Palin on CBN's Brody File: Obama's "extreme" abortion stance

CBN's David Brody interviewed GOP VP pick Sarah Palin for a segment to run tomorrow, October 21.

Brody asked Palin's analysis of Barack Obama's self-characterization of being a "strong Christian family man" versus his stance on abortion.

Palin listed Obama's outside-of-mainstream positions like opposition to parental notification as well as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban but reserved most of her critique to Obama's opposition as state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act...

Transcript of Brody's question and Palin's response is on page 2.

Brody: I want to ask you a direct question about Barack Obama. He has talked about being a strong Christian family man. I get a lot of emails about the abortion and homosexuality issues. Do you believe that on those issues, those contrast traditional biblical values the way you see it?

Palin: I think the most troubling issue that I know of that Barack Obama is completely the other side of John McCain and that I am on is, is the abortion issue because his abortion stance is so extreme. It's so, so far left that it's way out of the mainstream. I think he's in some sense succeeded in trying to package up, and pretty-up some of his policies to make them look mainstream even on abortion, but American voters have got to realize his opposition to parental consent, his opposition to a ban on partial birth abortion and most troubling his opposition to the child born alive act, I think should be, and I say this, I mean, this is mild to say it is quite concerning. But to withhold medical intervention for a baby who is born alive as a result of a botched abortion and to allow that child to die without the medical intervention that that child deserves I, it's appalling to me and I think it should concern voters, and I think they just need to know of that record, and it's not mean spirited and it's not negative campaigning to call somebody out on their record, so that record of extreme, extreme position taken on abortion, I think should be discussed and considered.

[HT: LifeNews.com]


Comments:

..it's not mean spirited and it's not negative campaigning to call somebody out on their record..

I couldn't agree more. Just read his record. It's there for all to see. Obama wants no restrictions on abortion in this country, that's what the Freedom of Choice Act is all about.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 1:30 PM


Sarah Palin, thank you! :)

Posted by: Bethany at October 20, 2008 1:32 PM


Obama's abortion record should be disqualifying for citizenship.

Posted by: kb at October 20, 2008 1:34 PM


Many voters consider Palin's posiion-to criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest to be extreme and "out of the mainstream".

Posted by: PPC at October 20, 2008 1:36 PM


PPC,

Many voters consider Palin's posiion-to criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest to be extreme and "out of the mainstream".

That's not the issue here. Baby steps. Let's first make sure we don't elect an extreme president who sees babies as sub-human. That's "out of the mainstream".

So you believe the way a baby is conceived defines its worthiness to live?

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 1:53 PM


I just can't vote for her.. sorry. I don't trust her if she were to become president... I am glad she is pro-life..but our country is a mess right now.. how can we even fight this battle if we can't get out of this crisis...

And I don't buy Mcain's stance either... Personally, he has lived on the edge.. and now all of sudden when he can sway people he starts fighting out about pro-life? They do this every election... Look what it did for us..

Posted by: betsy at October 20, 2008 2:51 PM


What is the percentage of botched abortions that result in a fetus that should survive life?

Posted by: Reagan at October 20, 2008 2:53 PM


PPC at October 20, 2008 1:36 PM

------

Like I said - when the father commits a crime, does the mother get to kill her daughter?

No.

Do we allow victims to kill innocent people?

No.

Your position is the one that's extreme.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 20, 2008 3:06 PM


I just can't vote for her.. sorry. I don't trust her if she were to become president... I am glad she is pro-life..but our country is a mess right now.. how can we even fight this battle if we can't get out of this crisis...

What's not to trust with Sarah Palin? I'd be more worried about the Democratic Congress than her. What does abortion have to do with the economy? The two issues can be handled at the same time and should be. It's either that or raise the white flag and give up on abortion. As far as the economy... the "fixing" is going to take a loong time. How many more babies need to die? At the going rate, it's 4,000 per day.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 3:12 PM


"What's not to trust with Sarah Palin?"

You can't be serious?

"52 percent of likely voters say McCain's pick of Palin has made them less confident in the kind of decisions he'd make as president; that's up 13 points since just after the selection, as doubts about Palin's qualifications (also voiced by Powell on Sunday) have grown. Just 38 percent say it makes them more confident in McCain's judgment, down 12 points."

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 3:23 PM


According to the polls, the majority of voters agree with Obama's moderate position on abortion while only about 15% agree with Palin. Thus most voters consider Obama to be "mainstream" and Palin to be "extreme".

Posted by: PPC at October 20, 2008 3:23 PM


Obama has a "moderate position on abortion" ????

Which Poll did you get that from...Planned Parenthood???

Posted by: RSD at October 20, 2008 3:30 PM


it so pathetic when they mention rape, because the way I see it..planned parenthood would be a rapist dream come true. Just take the little victim to pp and they will get rid of the evidence. The parents won't be notified because Obama doesn't require that in his abortion dream

Posted by: JamieNov81 at October 20, 2008 3:35 PM


PPC,

I would venture to say that most voters aren't sure what Obama's position on abortion is. Considering he lied about it on national television, saying he supported the partial-birth abortion ban, when HE DOESN'T. Most voters don't know what his position is, because they haven't looked for themselves, they just blindly follow Obama, hoping he'll lead them to the light.

So sad.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 20, 2008 3:36 PM


"Obama has a "moderate position on abortion" ????

Which Poll did you get that from...Planned Parenthood???"

I doubt it RSD. It was probably from a well established, trusted source of statistics, like The Guttmacher Institute...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 20, 2008 3:38 PM


Reagan @ 2:53 PM

Once a "fetus" is born - it's called a neonate or infant or newborn or baby. It is no longer a fetus. Because the baby is born and is alive, it is considered a US citizen under the 13th and 14th Amendments.

What a lot of people don't realize is that this abortion procedure is not really a "botched abortion" in the sense of some other type of abortion procedure that's gone wrong. It's a specific kind of abortion called an induced labor abortion where laminaria (a kind of expanding seaweed sticks) are inserted to open the cervix to provide a means for delivery. A misoprotosal injection starts the contractions, and the baby is deliberately delivered to cause "fetal demise" In other words the "botched" aspect of it is the baby is still alive after a premature delivery. (Forceps may be used to extract the child).

In cases where the premature delivery doesn't kill the child, strangulation or asphyxiation is often used to finish the "abortion".

Questions?

Oh yeah - one more thing - abortionists are still performing these techniques (despite the Federal law) using dioxin injections to kill the "fetus" before delivery. Doesn't always work, and there are cases where infants are born as a result of an abortion are murdered or left to die. It's horrible.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 20, 2008 3:40 PM


Hal @ 3:23 PM

Hal - are those real statistics, or are you playing with your BINGO game again?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 20, 2008 3:42 PM


I would venture to say that most voters aren't sure what Obama's position on abortion is. Considering he lied about it on national television, saying he supported the partial-birth abortion ban, when HE DOESN'T. Most voters don't know what his position is, because they haven't looked for themselves, they just blindly follow Obama, hoping he'll lead them to the light.

So sad.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 20, 2008 3:36 PM

Elizabeth, Obama didn't say he supported thepatial-birth abotion ban, he said we would support any law restricting late term abortions as long as there were exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Sounds reasonable to me.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 3:49 PM


Chris, here's the link.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6067150&page=1

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 3:50 PM


"What's not to trust with Sarah Palin?"

You can't be serious?

"52 percent of likely voters say McCain's pick of Palin has made them less confident in the kind of decisions he'd make as president; that's up 13 points since just after the selection, as doubts about Palin's qualifications (also voiced by Powell on Sunday) have grown. Just 38 percent say it makes them more confident in McCain's judgment, down 12 points."

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 3:23 PM


Did they poll Dems or Reps? I don't pay much attention to polls.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 3:53 PM


Janet, they polled "likely voters" of all parties and independents. Naturally, the Republicans favored McCain/Palin more than the Democrats did. The independents were similar to the overall findings. There is a link in the story to actual questions and how it broke down.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 4:01 PM


God help us and help the unborn if Nobama gets in.

There is nothing remotely "mainstream" about his abortion record.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 4:03 PM


Joanne, what do you think would be different in all the "abortion clinics" of the USA 36 months from now if McCain wins versus Obama winning?

I really can't see a senario where this election would change anything very much.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 4:13 PM


What if there were fewer of them??!! That'd be sweet! Oh and more and more Pregnancy Care Centers and Maternity homes springing up?
I have a dream...

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 4:15 PM


Except that's a lie Hal.

Just because he SAYS that doesn't make it true...I mean, hello FOCA! FOCA would remove any and all laws regulating abortion including removing the PBA ban. So how is it he's going to uphold the PBA ban when FOCA is on the books?? hmmmm?

Say it with me Hal: Obama is not special, he is not different, he's a liar just like the rest of em'.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 20, 2008 4:17 PM


Elizabeth, if you assume he has said two different things that contradict each other, supporting FOCA and supporiting a ban on late term abortions, have you considered the option that the FOCA statement might be the "lie" and the support for late term abortion ban real?

In fact, however, you can support FOCA and late term abortion bans. According to NRL, "This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer's words, 'the absolute right to choose' prior to fetal 'viability.'"

The no-restriction policy would also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health.

So, you could easily have a law after FOCA that banned late term abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother. Sounds reasonable to me.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 4:24 PM


Health is so vague, Hal, someone could decide to abort POST viability because they wanted to wear a bikini at the beach or go to a rock concert. Its not defined.

I can NOT support FOCA, I CAN NOT support Obama. 'nugh said.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 20, 2008 4:32 PM


Hal,
What is your source? Thanks.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 4:32 PM


Liz, Obama has said he's okay with tightening the definition of "health" to prevent such abuses.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 4:56 PM


Chris,

"Like I said - when the father commits a crime, does the mother get to kill her daughter?

No.

Do we allow victims to kill innocent people?

No.

Your position is the one that's extreme."

Does the woman who is pregnant factor in to your reasoning at all? Even assuming that the unborn fetus deserves personhood (NOTE: this is also not my position and I refuse to enter into personhood debates because I believe they are superfluous), there is a difference between a person who is physically dependent upon another to survive (NOTE: I am not addressing social dependency which, in my opinion can be regulated because it can be severed at the individual level) and one who is not. Why should one person be forced to sustain another against his/her will?

This is the component of the anti-abortion position that I consider to be misogynistic. The way you have stated it, the pregnant woman is a vessel which can and should be used to achieve a certain end regardless of what the woman wants and whether or not she consented to said usage. Thoughts?

Posted by: Enigma at October 20, 2008 4:57 PM


Joanne, what do you think would be different in all the "abortion clinics" of the USA 36 months from now if McCain wins versus Obama winning?

I really can't see a senario where this election would change anything very much.
Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 4:13 PM

Hal... that is a good question and one I dont have an answer for.

But here is one thing I am certain of. The democrats are almost certainly going to retain control of congress, and would likely pass FOCA, because there would not be enough Republicans or pro life reps to stop them.

However, President McCain would veto FOCA. Nobama, on the other hand, cant wait to sign it.

For sure a McCain/Palin administration would have a pro life policy. And McCain has said he favors Roe vs Wade being overturned. This would turn the matter of abortion back to each state. I believe some states would ban it, Utah for example, as well as some other red states.

Then we would have to see if any supreme court justices step down and who they would be replaced by. For sure Nobama would pick ones who were pro abortion.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:26 PM


Betsy, if you think Obama is going to lead us out of this economic crisis, you should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_rdCMXVOg

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 20, 2008 5:26 PM


Joanne, you might be right. I bet Obama would be more successful in getting "health of the mother" defined than McCain.

Hey, John's back. yeah.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:32 PM


"Heath of the mother" to Nobama would mean ANYTHING. He does not believe in ANY type of abortion restriction. That is what FOCA is all about. It would nullify any abortion law currently on record, BAIPA, partial birth abortion, etc.

Then the US would join Canada as the only countries to my knowledge with no abortion resctrictions at all. A woman could legally kill her baby right up until birth.

God help us.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:36 PM


The real reason why the media and the pro-aborts are doing everything they can to destroy Sarah Palin is that she is a beautiful pro-life woman with five kids, including one with Down Syndrome.

How many pro-abortion talking points are destroyed by the mere mention of Sarah Palin's name? It's not that the pro-aborts don't want her to be VP; it's that they want her to vanish forever and for all memory of her to be wiped from existence.

According to the pro-aborts and their media allies, pro-lifers are all supposed to be snarling, balding, obese white men with scowls on their faces and Stepford Wives at home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen because they don't know any better. The pro-aborts hate Palin because she turns this stereotype on its head. That's why they NEED to destroy her.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 20, 2008 5:38 PM


Joanne, obama said he would support a late term abortion ban if it provided exception for life or health of the mother. The FOCA would not prohibit restrictions on abortion after 'viability,' also as long as there were exceptions for the health of the mother. Obama has said he would favor tightening the definition of "health of the mother."

"I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term," Obama said.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:41 PM


According to the pro-aborts and their media allies, pro-lifers are all supposed to be snarling, balding, obese white men with scowls on their faces and Stepford Wives at home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen because they don't know any better. The pro-aborts hate Palin because she turns this stereotype on its head. That's why they NEED to destroy her.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 20, 2008 5:38 PM

You are so right John! Very well said!

Hal..... as I already stated.... there would be NO ABORTION LAWS if FOCA becomes law. Nobama cant wait to sign it. You may think the economy is the #1 issue but Nobama promised it would be the first thing he would do!

Abortion on demand. Completely legal.

NO RESTRICTIONS.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:45 PM


A woman could legally kill her baby right up until birth.

God help us.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:36 PM

Maybe even two or three minutes after birth if she had been trying to abort in the first place, just like now.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 5:47 PM


FOCA allows abortion restrictions after viability (am I the only one with google?):

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:49 PM


Hal......"health of the woman" is so vague it could mean anything.

Just find a "doctor" with no conscience who is willing to do the abortion.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:52 PM


"I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term," Obama said.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:52 PM


Hal,

"I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term," Obama said.

There is virtually NO REASON a child needs to be KILLED to save the life of the mother. Life saving measures should always be taken and if the baby dies, God forbid, in the meantime, it is not an abortion. Do you understand there is a difference?

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 5:54 PM


Hal, Again, Can you post the LINK please?

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 5:56 PM


Hal,

You left out point number 2 and the paragraph that follows it (all in bold type).

From catholickey.blogspot.com:

The more recent wording of FOCA, introduced last year, is as follows:

“A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose – (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

This act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, penalty, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before or after the date of enactment of this act.” Text of H.R. 1964 and S. 1173, introduced on April 19, 2007.

It is clear that FOCA would immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions. According to a recent article by Tom McCloskey, “FOCA Would Harm Women and Remove Freedoms,” and reported by the Family Research Council, if FOCA was passed it would automatically overturn:

- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
- Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement
- Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions
- Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
- Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions
- Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions
- Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
- Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2008/10/bishop-finn-on-foca-its-supporters-and.html


Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 6:26 PM


"I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term," Obama said.

Yup, they tried this one in Canada, 30 years ago. It didn't fly. Mental distress was the catch all term for a woman who just didn't want to be pregnant. Period.
It's a pile of crock and Obama and every self-respecting proabort from here to Islamabad knows it.

Posted by: Patricia at October 20, 2008 6:36 PM


FOCA is dangerous, and MUST not be SIGNED INTO LAW.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 20, 2008 6:56 PM


Hi Hal,
If Obama doesn't give a rat's about a baby born alive after a live birth abortion, a baby torn apart in its mother's womb, a baby delivered up to its head, stabbed in the neck and its brains sucked out......Why Do You Think Barak Hussein Obama will care about you and yours?

I am seriously doubting if you are for real. I have already asked you if your abortion story is true and you never answered me.

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 7:18 PM


Janet-

Link to Obama's remarks:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/403989.aspx

Posted by: Dan at October 20, 2008 7:36 PM


Enigma at October 20, 2008 4:57 PM

Why should one person be forced to sustain another against his/her will?

Why should my mother have the right to kill me, after she conceived me?

Look, the hurdle you have to leap is that human life is expendable and consequence-free intercourse is a moral right. It isn't. There is no moral ground for elective abortion. None. Go read Lileigh's location:

http://www.thrufire.org/2008/04/controlled-burn-bodily-rights-or.html

Doug, SoMG, Alexandra all read it, and provided no logical, valid reasoning to refute what was written. None. Doug tried, but went circular.

SoMG and Alexandra simply assumed they were right, instead of refuting the reasoning.

That's not arguing, thats begging the question, which is fallacious.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 20, 2008 7:40 PM


Hi Hal,
If Obama doesn't give a rat's about a baby born alive after a live birth abortion, a baby torn apart in its mother's womb, a baby delivered up to its head, stabbed in the neck and its brains sucked out......Why Do You Think Barak Hussein Obama will care about you and yours?

I am seriously doubting if you are for real. I have already asked you if your abortion story is true and you never answered me.

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 7:18 PM
.................................................................

Carla, can you explain why the majority of medical professionals also opposed certain Illinois BAIPAs as well as D & X banning around the country? What are/were the professional's objections to such legislations? Some deep dark conspiracy against your Christian beliefs?
Who do you take your children to when they are ill? Your pastor or your doctor?

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 7:53 PM


Well gee golly willakers...it's Sally!! Good evening, turtledove!! I have missed you and your comments. They are always a good read. Only too bad for you that it was addressed to Hal.

My kids never get sick. I am into strengthening the immune system and using homeopathics.

Nice try to get me all riled up tonight though. It warms my heart cause it shows me how much you care.

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 8:09 PM


Hal......"health of the woman" is so vague it could mean anything.

Just find a "doctor" with no conscience who is willing to do the abortion.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:52 PM
......................................................

Why is 'women's health' so vague Joanne? Being a 50 something woman, I have a pretty clear idea what women's health means to me. What does it mean to you?

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 8:09 PM


Why Do You Think Barak Hussein Obama will care about you and yours?

I am seriously doubting if you are for real. I have already asked you if your abortion story is true and you never answered me.
Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 7:18 PM

Yes, it's true. And, I'm not voting for Obama for me, I'm doing fine and would probably do fine with McCain (pay less taxes, that's for sure). I'm voting for Obama because I love my country, and I'm impressed with him.
I'm not the only one, of course. Ever hear of Ken Adelman:


Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

Adelman and I exchanged e-mails today about his decision. He asked rhetorically,

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now.


Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 8:18 PM


Well gee golly willakers...it's Sally!! Good evening, turtledove!! I have missed you and your comments. They are always a good read. Only too bad for you that it was addressed to Hal.

My kids never get sick. I am into strengthening the immune system and using homeopathics.

Nice try to get me all riled up tonight though. It warms my heart cause it shows me how much you care.

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 8:09 PM
........................................................

I'm glad I could get you riled up! You dumb yourself down on this blog.
What do you mean by homeopathy? The serious kind that involves delicate handling of dangerous herbs or the Herbs For Dummies variety of pseudo homeopathy?

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 8:24 PM


Dan,
Thanks for the link, but I was actually looking for Hal's source on FOCA. I think he took it from a NARAL site or similar. - it doesn't matter... I found another source which is what I posted. I don't think Hal realizes that Obama doesn't care one-iota about restricting abortions once FOCA is enacted. That was the point I was trying to make.

.......................
Sally,

Could you please name five possible instances where a baby must be killed in utero to save a mother's life. Feel free to contact Abortionists, OBGYN's, etc..... I'll come back next weekend to read your answers.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 8:25 PM


Carla, can you explain why the majority of medical professionals also opposed certain Illinois BAIPAs as well as D & X banning around the country? What are/were the professional's objections to such legislations? Some deep dark conspiracy against your Christian beliefs?
Who do you take your children to when they are ill? Your pastor or your doctor?

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 7:53 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Where is the solid, un-biased link stating that the MAJORITY of medical proessionals (what type of medical professional?) opposed certain BAIPA's as well as D&X banning?
If you think for one single solitary minute anyone with a functioning brain is going to take a proaborts word for it, you're extremely delusional.
And a pregnancy is not an illness, there's a big difference in the reasoning behind seeing a doctor.
Your bashing of Christianity was pointless.

Posted by: sandi at October 20, 2008 8:26 PM


"Could you please name five possible instances where a baby must be killed in utero to save a mother's life."
I'm no doctor, but here's one:


Ectopic pregnancies cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life.

You will need emergency medical help if the area of the ectopic pregnancy breaks open (ruptures). Rupture can lead to shock, an emergency condition. Treatment for shock may include:

* Blood transfusion
* Fluids given through a vein
* Keeping warm
* Oxygen
* Raising the legs

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 8:30 PM


Hal,
I'm no doctor, but an ectopic pregnancy doesn't count. The baby isn't in utero, for one.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 8:35 PM


@Janet: It's not found here in the US, but Lassa fever often requires an abortion to save pregnant mothers because the placenta carries a high viral load and the fetus isn't going to survive anyway.

Posted by: Rae at October 20, 2008 8:36 PM


According to one study, abortion needed to save the life of the mother is very rare. That's good, I guess, but I still think the law needs to recognize that rare or not, it happens.

"In other words, an indication for therapeutic abortion on the grounds that the mother's life was endangered by the pregnancy would arise in fewer than 5 pregnancies in 100,000."

http://www.popline.org/docs/0603/015581.html

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 8:38 PM


Ecoptic pregnancy requires surgery to remove the infected tube. Ecoptic pregnancies are often misdiagnosed, too. (I think Christina's site has information on ones that ended in death because they were misdiagnosed at the abortuary).

In the case of the Ecoptic pregnancy, there is currently no way to save the baby.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 20, 2008 8:46 PM


The so-called "appalling lack of judgment" that has become the mantra of a handful of Repubs dissing the Palin pick has already been revealed for what it is: elitism. It really galls some of the beltway types that Palin doesn't use 100 dollar words in every sentence. It galls them that she is not one of the insider ruling class that they see in swanky Washington restaurants. It really galls them that she is one of us--real people that stand on real conservative principles. One should trust Palin's judgment as President, if it should come to that, more than the commentators who criticize her.

If we want to talk poor judgment, McCain's opponent has shown more than his share. We all know the list from Wright to Phleger, Rezko, Ayers (Mr. and Mrs. both), his pick of Biden over Clinton for VP, his lying about Born Alive, his lying about Ayers, his careless shooting off his mouth about Iran and Venezuela being nothing to worry about, his lying about ACORN, his lying about his Muslim background...all of these point to poor judgment and a dishonesty that is calculated and disturbing.

As for Obama being a centrist--he is rated the most liberal senator in the senate, and his pick for VP the third most liberal. This does not say much for him being a centrist, neither does his voting record as an Illinois senator.

Posted by: Jerry at October 20, 2008 9:04 PM


http://www.thrufire.org/2008/04/controlled-burn-bodily-rights-or.html

Doug, SoMG, Alexandra all read it, and provided no logical, valid reasoning to refute what was written. None. Doug tried, but went circular.

No I didn't, Chris.

You make some unprovable assumptions in the first place.

If there is "circular," there, it's you saying that "I'm right because I'm right."

Your preferences are not "absolute," but you pretend otherwise, and it goes to the heart of the argument - that if one really feels as you do, then feel free to act accordingly, but it's silly to presuppose that others should just because you say so.

Posted by: Doug at October 20, 2008 9:06 PM


Sally,
I said nice try.

I am reading Delicate Handling of Dangerous Herbs for Dummies. Oh, and Hooked on Fonics. Or is it Fooked on Honics? Duh.

Love you! Sweet dreams.

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 9:26 PM


Chris,

You took my argument somewhere that I never intended for it to go (well, in this case at least). I was not referring to all instances in which a woman might desire to obtain an abortion, but specifically the case where she had been raped. If that conception was forced upon her, why does she have any obligations as a result of it? And then please answer my point as to how, if she does have obligations, these obligations are not inherently misogynistic in origin.

“Look, the hurdle you have to leap is that human life is expendable and consequence-free intercourse is a moral right. It isn't. There is no moral ground for elective abortion. None. Go read Lileigh's location”

Nope. Never made that leap in my above statement. As stated before, I was specifically arguing rape. I also never try to argue morals because I do not believe that I know objective moral truth (though I do not dispute that it exists).

The link kind of covers my position and kind of doesn't.

1.)I do not argue personhood because I believe that it is irrelevant to the discussion. However, my position is that the z/e/f is a person only once there is a working brain.

2.)I argue that each (assuming that each is person) has an equal right to life, but that none has the right to impose upon another without that other's express consent, even if such imposition is necessary to sustain life.

A few additional points. Personhood is a legal term and, as such, can be defined by states or by people. People can also be non-human. I also disagree with your “intrinsic nature” argument. In my opinion, being natural affords no special status, ie. just because something is intrinsic does not afford it any more value than something that is not.

Posted by: Enigma at October 20, 2008 9:54 PM


The best thing to come from the choice of Palin:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/nailin-paylin-hustlers-pa_n_131581.html

Posted by: Janelle at October 20, 2008 10:13 PM


So, you could easily have a law after FOCA that banned late term abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother. Sounds reasonable to me.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 4:24 PM

If I can borrow a phrase from The Wizard of Uhzzz
Isn't FOCA using a hatchet where you should be using a scalpel? Why would your messiah want to knock out all the Parental Notification laws and the abortion bans that already include health exception. Oh, to tie the fight for restrictions up in the courts again. That gives them many more years of unrestricted killing.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 20, 2008 10:27 PM


Has anybody actually read what "FOCA" would do? I've never seen that it would remove restrictions after viability.

Posted by: Doug at October 20, 2008 10:40 PM


Doug, correct. I posted the actual language earlier. there can be restrictions after viability (and Obama supports them) as long as their are exceptions to protect the mother.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 10:43 PM


and there are VERY few times when a LATE TERM abortion is NECESSARY to save a woman's life OR for "Health" which is way too vague.

You are still defending killing a baby by stabbing him or her in the head, this one procedure which takes THREE days. How long does a c-section take? Anyone?

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 20, 2008 10:47 PM


Liz, I don't disagree. Very few times it is needed, but if for those very few times, the law must allow it. That's all Obama is saying.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 10:51 PM


Doug @ 10:40

Has anybody actually read what "FOCA" would do? I've never seen that it would remove restrictions after viability.

Doug, from my post at 6:26 tonight:

From catholickey.blogspot.com:
The more recent wording of FOCA, introduced last year, is as follows:

“A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose – (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

This act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, penalty, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before or after the date of enactment of this act.” Text of H.R. 1964 and S. 1173, introduced on April 19, 2007.

It is clear that FOCA would immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions. According to a recent article by Tom McCloskey, “FOCA Would Harm Women and Remove Freedoms,” and reported by the Family Research Council, if FOCA was passed it would automatically overturn:

- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
- Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement
- Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions
- Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
- Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions
- Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions
- Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
- Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2008/10/bishop-finn-on-foca-its-supporters-and.html


Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 11:12 PM


Sally,

Could you please name five possible instances where a baby must be killed in utero to save a mother's life. Feel free to contact Abortionists, OBGYN's, etc..... I'll come back next weekend to read your answers.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 8:25 PM
..............

If you had a freaking clue, you would know that there are more than 5 medical situations that can threaten the life of a pregnant woman. I'm sure your priest is as expert upon those conditions as you. @@
Spend your next weekend doing something meaningful Janet.

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 11:13 PM


Sally,
I said nice try.

I am reading Delicate Handling of Dangerous Herbs for Dummies. Oh, and Hooked on Fonics. Or is it Fooked on Honics? Duh.

Love you! Sweet dreams.

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 9:26 PM
..........................

You will step up one of these days. You can't dumb yourself down forever. Your life is not a big joke to be used by others.

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 11:32 PM


Obama is racing to Hawaaii. He seemingly is facing a lawsuit filed Friday to produce a document that is certified and says he was born alive in Hawaaii. The case is filed by andy martin contrariancomentary and the media is told he has a sick grannie and can't campaign.

Posted by: xppc at October 20, 2008 11:41 PM


Sally @ 11:13,

It's always nice to talk to you too.

You didn't understand my question, I didn't ask" what medical situations can threaten the life of a pregnant woman."

I'm not talking about fetal death in utero where a D &C might be needed or an ectopic pregnancy where surgery might be needed. I'm talking about situations where the baby MUST be KILLED to SAVE the mother's life.

To clarify:

A baby must be killed "in utero" in these five situations to save the mothers life:

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, or deny that women can suffer in pregnancy.

Something for people to think about:
How often is abortion a solution to a real medical problem and how often is it just a matter of convenience? That's the underlying question.

Sally, no need to respond since you already did. Feel free if you like.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 11:47 PM


"Your life is not a big joke to be used by others."

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 11:32 PM

You must admit Carla's got a great sense of humor!
Don't you think it's good to be able to laugh at yourself? I do!

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 11:52 PM


How often is abortion a solution to a real medical problem and how often is it just a matter of convenience? That's the underlying question.

Sally, no need to respond since you already did. Feel free if you like.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 11:47 PM
.....................

Janet, grab your toosh with both hands and answer your own question. Is medical intervention ever an answer to anything?

Posted by: Sally at October 21, 2008 12:06 AM


Hal,
I'm no doctor, but an ectopic pregnancy doesn't count. The baby isn't in utero, for one.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 8:35 PM
...................

So, there is no baby until gestation? No instant Karma?

Posted by: Sally at October 21, 2008 12:11 AM


Sally, Right after you. :)

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2008 12:12 AM


Sweet dreams.

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 9:26 PM

Sally, This conversation is going nowhere....I should have said the same two hours ago. Good night.

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2008 12:20 AM


"Your life is not a big joke to be used by others."

Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2008 11:32 PM

You must admit Carla's got a great sense of humor!
Don't you think it's good to be able to laugh at yourself? I do!

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 11:52 PM
.....................

There comes a time when you don't wish to be taken as a joke. Laughing off what you feel and have experienced isn't something to be proud of.

Posted by: Sally at October 21, 2008 12:26 AM


There comes a time when you don't wish to be taken as a joke. Laughing off what you feel and have experienced isn't something to be proud of.

Of course, you have a right to feel that way. But do you have a right to tell anyone else how they should feel? Not really.

Good night, again.

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2008 12:38 AM


PPC,

Many voters consider Palin's posiion-to criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest to be extreme and "out of the mainstream".

That's not the issue here. Baby steps. Let's first make sure we don't elect an extreme president who sees babies as sub-human. That's "out of the mainstream".

So you believe the way a baby is conceived defines its worthiness to live?

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 1:53 PM


So it's baby-steps to taking away a woman's right to control her own means of reproduction. Wow. Thats a shocking admission that this is just a "baby-step" toward all out fascism.

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at October 21, 2008 1:12 AM


Yo La Tango. Your reproductive freedom is threatened a lot worse by your insistance that you have complete control over another persons life. That is the type of fascism that a Planned Parenthood agenda will bring to womens's future. Pre-natal testing and free abortions for less than perfect babies. Or your right to kill any child you wish without consent from the father.

I have a question for you YoLaTa, and any ladies who can help me find an answer. What percent of all abortions are commited with the father's consent?

Posted by: truthseeker at October 21, 2008 2:37 AM


Real men fight for the lives of their babies.
Planned Parenthood serves minors and sluts.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 21, 2008 2:39 AM


What percentage of abortions are commited by women when the baby's father was either neutral(above my pay grade kind-of-father), or encouraged the abortion?

Posted by: truthseeker at October 21, 2008 2:53 AM


Sarah Palin really resonates with the people. Saturday Night Live had a huge viewing audience on the night Sarah Plain was on. She is looking more vice-presidential every day. Sarah is a quick-study and after serving eight years as vice president under John McCain, she will make a great president some day. Won't that get the liberal's panties in a bunch.
Go Sarah Go!!!!!

Posted by: truthseeker at October 21, 2008 3:35 AM


Sally,
I only do it for you. You are not on here long enough to have any meaningful conversation with anyone and when you do come here it is answer questions with questions. Oh and try to insult others with your jabs. Jab. Jab. Jab. I know the drill.

The work I do outside of this blog is no laughing matter to me.

Why do you hate that you love me??

Posted by: Carla at October 21, 2008 6:38 AM


Enigma @ 9:54 PM

Rape: Life resulting

If that conception was forced upon her, why does she have any obligations as a result of it? And then please answer my point as to how, if she does have obligations, these obligations are not inherently misogynistic in origin.

Again - when someone is victimized do we allow the victim to murder another victim (the innocent child)?

Rape is a horrible crime. but so is murder. With man on man rape, we don't allow the victim to kill an innocent person do we? So your assumption about all rape being against females, and gaining a special right to vigilantism is rather misandryst don't you think?

Society has an obligation to protect the innocent. Abortion of a child from rape is not one crime, but two.

To make your case, you'd have to successfully argue that all pregnancies are prima-facie morally evil. That argument fails because it attacks the very nature of human procreation. That's actually misogynistic, because it says female reproductivity as it naturally occurs is evil.

Additionally you cannot argue that some pregnancies are good and others evil, because pregnancy is a universal condition of humanity. It's a universal in the sense every human has come through one, it can't be subjective - it's objective. We can see pregnancy, we know it, it is scientifically measurable. It is not a matter of opinion.

Rape is the crime - pregnancy and birth isn't. Here - read about Rebecca:

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

Truth: Objectivity

I also never try to argue morals because I do not believe that I know objective moral truth (though I do not dispute that it exists).

If you don't know moral truth, then you can't possibly tell me I'm wrong. If fact you can't even make an objectively truthful argument.

A valid question: are you even arguing?

Either you know objective moral truth or you don't. It's that simple. Please don't claim diametrically opposed positions.

And BTW - without objective truth you wouldn't be able to call rape morally wrong either.

Liliegh's Location: applicability

1.)I do not argue personhood because I believe that it is irrelevant to the discussion. However, my position is that the z/e/f is a person only once there is a working brain.

Ah - you're like Doug in this regard. You (or the state) can declare when a human being is a person, but you won't allow me (or others) to do so. At question is simply a matter of time (when does X become a person). A bit hypocritical don't you think?

If the state can declare who is a human person at any timeframe in their life, then why can't you be declared a non-person based on a particular physical attribute of yours? This is historically cruel (slavery & genocide).

2.)I argue that each (assuming that each is person) has an equal right to life, but that none has the right to impose upon another without that other's express consent, even if such imposition is necessary to sustain life.

You have to categorically reject pregnancy because we have mutual responsibilities to each other that may be burdensome, but are essential. Simple test - every woman rejects pregnancy - none consents to being pregnant. What happens?

The burden of proof is upon you then, to make the case that all pregnancy is morally evil. Note, it's a universal (all) because:
a. includes your own life experience (you went through it)
b. includes all other humans, because there is no other way we can come about. It's a path every human has traveled.

You have to tell us why a special right to murder is valid in every case, without rejecting a woman's natural procreativity.

People can also be non-human.

Show me non-human people. Where are they?
I want to see them. Oh wait.... are you a bigot? When people call others non-human, that's usually a sign of cruelty coming.

I also disagree with your “intrinsic nature” argument. In my opinion, being natural affords no special status, ie. just because something is intrinsic does not afford it any more value than something that is not.

Are you actually stating that you and you're arguments are not valuable?

I believe you don't understand what intrinsic means.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 21, 2008 7:36 AM


Doug, SoMG, Alexandra all read it, and provided no logical, valid reasoning to refute what was written. None. Doug tried, but went circular.

SoMG and Alexandra simply assumed they were right, instead of refuting the reasoning.

You linked me to it as a discussion here was falling off the main page. I found that it mostly did not address the points we had been discussing here, and responded within the context of the conversation that had been occurring all along.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 21, 2008 7:43 AM


Planned Parenthood serves minors and sluts.

I was neither a minor nor a slut when they served me. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to note that.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 21, 2008 7:51 AM


Planned Parenthood serves minors and sluts.
Posted by: truthseeker at October 21, 2008 2:39 AM


That is way out of line.

Posted by: Dan at October 21, 2008 7:56 AM


Chris,

First off, your argument is logically inconsistent. Above, you implied that a woman who had consented to being pregnant had no right to abort the fetus because she had consented to creating it. Logically, if consent matters when it is given, then it also matters when it is not, regardless of whatever the outcome may be.

"Again - when someone is victimized do we allow the victim to murder another victim (the innocent child)?"

That depends. As long as the victimization is ongoing, regardless of who initially violated who first, the victim has a right to defend him/herself by whatever means are necessary to end the violation.

"Rape is a horrible crime. but so is murder. With man on man rape, we don't allow the victim to kill an innocent person do we? So your assumption about all rape being against females, and gaining a special right to vigilantism is rather misandryst don't you think?"

Can you actually answer any of my questions? Really, they're not that hard.

Men have the same right as women to defend themselves against violation.

"Society has an obligation to protect the innocent. Abortion of a child from rape is not one crime, but two."

The first statement is true (though I would argue that perceived innocence has nothing to do with it); the second is your opinion.

"To make your case, you'd have to successfully argue that all pregnancies are prima-facie morally evil. That argument fails because it attacks the very nature of human procreation. That's actually misogynistic, because it says female reproductivity as it naturally occurs is evil."

Why on earth would I need to argue that all pregnancies are evil? In my opinion, pregnancy on its own is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong: it simply is.

"Additionally you cannot argue that some pregnancies are good and others evil, because pregnancy is a universal condition of humanity. It's a universal in the sense every human has come through one, it can't be subjective - it's objective. We can see pregnancy, we know it, it is scientifically measurable. It is not a matter of opinion."

Again, this is not my position. I have no idea who you're arguing against here, but it certainly isn't me.

"Rape is the crime - pregnancy and birth isn't."

When did I ever imply that pregnancy (note: simply because something is a violation does not necessarily mean that it is criminal) or birth was a crime? Really, if you could try to stick to refuting arguments that I've actually made, this will go so much better.

"Truth: Objectivity"

So if objective truth exists and you can know it, why is your conception of objective truth right and the conception of anyone else who disagrees with your interpretation wrong? What makes you more right than anyone else?

"If you don't know moral truth, then you can't possibly tell me I'm wrong. If fact you can't even make an objectively truthful argument."

That depends on your understanding of truth. According to my understand (which involves a hierarchy of truth, with unknowable objective truth at the top), I can indeed argue with you about your position and tell you that it conflicts with mine. In my opinion, you are attempting to take a personal truth and make it objective.

"A valid question: are you even arguing?"

That depends on your definition of arguing. Arguing to change someone else's mind or have my own changed, no. Arguing to exchange information, to understand both my and my opponent's position better, yes.

"Either you know objective moral truth or you don't. It's that simple. Please don't claim diametrically opposed positions."

Just because they're diametrically opposed according to how you understand moral truth, doesn't mean that they're diametrically opposed according to how I understand objective moral truth.

"And BTW - without objective truth you wouldn't be able to call rape morally wrong either."

This is the fun part. While I argue that we can never know objective truth, there is nothing that stops us from believing that we have found it.

"Ah - you're like Doug in this regard. You (or the state) can declare when a human being is a person, but you won't allow me (or others) to do so. At question is simply a matter of time (when does X become a person). A bit hypocritical don't you think?"

Not at all. Humans are afforded different rights depending on developmental state all the time.

"If the state can declare who is a human person at any timeframe in their life, then why can't you be declared a non-person based on a particular physical attribute of yours? This is historically cruel (slavery & genocide)."

I never said states were infallible.

"You have to categorically reject pregnancy because we have mutual responsibilities to each other that may be burdensome, but are essential."

In your opinion. In mine, community exists to protect the rights of individuals and I will defend the community only insofar as that it defends the individual.

"Simple test - every woman rejects pregnancy - none consents to being pregnant. What happens?"

Then the human race will cease to exist. What would be your alternative--force women to become pregnant for the greater good? The greater good means nothing if it cannot ensure a good life for those who lives define it.

"The burden of proof is upon you then, to make the case that all pregnancy is morally evil."

Please tell me where I ever said this.

"Note, it's a universal (all) because:
a. includes your own life experience (you went through it)
b. includes all other humans, because there is no other way we can come about. It's a path every human has traveled."

And this matters because? Simply because something is universal affords it no special privileges or place in human society.

"You have to tell us why a special right to murder is valid in every case, without rejecting a woman's natural procreativity."

And why on earth would I need to do that? I don't know whose argument you're reading but it certainly isn't mine. Just to make sure: I do not believe that pregnancy is either morally evil or morally good.

"Show me non-human people. Where are they?"

Some corporations are legally defined as persons.

"I want to see them. Oh wait.... are you a bigot? When people call others non-human, that's usually a sign of cruelty coming."

Thanks. Remind me to study up on how insulting your opponent is a good debating strategy.

"Are you actually stating that you and you're arguments are not valuable?"

Okay, you're going to have to explain this one. You made a leap that I can't follow. Are you asking if I have value because of my nature (note: in this case, you'd need to define nature) or if my arguments have value because they came from me?

"I believe you don't understand what intrinsic means."

It means "by nature" or, anatomically, can refer to something that is part of something else.

Posted by: Engima at October 21, 2008 8:20 AM


Alexandra,

In hindsight that reference probably wasn't fair to you. I had argued with Doug and SoMG in the early spring. Doug often would refuse to answer solid questions I had posed to him. Ultimately Doug's abortion arguments are self-refuting, that's what I mean by circular.

When I wrote the Lileigh's Location piece, it wasn't to directly refute SoMG, but for some reason he assumed I was doing that. I found his statement that my general bodily rights argument didn't address his specific position very self-centered. His timing was also quite unacceptable.

By agreeing with SoMG's position, you really didn't address my points at all, and it felt like you just copped out.

You're right, we did have a discussion we never finished about objective truth, but part of why I didn't finish the discussion was definitions of objectivity can't be subjective.

Please don't get me wrong - I've truly enjoyed our conversations. I think you're articulate, intelligent, well-spoken and very patient. However, when it comes down to something as fundamental as the definition of objectivity, it's much less frustrating to simply cease the argument. Perhaps I should have simply stated that - I'm sorry.

You continue to raise valid points, such as your observations about the NC flyer, which I, and I'm sure others appreciate.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 21, 2008 8:41 AM


No, I don't mean that the definition of objective was being viewed subjectively; I meant that you said that objectivity was related to an "object" and thus not abstract, that it was something measurable and something that could be pinned down. I have only ever known the concept of objectivity to mean something that exists regardless of whether we can measure or pin it down at all, something that exists whether or not it can be seen -- essentially the opposite of what you were saying.

You linked me to that discussion in the middle of a conversation about the bodily autonomy argument, if I recall correctly (not the objectivity discussion) which is why I responded in that context. I did not mean to offend, but I was reading it through the lens of the conversation we'd been having, which was mostly on a different issue. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 21, 2008 9:08 AM



Planned Parenthood serves minors and sluts.
Posted by: truthseeker at October 21, 2008 2:39 AM

minors and sluts don't need medical care?

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 9:19 AM


Engima at October 21, 2008 8:20 AM
-----

I can't take you seriously. I'll let you figure out why.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 21, 2008 10:22 AM


minors need REAL medical care, from REAL doctors. They just go to PP so their parents don't find out that they are getting contraceptives or condoms or had an abortion.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 21, 2008 11:56 AM


Chris,

I know exactly why. It's because you're so set in your own ways and your ideas about what everyone who disagrees with you MUST believe that you can't comprehend of how anything that doesn't fit within your world view could ever possible make any semblance of sense.

A little humility goes a long way.

If the reason you bow out is what I additionally suspect it may be, I will leave you with this little tidbit.

Engagement is also how we can come to know truth and whether or not we are in the wrong, regardless of the intent that one comes to it with.

Posted by: Enigma at October 21, 2008 11:57 AM


And yes, I am fully aware that the understandings of truth that I just articulated will seem to contradict each other. I assure you that they do not, but you will not understand the reason.

Posted by: Enigma at October 21, 2008 11:59 AM


Chris,

Enigma and Bobby speak the same language. I can't make heads or tails either. (No offense, Enigma.)

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2008 12:05 PM


Janet,

Absolutely none taken.

Posted by: Enigma at October 21, 2008 12:17 PM


Doug often would refuse to answer solid questions I had posed to him.

Oh piffle, Chris - that's just an out-and-out lie.
.....


Ultimately Doug's abortion arguments are self-refuting, that's what I mean by circular.

Not at all. It's agreed we are separate consciousnesses discussing/arguing, right? I don't go beyond that. I leave the false pretenses to you.

Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2008 7:54 PM


It is clear that FOCA would immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions.

Janet, you are stating someone's opinion.

Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2008 7:57 PM


Chris, to Enigma: Ah - you're like Doug in this regard. You (or the state) can declare when a human being is a person, but you won't allow me (or others) to do so. At question is simply a matter of time (when does X become a person). A bit hypocritical don't you think?

That's silly. What you want is a policy change with respect to society or "the state."

You can give your opinion about when personhood should apply, same as Enigma and me. Nothing "hypocritical" there.


Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2008 8:01 PM


Chris, I know exactly why. It's because you're so set in your own ways and your ideas about what everyone who disagrees with you MUST believe that you can't comprehend of how anything that doesn't fit within your world view could ever possible make any semblance of sense.

Well said Enigma. Chris begins with the assertion that "he's right because he's right."

Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2008 8:04 PM



Doug @ 7:57,
"It is clear that FOCA would immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions."

Janet, you are stating someone's opinion.

Yes, a legal opinion. Here's the author's Bio -
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=by08c08
Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs - FRC
He's more than qualified to read and understand the law don't you think?

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2008 9:00 PM


Alexandra, did it make a difference to you wether or the father wnated the child when you got served by Planned Parenthood?

Posted by: truthseeker at October 21, 2008 10:02 PM


Well, there was no father and no child when I went to Planned Parenthood, so I'm going to say no.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 22, 2008 6:47 AM


"Janet, you are stating someone's opinion."

Yes, a legal opinion. Here's the author's Bio - http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=by08c08
Tom McClusky Vice President of Government Affairs - FRCHe's more than qualified to read and understand the law don't you think?

Could be, Janet, but he's so biased he's not "understanding" it, he's reading things into it which really are not there.

Posted by: Doug at October 22, 2008 8:25 PM


Doug,

Could be, Janet, but he's so biased he's not "understanding" it, he's reading things into it which really are not there.

Why would you accuse him of being "biased" or "misunderstanding" it? You didn't write the law. You're being obtuse just to get my goat. It's not going to work.

Posted by: Janet at October 22, 2008 9:55 PM


Everybody's biased. Doug is too. Doug's just differently biased.

Posted by: Jon at October 23, 2008 8:27 AM


Well, there was no father and no child when I went to Planned Parenthood, so I'm going to say no.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 22, 2008 6:47 AM

Glad to hear that. I was referring to their specialty services, tearing babies the womb.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 23, 2008 10:55 PM


"Could be, Janet, but he's so biased he's not "understanding" it, he's reading things into it which really are not there."

Janet: Why would you accuse him of being "biased" or "misunderstanding" it? You didn't write the law. You're being obtuse just to get my goat. It's not going to work.

Janet, I wasn't trying to get your goat. (I'm a sheep man, anyway.)

FOCA would codify Roe Versus Wade into law, and Roe allows for the states to restrict abortion after viability, if they want to.

The guy may be a super-genius, but he's pretending that stuff is there that really is not there.

I have never seen that those advocating FOCA want to do away with the state restrictions. It's a matter of women wanting to keep the freedom they now have, and other people supporting that.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 11:25 AM


Everybody's biased. Doug is too. Doug's just differently biased.

Right on, Jon.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 11:33 AM


Doug,
I have never seen that those advocating FOCA want to do away with the state restrictions. It's a matter of women wanting to keep the freedom they now have, and other people supporting that.

The advocates know exactly how far the law will go but don't want pro-lifers to catch on. It's their hidden agenda to make abortion as easy as going to the dentist.That's also why they gave it a name like "Freedom of Choice Act". It sounds nice. It should more accurately be called the "Abortion Freedom Act."

What it will do is force the states to waste a lot of time and energy to re-enact all of the current abortion regulations from the last 35 years like parental consent, waiting periods, and others. School teachers, coaches, fathers, uncles, could all bring a minor girl (of virtually any age) in for an abortion. If FOCA is enacted, it would be like turning the clock back to the day Roe V. Wade was passed, barely any restrictions at all.

Is this really what you want for the next generation of girls? A society where abortion is so readily available? Making FOCA law is what Obama has promised Planned Parenthood he will do.


Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 4:12 PM


The advocates know exactly how far the law will go but don't want pro-lifers to catch on. It's their hidden agenda to make abortion as easy as going to the dentist.That's also why they gave it a name like "Freedom of Choice Act". It sounds nice. It should more accurately be called the "Abortion Freedom Act."

Janet, I don't see that you or anybody else has any good reason to make abortion be harder than "going to the dentist." I know you don't like it, but it's legal and isn't to be restricted outside the guidelines in Roe.
.....


What it will do is force the states to waste a lot of time and energy to re-enact all of the current abortion regulations from the last 35 years like parental consent, waiting periods, and others. School teachers, coaches, fathers, uncles, could all bring a minor girl (of virtually any age) in for an abortion. If FOCA is enacted, it would be like turning the clock back to the day Roe V. Wade was passed, barely any restrictions at all.

I don't see any dispute over the things that have already been found to be in accordance with the Roe decision, and some of the restrictions you mention are so. They won't be "taken away."

The ones not in accordance with Roe would not be "re-enacted," anyway, the new law would prohibit that.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 5:15 PM


The ones not in accordance with Roe would not be "re-enacted," anyway, the new law would prohibit that.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 5:15 PM

Which specific restrictions "not in accordance with Roe" are you talking about? Example?

Posted by: Janet at October 26, 2008 9:24 PM


Janet, some restrictions have been found to be Constitutional.

Others, which aren't, would not be re-enacted because FOCA would prevent it.

Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2008 9:55 AM