FLOTUS Karen Santorum’s cause: The sanctity of human life?
In their roles as First Lady, Rosalynn Carter spotlighted mental illness as her cause du jour, Nancy Reagan picked “Just Say No” to drugs, Laura Bush promoted childhood literacy, and Michelle Obama is battling childhood obesity.
I’ve mused now and then how wild and wonderful it would be for a First Lady to use her four- to eight-year position of prominence to champion the sanctity of human life.
Speaking at right-to-life banquets, promoting pregnancy care centers, educating on the harm of abortion – a crazy good but impossible dream, I’ve thought.
Until now.
The Daily Beast ran a piece yesterday, “Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum’s Activist First Lady, Karen,” subtitled, “Karen Santorum, the candidate’s wife, is a former neonatal nurse who wrote a book about the death of their baby. Eleanor Clift on her strength and her strong faith in the Roman Catholic Church – and its dictates.”
Since the article was written by an abortion proponent and published by a liberal online rag, its obvious intent was to scare the daylights out of pro-aborts. But I loved it. An excerpt:
Karen Garver Santorum is one of 12 children, and having a large family of her own is entirely natural to her, reflecting her strong faith in the Roman Catholic Church and its dictates. She is also an anti-abortion activist, and in 1992 helped launch the Susan B. Anthony List, which is dedicated to electing pro-life women to public office. “Karen was an accomplished attorney before she met Rick and a sharp person herself who understood the intellectual underpinning of what we were and are trying to do,” says Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president. “She got it – that a pro-life feminist is not an oxymoron.”
The two women are friends and allies, and Dannenfelser marvels at what she calls Karen Santorum’s “composure in the storm,” an inner strength she believes uniquely situates the candidate’s wife for what lies ahead in the political minefields. She recalls hosting an event on the publication of Santorum’s book, Letters to Gabriel, recounting this most intimate journey of the baby she carried and then lost. Her children were milling around and acting up as children will, yet she kept her focus as she talked. Dannenfelser is a huge fan, saying it is one thing to be a pro-life activist but quite another to live those values, as Santorum did with Gabriel and continues to do with her youngest child, Bella, now 3, who was born with Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder associated with a severely shortened life.
“The effect she has is to soften the heart for the vulnerable,” says Dannenfelser. “She is a truly tender warrior.”
Oh, to dream the impossible dream….
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 know who my frontrunner is now.
But wait…was she an attorney or a neonatal nurse? Both? Plus co-founder of Susan B?
I wonder what she does in her spare time?
What spare time?
Ed, I wondered the same thing. Apparently she is degreed as both an attorney and RN?
She sounds awesome. Ed’s question is a good one? Was she both an attorney and a neonatal nurse? Did she have a change of careers.
What a contrast these two will present when compared to Mr. and Mrs. Obama!!!
Ed, I agree.
Now that Michele Bachmann is out of the race, Santorum is my frontrunner too.
Yes, Jill and Ed, she was both an attorney and a NICU nurse. She’s a phenomenal lady — and that’s an understatement.
No free time on her hands — she is devoted to her children’s care, particularly Bella’s.
Dream, Jill, dream! And pray, pray, pray!!! It is beyond exciting to imagine the Santorums in the White House! We must pray!
Thanks Jill –
Now I cannot get this song out of my head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaN8jxAFtDY
Seriously though, it’s a great dream, and a little less impossible than it was 3 days ago.
Wow!
Very nice to know!!
Jim – never heard the Andy Williams version, only the Man of La Mancha version. Don’t know who sang that one. Nice to hear the song again, though. Inspiring!
” a tender warrior”..I like the sound of that. ;)
being a neonatal nurse, I bet she could tell Obama a little about those human lives that were born prematurely and how those babies differed little from full term babies except for their size and developmental age!
Go Santorum!
By the way, Santorum was officialy endorsed today by the pro-life group CatholicVote.org.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/santorum-captures-endorsement-from-catholic-pro-life-group/
Keep the faith. What Good News.
We can right the unrightable wrong!
Jill
From my wife, the maven of musicals –
Richard Kiley on Broadway
Peter O’Toole in the movie version.
“Oh, to dream the impossible dream…” – yeah, good luck with that.
“We can right the unrightable wrong!” – multiple logic fail.
The reality based, non-Catholic community thinks Santorum is a crazed anti-choice, homophobic zealot. He has had to face some intense questioning from college students who have no problem with gay marriage, abortion, and birth control which in his world and yours would be banned. That he would bring the Catholic church one step closer to seeing its goals enacted is rather scary for those who do NOT agree with Catholic teachings.
“What a contrast these two will present when compared to Mr. and Mrs. Obama!!!”
Right, both Ivy League educated at a time when minorities were a minority on those campuses. And unlike the Santorums, they’re not interested in shoving their religious morality down the throats of all Americans.
CC,
It would be refreshing for college students to get a chance to hear the truth from Santorum. Very beneficial to get adult direction from outside the liberal mind-bending bubble that engulfs some institutes of ‘higher’ learning.
Obama is the KING of forcing his ways down the throats of our citizens. Everything from Obamacare to his unconstitutional ‘recess’ appointments.
The difference you point out between Santorum and Obama from a religious perspective are stark but Santorum does not push his religious morality down anybody’s throat. Trying to stop the murder of unborn children and acknowledging the unquestionable difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is NOT just a religious position; though the Word of God does concur with Rick’s position on these matters.
“Santorum does not push his religious morality down anybody’s throat.” – I’m already gagging. Do you really believe what you’ve said? I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Right CC, because sex-obsessed, binge-drinking, college kids are such a wise and informed electorate. They think they NEED abortion, they think they NEED birth control, and they think morality will stifle their freedom because they have no SELF-control and have never been taught the truth about much of anything. They simply parrot what Planned Parenthood and their degenerate culture have told them. Their only god is sex. They have no idea how to think, how to reason, or how to say no to their every whim and feeling.
“They think they NEED abortion,” – some do, or will.
“they think they NEED birth control,” – most do or will.
“and they think morality will stifle their freedom because they have no SELF-control and have never been taught the truth about much of anything.” – wrong. They have morality. It just isn’t the same as yours.
“Their only god is sex.” – laughable!
“They have no idea how to think, how to reason, or how to say no to their every whim and feeling.” – the fact that they may not follow your path demonstrates that they can.
Reality,
How typical of you to avoid posting anything meaningful.
Just following your example ;-)
Your claim that santorum’s statements and intentions aren’t faith based is ludicrous.
How about you try actually offering up some evidence to your claims instead of offering up meaningless statements like ‘the evidence speaks for itself’.
And your ability to hide reality is from yourself is showing to be as in tact as it ever was. I did not say that Santorum’s positions as a protector of unborn life and a supporter of the sanctity of marriage were not faith based. Take three deep breaths deep and open your mind and then read my post again and you will see that what I said is Rick’s positions were not JUST faith based.
“My Catholic faith teaches that it’s actions that are the problems, not necessarily someone’s feelings,”
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-defends-earmarks-past-statements-004038986.html
“Santorum expressed…..how same-sex marriage would “be a hit to faith and family in America”
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/05/santorum-instructs-students-on-same-sex-marriage-and-health-care/
And have a read of this – http://rainbowsendpress.com/exposed/santorum.html
Just a quick goggle search shows oodles of examples of his intentions of ruling according to his faith.
Again, I never said that faith would not be an integral part of his decisions. I said that his positions on issues would not JUST be guided by his faith. Crazed liberal not unlike yourself have even accused him of wanting to ban contraception. But last night as a guest on the O’Reilly factor he said that he is against contraception but that as president he would not want to ban contraception. I chalk it up to the liberal predilection towards mind-bending and exagerration.
“I never said that faith would not be an integral part of his decisions.” – and it certainly would be.
“I said that his positions on issues would not JUST be guided by his faith.” – and if it came down to a choice of his faith or what others wanted, guess which way he’d go.
“he is against contraception but that as president he would not want to ban contraception” – no, he’d let someone else set it up and he wouldn’t stop it.
And we know full well what his positions are on gay marriage, teaching actual science in science classes and keeping prayer out of the public arena.
For him these things are a religious position.
Like I said, he would rule according to his faith.
Put down the kool-aid. if his position about contraception was only a religious position he would be for making it illegal. But he is not……. liberals are an illogical bunch.
““We can right the unrightable wrong!” – multiple logic fail.”
Easy big fella. It’s a line from the song.
Reality, I know this is a a bit off topic but since you brought up Catholics, I thought I would share my joy with you. I found out some good news yesterday. A Catholic high school is in the works in my area (we already have several Catholic grade school and a middle school). We have not had an area Catholic HS since the late 50s. Enough parents (not all Catholics) have shown interest. Woohoo! As always the choice of what school to send a child to remains with the parents.
I figured you would want to share in my joy, Reality. (:
I won’t be drinking santorum’s kool-aid. His record still speaks for itself. There would be an encroachment of religious based initiatives into what are meant to be secular legislative acts and political appointments.
I didn’t hear you singing Praxedes.
I’m glad you’re happy.
Yes indeed – choice.
Yes indeed – choice.
The choice to teach more and more young people about the immorality of abortion and how to vote prolife so that they can celebrate with us when abortion joins slavery as an embarrassing, sad part in the history books. More young people choosing to be life-affirming.
Thanks for being glad for me.
Does that choice include the choice to oppose the killing of the unborn on religious grounds?
Speaking of choice, here’s some interesting new poll results from noted right-leaning polling outfit Rasmussen Reports that show 49% of voters identify as pro-choice to only 43% who identify as pro-life. Yeah, the tide is really turning now. Abortion’s going to be illegal any day now…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/49_of_voters_are_pro_choice_43_pro_life
relax joan. nothing going on here…
“The choice to teach more and more young people about the immorality of abortion” – oh I dare say the overwhelming majority of parents who would send their children there are already doing that.
“and how to vote prolife” – yep, rather a ‘pro-life’ mugabe than a pro-choice mandela eh.
“so that they can celebrate with us when abortion joins slavery as an embarrassing, sad part in the history books.” – firstly, outlawing abortion would be more like removing womens’ right to vote. Secondly, those children would have to become immortal to see abortion end.
“More young people choosing to be life-affirming.” – yes, let’s just hope its their own.
“Thanks for being glad for me.” – you’re welcome. It’s probably a little bit preferable to much of the home-schooling that goes on.
Its amusing to watch the choicers go apoplectic over the Santorums.
Yes, you abortion lovers, we agree with the Santorums and want to emulate them. They are amazing role models for us and our children. If everybody was like them the world would be a much, much better place.
I hope your heads don’t explode.
Joan,
Maybe with a pro-life president and first lady the climate will allow more people to admit there’s nothing wrong or shameful about siding with life over death.
I thought liberals believed in “climate change”.
“firstly, outlawing abortion would be more like removing womens’ right to vote.”
Nope – a right to vote is not like a right to a dead baby (aka abortion). A vote is something used to elect public officials. A fetus is a human being that will one day vote or run for public office. A vote is not equivalent to a human being. Just calling something a “right” doesn’t make it so. There are higher standards/laws than our temporal laws. Reality, even you have tried to appeal to these higher laws at times… see below
“Secondly, those children would have to become immortal to see abortion end.”
This statement could be trying to refer to some reality that certain women will always kill their unborn, even if it is against the law (if this is your argument it is a very poor one since there are so many bad behaviours in our society that are currently regulated by our laws, and regulating abortion would be no different. You need to explain why the fact the some will break the law in order to obtain an abortion is argument/justification for legalizing that activity. Legalizing certain activities for the reason that certain people will always commit them could ultimately lead to society that has no laws, because someone will always do some activity. However, I don’t think you are an anarchist so please elaborate.
Alternatively, you could be trying to appeal to some absolute right that a woman has… but then you would need to explain this metaphyiscal and transcendent argument of yours… and why you think a “right” to a dead baby is a good. In this argument you will need to explain why/provide a reasonable answer why a dead baby has less value then this “right.”
Tyler, removing womens’ right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy and allowing other people to have control over their fertility is the same as removing their right to vote or have their own bank account.
“There are higher standards/laws than our temporal laws.” – really, like what?
“Reality, even you have tried to appeal to these higher laws at times… see below – “Secondly, those children would have to become immortal to see abortion end.”
Have you not heard of ‘poetic license’? What I meant was that abortion will not end in the forseeable future. Even if it is against the law. Just how it used to be.
“You need to explain why the fact the some will break the law in order to obtain an abortion is argument/justification for legalizing that activity.” – there was never a justification for it being illegal. There still isn’t. Bad laws get broken.
“but then you would need to explain this metaphyiscal and transcendent argument of yours” – been there, done that.
“and why you think a “right” to a dead baby is a good.” – it’s not a right to a ‘dead baby’, it’s a right to not continue to gestate an unwanted fetus.
“a dead baby has less value then this “right.” – a woman is a person, a fetus isn’t.
“Tyler, removing womens’ right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy and allowing other people to have control over their fertility is the same as removing their right to vote or have their own bank account.”
You can’t be serious?!? Comparing an unborn child to a bank account!! And to vote!!
“What I meant was that abortion will not end in the forseeable future. Even if it is against the law. Just how it used to be.”
Anarchist…but wait…
“there was never a justification for it being illegal. There still isn’t. Bad laws get broken.”
Moral absolutist…
Which one Reality???
“a woman is a person, a fetus isn’t.”
Wrong again. Both the women and the fetus are persons. Both have rights and always will. There is no logical reason to make a distinction between “legal persons” and human beings. To make such a distinction defies the obvious.
“There are higher standards/laws than our temporal laws.” – really, like what?
Reality, there are eternal laws.
It’s all about the freedom of women to have control of their own bodies and lives rather than according to the dictates of some self-appointed group who set arbitrary behaviors according to their own beliefs Tyler.
“Anarchist” – ah, not agreeing with your faith-based version of life and living makes me an anarchist does it.
“There is no logical reason to make a distinction between “legal persons” and human beings.” – hm, yes there is. To make such a distinction demonstrates the obvious.
“there are eternal laws” – such as?
“ah, not agreeing with your faith-based version of life and living makes me an anarchist does it.”
No, Reality. You are an Anarchist because you believe that Society should take its cue from those who break the law. It is becauase you think abortion should remain legal because certain people will break the law if abortion becomes illegal.
Some eternal laws – Use reason, value immaterial things, value human minds, human will, and human life, value those things that don’t change.
Reality said “It’s all about the freedom of women to have control of their own bodies and lives rather than according to the dictates of some self-appointed group who set arbitrary behaviors according to their own beliefs”.
Are you talking about the Obama administration? It does sound like it. It is indeed “some self-appointed group who set arbitrary behaviors according to their own beliefs”! And I would emphisize “OWN” not “universal” or “eternal”.
Reality said “removing womens’ right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy and allowing other people to have control over their fertility is the same as removing their right to vote or have their own bank account.”
That’s what the eugenics movement has done: take control of ones fertility and continues to do within Planned Parenthood.
Reality the real issue is that, paraphrasing what Regan once said, everybody who is in favor of abortion (at any stage and for whatever reason) has already been born! That in itself is a great injustice worth fighting against for how long it takes to be recognized.
Sometimes I am amazed how people can put so muchg energy in trying to save an endangered forest, a lizard, or a penguin from exticntion and then turn around and fight for the extinciton of one human being.
Taking from a poster I saw I would say to Reality: think to the pre-born baby as a tree and save him/her!
BTW, Santorum got booed at New England College yesterday – although that will score him points with those who believe that today’s college kids are a bunch of degenerate sexual hedonists – which does seem to indicate that those who make this accusation seem to have a rather unsavory obsession with sex!
And BTW, college youth and non college youth have always been sexual. And somehow most of them manage to graduate and go on to careers and families. Wonder if Santorum was a virgin when he married.
CC, virginity before marriage is praise-worthy and speakes to the character and ethics of the person. It takes much more courage and strenght to control oneself until one makes a committment for life than otherwise.
What really matters though and pertains to the topic of this blog, I think, is the need to have a President with true human and religious moral values, who behaves according to them.
“So a person could engage in, say, unethical business practice, but as long as they’re a virgin, it’s all good.”
Incorrect. I am saying I value a President who is “moral” and “ethical” across the board, in his personal life as well as in the life in the community.
“But when virginity is raised to cult-like status, it’s a bit strange.”
In todays american society we see just the opposite: free and promiscous sexuality of any kind pushed and raised to “cult-like status”.
“Everything goes” is the slogan. If you want to know the effects of such behavior look at the incidence of addiction (of any kind).
“At least Romney comes across as a non-ideologue. He keeps his Mormonism to himself. Santorum doesn’t and that will alienate people.”
I don’t want a “schizophrenic”, “bi-polar” President who has high private personal goal and loose social standards.
” … value those things that don’t change.”
________________________________________
There you have it.
The very essence of conservatism.
Excellent points Richard.
This one is my favourite regarding Romney:
“I don’t want a “schizophrenic”, “bi-polar” President who has high private personal goal and loose social standards.”
I don’t see much difference between him and Obama (although there is some). His views on life issues don’t seem to have much depth – perhaps, like Obama, he feels that these issues are beyond his pay grade!!!
A President who holds politically convenient positions is not what the World needs.
“The very essence of conservatism.”
I like the word “essence”!! It seems to have a permanent quality to it.
You are an Anarchist because you believe that Society should take its cue from those who break the law. It is becauase you think abortion should remain legal because certain people will break the law if abortion becomes illegal.
______________________________________________________
[You are an Anarchist] because you think [drinking alcoholic beverages] should remain legal because certain people will break the law if [drinking alcoholic beverages] becomes illegal.
mp, what???
“[You are an Anarchist] because you think [drinking alcoholic beverages] should remain legal because certain people will break the law if [drinking alcoholic beverages] becomes illegal.”
This comment is from left field – metaphor, but no pun intended!!
No one, except pro-abortionists like Reality (and I guess yourself), use that line of argument. I am not about to defend drinking alcohol, but if I did, I wouldn’t resort to using that faulty reasoning. Try again mp.
“Drinking alcohol” and “having an abortion” are not moral equivalents. One can drink without harming another human being. One can never have an abortion without it resulting in the death of another human being!!!
I am not about to defend drinking alcohol, but if I did, I wouldn’t resort to using that faulty reasoning.
_________________________________________________________
The reasoning is yours, not mine.
As to moral equivalence, take that up with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union.
If the substitution is of concern to you, remove “drinking alcoholic beverages” and substitute “jaywalking.”
“Does that choice include the choice to oppose the killing of the unborn on religious grounds?”
Exactly. Those who claim to be so tolerant (kill your unborn child if you want — it is your choice) are the first to get their undies in a bundle when someone says they choose to disagree with the killings because it is against their religion.
With all due respect to Karen Santorum, she should tell her husband that not all black people are on welfare and don’t want or need government assistance.
I’m sorry, but I can’t stand this guy.
“The reasoning is yours, not mine.”
Mp, the reasoning is not mine – its Reality’s. Take it up with him.
If the substitution is of concern to you, remove “drinking alcoholic beverages” and substitute “jaywalking.”
Once again, you’re using an inapt comparison. Drinking and jaywalking ENDANGER the INDIVIDUAL ENGAGING IN THE ACT. Abortion almost ALWAYS KILLS SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE ONE OBTAINING THE SURGERY.
Try again.
mp, the problem with Reality’s thinking is that he tried to justify the legalization of abortion by arguing that others would still to do it even if it were to become illegal.
No one (especially conservatives) has argued for the legalization of certain activities (such as drinking, jay walking, etc…) simply because people would continue to do them if they were illegal!!! Only progressive liberal socialist far-left wannabe despots use this argument.
Furthermore, please see xalisae’s 1:37 pm post above for one possible (and I might add reasonable) explanation for why jaywalking is not legal.
“Try again.”
________________________________________
Um, no. I’m not “comparing” anything.
I simply demonstrated that the reasoning is faulty.
I’m offering no opinion on abortion, drinking alcoholic beverages or jaywalking here.
Those who think that abortion should remain legal because they think there are women who will seek abortions, regardless of whether they are legal or illegal, are not anarchists.
“Only progressive liberal socialist far-left wannabe despots use this argument.”
__________________________________________________
Change in terms.
You previously said he is an “anarchist.”
“Furthermore, please see xalisae’s 1:37 pm post above for one possible (and I might add reasonable) explanation for why jaywalking is not legal.”
_______________________________________________
In some jurisdictions, jaywalking is legal because there are no laws prohibiting it.
“With all due respect to Karen Santorum, she should tell her husband that not all black people are on welfare and don’t want or need government assistance.”
Don’t you mean “blah” people? ;)
The new SC poll shows Romney with a strong lead.
“In some jurisdictions, jaywalking is legal because there are no laws prohibiting it.”
Correct some laws are not required when the action that may be outlawed harms the same person who does it! Hence, society doesn’t outlaw the specific action of sticking a pair of scissors into electrical outlet. It is unreasonable to assume that a society should outlaw “all” of the specific actions that would cause harm to oneself, otherwise there would be laws for every action that could possibly harm a person!!! And we would have an even more overburdened legal system than we do currently!!
Some specific actions, usually due to the frequency of their occurence, require Society to further specify the intent of a more general laws, and thus sometimes there is a need to create specific by-laws such as the jay-walking law. (The general law forbids the killing of oneself – the law against jaywalking is a specification of that law.)
So what is your point mp? Do you have one?
Is your point that you believe that the law that restricts abortion should be a by-law?
mp, progressive liberal socialist far-left wannabe despots are also anarchists.
CC said: “Don’t you mean “blah” people?”
CC, that’s a direspectful comment!
“mp, progressive liberal socialist far-left wannabe despots are also anarchists.”
________________________________________________
We’re clashing on definitions here.
“So what is your point mp? Do you have one?”
______________________________________________________
Tyler, I made my point. The reasoning that you employed to declare a person an “anarchist” is fallacious.
“Tyler, I made my point. The reasoning that you employed to declare a person an “anarchist” is fallacious.”
mp,you did no such thing. Try again.
Tyler, why should I attempt to engage you when you throw out intellectual garbage like this:
“mp, progressive liberal socialist far-left wannabe despots are also anarchists.”
Just exactly what is a “progressive liberal socialist far-left wannabe despot” anyway? I’m sorry, but I can’t find that term in any dictionary. I therefore conclude that it’s totally made up. You might just as well have added “nazi” and made it:
nazi progressive liberal socialist far-left wannabe despot
Tyler, you’re pulling hot button words out of thin air and stringing them together to create “something” that bears no relation to anything in the real world.
Finally, you tell me that what you’ve pulled out of thin air is equivalent to an “anarchist.”
“You are an Anarchist because you believe that Society should take its cue from those who break the law. It is becauase you think abortion should remain legal because certain people will break the law if abortion becomes illegal.” – not at all. What is it that you didn’t understand about “there was never a justification for it being illegal. There still isn’t. Bad laws get broken.”
Abortion should remain legal for the reasons that it was made legal, that is that there is no reason for it to be illegal. I simply point out that laws do change from time to time because they prove to be bad laws which are constantly flouted.
“Some eternal laws – Use reason, value immaterial things, value human minds, human will, and human life, value those things that don’t change” – those are not ‘eternal laws’, and they are all subjective attributes.
“That’s what the eugenics movement has done: take control of ones fertility and continues to do within Planned Parenthood.” – what a load of rubbish! Since when does PP go out and drag people off the streets and forcibly perform procedures.
” … value those things that don’t change.”
There you have it.
The very essence of conservatism.” – indeed, a return to slavery, remove womens’ right to vote, stop mixed marriages.
“Those who claim to be so tolerant…..are the first to get their undies in a bundle when someone says they choose to disagree with the killings because it is against their religion” – don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. But why should others be restricted because of what you believe.
“That’s what the eugenics movement has done: take control of ones fertility and continues to do within Planned Parenthood.” – what a load of rubbish! Since when does PP go out and drag people off the streets and forcibly perform procedures.
Reality, the eugenics movements and PP have strict ties since PP’s “birth”. Many eugenists where part of the board of the early PP. Have you watched Maafa21?
In case you hadn’t noticed Richard, times have moved on. There is no eugenics agenda within PP’s operational activities. Your statement is no more valid than citing the spanish inquisition in relation to current church operational activities.
“Have you watched Maafa21?” – I prefer watching fiction which isn’t quite so ‘out there’ and discredited.
Reality said: ” I prefer watching fiction which isn’t quite so ‘out there’ and discredited.”
Don’t agree with you! I think you watch too much fiction to be aware of reality. You should change your blog name!
The PP “tree” has sprouted from the eugenics seed and it reflects that origin perfectly.
It’s a fact that PP has the majority of its clinics in african-american and latino neighborhoods. How do you discredit that?
You should watch Maafa21. It’s free on youtube!
“The PP “tree” has sprouted from the eugenics seed and it reflects that origin perfectly.” – you’re talking rubbish. And the catholic church reflects its origins of cruelty and torture does it?
“It’s a fact that PP has the majority of its clinics in african-american and latino neighborhoods.” – ever heard of supply and demand?
“You should watch Maafa21.” – no I shouldn’t. Sounds like you shouldn’t have either. It’s vile, discredited bile and complete nonsense.
Reality, if you haven’t watched Maafa21 how can you tell “It’s vile, discredited bile and complete nonsense.”? You should watch it first to make up your own opinions.
Sidebar: I can’t help noticing that all the liberals in this blog have the same style: very confrontational, bold, dismissive, self-assured. However, in all that knowledge they fail to recognize the simplicity of the dignity of every human life, born and unborn. I guess sometimes important things cannot be grasped by the wise, but only by those who have an open heart.
To go back to the original topic of the blog, Jill, I am with you in the hope that the next First Lady would take on the task of emphasizing the sanctity of human life!
“Sidebar: I can’t help noticing that all the liberals in this blog … ”
_________________________________________________
I certainly hope you weren’t referring to me because I’m not a liberal, nor am I a conservative, nor am I a libertarian, nor am I a [pick one].
“indeed, a return to slavery, remove womens’ right to vote, stop mixed marriages.”
–Ha! “That’s vile, discredited bile and complete nonsense”.
“no I shouldn’t. Sounds like you shouldn’t have either. It’s vile, discredited bile and complete nonsense.”
—Discredited by who? It’s verifiable history. You can look it all up. Considering their tactics haven’t changed at all it’s not that far a stretch to extrapolate that their goals are the same as well.
However, looking at the Catholic Church (though what they have to do with this, I have no idea. I am no fan of theirs btw) their tactics have changed exponentially since around the dark ages (i.e. no more inquisitions, no more witch hunts, no more tortures, no more crusades, etc) and so it’s easy to see they are no longer the “same church” as they were. Their goals have obviously changed. No longer “convert or die” for example.
Dude you are in such desperate denial of reality! Like Schrodinger’s cat. We open that box and show you a dead cat, and you insist it’s only sleeping, or unconscious, or even actually a dog…. you just won’t see reality as long as it isn’t what you want it to be. You sound so intelligent, you really do and I believe you are…. but you insist on being soooo ignorant! Snobbishly ignorant actually. As if anyone who actually KNOWS anything is beneath you for knowing it! So many times we offer proof. Data, videos, studies, stats, documents, even BODIES! And still you rationalize it away or simply insult it and ignore it. (i.e. maafa21) Obviously they are only spewing “bile” and “nonsense” compared to your lofty ignorance.
Well I called it. Hum, Haw, and blather in retaliation if you want. All I hear is a sickly ignorant person in denial, insisting on staying ignorant and being offended by whatever contrary-to-your-reality knowledge dares show it’s face. Use your great intelligence to LEARN. Stop wasting it! :)
cheerful, amiable sort of bloke.
Reality, how do you rationalize commenting on a video you have never even seen? If I commented on a proabort video without even seeing it wouldn’t you think that I was arrogant and ignorant?
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” Ben Frankling
mp, to me you are a wonderful human being worthy of all the respect due to your dignity as well as to everyone partecipating in this blog and to the unborn.