Hannity, Colmes, Corsi: Behind on the news

Jerome Corsi, author of the book, The Obama Nation, was a guest on Hannity and Colmes August 12.

Both Hannity and Colmes spent time with Corsi discussing Obama's opposition to IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act while state senator, legislation that would give newborn babies equal protection under the law even if aborted.

Frustratingly, none of the 3 were aware of the latest development, revealed by National Right to Life August 11: While Obama has repeatedly said he would have voted for the state Born Alive had it been an exact duplicate of the federally passed bill, the fact is he did vote AGAINST an identical version on March 13, 2003.

Note Colmes called aborted alive babies "fetuses born alive after botched abortions." These are not fetuses.

Also note the name of a nurse you know popping up a couple times.

Erick Erickson at RedState.com has subsequently challenged Colmes to stop "parrot[ing] the Obama talking points on this issue, because those talking points are dead wrong".


Comments:

Hal,

Sounds hopeful. :)

Posted by: Janet at August 14, 2008 2:18 PM


Want to see a radical leftist proabort Obama supporter pretend to be deaf in one ear and unable to hear out of the other one? Just mention this issue to them....

Posted by: Doyle at August 14, 2008 2:26 PM


Hal, once this infanticide story goes mainstream -- and it will (my guess is at the debate ) -- the swiftboat thing will look like a tea party in comparison. That will be the true "checkmate"

Posted by: Charles at August 14, 2008 2:40 PM


While Jim Wallis would like to think that his consultation should satisfy the Evans. and catholics, what the sheep-clad wolves are not emphasizing is that abortion will STILL be an option, still legal, still available.

In essence, still pro-choice by saying, "We don't need to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, we just need to overturn the need for it."

Details, details...

Posted by: carder at August 14, 2008 2:45 PM


The infanticide story is such baloney the American public will laugh and laugh at those trying to advance it.

Look, I'm no fan of McCain, but I wouldn't say he eats small babies for breakfast. Why is the Right even trying this, don't they care how stupid they look?

No, really, Obama supports killing infants. He loves death and destruction. He's the devil, or anti-Christ, or Muslim. He hates America, and probably Canada too. He says the Pledge of Allagience in Russian. He recycles, for pete's sake! I heard he eats Sushi too.

Oh my.

The truth is that once in a generation, if we're lucky, some bright and inspiring leader comes forward and inspires us to further greatness, makes us remember our best intentions and guides us through difficult times.

McCain is not a bad person, but I don't think he right for the U.S. at this time.

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 2:51 PM


". . . what the sheep-clad wolves are not emphasizing is that abortion will STILL be an option, still legal, still available."

Of course it will STILL be an option, still legal, and still available. That's never been in doubt. So, given that, do you want to join Obama and make it less common? Or not?

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 2:53 PM


Since McCain is now courting a pro-abort vp, I think it is clear Obama is now the pro-life candidate.

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 3:28 PM


Hal,

One big difference. Obama -and B. Clinton for that matter- say he wants to make abortion rare. The reason many PLers don't engage with him on this is because the methods they say will reduce abortion don't work (more condoms!).

Promoting less sex will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies. Giving high schoolers condoms and BC pills and telling them to have fun will not (both due to failures of the devices/pills and immature adolescents).

Posted by: Michael at August 14, 2008 3:30 PM


While Jim Wallis would like to think that his consultation should satisfy the Evans. and catholics, what the sheep-clad wolves are not emphasizing is that abortion will STILL be an option, still legal, still available.

In essence, still pro-choice by saying, "We don't need to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, we just need to overturn the need for it."

Details, details...

Posted by: carder at August 14, 2008 2:45 PM
..................................

My my my. You couldn't have made your motivation more clear. Heaven forbid that no one would ever need an abortion.

Posted by: Sally at August 14, 2008 3:40 PM


Since Hal (and I)are being deleted, the thread makes no sense.

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 3:53 PM


Just an FYI, there are special requirements for the mods on this thread. Thanks.


Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 3:54 PM


Hal,

One big difference. Obama -and B. Clinton for that matter- say he wants to make abortion rare. The reason many PLers don't engage with him on this is because the methods they say will reduce abortion don't work (more condoms!).

Promoting less sex will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies. Giving high schoolers condoms and BC pills and telling them to have fun will not (both due to failures of the devices/pills and immature adolescents).

Posted by: Michael at August 14, 2008 3:30 PM
...........................................

Promoting no sex does nothing to prevent pregnancy for those having sex Michael. BC does. The majority of women having abortions are not teenagers. What is or is not handed out in highschools has no effect upon these women now does it.

Posted by: Sally at August 14, 2008 3:54 PM


I am glad that the issue is being publicized more!

I hope it continues to stay in the spotlight as long as possible. More people need to know about Obama and what he truly stands for.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 3:58 PM


I'm beginning to think that this is going to be a litmus test more than any Supreme Court justice would be put through.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 4:05 PM


My great post on Obama reaching out to Evangelicals was DELETED??? The "checkmate" moment in the campaign.

Obama Woos Abortion Foes With Platform Embracing Motherhood...

I got it from Drudge if anyone's interested.

``Voters that this will win over are those that are looking for an excuse to vote for Obama,'' said Joel Hunter, a Florida pastor who helped with the language and said he is a ``pro-life'' Republican. ``They just needed one signal that, if I vote for him, more babies can be saved than if we keep wrangling over whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned.''

Hunter, 60, is undecided about his vote, though he said the language in the platform ``is huge for me.''


What's the "special requirement?" All posts must worship Jill?

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 4:16 PM


While we're at it, SOB's like Corsi make me wish there was a place called Hell.

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 4:22 PM


Hal - have you actually researched the charge being leveled?

Obama has said he would have voted for the Act had it the same language that the Federal Act had. Now evidence has come forward that he voted on the Amendment to change that wording, and still voted it down. He lied. He knew that as well.

Although this has a feeling similar to Bill Clinton looking the USA right in the eye and stating he "didn't have 'sex' with that woman", it's much worse, because it's about life and death.

Obama supports a form of abortion that pollutes the concept of birth, so for him to make claims about reducing abortions is not only disingenuous, it's an outright lie.

Obama may have words - but in this case

Actions speak louder than words.

If there was nothing wrong with what he did then

Why did Obama lie?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 4:24 PM


Hal - if you have news you want to post, I strongly suggest you start your own blog.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 4:26 PM


What's the "special requirement?" All posts must worship Jill?

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 4:16 PM
_________________________________________

No - we're getting tired of the Obama worship.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 4:27 PM


Since my first comment was deleted, I just want to reiterate how fresh and new this "infanticide" story is, how I have enjoyed seeing it repeated 12 times this week, and how I look forward to seeing it it at least once a day for the next 82 days, until the election.

Hope I met the "special requirement"

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 4:30 PM


PPC - you're welcome!

Are there any details that we might be able to provide for you?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 4:31 PM


"The infanticide story is such baloney the American public will laugh and laugh at those trying to advance it."

Explain why, what is the baloney? Obama is against leaving aborted babies to die? Did he change his position?

I propose Hal's comment gets deleted if he can't back it up.

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 4:36 PM


Hi Chris,

I have read a bit on the "charges" being leveled. It is such a non-issue in every way. He voted a way you guys don't like a decade ago on a Bill in the Illinois Sentate. The dead horse has been beaten so much it's already glue. Day in and day out a few (very few) zealots try to convince the American public that this Harvard educated U.S. Senator and all around great guy, WANTS TO KILL YOUR BABY.

Other than what he said, what could possibly motivate him to be a baby killer? Nothing. So, I accept what he said.

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 4:37 PM


Wow - I was just joking, but apparently you take your Obama worship seriously!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 4:44 PM


Yes, Obama is against leaving aborted babies to die. He never said he was for it. He said he was against a particular law to address what some think was an issue. Thinking that was a bad law, even mistakenly thinking that, DOES NOT TURN HIM INTO A BABY KILLER.

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 4:59 PM


Chris, Amen to your 4:24 post.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 5:09 PM


Hal, do you know Obama personally?

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 5:11 PM


Hal @ 4:59 PM Obama is against leaving aborted babies to die.

Obama voted against an IL BAIPA that was as identical as it could be for state legislative purposes to the Federal BAIPA.

There's no mistake in what he did Hal. Not after three times. Not after all the lying he did.

Your defense of him is beginning to look fanatical.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 5:17 PM


Bethany, I haven't had the pleasure to meet the Senator.

Do you think I would need to meet to him to reach the conclusion that he doesn't support infanticide? Nobody supports infanticide! He just didn't vote for a law that he thought was either not necessary or would create other problems. Does a person who votes against the death penalty "support murder?" Does a person who voted against the Iraq war "support Saddam Hussein?" Does a person who votes for drilling in ANWR "support the destruction of the envornment?"

I could go on. He voted agaisnt a particular law. He didn't vote FOR a law requiring babies to be killed. That would make him a supporter of infanticide.


Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 5:18 PM


Hal at August 14, 2008 5:18 PM

Hal - do you understand the difference between acts of commission and acts of omission?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 5:20 PM


"Yes, Obama is against leaving aborted babies to die."

then why did he kill the bill in the state legislature which was identical to the federal bill? which many Democrats voted for?

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 5:21 PM


"Obama voted against an IL BAIPA that was as identical as it could be for state legislative purposes to the Federal BAIPA."

SO WHAT?????? What does this matter to anyone at all? No one has a right to have every bill they support voted in favor of by every poltican in the country. Representatives have different ideas on how best to achieve certain goals, or different goals. Show me legislation Obama proposed or supported that requires or even permits the abandonment of aborted babies and I'll reconsider my position.

Posted by: hAL at August 14, 2008 5:23 PM


Chris, do you understand the difference between being against a bill to probhibit something and actually being a supporter of it?

I'll ask again:

Does a person who votes against the death penalty "support murder?" Does a person who voted against the Iraq war "support Saddam Hussein?" Does a person who votes for drilling in ANWR "support the destruction of the envornment?"

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 5:29 PM


Hal, give it up, you are dealing with fanatics, and logical arguments are worthless.

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 5:34 PM


If Big Abortion were the types that went along with other measures that *attempt* to reduce the number of abortions i.e. parental consent, ultrasound viewing, waiting periods, PBA ban, fetal development disclosure, abstinence education,then I wouldn't be so suspicious.

So now some ministerial "consultants" hold hands with some Democrats, sing kumbaya, and expect pro-lifers to buy into it when at the end of the day, an innocent will still end up in the tupperware.

The fact that they vociferously oppose those actions negates their intention of EVER wanting to reduce abortions.

Posted by: carder at August 14, 2008 5:39 PM


PPC, I'll give it up for now. I can always resume on tomorrow's infanticide post. Or the next day's, or the next......

Have a good evening everyone.

Posted by: hal at August 14, 2008 5:39 PM


"SO WHAT?????? "

His opposition to this bill speaks directly to the character of Barack Obama, who is running for President of the United States. It says alot about the man.

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 5:39 PM


To follow up with my prior question - when it comes to issues such as life and death, both acts of commission and acts of omission are treated the same. Not stopping a homicide is a complicity in the act.

Under the 14th Amendment, US citizens were willfully being left to die. BAIPA stopped the practiced of induced labor abortion, because it's infanticide. I don't care if you don't like that term. It's appropriate and truthful in this case.

The intent and purpose of the induced labor abortion was to kill the child. Period. Every pro-choice argument, from bodily rights to personhood ceases upon the birth - except one. Normally it's understood that it's the "pregnancy" that's being aborted.

However, if one reframes "abortion" to include the mother-child relationship, and one argues that should be the basis for the "right" then abortions can occur at any time thereafter. Peter Singer sings that song.

After the entire US Senate voted unanimously against this practice, Obama rejected virtually identical legislation.

That's not a mistake, or ignorance on his part. That's a complicit, calculated move to reframe the abortion basis as a change leader. A spearhead, if you will, to bold new grounds of power in relationships.

He didn't make claims of going out to kill babies by commission. He doesn't have to. He need only appeal to those who would selfishly take the lives of their innocent children, out of their own self-interests.

If, after knowing Obama's character on this issue, the American public elects this man, then you'll eventually see a Hell on earth.

Guaranteed.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 5:46 PM


"Hal, give it up, you are dealing with fanatics, and logical arguments are worthless.
Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 5:34 PM"


mmmmm, who's the fanatic?

Posted by: Andy at August 14, 2008 5:51 PM


Chris,
You have a very strange way of looking at things.

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 5:53 PM


Hal - I didn't kill my children and then try to justify it the rest of my life.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 5:55 PM


BTW - I didn't say one thing about you and your children there - did I?

Wake up.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 5:57 PM


all nice and friendly. No worries.

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 5:58 PM


I'm speaking about me - Hal. I didn't do those things, you know.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 5:59 PM


5:55 and 5:57

SNAP that was a good point!

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 6:00 PM


You're point is Obama didn't do something explicitly. Neither did I in my example.

But there was a hell of a lot implied - right?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 6:01 PM


Bethany, you can't be serious?

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 6:02 PM


Hal - I may have a very strange way of looking at things, but I'm not worshipping or calling good one who refuses to defend the weakest innocent citizens of our nation.

You might want to rethink your idea of strange in that light.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 6:04 PM


That's not my point. My point is that your conclusions do not follow from his actions. Voting againt the IL BAIPA does not make someone a supporter of infanticide. It's not an "explicit/implicit" issue.

Anyway, i'm out of here. COntinue to discuss amoung yourselve.s

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 6:05 PM


Why are you offended Hal? Why?

Because it's a personal attack against you?

You're not being yanked prematurely out of your mother's body - orphaned by your parents and unwanted by everyone but your Maker.

What are you defending Hal?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 6:07 PM


It is reported that the troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan have given 6 times as much money to Obama (and 4 times as much to Ron Paul) as they have given to McCain.

I would consider those brave troops experts as to what constitutes "hell on earth" and aparently they do not agree with Chris that Obama's election would lead to "hell on earth".

Maybe they are just tired of their fourth, fifth or sixth tour of duty in "hell on earth".

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 6:07 PM


PPC - back your assertions up with a source. Where's your report?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 6:10 PM


Opensecrets.org website of the Center for Responsive Politics: analysis of contributions of all troops deployed abroad, article by Luke Rosiak posted 8/14/08 9:52 am.

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 6:24 PM


Bethany, you can't be serious?

Oh yes I can. Chris rocks! Especially in his 5:46 post, which should have cleared things up for you very much.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 6:33 PM


Bethany @ 6:33 PM

I'll admit, what I put in the 5:46 post is speculation.

The problem I currently have with Obama and his campaign is that he's still lying - which to me indicates something more serious was involved.

The American people need to ask him what that is.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 7:30 PM


Alan Colmes looks very foolish in this interview with Jerome Corsi. Maybe he can get the facts right next time?

Posted by: Janet at August 14, 2008 8:13 PM


Hal: Chris, do you understand the difference between being against a bill to probhibit something and actually being a supporter of it?

The question is...do you? A bill in support of life can only help lessen abominable acts against human dignity. A vote against it has the effect of permitting the killing in a more obviously visible way in this case. Legislators are measured by the effects they have and that will remain their true legacies in history. Such "brilliance" should then be even more responsible for figuring that out! But when you have the moral integrity of a worm you'll sell out the most vulnerable every time. If your own heart has become that hardened and callous against the neediest...then that is one major terrible effect upon your own person by this 35 year legalized movement against all life. And now those who love life and continue to populate the earth are inheriting what also was intended for those killed. Thus, societal suicide by the lemmings who will defend the encroachment of death even upon themselves. Sin makes you stupid!

P.S. Hannity just announced that he will have an exclusive interview next week "with the nurse" re: this!!

Posted by: KC at August 14, 2008 9:02 PM


I'll admit, what I put in the 5:46 post is speculation.

Yes, but the point you were demonstrating was what I was very good. I just realized Hal may have taken it the wrong way - I hope that Hal didn't think I was trying to insult him. The point you were driving home is what I was trying to congratulate.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 9:31 PM


I don't understand. Do Hal and PPC not care whether politicians lie? How can we have any meaningful constitution or legal profession or public blog if the truth does not matter? If the discrepancy is so trivial as Hal and PPC claim (it's so far in the past, Mr. Obama never actually said he wanted to kill babies), then why does Mr. Obama continue to lie about it? Why doesn't he do some quick research and admit to a mistake or explain the anomaly? Or is he so arrogant that he thinks his own memory faultless? I've heard that he isn't a details man. But what kind of man who hates abortion (even if he recognizes a supposed need for it) cannot remember voting against a bill to protect children who survive abortion AFTER modifying it to suit his own beliefs in exactly the same way as a more recent bill? How can he forget the modifications themselves when he introduced them and they are the very reason for his acceptance of the more recent bill and his rejection of the old bill?

What am I missing? Perhaps I have to do more research. For now I have to ask myself: which one of the Ten Commandments does Mr. Obama whole-heartedly endorse? Because, you know, he claims to be a Christian American.

Posted by: Jon at August 14, 2008 10:12 PM


Jon,

I you want to what Obama thinks of the Ten Commandments and much more, this is a must read:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/print.php

It blows my mind every time I read it.

Posted by: Janet at August 14, 2008 11:02 PM


Do you think I would need to meet to him to reach the conclusion that he doesn't support infanticide? Nobody supports infanticide!
Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 5:18 PM
*****************************************

If infanticide occurs in India and China with governmental approval, why is it so far-fetched to believe that someone might be in support of it (or turn a blind eye to it, at the very least) in Western society? Even, perhaps, a presidential candidate?

"However, if one reframes "abortion" to include the mother-child relationship, and one argues that should be the basis for the "right" then abortions can occur at any time thereafter. Peter Singer sings that song."
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 14, 2008 5:46 PM
*****************************************

Yes, he does. He even said "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."
( http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5828 )

What a piece of work.

Posted by: Kel at August 14, 2008 11:15 PM


I've read that the Groningen Protocol is very influential in Western society. I'm not sure whether the Netherlands actually permits infanticide, but the country certainly is headed towarded legalized infanticide.

Posted by: Jon at August 14, 2008 11:31 PM


I wouldn't let anybody who supports abortion hold my babies. Not cause I think they would ohysically assault them, but I wouldn;t want to expose my babies to the negative karma.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 14, 2008 11:47 PM


Janet,

I read that speech, and honestly, it would be a great speech, if it weren't complete and utter bull****. I could read it and hear him saying the words in my head, and it just made me cringe. He really WILL just say whatever it is people want to hear when it is he thinks they want to hear it. And he'll just make it sound oh so nice when he does it. I've gotta hand it to him, though, it takes YEARS of practice to be that slick, and he has mastered the art of it.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 14, 2008 11:57 PM


TS,

How would you know?

Background check?

And I didn't think Christians believed in karma. Hm.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 15, 2008 12:00 AM


Thanks, Janet 11:02. What Mr. Obama imagines to be his Christian faith is really secular humanism and "demogoguery." He attacks the Bible, calls the Christian faith irrational, and makes fellow human beings his highest authority rather than God's will as expressed in the Scriptures and interpreted by an orthodox church. His speech can be reduced to Pontius Pilate's cynical reply, "What is truth?"

Mr. Obama also intends to codify his morality (and religion) for all Americans. The intention as expressed in the following words does not seem to square with earlier sections of his speech:

"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. 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."

Posted by: Jon at August 15, 2008 12:18 AM


I wouldn't let anybody who supports abortion hold my babies. Not cause I think they would ohysically assault them, but I wouldn;t want to expose my babies to the negative karma.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 14, 2008 11:47 PM
.......................

If you should have any babies to manipulate you might think about your negative karma.

Posted by: Sally at August 15, 2008 12:30 AM


I was looking at it from the baby's perspective Sally, not yours.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 15, 2008 2:29 AM


Elizabeth @ 11:57: Janet, I read that speech, and honestly, it would be a great speech, if it weren't complete and utter bull****. I could read it and hear him saying the words in my head, and it just made me cringe. He really WILL just say whatever it is people want to hear when it is he thinks they want to hear it. And he'll just make it sound oh so nice when he does it. I've gotta hand it to him, though, it takes YEARS of practice to be that slick, and he has mastered the art of it.

You hit the nail on the head, Elizabeth.

SLICK:

adjective
. having only superficial plausibility; "glib promises"; "a slick commercial" [syn: glib]
. marked by skill in deception; "cunning men often pass for wise"; "deep political machinations"; "a foxy scheme"; "a slick evasive answer"; "sly as a fox"; "tricky Dick"; "a wily old attorney"

verb
. make slick or smooth
. give a smooth and glossy appearance; "slick one's hair"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.


Posted by: Janet at August 15, 2008 3:44 AM


The DEVIL is very slick. Look how he convinced poor Eve to eat the fruit and disobey God.

That's why I don't want a President that's "slick" like the Devil.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at August 15, 2008 7:41 AM


Kel @ 11:15 PM Thanks - that's a good article.

I think it's important for the public to now ask Obama those reasons why he voted to create virtually identical legislation, then voted it down when it had already passed as US law!

His reasoning can't simply be about defending abortion as it's commonly known. I really believe his perspective is based on this idea of moral personhood being established at a particular point in time, and granted by a particular person, given his remarks on the floor in Illinois and last year re: FOCA.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 15, 2008 7:42 AM


Oh my goodness, Janet...that speech by Obama makes me sick in so many ways!

Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 7:55 AM


Rae, I don't know why you would say that. I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way. I still like you.


Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 8:49 AM


By the way, I am sorry about your dislocated elbow and hope that it is feeling better by now.

Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 9:00 AM


Bethany-

I am getting really tired of how you guys CONTINUE to throw Hal's abortion history in his face. How the HELL do you guys think by throwing it in his face every chance you get will make him possibly reconsider his "satisfaction" with them? That's why I got annoyed earlier, with you badgering him about his wife- and that's why I DON'T believe you when you say you're doing it so you can help his wife get any "help" that she needs due to the abortions. I have NO doubt in my mind that several of you would throw it in Hal's face EVERY chance you got if indeed his wife was struggling with the abortions.

That's why I said what I said. Hal has said he isn't going to discuss the abortions anymore, why can't you return the favor and stop throwing it in his face? I know you probably don't care because "he probably doesn't care", but I think it LOOKS hella childish (just like my bad language and ad hominem attacks). It also looks petulant and like you're trying to be all "morally superior".

Now I'm surprised about something- you just edit my petulant, disrespectful as all get out, vulgar post...yet you delete PPCs and Hal's under the guise of it being "special instructions". What gives?


Posted by: Rae at August 15, 2008 9:13 AM


I am getting really tired of how you guys CONTINUE to throw Hal's abortion history in his face. How the HELL do you guys think by throwing it in his face every chance you get will make him possibly reconsider his "satisfaction" with them?
That's why I said what I said. Hal has said he isn't going to discuss the abortions anymore, why can't you return the favor and stop throwing it in his face? I know you probably don't care because "he probably doesn't care", but I think it LOOKS hella childish (just like my bad language and ad hominem attacks). It also looks petulant and like you're trying to be all "morally superior".

I did not take the point of Chris's post to be about Hal's abortions, but to be about the fact that one can imply something without actively saying it. I do understand that it could have been taken the other way, which is why later when I realized that, I wrote the post:

" I just realized Hal may have taken it the wrong way - I hope that Hal didn't think I was trying to insult him. The point you [Chris] were driving home is what I was trying to congratulate. "

And that point was, that Obama can certainly support infanticide without actually saying he does.

I was not in any way trying to shove his abortions in his face. I felt that Hal was mature enough to understand the point that was being made, which is why I responded to the point. Maybe the point wasn't very clear though.

Now I'm surprised about something- you just edit my petulant, disrespectful as all get out, vulgar post...yet you delete PPCs and Hal's under the guise of it being "special instructions". What gives?
'
If you'll notice, I put PPC's post back up, and two of Hal's posts back up. The special instructions were altered a bit. I could have deleted your post, and probably should have, but I wanted to respond to it, and couldn't have very easily had I deleted it.

That's why I got annoyed earlier, with you badgering him about his wife- and that's why I DON'T believe you when you say you're doing it so you can help his wife get any "help" that she needs due to the abortions. I have NO doubt in my mind that several of you would throw it in Hal's face EVERY chance you got if indeed his wife was struggling with the abortions.

That is an assumption on your part, Rae. I feel nothing but sympathy and compassion for women who are coerced into abortions.

Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 9:32 AM


It also looks petulant and like you're trying to be all "morally superior".

Don't you think that it's possible that your posts to me right now, look like an attempt for you to be "morally superior", just as well?

Lately, and I mean this with all due respect, I've only seen you jump on here to criticize how we pro-lifers are handling conversations. You don't post for the longest time, then all of a sudden you pop on and are angry about something that a pro-lifer has said or done.

Why not jump in and actually discuss abortion instead of trying to police us every time you come?

I would much rather hear your viewpoints on the abortion issue itself, than to hear you complaining about how we handle our posts, or our job as moderators.

Why not be an example for us to follow in debate, if you feel so strongly that we are not debating up to your standards?

Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 9:44 AM


Rae,

Were not trying to act "morally superior" to Hal, were trying to get him to become pro-life. We believe abortion is the taking of a human life. Our motives are good, not bad.

Posted by: Jasper at August 15, 2008 9:49 AM


I've got to run for a bit but will be back in a few hours. Take care.

Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 9:50 AM


The reason I don't post about my opinions on abortion anymore is because I don't have one. I currently don't have an opinion on the matter, and usually it's debated well WITHOUT my input.

I apologize for coming on here and being a hag about the way people talk, but if you knew me on facebook and on other facebook groups (PC ones that I frequent), you better bet your bippy (alliteration ftw!) that I criticize the PCers just like I do to the PLers on here.

Since my posts are unwelcome (don't blame you, I have been rather belligerent lately), I think I'll take my leave again for a bit- no harm, no foul. It's for the best. Cheers. :)

Posted by: Rae at August 15, 2008 10:13 AM


Rae @ 9:13 AM

My discussion with Hal had to do with his defense of Obama - and Hal's very specific assertion that one can vote against an issue, such as IL BAIPA and not be supporting killing living children - infanticide.

I made the point that when it comes to life and death, any vote against life is specifically for death, because there is no nuanced gray area. The entire issue is dichotomously opposed positions. That newly born infants were being left to die as a result of induced labor abortions is fact. Any vote against the IL BAIPA is essentially saying induced labor abortions are acceptable. That's life or death. There's no middle ground. Choosing one implies the other. Infanticide statements need not be made explicitly.

The point I was making with Hal is I could say very truthfully to him that I did not kill my children and that particular statement was about me.

Yet the context of that statement was essential, and your offense is further proof that you understand the point - within a particular context things need not be explicitly said to imply something else.

It was an object lesson, albeit one that Hal and others on this site should understand completely.

Bethany grasped this point - and that explained her remark.

My issue with Hal is that he was defending Obama specifically on this issue using an ignorance argument. If you read my statements at 4:24 PM you'd realize that there's no room for that any more.

Choice isn't simply about a woman's right. It's also about choosing between life and death, as well as choosing between right and wrong, and being aware of the consequences. Including the consequences of past decisions.

I stand by the statements I made - they were absolutely truthful - particularly within the context of the argument Hal was making.

Without Christ, I count myself no better than Hal. Also the condemnation and judgement you pass regarding this issue is your own.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 15, 2008 10:20 AM


"Any vote against the IL BAIPA is essentially saying induced labor abortions are acceptable."

No it's not, that's where we disagree.

Posted by: Hal at August 15, 2008 10:56 AM


Rae, you're always welcome here. If you need a break, I understand though.

Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 7:21 PM


I was looking at it from the baby's perspective Sally, not yours.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 15, 2008 2:29 AM
.............................

Having the perspective of a baby isn't a very nice way to talk about yourself.

Posted by: Sally at August 15, 2008 9:02 PM


and if ANYONE is an authority on what's "nice", it's Sally.

Posted by: Mike at August 16, 2008 1:39 AM


and if ANYONE is an authority on what's "nice", it's Sally.

Posted by: Mike at August 16, 2008 1:49 AM


Mike,

Just remember:

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 10:46 PM