How well do you know the candidates?
NARAL has put together a fun little quiz on the pro-life/pro-abortion position of the major presidential candidates:
I scored 8 out of 9, or 89% (missed #4).
How well do you know their positions? I hope I’m not giving away any answers when noting this test underscores why the Democrat Party is known as the Party of Death.
Oct.12, 2007 11:44 am |
Industry watch |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I missed #9. I assumed that more Democrats and possibly Rudy would have declared themselve pro-choice to NARAL.
I made 2 stupid mistakes. I knew the answers. Aww, man.
I can’t get to the quiz.
Today marks Day 17 of the 40 days of harassment and thanks to you clients are still getting the health care and information they need to live and love the way that?s best for them. Thank you to our escorts, who greet clients walking from the parking lots to the front doors of Planned Parenthood, making that short walk rather uneventful.
This week was another without incident, except for some loud personal attacks and large graphic displays during a visit from the ?Survivors Campus Tour.? Based out of California , these zealots have a history of arrests and explosive rants against birth control, abortion and Planned Parenthood. These young fanatics were blatantly confrontational and hostile towards volunteers and those seeking health services at our health center. Not surprisingly, the Survivors were openly welcomed and applauded for their work by Houston Coalition for Life, saying in an email to supporters ?It is wonderful to see young adults so in love with our Lord and willing to put a halt on their own lives to spread the Good News and the truth about abortion.?
Despite this obnoxious behavior, our clients walked past large graphic poster boards (such as the ones pictured above) and were not deterred.
We stand firm in our belief that women seeking health care should not be subject to this behavior to access medical services, education, or information.
And we?re not alone! We continue to add bright pink ribbons to the outside of our health centers (read a story about Lufkin ?s ribbons – pictured right) to signify the donations made by hundreds across our service area. Donate Now.
Thanks to all of you who have already donated or volunteered your time! We?ve got 23 more days to go and are still recruiting superheroes! You can be a part of helping women and men across Houston and southeast Texas continue to get health care and information without harassment! It’s not too late to volunteer.
Join the Planned Parenthood superhero community!
17 days down, 23 to go. Still no match for 71 years of service.
Click here to view this message as HTML in your browser.
Click here to forward this message.
PP sent me this today. I’m on their e-mailing list.
I really just do not understand their new superhero marketing strategy.
Most women of childbearing age – their demographic, right? – are not motivated by the notion of being a superhero.
And, don’t superheros save lives and want justice for all?
I think it’s a big marketing mistake, but at least it’s not Blythe Danner and daughter urging me to celebrate Mother’s Day with chocolate birth control.
Milehi, tacky, huh?
Milehi, I had never even heard of the Blythe Danner thing…that IS tacky. I think it’s ridiculous to URGE anyone to take birth control…that’s a personal decision, and ads like that are just crude. :)
I missed question 4 because I have no idea who Duncan Hunter is.
“I missed question 4 because I have no idea who Duncan Hunter is.”
you should get to know him and vote for him.
Googled him, and since I have no desire to ever breath pure carbon dioxide, I think I’ll pass on voting for him.
“..the short walk uneventful”…? Uneventful for PPs bank account, but hardly uneventful for the mother and her child. A walk into a death camp may be described as “uneventful” by the killers, but never by their victims…NEVER. In addition to the babies tortured to death, ask the survivors of the ladies listed on Life Dynamics’ Blackmun Wall about their “uneventful” treks into their ‘safe & legal’ abortion mills…
And the proabort “superhero” hypocrites would definitely not consider an unhindered attack on their lives “uneventful”…Murdering, lying scum.
“Live and love”…how about LOVE and LET LIVE? It’s what real love does naturally, protect life, not take it. When PP lies, they speak their native tongue. When they tell the truth, it’s usually co-opted in the service of some lie.
Women seeking healthcare should not be subjected to induced abortion, or to the misinformation, coercion, and manipulation of the profiteers marketing it. And we have witnessed women being harassed by PP workers…but murderers don’t like witnesses, that’s why they want to enslave everyone who disagrees with them, and take away our rights to free speech, assembly,etc. SCUM.
Mary,
Has Doug presented evidence yet of Nathanson’s fraudulence or disproving your first hand experience with pro-choice propaganda circa 1973?
Let me be precise, Mary:
Has he proven you are “choosing to remember in faulty and illogical ways”?
Hello Carder,
How lucky for me I happen to browse this thread and see your posts. Its nice to hear from you.
In a word, no to both your posts. My memory of that era is very precise, just like my memory of the civil rights struggle, just like my mother’s memories of the Great Depression and WW2. When one lives historical events, one remembers well.
My long term memory is very precise. For example, I can tell you the year and month a song came out 40 years ago, but I would have to wrack my brain to tell you what I did yesterday. People can disagree with me, argue, or call my memory faulty and selective, but I well remember the era like it was yesterday, I lived in the midst of it, especially on a college campus, and I know what the mentality was and how this was exploited by abortion advocates. I well remember the blatant bigotry against Catholics. Dr. Nathanson explained the origins of it. If some choose not to believe me, fine. It doesn’t change the facts.
I remember that when he wrote the book “Aborting America”, Nathanson was not particularly well liked by either side of the abortion issue, but this was a man who never concerned himself with people liking him. This is why I do not in any way discount him or what he says. This wasn’t a man trying to score points with anyone and was equally critical of both sides at the time he wrote his book. This was him and his history, take him or leave him. If anyone can prove this man a liar or a fraud, I’m willing to hear them out.
Its like when you want to know the inner workings of a criminal organization. You don’t ask the residents of the nearest convent, you instead listen to or read what some despicable person has to say.
Love him or hate him, Nathanson exposed the inner workings of the abortion establishment.
Mary, I agree! I’m glad that Nathanson converted before it was too late.
If the democratic party is the party of death, then the republican party is the party of hate and intolerance.
I have an idea: stop hating so much, start loving. Quit pointing the finger and realize that no one is perfect and deal with it.
Womyn,
Before you call the Republican Party the party of intolerance and hate, do some research.
You will find it was the Republican Party who fought for the rights of freed blacks after the Civil War, and continued to struggle against the Democrat Party for black equality throughout out country’s history.
One example. The Ku Klux Klan was founded as the terrorist arm of Southern Democrats.
By the way, I’m an Independent. I vote strictly for the candidate.
I used to be a Republican.
Has he proven you are “choosing to remember in faulty and illogical ways”?
Carder, as to it being a real part of the Pro–Choice platform that legal abortion would “end child abuse,” per se, then what argument would you even have with it in the first place?
As noted many times, it would be as illogical to say that as to say that banning abortion would end child abuse. Yes, there are people with “bumper-sticker” mentality, and yes, many people like over-simplified things, but it is not any real part of the Pro-Choice argument that child abuse would be “stopped” by abortion being legal, now or in the past.
Doug
Doug,
Try to keep your hisory straight. At that time it was the pro-abortion movement, aka the movement for abortion reform. “Pro-choice” didn’t come along until some years later, when abortion was becoming less palatable to the public. This of course was because of the money and power of the Catholic Church, according to one prominent pro-abortion news magazine.
Sorry Doug, but the argument that abortion would end child abuse was in fact promoted by the abortion establishment. Why are you surprised?
These are people who falsified abortion statistics and promoted bigotry to further their cause. What’s a little playing on people’s emotions as well? At that time, child abuse was in fact a very emotionally charged issue and played right into the hands of the abortion reform movement. The late columnist Ann Landers was staunchly pro-abortion and was one such believer and promoter of this fallacy. I remember hearing her on talk shows spewing her venom at pro-lifers and wailing about the “unwanted” children who would be abused.
Of course it was illogical. That’s why pro-life people vehemently argued against this and pointed to studies to prove this argument was a fallacy, as well as the other fallacies concerning illegal abortion death rates and statistics.
Speaking of lies, it was a tad embarassing to the abortion establishment when Norma McCorvey,aka Jane Roe, the alleged victim of a gang rape who’s case before the Supreme Court overturned abortion laws in every state, admitted to Carl Rowan that she had lied about being the victim of a gang rape. I’ve never heard if her lawyers ever admitted they knew she was lying. How about you Doug?
Mary, okay – the movement for legal abortion, then, but semantics won’t get you far here.
Again, it was not really part of the platform that all child abuse would end were abortion made legal. Do you actually have some proof otherwise?
McCorvey, IMO, is a sad and lonely person looking for others to give her money, among other things. She may have been a screwball back in the 1970s – she surely is one now.
Did she even end up having the abortion? I seem to remember somebody saying she did not….
What does being the victim of a gang rape matter, really?
Doug
Doug, Norma McCorvey helped to make abortion legal. She lied. From that day forward, everything that the PC side spews has been a lie. As far as her being a “screw ball,” I wouldn’t say that. Who wouldn’t be mixed up for helping to legalize one of Americas biggest abominations?
heather.
how did Roe lie?
“From that day forward, everything that the PC side spews has been a lie.”
Such as…?
Doug,
The argument about ending child abuse was not at all ambivalent. Once abortion was legal, it would “solve” the problem of child abuse. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that.
Doug and Womyn
McCorvey never had an abortion. She concocted a story about being impregnated by a gang rape, she was in fact pregnant as the result of an affair with a married businessman, not something that was going to inspire a lot of sympathy.
Two female lawyers, one named Sara Weddington, took her case to the Supreme Court and used it to overturn all abortion laws across the country.
McCorvey and her lawyers allowed her story of a gang rape to go on for years until she admitted to Carl Rowan, a columnist who I believe also had a talk show, that she had lied.
To say the least this was a tad embarassing to the PC movement. The gang rape victim served their cause better than an adulterer. I don’t recall anyone asking, or the lawyers ever admitting, if they knew their client had been lying all along, even when they took the case to the Supreme Court.
By the way the TV movie Roe v Wade came out at this time. It flopped.
Norma McCorvey was hardly any candidate for sainthood and never claimed to be. I understand she was emotionally unstable, a drug and alcohol addict, and promiscuous. However, the abortion movement had no qualms about exploiting her and her circumstances to further their cause, and then pretty much treating the little white trash as an outcast after she had served her purpose.
Mary, how true. Also, let’s not forget that once the PC side was done with McCorvey, they chewed her up, and they spit her out.
So now one woman represents the entire pro-choice movement?
Ok, if you want to play it that way, fine.
Then the people who murdered abortion doctors represent the pro-life movement.
One woman’s lies does not meant the whole movement is based on a lie.
Please inform me of other lies that the pro-choice movement has concocted.
I just find this funny that someone who part of the pro-life movement, which is known for its over-exaggeration and lies and lying about pictures of stillborn fetuses and passing them off as aborted, is accusing the pro-choice movement of lying.
Oh and Heather, it is McCorvey that is done with being pro-choice.
What exactly do you mean, we “chewed her up and spit her out”?
Heather: Doug, Norma McCorvey helped to make abortion legal. She lied.
Okay, but so what? There are any number of people who try to lie for the pro-life side. Pro-Choice remains being for the freedom that women have in the matter. Back then, they were for the freedom that women did not have. What McCorvey said isn’t any big deal. She didn’t even have the abortion in the end. Just a sad person, sad to this day.
……
From that day forward, everything that the PC side spews has been a lie.
Lacking any persuasive argument, you go to that kind of silliness.
……
As far as her being a “screw ball,” I wouldn’t say that. Who wouldn’t be mixed up for helping to legalize one of Americas biggest abominations?
It could have been anybody. She’s just a sad case, now trying to get pro-lifers to pay her way.
Doug
Mary: The argument about ending child abuse was not at all ambivalent. Once abortion was legal, it would “solve” the problem of child abuse.
Baloney. You’re just saying that. You really have no proof, don’t you?
Agreed that McCorvey is a sad case, but it’s no big deal to either side of the argument. Women ended up having the freedom in the matter that they do, so what’s the problem? McCorvey tries to get paid by speaking in front of pro-lifers; if there’s a loss there, so be it.
Doug
Doug, I wouldn’t care how much she was paid. Hey, a woman has to earn a living. Womyn, if those pictures of aborted babies are fake, then what on earth would you imagine the “real deal” to look like? I’m sure it isn’t pretty. Were the pictures of the Holocaust fake as well? McCorvey was used as a pawn to further the PC agenda. Once the PC crew had no use for her, they discarded her. I don’t think her conversion was immediate. Actually, I believe it was quite slow.
Womyn and Doug
I didn’t say she represented the PC movement. You asked how Roe lied and I told you. Believe me, it also caught the PC movement by with their pants down and like you and Doug, they had to argue that it just didn’t matter if she did lie! Though it certainly would have served their purposes a lot better if she had kept the lie going.
Other examples of lying? Well, how about distorting statistics. Contrary to what you’ve been told Womyn, women were not dying like flies from illegal abortion and the early abortion movement leaders were well aware of this. They were well aware that the death rate from illegal abortion had been steadily declining for years, that most were performed in doctor’s offices, and that the year before Roe v Wade the death rate from illegal abortion was 39. Dr.Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL, admits the abortion leadership knew these stats would get them nowhere and deliberately inflated them. They had a compliant media to pick up this lie and carry it.
As much as Doug likes sticking his head in the sand, abortion was promoted as a solution to child abuse despite the fact no studies existed to support this. Abortion was promoted as a solution to social problems such as illegitimacy, welfare dependency, divorce, you name it. While I am sure you agree this was claptrap, as PL people vehemently argued back then, the emotional appeal played into the hands of abortion advocates. It certainly made sense didn’t it? Eliminate unwanted children and you eliminate poverty, abuse, welfare, you name it.
By the way I am older than Doug and was in college when the abortion movement was really gathering steam. I remember only too well the strong pro abortion mentality promoted on college campuses and in the media. Believe me Womyn, people wanted to and did sincerely believe abortion would solve so many problems and abortion advocates and their allies in the media played it for all they could.
Oh, let’s not forget the promotion of bigotry. Nathanson stated that the Catholic hierarchy was picked as a common enemy against which to rally supporters. It wasn’t that Catholics were unique in their opposition to abortion, many faiths opposed it, its just that they had a hierarchy that made a great target. What better way to unify and motivate people than to give them a common enemy? Just ask the klan.
My the way Womyn, the anti-Catholic bigotry was venomous and of course helpfully spewed by a compliant media. Even Nathanson agreed it was stooping pretty low, though he was very pleasantly surprised the Catholic Church was so tolerant of it, not to mention how the public ate it up.
Concerning Norma McCorvey,
Norma McCorvey was a mental and physical wreck before the PA lawyers found her. She was emotionally and mentally unstable, and a drug and alcohol addict. It had nothing to do with her involvement in legalizing abortion. Her tragic life and situation were exploited by PA lawyers to further their goal. I wonder if they even bothered to investigate her claim of gang rape. Perhaps they just had no issue with promoting a lie.
Norma McCorvey continued to support abortion after Roe V Wade, volunteering in clinics and then began desperately seeking some recognition and appreciation for role in legalizing abortion. She got neither. The abortion hierarchy treating her as little more than bothersome white trash.
It wasn’t until long after the legalization of abortion and her acceptance and support by the pro-life movement that her life turned around for the better.
Heather you’re correct. Her conversion, like that of Dr. Nathanson’s, was very slow.
By the way, how much money is McCorvey raking in from the pro-life movement? Please, some examples of her luxurious life style.
Mary, the PC crew didn’t need McCorvey any longer. So, they just aborted her. Typical.
Mary, if you ever write a book, let me know. I’ll be your first customer.
Mary: As much as Doug likes sticking his head in the sand, abortion was promoted as a solution to child abuse despite the fact no studies existed to support this.
Baloney. Abortion does prevent much child abuse. The point is that nobody promised that ALL abuse would be ended by having abortion be legal.
Doug
Doug,
Please make up your mind. You argue that abortion advocates didn’t argue that abortion would solve the problem of child abuse when in fact I distinctly remember they did. There was no ambiguity. “Stop child abuse, support abortion reform”. period. We didn’t hear some, kind of, or most of. It was one great emotional ploy and abortion advocates played it for all it was worth. Good grief Doug, these are people who falsified statistics and promoted bigotry, why is an emotional ploy like this so unthinkable? It was made to order. The emotionally charged issue of child abuse played right into their hands.
Then you say that abortion does prevent much child abuse, which is supporting your predecessors who made this argument, which you said is an argument they never made.
Oh, and please some studies supporting your claim that abortion does prevent much child abuse, which by the way should be virtually non-existent by now. I mean we have had 34 years of legal abortion.
Doug, just swallow your bile and admit I know what I’m talking about.
Bethany,
Thank you. I appreciate that. If I were to write about my life and experiences, I just think you’d be amazed that I didn’t bore myself to death years ago.
I just happened to have lived through this era and very distinctly remember it, as I do the Civil Rights and Vietnam War eras. If I may toot my own horn, I do have an incredible long term memory. toot toot.
heather-
“Womyn, if those pictures of aborted babies are fake, then what on earth would you imagine the “real deal” to look like?”
In the first trimester, they dont look like anything, except for a lot of blood and some tissue. I know someone who worked (I think it was a PP where they performed abortions) and she witnessed several abortions, and thats how she described them.
“Were the pictures of the Holocaust fake as well?”
Um, I never claimed that nor did I ever mention the Holocaust. Irrevelant. Dismissed.
“McCorvey was used as a pawn to further the PC agenda. Once the PC crew had no use for her, they discarded her. I don’t think her conversion was immediate. Actually, I believe it was quite slow.”
So you’re saying she was forced to go to trial? How exactly was she a pawn to the PC movement, and how exactly did the PCers discard her?
Mary-
“You asked how Roe lied and I told you”
Not really, I asked how the pro-choice movement has been lying.
And the rest of your post is fine and dandy, but it means nothing if you don’t have hard evidence to back it up.
Womyn,
In your 4:35am 10/14 post to Heather you asked how Roe lied. I told you.
I gave you an example of falsifying statistics and promoting bigotry, which can certainly qualify as a lie. Promoting abortion as a solution to social problems was an emotional ploy with no foundation other than wishful thinking, largely on the part of the public. I personally remember that one. Abortion advocates could be quite imaginative. Did you know abortion was even necessary to save marriages? You couldn’t hear a debate on abortion without an abortion advocate wailing about poor women and abused children. That’s all you heard in the media.
Nothing to back up what I say? I made several references to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL and a leader in the movement to legalize abortion in this country. A man who would certainly know what went on behind the scenes.
Norma McCorvey didn’t go to trial. She remained anonymous. Her lawyers used her case in an effort to overturn abortion laws. She was pregnant and couldn’t obtain an abortion because of Texas law. I don’t know when the story of the gang rape appeared and I have no idea if her lawyers knew, or even cared, if it was true.
Um, that whole post means nothing until you can back it up with claims from sources that prove what you are saying is correct. So until you can do that, dont bother replying to me.
Womyn,
I told you, Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Read his book “Aborting America”. That’s where I got my info. Being he was a leader in the movement to legalize abortion in this country, a co-founder of NARAL, an abortionist, and the director of one of the largest abortion clinics in the country, I would say he’s a man who can speak with a great deal of knowledge as to the inner workings of the abortion movement.
Quite honestly Womyn, I think the only issue here is I’m telling you what you would prefer not to believe.
Sorry, not good enough. I’m not going to waste my time or money on reading a book about abortion. I’m not that fanatical about it.
It’s not Mary’s fault you refuse to look at the evidence, Womyn.
Womyn,
Suit yourself. I can only give you the source, and only you can decide whether or not you choose to check it out or believe it.
Please make up your mind. You argue that abortion advocates didn’t argue that abortion would solve the problem of child abuse when in fact I distinctly remember they did. There was no ambiguity. “Stop child abuse, support abortion reform”. period. We didn’t hear some, kind of, or most of. It was one great emotional ploy and abortion advocates played it for all it was worth. Good grief Doug, these are people who falsified statistics and promoted bigotry, why is an emotional ploy like this so unthinkable? It was made to order. The emotionally charged issue of child abuse played right into their hands.
Mary, again, all that’s there is your claims. What proof do you have? I think that all you have is your selective (to say the least) memory.
Also, even if a given individual or some people did use that phrase, or printed it on a bumper-sticker, in no way does that mean it was actually part of the “platform” of those who supported legal abortion. Obviously, legal abortion was not going to mean there would be zero kids, and that’s the only way to really rule out child abuse. Likewise, we sometimes hear rather outrageous claims from some pro-lifers about how legal abortion means the downfall of civilization, etc., (to paraphrase), and that doesn’t mean that pro-life is somehow “wrong” just because that’s an exaggeration.
So, was it really promised that legal abortion would end all child abuse? Of course not.
……
Then you say that abortion does prevent much child abuse, which is supporting your predecessors who made this argument, which you said is an argument they never made.
Oh, and please some studies supporting your claim that abortion does prevent much child abuse, which by the way should be virtually non-existent by now. I mean we have had 34 years of legal abortion.
Wrong. There is no “should be virtually non-existent” because there are many kids, and obviously some of them will be abused. That is true regardless of the legality of abortion.
It’s only common sense to see that abortion prevents much child abuse. If the “predecessors” noted that, it should be no surprise. The only way it would not be true is if among all the kids that would have resulted from there being no legal abortion, there would not have been “much abuse.” We are talking many millions of children here, so it’s obvious that within that group there would have been “much abuse.” If 5% pf 46 million, for example, were abused, then that’d be 2,300,000, and surely that’s “many” or “much.”
……
Doug, just swallow your bile and admit I know what I’m talking about.
The only bile here is your grouchiness about abortion affecting your perceptions.
Doug
Doug.
My perceptions are just fine Doug, and under the circumstances, I think I’m quite pleasant. Also my memory is hardly selective. This was the 1960’s and early 1970’s Doug. We heard there were too many people, too few resources, abused and unwanted children, poverty, and we were all doomed by overpopulation. People were looking for answers, and abortion seemed like the solution to every problem.
Yes Doug, the abortion movement played up child abuse for all it was worth and promoted abortion as a solution to this very emotionally charged subject. Just as they promoted abortion for “the poor”. Oh, prominent Detroit broadcaster Lou Gordon was a great proponent of legal abortion “so that the poor can take advantage of it”. Oh, and of course it was because of “Catholics” that anyone opposed abortion. The public swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. They wanted to believe it.
Doug, as I said before, these are people who falsified statistics and promoted bigotry. Just why on earth do you think they would have any moral qualms about playing on people’s emotions?
Child abuse was made to order. People sincerely believed abortion would solve this problem, as well as poverty, and “overpopulation”. We were bombarded with this propaganda. I even wrote high school and college papers on “overpopulation” and our imminent doom. I actually found much of this pro abortion propaganda very appealling at one time. What a great solution. It certainly made a lot of sense. Abortion advocates, prepared to stop at nothing to promote their agenda, exploited it, just as they singled out the Catholic hierarchy for attack, just as they falsified statistics on illegal abortion deaths for the great emotional appeal that would have.
Yes, its obvious there will always be child abuse. Pro-lifers even presented studies to show that legalized abortion never stopped child abuse, and that legalized abortion in this country wouldn’t stop it. Abortion advocates had emotional appeal on their side and a public desperate for easy answers.
Doug, I am hardly going to have any leftover literature from 40 years ago. I’ve already mentioned that columnist Ann Landers was a great proponent of abortion stopping child abuse. I remember this era and the mentality very well, because for a brief period of time I shared it.