Beyond creepy: Obama uses daughters to push abortion
On July 24 President Barack Obama used his daughters as props to promote abortion, stating at an Oregon fundraiser (video here):
Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that’s a bad idea. I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices. We’re not going backwards, we’re going forwards.
We all know the word “choice” is a euphemism for “abortion.” And the fight to defund Planned Parenthood is all about abortion. So clear as mud, Obama was advocating the freedom for his daughters to abort his own grandchildren. I’m not the only one who took his statement that way. Wrote CP Politics:
President Barack Obama drew a sharp line between himself and GOP opponent Mitt Romney on federally funded abortion rights Tuesday, arguing that federal funding of Planned Parenthood is necessary to preserve his daughters’ right to chose.
This is at least the second time Obama has used his daughters to promote sex without consequences, which is creepy in itself, particularly given the fact they are only 14 and 11.
But the first time was when they were even younger – way younger. From the 2008 wayback machine, on a day Obama was promoting comprehensive sex ed:
I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
It is just weird for Obama to discuss his daughters’ future sex lives, period.
Obama’s latest promotion of Planned Parenthood was further inappropriate given the fact Planned Parenthood had killed a mother only three days prior. Tonya Reaves was her name, Mr. President. That’s her photo, right. She was only 10 years older than Malia.
Of late Obama has embarked as much on a Planned Parenthood advocacy campaign as he has his own presidential campaign. Obviously, internal polling is telling the Obama reelection team two things:
- Obama’s fortunes rest on Planned Parenthood as much as we already know Planned Parenthood’s fortunes rest on Obama.
- More voters than not still think highly of Planned Parenthood.
BTW, the Obama girls will never set foot in a Planned Parenthood. They’ll always have first class ob/gyns and/or abortionists, not bottom feeders.
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.
Whoaaaa!
My Jamaican friend, Hart and Pastor Manning were correct.
b o IS a long legged mac daddy/pimp on the down low.
b o used his daughters as political props just the other day when he was promoting homosexual patrimony/matrimony.
You just gotta love those ‘chicago way’ family values.
Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel welcomes Jew hatin, black supremicist grand wizard of the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakahn to Chicago and rejects Chick-Fil-A from the ‘windy city’, because CEO Dan Cathy has the temerity to publicly endorse the 2,000 year old christian concept that ‘marriage’ is a union between one man and one woman……at a time.
I wonder if anyone asked Louie what the koran, the prophet and Allah [pbuh] have to say about homosexuality.
I already know the answer and Rahmbo does too. He is just a self serving political opportunitist who knows he can claim just about anything and none of the chicago stenographers will challenge him on it.
The homosexual posse has announced plans to hold a ‘kiss in’ at Chick-Fil-A’s around the nation on Friday, August 3rd.
Suggest flaming heterosexuals hold a counter demonstration on the same day. Hug a homosexual and tell them Jesus loves them and buy them glass of fresh squeezed lemonade.
Don’t forget to wash your hands thoroughly
and everybody,
EAT MORE CHICKEN
I don’t understand Obama’s zeal to kill his own grandchildren, I really don’t. His own existence should be proof enough that a great blessing (a child) can come out of a bad circumstance (an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy).
Also, why is government funding of Planned Parenthood necessary for his daughters? Won’t Obamacare fulfill all of their healthcare needs, including free contraception and abortions?
And now, any young man who happens to date either of the Obama daughters knows that he won’t be punished if they “make a mistake”. Good ol’ dad is cool…he’ll make sure everything gets taken care of.
Sooo what are you waiting for girrl lets to this.
”His own existence should be proof enough that a great blessing (a child) can come out of a bad circumstance (an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.”
But not all “bad circumstances” work out happily ever after. Not all unplanned pregnancies are a “blessing.” (My father, who went through life with untreated mental health problems as a result of being unwanted could attest to that.) Many of us pro-choice women have no problem with our daughters choosing when and if they will be parents. It’s all about choice.
“Suggest flaming heterosexuals hold a counter demonstration on the same day. Hug a homosexual and tell them Jesus loves them and buy them glass of fresh squeezed lemonade. Don’t forget to wash your hands thoroughly.”
God hates fags, right Ken? But here’s a question, Ken. If you arrive at the home of a gay person or couple, will you then, for religious reasons, refuse to provide the service? Or rather, do you quote scripture for them to inform them of their sinful ways?
Bottom line – Obama is pro-choice as is a good percentage of this country. Bush was pro-life as is a good percentage of this country. It’s all about the votes at the end of the day.
And BTW, I’m proudly childless by choice. But if I did have teenage girls, as many of my friends do, I wouldn’t want them to be teen moms because that is, by any stretch of the imagination, a punishment. If it can be avoided by whatever means (abstinence or contraception – learned from good sex ed which was Obama’s point) then all the better.
And Ms. Stanek, if a woman dies in childbirth at – say – some Catholic hospital, will you be willing to say they “killed” her?
Not all unplanned pregnancies are a “blessing.” (My father, who went through life with untreated mental health problems as a result of being unwanted could attest to that.)
Who was your father unwanted by? Was your father not a blessing to anyone in his life?
Have you ever thought that your dad’s mental illness had nothing to do with whether or not someone wanted him but rather it could be a genetic thing? Maybe the person(s) who did not want your dad was also afflicted with mental issues.
We shouldn’t kill people because they have family members with mental illnesses.
Wow. I’m gonna refrain from shootin’ any fish in a barrel after that. Just ain’t sportin’.
As far as Obama’s lack of values, see you in November! Remember what your prophet (p.b.u.h.) said, “Ladies, do not kill your children for fear of poverty.” There are many kinds of poverty, the worst being spiritual. Happy Ramadan to our Muslim brothers and sisters out there! It’s gotta be tough with these long summer days.
And, I never thought I’d say this, but, Snooki’s got a better head on her shoulders than the President of the US. Go figure.
I find it much more creepy that anyone could want the government to deprive their daughters of a constitutional right they currently enjoy.
I am here because abortion was illegal.
Anyway, the Obama girls are so beautiful and seem so sweet. It is just so sad to see this.
joan,
Killing a child is not a constitutional right.
CC,
No, not all unplanned pregnancies work out “happily ever after”. But, neither do all “planned, wanted” pregnancies. Nothing you have written here justifies killing a child.
“And Ms. Stanek, if a woman dies in childbirth at – say – some Catholic hospital, will you be willing to say they “killed” her?”
Why would she be? That statement is idiotic and untrue.
“I find it much more creepy that anyone could want the government to deprive their daughters of a constitutional right they currently enjoy.”
Like the right to own slaves?
“If a woman dies in childbirth…willing to say they ‘killed’ her”…well, let’s see, if the hospital did a 100% elective procedure which did not in any way improve maternal/fetal outcomes and in fact risked the life of the mother/baby for conviences like, say, an induction at 36 weeks because the doctor was about to go on vacation which escalated to a c-section, fetal complications from prematurity, and a maternal hemorage that led to death then…YES. the hospital (or very least the doctor) killed her. If a specific hospital had a proven track record of pushing vulenerable moms into such things and ignoring doctors who suggested such dangerous procedures, then it would absolutely be appropriate to say the hospital killed her (and the family would have one heck of a reason to sue and likely receive a massive settlement).
Unfortunately this kind of thing *does* happen in hospitals. Fortunately, most of the time, when it does come to the spotlight the public at large acknowledges the gross neglegence of the hospital/doctor and wants the situation to be made better. Unfortunately when the same level of gross neglegence happens because someone (not necessarily the mother) wants an abortion, and the death following a fully elective, for-convience, unnecessary, and dangerous procedure goes public, the talking heads (if not the public in general), use the tragedy to scream that abortion needs to be left alone, unregulated, it’s nobody’s fault (unless maybe it’s the pro-life crowd’s fault in some way), it’s all an acceptable tragedy in a woman’s ‘right’ to kill and *must* be overlooked in order to protect that right.
joan 7:49PM
Where does the Constitution say anything about abortion?
Jespren,
“If a woman dies in childbirth…willing to say they ‘killed’ her”…well, let’s see, if the hospital did a 100% elective procedure …If a specific hospital had a proven track record of pushing vulenerable moms into such things and ignoring doctors who suggested such dangerous procedures, then it would absolutely be appropriate to say the hospital killed her
Ehhh you inadvertently described why pro-lifeers/hospitals should claim responsibility for the killing of a woman in childbirth. 1. Abortion is certainly no more elective then childbirth. Pregnancy no matter how it ends is an extremely elective state of being.2 MANY hospitals and doctors will advise abortion as childbirth is a dangerous procedure for them, so by your own admission when giving birth is against the doctors provision the doctor or hospital should be blamed for killing her.
Ehhh you inadvertently described why pro-lifeers/hospitals should claim responsibility for the killing of a woman in childbirth.
Ehhh….your reading comprehension skills need some work.
“1. Abortion is certainly no more elective then childbirth.”
That’s were I disagree. Childbirth is the natural result of pregnancy, when left alone. Abortion is an unnecessary (so essentially elective) intervention. Big difference.
CC-
I’m so sorry you have had such a tragic life. I really hope for peace in your life soon.
Lucy, *chuckle*, thanks, that’s more or less what I was thinking.
Shannon, um…did you actually read what I wrote? There is a huge difference between someone happening to die in a situation that has inherent risk and someone being killed. Life is dangerous, pregnancy and childbirth do, in fact, carry risks, (so does living a barren life). Pregnancy is, almost always, an elective state, one a woman CHOSE to take upon herself. It’s also both a natural state and a necessary state (no more pregnancies, no more people). We are, by design or chance, made to give birth to the next generation and that carries certain risks. So does eating.
If someone chokes to death we are saddened by their loss. If someone is force-fed food and chokes to death we call that murder. If a pregnant woman, despite the best care (or the best care she had access to) dies in the course of NORMAL life, e.i., pregnancy or birth. That is sad, grievous, and tragic. But if she dies in the course of ABNORMAL life, e.i. negligent or incompetent care or in an elective procedure meant to halt normal life, then there is fault, perhaps even rising to the level of murder, perhaps not, it’s not just sad or tragic, it’s now someone’s fault that death happened. Usually more than one person shares the blame.
Pregnancies are self terminating, they end all by themselves as the natural course of life, sometimes medical intervention can make that safer, sometimes it makes it more dangerous, sometimes it’s needed to save the life of mother or child such as a c-section for a transverse lie. But abortion is none of those things. It is an unnatural act which seeks to interfere with a natural state, one that, again (baring rape), was entered into willingly so no one can really play the ‘but I didn’t sign up for this!’ card with any amount of honesty. It carries not only risk to the mother but absolute risk to a 2nd party, one who is wholly innocent of any crime. It is never needed to save the life of the mother and it is never appropriate to trade the *life* of one human being for the comfort or even potential harm of another, especially when that ‘another’ got into that position willingly.
Hospitals and doctors who mis and maltreat pregnant and laboring women *should* be held responsible for the trauma, damage, and even deaths they cause. In addition to my interest in pro-life I also am interested in patient rights, parental rights, natural birth, and birth autonomy. Many of my friends have been gravely mistreated by medical staff during their pregnancies or births, myself included to some degree. Those doctors deserve real punishments, and, for the most part, unless there is a very public death involved, they don’t receive them. But, again, there is a world of difference between “the killing of a woman in childbirth”, which I doubt anyone on this board would shrug off or say is an acceptable loss in the fight for women’s rights, and the *death* of a woman in childbirth.
Think for a moment about another wholly elective ‘field of medicine’, plastic surgery. If someone trips while jogging and falls and injures their facial nerves so that one side of their face is frozen and unfeeling that’s really a horrible outcome from a common and normal life activity that carries some inherent risk but people accept that risk for the benefits of the activity. But if a plastic surgeon, even if a patient begs him for the surgery, goes in and cuts that nerve, even in the ‘normal’ course of surgery, it’s a grievous example of malpractice and negligence that is all the more tragic because it happened during a completely elective and unnatural activity. You might end up with two people in the exact same situation, you very well might not even be able to tell the two apart if they were standing in front of you, but how they got there is completely different and incredibly different. Likewise a young woman and mother dead in a coffin from an unexpected and uncontrollable hemorrhage after childbirth might be just as dead as the one who died from an unexpected and uncontrollable hemorrhage after an abortion, you probably couldn’t pick one from the other just by looking in their coffins. But the how and why of those coffins are incredibly important, incredibly different, and are no more comparable than the child who choked while eating breakfast is to the child who choked while someone was force feeding him.
I wonder if Obama had another daugher, if she would look like Tonya Reaves.
Wow, amazing to see how many ppl think its ok and its some wonderfull “right” to have a child destroyed inside (or partially inside) the womb. Like throwing out the trash and thinking nothing of it afterwards. There are some of you here that got your mind and heart in the right place, and thats encouraging to see. To the others that think that abortion is ok, I challenge you to watch this 33 minute movie I have on my website and after its done (in its entirety), you will at least, ask yourself “Is human life important to me?” That’s my 2 cents! Take care guys!
KurlyD
I only wish I had commented earlier so that I could be sure that I am included and considered to be a “mentally disturbed” “moron” by someone who proudly points to the sickening number of abortions that will be happening tomorrow.
“Must suck to know 4,000 abortions will be done each day in this country and there’s nothing you can do about it.” – Anastasia
That stat does suck. But there is a lot we can and do do about it. Sidewalk counselors in my city had a record 6 saves in just one day a few days ago!
joan 7:49PM
Where does the Constitution say anything about abortion
Where does the Constitution say anything about eminent domain or separation of powers or interracial marriage?
” Sidewalk counselors in my city had a record 6 saves in just one day a few days ago!”
One more time – you are deluding yourself when you say that your are “counselors” because you are nothing of the sort. Shouting at people and shoving literature into their hands is NOT counseling which is governed by certain professional standards which include confidentiality. You are anti-abortion protesters and to say anything else is euphemistic. And are you sure that you “saved” 6 babies? How do you know that they didn’t go to another clinic or return when you weren’t there. And if you did “save” the babies, will you be providing for their care and feeding for the next 18 years?
CC,
You didn’t address my question. You spoke of abortion being a Constitutional right in your 7:49PM post. Where does it say this in the Constitution?
The fact is that, as soon as a girl has her first menstrual period, her family has cause for concern. She can get pregnant, whether through rape or consensual sex, at a time when she is not emotionally prepared to accept the pregnancy. A child should not have children — but the possibility is there as soon as she has a menstrual period. As a father of daughters, Obama has to be concerned about protecting them from problem pregnancies.
Of course, what anyone wants for a daughter is not an abortion or a baby she is unprepared for but avoiding pregnancy. A daughter may someday become a very good mother but she should grow up herself first.
Where does the Constitution say anything about…separation of powers…?
And this, right here, is where you lose the last, tattered shreds of credibility you might have had. Have you ever even read the Constitution?
CC says:
One more time – you are deluding yourself when you say that your are “counselors” because you are nothing of the sort.
Meh. Sidewalk “counselor” = standard word usage actually
coun·se·lor
? ?[koun-suh-ler]
noun
1. a person who counsels; adviser.
coun·sel
? ?[koun-suhl]
noun
1. advice; opinion or instruction given in directing the judgment or conduct of another.
Here’s a “What if” moment:
IF (God Forbid)..one of Obama’s girls do get an unwanted pregnancy and goes to PP for her “burden”. And PP botches the “procedure” and the girl dies (God Forbid, again)…
Would the Obamas change their mind about PP and abortion??
Just asking…
The big O is selling his daughters for sex without reproduction again.
People could bulimicize to this news, it’s so nauseating. I’m linking it up down on the Pharm.
“Would the Obamas change their mind about PP and abortion??”
RSD, odds are they’d know who she was and would therefore make sure to actually have someone (or, more likely, several someones) available with proper medical education and experience, along with a clean operating room, clean tools, a generous time allotment to ensure the execution can be done a relatively leisurely pace, and possibly even an ambulance on standby, just in case.
After all, this would constitute one of those rare times when the complete well-being of the woman would in fact be important enough to them to make such an effort.
Let us hope and pray that this situation never comes to pass, though; I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, regardless of who her father is.
“You didn’t address my question. You spoke of abortion being a Constitutional right in your 7:49PM post. Where does it say this in the Constitution?”
It’s not in the Constitution but it is a right that has been defined through a SCOTUS decision just as the “Loving” decision provided a right for interracial couples to marry. (The 14th Amendment didn’t specify marriage) There are lots of thing not in the Constitution such as abortion and the Separation of Powers clause – attention Alice who thinks she’s just sooo smart. The Constitution provides a framework for decisions regarding issues that were non-existent at the time of the founding.
“Though it may be implied or even directly stated in some news reports, blog postings, or web sites, there is no clause of the Constitution that is called the “Separation of Powers Clause.” This is because there is no one clause that says “separation of powers” or “checks and balances” or any other phrase that is used synonymously. The concept of the Separation of Powers is written into the first three articles of the Constitution, as detailed elsewhere.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#sepp
And Lrning – while the dictionary defines the meaning of the generic term counselor, the professional definition does not cover what you do which is harassment of women seeking health care and clinic staff.
And for the record, I don’t blame the deceased’s family for their plans to sue Planned Parenthood. Any health care provider that is suspected of negligence should be sued. Medical malpractice happens all to frequently and it’s not just at Planned Parenthood.
“The big O is selling his daughters for sex without reproduction again.’
Seriously, do you actually believe that sex is only for reproduction. Once again, there should be no question as to why the reality based community views you folks as radical crazies. And BTW, if you are a pharmacist, are you refusing to fill birth control scripts?
“After all, this would constitute one of those rare times when the complete well-being of the woman would in fact be important enough to them to make such an effort”
Ah…there’s the rub, Maestro.. Every patient should be important enough to merit this attention…not just for “celebrities”.
CC says: while the dictionary defines the meaning of the generic term counselor, the professional definition does not cover what you do which is harassment of women seeking health care and clinic staff.
Then assuming that “sidewalk counselor” is a professional term is a mistake I’m sure you’re not likely to make again.
Interesting that you often use the word “harassment”. That’s a word that also has a generic and a professional (legal) meaning. Should we start complaining every time you use it in the generic sense?
Yes, CC, and as we all know, the Supreme Court is always infallible in its decisions when interpreting the Constitution. Just ask Dred Scott.
“Harassment” - a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
That’s exactly what happens, on a daily basis, outside Planned Parenthood clinics where staff and patients are forced to walk a gauntlet of uninvited protesters who create an unpleasant and hostile environment which is why the city of Providence provides police presence. If you think women want to hear people yelling at them and trying to thrust literature into their hands, while they walk from the parking lot to the clinic, you’re seriously deluded.
And yes, JoAnna, SCOTUS makes some bad decisions (Citizens United) but right now Roe is safe. Conservatives Alito and Roberts both feel that it’s “stare-decisis.”
“That’s exactly what happens, on a daily basis, outside Planned Parenthood clinics where staff and patients are forced to walk a gauntlet of uninvited protesters who create an unpleasant and hostile environment which is why the city of Providence provides police presence.” CC, they are only doing the job you would not do, as a person who only exists by the care and love of others that shirks the opportunity to pass along the same care you received to another. Whenever I hear leftists talk about sharing the wealth, spreading the wealth or “you had to rely on others,” I shudder when I realize the one true chance they have to truly do so for another human being they instead prefer ripping her to shredsand don’t even give her the dignity of a proper resting place. Sometimes they toss her in the trash and then fight people who question the gross indignity it is. Don’t you tire of defending one of the most extreme indefensibles in all human history?
@CC: You really have no idea what the Consitution is and how it works at all, do you? Every time I think you’ve hit bottom, you produce another axe to dig with.
“Harassment” - a : exhaust, fatigueb (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
Other than the physical part, in my view, this is exactly what you frequently do here, CC.
It took more than 40 years to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson. And if I recall correctly, Clarence Thomas also said something about “stare-decisis”. He later voted to overturn Roe anyway.
“@CC: You really have no idea what the Consitution is and how it works at all, do you? Every time I think you’ve hit bottom, you produce another axe to dig with”
What, exactly, are you talking about other than the usual ad-hominems full of the sound and fury, signifying nothing? I provided material from a website devoted to the Constitution and you claim that it’s bogus? As I stated abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution and neither are a whole lot of other things that are now part of our laws. But here’s a question, where, in the Constitution, is interracial marriage mentioned?
”ripping her to shredsand don’t even give her the dignity of a proper resting place”
Early miscarriages don’t have “proper resting places” either except the toilet.
For Alice:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
So here’s the thing, Alice, while something might not be in the Constitution, our judges use what is in the document in order to make decisions. At present, Roe still stands despite all your braying about how abortion isn’t in the Constitution.
CC, many pro-choicers feel that Roe was a bad decision. One example of many: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101901974.html
Roe will be overturned eventually. It’s based on outdated science and vague concepts of privacy that aren’t applicable in other areas (e.g., drug use).
One, I didn’t say anything, in this thread anyway, about abortion not being in the Constitution. I’m not sure who did, but it wasn’t me. You need to go back over the thread and sort out who it is you want to be responding to. That being said, given your now-thoroughly-demonstrated incomprehension of how the Constitution works, I’m certainly not afraid of challenges from you should I choose to point that out in the future. Good grief.
Two, the reason the phrases “separation of powers” or “checks and balances” aren’t in the Constitution comes to, essentially, the same reason Elizabeth II doesn’t sing “God Save The Queen”: it’s about her. Those phrases describe what the Constitution does. They don’t need to be in the Constitution. Not that I expect this lesson on reading comprehension will do you a lick of good, but on the (very) off chance that perhaps some logic will seep into your brain if you are repeatedly exposed to it, there you go.
“Yes, CC, and as we all know, the Supreme Court is always infallible in its decisions when interpreting the Constitution. Just ask Dred Scott.”
This is like pointing out that Alexander VI wasn’t a very nice man in order to attack the doctrine of papal infallibility. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to definitively interpret the Constitution? Without question, and regardless of whether they have, in your opinion, gotten it wrong in the past.
Joan, can you point out where I claimed that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution? They absolutely do. However, their rulings are not infallible, and several rulings by the SC have been overturned (Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, among others). I predict that Roe will be another such ruling.
Doesn’t our culture have a schizophrenic attitude toward “privacy”? On one hand, it is fiercely guarded in the law. On the other, our TV sets constantly blare with people voluntarily exposing their intimate lives to the world.
CC 12:55PM
The SCOTUS also at one time ruled that Americans could be “seperate but equal” and that American citizens could be placed in concentration camps after having their property and businesses confiscated. Is either Constitutional simply because the SCOTUS so declared?
It is disturbing to me that apparently CC thinks her own father should’ve been killed as a gestating child because he had a mental illness.
She’s a little out there this week, and that’s saying something.
Abortionists admit that the Constitution doesn’t really give abortion rights, but they keep insisting that abortion is a right.
The Constitution DOES guarantee freedom of religion, but abortionists are pushing to destroy that part of the Constitution, because to them freedom to kill very small human children trumps democracy.
Abortionists on the internet claim to be anti-death penalty, yet they do NOTHING to take any action to prevent criminals from being executed.
Abortionists cry foul about racial profiling but insist that anyone who disagrees with killing small human children is a “terrorist.”
Abortionists keep trying to convice others that they are interested in science and reality, while they routinely make mistakes like calling an entire living human being a “body part” because he or she is small. They also mistakenly use a phrase “fertilized egg” which does not exist. An egg exists, after it is fertilized (a verb in the past tense) the new existing zygote is called a zygote. “Fertilized egg” is like saying “exploded firecracker.” Once lit and exploded, there isn’t a firecracker anymore. Once fertlized, there is no more egg. An egg is one cell with half the DNA of the parent organism. A zygote is a new organism with it’s own unique DNA that is not identical to either parent, but contains DNA from both of them.
Abortionists try to convince themselves that there is a ‘war on women.’ There is, a war against fertility, information, and prenatal care.
As Dr. Nadal says, “Get well soon.”
“Shouting at people and shoving literature into their hands is NOT counseling” – cc
I would agree actually. That is protesting, a totally different strategy from counseling. 6 women felt uncertain enough about their abortion “choice” that they got back in their car after hearing a message of love and practical support which is only minutes if not seconds long. I know you think all women have reasoned through and are confident about their decision, but 6 women a few days ago show otherwise, and one the day before that, and three the week before, and so on. Hard for me to believe that even you would be against a friendly voice offering a helping hand to anyone who is unsure and welcomes alternatives.
“And are you sure that you “saved” 6 babies? And if you did “save” the babies, will you be providing for their care and feeding for the next 18 years? ”
Interesting. I simply said “saves”. You said “babies.” But nicely done, cc. The saves refer to saving mom and baby from rushing into a terrible decision that will affect their whole lives (or lack thereof). It is true that we do not always know how the story ends, but we know what didn’t end that day! All glory to God.
My dad saved a few lives just in his every day life because of his courage and unbelievable sense of agency (victims of crime, accidents, medical emergencies). Not one of them has come back to ask him for something they need since it is his fault they are alive, but they are eternally grateful for their extra years of life on this earth.
And you know those epidemiologists in Africa – it’s almost like the ones working on malaria don’t even care that those people might get HIV and/or die of another disease and/or die of malnurishment. Such hypocrites.
But to answer your question more directly, YES, I do help provide for others and give to ANYONE who asks. Pro-life organizations exist that will help with everything from housing to diapers.
You know, cc, you could remain pro-choice and still acknowledge that some women are fortunate to have encountered a sidewalk counselor.
(For the record, I said “sidewalk counselors in my city”, not me. I only hope to be so awesome someday.)
ConfliCted says: July 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm
1. “God hates fags, right Ken?”
2. “Ken, if you arrive at the home of a gay person or couple, will you then, for religious reasons, refuse to provide the service?”
3. “Or rather, do you quote scripture for them to inform them of their sinful ways?”
1. Wrong, but you are fee to continue to believe that self deception if it validates your own hatred of GOD.
“GOD loves righteousness and hates wickedness.” You are probably well acquainted with wickedness, but have little experience with righteousness.
2. I was just in the residence of a male homosexual and his partner. I did what I was sent to do and I left, so I can answer in the affirmative that I provided the ‘service’ for which I was dispatched. I washed my hands thoroughly when I got back to my office.
If either of them had initiated a conversation about homosexuality, I would have engaged them, but the topic did not come up.
You may have had a more specific ‘service’ in mind like a circumcision or bar mitzvah or christening or baptism or funeral or may pole dance or even a wedding, but I would not venture to speculate what twisted thoughts were crawling thru the darkened recesses of your tightly shuttered mind.
There are these two elderely gentlemen whom I am informed are homosexuals. I really like these guys. I greet them warmly everytime I see them. When they are leaving the building in the morning I usually ask them if we should call the local police department and have them put the SWAT team on standby. They seem to get a kick out of my jocularity, but I still don’t know their names.
One of these days we will have a real conversation.
I am even told I have a secret admirer, but no one will tell me his name.
3. Even if a persons conscience is seared by repeated willfull sin, they have no need of anyone to tell them what they are doing is wrong.
YOU already know.
“That being said, given your now-thoroughly-demonstrated incomprehension of how the Constitution works, I’m certainly not afraid of challenges from you should I choose to point that out in the future. Good grief.”
Once again, you can’t point out, with any specificity, the error of anything I said. Once again, you engage in the perfunctory ad-hominems because you can’t rebut anything I said other than I don’t understand the Constitution. But if anything is worthy of an LOL it’s your bizarre and incoherent comment about how certain phrases aren’t in Constitution because “they don’t need to be.” You then draw an even more incomprehensible analogy to why Elizabeth II doesn’t have to sing “God Save the Queen.” As cited in Roe, the majority drew on principals from the Constitution so the argument that abortion isn’t in the Constitution is specious. And that’s what I originally responded to.
With no actual supporting evidence vis-a-vis my statement you commented that I didn’t understand the Constitution. I provided you with examples of those things that aren’t in the Constitution. You then continued with your snark about my lack of Constitutional knowledge whilst providing absolutely bupkis to support your opinion. You still haven’t said anything substantive.
Game, Set, Match.
“Joan, can you point out where I claimed that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution? They absolutely do.”
CC made a statement of fact (marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed right as a result of Supreme Court jurisprudence). You followed up by implying that the Supreme Court is not infallible in its role as interpreter of the Constitution, which evinces either a lack of understanding about its authority or some confusion about the meaning of infallibility. By definition, the Supreme Court cannot be wrong when it is interpreting a provision of our Constitution, because its word is final on that matter. Of course it can, at a later time, overrule an earlier decision. (If it couldn’t, then its interpretational authority would be thusly limited and therefore not infallible at all for obvious reasons.) This doesn’t make that earlier decision wrong, because until being overruled, it was controlling precedent. Now, perhaps you were claiming that the Supreme Court is morally, rather than legally, fallible, in which case I wouldn’t disagree, but if so, I would question the purpose of responding to CC’s post the way you did at all (responding to a statement of legal fact with a moral argument).
“You know, cc, you could remain pro-choice and still acknowledge that some women are fortunate to have encountered a sidewalk counselor.”
Operations, of any sort, can be traumatic. But then when people walk into a hospital or out-patient center they don’t have to confront total strangers trying to talk them out of their decision. What you people do is beyond contempt as you take what could be a stressful situation and just make it more stressful.
” I washed my hands thoroughly when I got back to my office”
So Ken thinks that all homosexuals have AIDS which somehow ends up on surfaces in their apartments. Really?
ChildlessbyChoice says: July 26, 2012 at 6:23 pm
“And BTW, I’m proudly Childless by Choice.”
Why, of course you are.
That is about as unexpected as rising of the sun in the east.
Gaia thanks you for saving her flacid and empty teats from the leeching and latching lips of another human.
Now be a good girl and dig a hole and go jump in it and recycle yourself.
You will receive an extra special dispensation from the hands of the earth goddess if two or more of your like minded colleagues accompany you.
John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ would be an exquisite selection for the farewell dirge.
“It is disturbing to me that apparently CC thinks her own father should’ve been killed as a gestating child because he had a mental illness.”
I so love the rhetorical acrobatics of pro-lifers who twist comments to suit their agenda. At no point did I say that my father should have been aborted. I responded to a poster who argued that once a baby is born, things have a way of working out. I merely pointed out that not every unplanned baby is loved. My father was a perfect example of that. I don’t know if his condition was a pathology he was born with; but the rejection he experience, at the hands of his dear mater, didn’t help the situation.
But let’s devolve into crazy talk. It probably would have been better had he been aborted but that didn’t happen so the argument is moot. But what it did teach me was that if a woman does not want a child, she shouldn’t be forced to have one. And that’s why I, proudly stand with so many others, in supporting a woman’s right to choose to kill (in your parlance) a gestating “child.” Her fetus, her choice. But hey, Xalisae, you and your pals, in whatever unenlightened area that you reside in, have the right to harass those who make that choice. Even in our reasonably enlightened area, the crazies are out there on Saturday morning and they still haven’t stopped abortions.
CC, I can guarantee you that every unplanned baby is loved — just not necessarily by the biological parents. If someone is pregnant with a baby that they don’t want or don’t love, then adoption is a wonderful option. I know several couples looking to adopt right now, so please get in touch with me if you know of any women who are looking for loving adoptive parents for their unplanned baby.
My question for you is, why should babies who are unwanted or even unloved be killed? Do you think we should kill all people who are unwanted or unloved? Why or why not?
My husband has bipolar disorder and my daughter has autism. I don’t think either of them should die just because they have a mental illness. I’m sorry that you think they should both be dead. They are each an immense blessing in my life.
Joan – I thought we were discussing abortion, and not marriage. (Although I agree with many parts of Loving v. Virginia, the assertion that marriage is a “right” is not one of them — I don’t see how states can ban polygamy or sibling marriage, etc., if marriage is a Constitutional right for all people.) Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff?
ChildlessbyChoice,
“So Ken thinks that all homosexuals have AIDS which somehow ends up on surfaces in their apartments. Really?”
Actually I was not concerned about being infected with HIV, but I am a little bit leery of the personal hygiene of people whose sexual practices include shoving animatie and in-animate objects their up their parthers rectum.
I was more concerned with contracting hepatitis and I am NOT thrilled about the thought of carring around someone elses fecal matter on my hands.
An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
“My husband has bipolar disorder and my daughter has autism. I don’t think either of them should die just because they have a mental illness. I’m sorry that you think they should both be dead.”
You might not be mentally ill but your thought processes are really screwed up. Just because I believe in a woman’s right to abort her fetus, for any reason, does not mean that I think those with disabilities should be dead. If a woman decides to give birth to a child that has mental or physical problems, it’s up to us, as a society, to support that person. That you make this extraordinarily ludicrous leap of logic (!) – that I would prefer to see them dead – underscores why your movement is mocked and has no credibility. I actually worked on behalf of disabled adults and abused children so your assertion is not only insane – but it’s offensive.
CluelessbyChoice,
Nearly every public place I go has a hand sanitizer station.
Evidently I am not the only one who does not take his fellow citizens personal hygiene for granted.
Limpia sus manos por favor.
“ I am a little bit leery of the personal hygiene of people whose sexual practices include shoving animatie and in-animate objects their up their parthers rectum”
Of all the things that you have said, this is the sickest. But then, how do you know what types of sex that gay people have? And do you honestly think that heterosexuals always practice pure and healthy sex? But wow, you think that your customers shove stuff up their anuses. Shows where your head is at. but thank’s for the “pro-life” screen grab. It’s very instructive.
Your logic doesn’t hold, CC. You claimed that not all bad circumstances end up with a happily ever after, and held out your mentally ill father as an example. You stated it would have been better for him to be aborted. So, given that neither my husband nor my daughter have any guarantee of a happily-ever-after, due to their mental illnesses, shouldn’t I be allowed to kill them — just like you advocate for the killing of any child who doesn’t have a guaranteed happily-ever-after?
Planned, wanted, loved babies don’t end up with happily-ever-afters all the time, either. I guess they should be killed, too, just in case. That’s the logical conclusion of your beliefs, anyway.
Personally, I believe that people aren’t defined by their circumstances and always have the capability to rise above, and that everyone should be given a chance — even unplanned babies in the womb of single mothers. After all, who knows — that baby could even grow up to be President someday despite his circumstances. CC, does it ever give you pause to think that you would have counseled Obama’s mother to abort, given her circumstances?
I love how you go as far as to call my statement “crazy talk”, and protest vehemently, but then the second sentence of your rebuttal contains “It probably would have been better had he been aborted…”
Right. Because that totally isn’t the same thing as thinking your dad should’ve been killed while he was young. That’s like, totally different and not the same exact thing I just said that you said.
It is still sad that your dad being sick and the son of a sick mother didn’t teach you that we should try and help sick people, but it gave you the notion that one sick person should be allowed to kill another sick person legally when they’re very young. What that tells me is that you share in your grandmother’s and father’s dysfunction.
[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
– Abraham Lincoln
“Of all the things that you have said, this is the sickest.”
CC, you sound like a homophobe to me, why are calling gay sex sick?
“how do you know what types of sex that gay people have?”
yea Ken, don’t you know that gay sex just involves holding hands…
Jasper-
from what I understand, it involves a good deal of fellatio and cunnilingus. But, we all know heterosexuals NEVER do that, right?!
CC, First you say, “(My father, who went through life with untreated mental health problems as a result of being unwanted could attest to that.)”
Then you say, “I don’t know if his condition was a pathology he was born with; but the rejection he experience, at the hands of his dear mater, didn’t help the situation.”
CC, Do you think telling lies is a mental health issue, a learned behavior, a result of low self-esteem or a spiritual issue?
“CC, Do you think telling lies is a mental health issue, a learned behavior, a result of low self-esteem or a spiritual issue”
Scuse me? Regardless of whether or not my father’s problems were pathological, he was unwanted and suffered, throughout his entire life, because of that. Bottom line is that no woman should be forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. Given what my father experienced, it probably would have been better had his dreadful mother aborted (which, rumor has it, she tried to do). But she didn’t and my father had a meaningless life. And that’s the truth.
ChiCkenLittle says: July 27, 2012 at 7:09 pm “Of all the things that you have said, this is the sickest… But wow, you think that your customers shove stuff up their anuses. Shows where your head is at.”
ChiCanery,
Please clarify.
Is it ‘sick’ because this is what male homosexuals do
or
because I had the audacity to point it out.
While I do try to practice good personal hygiene at all times, I am particulary fastidious after having been around known male homosexuals.
Scuse me?
What did you do, pass gas? Your lies are catching up with you and it’s all here in black and white, my dear.
Given what my father experienced, it probably would have been better had his dreadful mother aborted (which, rumor has it, she tried to do). But she didn’t and my father had a meaningless life. And that’s the truth.
It doesn’t get any more narcissistic than this, folks.
if his life was so terrible and meaningless, why didn’t you try to kill him to relieve him of his suffering? That’s what you’re advocating for a bunch of children right now, so it only seems fair you would’ve had the courage of your convictions in your own backyard.
1. Abortion/Life does not EVER have to be a Constitutional Right. Life is a GOD given right, in fact, common sense says you don’t mess with God’s Creation.
2. We need to be careful to not dog on Obama for using his daughters to promote pro-choice. Because we pro-lifers often use the beautiful photos of our own children to show how wonderful ‘life’ is. So, I’d like us to stop using that argument. It’s just mouthy instead of Godly.
3. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, nor is it a punishment. Any pregnancy is always a possible consequence of the sex act. Limit the sex act, protect your girls from possible abuse, protect them from date rape, protect them, protect them protect them….but DON’T kill your grandchild.
4. Any pregnancy takes place ONLY because GOD chose it too. He alone, opens and closes the womb. He may do it for a married couple. He may do it for a irresponsible couple -perhaps to give them a focus. He may do it for a young girl deserted by her boyfriend-perhaps so she can see, through the child, what True Love really is. But EVERY BABY HAS A PURPOSE.
5. Straight up? The womb is supposed to be the safest place for a child. Abortion…is….not…good.
But she didn’t and my father had a meaningless life.
That is truly one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. I think it’s likely that many people that knew your father thought his life had much meaning. His life resulted in you being here, for one.
Parents DO in fact worry much more about teen girls than teen boys. Girls are the ones who get pregnant. A pregnancy ending in abortion, placing a baby for adoption, or raising a baby when the girl isn’t prepared to do so and has no committed partner (such as a husband) to share it with are all negative for the girl. A miscarriage or stillbirth can be traumatic.
Thus, the point is to protect the girl from pregnancy but at the same time keep her mentally and physically healthy.
This is the goal. It’s not easy to achieve. The hormones are going to cause certain changes that can’t be wished away. However, the question should not be: what do we do if our unmarried teen girl gets pregnant?
But how do we keep her both healthy and un-pregnant until she is ready for pregnancy?
We all know the word “choice” is a euphemism for “abortion.”
How so? seems to me it simply means choice.
Then can an opponent of legalized abortion call him or herself pro-choice? Don’t we all support some choices (which brand of toothpaste to buy) and oppose others (murder, rape)? So isn’t the word “choice” all by itself an empty and meaningless term?
Sure, an opponent of legalized abortion can be pro-choice, they choose to deny a woman the right to control her body.
No, they choose to deny her the right to destroy her unborn child’s body.
Parents DO in fact worry much more about teen girls than teen boys.
Some parents may. Most of us worry equally about our teens of both genders.
Praxedes says:
July 30, 2012 at 10:13 am
Parents DO in fact worry much more about teen girls than teen boys.
Some parents may. Most of us worry equally about our teens of both genders.
(Denise) A boy impregnating isn’t the same as a girl getting pregnant. It’s inside her body. As a teen girl observed, “The boy can just take off.”