When is there ever a need to exaggerate? Why can't you just honestly blog without blowing things out of proportion?

When is there ever a need to exaggerate? Why can't you just honestly blog without blowing things out of proportion?

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 10:00 AM
**************
Misinformation melodramatics and hysteria are too big a part of the antichoice position

And lies and coercion are part of the abortion industry starting with lying about the development of the unborn baby. And then there's the "you won't be able to go to college" or "have a career" if you have a baby, that Planned Parenthood uses against these vulnerable young women.

Fact- both Clinton and Obama support FOCA, and Clinton is a sponsor. Both pledge as president to sign it.

Fact- the robo-calls are simply a false anti- Obama smeear tactic, since they imply Clinton's position is different.

Fact- Roemer's characterizations of Obama's and Clinton's positions are correct.

Opinion: Jill's efforts to smear Obama and Roemer only further decrease her credibility (if that is possible).

This is why the Rev. Wright thing should mean nothing to us. When an infant is born, are they not a citizen? Thus, did not Obama lead the opposition to a bill that would merely protect American citizens? His opposition to BAIPA should be enough to keep anyone from supporting him.

Hey LizFromNebraska,
But TR and Edyt just think that our focus on the unborn baby is just alot of melodrama and hysterics. After all to them it's just a blob of insensate tissue. They only get hysterical if someone tries to take away their pills.

Patricia, if you need melodrama and hysterics to prove a point, you probably don't have much of a point at all. I'm willing to listen to pro-lifers, but without dishonesty piled on top.

"National Right to Life is running these calls because they know that Senator Clinton will be the easier Democrat to run against in the general election-and this is their way of giving her a helping hand in this tough primary battle."

Absolutely and 100% correct.

Hal...I agree with you!!

TR loves to use the word "melodramatic"...must be from watching too much soap.

Patricia, if you need melodrama and hysterics to prove a point, you probably don't have much of a point at all. I'm willing to listen to pro-lifers, but without dishonesty piled on top.

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 11:21 AM

Wow, if this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black!!
You want dishonesty, honey, try starting way back in the 1960's when the proaborts made up all the stats for women dying from botched illegal abortions. I'd be willing to bet that there's more women maimed and dead from "legal" abortions in the last 30 years than in the 30 years preceding Roe vs. Wade.
Then add the "blob of tissue" argument they've been telling women for years, plus the "this won't hurt abit" line they feed you when you get into the clinic.
I could go on and on here, but you'll just brush it all off as prolife rhetoric.
Your not interested in the truth, only your that own ideological agenda gets foisted on the rest of society at any cost.

Hey, Patricia, by the way, I didn't make up those stats. I never called it a "blob of tissue" or said it "wouldn't hurt a bit."

I am interested in the truth, but not when the "truth" is an exaggerated mess of unverified "facts" and faulty statistics.

Jill has and continues to post inaccurate and exaggerated information. I think pro-lifers have some great points and I've heard some of them. But I think they can make those points WITHOUT having to make up information, don't you?

Patricia, I'm not attacking you or Jill. But I think it's worth mentioning that even she realizes she exaggerates. That's really irresponsible of her, considering how many people read this blog every day and how few of those people are probably real doctors, scientists and politicians, and are otherwise unequipped to sort out the hyperbole from the truth.

It doesn't matter who made them up Edyt, the fact is they WERE made up to force judges and politicians to change the law. Everyone knows that Roe vs. Wade is a sham, even the proaborts. That's why they are hysterical about any law that recognizes in any small way that the unborn baby is a person. If it were any other case not involving abortion, this law would have been overturned years ago and millions of babies and lots of women been saved.
Prolifers have been trying to get the truth out for years but proaborts don't like truth. Why do you think there is such an exaggerated reaction to having debates on college campuses, having women who regret their abortions and know what abortion really is, speak out, or showing pictures from the GAP?
Instead of seeking the truth, proaborts are pushing an agenda which sadly society has mostly bought. Proaborts call us violent and crazy. They know if they repeat the lie enough it will be bought.

Edyt: There are many of us who have learned to think on our own two feet, without having attained the advanced degrees of doctors, scientist, and politicians (I, for one, don't see a politician's relevance to the pursuit of truth, but that's for another day).

Your condescension is appalling. You weren't even born when Roe was passed, so what makes you master of the truth?

Patricia, if you need melodrama and hysterics to prove a point, you probably don't have much of a point at all. I'm willing to listen to pro-lifers, but without dishonesty piled on top.

If I hear the words "lies" or "dishonesty" or "hysterics" one more time from PC'rs, I think I'm going to......"scream"! (Think of Mary's high pitched "scream" as George Bailey tugs at her robe while she hides behind the bushes in the movie, "It's a Wonderful Life".) :)

Barack Obama even voted against saving the lives of babies who survive late term abortion.

Every word of that script is accurate. There is no need to exaggerate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, Obama voted against the crappy language in the Illinois bill that would have set up an assault on Roe v. Wade. Obama SUPPORTED the federal version of the bill:

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." [CNN, 8/5/02]

NARAL Statement: "NARAL Does Not Oppose Passage" of BAIPA.In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]

Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]

Patricia, it doesn't make the pro-life side sound any better to repeat misinformation, which is what they have been doing.

I am not defending what happened 35 years ago. Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers have told lies and exaggerated facts and statistics to help their side. That's not helping the situation, it's making it worse.

I don't know why I'm even saying this, because I'm trying to help you by saying this:

The best way the pro-life side can get Roe vs. Wade repealed is to tell the absolute verifiable truth. Which means no more twisting information and exaggerating and outright lying.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I think both sides need to be honest. But right now, those in favor of legal abortion aren't going to be swayed by a lie they can easily disprove. That's all.

Janet, I'm sorry that you took that as condescension. That wasn't my intention. I was just trying to make the point that not everyone is as aware of the studies and statistics as someone who may be more likely to see it -- such as a doctor or scientist studying that field or a politician who has to make that decision based on the information they receive. I never said I was a master of truth, but when people can frequently point out the lies and exaggerations in Jill's posts, I think it damages her credibility as a pro-lifer. (It looks bad for all of you)

So when she makes claims, the best thing to do is check it out and find the truth for yourself, that way you're never stuck in the position of spewing a lie that damages your credibility.

And as a journalist, I check information all the time. Our skeptics motto is: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out!" (Ask your dad, hehe)

Edyt,

Just a correction:

"those in favor of legal abortion aren't going to be swayed. (period)"

No matter if the truth bit them in the proverbial rear-end or hit them on the head.

..It's all about the almighty $$$...PP KNOWS the truth but will it risk it's bottom line to tell it to it's supporters...highly doubt it.

What I really don't understand is how can Obama claim to be against violence on black people BUT be an ally of PP (and we all know what Margaret Sanger wanted, right?).

PP even hosted Obama and Clinton for their support: http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/pr-070717-parr_cand.html

Lies, exaggerations, and hysterics?

Come on Edyt, you must be joking! Thats NEVER a tactic used on this blog!

Without Jill, I wouldn't know things like:

"Wicked Jews are destroying decent culture through their Hollywood influence"

"Women who have abortions deserve to be beaten by their husbands"

"Chinese people eat human fetuses!"

"Condoms = DEATH!"

"Birth Control is the biggest cause of hormone levels in our water supply!!"

"The Tuskegee Experiment being racist is an arguable point"

"Every single piece of literature, news, or film that does not support banning abortion is part of the vast liberal conspiracy!"

"ALL college-age women who are sexually active are nymphomaniacs!"

"Anyone who doesn't want to have babies is selfish and hates God!"

"All pro choicers have evil motives, and all pro lifers have good ones! Anyone who says anything bad about a pro lifer is just lying!"

"feminists and pro choice people all just hate babies and have no value for life!"

"FEAR TEH GAYZ!! (especially all those feminazi lesbians, they all hate God and babies too!"

and without NARAL, I wouldnt know things like:

"Any time you vote for a republican, you are risking the total elimination of ALL women's rights EVERYWHERE"

"ALL pro lifers hate sex!"

"ALL pro lifers hate women!"

"ALL pro lifers hate YOU and just want to punish you for having sex!"

"Banning D&X means 4958309485390840953 women will suddenly die in childbirth!"

"Putting any regulation on abortion will cause 4958309485390840953 women to suffer and die!"

"girls would rather starve than save a little bit of extra money for their pills!!"

"Putting any regulation on abortion will lead to bazillions of girls and women aborting with coat hangers!"

(and yes, I'm being very sarcastic. BOTH sides are equally guilty of making completely ridiculous exaggerations, generalizations, and sometimes out right lies. To place more blame on one side or the other is being dishonest. In fact, I'd venture to say ANYTHING that politicians are involved with is chock full of ridiculous exaggerations, generalizations, and out right lies)

""Banning D&X means 4958309485390840953 women will suddenly die in childbirth!"

"Putting any regulation on abortion will cause 4958309485390840953 women to suffer and die!""

I like how banning D & X and any regulation of abortion will result in the EXACT same number of women dying; more than have existed in human history.

but its fun to just hit the number keys Bobby!

...besides, thats probably how some of the pundit websites come up with their numbers anyway. =)

hehe, indeed!

NRLC wrote: "[The Freedom of Choice Act] would legalize partial birth abortion again."

This is not certain or clear. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any law that interferes with women's right to have abortions. It's not proven that the ban on "partial-birth" abortions does that. As long as alternative abortion methods are available, it doesn't.

Amanda, you wrote: "BOTH sides are equally guilty of making completely ridiculous exaggerations, generalizations, and sometimes out right lies. "

The two sides are not EQUALLY guilty.

Amanda, I think I said something about both sides being guilty? Either way, I don't support any lies or exaggerations from either side.

Over here I can debate the lies from the pro-life side, and on a few pro-choice sites I can debate their lies.

I agree with SoMG though. The two sides are not equally guilty.

Jill, it looks like these illegal robo-calls against Obama are about as effective as abstinence-only - NOT!

Since you don't allow people to post links, you should have your readers check out the truth about these calls at RHRealityCheck.org, entitled "Anti-Choice Robo Calls Fail in Indiana."

Congressman Tim Roemer,

You lousy bum..

theres the "pro-life" democrat for ya...

Obama doesn't have a chance at president whereas Hillary might have had a chance. He will likely continue to get nine out of ten black votes though. Why isn't that getting more attention?
It is obvious racism.

And StudentFL you hit the nail on the head:
When an infant is born, are they not a citizen? Thus, did not Obama lead the opposition to a bill that would merely protect American citizens? His opposition to BAIPA should be enough to keep anyone from supporting him. I really don't understand how he can run as a Christian and supprt something like that. The hypocrisy couldn't be more obvious if it got up and slapped you in the face.

OH but when he says change...wow...it gets me so
excited I could wet my pants.

Isn;t his whole platform thing supposed to be as a uniter. How the hell can he be so extreme as to vote against the BAIPA and call himself a uniter? Pro-life will mobolize against him in ways we have never mobilized before if he becomes the nominee. That's why Clinton could win but Obama, no chance. Hell continue to get 90% of the black vote though because they have come to accept abortion with over 50% of black pregnancies end with killing the baby in the mother's womb. How sick.

This is not certain or clear. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any law that interferes with women's right to have abortions. It's not proven that the ban on "partial-birth" abortions does that. As long as alternative abortion methods are available, it doesn't.
Posted by: SoMG at May 6, 2008 4:32 PM

SOMG, would that mean 3rd trimester abortions would be o.k. again as long as you inject the baby with poison and kill her before she is delivered?

How the hell can he be so extreme as to vote against the BAIPA and call himself a uniter?

Some legislators are smart enough to vote against certain proposed laws simply because the wording allows for things you otherwise wouldn't be for.

Take, for example, the Patriot Act. If any of the legislators had actually, say... read that particular document front to back, none of them would support it, despite its ever-so-appealing name.

Remember, there's more to legislation than an appealing title. Sometimes legislators who would vote for a certain act would turn it down if the wording is poor.

Edyt,
In some instances you would be correct. But Obama was just dead wrong on this one. Constitutionally any child "born" in the US is afforded the right to life. You may just be seeking the truth, but why would you take a stand for him when he makes such a grotesque error?

I'm not taking a stand for Obama, I'm saying there's a possibility he voted against it not because he's for killing infants born alive, but because he doesn't approve of any other messages embedded in the act.

For example, I've been following cab drivers around for a story lately. In a recent ordinance, they were allowed a gas surcharge, which gives them a $1 increase to ever meter (if you live in Chicago, you've probably heard about this in the news) because gas prices are so high it's cutting into their incomes.

However, within the ordinance, their maximum ticket fines were raised to $1,000, they are now required to drive further out to more suburbs on regular fare rather than meter and a half, and if they get even a minuscule fare increase (say 5 cents), they won't be able to have a gas surcharge for at least a year, even if their fares weren't increased enough to even make a dent in the amount they pay to drive a cab.

Now you may LOOK at an ordinance like that and say, "Wow, great! We're helping taxi drivers!" but when you read the fine print and see that they're being given more burdens and more restrictions and more hefty fines... well, it doesn't add up, you know?

Sometimes an alderman, or a representative, or a senator needs to vote against a bad ordinance or law simply because it will cause more harm.

People like Jill like to highlight that Obama voted no against this act... but if you read Laura's post at 12:54 a.m., you'll see that he did, indeed, vote against wording (in the Illinois bill) but approved the federal bill.

I think that's a very important distinction to make.

Edyt,
Don't believe everything you read. He voted against the BAIPA cause he is in bed with Planned Parenthood. Don't you see the hypocrisy in his stance? He says he is not sure when life begins. He says it could be when two cells divide. He says it could be when the "soul" stirs. I got news for you. He couldn't give a rats ass about the baby's life. He voted against PBA ban. He voted against the BAIPA. The whole while he talks about the morally wrenching issues involved and calls himself a Christian. He calls himself a uniter but he falls on the far-far side of NO rights for the unborn or the babies that were "supposed" to be aborted. Don't you see the hypocrisy?

And just in case you didn't know, he had a chance to vote for the bill with the change in wording but he help it up in commitee. And he never "approved" the federal bill, he just said he "would have" approved it.

And just in case you didn't know Edyt, he had a chance to vote for the bill with the change in wording but he "held" it up in commitee. And he never "approved" the federal bill, he just said he "would have" approved it. He had every Constitutional reason to vote for the BAIPA but he stated personally that he voted against it cause it was unconstitutional. What????? HE is a liar and his brain is short circuiting from his smoking cocaine/methamphetamine rock as a young adult.

I think someone needs to review with Laura what Obama did in the third year that he opposed the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, (when he was head of the health and human services committee).
She obviously is clueless that Obamanator opposed BAIPA no matter what language was built into it.
Yes, he is crazier than both Hillary and NARAL.

The links to IL legislative record are all available on Jill's site, Laura. Get a clue.