Kennedy: "a gentle man," Me: "Draconian, cruel, dark, hedonistic, and overly Unchristian"

I received this response to my WND column, "Ted Kennedy's letter to the pope," from Amaury Nora, a professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio:

kennedy 666.jpg

I hesitated responding to this Draconian attempt at debasing the name of a gentle man whose only imperfection is the possession of a different outlook on specific social issues. It is highly unprincipled insensitive, and callous to speak of a man who hasn't been gone from us but for a few moments. To defame the name of Ted Kennedy who stood for so many virtuous and humane causes simply because you disagree with his viewpoint is just wrong, particularly when he can no longer defend his beliefs. It is cowardice to attack the integrity of a man when his back is turned, but to do it when he is dead is unforgiveable. This conduct is cruel, dark, hedonistic, and overly UNchristian. The purpose of this short narrative is not to infuriate anyone, not to stir hateful emotions, nor to engage in a discourse on abortion or any other topic. It is merely to point out the offensiveness of the act itself. I beg that we treat others with tenderness in our hearts and judiciousness in our minds.

My response...

The "gentle man" of whom you spoke voted twice to oppose a ban against delivering a baby breech up to the neck, stabbing the baby in the nape of the neck, suctioning out the baby's brains, collapsing the baby's skull with forceps, and delivering the dead baby.

pba photo.jpg

This is the "specific social issue"... one of the "virtuous and humane causes"... the viewpoint" about which you avoided writing when calling me "cruel, dark, hedonistic, and overly Unchristian." I'm "Draconian"?

Kennedy pioneered political flipping on the abortion issue. By veering the Democrat Party left on abortion, Kennedy launched the culture wars. He borked Bork, who would have made the 5th vote to overturn Roe v. Wade on the Supreme Court.

Kennedy's influence on abortion, i.e., the number of children killed thanks to him, is incalculable, although Kennedy now likely knows that exact number since I expect they all gathered to introduce themselves to him at the pearly gates.

Kennedy's radical support of abortion in contrast with his Catholic faith was a point pro-lifers frequently made when Kennedy was living, to his face, most certainly not "when his back [was] turned." Where have you been? What rule is broken by restating these points upon Kennedy's death? You just don't want to hear about it, which is frankly too bad.

Amaury, you "beg that we treat others with tenderness"? Really? Like the 1.2 million children killed by abortion every year in the U.S.

Get back to me when you care about them.


Comments:

Fantastic response!

Posted by: Sydney M at September 3, 2009 8:42 AM


"You pro-lifers are so cruel!" snarled the abortionist as he turned to rip another arm off the unborn child. He wiped the blood on his scrubs then raised his voice in another lecture. "If only you showed some concern for others" he intoned.

yeah, and they're gonna lecture US about compassion.

Posted by: Sydney M at September 3, 2009 8:45 AM


Amen Jill! You tell 'em!

Posted by: Peg at September 3, 2009 8:50 AM


Woo, I bet his ears are burning. Probably is now thinking he should have left off his name and address.

Posted by: Andy at September 3, 2009 8:53 AM


This is the divide between pro-aborts and pro-lifers. To the pro-lifer, abortion is the murder of an innocent child. To the pro-abort, abortion is an "issue" that one can either agree or disagree with since there can be no wrong answer, much like a school board debating the color of school buses.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at September 3, 2009 8:54 AM


"To defame the name of Ted Kennedy who stood for so many virtuous and humane causes simply because you disagree with his viewpoint is just wrong"

You see? One's belief about abortion is simply a "viewpoint." There is no objective moral truth about the question of abortion; it's simply a viewpoint. However, we do see that Professor Nora does believe in objective morality, as it is stated above that "defam[ing] the name of Ted Kennedy ... is just wrong." I have to wonder what the ontological foundation for Professor Nora's morality is, where defaming a name is morally wrong but killing an unborn human being is morally neutral.

This is just another example of how people become immediately set off anytime someone criticizes someone's support of abortion, and we see a response filled with abstract generalities like "debasing the name", "defame the name", "attack the integrity", and "cruel, dark, hedonistic, and overly UNchristian" never once giving concrete examples of how this was done. It's like Mark Shea said in a recent blog entry "Criticize Ted Kennedy and you are filled with "hate". "Hate" is one of those words flung out by lefties to characterize any disagreement on any topic, no matter how trivial. "

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 3, 2009 8:56 AM


Though I should point out that Professor Nora refrained from using the word "hate" but you can replace Shea's quote with any of the phrases quoted above.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 3, 2009 8:57 AM


Well done Jill, for speaking out like you do.God has made a wonderful woman in you to do all you do for the real innocents, who are knifed in the back by people such as this 'gentle man'- Ted Kennedy.

Sending you love and prayers

Posted by: Mary at September 3, 2009 9:02 AM


You assume he's at the "pearly gates"? I think not! Firey gates more like it! I sincerely hope that he is getting his just rewards.....what you sow, you shall reap....

Posted by: Cynthia Hintz at September 3, 2009 9:11 AM


Cynthia, to clarify, I didn't mean to imply he'd get in. That's up to God. But we'll all arrive there, making an entry request.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 3, 2009 9:18 AM


I don't believe that I will respond. Once again, my intent was not to debate an issue that is packed with emotions nor to engage in deconstructing an argument that is unreasonable. Thank you for the opportunity to reply but will heed my own words - no insults, no continuation of a dialogue that is only spewed with venom and hatred. Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me.

Posted by: Amaury Nora at September 3, 2009 9:19 AM


Jill, you stand your ground. About Sen. Kennedy, only God knows what his "final destination" is.
But isn't there something in the gospel about "by the fruits you will recognize them". And when not even the mormons refuse to give him a posthumous baptism should be another inkling of his "legacy".
Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Maria at September 3, 2009 9:21 AM


Thank you Jill for answering God's Will in your life. He has a special plan for you for the times we are living in. Abortion is a horrible sin and as Ted Kennedy voted for abortion it made him a public sinner. Under Canon Law he was to be refused a Catholic funeral unless be publicly apologized for this particular sin, not in general as in the letter to the Holy Father. So, my question is how was he allowed this beautiful Catholic funeral? May God have mercy on his soul.
Jane DelloIacono

Posted by: Jane DelloIacono at September 3, 2009 9:27 AM


Jill, thank you for pointing out the hatred that spews out of totally liberal thinking educators whenever they discuss the issue of social justice. They're quick to attack others for sharing their stance on pro-life and for pointing out the injustice and thoughtlessness of political leaders on the issue of abortion. They manage to de-compartmentalize the idea of compassion on social issues to fit their liberal views and spit out hatred in doing so. Dr. Nora is obviously misinformed about all the so-called social greatness of Ted Kennedy as are countless others. Sad but true. Maybe Dr. Nora can visit an abortion clinic with his children or grandchildren that he may enjoy and witness the "virtuous and humane" acts caused by Ted Kennedy's congressional voting history. For Dr. Nora to use the word "UNchristian" in his view of your discussion, must certainly point to his lack of knowledge of the Christian view of the gift of life.

Posted by: Linda Gutierrez at September 3, 2009 9:29 AM


Thank you Jill for your continuous fight for the lives of the unborn. You are tireless and unwavering in your commitment!! God bless you!

The photo of the baby hurts. Just plain hurts.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at September 3, 2009 9:32 AM


Jill, thank you for pointing out the hatred that spews out of totally liberal thinking educators whenever they discuss the issue of social justice. They're quick to attack others for sharing their stance on pro-life and for pointing out the injustice and thoughtlessness of political leaders on the issue of abortion. They manage to de-compartmentalize the idea of compassion on social issues to fit their liberal views and spit out hatred in doing so. Dr. Nora is obviously misinformed about all the so-called social greatness of Ted Kennedy as are countless others. Sad but true. Maybe Dr. Nora can visit an abortion clinic with his children or grandchildren and witness the "virtuous and humane" acts caused by Ted Kennedy's congressional voting history. For Dr. Nora to use the word "UNchristian" in his view of your discussion, must certainly point to his lack of knowledge of the Christian view of the gift of life.

Posted by: Linda Gutierrez at September 3, 2009 9:32 AM


I stand corrected: Sen. Kennedy did NOT apologize for his culture of death views, including abortion, in his letter to the Holy Father as some have believe.

For information concerning Sen. Kennedy and his Catholic funeral controversy, please visit LifeSiteNews, Human Life International and American Life League for articles on the subject.

Posted by: Jane DelloIacono at September 3, 2009 9:38 AM


I hesitated responding to this Draconian attempt at debasing the name of a gentle woman whose only imperfection is the possession of a different outlook on specific social issues than Amaury Nora. It is highly unprincipled insensitive, and callous to speak of a woman who has never deserted the cause of the unborn for even a few moments. To defame the name of Jill Stanek, who stands for so many virtuous and humane causes simply because you disagree with her viewpoint is just wrong, particularly when you haven't bothered to address her specific criticisms of Ted Kennedy's record. It is cowardice to attack the integrity of a woman when you won't defend even your own principles, and to suggest that she's somehow morally inferior to Ted Kennedy is unforgiveable. This conduct is cruel, dark, liberal, and overly UNchristian.

The purpose of this short narrative is not to care on bit whether it infuriates anyone or stirs up hateful emotions, but to focus your attention on the killing of the unborn and point out that there is in fact a vast difference between those who oppose it and those who promote it. It is also to point out the destructivenss of the act itself, and to note that allegedly "defaming" the dead is a far lesser offense than making people dead. I beg that we treat others with tenderness in our hearts and judiciousness in our minds, like Jill Stanek treated that dying child in the linen closet rather than like Ted Kennedy treated that woman under the water and the babies in the womb.

Posted by: Henrietta G. Tavish at September 3, 2009 9:39 AM


Jill, Thank you for sharing the TRUTH with someone so shallow and blinded by that TRUTH, that he may never understand until he and Ted meet again in person as they discuss the millions of children who stand before them. God Bless You our Christian Sister for LIFE!

Posted by: Denise at September 3, 2009 9:43 AM


That poor baby in the photograph. I closed my eyes and he was still there. It's too sad to express.

And, if I might say this despite the fact that I don't anyone to hate me, I do think that what Senator Kennedy supported was wrong beyond anything we can put into words, beyond anything that any of us could verbally express, I don't think that he's going to hell (Jill is right; it's up to God; I just don't think that God is sending him to hell) and I think that there is good and evil in all of our hands, that the Senator was human and therefore failed sometimes, but tried his absolute best to do what was right. Abortion wasn't his Big Issue: health care was. That was his passion. He never went out and campaigned on an abortion platform.

I suppose that, when it comes down to it, we must disagree with what he did to those children, but we cannot condemn the good that he did do in life for the mistakes that unite us all and make us all human. We have to, even in the face of injustice, love one another. And I'm not saying that what everyone who is here is saying is wrong: it's your opinion and if it is well-informed, I respect it, but we cannot be hateful towards him.

Posted by: Vannah at September 3, 2009 9:45 AM


"... a dialogue that is only spewed with venom and hatred"

Ah, there's the claim of hatred.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 3, 2009 9:46 AM


That was an excellent response, Jill.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2009 9:50 AM


Their message to you defined the word "hypocrite."

Words like "defend, defame, gentle man, cruel, dark, hedonistic, overly un-Christian, offensiveness" should have been defined before they put them to paper.

I say this because surely if they have EVER seen a photo of a small, dead, lifeless human being who died at the hands of a "Doctor" they would never use such words in an attempt to smear a woman who fights for the helpless.

PRESS ON, Jill!


Posted by: Jessica at September 3, 2009 9:51 AM


I don't believe that I will respond. Once again, my intent was not to debate an issue that is packed with emotions nor to engage in deconstructing an argument that is unreasonable. Thank you for the opportunity to reply but will heed my own words - no insults, no continuation of a dialogue that is only spewed with venom and hatred. Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me.

What a cowardly response. You have not in any way explained why Jill's argument is "unreasonable". You have not explained what makes her argument "spewed with hatred and venom".

You make very strong claims against Jill's character, but fail to back them up with facts. Is that how educated people make their arguments?

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2009 10:04 AM


You make very strong claims against Jill's character, but fail to back them up with facts. Is that how educated people make their arguments?

LOL! I'd love to see how this Professor runs her classroom.

Student: Sorry, Professor, I can't answer your question because the textbook assignment was packed with emotions and I didn't want to waste time reading arguments that are unreasonable. Also, you are nasty and stupid but I won't say why.

Posted by: Henrietta G. Tavish at September 3, 2009 10:13 AM


Well, wow, didn't expect all the "atta girl"'s, thanks! I usually hold off on a post when I'm mad. But I was too mad to stop myself today... :)

Henrietta, 9:39, clever!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 3, 2009 10:23 AM


"I don't believe that I will respond. Once again, my intent was not to debate an issue that is packed with emotions nor to engage in deconstructing an argument that is unreasonable. Thank you for the opportunity to reply but will heed my own words - no insults, no continuation of a dialogue that is only spewed with venom and hatred. Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me."
Posted by: Amaury Nora at September 3, 2009 9:19 AM

What are your views on abortion?

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 10:47 AM


What are your views on abortion

The Professor hasn't said, but I think Dean Martin once sang a little song about him that might give a hint:

When the choicers don't cry though the babies all die,
That's Amaury!
When the pro-aborts whine, that to Ted you're not kind,
That's Amaury!
When they say you've defamed, but then call YOU mean names,
That's Amaury!
When no time will be spent, to address arugments,
That's Amaury!

Posted by: Henrietta G. Tavish at September 3, 2009 11:19 AM


ROFL!!!

Hilarious Henrietta! Great job!

Posted by: Ed at September 3, 2009 11:24 AM


Henrietta, you're so funny! lmbo!

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2009 11:33 AM


Hi Jill,

A fantastic response. It was Ted himself who stated at his brother Bobby's funeral that Bobby should not be made more of in death than what he was in life.

Let's see, Ted left a woman to drown, sexually abused and assaulted women(the waitress sandwiches) which the waitress felt she was indeed sexually assaulted, the mental and emotional abuse of his wife with his extramarital trysts, his drunken escapades, his use of the Kennedy fortune to get himself and family members out of legal scrapes, his use of wealth and power against a woman accusing his nephew of rape,(an incident stemming from a nite of Tom catting with Uncle Ted, who one would think a tad old to be out romping like a college boy), his passing judgment on men such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas(while at the same time trying to bail his nephew out of a rape charge).
I agree with Ted, one should not be made more of in death than he/she was in life.

My mother is one who tends to turn people into alabaster saints when they die. She views me as "disrespectful" to the dead if I don't. "Dear, the man/woman is dead", in other words keep quiet. Sorry mom, but people were what they were. I will remember the positive, but won't overlook the negative.

Posted by: Mary at September 3, 2009 11:35 AM


Janet @10:47AM, look up the name online and see what you get.

Well done, Henrietta!

Posted by: Fed Up at September 3, 2009 11:38 AM


Henrietta,
Very good. :)


Fed Up,
Yes, I had. Just wondering if he's willing to TRY to defend his position on abortion.

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 11:49 AM


"Once again, my intent was not to debate an issue that is packed with emotions nor to engage in deconstructing an argument that is unreasonable. "

Of course you won't debate Amaury. There is no way you can win a debate when defending abortion.

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2009 11:51 AM


Please note that this is a professor of educational leadership and policy --- a person who strives to shape what lessons and methods are used to educated children.

I believe this is the same profession that Bill Ayers is in; just wonder if this is one of his students?

Posted by: LB at September 3, 2009 12:03 PM


LB,

Look at Amaury's resume and you'll find "evaluator for the Houston Annenberg Challenge".

Enough said.

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 12:08 PM


Dr. Nora: I'll merely reiterate that one need not be "overly religious" (or religious at all) to hold the viewpoint Jill is making here.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 3, 2009 12:10 PM


Vannah: "That poor baby in the photograph. I closed my eyes and he was still there. It's too sad to express.

And, if I might say this despite the fact that I don't anyone to hate me, I do think that what Senator Kennedy supported was wrong beyond anything we can put into words, beyond anything that any of us could verbally express, I don't think that he's going to hell (Jill is right; it's up to God; I just don't think that God is sending him to hell) and I think that there is good and evil in all of our hands, that the Senator was human and therefore failed sometimes, but tried his absolute best to do what was right. Abortion wasn't his Big Issue: health care was. That was his passion. He never went out and campaigned on an abortion platform."


That poor Jew in the photograph. I closed my eyes and he was still there. It's too sad to express.

And, if I might say this despite the fact that I don't want anyone to hate me, I do think that what Adolf Hitler supported was wrong beyond anything we can put into words, beyond anything that any of us could verbally express, I don't think that he's going to hell (It's up to God; I just don't think that God is sending him to hell) and I think that there is good and evil in all of our hands, that the Fuhrer was human and therefore failed sometimes, but tried his absolute best to do what was right. Killing the Jews wasn't his Big Issue: uniting Germany was. That was his passion. He never went out and campaigned on an Holocaust platform.

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2009 12:20 PM


"Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me."

This quote really takes the cake. Please explain what stabbing a child in the neck and sucking out his brains has to do with overt religion?

Oh, I forgot. You won't respond because you're above such a dirty thing. You just drop in and say that Jill's hateful and move on your way. I feel deeply sorry for your students.

Posted by: Lauren at September 3, 2009 12:22 PM


Of course you won't debate Amaury. There is no way you can win a debate when defending abortion.
Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2009 11:51 AM

But we can win at the ballot box. Cheers.

Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2009 1:00 PM


Another college off the list for my children. Picking a college will probably be easier than I thought....

Posted by: Kristen at September 3, 2009 1:04 PM


The term "Overly religious" confuses me. What does that mean? Aren't you either religious or not, the overly just means you don't agree with them.

Posted by: LB at September 3, 2009 1:04 PM


But we can win at the ballot box. Cheers.
Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2009 1:00 PM

Yeah, when you guys don't mention abortion at all.

Coincidentally, I hear this November isn't looking too good for you guys...

Posted by: xalisae at September 3, 2009 1:11 PM


Hal --

You said it! -- your side can't win the debate about abortion, about morality, or about right and wrong. But it can win an election.

Wow, talk about a hollow victory! Thanks for clarifying your values, again.

Posted by: LB at September 3, 2009 1:12 PM


I don't believe that I will respond. Once again, my intent was not to debate an issue that is packed with emotions nor to engage in deconstructing an argument that is unreasonable. Thank you for the opportunity to reply but will heed my own words - no insults, no continuation of a dialogue that is only spewed with venom and hatred. Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me.
Posted by: Amaury Nora at September 3, 2009 9:19 AM

I'm guessing Ms Amaury is a "spiritual person".

Doncha know:
Spiritual people are compassionate, tender and fully support the right of mothers to murder/dismember their unborn babies.

On the other hand, religious people are venomous, hate filled and support "forced pregnancy".

How many abortions have you had Ms Amaury?

Posted by: angel at September 3, 2009 1:13 PM


Of course you won't debate Amaury. There is no way you can win a debate when defending abortion.
Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2009 11:51 AM

But we can win at the ballot box. Cheers.
Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2009 1:00 PM


ah Hal, how very very shallow indeed.
Man shall not live by bread alone........

Posted by: angel at September 3, 2009 1:17 PM


Man shall not live by bread alone......

...but on every fake registration that proceedeth from the bowels of ACORN.

Posted by: Fed Up at September 3, 2009 1:26 PM


There's a huge difference between Ted Kennedy and Adolph Hitler. Huge.

And, yes, there's a huge difference between Jill Stanek and someone who's Draconian and hedonistic. Huge. She wasn't being Draconian by defending children's rights but was demonized for it anyway by those who oppose equal rights, that is, if Amaury Nora was writing this letter because he or she is supportive of abortion as opposed to being supportive of Ted Kennedy.

If you disagree with Ted Kennedy's policies, go for it. I disagree with abortion so I disagreed with some of them (his abortion-related policies), too. I respect that. But saying that he is going to hell is profoundly different from saying that you are a conservative and support conservative politics.

Posted by: Vannah at September 3, 2009 1:48 PM


Maybe Hal can remind me when we were allowed to vote on the current status of abortion laws (legal through an entire pregnancy)? I would love for that to be put to a vote, but it never has been.

Posted by: David at September 3, 2009 2:17 PM


Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me.
Posted by: Amaury Nora at September 3, 2009 9:19 AM

The Devil is pure spirit, so one could say he's extremely spiritual. Me, personally, I'll stick with being religious (and faithful at that).

Excellent job, Jill. As usual, a clear and indisputable argument.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 3, 2009 2:46 PM


Vannah,

You're right. Far fewer Jews died in the Holocaust than babies have since abortion became legal.

Thank you for reminding us.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 3, 2009 2:54 PM


"Maybe Hal can remind me when we were allowed to vote on the current status of abortion laws (legal through an entire pregnancy)? I would love for that to be put to a vote, but it never has been."
Posted by: David at September 3, 2009 2:17 PM

That's a very good point. How in the world those SC Justices determined that they had to authority to legalize abortion, I'll never understand.

Those SCJ's who supported legalized abortion:

Harry Blackmun,
William J. Brennan,
Chief Justice Warren Burger,
William O. Douglas,
Thurgood Marshall,
Lewis Powell and
Potter Stewart.

Of course, the lawyers who argued for legalized abortion:

Sarah Weddington
Linda Coffee


Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 3:17 PM


"If you disagree with Ted Kennedy's policies, go for it. I disagree with abortion so I disagreed with some of them (his abortion-related policies), too. I respect that. But saying that he is going to hell is profoundly different from saying that you are a conservative and support conservative politics."

Vannah,

I didn't say Ted Kennedy is going to hell...or am I comparing him to Hitler, I'm just using your logic to make a point.

Saying that Ted Kennedy 'did his absolute best' is just false. You also said he didn't 'campaign' for abortion, as if that would let him off the hook for voting for it time and again.

He allowed it to happen. He changed the Democrat party to pro-abortion more than anyone else.


Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2009 3:45 PM


"Amaury, you "beg that we treat others with tenderness"? Really? Like the 1.2 million children killed by abortion every year in the U.S.

Get back to me when you care about them."
===========================


Did Prof. Nora ever get back to you, Jill?

...I guess not....

Hard to respond when you're faced with cold, hard facts, isn't it, Professor?

Posted by: RSD at September 3, 2009 3:47 PM


Maybe Hal can remind me when we were allowed to vote on the current status of abortion laws (legal through an entire pregnancy)? I would love for that to be put to a vote, but it never has been.
Posted by: David at September 3, 2009 2:17 PM

of course this is a convenient fact quite forgotten by the liberals.

liberal proaborts however are not interested in democracy.
They have in fact, done everything they can to prevent democracy from working including corrupting the judicial and parlimentary processes and ignoring the will of the people.

The are not interested in "choice". there is only one choice for pregnant women in their "spiritual" minds and that is the choice of abortion.

This is Pope JP II called Western culture the culture of death.

Posted by: angel at September 3, 2009 4:39 PM


last line should read:

This is why Pope JP II called Western culture the culture of death.

Posted by: angel at September 3, 2009 4:48 PM


The very fact that pro aborts read your blog should be reassuring, Jill. At least you are getting out there. People are reading and discussing and hopefully it will change some minds. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Andy at September 3, 2009 4:51 PM


Posted by: Amaury Nora at September 3, 2009 9:19 AM

I don't believe that I will respond. Once again, my intent was not to debate an issue that is packed with emotions nor to engage in deconstructing an argument that is unreasonable. Thank you for the opportunity to reply but will heed my own words - no insults, no continuation of a dialogue that is only spewed with venom and hatred. Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me..

Dr. Nora - Given your grasp of Jill's WND column, it's fairly clear from your original letter that your intent was to chastise Jill regarding her handling of Sen. Kennedy. But given your background, I'm wondering - were you also interested in seeing what her specific behaviors/response would be to your letter?

Apparently you are also watching her blog and reading comments. What are you learning?

Let's do an experiment: Suppose someone slapped you, but then stated "My intent was not to engage with you."

What reactions would you expect?
How would you feel?

Does such behavior violate any principles?

All very interesting, isn't it?

A simple observation of your actions and behaviors here are very confusing, because you seem to be complete unaware of your self-focused moral relativism, or you're totally in command of your responses and are purposefully appearing hypocritical to examine our reactions, in which case you're being deceptive.

So which one is it?

Enlighten us, please.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 3, 2009 5:06 PM


Maybe Hal can remind me when we were allowed to vote on the current status of abortion laws (legal through an entire pregnancy)? I would love for that to be put to a vote, but it never has been.
Posted by: David at September 3, 2009 2:17 PM

well, we were allowed to vote for the President, who was certainly painted as a "rabid pro-abort." We elect Congress, which hasn't really tried to outlaw abortion. We get Republican and Democratic Presidents nominating Supreme Court Justices who don't overrule roe v. wade.

As I recall, many abortion restrictions have been put for a vote in the past few years, with most not getting a majority.

Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2009 5:09 PM


It is a long, hard slog. But it is the pro-lifers that are the embattled ones that just keep on pushing forward, despite an uncompromisingly hostile MSM and distortions of us and our cause.

This coming January we will once again be in D.C. by the ten's of thousands, and there will be no MSM coverage. The truth about abortion has never been shown in it's grissly detail on TV, because once it is exposed for the terrible reality that it is, people will stand up against it. In fact, the polls are now moving in our favor. Pro-abortion advocates are in the minority.

Indeed, we pro-lifers are in an uphill clime. But with the playing field tilted against us, I would say we are doing pretty good.

The only way the dems managed to claim many seats in the legislature was by sounding like they were for restrictions on abortion.

Hal, you may claim that is a sign of our country being pro-abort, but considering the deceptions and subterfuge on the part of so many passing themselves off as something other that pro-abort in order to get elected is a hollow victory indeed.

I am looking forward to the fall of 2010.

Posted by: Jerry at September 3, 2009 5:56 PM


I truly hope that Amaury Nora does not find my comment hateful. But come on...either Ted is in torments or in heaven. Either place he's in, I highly doubt if he cares about what Jill Stanek wrote about him. (no offense to you either, Jill, but I KNOW you "get" what I said!)

But it sure did hit a nerve with you, Amaury. I wonder why?

Posted by: Marie at September 3, 2009 6:12 PM


A simple observation of your actions and behaviors here are very confusing, because you seem to be complete unaware of your self-focused moral relativism, or you're totally in command of your responses and are purposefully appearing hypocritical to examine our reactions, in which case you're being deceptive.

So which one is it?

Enlighten us, please.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 3, 2009 5:06 PM

I think it's quite evident that Ms Nora is quite aware of her moral relativism. Deception is everything in the promotion of the liberal socialist agenda.

Posted by: angel at September 3, 2009 8:12 PM


Jill, I shudder to think of the millions of murdered babies confronting him, while God thundered the eternal cry to Cain ( but this time to Kennedy):" What have you done with your brother?". Terrifying!!

Posted by: castellina at September 3, 2009 8:32 PM


Hal claims that abortion has been put to a vote. Hogwash.

Having to vote for candidates on a wide range of issues makes it considerably harder to argue that current laws are what people really wanted (or want) on a specific issue. It's simply never happened like that.

You want real democracy, consider the free market, where customers vote daily on specific company products and services, not this one pitiful vote you get every few years in a general sense.

If Hal is so sure that the current 'legal throughout pregnancy' is what people want, he would be happy to put it to a specific vote - after lots of pictures and info are allowed to be viewed by the public.

Just like Obama's candidacy was marked especially by the mainstream media highlighting his stances on abortion and infants born alive from botched ones...
No wait, hang on... oh, that's right, I remember now...

Posted by: Stephan at September 4, 2009 12:32 AM


Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that abortion should be put to a vote, just that Hal's own argument is flawed. He claims as fact something which clearly isn't true.

For the record, basic human rights aren't up to be taken away by the powerful or the majority just because they can.

The best rule of thumb is to endorse rights when you are in the majority that are ones you would hope for if you are in the minority.

Posted by: Stephan at September 4, 2009 12:41 AM


As I've said before here, the late senator was actually more pro-life than any of the many people who hypocritically claim to be "pro-life". They're just anti-choice.
Kennedy strove for many years to create an
economic situation in America where poor pregnant women would be far less likely to seek and obtain abortions because of his advocacy of more government help to the poor in general, while
hypocritical anti-choicers everywhere,including many of you on this site merely paid lip service
to helping the situation,and advocated reducing or eliminating government help, which only increased poverty and the number of abortions.
Kennedy put his money where his mouth was, unlike anti-choicers.
Sure, his personal conduct in provate was often reprehensible. But let's face it, he did infinitely more to help people in America than
all the anti-choice people here put together.
And without his tireless efforts, there might have been a much higher abortion rate in America
than has existed since Roe v Wade.
Compare this to a self-righteous, narrow-minded and intolerant senator such as the late Jesse Helms, who may not have had any scandals in his private life, but was a bigot ,scoundrel and reactionary. A racist,homophobe and a philistine .

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 4, 2009 10:53 AM


"he did infinitely more to help people in America than all the anti-choice people here put together."

Awesome, Robert. For the THIRD time in about a week you make this claim, and for the THIRD time I will ask for evidence. I'm just going to keep copying and pasting.

How about some evidence of this claim? In fact, tell me how one quantifies how much a single person does for the poor so that you can compare quantities. How do you estimate how much an "anti-choicer" does in a lifetime in a reasonable way? How many lifetimes of anti-choicer have been studied so that we know such an estimate is reasonable? I assume these studies that you have in mind have been going on for several generations in order to have any sort of reasonableness to them.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 4, 2009 11:02 AM


Hey Robert,

You didn't answer my last posts on the comment thread for "Pastor prays for God to kill Obama".

Maybe if you actually respond to someone one of these days, we'll take you more seriously?

Posted by: xalisae at September 4, 2009 11:17 AM


Robert, you are a copy and paste machine. Ever have an original thought?

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2009 12:52 PM


Robert, not all the women who have abortions are poor. Middle-class college students have a high abortion rate.

And this kind compassionate man didn't help Mary Jo Kopechne too much, did he?

Posted by: Phillymiss at September 4, 2009 1:14 PM


Phillymiss at September 4, 2009 1:14 PM

It's interesting how all those free condoms being handed out at colleges don't seem to be very effective. More tax-payer dollars going to waste. Do we have a say in how our money is being spent? No.

Fortunately some Universities are working to provide support for women who choose the keep their babies while attending classes.

Posted by: Janet at September 4, 2009 1:36 PM


What I see here about Kennedy is that he was a "social Catholic" and therefore felt that his working on specific social issues provided him with vindication for his proabortion views.
Unfortunately for Mr. Kennedy, I doubt seriously that God compartmentalizes in such a manner.

Posted by: angel at September 4, 2009 4:45 PM


Robert, you are a copy and paste machine. Ever have an original thought?

Roger has lots of original thoughts! His blog is really interesting! :)

Posted by: Alexandra at September 5, 2009 7:53 AM


Do you have a link, Alexandra?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 5, 2009 9:07 AM


I do!

www.blogiversity.org/blogs/the__horn/default.aspx

It's got a variety of things -- sometimes famous music personality trivia, sometimes current events in music (spaces opening, funding being cut, etc), often points related to a broader discussion on the worth of contemporary music alongside the "traditional" things. As someone who loves composers like Philip Glass and Bruckner, etc, but knows relatively little about contemporary music in general, I really like that aspect of it.

Also, as someone whose education focused mostly on the piano and cello, I like occasionally reading about things from a horn-centric perspective. :)

Whatever the topic of the day is, it's like a little coffee break for me, a little bit of information whose subject a daily surprise.

Unfortunately I called Robert "Roger" earlier, an error for which I apologize. I blame it on the fact that I had to be at work at 7:30am this morning, which feels like a crime, given that I'll be working on Monday as well. Bah, I say.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 5, 2009 9:37 AM


Great, thanks Alexandra.

"As someone who loves composers like Philip Glass..."

Wow, no kidding! I've actually been working on his 5 Metamorphosis pieces and Mad Rush for piano. I really like playing them.

But that is interesting about his blog. I will definitely read it. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 5, 2009 9:43 AM


That's awesome, Bobby! I don't know if you're familiar with In the Upper Room, but the full work was released on CD just this past March -- previously, only about half the movements were available. That's the piece that got me into Philip Glass in the first place. Ironically, it was through dance rather than through music that I initially began to appreciate his work -- I have a stronger dance education than music education, in most ways. When I was in my mid-teens I learned and performed the final movement of In The Upper Room, choreographed by Twyla Tharp, as part of a workshop performance. (I was one of the girls in pointe shoes and skirts, who do a whole lot more than it looks like they do in the following video -- I hate camera angle-y videos of things that are meant to be viewed straight-on.) To this day it's one of my favorite Philip Glass compositions:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywTXvF_Ll4

It's definitely 80's, in a variety of ways, but it's REALLY awesome to see live. Boston Ballet, Miami City Ballet, and American Ballet Theater have all taken to reviving it in the past few years; I recommend Miami City Ballet, both because they do a lot of touring and because I really enjoy their energy. ABT is an amazing company (surprisingly wonderful at something like this, given that they are more classical in style) but they tend not to tour as much, so you would have to catch them in NYC.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 5, 2009 10:35 AM


Alexandra, you are right- his blog is very interesting. I'll have to bookmark it.

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2009 10:44 AM


Xalisae, could you please refresh my memory about what you wanted me to answer ? I'd appreciate it,and will respond.
But I remain absolutely committed to a woman's right to choose. The abortion rate was just as high in America before Roe v Wade, and making it illegal again will not meake things any better,
but in fact far worse.
Yes, we've got to try to prevent as many
unwanted pregnancies as possible,and do more to help poor pregant women. But the solutions you people here,and others who oppose abortion advocate will never work. It's as simple as that.
Sorry to sound like a broken record( or broken CD), but you guys just aren't getting the point of what I'm trying to say. Abortion can't be stopped,period. People who say that we must"end" abortion are just deluding themselves. This will never happen. Calling abortion"murder" is ridiculous. It's not murdering a born person for malicious reasons.Life begins at BIRTH, not before.
Abortion isn't like slavery. The way you make it sound as though being pro-choice were as morally reprehesible as being pro-slavery is extremely offensive to us pro-choicers. The real slavery is being doomed to a life of abject poverty, not being aborted.
You're not doing a fetus a favor by bringing it into a world where it is doomed to poverty,malnu-
trition and lack of education.
This is extremely unhealthy for society,and only increases poverty,unemployment and crime.
Unless we see to it that poor pregnant women get the help they need to take care of their children, we are not going to improve things one bit. Just screaming for abortion to be made illegal again and protesting will never do anything positive.

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 5, 2009 11:01 AM


"Abortion can't be stopped, period. People who say that we must 'end' abortion are just deluding themselves. This will never happen."

We may never be able to irradicate rape completely, either. That's hardly a justification for legalizing rape.

"Life begins at BIRTH, not before."

This has been proved false on many occasions here, with the use of scientific fact, but you're still going to go with it, huh?

"You're not doing a fetus a favor by bringing it into a world where it is doomed to poverty,malnu-
trition and lack of education."

I have described this many times as the "kill-them-now-so-they-don't-die-later" philosophy. Why not just go into low-income homes in the inner cities and "rescue" all the children by killing them? That's what you're advocating here.

"This is extremely unhealthy for society,and only increases poverty,unemployment and crime."

...so you favor killing children from low-income families, to cut down on crime, eh? How "liberal."

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 5, 2009 11:29 AM


Unless we see to it that poor pregnant women get the help they need to take care of their children, we are not going to improve things one bit.

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 5, 2009 11:01 AM

What would it take for a poor woman to become rich enough to not justify abortion for her? You are hung up on this "poor woman" argument when in fact, you just like the availability of abortion.
Why sugar-coat your argument with concern about poor women?

Again, how much money , or specifically what kind of help would change the need for abortion among so-called "poor women".?

Also, are you employed in the abortion industry? You arguments are consistent with that mindset.

Posted by: Janet at September 5, 2009 12:58 PM


"To defame the name of Ted Kennedy who stood for so many virtuous and humane causes simply because you disagree with his viewpoint is just wrong"

-------------------------------------------------------

If what is communicated is true, then by definition is ain't 'defamation'.

Ted Kennedy's own words and own deeds 'defamed' him. He brought dishonor to the Kennedy name, not his critics. Ted exploited the Kennedy name. Ted exploited the deaths of his two older brothers. Ted would have ridden their coat tails into the White House if his own pecadillos had not sunk his own politicial ship like a the car he had been driving while drunk slipped beneath the waters.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at September 5, 2009 1:01 PM


"Spiritual people enlighten me; overly religious people scare me."

-----------------------------------------------------

In Amaury Nora's world 'spiritual people' are people with whom he/she agrees and people who agree with her/him.

'Overly religious' people are all those other people, including atheists and agnostics, who, in Nora's thoroughly biased opionion, are obviously 'wrong' simply because she/he says so.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at September 5, 2009 1:17 PM


Of course you won't debate Amaury. There is no way you can win a debate when defending abortion.
Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2009 11:51 AM

But we can win at the ballot box. Cheers.

Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2009 1:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------

Is that what it is all about to you HAL?

Winning at the ballot box?

Your shallowness is beginning to show.


I had a friend in Washington State who used to say all the time, "Democrats would elect a Collie dog if there was a 'D' after it's name!". [or in Massachusetts, if the dogs last name was Kennedy]

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at September 5, 2009 1:24 PM


Compare this to a self-righteous, narrow-minded and intolerant senator such as the late Jesse Helms, who may not have had any scandals in his private life, but was a bigot ,scoundrel and reactionary. A racist,homophobe and a philistine .

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 4, 2009 10:53 AM

-----------------------------------------------------

Why mr./mrs./ms Berger,

I do believe you are gender challenged?

You are also an anti-christian bigot.

You are exhibiting all the characteristics of a 'heterophobe'.

I have serious doubts that your life is 'scandal free'.

But your life is so inconsequential and your existence so obscure that your pecadillos have not broken through into the world of things that really matter (to anyone but you).

Are you an underachiever who is a legend in your own mind or are you just aspiring to be?

philistine: a chauvinistic epithet used most often by liberal bigoted humanistic Jews to deride gentiles with whom they disgree.

You forgot to accuse Jesse Helms of being an anti-semite.

I cannot speak for the late Helms, but I can tell you that I am not anti-semitic.

I am a son of Abraham, one of God' chosen people and I worship the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and I have met the Messiah and HE is not Barrak Obama.


yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at September 5, 2009 1:47 PM


Me an "antichristian bigot". That's a laugh ! I don't hate Christians at all. I just disagree with them greatly on most issues. Nor am I a "heterophobe". I'm heterosexual myself.
I just deplore people who are intolerant of it.
I really dislike SOME Christians, but not because they're Christian .
I've never been involved in any way with abortion
or facilities which provide it. I've never fathered any illegitimate children or tried to force any young woman to have an abortion after getting them pregnant.
I don't care what religion people follow. What bothers me is people who use their religions as an excuse to impose their social agenda on other people and society in general.
And yes, Helms was a nasty, intolerant and self-righteous individual. Have you read anything about this awful man? He opposed civil rights for blacks, hated gay people, was vehementy opposed to any kind of progressive legislation, and stupidly opposed the National Endowment For the Arts because of a handful of art works which he and some other people found objectionable.
He thought it was terrible to take the hard-earned money of people to support "obscene art", despite the fact that the NEA supports many other artistic endeavors which no one could object to,
and actually takes less than a dollar out of each taxpayer a year to support the arts.
A mere pittance. And meanwhile,many of America;s great symphony orchestras and opera companies are struggling to stay alive,and some have gone under.
He was not a good man in any way, even though he claimed to be Godly, patriotic and all that.
Whatever his personal flaws, and they were considerable, Ted Kennedy did infinitely more good for America than Helms ever did.
But I'm glad to see that my blog is getting some appreciation.

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 5, 2009 2:12 PM


Robert, do you favor going into low-income neighborhoods and killing children from poor families, or not?

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 5, 2009 3:37 PM


Not at all. My point is that many of the fetuses who have been aborted in our time would have had an infinitely worse fate if they HAD been born. Being born can often be infinitely worse than being aborted.
We already have more than enough poor children in America who are growing up in very bad circumstances, surrounded by poverty, crime, drugs, violence, etc who are not getting a decent education. It;s more important to try to make a better life for THEM than to do futile protests about abortion . It's not going to help America to
bring a lot more children into the world into these deplorable circumstances.
Anti-choicers like to try to shock people into opposing a woman's right to choose an abortion by showing them ghastly pictures of aborted fetuses.
But to me, seeing pictures of children growing up in poverty, unable to get decent food ,housing ,
education and medical care is far more pitiful.
At least those aborted fetuses aren't suffering.

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 5, 2009 3:50 PM


Since you didn't answer me on the last thread, and are spouting off the same nonsense here that you did there, I'll just start copy/pasting to you.

Oh, and on the comment about how poor people are doomed to a life of poverty and malnutrition...to that all I can say is that you have OBVIOUSLY NEVER been poor, and us grungy poor people can accomplish quite a lot with our lives if we work hard. Just because everything is not handed to us doesn't mean our lives are not worth living, you pretentious jerk.

What I said last time:

"No, I didn't mean to say that we should kill poor people because they live in such deplorable conditions. What I meant is that while abortio may be an unpleasant thing to happen, it's not nearly as bad as actually being born into poverty.

Wow...just...WHAT A POMPOUS, PRESUMPTUOUS ASS YOU ARE! My family has never been well-off, but at the height of my parents' procreation, we were pretty damned poor. Now, I am not particularly proud of that, but jerks like you make me want to shout it from the rooftops, because I'd much rather be poor and have some scruples than be a empathy-devoid sphincter constantly burping gas about how bad poor people have it, so maybe we should just give them a go at killing themselves, or their brothers, or their sisters, or their children, because certainly if they don't live MY charmed life, it couldn't possibly be worth it, right? THESE POOR PEOPLE YOU TALK ABOUT ABORTING ARE OTHER PEOPLES' FAMILY MEMBERS, YOU FRICKING DOUCHEBAG! Our circumstances might not have been optimal, there were a couple holidays we wouldn't have had dinner for without people leaving boxes of food on our doorstep, but I and any one of my 5 living brothers and sisters will tell you that we'd rather be alive and have each other than anything my parents would've been better able to provide had they opted for an abortion, no matter what our circumstances ended up being.

"It's just that trying to stop abortion by making it illegal is absolutely futile, and that doing this only makes a bad situation far worse."

Your blathering doesn't change the very simple facts. 80% of women getting abortions would just have the baby if it were illegal to abort. Being alive is better than being dead. YES, ROBERT, EVEN IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE ICKY POOR PEOPLE. WE LIKE TO LIVE JUST LIKE YOU DO. If what you said was true, rich people would never commit suicide, and they do all of the time.

"And it's ridiculous to compare abprtion to rape,and to make it sound that I think that just because rape happens, we should make it legal,or murder. But abortion is NOT murder.It's an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice which some women have to make at times."

What about the baby's sacrifice!?!?!!! My god, you are an insane person. Rape is an infringement on another's basic human rights. Abortion is another infringement on another's basic human rights (specifically, the right to live). It is not necessary. Homeless, poor, unemployed, single women have babies all of the time, and sometimes they give their babies up for adoption (THAT would be the sacrifice of motherhood on the part of the mother, with no sacrifice on anyone else's part), and sometimes they are able to get help and jobs and education and start a successful family. ABORTION IS NOT A NECESSITY. LIARS LIKE YOU TELL WOMEN (AND MEN) ABORTION IS NECESSARY AND A BABY WILL RUIN THEIR LIVES. That scares them. They abort. You perpetuate the problem.

"Also, abortion is NOT torture. It isn't even painful for a fetus in the first trimester, because its nervous system has not even developed enough for it to feel any pain,and the vast majority of abortions are not late ones."

More lies. They don't know HOW fetal-stage neural connections work. As a matter of fact, there are some who hypothesize that since the connections are immature, painful stimuli is MORE painful for an under-developed body. You ASSUME this is the case because it makes YOU feel better.

"All you anti-choicers arguments against abortion are false. None of them holds the slightest water. Your arguments are entirely circular. You advocate the impossible"

No, I'm pretty sure I just pointed out where YOU are wrong, Mr. Berger.Although you might be sufficiently delusional to think you've won some grand argument, I suppose...

"...a world in which every pregnancy results in a birth..."

Every pregnancy DOES result in a birth, Mr. Berger. Sometimes a live birth, sometimes not.

"...pregnant women give birth to children even if they are deserately poor..."

Yeah, that sucks at first, but if you buckle down, you get through it. It's this thing we call "life", Mr. Berger, and you might want to investigate it a little more in-depth before you go around saying who is entitled to it and who is not.

"...where the government does nothing to help poor pregnant women because "charities can and should provide for children".'

I just think charities could do a better job. If they're unable to handle the load, then government could intercede much as they do now through WIC/food stamps/etc., but it doesn't mean I still don't think government could and should do less and private entities made specifically for these problems could and should do more. It would probably even be a gradual phase-out of government programs to private programs complete with incentives and education providers to not only help the poor while they need it, but get them to a place where they can help themselves. You're just not looking for better answers because you seem to like the ones you have, even though they're obviously not working. Why is that, Mr. Berger?

"And where married couples all have huge families whether or not they have the means to provide for them..."

I have 2 kids. That's all I'm planning on producing myself. We don't have much right now, and having more than two kids to support would make it very difficult for my husband to attend school. There's no problem with this for me.

"...no one uses contraception.

I have my tubes tied. It doesn't get much more contraceptive than that.

"You are also opposed to divorce,"

Not if it's direly needed...some families would probably benefit from divorce, others use it as an easy out and everyone suffers.

"homosexuality"

Not me. And certainly not at least a few others here. You're unfairly generalizing, Robert.

"pornography"

Not really. I don't like it myself, personally, but if some adults want to be exhibitionists for other adults, and other adults want to watch it, as long as they're not hurting anyone, go for it.

"I'm sorry, but you have totally unrealistic goals and expectations. You're trying to stop the tide at the beach with teaspoons."

You do realize that there was a point in our nation's history before Roe VS. Wade, right? You can't say it can never be done, because that was the DEFAULT POSITION!!


And my question to you was, "What has happened to you, personally, in your life or a loved one's, to make you support abortion as you do?"

Posted by: xalisae at September 5, 2009 3:51 PM


Can someone please take my comment out of moderation? I got a new blog, and the comment posting doesn't seem to like it very much.

Posted by: xalisae at September 5, 2009 3:52 PM


Mr. Berger,

You got it part right.

Helms opposed the 'federal government 'taking' the peoples hard earned money and then spending it on things that are not constitutionally justified.

The 'Jesus on the cross in the jar of urine' art exhibition funded by federal tax dollars from the NEA irritated a lot of people, not all of whom were christian.


From Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitition:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

[This is the only place 'art' is mentioned in the document and from the context one could make a reasoned argument it is referring to innovations in 'technology' not sculpting or painting.]

This provision was to protect the proprietary rights of inventors to their property. Not to fund 'art' or 'artists' with federal tax dollars.

Helms argument against the NEA was that there was no constitutional justication for the expendure of federal funds to support 'art'. That was his consistent approach to governance for all his years in public office.

That fundamental objection to the ever growing expansion of the federal government earned him the nickname Senator 'NO', a lable he proudly accetped and wore.

I will not offer any comment of Helm's racial attitudes because I do not know what they were. But I will say that bigotry, whatever form it takes is not an affliction that is peculiar to any religion, ethnicity, gender, political party or nationality.

Helms was not a bigot when it came to the humanity of prenatal humans, no matter what their gender or ethnicity. His stance was consistent and unchanging.

Kennedy on the other hand, was not only a bigot in that regard, he exchanged the truth for the lie to feather his own political nest because he knew he would never receive the Democrat nomination for president if he was pro-life.

As for your 'blog' getting some appreciation:
When you stop 'cutting and pasting from the leftist playbook and give us your own perspective in your own words then we can give you and your ideas some respect even if we profoundly disagree.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at September 5, 2009 3:56 PM


Well, how benevolent of you, Mr. Berger, to pass judgment on those who YOU deem to be "suffering" and saying they'd be better off dead. They might beg to differ with you, but why don't you go up to them or their parents and tell them just how you think? Maybe you should ASK them if they are suffering, and if so, how much, and wouldn't they just prefer being dead, or never born?

I DARE YOU.

Louis Armstrong was born to a poor family. Would he have been better off dead?

Posted by: xalisae at September 5, 2009 3:57 PM


Life begins at BIRTH, not before.

Robert, that is a religious belief, and it's not one that is founded by Science.

If you believe it is Scientific, I challenge you to provide me with some evidence for this claim.

When a child is kicking in the womb, please explain to me how it does this without being alive?

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2009 4:47 PM


Why hasn't Robert Berger ever yet answered whether he himself has ever been poor?

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2009 5:24 PM


Robert, if you haven't ever been poor, how can you possibly know what it's actually like to be poor? If you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and don't think that you could live without money, that is fine - but why do you feel the need to project those feelings onto others? Isn't that "imposing your morality" onto another group of people, the same thing that you arrogantly accuse pro-lifers of doing? Just because you feel that life wouldnt be worth living poor does NOT mean that everyone else feels that way. In fact, I would rather be dirt poor, living in out of a box or my car, but have love... than to have the kind of attitude that says others aren't worth as much as I am.

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2009 5:49 PM


Oh yeah...and I wonder if one of the hardest parts about being poor is knowing that people like Robert Berger are looking at you as if you are worthless?

Posted by: Bethany at September 5, 2009 5:51 PM


Robert Berger: "Not at all. My point is that many of the fetuses who have been aborted in our time would have had an infinitely worse fate if they HAD been born. Being born can often be infinitely worse than being aborted."

Well, now that they're born, why not kill them to spare them their lives of hunger and poverty? Because there's zero difference between that and aborting them to spare them their lives of hunger and poverty.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 5, 2009 6:00 PM


Bethany @ 5:51,

How horrible to be made to feel worthless, less than human.

It's OK for pro-aborts to call an unborn child worthless and less than human because they can't speak up for themselves.

I'm with you. I'd much rather be dirt poor than rich without love.

******

Robert,
You have no idea what pro-lifers do in their private lives for the poor and using the plight of the poor as your excuse to justify abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by: Janet at September 5, 2009 6:02 PM


"Anti-choicers like to try to shock people into opposing a woman's right to choose an abortion by showing them ghastly pictures of aborted fetuses."

What's "ghastly" about them? This is what you support, right? Just look at the posters of aborted fetuses as advertisements.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 5, 2009 6:03 PM


What bothers me is people who use their religions as an excuse to impose their social agenda on other people and society in general.
Posted by: Robert Berger at September 5, 2009 2:12 PM

By advocating abortion of the impoverished, you are supporting a social agenda, aren't you? How is it that a Christian agenda that values every life during all phases of life is an "excuse" but your agenda encouraging the live dismemberment of the unborn due to poverty isn't an "excuse" for some type of agenda? I don't think you're against agendas per se, Robert. I think you're against any agenda that limits the power and control that elitists like to claim for themselves.

It;s more important to try to make a better life for THEM than to do futile protests about abortion

If abortion protests are futile, why spend your time here debating protesters of a futile cause? Most people don't waste time opposing something if they really think the cause is doomed to fail anyway.

Posted by: Fed Up at September 5, 2009 6:39 PM


Robert Berger, may I make a recommendation to you?

Since no matter what is said, you doubt that those without financial security are happy (and all of the things related that you keep spouting over and over again), I suggest that you watch "10 Questions for the Dalai Lama."

Please watch it. It's incredible and it makes one think of the good in the world, which is exactly what being pro-life is all about. The movie's not about abortion; but it is pro-life in that it celebrates all people of all cultures and the peace that we need to find in ourselves and the importance of just sitting back and breathing in, and saying, "Wow, I'm alive; we're all alive. We need to share this gift of life with others and respect all people."

It also disproves the (very spoiled American) notion that you cannot NOT have a Lexus and still be okay.

"10 Questions for the Dalai Lama." Check it out.

Posted by: Vannah at September 5, 2009 11:57 PM


Also, as someone whose education focused mostly on the piano and cello, I like occasionally reading about things from a horn-centric perspective. :)

too funny!

Thanks for the link Alexandra. Also investigated some of Glass' compositions. Not tooo too keen on them at this point.

Robert:Life begins at BIRTH, not before.

Bethany: Robert, that is a religious belief, and it's not one that is founded by Science.

actually this is an opinion.
It is a scientific fact whether Robert agrees or not. And it is provable by observation and by reasoning.
Those who hold that life begins at birth do so for reasons of convenience.
It's convenient to deny the life of an unborn child because then one doesn't have to worry about the morality of contraception and abortion when pursuing a promiscuous lifestyle.;)

Posted by: angel at September 6, 2009 9:40 AM


If abortion protests are futile, why spend your time here debating protesters of a futile cause? Most people don't waste time opposing something if they really think the cause is doomed to fail anyway.

Posted by: Fed Up at September 5, 2009 6:39 PM

Oh, come on. It's a laugh riot around here.

Posted by: Hal at September 6, 2009 3:49 PM


No, I've never been poor, or wealthy either.
You guys still think that I advocate killing poor people, which is ridiculous. I never said any such thing.
All I meant is that bringing children into a world of poverty is a terrible thing. It's just a self-perpetuating vicious cycle.
Yes, not all women who have abortions are poor.
But a very substantial number of abortions ARE for the poor. And remember,the less poverty there is in a country, the fewer abortions there are,and vice-versa.
That's why countries like Germany,the Netherlands, Belgium,Switzerland, Scandinavia etchave such low rates of abortion. The lowest in the world.
And all of the anti-choicers who are furious at the Obama administration for possibly providing abortion in health care are a bunch of hypocrites, because they don't want his administration to provide more help to poor pregnant women . That's"socialism", and we don't want that in America,do we? Unbelievable !
You guys want it both ways ! If you don't want more government subsidies for poor pregnant women, you have absolutely no right to complain about the government providing funds for them to have abortions. Give me a break !!!

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 6, 2009 3:52 PM


"My point is that many of the fetuses who have been aborted in our time would have had an infinitely worse fate if they HAD been born. Being born can often be infinitely worse than being aborted.
We already have more than enough poor children in America who are growing up in very bad circumstances, surrounded by poverty, crime, drugs, violence, etc who are not getting a decent education. It;s more important to try to make a better life for THEM than to do futile protests about abortion . It's not going to help America to
bring a lot more children into the world into these deplorable circumstances."

How about a compromise? Since quality of life is entirely dependent on the individual and their evolving circumstances, why not wait until the child is about 5 and then do an assesment based on your standards to determine who's lives are worse than being aborted? All 5 year olds will be evaluated based on their parents' average income, school progress reports, their behavior, their access to medical care, exposure to violence and drug use, etc. Also, since population control is a factor according to you, we'll have a limit for how many 5 year olds there can be at a given time. All the ones who fall below your standards will be given a mandatory, painless lethal injection in their sleep. Sounds completely unethical and ridiculous, right? But if you support killing certain humans based on their potential hardships, wouldn't it make more sense to kill them based on their ACTUAL hardships? (And please consult an embryology textbook if you're thinking about claiming that the unborn are not human or alive.)

"Anti-choicers like to try to shock people into opposing a woman's right to choose an abortion by showing them ghastly pictures of aborted fetuses."

You said these pictures are ghastly and have the potential to shock. Are anti-choicers the ones who make these pictures ghastly and shocking, or is it the abortion procedure itself? And if these pictures are real, then it is merely truthful evidence and the response is up to the viewer. If you have a problem with "ghastly" abortion pictures, you should probably take that up with those who support the legality of abortion (yourself) and not those who are holding the pictures.

"But to me, seeing pictures of children growing up in poverty, unable to get decent food, housing, education and medical care is far more pitiful."

Pictures of disadvantaged children are indeed pitiful. Others have asked this question, but I'd like an answer, too: What can pro-life people SPECIFICALLY do that they aren't already doing to help?

"At least those aborted fetuses aren't suffering."

They aren't suffering anymore because they were killed. That's a pretty cruel luxury only the living can enjoy, to proport that the dead (in this case, murdered) are better off that way. What a truly gross thing to say.

Posted by: Janette at September 6, 2009 4:23 PM


Why is it terrible to live in a world of poverty, Robert? And how do you define "poor"?

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2009 4:25 PM


You guys still think that I advocate killing poor people, which is ridiculous. I never said any such thing.

You do support killing people, Robert. That's what this discussion is all about.
You just don't realize it.

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2009 4:26 PM


"If you don't want more government subsidies for poor pregnant women, you have absolutely no right to complain about the government providing funds for them to have abortions."

All right. If the government enacts a plan you consider suitable for poor pregnant women, I assume then you will join us in making abortion illegal?

Posted by: Janette at September 6, 2009 4:27 PM


I notice Robert picks and chooses the comments he will respond to. There are so many that he just ignores and pretends didn't happen. I think those questions should be asked over and over and over until he answers them. He finally did answer whether he had ever been poor. He hasn't, which explains why he can't understand that being poor isn't always a horrible thing. And it isn't necessarily a permanent thing either!

Posted by: Bethany at September 6, 2009 4:28 PM


Actually, Robert, as far as I'm aware, Poland and Nicaragua have pretty low rates of abortion because it is no longer legal.

But hey, if you believe that life begins at birth in the face of overwhelming unequivocal scientific evidence that it actually begins at conception then I've no doubt that your ability to discuss anything else will be somewhat skewed.

Posted by: Stephan at September 6, 2009 4:28 PM


Also, Robert, I love how we MUST support the government plans that YOU support, or else we have no right to complain. There are many different ideas about how to effectively address health care and many concerns about the current health care bill. You completely ignore this to support your narrative that we're selfish people who hate the poor. Open your mind.

Posted by: Janette at September 6, 2009 4:34 PM


Again, Robert Berger: watch someone who is poor. You just have to listen. This isn't about our spoiled American way of life. You have to understand that there is more to life than what you think about being a happy life. Trust me. There's more to it.

Posted by: Vannah at September 6, 2009 6:14 PM


RB: "You guys still think that I advocate killing poor people, which is ridiculous. I never said any such thing."

Of course you did. You support killing unborn children within poor families to "keep them from coming into the world," perhaps not realizing that unborn children are already alive, already "here," already human beings, and already "in this world." It's not like they're orbiting Neptune until Mommy's water breaks.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 7, 2009 12:29 AM


Posted by: Hal at September 6, 2009 3:49 PM


"Oh, come on. It's a laugh riot around here."

-------------------------------------------------------
HAL,

Thanks for the encouragement.

Nice to know I am appreciated.

I will keep making my attempts at humor.

I have confidence that sooner or later liberal humanists will rediscvoer their sense of humor.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at September 7, 2009 11:10 AM


Posted by: Robert Berger at September 6, 2009 3:52 PM

You guys still think that I advocate killing poor people, which is ridiculous.

I never said any such thing.

All I meant is that bringing children into a world of poverty is a terrible thing.

It's just a self-perpetuating vicious cycle.

Yes, not all women who have abortions are poor.

But a very substantial number of abortions ARE for the poor.

And remember,the less poverty there is in a country, the fewer abortions there are,and vice-versa.

---------------------------------------------------
mr/mrs/ms berger,

This may be a difficult concept for you to comprehend, but relax, take a few cleansing breaths and let go of your 'humanist dogma' for just a minute.

'poor' is an economic condition and is a relative subjective evaluation.

'poverty' is a spiritual condition that usually but not alway includes lack of material possessions.

Some of the 'poorest' people I have ever met, in third world nations and communist countries have been some of the happiest people I have ever encountered. They learned find 'contentment' in their situation, but they were not satisfied to remain that way. They were planning and working to better not only their standard of living but also that of their loved ones, particuarly their children.

Poverty is the absence of hope and the ever present companion of despair.

I have never met a person living in 'poverty' who is 'content' or happy. They have resigned themselves to what they wrongly perceive and believe to be their irreversable 'fate'. They have taken upon themselves the identity of a helpless victim.

The first step to alleviating poverty is to offer people hope, not a dead baby.

mr/mrs/ms berger, your 'solutions' to both being poor and being in poverty is to eliminate poor people and people in poverty.

Climb up and down your own 'logic tree' and discover the both the root and the fruit is DEATH.

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at September 7, 2009 11:33 AM


Hey Ken! You accused me of being transgendered before, and I thought it was just a jab at my name, but now you are accusing Robert of being "gender challenged." What's with that?

You don't have to elaborate if you don't want to, but I have to admit, my curiosity is piqued.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 7, 2009 12:00 PM


There are women who are so accustomed to constant abuse, that a guy who seems to concentrate that activity to the times when he is roaring drunk, seems to be "gentle".
Ted Kennedy was known to be a serial abuser of women, and is known to have caused the death (after preventing the rescue) of at least one woman.

This is in addition to Ted's support of the mass killings by abortion.

The U.S. Catholic church is running off adherents to other churches or no church at all, in massive numbers, by cynically sticking with pro-abortion politicians in order to obtain some of the social programs which the Bishops favor.

My contention is that U.S. Catholics need not exchange their belief system. However they might see fit to move their financial resources and efforts to assist those churches (regardless of denomination) which are currently adhering to Catholic teaching, better than the U.S. bishops. Or perhaps specifically target their aid to the remaining adherent Catholic organizations.

Posted by: Pharmer at September 7, 2009 1:29 PM


There is a reaping and a sowing and now is the time for Mr. Murder to face justice. His heinous advocating for snuffing out life is incomprehensible.

Posted by: George at September 7, 2009 2:15 PM


Oh, come on. It's a laugh riot around here.
Posted by: Hal at September 6, 2009 3:49 PM
***********************

Does that include the photos of aborted fetuses?

Laugh it up, Hal. It proves your callous disregard for human life. You know, that human life that kicks in utero, only isn't "alive" according to Robert Berger?

Seriously though, the disconnect is astounding.

Posted by: Kel at September 7, 2009 3:00 PM