, but all along it makes sense to me that he was the “default” Republican candidate. Perry – could have been big, but he flamed out bigtime. Newt – I don’t know; I’m not writing him off.
Doug said “I’d say it depends what you want. If it’s “idealism” that matches your own that is your primary concern, then pick away. If you want a Republican to win in 2012, it may be a whole different deal.”
Doug, it’s not a matter of “idealism” (that concept would more appropriately descibe the “hope and change” slogan of Obama). It’s a matter of being consistent and true to ones own values.
Doug said: “Well, maybe…. Do you really think the media “wants” one of the potential Republican nominees more than the others?”
Yes, I do believe and know that the media loves certain candidates and despise others.
Doug said: “I’m Pro-Choice, and thus am not really “beating the drum” for Romney, but all along it makes sense to me that he was the “default” Republican candidate. Perry – could have been big, but he flamed out bigtime. Newt – I don’t know; I’m not writing him off.”
There’s no “default” candidate. We don’t have to choose a candidate because he or the media say he is the “next in line”.
Doug, it’s not a matter of “idealism” (that concept would more appropriately descibe the “hope and change” slogan of Obama). It’s a matter of being consistent and true to ones own values.
Richard, I think it’s the same thing. Stay true to your own values/ideals as the case may be, or go for having a Republican be the next President. When people talk about Bachmann/Paul/Santorum, that’s the deal as I see it.
____
Doug said: “Well, maybe…. Do you really think the media “wants” one of the potential Republican nominees more than the others?”
Yes, I do believe and know that the media loves certain candidates and despise others.
Hey, maybe so. I had not noticed anything like that myself, and among the Republican candidates, hadn’t heard people saying that or complaining about it.
___
Doug said: “I’m Pro-Choice, and thus am not really “beating the drum” for Romney, but all along it makes sense to me that he was the “default” Republican candidate. Perry – could have been big, but he flamed out bigtime. Newt – I don’t know; I’m not writing him off.”
There’s no “default” candidate. We don’t have to choose a candidate because he or the media say he is the “next in line”.
Totally disagree. Romney’s the dude. Without media influence and attention, none of the other candidates had a chance. Since the media *is* involved, we had the rise of Perry and Cain, for example. Yes, they later fell down, but they would not have gotten so high in the first place without the media. Should Newt or anybody else seriously challenge or continue to challenge Mitt, the media will have to be involved there too.
Doug admits to being pro-choice. Is that pro-choice toward having the choice of vivisecting and dismembering babies in the womb? If so, what justification is there for that? What system of justice executes the innocent? Doug appears to be advocating the slaughter of innocent children, which speaks directly to his lack of ethics and integrity. Any candidate such an unprincipled advocate would recommend is anathema to civilized standards. Label a murderer a Republican or a Nazi or a Democrat or an angel or a Communist– they’re still a murderer. If Doug is really pro-choice is he willing to choose himself for vivisection and dismemberment? Or, is Doug merely selfishly playing at political scheming by preying on the weak and helpless? Romney is well-known by the people back home in Massachusetts for being a vile double-dealing flip-flopper as to both murder by abortion and perverting society with infiltration of homosexual stratagems for power-grabs (www.massresistance.com http://www.massresistance.org) and the tree is known by the fruit it bears. Germany went to hell with Hitler because so many Germans caved in and cooperated with degeneracy. Hitler was voted into office in 1933 by a majority of Germans who were too timid to stand up for what is right. They kept cutting deals and compromising with evil and rationalizing, like Doug does in wanting to let the media make everyone’s decisions for them. If a few people had stood up to Hitler early on, World War II wouldn’t have happened. As long as shortsighted people cooperate with evil and cut deals today, they promote the destruction of civilization along with mass murder for everyone including that lust for violence which boomerangs back onto themselves as it did for Hitler and Mussolini, and similarly for more recent tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Ghaddafi. Some people never learn from history and are doomed to repeat it, but others learn the truth so the truth can make them free. Whether any particular candidate wins, it is important for them to get all the votes possible. A large quantity of “losing” votes is an advertisement to tyrants as to how many people there are out there who are fooled. When tyrants think the populace is nothing but cowering sheep, that is when we all suffer the most.
Doug says at 10:10am 12-19-2011: “Nixon was a lawyer, and had a good legal mind, and he appointed good Supreme Court justices. They ended up making the Roe decision.” Nixon was indeed a lawyer, sort of (until Watergate and his disbarment). Is that really the kind of ‘leadership’ you want to follow? Is that level of dishonesty evidence of a “good legal mind,” or more accurately the mind of a fellow devoted to cunning premeditated selfish lying, stealing, torts, malfeasance of office, bugging, and extensive lying denials based on complete guilt proven as such by his selfish fetish for recording his every imperial utterance? His “Justices” weren’t good. They were premeditated to rig the “Supreme” Court toward approving abortion’s slaughter. Nixon is on record from his own Oval Office tapes (as documented in the video Maafa 21) laughingly supporting abortion so ‘we can get rid of all those little black bastards.’ That’s the kind of guy you support when you use Nixon as your model of leadership, and your hero Romney has already shown he is made of the same selfish duplicitous stuff. Ravening wolves can come disguised as sheep, but they are still ravening wolves no matter how you may try to peddle the anesthesia to lobby for overlooking their child-slaughtering ambitions. And a large quantity of “losing” votes for a “losing” candidate is an advertisement to tyrants as to how many people there are out there who are NOT fooled. It is the cowering sheep who want to submit to media mind-control, and then whine to everyone else that there’s no one to drop what they’re doing and come save them, when they wouldn’t lift a finger to save themselves in the first place.
Doug I see you are “pro-choice” so I assume you have voted and will vote again for Barack Obama.
If that is the case I wanted to invite you to reflect on your definition of “pro-choice”. Since Obama took office the “choices” are becoming fewer and fewer. You cannot use certain light bulbs, but only the ones the government tells you to use, you cannot drive certain cars, but only others, you cannot display a nativity scene in public or say Merry Christmas in a public office, you cannot complain if a transgender man enter the women’s bathroom where you wife or daughter is, you cannot use the word God or Jesus in a VA cemetery, etc. Choices are fewer and fewer!
If you refer to abortion specifically, women who recur to abortion most of the times feel there’s “NO choice” for them. There’s no one left but abortion. Even the government tells them there’s no choice if it blocks funding to Medicare unless the State gives money to Planned Parenthood or denies grants to the Catholic Church’s programs to help sex trafficking victims because they don’t refer to abortion centers. So, what “choice” are you talking about when you say your are “pro-choice”.
I believe the only real “choice” out there is to do “good” not evil!
That said, even in these primaries and elections we need to make the “good” choice.
Richard – a couple of quick questions:
– Wasn’t the lightbulb provision part of the Energy Independence Act of 2007?
– What cars can’t I go out and buy?
– What legislation has Obama enacted that bans saying Merry Christmas?
– What transgender law are you referring to?
– “God” and “Jesus” and the VA – I suppose you are referring to the Houston case – how is that linked to Obama at all?
Pro-choice is no choice. It deprives an innocent helpless baby of his or her life, and that little human gets NO choice at all. What system of justice executes the innocent? (google ‘abortion picturs’ to see what happens to innocent babies in an America that has killed more victims than Hitler’s death camps and Stalin’s put together).
Ex-GOP, I’ll be happy to answer your questions after you have answered mine: “So, what “choice” are you talking about when you say your are “pro-choice”?
Time will tell whether the “pro-choice” advocates realize that if they allow choosing “procedures” to be done on anybody else, they are hypocrites if they don’t also allow the same “procedures” to be chosen for themselves.
Randy: Nixon was indeed a lawyer, sort of (until Watergate and his disbarment). Is that really the kind of ‘leadership’ you want to follow? Is that level of dishonesty evidence of a “good legal mind,” or more accurately the mind of a fellow devoted to cunning premeditated selfish lying, stealing, torts, malfeasance of office, bugging, and extensive lying denials based on complete guilt proven as such by his selfish fetish for recording his every imperial utterance?
:) I knew somebody would get fired up about Nixon…
Randy, Nixon did go too far, and he was kind of kooky about some stuff, yeah. He did do pretty well with foreign policy, though.
In no way is Romney my “hero.” I’m just looking at the reality of the political landscape and all the Republican candidates. I certainly don’t have a crystal ball, but as of now, to propose that anybody but the Newtster poses a serious threat to Romney is farfetched.
Randy: Doug admits to being pro-choice. Is that pro-choice toward having the choice of vivisecting and dismembering babies in the womb? If so, what justification is there for that? What system of justice executes the innocent?
It’s being for abortion being a legal choice for pregnant women. Yes, the unborn die in an abortion, but it’s not claiming the unborn are “guilty.” There’s no capacity for guilt in the first place. It’s not that any systemic decision is made to end a given pregnancy, it’s up to the pregnant woman herself.
____
Time will tell whether the “pro-choice” advocates realize that if they allow choosing “procedures” to be done on anybody else, they are hypocrites if they don’t also allow the same “procedures” to be chosen for themselves.
If I was non-sentient, had no cognition, no personality, emotion, etc., and was inside the body of a person, then yeah, the procedure could be the same, and I wouldn’t care about it, same as you. I wouldn’t be aware of anything. There might be a living organism there, but there would be no “me” in that respect.
Doug said “If I was non-sentient, had no cognition, no personality, emotion, etc., and was inside the body of a person, then yeah, the procedure could be the same, and I wouldn’t care about it, same as you. I wouldn’t be aware of anything. There might be a living organism there, but there would be no “me” in that respect.”
Doug, a child in the womb IS aware, can dream, can feel, and reacts to stimuli.If you and I don’t remember that experience it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
S/he is a new person and I believe s/he deserves a special protection just because s/he is not at the same level as the adult yet. I am sure that everybody would call for “unfairness” and “injustice” if a powerful adult would force his or her will on a powerless adult. Why is it we don’t do the same for a pre-born baby?
Richard: I wanted to invite you to reflect on your definition of “pro-choice”.
That the choice of abortion be legal.
___
Since Obama took office the “choices” are becoming fewer and fewer. You cannot use certain light bulbs, but only the ones the government tells you to use, you cannot drive certain cars, but only others, you cannot display a nativity scene in public or say Merry Christmas in a public office, you cannot complain if a transgender man enter the women’s bathroom where you wife or daughter is, you cannot use the word God or Jesus in a VA cemetery, etc. Choices are fewer and fewer!
We’ve had changes and restrictions coming during Republican administrations too. Heck – Randy Crawford’s hero Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency. ;)
If you’re really bummed-out about your 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs, you’ll still be able to go with incandescent replacements. They’ll just have a better filament in them – that’s what the new law requires – and you’ll get as much light from a 72 watt bulb then.
On driving certain cars – not sure what ones we’re “losing.” I presume they are the less-fuel-efficient? To me, this is not a big deal. There have been fuel mileage standards for a long time. I don’t particularly care about it – I’ve been heavily invested in energy for the past eleven years, and if anything ‘more consumption’ is good for me, but all in all it’s way, way down on my list of stuff to be worrying about.
In that vein – what really sucked for me was the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, the huge energy prices increases of the 1970’s, and the new pollution controls and mandated design-changes in cars back then. There I was, 14 years old, and I’d grown up seeing all these cool “muscle cars” running around. Then before I even had a damn driver’s license, it all ended. : P
On the religious stuff, the political-correctness, not being supposed to say “Merry Christmas” in certain places, etc., I think a lot of it is a crock of crap. Good grief, people….
Not being able to say “God” in a VA cemetery – that is one instance where I do think there was some “religious hostility” at work. It’s hardly any mandate from the Obama administration. It was just one woman who was an administrator of some type, right? I think that separating church and state is a good principle, but I would tell her, “FFS, are you *seriously* worried about somebody saying “God” in a cemetery?”
____
If you refer to abortion specifically, women who recur to abortion most of the times feel there’s “NO choice” for them. There’s no one left but abortion.
Short of being physically compelled otherwise, abortion will be chosen if it’s wanted, on-balance. Whether it’s seen as “the only thing to do,” or whether it’s “51/49” in favor of it. If a woman would continue a pregnancy, all other things being equal, and is choosing it because she’s too poor, then that’s her motivation. I’m fine with people giving her aid, too. I also wonder how in the heck she’s going to support born kids…. I’m a “no such thing as a free lunch” person, quite a bit, and think that people should not do things they can’t afford. Where do we draw the line?
___
Even the government tells them there’s no choice if it blocks funding to Medicare unless the State gives money to Planned Parenthood or denies grants to the Catholic Church’s programs to help sex trafficking victims because they don’t refer to abortion centers. So, what “choice” are you talking about when you say your are “pro-choice”.
To me, this sounds like you are upset that the gov’t is not pushing your agenda, even though you are against a thing that is legal. I don’t see it as “telling them there’s no choice,” just because the gov’t does or does not do a given thing with respect to the funding of a given entity.
___
I believe the only real “choice” out there is to do “good” not evil!
Well, Richard, you sound like a nice and good guy.
____
That said, even in these primaries and elections we need to make the “good” choice.
I guess it’s a question of what is the greater good, in the election, then.
Doug, first, “legal” doesn’t mean “just”. I would say abortion is “legal”, but definetly “injust”.
Second, my point is “pro-choice” today really means pro “No-choice”. The current government, the Obama administration is creating an environment where’s there’s NO choice, but the government’s choice. The Obama administration is willing to even shut down the governement over defunding Planned Parenthood.
So, the “greater good” you’re looking for is to bring back true values, completely human and completely religious to this society: Life, Dignity, Justice, Family, Protection for the weak, etc.
DOUG: ===I knew somebody would get fired up about Nixon…
Randy, Nixon did go too far, and he was kind of kooky about some stuff, yeah. He did do pretty well with foreign policy, though.
In no way is Romney my “hero.” I’m just looking at the reality of the political landscape and all the Republican candidates. I certainly don’t have a crystal ball, but as of now, to propose that anybody but the Newtster poses a serious threat to Romney is farfetched.===
CRAWFORD: Nixon was kookey, and he did something you like with foreign policy. In other words, you can’t defend what he did with abortion and using the Supreme Court as his babykilling political front– so you are trying to change the subject to foreign policy, and hope nobody notices. Romney was your stated pick. Submitting to media picks makes the compliant nothing more than submissive sheep of media mind control. Evidently you prefer someone else make your decisions for you. Fortunately, our ancestors understood it was a tough challenge they had against George III, but they took the risks anyway. Those who are afraid to stick their necks out and stand up for anything are rapidly enslaved, so if you persist in wishing that as your fate you’ll have little to complain of as to your ulterior and ultimate circumstances. This road you follow along with millions of other voters who go for accommodating the likes of Obama, Bush, and Clinton, then feel the pain of sliding downhill but have no idea they are the reasons it is happening. Romney is of the same lineage, going back to his father’s failed 1968 presidential bid. Romney is well known to massresistance.com = massresistance.org from back home in Massachusetts, and they did an updated feature on his perverted doubletalk since yesterday, including his running interference for his ‘friends’ on the Iowa campaign trail, q.v.
Randy: Doug admits to being pro-choice. Is that pro-choice toward having the choice of vivisecting and dismembering babies in the womb? If so, what justification is there for that? What system of justice executes the innocent?
Doug:It’s being for abortion being a legal choice for pregnant women. Yes, the unborn die in an abortion, but it’s not claiming the unborn are “guilty.” There’s no capacity for guilt in the first place. It’s not that any systemic decision is made to end a given pregnancy, it’s up to the pregnant woman herself.
Randy again– Then it is equally fair for anyone to support butchering you as a matter of convenience to get you out of their way. Your neighbor may want to build a mall, so if he wants to hack you to pieces in bed tonight and bulldoze your house away tomorrow, it’s not that you are guilty of anything, it’s up to your neighbor upon whom you are selfishly imposing. As it says on the front of the Supreme Court “Equal justice under law.” So, if you insist on certain standards of ‘justice,’ equal observance requires your own rules be applied to you.
Randy: Time will tell whether the “pro-choice” advocates realize that if they allow choosing “procedures” to be done on anybody else, they are hypocrites if they don’t also allow the same “procedures” to be chosen for themselves.
Doug: If I was non-sentient, had no cognition, no personality, emotion, etc., and was inside the body of a person, then yeah, the procedure could be the same, and I wouldn’t care about it, same as you. I wouldn’t be aware of anything. There might be a living organism there, but there would be no “me” in that respect.
Randy again– You are non-sentient when you are asleep or under anesthesia. Under this criterion, it would be legitimate for anyone to blow you away since you’d be dead before you had a chance to wake up. Ditto with cognition, personality, emotion etc., and you claim you ‘wouldn’t care.’ By your so-called standards, as long as you don’t realize you are being eliminated, you’d have no grounds for objecting. The fact of the matter though is that for most of their time in the womb babies are seen reacting to stimuli and playing with their arms and legs on ultrasound, so your premises is further false throughout most of pregancy on that criterion alone.
Here’s a write-up that came out yesterday. It’s a self analysis of the psychology of women who get sucked into pro-abortion propaganda and mind-control, and who manage to escape from the murderous slime pit with great difficulty– if they survive the accompanying guilt and tendency to commit suicide. The ones who fully succumb obviously haven’t lived to tell how they were lied to and played for fools, and most of the other survivors are too ashamed to come out in the open like this exceptional woman bravely has:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/19/from-suicide-to-conversion-recovering-from-an-abortion/
Richard –
When the heck did I say I was pro-choice?
Now in regards to your rant that I questioned, let me just say that you need to do a little research into what you read. The lightbulb legislation was signed by Bush.
No vehicles have been banned by the current administration. To suggest so is simply lying.
Your rants regarding nativity scenes, transgendered people in bathrooms, and VA cemataries – against, out in left field.
There are plenty of things to rant about regarding Obama. If I were you, I would read other people’s posts more closely, and stop making things up (lying). It is not helpful on a site with debate, and not acceptable in the internet age where information is widely available.
Randy: Nixon was kookey, and he did something you like with foreign policy. In other words, you can’t defend what he did with abortion and using the Supreme Court as his babykilling political front– so you are trying to change the subject to foreign policy, and hope nobody notices.
Good grief…. I’m Pro-Choice and don’t feel the need to “defend” Nixon’s Supreme Court picks. I don’t see the state as having a good enough reason to take away the liberty that women have in the matter of abortion, and the “Nixon court” found that way. Nixon was generally acknowledged to have had good foreign policy. I brought him up since he was Republican and they are more normally the favorites of pro-lifers.
____
Romney was your stated pick. Submitting to media picks makes the compliant nothing more than submissive sheep of media mind control.
Nonsense. The media isn’t even required here. Romney was far and away the most likely to be the Republican nominee. Silence the media totally a year or more ago, and nobody else would have threatened him, not Perry, not Gingrich. With the media involved, we’ve got the Newtster mounting what may be a serious challenge.
____
Evidently you prefer someone else make your decisions for you.
Ludicrous. That someone is far and away the most likely to get selected is often a valid observation, that’s all.
____
Fortunately, our ancestors understood it was a tough challenge they had against George III, but they took the risks anyway. Those who are afraid to stick their necks out and stand up for anything are rapidly enslaved, so if you persist in wishing that as your fate you’ll have little to complain of as to your ulterior and ultimate circumstances. This road you follow along with millions of other voters who go for accommodating the likes of Obama, Bush, and Clinton, then feel the pain of sliding downhill but have no idea they are the reasons it is happening.
A very large (and silly) straw man on your part, there.
___
Romney is of the same lineage, going back to his father’s failed 1968 presidential bid. Romney is well known to massresistance.com = massresistance.org from back home in Massachusetts, and they did an updated feature on his perverted doubletalk since yesterday, including his running interference for his ‘friends’ on the Iowa campaign trail, q.v.
Okay, at last you are at least making some sense here. Yeah, no argument about Romney’s past or some of his tendencies. That in no way refutes what I’ve said about his chances to be the Republican nominee.
Randy: Then it is equally fair for anyone to support butchering you as a matter of convenience to get you out of their way.
If I was inside the body of that person and non-viable, then you might have a case there, but of course it’s not that way.
____
Your neighbor may want to build a mall, so if he wants to hack you to pieces in bed tonight and bulldoze your house away tomorrow, it’s not that you are guilty of anything, it’s up to your neighbor upon whom you are selfishly imposing. As it says on the front of the Supreme Court “Equal justice under law.” So, if you insist on certain standards of ‘justice,’ equal observance requires your own rules be applied to you.
Again, you’d need me inside the body of the person, not having had rights and personhood attributed, etc., and you don’t have any of that.
_____
You are non-sentient when you are asleep or under anesthesia.
Doesn’t matter – there is not anything sufficiently analogous to the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy at work there, anesthesia or not And you’re wrong about sentience and sleep. A sentient person who is asleep is just that; they don’t magically become “non-sentient.”
____
Under this criterion, it would be legitimate for anyone to blow you away since you’d be dead before you had a chance to wake up. Ditto with cognition, personality, emotion etc., and you claim you ‘wouldn’t care.’ By your so-called standards, as long as you don’t realize you are being eliminated, you’d have no grounds for objecting.
Meaningless – you still don’t have anything like the claim of the pregnant woman, i.e. “it’s inside her body.” You were wrong about sleep, and anesthesia doesn’t magically remove rights, the presumed interest of the state, etc., attributed at birth.
____
The fact of the matter though is that for most of their time in the womb babies are seen reacting to stimuli and playing with their arms and legs on ultrasound, so your premises is further false throughout most of pregancy on that criterion alone.
At the very least, that is arguable. There is reflexive motion fairly early on in gestation, but as far as true conscious response, that comes a good bit later. Is it after 20 weeks gestation? I think so, but for most fetuses as we get late in the 2nd trimester, i.e. into the weeks in the 20s, there is some sentience, so it’s debateable.
Richard: Doug, first, “legal” doesn’t mean “just”. I would say abortion is “legal”, but definetly “injust”.
Okay, your opinion. But you’d asked about my definition of “pro-choice,” and “being in favor of legal abortion” is the deal there. In the context of the abortion debate, that we are talking about the choice of abortion being legal should not be too huge of a surprise.
____
Second, my point is “pro-choice” today really means pro “No-choice”. The current government, the Obama administration is creating an environment where’s there’s NO choice, but the government’s choice. The Obama administration is willing to even shut down the governement over defunding Planned Parenthood.
Past administrations, without regard to party, have had restrictions, standards, impacts, etc. on the American people. Obama’s is no different, and hardly “no choice.” The President can’t really initiate stuff in that vein anyway, short of some “emergency powers act” (or something like that) and even among the Presidents who paid lip service to some of the popular notions of what “pro-life” is, very few really even leaned that way. Reagan did have one particular gambit – he asked then Surgeon General Koop to prepare a report about the health risks of abortion. Koop, though even farther to the right, politically, than Reagan, and against abortion in general, didn’t really want to do it, and neither he nor his staff came up with anything to Reagan’s desired effect that “abortion was risky.”
____
So, the “greater good” you’re looking for is to bring back true values, completely human and completely religious to this society: Life, Dignity, Justice, Family, Protection for the weak, etc.
And if you’re thinking that, then who would “bring those values back to this society”? Someone who can’t win the election? I don’t think so.
FRC issues voting guide
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/21/frc-voting-guide-bachmann-perry-santorum-most-pro-life/
Randy: Nixon was kookey, and he did something you like with foreign policy. In other words, you can’t defend what he did with abortion and using the Supreme Court as his babykilling political front– so you are trying to change the subject to foreign policy, and hope nobody notices.
Doug: Good grief…. I’m Pro-Choice and don’t feel the need to “defend” Nixon’s Supreme Court picks. I don’t see the state as having a good enough reason to take away the liberty that women have in the matter of abortion, and the “Nixon court” found that way. Nixon was generally acknowledged to have had good foreign policy. I brought him up since he was Republican and they are more normally the favorites of pro-lifers.
Randy again==== Pro-choice? Are you pro-choice when the choice is vivisecting and dismembering you? Taking away the
“liberty” to butcher a little kid is like taking away the “liberty” butcher you. It’s already started in the unplugging of life support, which is a risk you now face when your time comes even if you in reality have another 20 years to live. You’re now a burden, so if Good Dr. Jones unplugs you and keeps it hushed up, nobody needs to know about your premature death. Nobody needs to spend a sleepless hour bothering to try to save you anymore. The abortion murder mentality has helped make it happen, as both abortion and unplugging you too soon are rationalized as financial necessities, or at least conveniences which is good enough for the unprincipled selfish greedy bloodsuckers out there. You don’t have to really join the club unless you insist on remaining in it. But as long as you remain in the club of those who rationalize murder with cozy cover-up labels, you are plodding further down the road you’re already on to harvesting your own bitter fruit. Nixon was a liar on many levels, and schemed to foist abortion on the nation (cf. video “Maafa 21” where Oval Office tapes showed he gleefully schemed to abort “those little black bastards.”) Nixon’s foreign policy is off-topic, so you must be desperate for a distraction as you keep referring to that irrelevancy. The “Republican” label is an excuse for nothing when the “Republican” goes along with slaughtering the innocent. You will understand better the day it’s your head on the chopping block. Meanwhile you can pretend to be smugly dismissive, but in the world of dishing out mass slaughter the boomerang tends to come home to roost as it already is doing for you and all of us in the cited critical “care” unpluggings that are happening more and more frequently in the wee hours of the night.
Randy previously: Romney was your stated pick. Submitting to media picks makes the compliant nothing more than submissive sheep of media mind control.
Doug response:Nonsense. The media isn’t even required here. Romney was far and away the most likely to be the Republican nominee. Silence the media totally a year or more ago, and nobody else would have threatened him, not Perry, not Gingrich. With the media involved, we’ve got the Newtster mounting what may be a serious challenge.
Randy response=== You say “The media isn’t even required” then two sentences later you hypocritically step on yourself via “With the media involved…” You know full well the media influence is what is leading so many people by the nose, and you have just admitted this tack you made obvious earlier many times. You are turning to the media as your decision maker, rather than thinking for yourself, and your advocacy is for everyone else to be a cowering sheep allowing the media owners to dictate how everyone should vote because supposedly only their anointed picks are viable. Your doubletalk fools only those who don’t pay attention to what you say. In reality, citizens need to speak for themselves and not let either the media or media apologists set themselves up as lords and masters. They (and you) wear nothing but the Emperor’s new clothes.
Randy previously: Romney is of the same lineage, going back to his father’s failed 1968 presidential bid. Romney is well known to massresistance.com = massresistance.org from back home in Massachusetts, and they did an updated feature on his perverted doubletalk since yesterday, including his running interference for his ‘friends’ on the Iowa campaign trail, q.v.
Doug response: Okay, at last you are at least making some sense here. Yeah, no argument about Romney’s past or some of his tendencies. That in no way refutes what I’ve said about his chances to be the Republican nominee.
Randy now==== There you go again. The polling alleged in the media is your guiding star. Media mind-control tries to psyche people into thinking that only their favored pet can win, so everyone else needs to go along. It’s the same mentality of Dictator X is pre-ordained, so everyone has to go along with him. If this were 1933 Germany, the analogy is you (using the same criteria) would have just gone with the flow for Hitler because he was the pre-ordained guy, and who is any individual to stand up for what is right? You might as well live in a Shirley Jackson world of “The Lottery” (http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html) and let anything happen because it is popular. When the day comes that it is popular for you to pay the price and have no rights, then you will see where your own folly and selfish attitude leads.
Doug 12-20-2011 10:53pm makes numerous protestations that being “inside the woman’s body” confers special status somehow legitimizing killing.
Randy: First of all, that argument is a dodge. The topic was sentience, and you are grasping at an irrelevant straw to try to wander off topic. Location has nothing to do with a person’s right to their own life, much as you or the Supreme Court would like to fabricate a pretext out of a location. If your argument were true, you could be stuffed back into your mother’s overly stretched uterus and vivisected on a whim. If your argument were true, the landlord of an apartment you were visiting could vivisect you because you were inside his or her property. “Being inside” is a fabricated pretext to try to obscure an injustice, and is actually no kind of justification. It was just the best the Supreme Court could rig up (based on Norma McCorvey’s then-unrecanted lies) to try to con the gullible. The Supreme Court also was unconstitutional with Roe v. Wade’s deception in that they ignored the specifications of the Preamble for the entire Constitution, viz: the Constitution’s protections are for “ourselves and our Posterity” in an equivalent way, with no allowances for inequality or inferior status. The only implied status distinction is that our Posterity is more important than ourselves because ‘Posterity’ is capitalized and ‘ourselves’ is not, right there in the Preamble. In attempting to cast children in the womb as somehow inferior and not deserving of protection, you and the Supreme Court in Roe are using Untermenschen arguments, pretending like Hitler’s Nazi regime that if people can be labelled as inferior, then it is OK to kill off lesser beings. Not only is that (from you and/or the Supreme Court) a totally bogus load of crock, it would if true allow the same Untermenschen designation to be applied to you on whatever passing whim, and be another way you provide anyone with an excuse to hang you. Since you keep wanting to make yourself a candidate for extinction on a whim, it further follows your flawed arguments can’t be worth anything either.
Randy previously: Under this criterion, it would be legitimate for anyone to blow you away since you’d be dead before you had a chance to wake up. Ditto with cognition, personality, emotion etc., and you claim you ‘wouldn’t care.’ By your so-called standards, as long as you don’t realize you are being eliminated, you’d have no grounds for objecting.
Doug response: Meaningless – you still don’t have anything like the claim of the pregnant woman, i.e. “it’s inside her body.” You were wrong about sleep, and anesthesia doesn’t magically remove rights, the presumed interest of the state, etc., attributed at birth.
Randy answer=== Your earlier attempt at an argument was that lack of sentience was an excuse to be able to kill. Because you say “anesthesia doesn’t magically remove rights” then you have just disagreed with your own argument, because anesthesia is a lack of sentience, and therefore you are supporting my point that “anesthesia [lack of sentience] doesn’t magically remove rights.” Exactly so. Perhaps you are starting to understand the defective hypocrisy of your argument now that you have again stumbled all over it. It’s true– lack of sentience whether by anesthesia or by being a young embryo doesn’t remove rights. That’s a big part of why abortion is totally unjustifiable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You also err grievously when you refer to “…rights, the presumed interest of the state, etc. attributed at birth.” Don’t you understand we have laws and a Constitution to protect us from the state, for instance state-sponsored mass murder such as Hitler and Stalin practiced? You have tripped yourself up seriously in revealing you think rights are for the state rather than recognizing them for the citizens. As was obvious previously, and now as you make plain out of your own mouth, your affiliation is for the state to have the rights. It was indeed obvious previously you have an affinity for dictatorial control and loss of individual rights. The more you write down your thoughts the more you make it obvious what your dictatorial murderous agenda is. Rights for the state, citizens be forgotten and damned. You further reveal the diseased nature of this line of degenerated non-American ‘thinking’ by supposing that rights are ‘attributed,’ in your example at birth. If you want the state to attribute your rights to you rather than possessing them automatically, what are you going to do if they decide they don’t want to attribute any to you? What are you going to do when the state decides its attribution is going to be suddenly recalled, and so yesterday you had rights but–surprise!! today you don’t have them any more because your allotment of attributed rights has been withdrawn? The more you spin along with fraudulent non-arguments, the more you reveal the mentality of capricious dictatorship. You need to study distant and recent history to better understand what tends to happen to dictators along with their regimes.
Richard previously: So, the “greater good” you’re looking for is to bring back true values, completely human and completely religious to this society: Life, Dignity, Justice, Family, Protection for the weak, etc.
Doug: And if you’re thinking that, then who would “bring those values back to this society”? Someone who can’t win the election? I don’t think so.
Randy now===== Doug asks WHO is going to bring values to society. If not someone who can’t win an election, Doug must be aspiring to get his values from someone WHO can win an election. Again, Doug, you are advocating for America to be a nation of passive unthinking sheep, following some politician. You can’t seem to understand that the American way of doing things is WE THE PEOPLE tell our leaders what we want, and they serve us. Not the leaders dictating to the citizens like it’s Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. You keep coming back to the cowering sheep in a dictatorship model where the Great Leader (in this case the guy who wins the election) is going to bring values to society. Get a clue from world history sometime, please. You continuously aspire to an Orwellian 1984 Brave New World where the Great Leader will decide things even down to telling people what their values are supposed to be. If you don’t understand what built America and what (formerly) made us great, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea, at least under the previous two N.Korean regimes. They were real good at having the media tell you who is popular, and having the winner of the latest 100.000% polling results election tell you what your values are supposed to be, and whether you have no rights attributed to you so today they are free to use you in the Great Leader’s latest nerve gas experiments. Do you have any clue at all how bleak your aspirations and prospects are when you start the process of depriving other people of their rights?
Randy: Romney was your stated pick. Submitting to media picks makes the compliant nothing more than submissive sheep of media mind control.
Doug: “Nonsense. The media isn’t even required here. Romney was far and away the most likely to be the Republican nominee. Silence the media totally a year or more ago, and nobody else would have threatened him, not Perry, not Gingrich. With the media involved, we’ve got the Newtster mounting what may be a serious challenge.”
You say “The media isn’t even required” then two sentences later you hypocritically step on yourself via “With the media involved…” You know full well the media influence is what is leading so many people by the nose, and you have just admitted this tack you made obvious earlier many times.
Nonsense again. Without the media, Mitt was a shoe-in. Nobody has to concoct any grandiose “media schemes” for that to be true. He really is the default Republican nominee this time around.
You seem to be worried about the media, but it is the media that is allowing others, including Newt, to challenge Mitt.
Randy: Romney is of the same lineage, going back to his father’s failed 1968 presidential bid. Romney is well known to massresistance.com = massresistance.org from back home in Massachusetts, and they did an updated feature on his perverted doubletalk since yesterday, including his running interference for his ‘friends’ on the Iowa campaign trail, q.v.
Doug: “Okay, at last you are at least making some sense here. Yeah, no argument about Romney’s past or some of his tendencies. That in no way refutes what I’ve said about his chances to be the Republican nominee.”
There you go again. The polling alleged in the media is your guiding star.
Wrong. The fact is that more Republicans would have voted for Mitt than anybody else in the race, had the election been held back when the field of candidates was set. This is true regardless of how much the media focused on it. I don’t particularly care who the Republican nominee ends up being, but if anything it will be the media that helps somebody else than Romney get in, if they get in.
____
Media mind-control tries to psyche people into thinking that only their favored pet can win, so everyone else needs to go along.
In some cases, yeah. But what is happening in the US is that with the media coverage, other people have a change to challenge Mitt. Do you want to somehow “silence the media” here?
____
It’s the same mentality of Dictator X is pre-ordained, so everyone has to go along with him. If this were 1933 Germany, the analogy is you (using the same criteria) would have just gone with the flow for Hitler because he was the pre-ordained guy, and who is any individual to stand up for what is right? You might as well live in a Shirley Jackson world of “The Lottery” (http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html) and let anything happen because it is popular. When the day comes that it is popular for you to pay the price and have no rights, then you will see where your own folly and selfish attitude leads.
If this were 1933, you’d be with old Adolph, who was as anti-choice as any pro-lifer. He was against the liberty that American women now have – he wanted Aryan women to be prohibited from having abortions, and he wanted some non-Aryan women to be forced to have them.
Randy: Doug 12-20-2011 10:53 p.m. makes numerous protestations that being “inside the woman’s body” confers special status somehow legitimizing killing.
Well, that is of course only part of what is applicable. Yes, it does make a difference. If the unborn were not inside the body of a person, things would be much different, and there would not be the abortion debate as we have it. In no way is that the end-all of the argument, but it definitely has a big part.
____
First of all, that argument is a dodge. The topic was sentience, and you are grasping at an irrelevant straw to try to wander off topic.
Nonsense. Yes, sentience also may be a consideration, but rather than quote me (which I am not surprised you are afraid to do) you seem to be only able to pretend about the discussion here. Sentience too is a consideration for many people. We can talk about either one – the woman’s bodily autonomy or the sentience of the unborn – or both, but any “wandering” here is on your part.
___
Location has nothing to do with a person’s right to their own life, much as you or the Supreme Court would like to fabricate a pretext out of a location.
You begin with an incorrect pretense here. What you want is for society to change its position and attribute rights and personhood (apparently) to the unborn. That that has not happened yet is what has you dissatisfied.
Randy: Under this criterion, it would be legitimate for anyone to blow you away since you’d be dead before you had a chance to wake up. Ditto with cognition, personality, emotion etc., and you claim you ‘wouldn’t care.’ By your so-called standards, as long as you don’t realize you are being eliminated, you’d have no grounds for objecting.
Doug: “Meaningless – you still don’t have anything like the claim of the pregnant woman, i.e. “it’s inside her body.” You were wrong about sleep, and anesthesia doesn’t magically remove rights, the presumed interest of the state, etc., attributed at birth.:
Your earlier attempt at an argument was that lack of sentience was an excuse to be able to kill.
This is something I consider, yes, something that makes a difference to many people. I did not say that that alone justifies killing, however.
____
Because you say “anesthesia doesn’t magically remove rights” then you have just disagreed with your own argument, because anesthesia is a lack of sentience, and therefore you are supporting my point that “anesthesia [lack of sentience] doesn’t magically remove rights.”
That’s silly. Whether or not we care about the sentience of the unborn, rights have not yet been attributed there, while for the anesthesia patient they most certainly have. Also, what reason would you propose for killing the anesthesia patient that would carry anywhere near the weight of the woman’s bodily autonomy? I don’t think you could even come close.
____
Exactly so. Perhaps you are starting to understand the defective hypocrisy of your argument now that you have again stumbled all over it. It’s true– lack of sentience whether by anesthesia or by being a young embryo doesn’t remove rights.
Nonsense again. Nobody was talking about “removing rights.”
Richard: So, the “greater good” you’re looking for is to bring back true values, completely human and completely religious to this society: Life, Dignity, Justice, Family, Protection for the weak, etc.
Doug: “And if you’re thinking that, then who would “bring those values back to this society”? Someone who can’t win the election? I don’t think so.”
Randy: Doug asks WHO is going to bring values to society. If not someone who can’t win an election, Doug must be aspiring to get his values from someone WHO can win an election.
No. The point is that somebody who isn’t going to be able to “bring values to society” is just that – unable, regardless of how much one might agree with what he says.
I’m not “advocating” anything here. Richard is free to vote for who he wants to. As I said: “Stay true to your own values/ideals as the case may be, or go for having a Republican be the next President. When people talk about Bachmann/Paul/Santorum, that’s the deal as I see it.”
“If this were 1933, you’d be with old Adolph, who was as anti-choice as any pro-lifer. He was against the liberty that American women now have – he wanted Aryan women to be prohibited from having abortions, and he wanted some non-Aryan women to be forced to have them.”
LOL so true
Doug: Nonsense again. Without the media, Mitt was a shoe-in. Nobody has to concoct any grandiose “media schemes” for that to be true. He really is the default Republican nominee this time around.
You seem to be worried about the media, but it is the media that is allowing others, including Newt, to challenge Mitt.
Randy: Baloney. I live in Iowa, and every caucus I see these guys up close, have pictures with them (including in the newspapers, ditto for Democrats if I want to bother with them, on the front page of the Iowa City Press-Citizen with Hillary in 2007, dinner with Perry & recently on the front page of the Daily Iowan with him, alone in Des Moines with Obama for a Statehouse elevator ride +before&after in 2007 before he pulled ahead of Hillary, autographs from any presidential candidate I want to bother with, one-on-ones recently with Santorum, Bachmann, next to Gingrich for dinner and prefer not to diddle with him. Picture and one on one with George Jr. when he was President, Blah, blah, blah, etc. I could do a lot more of that if I wanted to work at it.) In other words, merely from floating around Iowa City or Des Moines I see the machinations up close and personal including what the national press is and isn’t doing, and is and isn’t covering. Romney isn’t playing in Iowa much this time since he has the media sewn up. His money talks for him via the media. Huckabee dropped out early and never actually got in because he couldn’t get the big New York bucks to buy media coverage the way Romney and the other institutional players do. Obama is sitting on a huge war chest funded A#1 for media buys in the general campaign. He’s just biding his time and not even warmed up yet. Leading up to 1992 Sam Nunn was scared off by George Bush Sr’s excellent press thanks to the first Gulf War, and was scared off by the accompanying polling points to the extent that a little nobody with no chance named Bill Clinton was able to trespass into the gap. All this stuff is controlled by the media which is in turn controlled by money. In other words, the problem isn’t the media itself so much as it is the desire for money being the root of (maybe all) the evil. Including money’s desire being the larger part of motivation toward running abortion mills and shortsighted greedy selfish “people” going into them. When people let themselves be guided by greed/money/publicity doing the thinking for them/all the foregoing being interrelated, then they are just polluting and prostituting themselves. When greed is the driver, there isn’t any regard for right or wrong. Note that you aren’t concerned with right or wrong, just what can be bought– like the financially anointed status you see for Romney,which is exercised through the media even though it’s based on money. If you don’t want a better world, you speak for yourself when you compromise and settle for the baser nature of substandard unthinking greedy ‘humanity.’ Jimmy Carter had his faults, but at least he gave lip service to Hyman Rickover’s concept of “Why Not the Best” even though he wasn’t civilized enough to apply the concept to letting the little people live.
“…the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. ” ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” ~ Mahatma Ghandi
PREVIOUS EXCHANGE SAMPLE: =====There you go again. The polling alleged in the media is your guiding star.
Wrong. The fact is that more Republicans would have voted for Mitt than anybody else in the race, had the election been held back when the field of candidates was set. This is true regardless of how much the media focused on it. I don’t particularly care who the Republican nominee ends up being, but if anything it will be the media that helps somebody else than Romney get in, if they get in.____
Media mind-control tries to psyche people into thinking that only their favored pet can win, so everyone else needs to go along.
In some cases, yeah. But what is happening in the US is that with the media coverage, other people have a change to challenge Mitt. Do you want to somehow “silence the media” here
RANDY NOW: ====You are wandering off on tangents and distractions. What this is all about is your original insistence on giving in to the perceived political favorite and succumbing to fatalism. The media are merely the medium for seducing suckers into passive obeisance. What is important is for people to think for themselves and not succumb to media hypnosis regardless of how important you think the media may or may not be. And no, I’m not arguing for silencing the media. I’m arguing for people getting up off their hind legs and thinking for themselves. The ravening wolves of Matthew 7:15 will likely always be with us, so people need to maintain an eternal vigilance or else they will continue to lose their liberty. Half the problem is media mind-control projects, and the larger half of the problem is fools submitting to it. Am I clear enough now? You keep fixating on tangents relating to the media, apparently so as to meander away from the previous exposures of your uncivilized standards as pertains to killing helpless innocent kids. What is important is protecting them from slaughter– not diddling with red herrings you or anyone else tries to sneak in as a distraction gambit to take attention away from the vivisection and dismemberment of little humans in the womb who only want to be cuddled and loved.
PREVIOUS EXCHANGE ======Randy: It’s the same mentality of Dictator X is pre-ordained, so everyone has to go along with him. If this were 1933 Germany, the analogy is you (using the same criteria) would have just gone with the flow for Hitler because he was the pre-ordained guy, and who is any individual to stand up for what is right? You might as well live in a Shirley Jackson world of “The Lottery” (http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html) and let anything happen because it is popular. When the day comes that it is popular for you to pay the price and have no rights, then you will see where your own folly and selfish attitude leads.
Doug: If this were 1933, you’d be with old Adolph, who was as anti-choice as any pro-lifer. He was against the liberty that American women now have – he wanted Aryan women to be prohibited from having abortions, and he wanted some non-Aryan women to be forced to have them.
RANDY NOW ==== No, I wouldn’t be with old Adolph. He doesn’t reside in mein kamp but in urine. He did want to limit Aryan abortions, but only so he could build up his master race to get more killers. In other words, Hitler’s abortion policy was NOT pro-life and any comparison with modern American pro-lifers is bogus. Hitler did want to force abortions as genocide on those he despised, so that part of his mass murder compares with America’s current abortion industry. Hitler was pro-life for his friends only long enough to propagate murder, and he was directly pro-murder for those he directly wanted to kill. But Hitler didn’t want to kill everybody all the time. Hitler, like you, was “pro-choice.” He killed only those he chose to kill, upon personal whim, just like the murder-moms walking into abortion mills do. The difference is that Hitler killed for free to the tune of 6 million victims in his death camps. But abortion mills have killed 55 million and counting, and they do it for hundreds or thousands of dollars when it only costs them about $10 to do each abortion. I know as I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and it’s set up as a blood-money assembly line so the abortionists can rake in about $100 a minute. I am against all murders, so you are particularly warped to try to compare me with Hitler. On the other hand you, like Hitler, want to designate some humans as Untermenschen (Sub-Humans) and allow them to be killed at will. That is at the rotten heart of your arguments attempting to con the gullible into thinking babies “aren’t really like us” just as Hitler proselytized “the Jews really aren’t like us.” Both are parellel attempts to fabicate a pretext to falsely ‘justify’ the unjustifiable in the mass slaughter of innocents. As usual, the guilty grasp at straws trying to rationalize murder and lull the gullible. And, as is usual with murderous hypocrisy, you wouldn’t accept even 1% of the vivisection and dismemberment of abortion to be applied to yourself or the abortionists or the murder-moms who solicit the brutal butchery of their own children.
PREVIOUS EXCHANGE==== Randy: Doug 12-20-2011 10:53 p.m. makes numerous protestations that being “inside the woman’s body” confers special status somehow legitimizing killing.
Doug:Well, that is of course only part of what is applicable. Yes, it does make a difference. If the unborn were not inside the body of a person, things would be much different, and there would not be the abortion debate as we have it. In no way is that the end-all of the argument, but it definitely has a big part.
____
Randy: First of all, that argument is a dodge. The topic was sentience, and you are grasping at an irrelevant straw to try to wander off topic.
Doug: Nonsense. Yes, sentience also may be a consideration, but rather than quote me (which I am not surprised you are afraid to do) you seem to be only able to pretend about the discussion here. Sentience too is a consideration for many people. We can talk about either one – the woman’s bodily autonomy or the sentience of the unborn – or both, but any “wandering” here is on your part.
RANDY NOW=== It is hypocritical and patently mendacious of you to claim I don’t quote you. I do extensively, while you ignore about 80% of what I say apparently because you have no refutation to offer. In using the worn-out pretexts of “located in the woman’s uterus” and “sentience,consciousness” (and “viability” which we can probably expect you to fall back on soon enough when you run out of the other worn-out pretexts)– in all those pretexts you are trying to manufacture a Hitlerian Untermenschen argument. You are trying to pretend kids in the womb ‘don’t really have rights because they aren’t really like us.’ Not only is that tack uncivilized, fraudulent, and murderous all at the same time, as well as aping the Nazis, but it also destroys your own position. It allows anyone to designate you as “not really like us” and then slaughter you on that pretext. Your arguments rot away with you as you feed the worms. Is that really a world in which you want to try to live? As I mentioned earlier, you have thereby brought on an early unplugging of your sick bed when you become an economic burden to someone, in real 21st century America. And, not surprisingly, you have been conveniently ignoring that point among many others because it illustrates the cheapening of everyone’s life (including your own) to which you degenerate society by insisting on an agenda that authorizes murder of the helpless innocents whenever convenient.
___
PREVIOUS EXCHANGE ==== Randy: Location has nothing to do with a person’s right to their own life, much as you or the Supreme Court would like to fabricate a pretext out of a location.
Doug:You begin with an incorrect pretense here. What you want is for society to change its position and attribute rights and personhood (apparently) to the unborn. That that has not happened yet is what has you dissatisfied.
RANDY NOW=== No, you have the incorrect pretense. Going back to Roe v. Wade itself, “Justice” Blackmun (installed under Nixon’s goal of “killing off those little black bastards” as previously cited from the video Maafa 21) pretended to not know whether unborn humans are legally ‘persons’ or not, as protected by the 14th Amendment. In Roe v. Wade, he said “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th]Amendment.” The Supreme Court has left the status of personhood undecided from Roe v. Wade itself, as in it is up to political activity (like personhood drives, for instance) to legally decide what personhood is. Also, Congress can specify what personhood is and remove judicial authority to change their specification. Personhood, in fact, is a legally undecided concept.
PREVIOUS EXCHANGE==== Randy: Under this criterion, it would be legitimate for anyone to blow you away since you’d be dead before you had a chance to wake up. Ditto with cognition, personality, emotion etc., and you claim you ‘wouldn’t care.’ By your so-called standards, as long as you don’t realize you are being eliminated, you’d have no grounds for objecting.
Doug: “Meaningless – you still don’t have anything like the claim of the pregnant woman, i.e. “it’s inside her body.” You were wrong about sleep, and anesthesia doesn’t magically remove rights, the presumed interest of the state, etc., attributed at birth.:
Your earlier attempt at an argument was that lack of sentience was an excuse to be able to kill.
This is something I consider, yes, something that makes a difference to many people. I did not say that that alone justifies killing, however.
RANDY NOW===== Location doesn’t justify killing. If it did, anybody could take you outside the 3 mile limit and blow you away. Anybody could stuff you back into your mother’s uterus and use that as their pretext to finish you off. You are grasping at Untermenschen straws again. Ditto with your fragmented comment on sentience which is another Untermenschen argument. If somebody decided your sentience weren’t sufficient, that would be their excuse (derived from your rationalization) to kill you. Again, is that the world you want?
____
Doug: “Nonsense again. Without the media, Mitt was a shoe-in. Nobody has to concoct any grandiose “media schemes” for that to be true. He really is the default Republican nominee this time around.
You seem to be worried about the media, but it is the media that is allowing others, including Newt, to challenge Mitt.”
Randy: Baloney. I live in Iowa, and every caucus I see these guys up close, have pictures with them (including in the newspapers, ditto for Democrats if I want to bother with them, on the front page of the Iowa City Press-Citizen with Hillary in 2007, dinner with Perry & recently on the front page of the Daily Iowan with him, alone in Des Moines with Obama for a Statehouse elevator ride +before&after in 2007 before he pulled ahead of Hillary, autographs from any presidential candidate I want to bother with, one-on-ones recently with Santorum, Bachmann, next to Gingrich for dinner and prefer not to diddle with him. Picture and one on one with George Jr. when he was President, Blah, blah, blah, etc. I could do a lot more of that if I wanted to work at it.) In other words, merely from floating around Iowa City or Des Moines I see the machinations up close and personal including what the national press is and isn’t doing, and is and isn’t covering. Romney isn’t playing in Iowa much this time since he has the media sewn up.
No argument that the media and money play a huge part. Yet again – without media coverage, who was going to give Mitt a challenge? There would have been no Perry or Cain. Would there even have been a Newt, doing as well as he is now?
There is no “putting the genie back in the bottle,” here. For any and all gripes about the media, it’s only with the media that anybody else has a chance to beat Mitt.
Even if we look at it as “He who has the most money and uses the media the best will win,” my question to Richard, as a republican, still stands. Do you simply go with whoever most closely mirrors your idealism, or do you look for a candidate that can beat Obama? It’s a question.
Randy: Media mind-control tries to psyche people into thinking that only their favored pet can win, so everyone else needs to go along.
Doug: “In some cases, yeah. But what is happening in the US is that with the media coverage, other people have a change to challenge Mitt. Do you want to somehow “silence the media” here?”
You are wandering off on tangents and distractions. What this is all about is your original insistence on giving in to the perceived political favorite and succumbing to fatalism.
That’s silly. Richard has a choice, that is what I am saying. From what he has said, it’s very probable that his chosen candidate will have no rational chance at being the Republican nominee. This is a not a “tangent,” and despite all your ranting and raving, it’s a very real concern for many Republicans.
There isn’t any “silencing the media.” Even if there was, who could then have any hope of beating Romney? It’s here, and massively influential, to be sure. Regardless of the degree which a given person might whine and moan about the media, the question to Richard stands.
Randy: Location has nothing to do with a person’s right to their own life, much as you or the Supreme Court would like to fabricate a pretext out of a location.
Doug:You begin with an incorrect pretense here. What you want is for society to change its position and attribute rights and personhood (apparently) to the unborn. That that has not happened yet is what has you dissatisfied.
No, you have the incorrect pretense. Going back to Roe v. Wade itself, “Justice” Blackmun (installed under Nixon’s goal of “killing off those little black bastards” as previously cited from the video Maafa 21) pretended to not know whether unborn humans are legally ‘persons’ or not, as protected by the 14th Amendment. In Roe v. Wade, he said “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th]Amendment.”
That doesn’t refute anything I’ve said. Sure – if personhood was deemed to be present for the unborn, then Constitutional protection would apply to them. Those arguing the other side of the case, saying that the state should be able to so restrict abortion – the appellee – agreed that no case could be cited that holds that “a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
____
The Supreme Court has left the status of personhood undecided from Roe v. Wade itself, as in it is up to political activity (like personhood drives, for instance) to legally decide what personhood is. Also, Congress can specify what personhood is and remove judicial authority to change their specification. Personhood, in fact, is a legally undecided concept.
Right – it’s not up to the Supreme Court to attribute personhood to the unborn. But it’s definitely “decided,” i.e. we attribute full rights and personhood at birth. Some recent legislative attempts have been made to chance this. Congress or the individual states could indeed accord personhood to the unborn. At that point the Supreme Court could uphold such laws, or strike them down.
Doug: “If this were 1933, you’d be with old Adolph, who was as anti-choice as any pro-lifer. He was against the liberty that American women now have – he wanted Aryan women to be prohibited from having abortions, and he wanted some non-Aryan women to be forced to have them.”
Randy: No, I wouldn’t be with old Adolph. He doesn’t reside in mein kamp but in urine. He did want to limit Aryan abortions, but only so he could build up his master race to get more killers. In other words, Hitler’s abortion policy was NOT pro-life and any comparison with modern American pro-lifers is bogus.
He was against some women having the legal choice to have abortions, and also in some cases against the legal choice to continue pregnancies. Thus, “as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.” There’s no getting around that.
Yeah, agreed that “Hitler was a bad guy,” and that his motivation was aimed at “more Aryans.” He wanted his desires to trump the desires of the pregnant women themselves, and for women with unwanted pregnancies, this is exactly the same as for pro-lifers. They too want their desires to trump the desires of the pregnant women.
“Nonsense. Yes, sentience also may be a consideration, but rather than quote me (which I am not surprised you are afraid to do) you seem to be only able to pretend about the discussion here. Sentience too is a consideration for many people. We can talk about either one – the woman’s bodily autonomy or the sentience of the unborn – or both, but any “wandering” here is on your part.”
RANDY: It is hypocritical and patently mendacious of you to claim I don’t quote you. I do extensively, while you ignore about 80% of what I say apparently because you have no refutation to offer.
“Mendacious” is a pretty sweet word. :) My point with you quoting me is that when you misrepresent what I’ve said, you certainly don’t quote me. I’ve never said that sentience or not is the end-all of the argument, nor that the lack of it, alone, was justification for killing. You, however, went with the straw man argument that I did.
If you begin a paragraph with an incorrect statement, a misrepresentation of what I’ve said, etc., why should anybody respond to every sentence of yours? Enough to say that you began with an incorrect premise. I don’t expect others to deal with every word I write – that’s just not the way most message boards work. When you put up what frankly is often “ranting and raving,” that will certainly apply, and in spades.
They too want their desires to trump the desires of the pregnant women.
Doug, it’s not about “our desires” and “what we want.” Abortion is a life and death issue.
If you think we just want to boss pregnant women around, then I don’t think you’ve listened to any of our arguments here. Ever.
PREVIOUS EXCHANGE==== Randy: Media mind-control tries to psyche people into thinking that only their favored pet can win, so everyone else needs to go along.
Doug: “In some cases, yeah. But what is happening in the US is that with the media coverage, other people have a change to challenge Mitt. Do you want to somehow “silence the media” here?”
RANDY NOW==== That’s what you’re not picking up on, or else choosing to actively disregard. “Other people” don’t “have a chan{c}e to challenge Mitt” when he and his money bags have bought off the media. Specifically, for instance, Michele Bachmann was in Iowa City yesterday Dec. 22, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street thugs did an orchestrated Hitler goon brownshirt shout-down of the candidate, totally violating American standards of freedom of speech:
(1) http://www.coralvillecourier.typepad.com/ <<small one-man start-up on the Internet
(2) http://iowacity.patch.com/articles/bachmann-encounters-gay-robot-hecklers-in-liberal-iowa-city <<new medium-size Internet operation
(3) http://www.press-citizen.com/comments/article/20111223/NEWS01/312230008/Protesters-Bachmann-You-re-not-wanted-here <<dominant newspaper and now Internet news of Iowa City establishment for many decades
Crawford reposted this comment at 2:10pm Dec. 23, 2011 (let's see how long the Press-Citizen leaves it up this time:
Randy Crawford
""That's the Iowa City homosexual mafia— censorship at the Hamburg Inn, then censorship at the Press-Citizen. The PC needs brownshirt goons to fabricate a pretext, and then the PC can make the story about their stepping on freedom of speech rather than anything Michele Bachmann has to say. Spotting the biased slant to this coverage is easy.""
So, the abortion- and homosexual-fronting Iowa City Press Citizen didn't cover her or what she had to say. Instead, they made the major part of the story about the left-wing protesters. I have even seen the Press-Citizen bring their own left-wing protesters to other events so they can make the story about their own protesters and not the event. ABC-TV in Washington D.C. I have seen at the annual January March for Life also doing the same thing, Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette doing the same thing, etc. etc. across the country. You don't understand Doug, or else you are trying to conceal, the fact that the media massively puts forward and publicizes the saboteurs of events, then makes the story about the saboteurs and their negative suppression of freedom of speech rather than letting the organizer (in the latest instance Bachmann) have the coverage to get their message out. When the media is manipulating and challenging and fabricating "reality, the news" to such a warped and perverted extent, those who are there to see it happen understand how far off the track media coverage is, and the fact that in most markets the news we see is just a snow job of premeditated staged left wing propaganda– invariably pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, and pro-Obama. Then there is "fair and balanced" Fox News which goes as silent and ambiguous on protecting babies as it can, and which (I have seen this happen in the street in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) selectively covers favorably the pro-homosexual point of view while not giving any coverage at all to the anti-homosexual point of view that is right there at the same time. You have to be there to see this stuff, and if you were on the ground amongst the national TV cameras (or at the Bachmann event yesterday) to see what happens, and then see how it appears in the media, then you would understand how hugely warped the day-to-day media coverage is. I'm speaking of the established major media in most cases, and fortunately smaller more honest media like examples (1) and (2) cited above are telling the rest of the story to the extent they can where and when they can. In the instance of Romney, he has been throwing political buy-off money around Iowa City since the summer of 2006. Before 2006's gubernatorial balloting was even held, he was already buying up all the influence he could toward running in 2008. Since 2008, Romney has kept his machine running toward 2012. (Romney has the money to do it. See local information from the people back home in Massachusetts at http://www.massresistance.org or http://www.massresistance.com) Just look at the headline verbiage from the Press-Citizen's bias– yesterday's slanting of Iowa City coverage was obviously designed to cast Bachmann in as bad a light as possible and rig things against her in voters' minds so as to generate default votes for someone else, like Romney or Gingrich for instance. The media hates Bachmann since she is wise to their scams and has no sympathy for leftist lies, so they want to bury her. Their little puppets provide the frenzied negative pretext, and next the biased major media play up the negatives they have fabricated as if their fabrications were the underlying reality. For instance, in a further exploration of the same theme about bias, you can have different people post comparable comments in the comments sections after an Internet news piece, or send in letters to the editor. As an experiment, have different people send some stories that are pro-left and some that are pro-right. You will see with most media outlets that the pro-left comments are picked up and posted or published much more frequently, and it is usually the pro-right comments that are most likely to be quickly taken down if they can get posted in the first place. At the same time, sarcastic insulting comments from the left are left posted. For instance, just look at the Press-Citizen comments in the Press-Citizen article cited above and notice all the nasty sneering pro-left comments that survive just fine. If a pro-right person had used the same tone, the message wouldn't have lasted more than a few minutes thanks to the pro-left censors of the Press-Citizen. I put up a sample at 2:10p Dec. 23,2011 you can see for yourself under the (3)Press-Citizen citation, and we'll see how long it lasts on their website compared with the more biting left-wing comments. Once they hear about these words you are reading now, they can remove any similar or more extreme leftie comments. Or they can put up their own pro-right sneering autofabrications, to try to make what I am telling you at this instant look like a lie. So, the foregoing offer is good only for a few hours or days since the Press-Citizen is about to pick up on their being watched, and now has to suddenly be in its goodie-goodie fair and balanced behavior mode for the time being– for that article. But you can go to the Press-Citizen or many other media outlets later on, with some other article, and run the same test of what they publish and what they censor. You can go to public events to see what happens, and look at the coverage later to see how warped it is. Seek and you will find. Remain sitting at home trusting the media and let yourself be played for a fool. It's your choice, but those who know know from direct personal observation know that with most media outlets the content is largely smoke and mirrors. People have the right to put their money into media empires and broadcast almost any lies they wish under the First Amendment. But American consumers of media output need to understand how extensively a phony picture is being painted and how they are being milked for gullibility. Upon understanding what is really going on, if the understanding ever comes, that understanding will help people be able to act like citizens rather than herded cattle. The people who were there yesterday at the Bachmann event in Iowa City and saw what happened understand this– some overtly and some partially or subconsciously. That's why a lot of the comments given in the cited Press-Citizen story above were about revulsion at the protesters' tactics. People just need to understand better how closely the media works to set up and sponge propaganda off those posed protesters. Other commenters are of course toadying shills for the con-job set-up from the beginning, and similarly they aren't interested in other people's freedom of speech, as they openly reveal. The combination of [posed protesters + slanted media coverage = biased reporting] has seriously warped American political perception over the years. It has conned fools into voting for abysmal leadership that isn't, for decades. The country is paying the price for letting itself be set up as suckers, and until more people wake up to the scam we will continue on our downhill slide.
Roe v. Wade was in large part a sucker set-up too. Nixon put forward Harry Blackmun with his political pro-abortion agenda (cf. Maafa 21), while faking a story of an "impartial, unprejudiced" Supreme Court. Blackmun's long-time buddy from the 1940's at the Mayo Clinic Jane Hodgson did an open publicized illegal abortion in St. Paul as soon as Blackmun was nominated to the court. Her case was used to fabricate publicity to try to make abortion look rationalized and palatable to gullible suckers in the national media consumption market. Abortion fodder for fools. And,just as she was about to be sentenced for killing a baby (carefully pre-selected to be for German measles, killer-mother already married with kids and not some random casual floozy, all the pretexts carefully lined up), then right before sentencing, right on schedule—- That's when Roe v. Wade was released conveniently just in the nick of time. As in with her set up, histrionic as it was with all the abortion court and prosecution drama, she knew all along it was never going to be a problem for her since she had the fix in with Harry Blackmun from the beginning– so that her exoneration under Roe would be delivered just in time to save her from jail, as it was. It was killing a baby on a precise, carefully thought out schedule for the sake of generating yet another pretext as broadly cast upon the gullible trusting peasants as possible, a.k.a. media manipulation with connivance. During the same period, as early as 1972 when abortion was still illegal, New York abortionist Charles de Prosse was hired to come to the University of Iowa Ob-Gyn department to set up an abortion operation, under fellow abortionist William C. Keettel. Why were they hiring a doctor to do illegal work? Because they knew well in advance, thanks to the Blackmun-Hodgson axis next door in Minnesota, that the fix was in with the "impartial" Supreme Court, and there were about to be a lot more open, lucrative abortions upon legalization. In reality, the Roe v. Wade decision was a rigged political grease job, built on the recanted lies of Norma McCorvey as well as fancy footwork from partisan abortion mill interests to use the media to propagandize the gullible. I have seen Charles de Prosse doing abortions, and his primary concern was that the "patients" had their cash ready "on the barrelhead" as he put it before he'd go to work on them to vivisect and dismember their babies. It only costs the abortion killer doctors about $10 worth of supplies and 5 minutes of their time to do an abortion with their assembly-line set-ups. And that's why those 'doctors' are there– to rake in the loot at $100 a minute. That's how they have so much money to buy off media coverage and bloggers that spew propaganda their way. That's how they have the money to buy off crooked politicians*, judges, police, and prosecutors. [*Like for instance Joe Bolkcom, fake former 'husband' for Karen Kubby who helped found Iowa City's first abortion mill. Ditto for various other political pets who come to the Emma Goldman abortion factory to suck up for campaign contributions.] That huge mark-up of blood money is how Planned Parenthood has the money to infiltrate public schools with their propaganda to teach kids how to become slut boys and slut girls, which generates more money for the abortion mills via venereal disease treatments, birth control pills, and especially abortion as the big money-maker. The corrupt public figures who are willing to sell and betray the life of an innocent aborted child and help make killers out of the juvenile butcher parents can't be trusted to take care of any of us. So, with that kind of diabolical corruption and disregard for human life, it is no great wonder the same forces care so little for the well-being of average adult-sized people either. Look around you and notice what is going on. Look around you and see how what happens isn't reported the way it happened, and notice what is censored and never sees the light of day. Notice as we have more and more fabricated slanted news broadcast as big lies, more and more millions of murdered babies based on the Roe v. Wade lies, more and more financial lies based on inflatable fiat currency with only hallucinations backing it for value– little by little and then more and more everyone's prospects become bleaker and bleaker except for the few cunning liars who are in the driver's seat. If the sheep wish to save themselves from being led to slaughter, they must learn to stand up on their hind legs and quit being led by the nose– where the other end of the rope is held by bought-off vested-interest media manipulations.
PREVIOUS EXCHANGE === Randy: No, I wouldn’t be with old Adolph. He doesn’t reside in mein kamp but in urine. He did want to limit Aryan abortions, but only so he could build up his master race to get more killers. In other words, Hitler’s abortion policy was NOT pro-life and any comparison with modern American pro-lifers is bogus.
Doug: He was against some women having the legal choice to have abortions, and also in some cases against the legal choice to continue pregnancies. Thus, “as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.” There’s no getting around that.
RANDY NOW=== Your attempt at a comparison is non-apropos doubletalk. Pro-lifers are against all or at least most abortions, in the interest of promoting life. That’s what “pro-life” means. So, only the first half of your attempted comparison has any relevance to what you try to claim later. Pro-life isn’t about being “anti-choice” it’s about being pro-life. If you for instance were really “pro-choice” in the way you use the terminology, you would be for the option of letting people decide whether to vivisect and dismember you, based on your location, level of sentience, and all the other pretexts you keep trying to toss out. Hitler was pro-choice in the same sense you are; he killed only those he chose. Abortion proponents are pro-choice as to the murderer having the choice; the abortionist kills (mostly) only those they choose– except for the botched hack jobs taken out of the abortion mills via back alleys. Google “abortion mill ambulance” to see for yourself. Abortion is like rape– it’s the strong victimizing the weak because they are stronger. With rape, murder of adults, and murder of babies in the womb, in all instances the ultimate truth is that none of them are really pro-choice because in all instances the victim has their choices stolen from them. That, and the specious transparently false nature of your attempted arguments, is what there is really no getting around.
Here’s an example to back up my Dec. 23, 2011 posting at 5:54pm about MEDIA CENSORSHIP:
The Cedar Rapids Gazette is the major newspaper of Iowa’s second largest city, near Iowa City. Their television affiliate (in the same building on the same block) is KCRG-TV Channel 9. They routinely slant most everything pro-homo and pro-abortion. About a month ago they posted this on the Internet:
*************************************
CEDAR RAPIDS SCHOOLS SURVEYS PARENTS AS ENROLLMENT DROPS
http://www.kcrg.com
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Facing declining enrollment, Cedar Rapids Community School District is asking parents what to do next.The district posted a community survey on its website asking for feedback on proposals to handle fewer students.
*************************************
So, I sent them a response about the obvious, which any school child could have figured out without being told:
“”Real smart. Let’s spend decades teaching the kids to be behaviorally irresponsible, run to Planned Parenthood, and then sabotage the next generation with birth control pills and abortions. Next, let’s whine there aren’t enough children in 2011. Lack of foresight does tend to produce poor results, doesn’t it? Maybe the current generation of teachers can learn something– like from their own mistakes and those of their predecessors. But how likely are they to actually learn anything? Meanwhile, they will be facing smaller and smaller paychecks, and fewer and fewer citizens to generate taxes supporting their retirement years.””
My contribution of the obvious posted fine, but thanks to the media censors of Cedar Rapids Gazette/KCRG-TV9, it was censored away within a day or two.
Doug: Yeah, agreed that “Hitler was a bad guy,” and that his motivation was aimed at “more Aryans.” He wanted his desires to trump the desires of the pregnant women themselves, and for women with unwanted pregnancies, this is exactly the same as for pro-lifers. They too want their desires to trump the desires of the pregnant women.
Randy: Pro-life isn’t about telling the pregnant women what to do. It’s about protecting innocent defenseless kids from being slaughtered as is shown in the googled “abortion pictures.” Do the pregnant women (or anyone else) have the ‘right’ to kill you out of their own selfish wishes? Why not? What’s so special about you that they can’t protect themselves from any inconvenience you cause them. After all, it’s ‘their body, their choice’ so why shouldn’t they also be allowed to vivisect and dismember you just like they do with their kids? If you want to use the sentience and location arguments, you can first be rendered non-sentient with anesthesia (you doubt this, but there are anesthesiologists who can teach you differently) and you can be stuffed back into your mother’s uterus. Those are your criteria, unless you want to conjure up some more hallucinations.
Your insubstantial “location” and “sentience” red-herrings aside, pro-life isn’t about telling pregnant women what to do. It’s about protecting innocent life. You can fabricate all the red herrings you want, but you can’t fool all the people all the time try as you might. That’s why the “pregnant woman” criterion is a bogus straw-man argument. Moreover, other than the 1-2% of abortions done for rape, where the rapist is the exclusive responsible party [not the baby. What system of justice executes the innocent? You still haven’t responded, on that point as well as dozens of others you wish to evade]…other than the rare rape cases, the pregnant woman assented to sex and is responsible for the pregnancies that have been part of human living since before we were human. The pregnant woman is far and away most commonly exclusively responsible, so she has no one to get mad at but herself, and definitely not the innocent baby. If she’s too incompetent to make an intelligent decision or use competent birth control, she’s responsible for her own incompetencies. Not you, not me, and not the baby. No system of justice executes the innocent. What does execute the innocent is unjust dictatorships like those of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Ghadaffi, Kim Jong Il, and the brutal regimes that run abortion mills to leave no choice for their victims. That’s why it’s a lie to pretend to call them pro-choice, a phony label they demonstrably do not earn.
Doug: If you begin a paragraph with an incorrect statement, a misrepresentation of what I’ve said, etc., why should anybody respond to every sentence of yours? Enough to say that you began with an incorrect premise. I don’t expect others to deal with every word I write – that’s just not the way most message boards work. When you put up what frankly is often “ranting and raving,” that will certainly apply, and in spades.
Randy: I don’t misrepresent you. I quote you verbatim as can be seen numerous times above. “Ranting and raving” is your description of exposures of your false “thinking” for which you have no answer. There is a lot you can’t justify about abortion because googled “abortion pictures” show it for the child murder it is. So, when your feeble arguments fall apart and you can’t substantiate your unjustified hollow claims, anything you can’t answer to is “ranting and raving.” There’s a lot of your doubletalk and deception I’ve exposed that you can’t explain away, so of course you want to cover over your inadequacies with a mirage of “ranting and raving.” That translates into English as “Doug can’t explain this away.”
Kel says:
December 23, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Doug previously: They too want their desires to trump the desires of the pregnant women.
Kel response: Doug, it’s not about “our desires” and “what we want.” Abortion is a life and death issue.
If you think we just want to boss pregnant women around, then I don’t think you’ve listened to any of our arguments here. Ever.
Randy addition: Kel is exactly right. It’s about saving a human life, and about adults NOT being selfish and killing an innocent helpless baby once they upon their responsibility have created the new human life. Everything you are is based on the DNA instructions you get when the egg fertilizes the sperm. Nothing else gets added but nutrition, so you are what you are as a person with your rights going back to conception. Doug is using the same doubletalk tactics and terminology as comes right out of the Planned Parenthood manuals, so chances are he’s merely another of their paid propagandists. They’re paid to ignore and try to sneak around arguments, not face up to them which is exactly what Doug does. Abortion mill puppets who are paid to sling doubletalk keep going back to the same evasions and the same bogus talking points, and that’s all we are seeing from Doug.
correction “…when the egg is fertilized by the sperm…”
Note- The click to edit feature is not performing reliably. Sorry to therefore by late with this obvious correction.
“They too want their desires to trump the desires of the pregnant women.”
Doug, it’s not about “our desires” and “what we want.” Abortion is a life and death issue. If you think we just want to boss pregnant women around, then I don’t think you’ve listened to any of our arguments here. Ever.
Kel, yes, it’s about your desires. That’s what drives your arguments, same as for pro-choicers, with all due respect. I didn’t say you “just want to boss pregnant women around.” That could mean that you wanted to force every pregnant woman to have an abortion, after all.
Randy: Media mind-control tries to psyche people into thinking that only their favored pet can win, so everyone else needs to go along.
Doug: “In some cases, yeah. But what is happening in the US is that with the media coverage, other people have a change to challenge Mitt. Do you want to somehow “silence the media” here?”
That’s what you’re not picking up on, or else choosing to actively disregard. “Other people” don’t “have a chance to challenge Mitt” when he and his money bags have bought off the media. Specifically, for instance, Michele Bachmann was in Iowa City yesterday Dec. 22, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street thugs did an orchestrated Hitler goon brownshirt shout-down of the candidate, totally violating American standards of freedom of speech:
(1) http://www.coralvillecourier.typepad.com/ <<small one-man start-up on the Internet
(2) http://iowacity.patch.com/articles/bachmann-encounters-gay-robot-hecklers-in-liberal-iowa-city <<new medium-size Internet operation
(3) http://www.press-citizen.com/comments/article/20111223/NEWS01/312230008/Protesters-Bachmann-You-re-not-wanted-here <<dominant newspaper and now Internet news of Iowa City establishment for many decades
There are at least two different things here. One is that yes – as I’ve already agreed to – media influence is huge, and it may be that the person with the most money, most favored by the media, and who uses the media the best, will win. With this as a given, how would you propose that a Bachmann, for instance, seriously challenge Romney? When I posed my question to Richard, it didn’t involve any pipe-dreams or “alternate realities.” It is saying, that with things as they are, what are you most interested in? Staying “true to some ideal” (however “out there” it may be), versus having a Republican in the White House next time around? It is a choice, and it’s a very real choice and concern for a huge number of Republicans. I don’t care, myself, if Romney is the candidate or not. I think he will be, and I think he’ll beat Obama, if so. But if not, fine by me.
The second thing is that Bachmann is so far over “to the right” that you’re simply going to have vast numbers of people opposed to her, even within the Republican party. The same is certainly true for Santorum, somewhat true for Perry, a good bit true for Cain (though of course he shot his election foot off, so to speak) and not that much true for Gingrich. If there wasn’t the media as we now have it, Bachmann wouldn’t even be a candidate, would not be a “household name” (for better or worse) in the first place. Were there a candidate as far “to the left” as she is “to the right” there would be lots of people on the case of that person too.
Randy, you get the top prize for long paragraphs on Jill’s site. But what would you tell Richard to do? Totally “vote his conscience,” (regardless of that selected candidate’s chance to win), or to vote for who he thought could beat Obama?
Randy: No, I wouldn’t be with old Adolph. He doesn’t reside in mein kamp but in urine. He did want to limit Aryan abortions, but only so he could build up his master race to get more killers. In other words, Hitler’s abortion policy was NOT pro-life and any comparison with modern American pro-lifers is bogus.
Doug: “He was against some women having the legal choice to have abortions, and also in some cases against the legal choice to continue pregnancies. Thus, “as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.” There’s no getting around that.”
Your attempt at a comparison is non-apropos doubletalk. Pro-lifers are against all or at least most abortions, in the interest of promoting life. That’s what “pro-life” means. So, only the first half of your attempted comparison has any relevance to what you try to claim later. Pro-life isn’t about being “anti-choice” it’s about being pro-life.
In the context of the abortion debate, the choice is understood to be the legal choice of abortion. Yes, you are against it. Sure, Hitler had differing views, in some respects, than do American pro-lifers, now, for the most, part. That does not change the fact that he wanted his desires to trump the desires of pregnant women, same as pro-lifers want their desires to trump that of pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies.
___
If you for instance were really “pro-choice” in the way you use the terminology, you would be for the option of letting people decide whether to vivisect and dismember you, based on your location, level of sentience, and all the other pretexts you keep trying to toss out.
Nonsense. Again, the choice is understood to be that of legal abortion. Nobody is saying that it means anything else.
____
Hitler was pro-choice in the same sense you are; he killed only those he chose.
Wrong. Pro-choicers are for letting the woman make her own best choice. In no way was Hitler for that.
____
Abortion proponents are pro-choice as to the murderer having the choice; the abortionist kills (mostly) only those they choose– except for the botched hack jobs taken out of the abortion mills via back alleys. Google “abortion mill ambulance” to see for yourself. Abortion is like rape– it’s the strong victimizing the weak because they are stronger. With rape, murder of adults, and murder of babies in the womb, in all instances the ultimate truth is that none of them are really pro-choice because in all instances the victim has their choices stolen from them. That, and the specious transparently false nature of your attempted arguments, is what there is really no getting around.
Here you start out with a fallacy – that you not liking something makes it “murder,” and that is just not true.
Randy: Here’s an example to back up my Dec. 23, 2011 posting at 5:54pm about MEDIA CENSORSHIP:
The Cedar Rapids Gazette is the major newspaper of Iowa’s second largest city, near Iowa City. Their television affiliate (in the same building on the same block) is KCRG-TV Channel 9. They routinely slant most everything pro-homo and pro-abortion.
Randy, there were people whining, moaning, and carrying on something fierce about inter-racial dating and marriage back a few decades. You’d have thought the end of the world was nigh, listening to them. There’s “always something…”
I don’t agree with everything that is now said to be “politically correct.” Far from it – and I think some of it is just plain ridiculous.
But yeah – you’re going to get censored, sometimes. You are way, way out there…. Just stating a fact, not making any value judgments here. In the time of the ancient Egyptians, there were people thinking that society, the whole world, etc., was essentially “going to hell in a handbasket.” That was a couple thousand years ago and more. There are always such people – it’s part of the human condition.
Myself – I’m not for censorship. Right here on Jill’s site – I say let there at least be threads where we could all just “go for it,” no matter what. However, it ain’t happenin’ – Jill and the moderators don’t want that. All in all, this is a good site, without a lot of the stuff that goes on, on other sites. Really – I think this is one of the best abortion sites, though it’s certainly “pro-life” oriented. I’ve seen a lot of others, and they pale in comparison; a thing which I think is due both to Jill’s intent and the people who read and post here.
I guess I should ask you the same question, a couple different ways. I’m not arguing with you about how influential the media is. So, with that as a given, what are you going to do? Go nuts all the time about how “it’s unfair,” and/or “not right” or are you going to work the system as it is?
You going to vote for a candidate just on the basis of their more-or-less exact mirroring of your sentiments, or are you going to pick one with a rational chance to win? For many Republican voters, that’s the choice, this time around.
Are you going to go on about “pro-homo” stuff (which will routinely get your stuff taken down), or do you really want to be heard?
Doug: “If you begin a paragraph with an incorrect statement, a misrepresentation of what I’ve said, etc., why should anybody respond to every sentence of yours? Enough to say that you began with an incorrect premise. I don’t expect others to deal with every word I write – that’s just not the way most message boards work. When you put up what frankly is often “ranting and raving,” that will certainly apply, and in spades.”
Randy: I don’t misrepresent you. I quote you verbatim as can be seen numerous times above.
Just for one example, you said: Your earlier attempt at an argument was that lack of sentience was an excuse to be able to kill. That is not true, as stated. I’ve never said that, in such an unqualified way. It’s one thing that matters to me, but I’ve never said that, alone, should be what society bases its laws on. I’ve never even said thats what I look at, alone.
____
“Ranting and raving” is your description of exposures of your false “thinking” for which you have no answer.
Heh. ;) I think your posts speak for themself.
____
There is a lot you can’t justify about abortion because googled “abortion pictures” show it for the child murder it is.
That’s silly. Once again, you are pretending your opinion of abortion makes it “murder,” and that is most certainly not true. As to the physical nature and characteristics of the unborn, I don’t know that I have significant disagreements with you. And fully agreed that in abortion, the unborn die.
____
So, when your feeble arguments fall apart and you can’t substantiate your unjustified hollow claims, anything you can’t answer to is “ranting and raving.” There’s a lot of your doubletalk and deception I’ve exposed that you can’t explain away, so of course you want to cover over your inadequacies with a mirage of “ranting and raving.” That translates into English as “Doug can’t explain this away.”
I’m always willing to explain what I think. But when you start with false pretenses, as above, everything you build on top of them – whether it’s 5 more sentences or 500, is then obviously not true, and/or merely yout opinion or your statements. And really – that’s fine – that’s what most of the abortion debate is – people saying what they think. It does not determine the law, i.e. it does not make something “murder” or not (the law does that), and what one person says won’t necessarily apply to another, but it’s what we have, in the main.
Doug (11:58 p.m. Dec. 23) says – “I guess I should ask you the same question, a couple different ways. I’m not arguing with you about how influential the media is. So, with that as a given, what are you going to do? Go nuts all the time about how “it’s unfair,” and/or “not right” or are you going to work the system as it is?
You going to vote for a candidate just on the basis of their more-or-less exact mirroring of your sentiments, or are you going to pick one with a rational chance to win? For many Republican voters, that’s the choice, this time around.
Are you going to go on about “pro-homo” stuff (which will routinely get your stuff taken down), or do you really want to be heard?”
*******
Sorry about that. It posted without me knowing it was happening.
Randy, what do you think about the above? If you’re voting Republican, what are you going to do? Does it matter to you if your pick could beat Obama or not?