Stanek Sunday funnies 6-10-12
My top five favorite political cartoons this week, beginning with a good one by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Clay Jones at GoComics.com…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
… referencing this 2007 campaign promise…
… when all the union-backed gubernatorial nominee got in Wisconsin’s recall election last week was this lousy tweet…
by liberal Ted Rall at GoComics.com, which I found astute and often sadly accurate…
by liberal Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com, who, like the rest of them, can’t let go of the “war on women” meme, even though it’s a big loser, and who, like the rest of them, continues to misrepresent the Catholic Church’s opposition to the Obamacare contraception mandate, which is actually to protect religious freedom…
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.
LOLLLL,
Our fearless leader tweets his support to Barrett. A ringing endorsement if I ever saw one.
Its awe inspiring how the Dear Leader stands firmly and courageously with those he supports.
“b.o.” would be a more appropriate signature .
The last cartoon is a total waste. It’s not as if the reason why the Catholic Church opposes contraception is some big secret. It’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, right there on the Vatican website. It has absolutely nothing to do with controlling women. It’s about respecting marriage. Jesus said that when a man and woman marry, the two become one flesh. Either we take that seriously or we don’t.
“Understand this. If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain, when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself.
I’LL WALK ON THAT PICKET LINE WITH YOU AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
because Americans deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.”
The Wisconsin public sector union members strategic blunder was they did not disguise their picket line…… as a golf course.
correction:
“I’LL WALK ON THAT PICKET LINE WITH YOU AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
of America because workers
deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.”
I guess Tom Barrett was never a union worker.
I wonder if Barrett printed out that magnanimous tweet and had it framed.
But what the heck, mr. bo-jangles still has a few more months to make good on his promise to union members.
The least b o could do is wear a tee shirt emblazoned with union logos while he is playing yet another round of golf.
Wait, didn’t the obamteur permit a with a union official to play a round of golf with him?
Maybe in b o’s world that counts as walking the picket line with you as president.
Come on Ken,
Didn’t The One put on a great display of courage and support by standing next to Teamster boss, uh, president James(the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree)Hoffa Jr? Obama said nothing when Hoffa referred to Tea Party Americans as SOBs. Now if that didn’t show solidarity what did?
I should point out that when Hoffa’s father, former Teamster boss, uh president, Jimmy disappeared in 1975, the only thing Detroiters wondered was what took the mafia so long to kill him.
“b.o.” would be a more appropriate signature.”
or the obamateur
or mr. bo-jangles
You know the o’bamas named the first dog ‘bo’.
So was it the dog who ‘Tweeted’ or the obamateur?
The least b o could have done was dispatched the first dog to walk the picketlines with the union workers in Wisconsin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-puts-bo-on-the-trail/2012/04/30/gIQAgZrYsT_story.html
Know what would be funny? If Obama did his entire presidential campaign from Twitter. After all, if sending out a tweet counts as standing with Barrett, then surely it is good enough for the president himself.
the fueher finds out unions fail in effort to recall Scott Walker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC_ult6-Tb4
“”We’ll leave first thing in the morning… there’s only one place left to go….Sacramento.
Appointments to the local school board.
It’s the last bastion of imbeciles.
They’ll put free hookers and cocaine on our health care plan as long as we say, “It’s for the children”…..until the bankruptcy trustee takes over.”
Hi Ken,
I’m sure Obama’s reaction wasn’t much different!
If you enjoyed Hitler’s reaction, Ed Schultz’s is even more hilarious. Oh, and you rural hicks of Wisconsin who cling to your guns and religion, take note. According to this great liberal thinker, YOU are the real reason Barrett lost.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/47714415
Obama was politically wise to stay out of Wisconsin. He’s got a very good shot at winning the state (82% on the newest 538 projections) and leads SOLIDLY in the state. The Barrett election wasn’t a good election to tie oneself to – to short of a timeframe to raise the money, spend the money, build momentum – and at the end of the day, there was a fairly decent amount of people who simply don’t think the recall process is the way to handle things (further evidenced, I believe, by the vote in Ohio which didn’t recall anybody, but flipped that law).
“I’LL WALK ON THAT PICKET LINE WITH YOU AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of America
because workers
deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.”
Ex-RINO,
But the obamateur made a campaign promise that he would be there walking the picket line with them.
There was no ‘qualifier’ about whether or not it was politically expedient to do so.
b o just added Barrett and the Wisconsin unions to the ever growing collection of psychophants tossed under his campaign bus.
Come on EGV,
Politically wise? He was covering his butt. Better to send that aging sex offender, Bill Clinton, than personally be associated with a losing candidate.
Obama’s decision was totally self serving.
Ken -
And Walker promised to create 250K jobs and he won’t. And Bush promised to balance the budget and he didn’t. And Obama promised unemployment would drop to a certain point and it didn’t.
If you are keeping a list of promises that politicians make you and I and feel that they are going to live up to those promises, they you are surely more of an optimist than I am.
Mary -
Name one federal politician in the last 100 years that hasn’t been self serving. Bill Clinton or Mark Sanford when they were getting serviced?
You pick your times, you pick your battles. The collective bargaining dispute in Wisconsin is far from over – there’s no amendment, there’s little public consensus – just one more thing that will be added to the list of things to fight over during the years.
EGV,
Little public consensus? Was there or was there not just a recall in which Walker won by a comfortable margin?
I’m glad we agree on self serving. But please, call it was it is. Don’t confuse it with political wisdom.
Yes, Bill Clinton did indeed get serviced.
and Sanford made a complete jack ass out of himself running off to S. America.
Ed Schultz: “I don’t understand it. I don’t get it.”
Obviously. Unions are obsolete. I’ve seen it in my own family with my father’s membership in UAW. I proudly voted for Walker, and I’d do it again.
Ex-RINO, your butthurt here today makes it all worth it.
Name one federal politician in the last 100 years that hasn’t been self serving. Bill Clinton or Mark Sanford when they were getting serviced?
They’re all self-serving to some degree, but at least the ones on my side don’t do things to support the death of children in utero. And, I know they’re not federal, but did you vote for Barrett this week, Ex-RINO? If you did, think about all the children who weren’t killed in RU-486 abortions because of the bill Scott Walker signed. If you had your way, they’d be dead. YOU would be partially responsible for that. Don’t try to pretend you wouldn’t be culpable. How much free stuff they’re promising you is worth the lives of those children, Ex-RINO?
Mary – the vote was a recall of Walker – it wasn’t a vote (like Ohio) on collective bargaining. In the state, I was shocked at how little of the ads focused on the collective bargaining issue. Walker ran on job numbers – the Democrats ran on the criminal probe and the other job numbers (since there are two sets).
If you think the issue is dead forever in Wisconsin, that’s an opinion you can keep – I’m just saying from the exit polls, from the Ohio results vs Wisconsin results – I don’t see it going away anytime soon.
Ex:
First, to explain from a pro-life perspective why it is such a great victory for our side that Walker won. To quote just one sentence from the May/June issue of the Wisconsin Right to Life journal “Life Voice”. In their lead article entitled: “For Life’s Sake, Scott Walker Must Win the June 5 Recall Election” they stated with no little emphasis: ”Governor Walker has contributed more to building a culture of life in Wisconsin than any other single public servant in our state’s history“. Now of course everyone has their opinions, but coming from one of the main pro-life groups in Wisconsin who do battle with the pro-death forces on a daily basis this is no small praise!
In contrast to Walker’s sterling prolife credentials Barrett was/is a prochoice extremist. You can be sure that the feminists and Planned Parenthood supporters were among the most vociferous opponents of Walker which wratcheted up the fury levels a couple of notches.
You try to spin it as though Barrett had so little time. Actually, the whole recall process has been going on for months–signature gathering, muckraking, hate filled screeds and fury all. More than ample time.
Make no mistake about it…Wisconsin Democrats did everything they could to despoil Governor Walker’s name and character. And for what? It is not like Walker was caught on the phone selling a senate seat. Believe me, we here in Illinois know real corruption, and we have two ex govs in prison to prove it!!
This whole pathetic recall process ought to be changed now before the next group of spoiled public union employees, idle narcissists, anarchists, leftist media types, and academic navel gazers get a hair up their wazoo and drag the state though yet another exercise in abusing the true intent of a recall. Oh, and by the way, in 2014 you may want to put someone else up against Walker instead of the extreme pro-abort, two time loser Barrett.
Wisconsin is definitely in play come November. The recall proves it, despite the credence you might give to some meaningless polls, one of which had Walker and Barrett tied. How credible is that poll? We know all too well how the leftists and their compliant media hacks manipulate polls to fit their agendas.
X -
Not a fan of Barrett – I think the Dems chose a bad a candidate quite frankly. I think that parties tend to think that they hate the other candidate so much, that they can simply choose anybody and that person will win. Truth is, you have to get a good candidate, and I think in Kerry (against Bush), Barrett (against Walker), and quite possibly Romney (against Obama) – inferior choices are chosen to run against a vulnerable incumbent – and it often doesn’t go well. Hate only carries a party so far.
I’m not a union member, and I felt that private unions should have to pay for a bigger chunk. I think Walker has been a horrible governor (for about 8 different reasons) – but I’m not crying over this election. I just disagree that is says anything about the state and the Presidential election, nor do I think this ends the collective bargaining debate in the state.
The RU486 ban (well, not a ban – doesn’t outlaw it) certainly is a good step – but why didn’t Walker spend his political capital banning abortion completely in the state? Why is the GOP, when they have solid majorities, quite willing to go to the mat to break up unions (which contribute to the left) and vote against Planned Parenthood (which contributes to the left) – but they won’t actually ban abortion? How many states have GOP majorities? Did Wisconsin ever discuss it?
You feel so high and mighty about voting for the right. So they vote against funding abortion – big deal. It’s like not giving a person a gun to go commit murder, but you still leave the gun on the table and leave the room and the crazy person there. The GOP will earn some respect when they actually put their political lives on the line to BAN abortion – they could certainly pass it at anytime.
You yell at me and you yourself are a huge part of the problem as well. You demand nothing and are satisfied with so little.
You feel so high and mighty about voting for the right. So they vote against funding abortion – big deal.
If I was satisfied, I wouldn’t be here. Every little bit helps, and unlike you, I’m not willing to just throw my hands in the air and vote for people who have blood on their hands (getting my hands bloody in the process) as long as they give me free shtuff.
Jerry -
Three things:
- Exit polls and Marquette both had Obama up solidly in Wisconsin. Marquette predicted Walker-Barrett. Pollster has Wisconsin a lean Obama – 538 has it a toss up, but an 83% Obama chance.
- So abortion isn’t banned in Wisconsin, and to balance the budget the state took thousands out of BadgerCare (state Medicaid), cut college funding (making it harder for those to get an education), and took away several tax breaks the poor received (thus raising their tax liability). That’s great that it will be harder for people to get RU486 (though not banned) – but do you really think that those other cuts, when finances are the number one reason people get abortions, are going to reduce abortions? I’ll tell you the number one way to raise abortion rates – make people poorer.
- I agree on recalls – I full support making it much harder to recall, if not impossible.
X -
If the right isn’t going to ban it, I’m going to vote for economic policies that I feel will reduce abortion. A good chunk of abortions are because women/families don’t feel that they have the resources and opportunities to raise a baby – that they are better off not having a baby. So in my eyes, it isn’t helpful when a political party says they want people to choose life, yet they vote to make more people uninsured, they cut education opportunities, and they seem to do whatever they can to make sure the rich are protected, even if that means hurting the poor. That’s my issue.
If you would put your anger away for a second and converse like a grown-up, that would be helpful.
I’ve been dirt poor, unemployed, and pregnant. I know that’s not an excuse to kill your child. Trying to bribe women with free things into not killing their children isn’t a solution. Maybe we should try to combat bank robbery and embezzlement with bribery too, then? Why have any laws against anything at all? Why not repeal all laws and just have Big Daddy Gobmint start using positive reinforcement only?
I am a grown-up. That’s why I expect adults to be treated like adults, not children.
X – and that is great, and lots of people who are dirt poor, unemployed, and pregnant will choose to have a baby. Statistically though, if you asked me to describe a person who was going to have an abortion (against, using stats), the numbers would say that person would be poor and single.
On bank robbery, embezzlement, and bribery we have public consensus that those things should be illegal. My entire rant was regarding the fact that it appears the GOP is okay with having abortion around – just restricting it. If we’ve decided as a society to allow abortion, then you’ve got to look to the next level of how to bring down rates.
If you disagree and feel that the GOP is working hard to outlaw abortion, you are quite free to point out political laws that have been proposed to outlaw abortion.
Dur-hur. Just check out the last few Personhood Amendments, and tell me which party’s voters have been supporting them. If any have gotten backing from any political party, tell me what parties those were.
So if the party’s voters are quick to support, why does it take people going door to door to collect signatures to get legislation on it?
How many personhood votes, or other votes banning abortion have been passed at the legislative level?
And do you feel the GOP federal and state level have thrown their support entirely behind these votes? For instance, in Mississippi – how many million did the GOP give to the effort to pass the ballot initiative?
I’m not saying that pro-lifers don’t general vote GOP – I’m saying that if the GOP has a solid majority and is going to put their neck on the line for something – I haven’t seen evidence that they will do it for abortion. Again, at any time they could vote to outlaw it in their state. They’ll attack unions (that have thick pocketbooks) – they’ll attack planned parenthood (that has thick pocketbooks) – maybe babies just don’t have thick enough pocketbooks to support?
“A good chunk of abortions are because women/families don’t feel that they have the resources and opportunities to raise a baby – that they are better off not having a baby.”
Not sure how you define “a good chunk”, Ex-GOP, but most abortions occur because an expectant mother feels she just isn’t ready to be a mother emotionally, not simply financially. The correlation between more tax-payer funding for college and abortions has been a positive correlation,ie as college loans became more widely available, abortions have increased.
Simply paying for college doesn’t ensure success in college. Having taught at the college level, I have seen WAY too many young people in college who aren’t mature enough to be a student in higher education, aren’t academically prepared, and aren’t disciplined to study because they aren’t paying for it. When students receive funding from parents or tax-payers and require no financial effort (either working or earning scholarships), odds are they will spend more time “finding themselves”, ie skipping class, partying late, exploring sexuality, leading of course to more unwanted pregnancies.
As an alternative to your theory of subsidizing education, I propose giving young people more responsibility to give them a sense of ownership for their education. Cutting government handouts isn’t about “protecting the rich”, it’s about fostering a society where people earn what they have.
Nobody votes to “make” people uninsured or “cut” their opportunities. They vote to have a just society where everyone has not equal earnings but equal *opportunities* to earn. I realize from previous exchanges with you that we may see the concept of “just” differently. However, I don’t find a society “just” where I work my way through college and earn scholarships and then work to pay for other people to go to college without the same amount of effort as I put forth.
EGV 2:28PM
This wasn’t a vote on collective bargaining? Why do you think there was an attempt to recall Walker?
You’re right about Barrett. Falk was hand picked by the union goons. They settled for Barrett when they had no other choice.
Eric -
Could you post the study/numbers on the correlation between abortion and college funding?
You make good points. For me, I’m disappointed in the GOP that at the end of the day, if they have $1 dollar to settle at a budgetary level, they draw their line in the sand and say they’ll never get that dollar by taxing a person, even if they have a billion dollars – yet they are quite fine getting that dollar by cutting a service that helps a poor person. It is a line in the sand I don’t agree with. I know folks think that if the rich make enough money, it will trickle down – I just don’t see it.
Mary – the signatures were definitely focused on collective bargaining – while I was able to DVR past most commercials, at the election time, the majority of focus was not on collective bargaining (which again, shocked me – maybe in your part of the state it was different).
I think Feingold would have made it an interesting race and he’s got a better name appeal. The left had passion, but no strategy or candidate (I see a lot of similarities with Romney so far – we’ll see).
EG: “yet they are quite fine getting that dollar by cutting a service that helps a poor person.”
Why NOT?
Let the states do it. It’s not the federal government’s job.
You’re not Ex-GOP, EG. You’re just pro-huge-government.
Rasqual – I’m talking about both at a state and federal level.
And not huge government. Just responsible – and we should pay for what we commit to.
Why? By what moral imperative? Why would it be more morally imperative than “don’t spend money you don’t have?”
If I commit to a mortage and don’t have the money to pay for it, I’m a scoundrel. You seem to have it that scoundrels — a government that commits to pay for what it can’t afford — is somehow obliged to show virtue in the very act of perpetuation their scoundreltude.
Ex-GOP,
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If you’re disappointed in the GOP, you should be furious with the Democrats. Unless pro-life is at the bottom of the list of your top 100 concerns.
No matter how you phrase it Rasqual – the government is running a deficit, and has for years and years under both parties. They commit to things that they don’t have money for, and then when they don’t have it, they fight borrowing to pay for what they committed to.
The GOP (Ryan) came up with a plan that didn’t balance the budget for decades and was so harsh that it was denounced by the Catholic Bishops.
Obama doesn’t even come up with a plan – not one his own party supports at least.
I think it is fairly obvious to most that it is going to have to be a COMBO of cuts and tax increases, and the further they put this off, the harsher it is going to be.
Hans – from a voting perspective – yes – towards the bottom of my list. Aside from a few funding shifts, I don’t see the difference between Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama in regards to abortion.
I think both sides make too much money off the debate – good business for them. If abortion was slam dunk legal with no fighting, would the Dems get big money from P.P.? And if abortion was illegal and not fought over, would the GOP get big money and support from the family values crowd?
Maybe you think a vote for Romney is going to lead to abortion being banned. I’m saying if they don’t have the guts to pass it in the many states where the GOP rules all the bodies of the government – then it ain’t gonna get done at the federal level.
Ex-GOP,
We’re not going to turn this aircraft carrier of the abortion debate around on a dime, as much as many of us would like that. But I would rather steer with the current than against it. That is why all my allegiance will be towards the Party that will best accomplish this turnaround. I will not follow the Democrats down the maelstrom / whirlpool.
Metaphors exhausted.
“I don’t see the difference between Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama in regards to abortion.”
ok. Do you see a difference in people at all when it comes to abortion?
Hans – ha! So next year is what, 30 years since RvWade? How slow are they trying to take it?
truth –
yes
“So next year is what, 30 years since RvWade”
Actually, 40. I’m guessing that was a typo.
The SCOTUS is responsible for legalizing abortion in the US and the POTUS apponts the members of SCOTUS. Realstically if all those presidents had been Pro-Life RoeVWade would be overturned by now.
Yes – it would be. It also wouldn’t need overturning if the vote hadn’t passed so easily with a bunch of judges put in by Republican presidents.
Ex-GOP,
It took over 200 years to overturn slavery. We were very ignorant of other races and cultures then, which gave them a 1% excuse as compared to ancient cultures who enslaved anyone, including those much like themselves.
I would hope it doesn’t take us that long this time. Excuses of ignorance are withering away with all the medical knowledge and technology of today.
I think there will be some huge ethical debates in the next ten years – the increased knowledge of genes and the ability to “check” what kind of kid a person is going to have will certainly make for some interesting conversations. What if a gay gene is discovered? What if desirable or undesirable traits could be tested, and people abort because of that? Should be interesting.
Ex-GOP is just trolling, so he really shouldn’t be fed. The wacky argument that the GOP has done nothing to fight abortion is usually made by people who will never vote GOP on account of the GOP being prolife. Nearly every time the GOP does something prolife, the Democrats go completely bonkers, claiming that there’s a war on women, the GOP is trying to force its religion on people, and they’re a bunch of fascist Nazis etc. Then they bring their lawsuits, their media campaigns, and their “community organizers” aka street thugs.
It’s true that the GOP could be more prolife than it is. Unfortunately the Democratic Party is the most antilife party in the history of the USA. I support the GOP mainly as a means of opposing the reprehensible Democrats.
John -
If I’m simply trying to insight anger or make people mad, certainly ignore me. You and I both know people come onto this site and post things just to get under other’s skin.
Do you think I’m doing that? Do you think the various points I bring up aren’t worthy of debate?
You yourself start by saying I’m just a troll, and then end by saying that it is true that the GOP could be more prolife. Certainly you don’t agree with everything I say – are you so afraid of disagreement that you have to resort to name calling if you disagree with somebody?
Again, if my presence here bothers you, ignore my posts. I feel that I’ve had a respectful conversation with many people on this thread – I think it is very rude to break in at the end and call me a troll.
Your post really is under my skin – not everybody in life is going to agree with you, and it would be nice if you’d be more respectful when people don’t.
Wow, what a nerve.
Call the waaaaambulance.
John,
I”ll have to defend Ex-GOP here. I would define a troll as someone who is looking for an argument but unwilling to hear the other side.
His heart is in the right place. Now we just have to work on getting his head there as well.
Ex-RINO,
the obamateur PROMISED that he would be walking the picket lines with union members wherever collective bargaining was threatened.
b o’s campaign tour took him all around the boundaries of the state of Wisconsin, but he did not make a single appearance in Wisconsin.
He didn’t even send his dog ‘bo’ in his place.
You can’t lay that one on the arab spring, earthquakes, tsunamis or W.
You can’t blame the republicans for mr. bo-jangles.
You can only blame the loons who voted for b o.
Ex-GOP says: “I think there will be some huge ethical debates in the next ten years – the increased knowledge of genes and the ability to “check” what kind of kid a person is going to have will certainly make for some interesting conversations. What if a gay gene is discovered? What if desirable or undesirable traits could be tested, and people abort because of that? Should be interesting.”
Interesting? You think that the future potential for people to kill unborn HUMAN BEINGS because those humans don’t have the “traits” they desire is interesting?
No. It is now clear to me. There is NO WAY a pro-life person could have authored the paragraph I quoted. Stop your posing.
“His heart is in the right place.”
No, it most certainly is not. Anyone that thinks the potential extermination of human beings with “undesirable traits” is “interesting” doesn’t have a heart.
Ex-GOP, thanks for the good question about abortion rates and availability of college funding – the answer is abortion rates have actually decreased, contrary to what I wrote earlier, and I stand corrected.
His heart is in the right place. Now we just have to work on getting his head there as well.
If his heart was in the right place, his head would follow shortly thereafter. Ex-GOP has a hard-of-heart issue but is able to fool a few people just like BO fooled the masses.
Thanks Hans.
For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.
I simply rub people the wrong way because I don’t put the Republican party on a some idol platform.
I don’t really like the Dems as much as I think people think I do – this place is SO far right that anybody in the middle looks like a socialist.
Lrning -
I’m sorry – I meant, these debates will give the extreme pro-lifers and extreme pro-choichers something to fight even more about. They can shoot, assault, slur, and hate each other even more.
Come on – from an intellectual, ethical, and conversational perspective we could get into some interesting territory.
I’m sure from an unintellectual side, it will give you more stuff to be mad about.
Eric – thanks for checking.
I don’t think social programs solve the world. I do think when we bypass education and health care, and make it harder for people to see a way to a better economic situation, abortion looks like a better alternative than having a baby. I think the numbers support that belief.
Praxedes – and let me guess, you justified supporting George Bush, who was willing to fry people in the state of Texas, and go off to war as quickly as he could.
And you’ll be so quick to support Mitt Romney, who aims to bring back the phrase “pre-existing condition” and reverse the hope so many parents have of being able to have medical treatments for their kids without facing lifetime caps – a decision of treatment for a kid that brings financial and family ruin.
Obama’s not perfect – surely no – if you have the perfect candidate, please, let me know who they are. I’ll be the first to sign up for them.
EG: “The GOP (Ryan) came up with a plan that didn’t balance the budget for decades and was so harsh that it was denounced by the Catholic Bishops.”
So? The bishops are retarded in their skulls on the principle of constitutionally limited government. Dead serious.
“I’m sorry – I meant, these debates will give the extreme pro-lifers and extreme pro-choichers something to fight even more about. They can shoot, assault, slur, and hate each other even more.”
Spoken like a true pro-lifer. Not.
“Come on – from an intellectual, ethical, and conversational perspective we could get into some interesting territory.”
Oh sure. Sometimes I like to just ponder the many “interesting” ways the Nazis tortured and killed those with “undesirable traits”. Not.
“I’m sure from an unintellectual side, it will give you more stuff to be mad about.”
Mad? Oh no. I’m happy to have finally uncovered the mystery of your odd posts here. You’re a pro-life poser.
“I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Mmhm. Sure you do. There are 17,000 homicides in this country each year and 1,200,000 abortions. But don’t let that measly number impact your voting decisions. What about the economy?!!! I mean, it’s not like these people you’re voting for are pro-murder or anything! Oh, wait…
“I simply rub people the wrong way because I don’t put the Republican party on a some idol platform.”
That ain’t it. I’m no Republican. It’s your pro-life posing that rubs me the wrong way.
I’d love for Mike Luckovich to inform me how I’m being controlled by the Catholic Church… his cartoon inspired a blog post.
What Lrning said. He’s a Poser.
EGV 11:08PM,
How interesting. I am an Independent Tea Party supporter who is disgusted with both parties. I certainly don’t place the Republicans on any pedestal.
I maintain they both sit smoke filled rooms, wheeling and dealing and slapping each other on the back, and priding themselves on the next con job they can pull on the American people.
I must admit that I love pointing out historical facts that make people cringe, like the racist history of the Democrat Party. The less politically correct the better. That doesn’t mean I’ve been pleased with Republicans who pride themselves on their ability to “get along” and accomplish nothing.
I try my best to present an opinion based on fact, which doesn’t mean I always win popularity contests here either. If anything, I have gotten people here very irate with me by doing so.
Prax/Lrning -
You two sure do seem to enjoy the comforts of getting people in a tidy little worldview box as quickly as you can. Would love to be a visitor at one of the churches you go to – do you stand in the corner with your buddies and try to come up with life story of the visitors so that you can know everything about them and not have to actually deal with them?
I know you keep getting hung up on the term “interesting” – my point is, for instance, imagine if a gay gene (or sequence of genes) is found – do you not wonder how that could change the debate in some people’s minds if they now know that various rednecks could run a gene test and abort a baby because it is predisposed to, or will be gay? As a smart member of the board posted earlier – the science of it all is showing a lot to society about what they kill.
I must ask though – I’d like a definition of pro-life. Maybe I am a poser – maybe there’s certain actions/voting styles/groupthink mentalities one must adhere to. So if you two were framing the question for gallup to see if a person was pro-life or pro-choice – tell me what your definitions are.
Mary -
Yes, and you and I both know that at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote Democrat, and you are more likely than not to vote Republican. I certainly wish you and I both had more choices than the Pepsi vs Coke decision we get.
More and more though, I find myself agreeing with you on the nature of politics. At least in the good ole days they set aside their pride after a while to get something solved. Now, gridlock is a virtue. If somebody caves a little, they are bound to get thrown out of their seat in the next election!
“I know you keep getting hung up on the term “interesting” – my point is, for instance, imagine if a gay gene (or sequence of genes) is found – do you not wonder how that could change the debate in some people’s minds if they now know that various rednecks could run a gene test and abort a baby because it is predisposed to, or will be gay?”
My, my. There’s a “tidy little worldview box” for ya.
“I must ask though – I’d like a definition of pro-life.”
Within the context of abortion: Opposed to legalized abortion, anti-abortion.
What makes you a poser: You spend time virtually every day on the website of a pro-life warrior, yet maintain a blase attitude about eliminating what you equate to the murder of over a million innocents each year. The issue is somewhat low on your priority list, yet you spend a significant amount of time here, posting as a supposed “pro-lifer”. If someone answering the Gallup poll has vague feelings of negativity about abortion and describes themselves as “pro-life”, whatev. The bar for you has been raised by virtue of you being better informed on the issue, as evidenced by your daily presence here on this blog.
So if you two were framing the question for gallup to see if a person was pro-life or pro-choice – tell me what your definitions are.
It certainly WOULD NOT include someone who is “more likely than not to vote Democrat” even after knowing inside and out what it is that the Democratic party pushes and supports.
I’m not “hung-up” on any one word you type, Ex-GOP. It’s when I take into account all of the words I’ve ever read of yours that I come to the conclusion you are a poser and/or or a troll.
*poseur
There is an old military tactic called demoralizing the enemy. When a person practices that tactic, on a weekly basis, attacking even the most mild-mannered and open-minded commenters, it is quite impossible to imagine that said attacker is a member of one’s own team.
I am also reminded of a good friend of mine. He’s a great guy, would give you the shirt off his back as they say. BUT, he’s also an unrepentant internet flamer. He’s been banned from more websites than I’ve even visited. He is relegated to commenting on only one site now, and he’s been so snarky even there to his own friends, that soon he’ll be blocked from that one too. If Jill’s website weren’t so tolerant, the one who reminds me of him would also probably only have one page left on which to comment.
I haven’t gotten to quote Ross Perot in years but… “don’t weewee on my shoes and tell me that it’s rainin’.”
I’d love to be proven wrong. Can it be done? That remains to be seen.
Prax/Lrning – and quite frankly, this is part pro-life board, and part general conservative thought. And on the pro-life posts, most of them I don’t post on because I generally agree – positing would just be contributing to the group think mentality, and what I would say has been said.
But a lot of posts are general political, and that’s where I think there’s room for debate.
What I don’t understand is how quickly you are willing to disregard any of my viewpoints and demonize me to avoid answering some questions which I think are good questions?
- Is the pro-life crowd expecting too little from the political parties?
- What could be learned from past battles (for example Civil Rights) and applied here?
- Who truly is the enemy?
I mean, I even mentioned putting the heat on the GOP to actually pass a state ban on abortion, and I was told things can’t move that fast…can’t turn on a dime? How many decades is long enough?
Again, sorry I don’t think the GOP is all that and a bag of chips. The GOP had the white house in what, 20 or 28 years? In almost three decades, how happy are you with the progress that was made?
” I would define a troll as someone who is looking for an argument but unwilling to hear the other side”
I disagree. To me, a troll is someone who posts nothing but BS in a naked attempt to stir up the hornet’s nest. In other words, Ex-GOP. Anyone who makes the argument that the GOP and the Dems are the same on abortion is ridiculous beyond belief.
But a lot of posts are general political, and that’s where I think there’s room for debate. What I don’t understand is how quickly you are willing to disregard any of my viewpoints and demonize me to avoid answering some questions which I think are good questions?
Well, maybe that’s part of the disconnect then. I despise politics. More and more every day. It seems there are no public servants in politics. And, this is the first I’ve seen of these questions.
- Is the pro-life crowd expecting too little from the political parties?
No. We are expecting too much. Abortion is first and foremost NOT about politics. Is murder a political issue? Abortion is an egregious human rights violation.
- What could be learned from past battles (for example Civil Rights) and applied here?
Great question. Do you publicly protest abortion Ex-GOP?
Ex-RINO,
Why in the world do you think the discovery of a gay gene would change so many peoples minds? A pro-life person would care every bit much about the the murder of heterosexuals. The people you are talking would not be considered pro-life (people against killing); they would be considered pro-homosexual because it is only the killing of homosexuals that moves them to action.
Ex says:
I simply rub people the wrong way because I don’t put the Republican party on a some idol platform.
I find your comment to be incredibly condescending. You obviously do not know pro-lifers…we do not “idolize” the Republican party. We simply look at reality. Of the two major parties, only the Republicans offer any chance for us. Surely you have to concede that much.
Speaking of idols…your fellow Democrat/Socialists have one, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama.
Ex-Rino says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm
“For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am
“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote Democrat…”
Would love to be a visitor at one of the churches you go to – do you stand in the corner with your buddies and try to come up with life story of the visitors so that you can know everything about them and not have to actually deal with them?
I would love to have you visit my church, Ex-GOP. You might find me and my family (who are also my buddies) at the prolife table handing out carnations, Lifesavers and prolife pins or you may find us chatting with others about our upcoming youth mission trip.
Maybe you’ve already been to my church. Are you that guy that avoids me and can’t look me in the eye?
John -
I’m just saying, if you take out what they SAY, and only look at what they DO, as well as the numbers of abortions under Presidencies, I don’t see much difference.
Lrning -
So if we take politics out of it – all the countless battles of moving the line back and forth – what fundamental things can be done to make it so that when women find themselves pregnant, they feel that they don’t feel like they are in a hopeless situation. Obviously, getting everyone into loving churches would help.
On protesting – I’ve never protested anything out in a large group in my life. I don’t give money to political candidates, and rarely to organizations other than churches, missions, and Christian outreach organizations. I’ve given goods to a pro-life crisis pregnancy center before, and I contribute to MDA. But no protesting.
I do think though – the civil rights movement demanded equality – they didn’t ask for small changes in funding and extra regulations for places that discriminated against them. Maybe there are lessons there.
truth -
Because there are a lot of people who have pushed for further laws (hate crime legislation for instance) in regards to the protection of being gay.
Jerry -
I think you demand too little of the GOP – that’s what I’m saying. Maybe idol is too far.
On Democrats – yes – some people do idolize Obama. Just as some Republicans idolized Bush. Luckily, it doesn’t seem like anybody but his own family really likes Romney that much. :-)
On Socialists – I’d get into more of a debate here…but I’ll simply say that if you think Obama is a socialist, you read far too many bumper stickers and don’t really understand what Socialism is.
Ken -
Yes – I posted those two statements – and I see no legislation for years introduced by either party that says that abortion is murder. If you would like to post a link, would be willing to look at it.
and I’m just saying that if you look at what (R)’s DO with regard to abortion and compare that to what (D)’s DO in regard to abortion, you’ve got a lot of blood on your hands, Ex-RINO.
Prax -
Never been to your church – and would have no issue with you doing what you do.
Going back to why I said what I said though – after simply stating that I don’t think the GOP, once in office, does much anything differently than the Democrats in regards to legislation (again, setting aside talk) – you and your buddy Lrning both jumped very quickly on me calling me a pro-life poser.
So my point is, you seem to have a bulleted list of everything that makes up a pro-lifer (maybe Christians in general) – and if a person doesn’t live up to that worldview that you hold, you seem to see that as a threat.
That is my point.
X – Again, I’ll throw the challenge out to you as well – maybe I’ve missed the legislation that Bush proposed banning abortion – or that Reagan proposed. Or that anybody proposed.
Link please? Again, I might have missed it and am willing to say I’m completely wrong. Build a case X – put your money where your mouth, or, well fingers typing on a keyboard, is!
I have a pretty short list.
Don’t vote for people who support the legality of killing children in utero.
It’s pretty cut-and-dry. Don’t say you oppose something then do things that encourage that thing to continue and even flourish.
X -
Again – maybe I’ve missed the legislation. I see a lot of politicians that are okay with abortion but want people to pay for it themselves. But who is against abortion?
Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.
Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 86 Sep 1, 2004
Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment
We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000
Invest in stem cell and other medical research
We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research.
We believe in investing in life saving stem cell and other medical research that offers real hope for cures and treatment for millions of Americans.
Source: 2006 Democratic Party Congressional Promise Nov 1, 2006
Pursue embryonic stem cell research
Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 Jul 10, 2004
Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004
Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right
Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000
In summation:
DURRRRRRRR HURRRRRRRRRR
I missed the votes when those came up x – the votes to ban abortion with a constitutional amendement – how many times have the GOP proposed it in the last 12 years (since that declaration)?
X -
So Obama said that he would like abortion to become rare – so you would put him up with the GOP then, right – because he has said good things about lowering or eliminating the rate of abortions?
Because you can’t hold Obama to the stand of actions and the GOP to the standard of words.
That’s disturbing. What about taxpayers who don’t support abortion?
I don’t want an innocent aborted baby’s cold bloody fingers on my hands.
Also, except for condoms and the like, contraceptives kill babies because they prevent an already conceived embryo from implanting to a woman’s uterine wall.
54 million babies (and countless MILLIONS more unknown from birth control pills) is MORE THAN ENOUGH!
1 abortion is excessively wicked!
As Marge Simpson would say, “HmmMmmm..”
I see a long history of comments by someone who regularly comes here to demoralize pro-lifers and has never, until this week, typed a single sentence that would lead the pro-abortion advocates to believe he ISN’T on their own team. If I saw this person comment in the same biting and unpleasant way TO THE ABORTION ADVOCATES, then I might chalk it up to the person’s generally snarky demeanor (such as my own). As it is, I observe the following:
If it quacks like an abortion advocate, and it waddles like an abortion advocate, and it has webbed feet like an abortion advocate…. it ain’t a pro-lifer. If that offends a fence-sitting ambivilent pro-choicer who wishes he or she were pro-life, too durn bad. You wanna be on the team? Then fight abortion, not pro-lifers.
Telling a bunch of vegans that their meat-eating peers do more to save animals than their vegetarian allies is simply stupid. Vegetarians aren’t as strict as vegans, but they will do less animal slaughtering than the American Association of Animal Butchers. So, if you want pro-life legislation to continue, don’t vote for the Butchers’ teammates.
There was a father who asked his first son to go out and mow the lawn. The first son said, “Sure Dad!” but he spent the day watching television on the couch. The father also asked his second son to go out and mow the lawn. The second said, “Aw, Dad! No! I have plans!” But after his father left the room, he changed his mind and went out and mowed the lawn. Which one did what his father wanted? Hint: Not Obama.
I’m sorry, dear readers, my BSoMeter is broken and all I can ask is: “ARE YOU FOR REAL?!”
ninek -
I have stated pro-life beliefs to abortion supporters on this board. If there were a history of posts, you would see them.
Again though, I’m not quite sure why you feel the need to attack me at this point – all I did was pose a question, a challenge. I even admitted that I might be wrong.
So what politicians, by action and not words, are against abortion?
And I already told you one, by actions, not words-Scott Walker. And with him, every REPUBLICAN member of Wisconsin’s state senate that drafted and voted for the bill ending medical abortions in the state (that you admitted yourself you probably voted against) that Scott Walker signed into law.
BOOM.
X -
The GOP had the majority and could have passed any abortion ban they wanted – they passed a ban on RU486 via webcam. Medication abortions, the minority of abortions in the state, have halted – but the majority continue – and women can still have other types of abortions which did not get banned.
ya, because I’m sure if they tried that, the guys on your side wouldn’t absolutely flip their crap and like, try to recall them, or set up shop in the capital building for months, or threaten violence against their families, or anything like that. You guys would NEVER do stuff like that. Evers.
There’s a reason we move incrementally. And I’d still rather be on the side that’s moving incrementally than the one that’s moving in the POLAR. OPPOSITE. DIRECTION. than the one I claim to support.
and if you think Obama’s actually helping the impoverishment that’s (in your view) contributing to abortion, here ya go:
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/06/11/thanks-obama-american-family-net-worth-down-40-percent-over-the-last-three-years/?utm_source=FAM_Blog&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FireAndreaMitchell+%28Fire+Andrea+Mitchell!+Exposing+Liberal+bias+cause+the+MSM+doesn%27t+have+to.%29
Ex-RINO,
We agree that that a large group of people who are sensitive to the homosexual cause have allied themselves with the pro-life cause in an effort to restrict abortion commited because of gene testing and a persons sexuality.
That means we have each agreed with one another ththis thread. I am not sure how that happened but I want to welcome you back from liberal-land.
Another large group of people who are sensitive to the feminist cause have allied themselves with the pro-life cause in an effort to restrict people who would commit sex-selective abortion. People naturally move towards the pro-life cause when they come to understand the humanity of the unborn.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm
“For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am
“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote Democrat…”
This is not about republicans or democRATs.
It is about your incongrutity.
You equate elective abortions with ‘murder’ , then you equivocate by saying you are more likely to vote for candidates who actively perpetuate the murdering.
How do you reconcile this contradiction?
I have never supported or voted for a democRAT. I have endorsed and voted for one independent becasue she, in my estimation, was the better candidate.
That does not mean I will never vote for a democRAT.
I hold out hope that in the not too distant future murdering thieves that run the party now will be replaced with true liberals who recognize the right to life of pre-natal children.
When I vote for Romney, it will not be because he is republican or I am sure he is pro-life.
I will vote for Romney because the obamateur is the ’Grand Dragon’ of the dead babies r us’ klan.
X -
So that leads to us a good question – why is the GOP willing to face recalls and put their political necks on the line for breaking up unions but not for banning abortion?
My only point is - and I see your point, I really do, gains and gains – but my point is, if the GOP could have done anything in Wisconsin (or any other state)- why not ban abortion? Why not actually go that far if that is what they true believe in?
On the second link – the net worth drop was 2007-2010 (Obama came into office in 2009 – mid recession) and this is a figure of net worth – almost entirely because of housing values and that bubble bursting.
I do think we’ll have more abortions based on the recession.
truth -
I think the reaction was the far pro-choice side will be that abortion should always be legal no matter what – but I think in the case we talked about above, as you said, some people would better understand the humanity of the preborn.
Ken -
I feel a little bit like the famous interview when Larry King interviewed Jerry Seinfeld, and King thought he was being cutting edge about saying Seinfeld quit tv and wasn’t fired. ”Is this news to you? Did you not know this?”
Have you read any of this whole thread?
(very quick summation of my view) My entire point is, if you take the WORDS out of the equation, I don’t see much of a difference between the GOP and Dems when it comes to abortion. The GOP cares about FUNDING of abortion, and a few arguments of pushing the line – but I find no legislative history of actually wanting to BAN abortions. If they do have that goal, 40 years surely should have been enough time to execute the goal.
So at the end of the day, while I’d like a vote to matter more concerning abortion – I don’t see it.
So I vote for issues that I think will matter – tax policy, health care, education – issues like that.
I mean, you HATE Obama -say he’s the most pro-choice President ever…so at the end of the day, looking purely at the numbers, is he going to end up being much different than Bush? Yearly abortions will be about the same, right?
“Going back to why I said what I said though – after simply stating that I don’t think the GOP, once in office, does much anything differently than the Democrats in regards to legislation (again, setting aside talk) – you and your buddy Lrning both jumped very quickly on me calling me a pro-life poser.”
You don’t seriously think I called you a pro-life poser for your political views, do you? I posted why I called you a poser. “Interesting” combined with all the other comments I’ve seen you post that don’t add up to pro-life.
“On protesting – I’ve never protested anything out in a large group in my life.”
If you have never publicly protested abortion (who said anything about “large groups”), then you are part of the problem.
I mean, you HATE Obama -say he’s the most pro-choice President ever
and you support a man, our president no less, who speaks this garbage:
“she doesn`t go down all the way”
“punished with a baby”
“I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”
“I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”
Proabort groups have always given Obama a 100% rating. Your vote for Obama lines up with the proabort groups.
Just like Obama is an elite puppet, you are a poser and are trying to play us for stupid (not succeeding btw). Some of us may be more naive and easy to play because we don’t think like those we are not (I actually pray and ask God to help me NOT think like a proabort). Naive at times we may be. Stupid we are not.
Maybe it’s time you go play somewhere else.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm
“For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am
“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote Democrat…”
You desperately want this to be about anything or anyone but you and your inconsistency.
Your words are here for all to see and judge.
You equivocate on what you have identified as a matter of life and death.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm
“For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am
“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote Democrat…”
Ex-GOP says: June 13, 2012 at 7:25 am “I mean, you HATE Obama”…
Ps 45:6-7 6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 7 You love righteousness, uprightness, and right standing with God and hate wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. AMP
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness [You have delighted in integrity, virtue, and uprightness in purpose, thought, and action] and You have hated lawlessness (injustice and iniquity). Therefore God, [even] Your God ( Godhead), has anointed You with the oil of exultant joy and gladness above and beyond Your companions. AMP
Eph 5:11 11 Take no part in and have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds and enterprises of darkness, but instead [let your lives be so in contrast as to] expose and reprove and convict them. AMP
Jude 22-23 22 And refute [so as to] convict some who dispute with you, and on some have mercy who waver and doubt. 23[Strive to] save others, snatching [them] out of [the] fire; on others take pity [but] with fear, loathing even the garment spotted by the flesh and polluted by their sensuality. [Zech 3:2-4.] AMP
If you mistakenly believe that ‘garment’ is merely clothing, then it might explain your stiniking thinking which has been polluted by your flesh and your sensuality.
I have affection and sympathy and a degree of respect for HAL, because he does not pretend to be something he is not.
Those same sentiments do not extend to the obamateur and his fellow travelers who pervert the truth in order to justify their own appetites.
Lrning – if you equate somebody saying that a debate about something would be “interesting” to say that they are faking their belief system – well, I think you read too much into single words and not enough into the broader context.
In regards to ‘protest’ – if you mean large groups out with signs – no. I’ve talked to pro-choice friends though before and explained why I believe in the sanctity of life and that abortion is wrong because of that. That no other right (including the right to privacy, a component of RvWade) was more important than the right to life because no other rights can occur without life happening first.
Does that explain better, or do you want to stay hung up on a word that strikes you wrong?
Prax -
So I should leave the board because we don’t agree?
That’s fine – a lot of politicians say a lot of things. And I’ve never said Obama is on the right side of life – I think he’s dead wrong on abortion.
I’m saying that Bush was dead wrong on abortion as well – and so was Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. They all didn’t do a darn thing about abortion except shift some funding.
Again, I’m just asking a bit if you folks expect too little from your politicians. Incremental gains are good – yes – but 40 years and where are things really?
So at the end of the day, am I a terrible person if I don’t vote GOP? In regards to abortion, I’m simply saying it doesn’t seem to matter much.
Sorry this is such a strong opinion that you don’t even want to discuss it Prax. A quick hint though – if you see my name, and skip reading what I post – you’ll be good to go.
Ken – On your first post, I would 100% agree with you if I felt that the GOP position was that they were going to ban abortion. Do you believe that any vote has come down to that?
Again – I’m not saying Obama is on the right side of abortion. I’m simply not saying the GOP is either. That all politicians don’t go far enough. I think they’d rather keep things how they are and keep the money rolling in.
But back to my original question to you that you are pulling part of the quote of. The whole question was: I mean, you HATE Obama -say he’s the most pro-choice President ever…so at the end of the day, looking purely at the numbers, is he going to end up being much different than Bush? Yearly abortions will be about the same, right?
So are you saying that your hate for Obama is equal to your hate for the string of Presidents that we have? Or are you saying that you think the GOP is better on these subjects – maybe because they talk a better game?
I’m not attacking anyone. I’m asking if you are for real. I already think that your are not. Why? Because time and time again you give the pro-aborts on this site a free pass, while you needle and badger the pro-lifers. If you FEEL attacked, then maybe you need to examine your motives for being here and to whom you sling your arrows. If you constantly demoralize people with whom you claim to be teammates, how can we believe that you are in fact on the same team? Handsome is as handsome does, Grandma used to say.
I think my earlier musing may be correct: like my friend, you have probably been chased off other venues. Nobody who’s been in my friend’s line of fire has been able to reconcile his in person generosity with his online aggression. Jill’s site contains a big portion of political material, but it is not a political site, it is a pro-life site. Your focus has been on diverting pro-lifers attention away from their political allies in an attempt to what? Discourage any political alliances at all because nobody’s perfect? While we work to change our country to a pro-life culture on many fronts, it is counterproductive for a self-identified pro-lifer to spend his or her time bickering with other pro-lifers because politicians in general seem weak and easily corrupted. Republicans and Democrats are both not perfect, but one party is more pro-abortion than the other.
Your constant harping on pro-lifers on the internet isn’t doing one durn thing to make the Democratic party more pro-life. As other people here have said, we’re not all that easily fooled. If I were a gambling man, I wouldn’t put money on you’re actually being pro-life.
I wrote than I could be proven wrong. But so far I haven’t seen anything that would make me change my mind. But who cares, right? If you’re the big pro-life warrior you claim to be, my individual opinion shouldn’t amount to a hill of pinto beans.
Ex-RINO,
The reason abortion has gotten nowhere is now and always has been the DemocRATS. Your continued denial of this is as absurd as any liberal mind-bending. Sure there have been republican presidents and abortion has not been outlawed. But the people who stop it are the DemocRATs who vote as a block against protecting the unborn. Just look at the latest vote on PRENDA. Even with a republican president it would have gone nowhere because the DemocRATs in congress voted as a block against it. And even if it had passed the house then the DemocRATs in the Senate would have voted against it. You really do seem absurd when you contend that repulicans and democrats are the same on the abortion issue. Sheesh!!!
Truth -
I simply disagree. The house could pass anything they want – at least pass it symbolically. Many state governments could pass anything they want. Let’s take our great state of Wisconsin – what did the GOP really go to the mat for? Breaking up unions. They have more money.
I agree they are different when they come to talking about it, and on funding. In regards to outright bans and if abortion should be legal or not – who knows, maybe the GOP is halfway through an 80 year execution plan…
ninek -
I feel your post deserves a much longer response – so here it goes. There’s some accurate parts about it – lots of inaccurate, so you’re going to get more here than you probably were hoping!
One of my top issues, politically and as a Christian, is the expansion of health care to cover more Americans. In my previous job I got involved in free clinics (community health centers) and believe that as a country, we should be able to cover everyone.
During the health care debate, I was dismayed to find religious organizations as part of the group trying to block the (at that time) evolving legislation. I found it quite shocking on the surface and wanted to find out more and educate myself. I came across this site for the first time to get some of that viewpoint – and I did understand the concern.
I’ve only commented regularly on other other board in my life – a death penalty debate board (I’m against the death penalty) – I got sick of the debate in general and left (not kicked out – the people there were generally less polarized and attacking – so differences in opinion, as long as people were respectful, was a bit more welcome. The site was also a bit more of a debate site than I think this might be – this might be more of a rally site).
Most of the threads I comment on here are political in nature. You are true – this is mostly a pro-life site, but quite a bit of politics comes with it – you’ll see a lot anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, anti-homosexuality, and anti-other left wing causes.
While I’m really not as far left as I make myself out to be, I find that I think the other side of the coin deserves a voice.
A few things I honestly believe:
- I believe that abortion is murder – that before a baby is born, it is a person.
- I believe that any sort of abortion ban has to be well thought out, and I believe fully needs to be linked to family support type bills (for instance, expanding the tax credit) so that women/families see that having a baby is a better alternative than abortion. Fact is, unless there is a federal ban, there will be states with abortion and without – so we could get into a trafficking situation.
- So with that above statement…I believe that we need to, through Christ, flip the nature of the debate to valuing life, loving life, and respecting life rather than the perception of controlling freedoms
- I believe that the abortion debate gets the GOP and the Democrats a lot of money. I think it is politically dangerous for either party to take bolder steps on their side, and I believe that it will take a lot more pressure on the parties to actually take bold steps. I think the funding shifts are more attacks on organizations that donate to the opposite side than they are impacting actual abortion rates.
- I do NOT feel the Democrats are right on abortion. I also do NOT feel that the GOP has, or is going to take any bold steps on abortion.
- With the belief that nothing fundamentally is going to change on abortion, I see health care, the economy, and education as bigger voting concerns – because I don’t feel like there is a huge either/or vote when it comes to abortion.
- I think three positions get me in trouble on this board. I don’t believe the Democrats are the definition of evil. I think they get a lot of positions right, some wrong, but are generally not evil people (though I believe both parties have people that are evil). The second position – I don’t believe in the use of graphic images. As a parent, I think they infringe on my parenting and the desire to let my kids grow up as kids. Third, I’m against protesting churches or mandating what churches must preach about. I believe that pastors (my dad is one) are called to be ministers, and each congregation has their own calling – and while I believe abortion is a universal problem, I will not say that Christ must be mandated to hit certain quotas in regards to preaching/giving/focus - quotas set by man.
I don’t understand why is seems to be near heresy to doubt the GOP. Since RvWade, they have had lots of political control at both the federal and state levels. Again, I’ve been more than willing on this thread to be proven wrong with evidence of legislation for banning abortion. All I’ve really gotten is funding shifts.
So if voting Republican is mandatory for being pro-life, I am not pro-life.
But my family chooses life – my daughters will be taught to choose life. I have friends who know that I choose life. Our church preaches life.
Hope this rambling made sense. Hope this paints a clearer picture. Never been kicked off a board – I don’t comment on other boards either. Not pro-choice (unless it requires a GOP vote).
In regards to outright bans and if abortion should be legal or not – who knows, maybe the GOP is halfway through an 80 year execution plan…
Ex-RINO, I am not sure if you were being sarcastic but if it takes 80 years then so be it. We won’t quit. PRENDA may come up for a vote again this year where only a simple majority is needed. And if it does then you’ll see DemocRATs use every procedural move they can to try and stop it and when they run out of procedural maneuvers they’ll behave just like the DemocRATs in Wisconsin and leave the country or go hiding in the sewers just to stop the vote.
I think they get a lot of positions right, some wrong, but are generally not evil people (though I believe both parties have people that are evil).
Ex-RINO, take a look at that picture. Now think back to Joe Biden being and Hilary Clinton visiting China and not a word said about this heinous human rights violation. What does your DemocRATic VP say to the audience while he was giving a speech to college kids in China?
” Biden told his audience, “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.”
And you vote for DemocRATs like Obama and Biden because you “see health care, the economy, and education as bigger voting concerns”. Biden went on to say the reason that he is against the one child policy is because it could hurt older peoples retirements. Don’t you see how sickening it is to vote for a president and vice president who ignore the multilation of women and the savage murder of their children. God help you open your eyes.
Truth – two comments, so I’ll handle them in two responses.
First one – PRENDA – a few questions on it that I haven’t been able to find:
- How would they legislate or prove it? Great concepts can sometimes be unenforceable laws (see texting while driving legislation) – how does one tell, or was it a largely symbolic vote?
- Why was it introduced how it was so that it didn’t take a simple majority?
- Why note introduce to ban all abortions? By saying it is wrong to abort a baby because of race or gender, it almost begs the question of, is there a concession that abortion not for those reasons is okay?
I’d simply like to say though, sometimes people are against bills because the bill has a deeper issue (flawed legislation), or it does more than it says it does. So just because a vote is against something, to me, doesn’t necessarily say that a legislator is for the scenario. For instance, GOP members have been blocking an act called Violence against Women Act. I don’t believe for one second that those GOP members think that violence against women is a desirable thing – but I think they have issues with what the bill really means at the end of the day. Know what I mean?
truth -
On your second one. First off, you can drop the phony language like “God help you open your eyes”. First off, you don’t know squat about me. Secondly, of everybody on this board, you’ve shown the LEAST respect to me – of EVERYONE.
On your post. You are judging Biden by the context of his words, but then ignore his follow-up words when both Biden and Obama stated that “The Obama Administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization”
You can’t judge a person’s views solely on their words, and then only take half of their words.
Furthermore, even if I believe that a politican’s view of something is wrong or evil doesn’t mean that I’m going to fully equate them to being evil. I thought George Bush was 100% wrong when it came to the death penalty, and was further dismayed of Tucker Carlson’s allegations that Bush mocked the distress of a death row inmate that had become a Christian. Now, though I disagree with Bush and think that policy he’s wrong on, I can’t say that he’s evil in general.
- How would they legislate or prove it?
The point is that making it illegal would discourage it. Let’s worry about proving it when you find probable cause.
- was it a largely symbolic vote?
Only because it didn’t pass
- Why was it introduced how it was so that it didn’t take a simple majority?
So that the DemocRATs couldn’t hold it hostage to amendments and procedural votes.
- Why note introduce to ban all abortions? By saying it is wrong to abort a baby because of race or gender, it almost begs the question of, is there a concession that abortion not for those reasons is okay?
Because it is easier to find allies in the fight to end abortion when you appeal to sensitivities that help them see that the unborn are persons.
On your second one. First off, you can drop the phony language like “God help you open your eyes”. First off, you don’t know squat about me.
I know you vote for leaders who condone and subsidize these abortion and you are ok with it. Who but God can open the eyes of the blind.
Secondly, of everybody on this board, you’ve shown the LEAST respect to me – of EVERYONE.
I am just standing up in the face of liberal mind-bending foolishness.
On your post. You are judging Biden by the context of his words, but then ignore his follow-up words when both Biden and Obama stated that “The Obama Administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization”
Biden didn’t say it to those college students in China and Obama didn’t say it to any audiences on his fundraising campaign. One of those quiet releases to cover their asses. Their BS doesn’t work on me anymore. I can see who they are. The fact that he reinstated UN funding to subsidize this happening to this poor woman and her child in China tells me who he is.
Truth -
- Thanks for the info on PRENDA. Was surprised that the bill text also didn’t call for any punishment for a woman seeking out the abortion in these cases. Odd law.
- Your second post was garbage. The pharisees would be proud of you.
- Again, I feel like you put way too much stock in words, and in only the words you want to hear. Of course, to you, Biden is lying when he clarifies his further statements.
And what would you do to China? Halt all trading with them? Bomb them?
- Again, I feel like you put way too much stock in words, and in only the words you want to hear. Of course, to you, Biden is lying when he clarifies his further statements.
Actions speak louder than words. As I have gone through life I have come to understand that the best way to see through a BS’r is not to listen to what they say buy rather watch what they do.
And what would you do to China? Halt all trading with them? Bomb them?
At every turn I would publicly renounce this as the holocaust that it is and make sure countries are held accountable for carrying out these atrocities. I know you have said it doesn’t make any difference to you personally but at the very least I would reverse Obama’s executive order to use US taxpayer dollars going to the UN and funding these atrocities throughout the globe. I can’t believe we are on the side of funding these barbarians to carry out these atrocities. It sickens me to the point where I could never tire and be comfortable living in a society that commits abortions. So be it if it takes another 40 years or another 440 years I will never dirty myself with a vote for a DemocRAT.
test
Stinkin’ answered both replies yesterday, and the site didn’t keep it – so shorter replies ahead!
on China – Two thoughts:
- First, I know you say you are sickened….in the bit of research I’ve done on the population fund, there is quite a bit of dispute as to whether any funding actually gets to china and this awful position. I’ve read about some investigations that couldn’t find anything. Now, it is China, and they lack transparency, so who knows. Even if we don’t fund them through that, I am dismayed about how many products come from that country and how hard it is to avoid ‘Made in China’.
- On your first sentence of your last post – it reminds me a bit of ‘A Few Good Men’, where she doesn’t just object, she strenuously objects! I mean, sure, we should denounce the policy whenever, but at the end of the day – other countries denounce our policies, and we ignore it – and they’ll ignore us. That country needs a revolution.
Ex-GOP, I’ve been following this thread for a while and I’m surprised that nobody has tried to address your central argument. So I guess I’ll give it a shot. If I understand correctly, this is your reasoning:
P1: If Republican politicians were serious about completely banning abortion, they would do so shortly after getting in power.
P2: Republican politicians have held power for a significant portion of the last 40 years, yet abortion is still legal.
C: Republican politicians are not serious about banning abortion, so this issue generally shouldn’t impact a pro-life voter’s decision.
I agree that this argument is logically valid, and that the second premise is true. But you’ve overlooked a very important legal facet that disproves the first premise: the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. It is impossible to ban most or all abortions at the federal or state level as long as Roe is the law of the land. While later rulings (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Gonzales v. Carhart) gave elected lawmakers more power to make various legal restrictions on abortion (particularly at the state level, where several types of policies have shown to be effective), there is only so much that can be done while Roe is still in effect.
Nullifying Roe requires one of two things: A constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court decision that overturns it. In order to pass a constitutional amendment, a two-thirds supermajority of both houses of congress must vote in favour. A three quarters “super-supermajority” of the states must then ratify it. As such, constitutional amendments are extremely rare. Only one has been added in my lifetime. While this is an important objective of the pro-life movement, it is obvious that investing limited political capital in an all or nothing strategy is not likely to be successful at this point in time. Human Life Amendments were introduced several times in the 1970s and 80s, without getting anywhere. The president also has no role in amending the constitution.
The latter strategy would require at least five of the nine justices to vote to overturn Roe. Justices are appointed for life, and the most recent justice was appointed in 2010 (replacing the oldest justice, who was appointed in 1975). So completely replacing the court takes about 35 years. This means that if a pro-abortion president can get in office and stack the deck with multiple pro-Roe justices, he can effectively guarantee decades of legal abortion. A pro-life president and a pro-life senate are necessary to get the appointments we need. It is incredibly frustrating (and undemocratic) that we have to play this high stakes game of musical chairs. But that’s the reality we live in.
You have argued that, if Obama wants to reduce abortions, that pro-lifers should seriously consider him as a candidate even though he, unlike his opponent, supports legal abortion. I would argue that this is demonstrably false. One of the two candidates is less than perfect, while the other is very clearly unacceptable. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that “safe, legal, and rare” is a serious policy proposal rather than a catchy slogan created by a brilliant but crooked politician who wanted both the NARAL endorsement and enough of the pro-life vote (it’s not, as even you seem willing to admit, but we’ll pretend it is). Such a policy literally says that state sanctioned killing of innocent human beings should be the law of the land. This is an unjust law regardless of how many or how few abortions are performed.
Consider the following illustration: Slavery is legal, and a constitutionally protected right according to a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision. You’re in an election year, and the two candidates are Candidate A (the incumbent president) and Candidate B (the contender). Candidate A is charismatic and shares your position on many important issues, such as healthcare. On slavery, he is pro-choice (not pro-slavery. Nobody is actually pro-slavery, as he said in a big gotcha moment during his last debate four years ago). He has vowed to uphold the court’s ruling by appointing justices who share his view and by signing a nationwide trigger law that would automatically keep slavery legal (should abolitionists accomplish the Herculean task of overturning the court decision), and possibly (depending on which legal experts you ask) overturn all federal and state level restrictions on slavery. Before he became president, he had an exceptional 100% voting record from the biggest lobby group supporting legalized slavery (which he got by opposing bans on the cruelest and most malicious types). Candidate A has also punished states that refuse to subsidize the biggest slave dealership (which is, ironically, under congressional investigation for fraud) by taking away Medicaid money for poor women (and seems quite proud of this fact, if you listen to his campaign speeches). However, he says that he wants to “reduce the need” for slavery by supporting social programs that target its “underlying causes” (though there is no substantial body of peer-reviewed evidence that his policies would actually reduce slavery).
Candidate B is a bit more difficult to like, and his political stances are probably less similar to your own on most issues. He opposes legalized slavery in 99% of cases, but has held a different position in the past. His record on the issue is somewhat muddled. Candidate B wants to overturn the court’s decision (which will be reflected in his judicial appointments). He also supports ending taxpayer funding for slave dealers and, in the short term, banning certain things related to slavery (ie setting limits on the number of slaves one can own, and making it illegal to torture slaves).
It seems obvious to me that anyone who is not dishonest, delusional, or pro-slavery would vote for Candidate B every time.
You’ve also claimed that the GOP will not end abortion because they have a financial and political incentive to keep it as a wedge issue. This is an unprovable assertion, and one that you can really make about any party and any political issue (healthcare, the national debt, tax policies, immigration, etc). You still check the box that lets you go in the right direction. It’s ironic to me that you would tell xalisae to “converse like a grown-up” when impatience is your main reason for giving up and implying that “we’ve decided as a society to allow abortion”.
Some other things you said that I think deserve a response:
Most of the threads I comment on here are political in nature. You are true – this is mostly a pro-life site, but quite a bit of politics comes with it – you’ll see a lot anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, anti-homosexuality, and anti-other left wing causes.
I disagree with your assessment here. As I tried to show above, anti-Obama and anti-Democrat are totally justified. Regarding homosexuality, for example, I would say that the people here are about as divided as America as a whole (give or take a few percent).
I believe that abortion is murder – that before a baby is born, it is a person.
Good to hear. I agree. Is there an issue more important than over a million people being legally murdered every year?
I believe that any sort of abortion ban has to be well thought out, and I believe fully needs to be linked to family support type bills (for instance, expanding the tax credit) so that women/families see that having a baby is a better alternative than abortion. Fact is, unless there is a federal ban, there will be states with abortion and without – so we could get into a trafficking situation.
I agree that carefully thinking it out is important. It’s possible for a ban to be completely useless if it contains the right loopholes. But I think you’re letting perfect become the enemy of good here. You seem to be suggesting that if we can’t solve all of the social problems that might result from the ban by legislation, we shouldn’t ban abortion in the first place (regardless of its effectiveness). This is unreasonable when you’re talking about over a million people being legally murdered every year.
So with that above statement…I believe that we need to, through Christ, flip the nature of the debate to valuing life, loving life, and respecting life rather than the perception of controlling freedoms
Protecting rights, not controlling freedoms. And despite (or perhaps because of) the hysteria coming from the other side about a war on women, the opinion polls are showing that more and more people are seeing it this way.
I think three positions get me in trouble on this board. I don’t believe the Democrats are the definition of evil. I think they get a lot of positions right, some wrong, but are generally not evil people (though I believe both parties have people that are evil).
There is a difference between “unacceptable” and “evil”. Just because I think someone is fatally wrong on the central justice issue of our time doesn’t mean I think they’re evil. Though there are pro-life Democrats that we should consider supporting.
The second position – I don’t believe in the use of graphic images. As a parent, I think they infringe on my parenting and the desire to let my kids grow up as kids.
I understand and respect your decision to use parental discretion, and I don’t think that pro-lifers should deliberately market to children. I’m not entirely sure what the best way to use these images is, though I do think that they can be very effective when used properly. However, I do not think that we should automatically forego them just because some parents don’t want their children to see them. There are plenty of places where graphic images are visible to children (magazine covers, news websites and broadcasts, newspapers, etc) along with potentially gory accident scenes they might encounter on any car trip. There are also cases where children who see the images go on to do great things. In short, I’m less concerned about children seeing the images than I am about children becoming the images.
Third, I’m against protesting churches or mandating what churches must preach about. I believe that pastors (my dad is one) are called to be ministers, and each congregation has their own calling – and while I believe abortion is a universal problem, I will not say that Christ must be mandated to hit certain quotas in regards to preaching/giving/focus - quotas set by man.
The classic analogy that pro-lifers use is the church in Nazi Germany situated next to train tracks, where boxcars full of Jews are shipped off to extermination camps every Sunday. Instead of listening to their cries for help, those in the church would just sing a little louder to save themselves the discomfort of hearing the agonizing screams. Isn’t the church’s inaction, at very least, morally criticizable?
Ex-RINO,
You are unsure if China gets any UN funds and you are unsure if they really use any of those funds for abortions…. is that how you convince yourself hat your vote for Obama sending US ambassadors to the UN to lobby for abortion being a part of the UN global population plan? How about a little closer to home in Mexico. Are you also unsure that Obama removed any restrictions attached to these funds being used for abortions the day he moved into the White House. Why do you continue to deny these things. Open your eyes to the truth.
How about even closer to home like Obama’s support for funding your neighborhood Planned Parenthood abortuary? Man up and take responsibility for the deaths of these local Wisconsin children; you can be sure your vote for Obama makes it possible.
Navi -
I think you a LOT for a well thought out response – I’ll write back when I have more time and can put proper thought into it. Wanted to quick say though I appreciate it.
Truth – I’m talking about the United Nations Population Fund – if you do a little research on it, there is debate and doubt in regards to funding that goes from that to China (and abortion coverage).
If there is other funding you are talking about, feel free to post.
If there is other funding you are talking about, feel free to post.
I just did. Feel free to reply……
How about Obama’s support for funding your neighborhood Planned Parenthood abortuary? Are you sure or unsure that your vote/support for Obama(and his appointees) means you share responsibility for the mutilation of pregnant women and the deaths of countless unborn children from your local Wisconsin neighborhood?
Ex-RINO, Obama overturned the Mexico City policy the day he got into office. Surely you admit that his granting US dollars to fund abortion in Mexico means he bears some responsibility for the deaths of the unborn in Mexico? lol…you probably don’t. Do you feel as though you also hold any personal responsibility yourself for their deaths because your voted for Obama?
Truth -
Okay, so on China, your first post eluded to the United Nations Population Fund – I’m saying if you do some research, there is dispute on whether it funds abortion in China.
On Mexico City Policy – I don’t have any idea if it pertains at all to China. On the policy in general though, did you know that organizations that say that abortion is a component of family planning are ineligible for funds under the ban – and other organizations that provide abortion for other reasons are allowed money? The MCP is more style than substance on actually making a difference.
Planned Parenthood – I’m happy that they have in place, protections so that abortion isn’t compensated under medicaid funding. I’m also supporting that organizations that provide legally reimbursable services are reimbursed for those services. I don’t buy that “mixing of funds” argument. I believe the GOP targets planned parenthood because they donate to Dems.
On Obama – nope, I don’t. I think he won by 8 millions votes, so even if I did believe that Dem presidents led to higher abortion rates than GOP presidents (which I don’t) – feeling personally responsible for it would be massively prideful.
– feeling personally responsible for it would be massively prideful.
No, it would mean you have a conscience.
…and that my conscience somehow had hundreds of thousands of votes in swing states!
Please explain this to me. You are saying that you bear no responsibility for the funding of Planned Parenthood because you voted for Obama and he won the election by hundreds of thousands of votes. Does that mean you would only hold yourself responsible in elections that end up being won or lost by a single vote?
Am I reading this correctly… DemocRATs (you in particular) reject any personal responsibility for your vote in lieu of the way the party votes as a whole.
“I don’t buy that “mixing of funds” argument”
Let me get this straight. You say that you believe abortion is murder but your conscience is not bothered when the people you vote for fund organizations that carry out the murder of 3000 babies a day. In your mind it is not you but only other DemocRATs who voted the same way as you that are responsible.
Truth -
In my mind, “personally responsible” means one person is responsible. I think a person owns their vote – they supported the person – but I don’t believe that this means they support EVERYTHING that person does.
My conscience is bothered by planned parenthood. But I also believe that they do provide other legal services that are eligible for federal reimbursement, and if a person chooses to get these legally reimbursable services from them, they should be able to do that. Now, my guess is that you have all sorts of things manufactured from China in your house, yet I don’t hold you responsible for abortions in China.
Ex-RINO,
You are trying again to ease your conscience by saying that I share as much responsibility as you do for the deaths of the aborted children but the truth is I do not. A more honest anaolgy would be that I buy products Made in the USA even though Obama got elected and president, Or perhaps that you would vote for Hu Jintao for president and I wouldn’t.
Ex-RINO,
You are trying again to ease your conscience by saying that I share as much responsibility as you do for the deaths of the aborted children but the truth is I do not because I didn’t vote for a president who funds the abortion throughout the globe every chance he gets. A more honest anaolgy would be that I buy products Made in the USA even though Obama got elected and president, Or perhaps that you would vote for Hu Jintao for president and I wouldn’t.
“I don’t buy that “mixing of funds” argument”
ExRINO,
Don’t you see how ridiculous that “don’t but the mising of the funds” argument is?
Would you be ok funding a killer on the lamb as long as he only used the money for housing and not to buy a knife. Therefore you would take no personal responsibility for the murder of his next victims. Good grief you liberals are unbearably illogical.
Truth
- First post – I’m saying that many dollars we spend on a day to day basis are tainted. Sure, there is a line where it is an active funding, and where it is incidental. That line is debatable.
2) Second post – looks like the first post with some more angry verbiage thrown in – so my first response.
3) Third post:
- Multiple scenarios:
—Somebody makes a gift to Planned Parenthood and says they have to use it for abortion
—Somebody gives money to somebody going into an abortion clinic when they are going to get an abortion
—Somebody gives money to an organization that every facility performs abortion
—Somebody gives money to an organization that, at some facilities, perform abortion
—Somebody gives money to an organization that, at some facilities, perform abortion – but the money only goes to cover legal services (as defined by law)
You described number 1.
The reality is number 5.
I’m not saying that no line exists – but I’m also not going to say that a woman who goes to a clinic in a rural facility for a legal service (not abortion) shouldn’t have that option because other facilities under the same umbrella perform abortions (even though the feds don’t pay for them).
I’m just not willing to morally equate it as you do.
Navi -
A few points on your response (which again, is appreciated – mostly I get people who yell and slur and don’t come up with anything of actual substance).
- Your summation of my reasoning is pretty close. Point 1 – I believe that Republican politicians certainly have the power in many states to ban abortion, but won’t go to bat for at this issue. Maybe they have a coordinated plan – win the white house, hold it for 35 years, and then pass a ban. If this is the plan the GOP has agreed on, that changes things. It just seems to me that they’ll put their political necks on the line for many other issues…not this one. On the Conclusion – Not that it shouldn’t impact a pro-lifers decision – more so, at the end of the day, there’s little difference between a GOP President and a Dem President. Abortion will still be legal. There will be some funding differences, sure. At the end of the day, the only difference appears to be the 35 year plan.
- On your comparison – I don’t believe Obama is automatically terribly worse than a GOP counterpart just because of those funding issues, and because he says abortion should be legal. For instance, health care reform, to me, is huge in regards to creating an environment where women believe the better option is to have the baby. If the far right wingers had their way, we’d cut school funding, health care funding, unemployment insurance, college access, minimum wage, and welfare. This, to me, is a recipe for higher abortion rates. I actually found the most pro-life thing any politician has proposed to be Santorum’s tripling of the child tax credit. If abortion is going to be legal, make conditions such that more people choose life.
- On the three issues…I just find it hypocritical when people freak out about what is taught in school, or what is shown on a TV show, and then say that my voice doesn’t matter in regards to graphic images because it is reality.
- My point on churches – there are those on this board that have argued that churches need to devote a certain amount of attention, seemingly that they decide, to avoid being protested against. I believe that there are MANY issues that command attention – abortion, families, hope, love, reaching the unsaved, wars, genocide – all sorts of things. To demand that a church meet certain criteria as dictated by people who don’t even go to the church – I think that is essentially like saying “forgot what God might be calling your church to do, here’s my formula – follow that”.
Ex-GOP says: I believe that Republican politicians certainly have the power in many states to ban abortion, but won’t go to bat for at this issue.
I guess you weren’t reading carefully where Navi wrote “It is impossible to ban most or all abortions at the federal or state level as long as Roe is the law of the land.”
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/state_abortion_laws/
How did John LaBruzzo introduce legislation then?
And how did Mississippi have a bill that banned abortion at the time of the heartbeat, which is within the first trimester?
Introducing legislation is easy. Whether that legislation can be enforced or stand up to a challenge in court is another matter.
So you don’t think the GOP should introduce language at the state level until the Supremes are ready for it?
I’m all for pro-lifers introducing legislation that curtails abortion. But I acknowledge that one of the most important places to have a pro-lifer is the Presidency; the one who gets to nominate judges for the Supreme Court.
Ex-GOP, I think you should read this.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/effect-of-overturning-roe-v-wade/
4 states have passed laws that would immediately outlaw abortion if Roe were overturned (Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota).
7 have laws expressing their intent to restrict access to legal abortion in the absence of Roe (Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Ohio).
2 states have passed new abortion bans since 1973 which have been declared unconstitutional (Louisiana and Utah).
13 states retain their pre-Roe abortion bans, which are currently unenforceable (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).
Are you starting to see the extreme importance of having a pro-lifer in the White House?
Lrning…
…because, if we have GOP folks in the white house for 30 years or so, they’ll get all the judges lined up as needed, and then when a ban is passed, we can go back to the pre RvWade days when we had large numbers of abortions as well.
And in the mean time, if I feel that the GOP is crashing the country due to their archaic thoughts about health care, education, and the economy – well, it will be worth it in the end when, after 30 plus years, abortion becomes illegal in a dozen or so states (in which, most women will drive to another state).
That’s the plan, right?
Not “GOP folks”. We need pro-lifers in the White House. I don’t care which party they belong to.
In 1970 there were 1,000,000 fewer abortions than in 2008. Only a pro-life poser would brush off the importance of saving 1 million lives as if it was just one of many priorities. Face it, you say you equate abortion with murder, but you truly don’t. If the murder rate in the U.S. jumped from 17,000 a year to 1,200,000 wouldn’t you be screaming for something to be done? Wouldn’t safety and saving lives become the #1 priority?
Numbers I found – in 1972 – rate was 13.16 per 1000 (do we know how many off the book abortions there were? Surely not zero).
2008 was 19.58.
I’m not saying it isn’t the number 1 priority – I’m saying that the plan involved 35 years of pro-life rule, and then, we might see a small increase in the rate – right? Where am I wrong here?
And who knows if the rate is even realized when pro-life stops funneling to pregnancy care centers and stars funneling to lawyers and congressmen for the yearly flipping back and forth of abortion regulations.
“I’m not saying it isn’t the number 1 priority”
Yes, you are. When you more often than not vote for a pro-choice person instead of a pro-life person, how can you say that saving lives is your #1 priority?
Because I don’t believe your plan ends up saving lives. I don’t. I simply don’t. I think, at best, you end up with millions going into the annual state flipping of abortion laws back and forth, and you have women trafficked across state lines for abortions – and that is if anybody actually enforces abortion rules on the books.
I think Santorum has had one of the most pro-life ideas this election cycle – triple the child tax credit.
I think Obama has had one of the most pro-life ideas in the last few years – increase health care coverage and decrease the chance that if you choose to have a baby that has medical issues, that the family will go bankrupt or lose everything financially.
I haven’t been convinced that this goal – elect GOP presidents for 35 years, have a state pass a ban, have that ban move through the ranks, overturn r v wade via the supremes, and then we’ll see some massive decrease in abortion…I just don’t see it. It’s like the war on poverty. Legislation ain’t going to do it.
Maybe I’m a pessimist – I feel like I’m being realistic here.
Show me where I’m wrong.
“Because I don’t believe your plan ends up saving lives.”
“I haven’t been convinced that this goal – elect GOP presidents for 35 years…”
How could I possibly show you where you’re wrong when you don’t appear to read anything I write?
“Legislation ain’t going to do it.”
I agree. Legislation will not put an end to abortion. But it will save lives.
Sorry – swap ‘GOP’ for ‘pro-life’ in your 35 year plan.
My “35 year plan” focuses primarily on converting hearts, minds, & the culture, with a little legislation/politics thrown in for immediate life-saving effect. Not that you give a crap. It’s so much easier on your conscience to assume all pro-lifers worship the GOP and plan to ineffectually push bills back and forth for decades.
Two things:
1) Do you ‘like’ your own comments? Just wondering.
2) There’s no reason to get all nasty – we’ve had a nice discussion. Your anger really showed through on this last post. I very much believe in converting minds, hearts, and the culture. I very much believe that we need to look at policies that encourage people to choose having a baby – right now, I don’t think women go get pregnant so that they can have an abortion – I think they weigh the decision and believe that abortion is the only/best route for them. How do we change that dynamic? Where have we failed in society where death seems better?
I do give a crap – I just don’t believe that “the path” you laid out is realistic. If you think it is, that’s great – I’m happy for you. I remain a skeptic.
Do you ‘like’ your own comments? Just wondering.
Never.
“I do give a crap – I just don’t believe that “the path” you laid out is realistic.”
I’m not angry. Just frustrated by your refusal to acknowledge that putting pro-choice people into office costs lives. I have 4 teenagers so use of the word “crap” isn’t getting nasty in my world. Sorry if I’ve offended you.
And color me confused. You say “I very much believe in converting minds, hearts, and the culture” and yet you say that path is unrealistic? Please, do share your “path” for putting an end to abortion.
I don’t think an end can be put to abortion quite frankly – even a total ban wouldn’t do it.
I do like some of the following policies:
- Increase the child tax credit – I think that was a good proposal by Santorum
- Universal health care coverage for kids under 18
- Increase school voucher programs
- Strengthen maternity coverage and pay/protection for women who are pregnant
- Work on legislation to strengthen marriages – look at mutual consent laws, increase counseling (especially when the couple has kids)
Just a few thoughts.
“ —Somebody gives money to an organization that, at some facilities, perform abortion ”
Ex-RINO,
1) You admit abortion is murder.
2) You say stopping the murder is your number one goal.
3) You don’t feel bad about funding an organization that murders millions of children because they also have facilities that don’t murder children.
In the name of all that is holy and upon the souls of all the children killed by the ignorance of you and like-minded people I say “May the Lord open your eyes to the sickness that has blinded you.”
In the names of the millions of women who have suffered mutilation and violation of their wombs at the hands of abortionists funded by the likes of you I say; Woe unto thee and may you find repentance before you perish in Gehanna.
Truth -
First off, when you put statements like that at the end of your posts, you remind me SOOO much of the Pharisses.
Secondly – I explained my rationale before. I don’t believe in funding planned parenthood through grants from the government. I do believe that if they perform legal services that the laws have declared should be compensated for, that this is okay.
I just don’t think that, if a woman lives in a rural area and doesn’t have many medical options – and she’s seeking a service that the government says is okay and should be reimbursed, that the government should say she can’t get those facilities because the facility also performs abortions (which don’t get reimbursed).
In a perfect world, I’d love if nobody did abortions – but the mixing of funds argument just doesn’t make much sense to me – and you fail to be convincing in your arguments (or largely lack of arguments quite frankly).
“I don’t believe in funding planned parenthood through grants from the government. ”
But you do believe in voting for pro-abort politicians who fund Planned Parenthood through grants. What you “believe” makes no sense you say…
And then you throw any personal responsibility to the wind and your “reasoning” is that other Democrats would have elected them anyway. When somebody is as willingly blind as you the arguments of man (logic) are ineffective. That is why I call upon God to help you.
And your showy, arrogant displays of your faith and condemnation of others is why I call you a pharisee.
I’ve said before – if anybody knows the perfect candidate, let me know. I don’t like that some dems support (did you know, by the way, that a Republican was the one who started funding of planned parenthood?) any general federal funding. But I’ve never found a political party in which I agree with 100% of their stances.
You patronize the most heinous murdering wretches in our society,.
Thanks for the well thought out response.
I don’t like that some dems support (did you know, by the way, that a Republican was the one who started funding of planned parenthood?) any general federal funding.”
You know Obama supports it and you vote for him anyway. Are you nwilling to take responsibility for the ones murdered by the consequences of your decision? And yes; some Republicans are into bureaucratic cronyism too and are just waiting for their turn. But those are few and far between Republicans running as RINO’s in liberal disctricts and you shouldn’t vote for them either..
“You know Obama supports it and you vote for him anyway.”
Yes – did I not make that clear in the previous post? I think I said fairly clearly that I don’t agree with 100% of the policies of any party.
Was that not clear enough? Should I repost what I said a few minutes ago?
Or are you just trying to get more statements in so that you can ‘like’ more of your comments?
I mean, again – we’ve talked the differences of Republicans and Democrats. Planned Parenthood got of a lot of funding under Bush as well – hailed as the most pro-life candidate ever. So did you support Bush in this? Did you not support Bush in this?
“And your showy, arrogant displays of your faith and condemnation of others is why I call you a pharisee.”
Pro-aborts are a brood of vipers. Woe to you for anybody you lead astray! And it is not man you should feel a need to rationalize your deeds to.
And as long as we’re cautioning each other – I would remind you that pro-life is not Christ. You can certainly make the cause of pro-life an idol. Christ is Christ – and if you are implying that arguments that might make a person sympathetic to Democrats of PP is the same as leading them away from Christ – then I think you are dangerously close to taking Christ out of the center of salvation and putting pro-life and political beliefs in the place of where Christ is.
Repent now. The Lord’s forgiveness is waiting.
I have repented – I’ve sinned, and I thank Jesus for washing those sins away. While I typically support Democrats (not always), I believe I have them in their proper place – which is, a product of man, flawed, and not tied to salvation in anyway.
Your post really concerns me from 8:46 – do you equate pro-life causes or the Republican party with Jesus Himself? Do you understand idol worship?
“I would remind you that pro-life is not Christ.”
And I would remind you that Christ is most certainly pro-life:
“I am the way and the truth and the life.” Jn 14:6
“I have repented”
Do you repent for the suffering caused by the invasion of the woman’s wombs and mutilation of their bodies and their children murdered by the funding of abortion through the actions of president Obama?
and Christ is a lot of things – but making those things equal to Christ is idol worship.
JESUS is the way, the truth, and the life. Nothing else. I’m guessing you didn’t mean to phrase it the way you did – but your comment about leading things astray really, really looks like you are putting things in the place of Christ. If you don’t mean to, that’s good.
Truth -
Are you a Christian? This is an honest question.
Yes I am Christian. Do you question wether or not Christ is pro-life?
I do not question that Christ’s teachings are pro-life. But Christ does not equal pro-life – you can’t swap Christ out and put in pro-life in the place of Christ.
I do question the language that you are using.
Your post at 8:46 seems to imply that you equate pro-life causes (or pro-life politicians) as a fundamental aspect of salvation – as equal to Christ.
Your post at 9:21 shows a lack of understanding of what Christian salvation is – the forgiveness of one’s personal sins and reconciliation with Christ. A person doesn’t repent of somebody else’s sins – do you understand that?
Ex-RINO, If your actions fund the abortionist to carry out the killing then it is your sin too; not just the abortionists. You can’t dodge this one so man up and answer.
You cast a vote putting a pro-abort (president Obama) in a position of power where he has used his office to fund the mutilation of women and the destruction of the children through abortion. Do you repent for the unconscionable suffering your vote has caused to these women and children?
**chirp – chirp – chirp** it has gotten so quiet round here I think I can hear crickets..
Truth – sorry – sometimes i wander away from the computer.
The funding you’ve spoken about has been in place during every candidate since 1970 when Nixon put the funding in place. If you are saying this is a plank in my eye – it exists in yours as well (if you voted Bush, Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton).
Now, I question your theology on this. I believe a person can be sinful in their vote – they might vote for somebody with the intent that the person is going to sin or cause harm to others. If a person votes for a nazi for instance in hopes that others are persecuted, I would see that as sinful.
I don’t for one second believe that a person takes upon every sin of another person because of a vote. For instance, people who voted for Mark Sanford don’t have to repent because Sanford had an affair. ALL politicians have positions that are not Godly – it is the nature of politics. I believe if we vote while idolizing a politician, that is a sin. I think if we vote with the wrong motives, that is a sin.
If you’d like to point out verses that prove otherwise, feel free. Jesus confronts a lot of folks about the sins in their lives, and off the top of my head, I’m not coming up with examples where the sins weren’t sins that the person committed themselves.
By the way, did you read my 9:32 post?
“The funding you’ve spoken about has been in place during every candidate since 1970 when Nixon put the funding in place. If you are saying this is a plank in my eye – it exists in yours as well (if you voted Bush, Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton).”
Ex-RINO, Bush never worked or encouraged or supported any legislation to fund abortions. Obama repealed the Mexico City policy (which Bush put into place after Clinton repealed it after Bush Sr. put it place; are you seeing any pattern here?). And Obama repealed it the day he got into office. Obama stood against these women and their children again when he forced Stupak to vote against his own amendment and remove Hyde-like abortion restriction language from Obamacare. Quit lying to yourself and seeking comfort in blaming others. I would never have voted for Obama cause he such a pro-abort. But you did. I’ll ask a third time; do you repent to Jesus Christ for the unconscionable suffering your vote has caused to these women and children?
If a person votes for a nazi for instance in hopes that others are persecuted, I would see that as sinful.
What if they don’t hope others are persecuted but they know others will be persecuted if they vote for the Nazi anyway cause the Nazi they vote for will give them government handouts for their support? Do you think that would that be sinful?
truth -
First post – no. I don’t repent for other people’s wrongdoings – that is between them and Christ. If we were all held accountable for the sins of politicians we vote for, we’d all be doomed.
Second post – it seems to me that you view God as a ‘got-yeah’ God, looking for odds ways in which you might slip up so that He can catch you in sin. I find no support of that God in the Bible. Again, as I said earlier – I believe people can sin in their vote – and I’ve explained the reasons why. I don’t think a person can vote, believing that a person is the right choice, and that God is going to find their wrong choices and come back and hold a person accountable. I don’t believe that anymore than if you give money to a homeless person and they go out and get drugged up with it (unless you gave them that money and said – hey, there’s a drug dealer over there!).
My 11:18 post offered you the chance to make a Biblical argument if you’d like – and that offer still stands.
“First post – no. I don’t repent for other people’s wrongdoings – that is between them and Christ. If we were all held accountable for the sins of politicians we vote for, we’d all be doomed.”
The truth is that you will be held accountable cause it is your actions that put Obama in power and you knew he would use his office to support legislation and funding of the mutilation of mothers and the tearing of the unborn from mother’s wombs. You can deny that your vote carries any responsibility but you just look like a weasel when you do it. The ‘choice’ is clear and you choose for your own reasons to put barbarians in power and your choices do carry consequences. You can be forgiven but only if you repent. The Lord will not be mocked by people who say the Lord is their saviour and then deny responsibility for supporting such heinous crimes against humanity. And that is what support for abortion is. A heinous crime against humanity. Why do you think God will let you in heaven with all these women and children that have abortion commited on them as a consequence of the people you vote for? You can weasel your way through life and claim to humans that you refuse to take responsibility for “other peoples actions”; but the Lord sees through you and will hold you as accountable. Have a safe day cause you are not prepared to meet your maker. You sir a weasel’s weasel.
I think this analysis of the impact of pro-life politicians was written with you in mind, Ex-GOP:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/125
“I don’t repent for other people’s wrongdoings – that is between them and Christ.”
Obama made no secret of his love of abortion before he was elected. Heck, his love of “choice” was one of his campaign promises. Everyone who voted for him knowing this has blood on their hands.
Another article you might find interesting, Ex-GOP. Especially the sections named “Why the Presidency Matters” and “The Power of the President in Concrete Cases: Abortion and Embryo-Destructive Research”.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/08/3717
Lrning/Truth -
First off, I think truth gets props for the number of times using the word ‘weasel’ in one statement.
Secondly – The Mexico City policy has received criticism because the funds witheld are from organizations that promote abortion as a means to family planning. Other organizations that promote abortions are still eligible for oversees funding. So if your argument goes like this:
- You are sinning because one of the policies that a politician that you supported may lead to funding to an organization that somebody else might go to, and choose to sin by committing abortion….
…if that is your argument – then I’m still not buying it.
I believe having an abortion is a sin
I believe convincing somebody to have an abortion is a sin
I believe paying for somebody’s abortion is a sin
I don’t believe that political and economic conditions that exist as a byproduct of a politician that then results in somebody choosing an abortion – I don’t believe that people who voted for that politician are sinning, and I can’t find any Biblical reference to lead me to that thought as well.
I mean, if somebody supports a politician that is strongly NRA endorsed, that politician gets elected and loosens laws, and somebody gets shot and killed as a result – who all is sinning in your eyes? The shooter, the politician, and the voter?
How could we live 20 minutes without sinning? Heck, the GOP wants to repeal health care, which will result in more people dying – are those in favor of repeal sinning?
If you buy products and a store that employs a person who gets pregnant who then has an abortion because they can pay for it with the money they got at the store that you shopped at – is that sinning?
Again – I’m not mocking you guys – I’m just looking at my Bible and trying to find a place where the Lord points to somebody who supported another person whose policies resulted in the possibility that somebody ELSE might sin – and I’m just not finding it.
So color me a bit skeptical here.
You can say weasel as much as you’d like, but I feel a bit like I’m in the spin zone here, where people create a false reality and present more shady arguments than factual or Biblical claims.
Lrning -
I appreciate some actual, factual postings – and I’m going to read those articles more in depth. I do agree with much of what is being said, though I also found some issues in the article (for instance, in the 2008 article posted, two of the four states have seen a spike since 2008 in abortions, negating much of the gains talked about in the article). I also disagree with much of what he says when he strays from the numbers and gets into the general commentary section – for instance, it is highly debated if there is abortion funding contained within health care reform – and he speaks of it as if it is a complete fact. Furthermore, he massively simplifies the mexico city policy – it is much more complex than that.
I do agree that there are policies that can be put in place that do lower abortion rates. I also believe that economic policies are a strong as these various bans and big government legislation. The reason people get abortions, statistically, is financial. So I have issues with the current GOP and the death of compassionate conservatism in place for a conservatism that is really greed focus, and one that would rather cut a dollar from health care or education than raise a dollar in taxes. I worry about what the long term consequences of those policies will be with abortion rates.
Question for you – do you think Romney is legit when it comes to pro-life views? Or is he pandering to get the votes, and will forget about the pro-life crowd after the election (if he wins)?
Ex-RINO,
You admit the killing of unborn childen is wrong but you won’t admit that putting people who support and spread the killing of abortion children throughout the world as being wrong. Would you also feel comfortable voting for a person who wants to spread the normalization of pedophilia through NAMBLA and legalize pedophilia? Is there anything a person could support that would disqualify them from your vote? Sounds like you are claiming the mentally insane defense.
No truth – and I think it is a little weird that you are bringing pedophilia into the debate. And there’s plenty of things that would disqualify a person from my vote.
If abortion were illegal, I’d quite certainly not vote for somebody who was going to legalize it.
If Obama is elected, policies will generally stay in place as they are right now.
If Romney is election, the Mexico City Policy (a disputed policy that affects some funding) will change. Some other policies, largely related to funding might change. Nothing will be banned – nothing will be outlawed though – at least nothing anybody has talked about.
Yes, I suppose there is the chance that a couple of supreme court justices could swap out. The court is generally conservative now and no bans have been passed to present to the court – and the court has been conservative in years past and no bans have been passed to present to the court. A r v wade reversal is far from a cure for abortion anyways – but I will give you the fact that a supreme court justice *could* make a difference.
But on the flip side, immigration policy, health care policy, economic policy, education policy, and foreign policy all (IN MY OPINION - BOLDED – DEBATABLE – AGAIN, MY OPINION) takes a step back in a Romney presidency.
I’m not saying Obama is a good choice for abortion policy – I’m just saying they are both bad choices – Obama is worse, but neither of them are good. So other issues trump.
“Obama is worse, but neither of them are good. So other issues trump.”
I had a long response typed out, but then I saw this comment. Clearly, saving lives is not your #1 priority. Abortion is the #1 cause of death in the US. The #1 cause of death, Ex-GOP. Abortion is evil. Obama blatantly supports abortion. Obama blatantly supports evil. You, by your support of Obama, support the evil of abortion.
Sadly, I’m shaking the dust from my feet.
“Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”
“Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.”
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SAVE A BABY FROM THE EVIL OF ABORTION?
“And there’s plenty of things that would disqualify a person from my vote.”
Can you name one?
“WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SAVE A BABY FROM THE EVIL OF ABORTION?”
Lrning,
Lets not forget about the grievous harm done to mother’s too.
Lrning -
Abortion would be the number one issue for me if it was the number one issue for politicians. If the vote meant at lot. Let me ask you a question here. The GOP had the white house for 20 out of 28 years – Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. What fundamentally changed in the abortion debate over those 20 years? The GOP talks the game, gets their donations, and then moves on. Token legislation here and there.
In all our discussions – in all this rambling – the main thing a GOP president means vs a Dem president is that a GOP president might get a pro-lifer in the supreme court, and then a ban might pass one day in a state, and that might go to the supreme court, and then we enter a new world where women cross state lines to get their abortions. I don’t see a legislative path here – a victory.
You present a false dilema. You thinking voting against Obama is choosing life. So when Bush was in office, did the millions of abortions stop? Did the murders end?
End of the day, what really was the difference? Sum it up for me?
And I did what everyone should do – I’m not one of these folks that got somebody pregnant and pressured them into an abortion – I’m not one of the many women on this board that had an abortion. I’ve had personal responsibility and love of life in me from day one – so my wife and I never even considered, for a second, having an abortion. My girls will grow up choosing life. My church supports life. If everybody lived my life, we’d have an abortion rate of zero.
Truth – things that would disqualify a politician from my vote:
- If they cheated on their spouse
- If they were an abortion doctor or brought people to have abortions
- If they had murdered somebody
- If abortion was illegal, and they were proposing to make it legal
- If they want a balanced budget amendment
- If they were pro-war to the point that I felt they’d rush us into war
- If they wanted to expand death penalty legislation
- If they wanted to end the child tax credit
- If they abused their children
- If they want to eliminate medicare
- If they want to eliminate medicaid
- If they want to ban religion
- If they want to end tax exempt statuses for Churches
- If they want to outlaw gatherings of Christians
All those things would disqualify somebody from my vote
Ex-RINO,
Obama fights with Planned Parenthood to spread abortion to unemancipated minors. Obama rallies Planned Parenthood and joins them in efforts to make abortion more readily availabe, do you think that leads more women and minor girls to commit abortion? Obama forced Bart Stupak to vote against his own amendment making it illegal for health care exchanges that use government funds to sell abortion services. That does mean thousands more women and children will be mutilated by abortion. You have eyes but you cannot see.
“- If they were an abortion doctor or brought people to have abortions”
Ex-RINO,
Obama does fight to bring unemancipated minors to Planned Parenthood for abortion.The people of Illinois passed a law protecting unemancipated minors from Planned Parenthood’s predatory practices and Obama worked tirelessly and hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood to prevent the law from being enforceable. On the contrary; he is all about making it as easy as possible for children to abort without parental notification because “he wouldn’t want them punished with a baby”. How can you not see?
You have a sickness Ex-RINO. Repent and be saved. Or the blood curdling screams of the women and the young girls and the unborn will be all you will hear for eternity. What will it take to snap you out of it? Your children getting mutilated and your grandchildren being murdered at a Planned Patenthood?Y
“Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.”
Psalm 82:3
“Because I delivered the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to help him.”
Job 29:12
“For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord will take me in. ”
Psalm 27:10
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
Isaiah 1:17
“To do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.”
Psalm 10:18
“Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.”
Jeremiah 22:3
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Matthew 25:40
“They have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy.”
Jeremiah 5:28
“Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow’s cause does not come to them.”
Isaiah 1:23
“You have sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless were crushed.”
Job 22:9
Ex-RINO – thinking about the politicians you vote for without conscience here:
“Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression,”
Isaiah 10:1
“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”
This is the Lord’s prayer Ex-RINO.
“And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”
Can you see that your votes for those who lead women and children to abortion go against the very heart of the Lord’s prayer.
Ex-GOP, I appreciate the clarification. I didn’t want to be putting words in your mouth.
You said that Republican politicians have the power to completely ban abortion in many states. As Lrning and I pointed out, the Supreme Court’s decision makes this virtually impossible. There are pro-life strategists with law degrees, whose entire job is to study the Supreme Court and write model legislation that is likely to survive legal challenges. These guys know what they’re doing. If they say that it’s not possible to ban most or all abortions at this time, they’re probably right. There are some pro-lifers who disagree with this assessment and support things like the heartbeat bills. I don’t take issue with them on this, but I’m not going to attack a pro-life candidate for not “putting their neck on the line” for a bill that has virtually no chance of becoming law. Nor would I consider this a valid excuse for voting for an abortion proponent over a pro-life candidate.
When you speak of a “35 year plan” to overturn Roe, I believe you’re misrepresenting my argument. I don’t think that it necessarily has to take 35 years (though 35 years is much better than never, as Obama wants). Recall that we only need to get five anti-Roe justices on the court (not replace all nine, which takes 35 years). Given that we already have at least two (and maybe as many as four), it is certainly possible that this number could become five in the next few years if a pro-life president and senate get to make two or three appointments. It’s really only likely to take 35 years if pro-abortion presidents keep getting elected.
There are a number of problems with your claim that the pro-life political strategy won’t save lives or end abortion. Firstly, although abortion did happen before Roe, it wasn’t nearly as common as it is today. You cited two abortion rates (1972 and 2008), but the reality is much more nuanced. Several states already had abortion on demand immediately prior to Roe. These include California (where abortion was technically illegal but the health exception was so broad that the ban was meaningless) and New York (where abortion was completely legal up to 24 weeks). These two states are very populated and have very high abortion rates. According to the CDC, 130000 illegal abortions were done in 1972. This is not nearly enough to push the actual abortion rate up to 2008 levels.
The abortion rate skyrocketed throughout the 1970s, such that it hit 29 by the early 1980s. It declined throughout the 1990s, which is largely because of state level restrictions on abortion (made possible by the 1992 Supreme Court decision). As indicated in one of the articles Lrning cited, the states that passed the most pro-life legislation experienced the biggest declines (as shown by peer reviewed studies). You argue that women just go to other states and have just as many abortions as before. I would like to refer you to this data:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/pro-life-states-have-lower-abortion.html
As Nate Silver (best known for successfully predicting the results of the 2008 election in its entirety) noted, there are strong correlations between pro-life attitudes of a state, reduced access to abortion, and low incidence of abortions done on residents. That means that if someone travels from State A to State B to have an abortion, they are included in State A’s total (but not State B’s). So it would seem that completely banning abortion in multiple states (which has the practical effect of closing all abortion clinics in those states) would still cause the abortion rate to fall considerably, even when your objection is taken into account.
Your despondent attitude that a total ban on abortion won’t end it is silly, to say the least. To start, abortion is a violent act and a human rights atrocity. It therefore must be rejected by any just society – a law that permits it is unacceptable. Fixing the unjust law must be a top priority, and you are morally obligated to vote for a candidate that supports changing it over a candidate that supports upholding and extending it. Please revisit the analogy I provided in my previous post. Are you saying you would in fact vote for the slavery proponent in the scenario I cited? This seems counterintuitive, to say the least. We have laws against murder, rape, slavery, impaired driving, and other things we’ve deemed unacceptable. They still happen to a limited extent, but they are severely marginalized and rejected. We wouldn’t dismiss these laws just because they aren’t 100% effective. Social change can and does happen. Owning slaves was once as commonplace as owning automobiles. Racially segregated bathrooms were no different from gender specific bathrooms. Everyone smoked, even in hospitals. There is no reason why abortion too can’t one day be an unthinkable thing of the past.
You’re also moving the goalposts. When we started, you said that Republican presidents have done virtually nothing meaningful towards ending legal abortion, besides talk about it. This was refuted, so now you’re saying that overturning Roe and banning abortion in some states (a critical step towards ending legal abortion that you yourself admitted Republicans might make) wouldn’t actually change abortion rates and would just create more problems (so it’s perfectly fine to vote for a candidate that supports legal abortion). Usage of this tactic often suggests that one lacks a sound case, and is really only interested in rationalizing a preordained conclusion.
Regarding things like healthcare coverage, welfare programs, child tax credit, etc, you haven’t cited any peer-reviewed research to support your claims. You have the burden of proof here. We need specifics (particular policies that Obama favours and the Republicans oppose that actually reduce abortion rates). Stating that those crazy “far right wingers” want to end all these important programs isn’t going to cut it. Your statement is actually more controversial than one would think. The National Right to Life Committee actually opposed the GOP’s welfare reform in the 1990s (which resulted in more conservative policies than before) because they thought it would increase abortion rates. As it turns out, it didn’t.
The claim that overturning Roe would divert all of the pro-life movement’s limited resources away from pregnancy help centres to endless legal battles is perhaps the most unusual thing you’ve said. Abortion restrictions already incite legal challenges, and there already are pro-life lawyers who have to defend them in court. Yet both the number of abortion restrictions on the books and the number of crisis pregnancy centres has increased consistently. It’s difficult to see how or why this would be any different in a post-Roe environment.
And in the mean time, if I feel that the GOP is crashing the country due to their archaic thoughts about health care, education, and the economy – well, it will be worth it in the end when, after 30 plus years, abortion becomes illegal in a dozen or so states (in which, most women will drive to another state).
Back to my earlier question: Is there a more important issue than over a million people being legally murdered every year? If so, you can stop reading as there is likely little that can be done to convince you. If not, the GOP’s supposed shortcomings in these areas are red herrings.
On the three issues…I just find it hypocritical when people freak out about what is taught in school, or what is shown on a TV show, and then say that my voice doesn’t matter in regards to graphic images because it is reality.
I would never say that your voice doesn’t matter. I might question the validity of your objections, but you’re still entitled to express your opinion. Pro-lifers are then intellectually obligated to consider and evaluate your arguments. Comparing graphic abortion images to what’s taught in school is a false analogy, because schools (unlike pro-life campaigns) actually do deliberately market to children (by design). Age appropriateness of the content (where there is lots of room for debate) must be taken into consideration. And even if some or most pro-lifers are hypocrites on this topic, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with showing graphic images. It just means that some pro-lifers are hypocrites.
You didn’t answer my question about the church in Nazi Germany next to the train tracks. Is its inaction morally criticizable? Was it wrong for a church to ignore something that’s so horrific and so close at hand, or would making this kind of judgment be akin to imposing a manmade formula? Because this is precisely the position modern churches are in (aside from greater political freedoms, as those who publicly oppose abortion are not put to death. This only strengthens my argument).
“If abortion were illegal, I’d quite certainly not vote for somebody who was going to legalize it.”
So in your mind you are able to justify voting for pro-aborts because abortion is legal. wtbleep
“If everybody lived my life, we’d have an abortion rate of zero.”
Ex-RINO, you need tounderstand that your vote for pro-aborts feeds vulnerable mothers to the wolves.
Ex-RINO,
All that scripture about the fatherless gave me a simple idea that could reasonably reduce the number of legal abortions in the US by over 50%.
Requiring women to get the father’s consent prior to terminating the life of his child.
FYI – might be a couple of days – church meeting tonight, and Bible study at our house tomorrow night – but will get back to you Navi.
Ex-GOP, An interesting look back that touches on the goal of changing the culture:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/25/casey-decision-at-20-pro-lifers-make-progress-on-abortion/
Ex-RINO,
was that enough scripture to convince you that the Bible teaches it is wrong to vote for a pro-abort?
truth – I always appreciate scripture.
You also have no debate with me in that, I agree 100% that it is sinful to have an abortion.
What I asked for was this – “If you’d like to point out verses that prove otherwise, feel free. Jesus confronts a lot of folks about the sins in their lives, and off the top of my head, I’m not coming up with examples where the sins weren’t sins that the person committed themselves.”
Glancing through those, I don’t see anything there…
Navi -
Thanks for clearing up the ’35 year’ plan. So the thought is, get another pro-lifer or two in, then pass abortion bans at the state level, run them up to the supremes, and get RvWade overturned – is that a better summation then?
You attribute the numbers of abortions coming down due to state restrictions. The rate started coming down though in the early 80′s – faster as the economy healed. In fact, as you trace the rate year to year, you can see where the economy struggled and where it didn’t. I’m not saying state restrictions have no benefit and haven’t helped. I’m just saying it isn’t the only factor.
Huge Nate Silver fan, so big props to anything posted from him! He does declare at the end that he can’t and won’t try to make the conclusion that I think you are making – that women won’t (or will) drive distances for abortions (or seek illegal abortions).
So I continue to be massively skeptical in regards to the end game for the overturning of RvWade. I’m skeptical that it is possible, and I’m skeptical it will make a ton of difference if it ever did come about. You post compelling arguments, but like a lot of things, it is just a guess.
On the Nazi Germany question – yes, their inaction is morally criticizable.
But my point is this – there are a lot of things that well-meaning Christians can say are huge issues that the church must address, and these things are occurring all over the world. I’m not going to stand outside a Christian church that I don’t go to, with signs, and say they should spend their time and focus on poverty, sex trafficking, genocides that are occurring, or a number of other issues. I’m not saying they aren’t important – I’m saying that if I truly believe they are a Christian church, I believe that their leadership is directing them as direction is given from God. They might be focusing on one of those issues and not others – does that make them wrong? And if I do believe that they are ignoring something, what am I to do? Take the Biblical advice and present them with their sin, or hold up signs? Or if I believe that they are not from God, again, should I take the Biblical advice and leave them alone (so that I’m not fighting God if they are truly doing his will?). I think demanding that every church pay a certain amount of attention to abortion is making an idol of the subject.
I know that I didn’t do justice to your long response and your articles – but correlation does not mean causation. We can deduce a lot of things regarding pro-life states and abortion rates. One of those is that legislation makes a difference, but there are other possible explanations as well – and all we’re doing is guessing.
Thanks for clearing up the ’35 year’ plan. So the thought is, get another pro-lifer or two in, then pass abortion bans at the state level, run them up to the supremes, and get RvWade overturned – is that a better summation then?
Yes, that’s a pretty close summary. Though I’d like to add that in the meantime, we must work to change hearts and minds, provide support for mothers in crisis pregnancies, and pass court-friendly incremental restrictions on abortion. And this might seem like I’m splitting hairs, but the justices don’t necessarily have to be pro-life. It’s possible for one to strongly believe that abortion should be legal, but (based on their interpretation of the Constitution and understanding of the proper role of the Supreme Court) hold that Roe v. Wade is bad law, should be overturned and the issue returned to the legislators. There are myriads of legal scholars that take this position. In fact, we don’t know for sure that any of the present justices are pro-life. But as far as I’m concerned, a vote to overturn Roe is a vote to overturn Roe.
You attribute the numbers of abortions coming down due to state restrictions. The rate started coming down though in the early 80′s – faster as the economy healed. In fact, as you trace the rate year to year, you can see where the economy struggled and where it didn’t. I’m not saying state restrictions have no benefit and haven’t helped. I’m just saying it isn’t the only factor.
The rate fell a bit in the 80s, going from 29.3 in 1980 to 26.9 in 1987. It then stagnated, with the abortion rate being 27.4 in 1990. Between 1990 and 2000, however, it fell to 21.3.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
I’m pretty sure Mississippi isn’t known for its vibrant economy, but it saw a 52.07% decline in abortion rate in just eight years. The economy (which is often difficult for politicians to control) is a factor. But it would seem that if it’s as important as you say, that states benefiting the most from a recovery would see the biggest declines in abortion rate. Do you have data to support this?
Huge Nate Silver fan, so big props to anything posted from him! He does declare at the end that he can’t and won’t try to make the conclusion that I think you are making – that women won’t (or will) drive distances for abortions (or seek illegal abortions).
He doesn’t analyze the data to determine whether or not abortion access impacts the number. He acknowledges that the demand side of the equation also plays a role. That is, a woman who is strongly pro-life won’t consider abortion even if free abortions are offered on every street corner. A woman who is strongly pro-choice and really wants an abortion will somehow find a way to get one, even if there’s only one clinic in the entire world. However, most people probably don’t fit into either of these extremes (so the supply side would come into play). Furthermore, peer-reviewed studies of specific states enacting parental consent laws found significant differences between in state declines and out of state increases.
The prospect of women travelling out of state also sounds like a good reason to work towards banning abortion in all of them, not to give up on legislation altogether.
So I continue to be massively skeptical in regards to the end game for the overturning of RvWade. I’m skeptical that it is possible, and I’m skeptical it will make a ton of difference if it ever did come about. You post compelling arguments, but like a lot of things, it is just a guess.
Indeed, it is a guess. The only way to know for sure what would happen would be to actually overturn Roe and analyze the data a few years later. But even then, all we would have is an educated guess (though a more reliable one than anyone is able to provide now). That’s how science generally works – we test guesses (rather than actually being able to prove something). Some hypotheses, however, are more reasonable than others. And I think I’ve successfully shown that there are in fact meaningful differences between candidates on this issue, differences that a reasonable pro-life voter should use to make his/her decision.
On the Nazi Germany question – yes, their inaction is morally criticizable. But my point is this – there are a lot of things that well-meaning Christians can say are huge issues that the church must address, and these things are occurring all over the world. I’m not going to stand outside a Christian church that I don’t go to, with signs, and say they should spend their time and focus on poverty, sex trafficking, genocides that are occurring, or a number of other issues. I’m not saying they aren’t important – I’m saying that if I truly believe they are a Christian church, I believe that their leadership is directing them as direction is given from God. They might be focusing on one of those issues and not others – does that make them wrong? And if I do believe that they are ignoring something, what am I to do? Take the Biblical advice and present them with their sin, or hold up signs? Or if I believe that they are not from God, again, should I take the Biblical advice and leave them alone (so that I’m not fighting God if they are truly doing his will?). I think demanding that every church pay a certain amount of attention to abortion is making an idol of the subject.
So we agree that churches are not above criticism. I don’t think we should go as far as protesting churches for not being everywhere at once (protesting churches that actually do support abortion is a different debate). But I think that most pastors who refuse to touch this issue do so because it’s divisive and very emotionally charged for many people or because they don’t fully understand its importance. These aren’t exactly justifiable reasons, and pastors are not infallible. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for pro-life Christians to encourage their clergy to do more.
Or picket a “church” that openly supports the legality of abortion. There’s a big difference between apathy towards the loathsome and support of the abhorrent.
Navi – again, it will take me a bit longer than tonight to formalize my thoughts – but I wanted to hit on the end of yours, and then xalisae’s post.
I do agree churches are not above criticism.
I do believe though that the scripture is clear how to deal with these situations.
If you are part of a church that you think is sinning or ignoring things (in a sinful way) – we have Matthew chapter 18 as a guide.
If you aren’t part of a church though, Acts 5 seems to be a good guide (the second half of the chapter).
There are some churches that don’t preach harsh sermons about sins – they work to reach the unreached, bring people into salvation, where a person will learn about these things. Saying that this model is wrong because the pastor doesn’t stand up and preach against these things – I just couldn’t support that. I know that neither of you are suggesting that – but others on this board have – and I don’t agree with that.
Heck, Obama sucks for a lot of reasons other than abortion. It’s amazing how quickly that’s becoming apparent to congressional Democrats whose campaigns are actively avoiding any support from him. He’s becoming toxic.
Those who continue to support Obama until their more perspicacious progressive brethren have all fallen by the wayside, will be counted as ultimate rubes.
Obama’s favorability ratings aren’t ideal for a guy seeking re-election – the one thing that I think has a good job of saving him is Romney. Romney is John Kerry – same guy.
I mean, Obama’s definitely vulnerable – yet is actually up now in Florida – up in Ohio – way up in Pennsylvania – up in Iowa – up in Wisconsin. Heck, Missouri is even interesting.
A lot of time between now and the election – things can and will change – but in a year where the GOP needed a good candidate…well, they picked John Kerry.
ExRINO, you can’t possibly know how little your opinion means to me since a couple weeks ago when you stated: “If abortion were illegal, I’d quite certainly not vote for somebody who was going to legalize it.”
And yet you continue to vote for pro-aborts anyway…because it is already legal anyway. The kindest thing I can say to you, and this is a low blow in my book, is that you are ‘liberally-minded’ person.
What I asked for was this – “If you’d like to point out verses that prove otherwise, feel free. Jesus confronts a lot of folks about the sins in their lives, and off the top of my head, I’m not coming up with examples where the sins weren’t sins that the person committed themselves.”
Ex-RINO,
1) Every one of the above scriptures instructs you to be a friend to the fatherless.
2)Children in the womb are ‘fatherless” in our legal system.
3)You have admitted yourself that you believe abortion is murder.
4)People who vote for politicians that support Planned Parenthood are not a friend to these millions of fatherless that are legally murdered every year in the US. And they blatantly violate scripture when support/vote for Obama.
Ex-RINO,
You claim that you believe abortion is murder and yet you think people should be alright voting for politicians who support Planned Parenthood. Be careful how you vote and be even more careful when you have the gall to put on a pretense that Jesus wouldn’t condemn you for it. Woe, Woe, Woe I say!! Take some time off and pray on it.