Stanek on Hannity
This afternoon I’ll be discussing Barack Obama’s opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act on Sean Hannity’s radio show at 4:05p EST. You can listen live online.
Last night Hannity announced on the Hannity and Colmes Fox cable news show I would appear on Hannity’s America next Sunday night. Be warned, however, that no concrete plans have been set for the interview.
Hannity made the announcement during a panel discussion on Obama’s opposition to Born Alive. At least 2 panelists were previously unaware, and their response was interesting. Watch through to the end. The abortion/Born Alive issue keeps popping up.
Aug.15, 2008 1:21 pm |
Born Alive, Campaign, Obama |
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.
Congratulations Jill. However, Hannity also allowed air time to a really bigotted anti-Catholic scum- raker (Corsi) so I don’t know if I would agree to appear on his show.
Your sincere desire to get this story into the mainstream should not overshadow your basic morals and integrity. You risk being lumped into a very disreputable crowd.
Hal, wasn
Hal, wasn
Hal, I’ve noticed your tenor change over the past several weeks into more of the vicious baiter and attacker that Laura and Sally are. I’m really sorry they’ve apparently influenced you for the worst.
Jill, I’m listening RIGHT NOW!!! :)
Can’t wait to hear your segment.
*and I adore Sean Hannity* :D
Thank God you will be on Hannity’s show! He’s really bringing this issue into light!
Notice Larry Sabato’s comment that he hadn’t known about this case until Sean had just mentioned it seconds earlier? A mad who teaches at a major University claims that he was not aware of the specifics of the case, then glosses it over by saying, “…public officials can grow…”
Can grow?? The Good Senator voted THREE TIMES against that piece of legislation. Plenty of time to grow, wouldn’t you say?
For those who are bored silly about this topic: As proven by that clip, there are quite a few folks in prestigious places who have never heard about this case and/or don’t know the details. And their reaction as such can be quite revealing. That’s why Jill’s not giving up, it’s for THEM that she beats this stallion silly.
Trust me, she’s not looking to excite the regular customers.
Interesting that you equate Hannity to gossip mongering.
Posted by: Sally at August 15, 2008 1:59 PM
=======================================
Sally, there wasn
Hal,
I sense your frustration become more piqued, but I wouldn’t call it a Laura/Sally effect.
I’m guessing that some nerves have been hit. I appreciate what you bring to the blog. My apologies if I contributed to that.
Hal, I’ve noticed your tenor change over the past several weeks into more of the vicious baiter and attacker that Laura and Sally are. I’m really sorry they’ve apparently influenced you for the worst.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 15, 2008 2:00 PM
Jill, you must also have noticed that the unfounded (and a bit goofy) allegations against Obama have dramatically increased onver the past several weeks.
Can everyone who honest believes Obama likes to kill newborn babies please raise their hands?
crickets.
Okay, If my tone on the abortion debate has changed, I apologize, and try to improve.
Amen, Carder!!
I’m so glad that this issue is being brought up on national television again and again. I’m looking forward to listening to the interview.
More people need to know who Barack Hussein Obama really is!
That was in reply to Carder’s 2:15 post.
Can everyone who honest believes Obama likes to kill newborn babies please raise their hands?
If you had phrased the question, “Can everyone who honestly believes that Obama want to allow babies to die please raise their hands?”, I’d definitely raise mine. No one ever said “Obama kills babies”. Literally killing babies would require him to get his hands dirty.
No, Obama leaves the dirty work to others while he sits back, relaxes, and opposes bills that would help protect those babies.
“wrong and repellant” no wonder I’m getting cranky.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/20471
Conservative Peter Wehner:
Corsi
Can everyone who honest believes Obama likes to kill newborn babies please raise their hands?
crickets.
Posted by: Hal at August 15, 2008 2:24 PM
=======================================
Not all newborn babies, just those whose mothers decided to murder them first.
Obama himself may not kill newborn babies but he is fine with allowing them to die alone. He supports it. If you support Obama you support what he supports.
Sally, there wasn
I wish I had a hot key on my computer to type the following:
oppose a particular bill is NOT the same thing as supporting something that bill was designed to prohibit.
Hal, what if some hospitals in America had racist doctors who were euthanizing Indian patients, just because they were Indian.
And what if, after an investigation took place, it was determined that it wasn’t a problem, legally, because of some vague loophole in the constitution they found.
I’m sure that you would be very angry about this.’
Suppose you were after this, you were behind a bill that would codify the existing law, ensuring that those Indian people would be protected from this this type of treatment.
Would you consider a person who opposed the bill to support or not those racist killings?
Jill’s on right now…
I’m listening!
Listening right now…You are doing a great job…we need to keep getting the word out that Obama is nothing more that a baby killer!!!
Jill, you are doing such a good job on your interview! Thank you so much for the time and effort you put into getting the word out!!!
No one ever said “Obama kills babies”. Literally killing babies would require him to get his hands dirty.
Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 2:39 PM
….Obama is nothing more that a baby killer!!!
Posted by: becky at August 15, 2008 3:18 PM
Can everyone who honest believes Obama likes to kill newborn babies please raise their hands?
If you had phrased the question, “Can everyone who honestly believes that Obama want to allow babies to die please raise their hands?”, I’d definitely raise mine. No one ever said “Obama kills babies”. Literally killing babies would require him to get his hands dirty.
No, Obama leaves the dirty work to others while he sits back, relaxes, and opposes bills that would help protect those babies.
Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 2:39 PM
**************************************
BINGO, Bethany. Setting up the straw man “Obama likes to kill babies” and shooting it down is really reaching.
We all know he didn’t just turn a blind eye to the plight of these children, he looked it square in the face and said, “I don’t care.”
Just finished listening, Jill.
That interview ROCKED. The last part was VERY telling when you mentioned all the pro-abort senators who voted FOR the BAIPA–yet Obama voted against it.
Fabulous. And I think Sean is right…most Americans DON’T know about this issue. Some here on this blog would like to think that this issue won’t make any difference in the campaign, but I disagree.
No one ever said “Obama kills babies”. Literally killing babies would require him to get his hands dirty.
Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 2:39 PM
….Obama is nothing more that a baby killer!!!
Posted by: becky at August 15, 2008 3:18 PM
I figured you were going to say that, Hal. lol but I really doubt that Becky means he literally goes to the hospital and kills the babies personally. Like I said, he sits back and lets others do it for him.
If I hired a hitman to kill someone, I would still technically be a “killer”, wouldn’t I? Even though I didn’t do the dirty work myself, in that kind of situation would I not be just as guilty as the person who did the actual killing?
We all know he didn’t just turn a blind eye to the plight of these children, he looked it square in the face and said, “I don’t care.”
Yes, Kel, EXACTLY.
Question: Can Hannity’s America be watched on the internet – live? I don’t have cable or satellite.
Terrific job, Jill. Thank you for staying in the battle for almost ten years now.
Keep the faith.
Exactly, I didn’t mean that Obama actually kills the babies. He just supports and give doctors the right to kill these innocent children!!!
Hal, I know my hypothetical at 3:10 probably wasn’t the best one I could have done (I’ve been really tired the last couple of days), but I’d really like to hear your opinion on it.
I really doubt that Becky means he literally goes to the hospital and kills the babies personally. Like I said, he sits back and lets others do it for him.”
For him? For him? What possible reason would Obama have for wanting someone to kill these babies for him?
And who are these “others” you are talking about? Why are they killing babies? Do you know how crazy you guys sound on this issue? It’s worse than “Birth Conttrol is murder.”
Would you consider a person who opposed the bill to support or not those racist killings?
Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 3:10 PM
Depends on the reason for opposing the bill.
For him? For him? What possible reason would Obama have for wanting someone to kill these babies for him?
Hal, you’re splitting hairs. You know exactly what I mean.
I’ll reiterate yet again:
Obama doesn’t care about these babies.
Not one iota.
He looked at the evidence of their killings and said that Roe vs Wade (which isn’t even connected to this issue once the baby is born!) is so important to him that he couldn’t possibly be bothered with protecting these born United States citizens.
So he actively chose to oppose a bill that would protect them from dying.
That’s all there is to it.
He doesn’t do the killing himself.
Others do that.
The “others” refers to the doctors and medical staff who knowingly take surviving babies and leave them to die.
But you already knew that.
And who are these “others” you are talking about? Why are they killing babies?
Posted by: Hal at August 15, 2008 3:42 PM
******************************************
Who ARE they, Hal? They are hospitals like the one Jill worked in, they are abortion clinics and bottom of the barrel medical school graduates.
WHY are they killing babies? Because they CAN.
And Obama thinks they should be able to go right ahead and continue.
And I, as one of the “you guys” have to throw in that I do not believe that birth control is murder. Though I respect the fact that many here do.
Hannity? Are you serious? This guy is a hack..first rate hack. He calls his show “Hannity’s America.” I thought it was OUR america…what a loser. What is it with the GOP and parted hair?
Depends on the reason for opposing the bill.
REALLY? A reason could actually exist in your opinion, that could make it acceptable for someone to oppose a bill protecting a doctor from willfully killing an Indian patient soley because the patient is of Indian heritage???
Ugh I can’t take any more of this today. My head is spinning (along with pounding). I have to go clean house and make dinner. Talk to you all soon.
Bethany, you’re right. Hal already knows that. As does every other pro-abort on this site.
They can’t really justify this issue in any way, so they have to tell us we sound “crazy.”
In your world people kill babies simply “because they can.” You have one example (disputed from what I understand) of a baby surviving an abortion attempt and “left to die.” From that one example you want new laws protecting babies if it happens again. Fine. And, you got the law you wanted. Great. But someone who had the audacity to vote against your pet law needs to be pillared and scorned daily? I don’t get that. Do you think President Obama would try to get that law repealed? For what purpose?
“…what Dr. Corsi is doing to be both wrong and repellent. To have their movement and their party associated with such a figure would be a terrible thing…”
Ok, so let’s go with the argument that Corsi has no business doing what he’s doing because it’s just a smear-for-all.
That said, rather than trying to discredit Corsi by going personally after HIM, go to each and every footnote where Corsi documents and go from there. In other words, prove him wrong that what he’s submitted about dear Barack is inaccurate.
I know that the Obama camp has released a 40 page diss, I just haven’t read it yet.
Carder, I took a look at “Unfit for Publication” by the Obama Campaign. It’s nice work.
In your world people kill babies simply “because they can.” You have one example (disputed from what I understand) of a baby surviving an abortion attempt and “left to die.” From that one example you want new laws protecting babies if it happens again. Fine. And, you got the law you wanted. Great. But someone who had the audacity to vote against your pet law needs to be pillared and scorned daily? I don’t get that. Do you think President Obama would try to get that law repealed? For what purpose?
Posted by: Hal at August 15, 2008 3:58 PM
********************************************
Hal, we know that there are botched abortions. Jill mentioned, just on the radio today, that there were at least two other babies that were left to die (or mistakenly placed in the trash) in that soiled utility room. Christ Hospital even designed a ROOM (as in spent $$$, Hal), a ROOM in their hospital for “comfort care” for those babies born alive after botched abortions. Complete with photo equipment, footprint and handprint equipment, baptismal supplies.. You are in denial if you really think this happened ONE time to ONE child.
Congress members who voted for the war are excoriated on a daily basis. Voting records say a lot about points of view and sources of financial support.
Hal, to most of the American people, infanticide is EXTREME. Obama voted to allow infanticide to continue. You don’t think that’s relevant? This goes beyond “my body, my choice.” We’re talking about a seriously frightening view of the value of a BORN human life. If people are mortified by partial birth abortion, why would they not be mortified that babies are born and left to die? I’m even mortified by the fact that these parents don’t WANT their children, but want photo ops and baptisms and memorabilia in the “comfort care” room. Dear God, it’s just twisted and sick.
The fact that abortion is legal means that people will kill babies because they can. And yes, that IS the world I live in.
Hal, correct. “Unfit for Publication” explodes dozens of lies by Corsi, as well as containing an appendix of some of his bigoted statements, and his bizarre claims about 9/11 etc…
On Sunday, Corsi returns to his roots by appearing on a white supremacist radio show called, aptly, the “political cesspool” which touts David Duke and the neo Nazi party.
Before this is over Corsi will be fully exposed, and I predict it ends the credibility of Mary Matalin, who sponsored the smear book on Obama.
In Aspen this afternoon, McCain was asked about Corsi’s book, and his role in promoting smears against Obama, and dodged the question.
I don’t think the question will go away…
McCain’s failure to repudiate the book could very seriously hurt his campaign. His implied endorsement of Corsi, a virulent hater of the Catholic Church, could very seriously undermine his Catholic support. Blacks, Hispanics and Jews are not likely to respond well to Corsi courting white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
Next week could get very interesting for Corsi supporters.
All, thanks for kind words and prayers. I was happy with how the interview went. It was supposed to go 10 but went 25, which showed Sean was engaged. He asked for photos of the Comfort Room, and I sent them. It would be great were he to show them on Hannity & Colmes. I also sent him Obama’s quote on the Comfort Room.
Hal: You risk being lumped into a very disreputable crowd.
Hal, you don’t “risk” being lumped into disreputable crowds yourself. You laud it!
Most of us think that you dost protest too much about Jill’s bringing the darkness into the light. Why?? To enlighten the ignorant is the duty of every free man…esp. in this country.
And, Hal, Dr. Corsi has confessed of his past mistakes and repented…publicly. You should try the same…very freeing. But then again…sin makes you stupid. And “stupid is as stupid does”…sin added to sin…evil to evil…until you buy into the big lie yourself and cheer on the one who pledges to make the great U.S. the most pro-abortion country in the world. What a grand legacy! But there’s always time to “CHANGE” – and wouldn’t it be wonderful if that change for the country headed in the direction of what is morally right! That would get the abortion industrial complex off its back…if we had a leader who wasn’t such a lap dog to the killing industry.
“….Obama is nothing more that a baby killer!!!”
Posted by: becky at August 15, 2008 3:18 PM
“Exactly, I didn’t mean that Obama actually kills the babies.”
Posted by: becky at August 15, 2008 3:39 PM
Sorry if I missed it Becky, but I don’t see where you got around to explaining why you called Obama a “baby killer” if you didn’t mean it. Can we expect an apology for doing so?
Since many on this post claim to be Christians, I continue to be amazed about the seething hatred for Obama, who is a Christian. I do not understand Christ’s teachings to advocate hatred for others.
I don’t plan to vote for McCain, but I don’t seethe with hatred for him and his family, nor do I vilify everything he says and does, nor accuse him of crimes, being the anti-Christ,etc.
I certainly understand why someone who is anti-abortion would choose not to vote for a pro-choice candidate like Obama, but why the extreme, nearly violent hatred for him?
I have my theories, but invite a response from any of the virulent Obama haters, particularly those who claim to be Christians.
Since many on this post claim to be Christians, I continue to be amazed about the seething hatred for Obama, who is a Christian. I do not understand Christ’s teachings to advocate hatred for others.
Bringing his lies and voting record to light is “hatred”, PPC?
Sorry if I missed it Becky, but I don’t see where you got around to explaining why you called Obama a “baby killer” if you didn’t mean it. Can we expect an apology for doing so
Why would she, Ray? She meant what she said. You guys just took it the wrong way and she had to explain it to you in a way you could understand.
Sally, there wasn
I don’t hate Obama.
I won’t be voting for him, and I don’t hate him.
No seething here. No violent hatred either.
“Since many on this post claim to be Christians, I continue to be amazed about the seething hatred for Obama, who is a Christian. I do not understand Christ’s teachings to advocate hatred for others.”
PPC,
I don’t hate Obama, not at all. I do hate his stand on BAIPA and abortion.
I don’t hate Obama either. Have a great weekend everyone.
You too, Hal! :) And Jasper, Charles, Carla, etc!
Sally, please Google the terms
Hal, you’re splitting hairs. You know exactly what I mean.
I’ll reiterate yet again:
Obama doesn’t care about these babies.
Not one iota.
He looked at the evidence of their killings and said that Roe vs Wade (which isn’t even connected to this issue once the baby is born!) is so important to him that he couldn’t possibly be bothered with protecting these born United States citizens.
So he actively chose to oppose a bill that would protect them from dying.
That’s all there is to it.
He doesn’t do the killing himself.
Others do that.
The “others” refers to the doctors and medical staff who knowingly take surviving babies and leave them to die.
But you already knew that.
Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2008 3:49 PM
…………………………..
We have covered this before Bethany. Leave them to die as opposed to exactly what?
Hannity? Are you serious? This guy is a hack..first rate hack. He calls his show “Hannity’s America.” I thought it was OUR america…what a loser. What is it with the GOP and parted hair?
Posted by: PeachPit at August 15, 2008 3:50 PM
………………………………
Parted hair? I hadn’t thought about it. Perhaps it’s a bi-law of the good ole boy club membershiip contract.
More AUDIO/VIDEO on the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act”…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4063222
Mike
We have covered this before Bethany. Leave them to die as opposed to exactly what?
Posted by: Sally at August 15, 2008 7:52 PM
The fact that you ask the question, long tall Sally is beyond understanding.
Hal:
And I thought the PMS was brought on my something else when really, you know in your heart that Obama will not win and that really, really pisses you off. I mean if Roe v Wade is overturned you might have to face the fact that you aborted your first two kids and well, it was the absolute wrong thing to do and even the country admits that killing 50,000,000 babies over 35 years was extremely stupid. And to think, you abandoned Hillary only to be sucked in by an empty suit.
Hal, we know that there are botched abortions. Jill mentioned, just on the radio today, that there were at least two other babies that were left to die (or mistakenly placed in the trash) in that soiled utility room. Christ Hospital even designed a ROOM (as in spent $$$, Hal), a ROOM in their hospital for “comfort care” for those babies born alive after botched abortions. Complete with photo equipment, footprint and handprint equipment, baptismal supplies.. You are in denial if you really think this happened ONE time to ONE child.
Congress members who voted for the war are excoriated on a daily basis. Voting records say a lot about points of view and sources of financial support.
Hal, to most of the American people, infanticide is EXTREME. Obama voted to allow infanticide to continue. You don’t think that’s relevant? This goes beyond “my body, my choice.” We’re talking about a seriously frightening view of the value of a BORN human life. If people are mortified by partial birth abortion, why would they not be mortified that babies are born and left to die? I’m even mortified by the fact that these parents don’t WANT their children, but want photo ops and baptisms and memorabilia in the “comfort care” room. Dear God, it’s just twisted and sick.
The fact that abortion is legal means that people will kill babies because they can. And yes, that IS the world I live in.
Posted by: Kel at August 15, 2008 4:23 PM
………………………………
For crying out loud. Either a pregnancy is terminated/aborted or it isn’t. Botched? @@
Like my spontaneous abortion was ‘botched’ necessitating a surgical abortion/termination? Jeesh!
The sole purpose of the ‘comfort care’ room is to comfort those feeling loss. Jill admits that there was nothing medically to be done to prolong the death of the infant in her story. She knows very well that if the infant had been capable of feeling anything, she would have been causing it pain by handling it.
This really is much ado about nothing.
Sheesh…..
Enough Said
BTW HisMan:
I take offense to you saying “And I thought the PMS was brought on my something else”.
Hal is a male and doesn’t have PMS; in fact, not all women suffer from PMS. You used that in a very derogatory way…
For crying out loud. Either a pregnancy is terminated/aborted or it isn’t. Botched? @@
Like my spontaneous abortion was ‘botched’ necessitating a surgical abortion/termination? Jeesh!
The sole purpose of the ‘comfort care’ room is to comfort those feeling loss. Jill admits that there was nothing medically to be done to prolong the death of the infant in her story. She knows very well that if the infant had been capable of feeling anything, she would have been causing it pain by handling it.
This really is much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Sally at August 15, 2008 8:22 PM
Excuse me Sally, what about those babies that survive the abortion and can live with some attention. If Obama’s Execution Law had passed, could a doctor be held liable for saving the life of a baby if it was thought that the baby could survive? More likely, you think that there’s no courageous abortion killers out there, you know like SoMG, that could admit to the malpractice of not being able to kill even a defenseless human being and save a baby’s life? Is that what that smirk on Obama’s face is about in that photo of him raising his right hand voting nay on that IBAIPA law?
Or did Barack just vote against the IBAIPA because he, the messiah, knows that in all such cases there is “nothing medically to be done to prolong the death” in any of the cases.
Are you sure you’re not TR or just a common vampire?
The fact that you ask the question, long tall Sally is beyond understanding.
………………………….
Understanding isn’t your strong suit now is it. And I am tall on mom’s side of the family but rather average if not short on dad’s.
Mustang Sally would be more appropriate.
Excuse me Sally, what about those babies that survive the abortion and can live with some attention.
……………………………..
What babies specifically? And what kind of attention? Singing lullabies? Ripping lung tissue to pieces attempting to ventilate lungs not capable of breathing?
Freaking over the very rare, if ever, occurance of a viable fetus living or even being sustainable after early induction is rather absurd.
For crying out loud. Either a pregnancy is terminated/aborted or it isn’t. Botched? @@
Like my spontaneous abortion was ‘botched’ necessitating a surgical abortion/termination? Jeesh!
This really is much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Sally at August 15, 2008 8:22 PM
*****************************************
No, Sally, NOT like your miscarriage was botched. I’m pretty sure abortionists consider an abortion “botched” if the child comes out ALIVE rather than dead.
“Terminating a pregnancy” can have more than one meaning behind it, of course…ALL pregnancies are terminated in some way. It’s just that in an induced abortion, the whole point is that the child must die.
Induced abortion has been defined as:
“The planned termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the uterus.”
I’m pretty sure that you knew what I meant when I said “botched abortion.” A live child is considered an unwelcome complication for abortionists.
I consider infanticide much ado about something. Sorry you don’t feel the same way.
Good point – that comfort room certainly doesn’t say aborted babies only, now does it. Just another case of Jill putting spin on something to suit her agenda – you know Jill, you might consider some professional help for that obsession of yours.
Comfort rooms are used for all instances when terminal/stillborn/non-viable infants/fetuses are born/aborted. It gives the parents time away from the hustle of ICU’s to bond or grieve in peace. And yes, bonding can occur even when the event precipitating is an abortion – especially late term abortions done to preserve the mother’s health, with a non-viable or severely malformed fetus.
Ignoring that just highlights the anti-choicers lack of compassion, and Jill’s obsessive agenda. Christ Hospital should sue you for slander.
Jill, when was it that Christ Hospital set up the Comfort Room? Was it before or after the whole soiled utility room incidents were exposed?
I’m not clear on the timeline.
PPC says at 6:14 PM that Obama is a Christian. How does PPC know? by the good company that Mr. Obama keeps? by Mr. Obama’s integrity? by Mr. Obama’s membership and weekly attendance in an orthodox church? by Mr. Obama’s willingness to suffer persecution for the sake of his Lord? by Mr. Obama’s public as well as private pursuit of holiness? by Mr. Obama’s sense of justice for the most vulnerable people among us? by Mr. Obama’s reverence for and submission to the Scriptures? by Mr. Obama’s seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness? by Mr. Obama’s attempts to legislate Biblical morality?
Mr. Obama says he is a Christian. He also says that he is an American; he might be that. Mr. Obama would probably also say that he is pro-life. Mr. Obama apparently also says that the federal and state bills were significantly different. Mr. Obama says a lot of things.
No, Sally, NOT like your miscarriage was botched. I’m pretty sure abortionists consider an abortion “botched” if the child comes out ALIVE rather than dead.
“Terminating a pregnancy” can have more than one meaning behind it, of course…ALL pregnancies are terminated in some way. It’s just that in an induced abortion, the whole point is that the child must die.
Induced abortion has been defined as:
“The planned termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the uterus.”
I’m pretty sure that you knew what I meant when I said “botched abortion.” A live child is considered an unwelcome complication for abortionists.
I consider infanticide much ado about something. Sorry you don’t feel the same way.
Posted by: Kel at August 15, 2008 11:11 PM
…………………………………
I’m sorry honey but you and yours don’t get to redefine word meanings to suit your agenda. A medical abortion ‘kills’ a pregnancy. Just as an aborted military initiative ‘kills’ the initiative.
Pretending that a medical procedure has come to be and exists for nefarious intent is sophomoric.
Phylosopher,
The compfort room was setup after Jill exposed this evil practice. What other cheap shot you got?
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/06/in_march_2002_t.html
Sally,
I get a kick out of you… concerned now about unborn babies lungs and touching them too early…
but when we show you pictures of PBA’s you yawn?
I’m sorry honey but you and yours don’t get to redefine word meanings to suit your agenda. A medical abortion ‘kills’ a pregnancy. Just as an aborted military initiative ‘kills’ the initiative.
Pretending that a medical procedure has come to be and exists for nefarious intent is sophomoric.
Posted by: Sally at August 15, 2008 11:55 PM
*********************************************
Sally, my definition of induced abortion was from an obgyn site that I found on google. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re taking issue with or not. (?) Wikipedia says pretty much the same thing.
At least we agree that abortion kills. (It kills a human child. Using the term “killing a pregnancy” is an attempt to obscure what is actually being killed.)
It stands to reason, then, that if a child is born ALIVE, then the abortion did not go as planned. Correct? In other words, it was botched. They screwed up, the baby was born alive.
I’m really not sure what you think I’m trying to redefine here. The pro-choice groups use the term “terminating a pregnancy” when referring to abortion. Are you saying that I made that up?
Are we talking about the same thing? I feel like we’re going around and around and maybe I’m not understanding you correctly.
Jasper said:
Phylosopher,
The comfort room was setup after Jill exposed this evil practice. What other cheap shot you got?
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/06/in_march_2002_t.html
Posted by: Jasper at August 16, 2008 12:10 AM
***************************************
Thanks, Jasper, that was my suspicion. ;)
Just saving one baby is enough for me Sally, just one. Apparently you and Barack could care less about that one and are willing to sacrfice that rare case.
Out of 50,000,000 abortions Sally, would let’s say, 1 percent be rare? That’s 500,000, a fairly large city. Or, let’s say 0.1 percent. Now that’s rare by any statisticians standards, no? So, you’re willing to sacrifice 50,000 babies, hmmmm? Well, that makes you a mass murderer.
Have you ever thought of throwing your hat in as BO’s VP? You’d make a perfectly and sadisticly matched couple.
Oh, I understand…..not only have you never taken an ethics or morals class, you failed math as well. You must be an English major.
You must be an English major.
Posted by: HisMan at August 16, 2008 12:59 AM
*******************************
Hey now, HisMan, you say that like it’s an insult. ;) LOL
Let me preface this comment by saying that I support your beliefs about abortion. I understand the importance of this issue…
But I have a fear that this single issue may play a part in the demise of this nation in many other ways… and here’s why… please read this knowing it is written without trying to disrespect the issue at hand.
The reality is that, no matter how much you want it to, or believe it should, or whether or not it is right… the matter of abortion is NOT something that will change in our legal system, NO MATTER WHICH PRESIDENT IS IN POWER IN THIS NEXT TERM.
So this leaves you with a decision… make your vote based solely upon an issue that will NOT change in the next 4 years, or make it based on issues that WILL.
Your vote will NOT change the number of unborn children that die, I am so sorry if that sounds harsh, but I am just trying to be honest, but it CAN change many other things. The number of poor, sick individuals who die from a lack of health care, education that allows underprivileged children the opportunity to embrace the American dream and truly have an opportunity to better themselves, the lives of innocent, already born children, dying in a war zone, the women, men, and children left widowed or parentless in war, the rights of women to receive birth control so that if they ARE going to be sexually active, they don’t end up pregnant and choosing abortion. These ARE things that CAN change with this election.
So I beg of you, believers in God. Please don’t ignore all other issues in front of you because of this one. Please remember the old adage…
God, give me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
The courage to change those I can
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Please know that I am not saying that I think abortion is okay, or that you should give up the fight… but more I am saying to please REALLY think about the reality of the situation, and don’t IGNORE the other humanitarian issues that should be prevalent to those of faith because you are so focused on this one issue that will not go away in the next four years.
Thanks for your time.
God bless.
Having studied some epidemiology I would say less than one in ten thousand qualifies as very rare. It’s about the maternal death rate in childbirth in North America.
The more important point is all the law would do is cause abortion docs who do induced-labor abortions after viability to make sure to kill the fetus in utero first. Same as the PBA ban. Might increase the time these abortions take by as much as ten minutes. Is it better to die in utero from cardiac arrest or ex utero from non-continuation of maternal life support?
If the small size of the fetus’s heart were a problem, this law might actually cause abortion docs to choose to wait for further growth before attempting ultrasound-guided intracardiac injection. Do RTLs call that good? Letting the fetus get closer to consciousness before aborting it?
You know what I think the answer to all the BAIPA stuff is will be in the minds of most of those who have not already decided what they think of abortion? Even if it’s all true and Obama is as extreme a PCer as RTLs are saying, he’s still no more pro-choice than GWBush has been RTL. Any RTLs want to try to argue that the crusade against hormonal b/c that prevents implantation of a zygote isn’t as extreme RTLism as Obama’s pro-choicism is extreme? Can anyone name a single issue he hasn’t been with the RTLs on?
So this leaves you with a decision… make your vote based solely upon an issue that will NOT change in the next 4 years, or make it based on issues that WILL.
Posted by: takecareofALL at August 16, 2008 1:49 AM
***************************************
I’d love to know how the educational system, poverty, healthcare, birth control, and war will all somehow be magically changed in the next four years. And I mean no disrespect to you, either, but I don’t think you have the slightest clue about the pro-life movement.
The fact that you assume that pro-lifers are ignoring all other humanitarian issues is a little bit insulting.
I do not consider defending innocent lives to be a trivial issue, or a single-election issue. I do not expect abortion to be overturned in one election. However, I’m not willing to assume, either, that somehow we cannot “change” the culture of death and we must somehow accept abortion. I’m not willing to ever accept it. And I do believe that’s wisdom in itself.
You see, it’s not just about one election for us, or about the next four years. This is a war that has many battles on many fronts. There is an entire mindset that needs to be changed in society, through exposure to the truth about the humanity of the unborn. This is about unchanging truth, and it’s not just going to go away, regardless of the outcome of ANY election.
I’ve had environmentalists say the exact same thing to me that you’ve posted. They’re myopic when it comes to the fact that, for example, planting trees is the ONE thing they’re most passionate about, but no one questions their passion. And yet, they cannot see how OUR passion as pro-lifers is just as strong, it’s just in a different arena. Forgive me, but I’m just a little tired of the double standard.
I’m sure the abolitionists were told the same thing: “Don’t you people EVER focus on anything except slavery? Don’t you think about any of the OTHER injustices in the world? We have larger problems than THIS…” and on and on. D
Are we not allowed to vote our consciences?
Some things cannot be compromised.
The name TakecareofALL sounds like JEHOVAH JIREH. Is TakecareofALL a statist, attempting to replace God with the state? The responsibilities that TakecareofALL enumerates fall mainly within the ecclesiastical sphere of authority. They’re not the civil government’s responsibility.
The civil government’s job is to protect its people from evil-doers. Abortionists and terrorists kill many Americans. There are other criminals and warmongers, and they kill fewer numbers of Americans (in their respective geographic areas). Mr. McCain has a much more credible claim to being prolife than does Mr. Obama. As a war veteran, he probably also has much greater wisdom in matters of national security.
I don’t think that Mr. McCain is a great candidate, but he’s probably better on any conceivable topic than Mr. Obama is. That’s not saying much.
takecareofall,
Don’t throw the babies under the bus just cause you feel helpless to make a difference. If people used your logic PBA would still be legal and we would be a couple more Supreme Court nominees away from restricting the abortion industry. Planned parenthood has been running amuck since RoeVWade and they are still fighting tooth and nail to get access to our children without our notification and for unconditional “rights” to kill babies that they deem to be unwanted or unfit. Don’t give up. The tide is turning. The PBA ban was just a start. Last year Planned Parenthood, with the support of Barack and Michelle Obama, could kill babies that were viable and delivered up to the shoulders and it was legal. Now if they got caught doing the same they would be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The cat is out of the bag. Keep fighting the good fight for the children and the blessings God bestows upon America as a nation will be abundant. Give up this fight and we will be forsaken. Don’t kid yourself, a country that would kill a child in the womb doesn;t really give a rat’s ass about the children that are born either. Obama’s idea of compassion for women and children is to supply them with BC so don;t bring them into his world. And don;t be fooled by Obama’s empty promises. He is a panderer and a liar who would say anything to get your vote. He is from Chicago, the sesspool of politics. The epitomy of corruption and pay as you play politics. And he hasn’t done ANYTHING positive for the state since he became an Illinois senator. He is an empty suit and he would do NOTHING for us as president either. The Democratic machine propped him up and the way they pull his strings it is almost like he is a marionette. He will never amount to anything or do anything more for the country then he did for Illinois as a senator, which NOTHING GOOD AT ALL.
That is unless you like Planned Parenthood having access to your minor children with your notification or your school of your local Planned Parenthood handing out BC to your children without your notification or Planned Parenthood lying their way into your neigborhood with obfuscation and Barack backing them 100%. IN FACT, THE ONLY THING HE REALLY DID AS AN ILLINOIS SENATOR WAS DO EVERYTHING HE COULD TO PROMOTE PLANNED PARENTHOOD.IF HE BECAME PRESIDENT THE ABORTION ISSUE WOULDN’T JUST STAY WHERE IT IS AT, IT WOULD GET WAY WORSE IN A HURRY. IT WOULD BE LIKE HAVING THE CEO OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AS PRESIDENT.
For the love of God, do NOT vote for Obama.
Is it better to die in utero from cardiac arrest or ex utero from non-continuation of maternal life support?
It’s better to support a culture of life and criminalize the abominable practices of abortion and infanticide. It’s better to make the perpetrators of such practices the objects of just as much loathing as the slave traders of the past.
SoMG 2:31, aside from BAIPA itself, do Mr. Obama’s lies not matter? Don’t we want politicians that we can trust? Or have there never been any true statesmen? I regard Mr. Bush as a man of integrity.
“Truthseeker”, I don’t think violating the PBA ban is murder. I think it’s a separate crime.
Barack Obama is better qualified to be President than GWBush was in Y2K. It’s funny to see people who supported Bush over Gore talk about the importance of qualifications and experience.
“Panderer and a liar.” McCain flip-flopped on torture.
The best reason to vote for Obama may be McCain.
Oops, I was Anonymous 3:14.
For SoMG, because he questions BAIPA:
‘Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. If you say, “See, we did not know this,” Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?’ (Prov. 24:11-12)
BAIPA forces abortionists to reconsider what they do. It is a merciful attempt to remind them of their evil deeds and an eventual reckoning. And it is a partial fulfilling of a people’s responsibility to speak up to protect their most vulnerable people.
If BAIPA is not effective, then further, more comprehensive legislation is obviously required. A small step in the right direction is better than complacency and the status quo.
Jon, I don’t think BAIPA will convince any abortion providers to stop. And the purpose of law is not to propagandistically change people’s legal behavior.
And as I said it won’t protect anyone.
You wrote: ” It’s better to make the perpetrators of such practices the objects of just as much loathing as the slave traders of the past.”
So the RTL movement should be a hate movement?
The Constitution says that persons have the Right to life.
Jefferson says, in the Declaration of Independence, that we are created equal and that the Right to life begins at creation.
Those who claim to be homosexual say that they are created homosexual, meaning that they think that their homosexuality occurs at conception, not at the time they choose to go homosexual.
So, does creation occur at conception, or at birth? We have to know this in order to let those who are entitled t the Right to life to get the Right to life guranteed by the Constitution.
I forgot to mention that the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd says that the Right to life begins at birth. Thus, they disagree with Jefferson and with those who claim that they are homosexual.
SoMG, the proabortion movement has the best claim to being a movement of hatred. I can’t think of a better example of “hate language” than “My body, my choice.”
Of course, there are right hatreds and wrong hatreds. Real love for something implies hatred for its opposite. In fact, Jesus Christ said (Matt. 6:24), “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.” For me to love God and His people is for me to hate the devil and his worshippers. Of course, I love all people as having been made in the image of God, i.e. I can both love and hate the same person. Christians never emphasize hatred because their hatred, like the hatreds of everyone else, tends to be selfish and mean. No, Christians want to be motivated by love for their neighbour, and for this reason involve themselves as protecting unborn children.
But since you asked–while I note that many prolifers on this blog would hesitate to say what I’m going to say–yes, slave traders should be objects of loathing to the extent that they are slave traders. So should Hitler and Tiller to the extent that they are killers. So should McCain and Edwards to the extent that they are unrepentant adulterers. So should homosexuals and feminists to the extent that they destroy themselves as men and women. But since they are still children of the man who was made in the image of God–and can regain that image–I can sympathize with them and try to help them. I can tell them the truth and not use euphemisms. I can offer them a certain hope.
Yes, I must also learn to hate myself more and more. I must always sing of the amazing grace that saved a wretch like me.
And I must love all children of the man created in the image of God, no matter what their size, no matter what their sin. I hate the sinner but love God.
Don’t condemn my religious reply as irrelevant. Everybody is religious. Everybody responds to God; refusal to respond is itself a response. But not all religion is true. The apostle James wrote to Jewish Christians: “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (1:27)
caught you on my way home..you did great!
keep it going girl!
Freedom of Choice Act.
What Obama will sign to over turn and wipe out all prolife legislation that my abortion story helped to pass. Bills in so many states written to REDUCE the number of abortions.
So much for RARE!!
Don’t condemn my religious reply as irrelevant. Everybody is religious. Everybody responds to God; refusal to respond is itself a response. But not all religion is true. The apostle James wrote to Jewish Christians: “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (1:27)
Posted by: Jon at August 16, 2008 5:50 AM
Great post Jon! I would say in response to the quote above that even somg has his religion. Even secular humanisim is a religion, just one without God. Therefore your statement “Everybody is religious” IS correct.
What a person believes in, influences how they live and how they treat other people. Doesn’t say much for the religion of the proaborts, now does it?
SoMG: And the purpose of law is not to propagandistically change people’s legal behavior.
The evidence, as usual, goes against your “opinion”.
takecareofALL: Your vote will NOT change the number of unborn children that die, I am so sorry if that sounds harsh, but I am just trying to be honest, but it CAN change many other things.
Where have you been living all these years…under a rock? Your moral reasoning is really skewed – another fruit of the accepted boiling frog, abortion mentality. BTW, ALL those other issues, once this one is universally accepted to the degree it apparently has been here by the hardened, there will simply be no other issues to worry about. It is the prime issue that governs all others.
Excuse me Sally, what about those babies that survive the abortion and can live with some attention.
……………………………..
Sally: What babies specifically?
Well, to start with, the twin who survived the abortion that killed her twin…and she is now a great pro-life speaker…along with her mother whom she has forgiven. If the world were only populated with more such loving people. But then of course your mission is to obliterate any chance of that happening. Your “choice” is that she just didn’t fulfill the “intended” mission. Another rotten fruit of the abortion mentality.
Takecare,
“Your vote will NOT change the number of unborn children that die…”
I recall that my vote in 2000 for Bush did matter to the extent that it helped him win the presidency (I live in Florida, remember all that ruckus?)
Bush was then able to appoint 2 Supreme Court judges who weren’t going to conjur up prenumbras.
Which has Big Abortion nervous. Very nervous.
Which is why Big Abortion is ready to slap 20 million dollars on the table to ensure that their baby Barack wins the presidency.
Big Abortion knows what could happen if McCain wins. And if it gets them that bent out of shape, then, my friend, I take that to mean that we have gained some ground and fools we would be if we surrender now.
Think about it: In Big Abortion’s eyes, McCain=conservative SC judges=Roe vs. Wade possibly being overturned=less abortions.
And less abortion means less unborn children die.
I can’t believe I even had to spell that out for you.
Now, if you want to surrender and side with the Curettage Crew, that is most certainly your perogative.
Don’t condemn my religious reply as irrelevant. Everybody is religious. Everybody responds to God; refusal to respond is itself a response. But not all religion is true. …..)
Posted by: Jon at August 16, 2008 5:50 AM
Oh Jon, the silly things you propose just to make your religion seem relevant. One could just as easily say: Everybody is an atheist. Everybody responds to the indifference of the universe. But not all responses are true – or valid. Some myths are sillier than others… .
or to quote Marx:
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
From Jasper:
Can you say contingency, Jasper? But seriously, even if it was because of Jill, so what? If she had stopped there, having caused people to rethink the medicalization of prenatl and natal birth/death and losing a baby or fetus, even many pro-choicers would applaud her. Instead, she embarked on this self-aggrandizement crusade/vendetta – and it and she have become very ugly because of it.
Amended/corrected post
Jasper said:
“Phylosopher,
The comfort room was setup after Jill exposed this evil practice. What other cheap shot you got?
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/06/in_march_2002_t.html“
Posted by: Jasper at August 16, 2008 12:10 AM
Can you say contingency, Jasper? Using Jill’s story to substantiate Jill’s story is a bit circular, wouldn’t you say? But seriously, even if it was because of Jill, so what? If she had stopped there, having caused people to rethink the medicalization of prenatal and natal birth/death and the loss of a baby or fetus, even many pro-choicers would applaud her, jus tas many have applauded and thanked the hospice movement. Instead, she embarked on this self-aggrandizement crusade/vendetta – and it, and she, have become very ugly because of it.
@Phylosopher:
quoting Marx! Hah! so passe!
If she had stopped there, having caused people to rethink the medicalization of prenatl and natal birth/death and losing a baby or fetus, even many pro-choicers would applaud her.
I doubt it very much. The proabort view is that all babies destined for abortion SHOULD die – because the mother is the arbiter of their lives. In Canada, we can’t pass a victim’s unborn crime bill. Why? Because it might JUST mean that unborn babies are persons (gasp) that need to be protected by the law from a third party attack. Heaven help us if we stop calling them “blobs of cells”!
“Can you say contingency, Jasper? Using Jill’s story to substantiate Jill’s story is a bit circular, wouldn’t you say?”
Phylosopher,
well if you don’t believe us, do you own re-search. The comfort room was setup by the Hosptial so babies could be left to die in a nice room. Why shouldn’t babies aborted alive get the same treatment as wanted babies? especially since many could very well have a good chance to live, these children were still breathing! and all you’re going to give them is comfort care? thats nothing. Give them a chance, (at 22-23 weeks they have a decent chance of surviving). The parents who aborted these kids are not looking out for the best interest of them because they wanted them dead in the first place.
“Instead, she embarked on this self-aggrandizement crusade/vendetta – and it, and she, have become very ugly because of it.”
how is that exactly? This issue speaks to the character of Obama, it exposes him for the radical, extremist liberal he is. He won’t be able to BS around this one. We will hold him to it.
BAIPA forces abortionists to reconsider what they do.
Jon, how in the world do you figure that?
Patricia: The proabort view is that all babies destined for abortion SHOULD die – because the mother is the arbiter of their lives.
No, if somebody was actually pro-abortion then it’d be that “all pregnancies should be ended.”
Pro-Choicers leave it up to the woman, yes, a much different thing. Pro-Choicers, to generalize, neither think that a woman should be forced to end a wanted pregnancy nor prevented from ending an unwanted one.
…..
In Canada, we can’t pass a victim’s unborn crime bill. Why?
Because there isn’t enough sentiment for it.
…..
Because it might JUST mean that unborn babies are persons (gasp) that need to be protected by the law from a third party attack. Heaven help us if we stop calling them “blobs of cells”!
No, you are free to not say “blobs of cells” now. However, we are all “blobs of cells” in one way of looking at it, and to a point the zygote, blastocyst, etc., really is a “blob,” in the first place.
The unborn are not persons in that personhood hasn’t been attributed to them.
Might be a good time to quote some dude named Paul Campos:
“Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one’s fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world.”?
In Canada, we can’t pass a victim’s unborn crime bill. Why?
Because there isn’t enough sentiment for it.
…..
In fact, this is a blatant lie. There is overwhelming support for it – however, there is strident feminist/proabort opposition to it. Polls have consistently shown that the majority of Canadians believe there should be at the very least, some restrictions on abortion. However, the democratic process in Canada has been circumvented by an activist judiciary intent upon making their own laws based on THEIR values and not the values of society nor those which protect ALL citizens.
BTW, proaborts are STILL using the “blob of cells” terms Doug.
That unborn children ARE persons is based on the belief that a unique, irreplaceable, human life begins at conception and continues until natural death. It also holds that all human life has value and that a unique person exists at the moment of conception.
The fact that proaborts such as yourself Doug, need to change your language and redefine personhood merely confirms what you are trying so hard to argue against. You are like a tumbleweed in the wind – no doubt your definition of personhood will change for any expediency.
What would you do if personhood was denied to white males who reach the age of 50? After all, I could argue most white males are no longer useful, ageing and taking up space in this world and have little use as mates. I could also argue that many of them do not appear to be sentient beings at times, are a drain on the health care system with their higher rates of illness. Would you just accept your lot and wallk into the killing clinic we set up for your extermination?
“It is the opium of the people.”
Sounds familiar. They *cling* to it.
Oh Jon, the silly things you propose just to make your religion seem relevant.
Ah, Phylosopher, but now you’ve conceded something. I note that you didn’t say, “to make religion relevant”; you said, “to make YOUR religion relevant.” And that was one of my points. I had said, “Don’t condemn my religious reply as irrelevant. Everybody is religious.”
So, whose religion is true, mine or yours? We can’t use logic to come to an agreement because we start from different presuppositions. Presuppositions exist by faith.
Doug 6:46, I thought that BAIPA would force abortionists to reconsider what they do because–as SoMG said–they would have to use some different way to kill the child. As SoMG said, some ways are more efficient than others.
I also thought that abortionists are not immune to human feelings of sympathy. SoMG asked, “Is it better to die in utero from cardiac arrest or ex utero from non-continuation of maternal life support?” Of course, he failed to recognize a third option of not dying at all. So maybe I’m naive to think that abortionists would quit the business rather than be “forced” to become more cruel.
Oops! for Jon 1:41: “to make YOUR religion seem relevant.”
“So maybe I’m naive to think that abortionists would quit the business rather than be “forced” to become more cruel.”
How would you respond, SoMG? Is that a fair statement to make?
Don’t denegrate Marx. He understood the functional economics of HIS world quite well, although some of his meta-economical ideas–such as the labor theory of value–were wrong, and his prescription for correction was wrong.
Carder, I’m not sure that killing a fetus in utero by cardiac arrest is “more cruel” than letting it die ex utero from withdrawal of maternal life-support. Can one be “cruel” to something that cannot experience pain? I guess you could argue that if the abortion doc lets it grow so the heart is easier to find that’s more cruel, but that’s an argument against BAIPA.
Jon, “not dying at all” is not an option for a fetus inside a uterus where it is not welcome. That would involve forcing the woman to use her life-support functions against her will, which is morally prohibited by the Principle of Human Freedom.
Doug, Paul Campos is wrong. The critical question is not fetal personhood, but whether one person should be forced to sustain another person’s life inside her body. (The answer is no.)
Carla, there is no inconsistancy between FOCA and making abortion rare. There are more effective ways to prevent something than passing laws restricting it, especially nearly-totally-symbolic laws like BAIPA and the PBA ban. I know you understand this because you understand the idea of making drinking alcohol, gambling, and smoking tobacco rare without banning or restricting them. So stop pretending to be stupider than you are–there’s no need for you to do that.
SoMG@ 9:43,
Doug, Paul Campos is wrong. The critical question is not fetal personhood, but whether one person should be forced to sustain another person’s life inside her body. (The answer is no.)
IMO, that is not an accurate way summarize the abortion argument. Most women who abort just feel they have no other choice.
Carla, there is no inconsistancy between FOCA and making abortion rare. There are more effective ways to prevent something than passing laws restricting it, especially nearly-totally-symbolic laws like BAIPA and the PBA ban. I know you understand this because you understand the idea of making drinking alcohol, gambling, and smoking tobacco rare without banning or restricting them. So stop pretending to be stupider than you are–there’s no need for you to do that.
Posted by: SoMG at August 17, 2008 9:43 AM
Nice insults. OK, HERE are the FACTS ON FOCA –
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
SoMG,
“Can one be “cruel” to something that cannot experience pain? ”
Had to think about that one. But then I recalled the piles of corpses discovered in Auschwitz and elsewhere during liberation.
The feelings in those victims were long gone, no doubt, but the treatment their bodies received after their murders added insult to injury. Considering how the gassed were cremated and left to blow in the wind, sure, how would they know at that point how their bodies were being desecrated?
So with the fetus, while the jury is still out on the whole pain perception issue, for the sake of argument let’s assume that there’s no feeling involved. Fine. But the fact remains that feelings or no, the fetus is ALIVE. You may not view it as cruelty, but you have agreed that it is an act of killing.
So perhaps cruelty is a matter of perception.
carder, Excellent!
Carder, I’m not sure that killing a fetus in utero by cardiac arrest is “more cruel” than letting it die ex utero from withdrawal of maternal life-support. Can one be “cruel” to something that cannot experience pain? I guess you could argue that if the abortion doc lets it grow so the heart is easier to find that’s more cruel, but that’s an argument against BAIPA.
SoMG 9:43, whether intentionally or carelessly, you didn’t understand what I was saying. I was actually acknowledging your arguments: yes, cutting the baby off from its mother is more cruel than cardiac arrest; waiting to kill the baby is more cruel than killing it in a less developed form. But perhaps, if abortionists are human beings too–not to mention the mothers–they would consider stopping abortions altogether, i.e. not doing them rather than becoming more cruel. You know, not doing them is also an option.
Jon, “not dying at all” is not an option for a fetus inside a uterus where it is not welcome. That would involve forcing the woman to use her life-support functions against her will, which is morally prohibited by the Principle of Human Freedom.
You’ve got a brutal, selfish religion, SoMG! It’s also out-dated. A postmodern world-view very much emphasizes interdependency and cooperation. The Christian religion is much better than yours. I also believe Christianity to be the only true religion. But here we’re getting back to the religious problem that Paul Campos spoke of.
It’s bad enough that Obama is trying to cover his butt for having AGGRESSIVELY pursued denying infants proper medical attention, so that they would have to endure dying a slow, cold death,,,but the only comeback that the Democrats have is to launch MoveOn.org millions into falsely promoting the LIE that McCain will do away with contraception totally!
Yeah,,,they’re stupid enough to fall for that LIE and be moved to vote for Obama anyway.
MoveOn is a group of people who do the bidding of their puppetmaster and primary contributor, George Soros.
George Soros is a FINANCIAL SPECULATOR who manipulates everything to his financial advantage, people!!!
You’d think they’d wise up and realize that everything they do just makes GEORGE, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many other Dems, richer and richer! And, curses their own lives.
In Canada, we can’t pass a victim’s unborn crime bill. Why?
“Because there isn’t enough sentiment for it.”
…..
In fact, this is a blatant lie. There is overwhelming support for it – however, there is strident feminist/proabort opposition to it. Polls have consistently shown that the majority of Canadians believe there should be at the very least, some restrictions on abortion. However, the democratic process in Canada has been circumvented by an activist judiciary intent upon making their own laws based on THEIR values and not the values of society nor those which protect ALL citizens.
No, Patricia, it’s the truth. Nobody told you that a “majority” will necessarily make the difference. Either there’s enough sentiment for a law or not. I know it’s not “the Dominion of Canada” anymore, at least in practice, but if Canada had a monarch then perhaps only one opinion would be needed to make a law.
…..
What would you do if personhood was denied to white males who reach the age of 50?
I’d party like a big dog for the next 7 months. ; )
Had to think about that one. But then I recalled the piles of corpses discovered in Auschwitz and elsewhere during liberation.
The feelings in those victims were long gone, no doubt, but the treatment their bodies received after their murders added insult to injury. Considering how the gassed were cremated and left to blow in the wind, sure, how would they know at that point how their bodies were being desecrated?
Carder, they wouldn’t. The treatment we give the dead is for the benefit of the living.
The fact that proaborts such as yourself Doug, need to change your language and redefine personhood merely confirms what you are trying so hard to argue against. You are like a tumbleweed in the wind – no doubt your definition of personhood will change for any expediency.
Patricia, if you meet somebody that is actually “pro-abortion,” then that’s a different thing. There’s no “redefining” personhood. It’s a societal construct and it always has been.
You are upset because the unborn are not attributed a certain status. That’s really the bottom line.
Janet, nothing in your link to the nrlc contradicts anything I have said about FOCA.
The link also contains an obvious lie: that FOCA would nullify “all laws allowing doctors, nurses, or other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health-care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions…[and]
all laws prohibiting medical personnel other than licensed physicians from performing abortions….” That’s actually two lies.
Those laws would only be nullified if/where they were shown to interefere with the right to have an abortion. As long as women in the community could get abortions SOMEWHERE, FOCA would have no bearing on those laws. The non-physicians-doing-abortions question is a fake issue anyway because no non-physician is permitted to do abortions without supervision by a physician. The nullification of “conscience clause” laws (which is a misnomer because most docs who opt out of doing abortions do so either because it is not their specialty or from fear of controversy, not conscience) would only apply if no one were available to do them.
Instead of posting links to lies and to information I already know, how about trying to answer my argument? Which was, that there is no inconsistancy between supporting FOCA and wanting abortion to be more rare than it is, and that generally there are more effective ways to reduce something than banning or even restricting it (also ways that have fewer bad side-effects). If you can’t answer, the honest thing to do is admit it.
Again, stop pretending to be stupider than you are. You are stupid enough in real life to satisfy any connoiseur of stupid things.
Carder, you’re right that cruelty is a matter of perception and my perception is, that attempting to force a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to grow her pregnancy and endure childbirth against her will is too cruel for a civilized society in the Twenty-First Century to consider.
Jon, you wrote: “You’ve got a brutal, selfish religion, SoMG!”
At least I don’t pray to a zombie or eat human flesh (Eucharist).
You wrote: “It’s also out-dated. A postmodern world-view very much emphasizes interdependency and cooperation.”
So then do you support laws forcing people to donate blood and/or transplantable organs? “Interdependency and cooperation”, you know. If not, why not?
JMKC, if what you say about Soros were true, he’d be a Republican. Tax cuts for the upper tax bracket, right? Obama will raise Soros’ taxes.
The most important difference between Soros and Richard Mellon Scaife: Soros worked for his money. Scaife “merely went to the trouble of being born” as the fellow said. (Beaumarchais, for those illiterates among you.)
I know that, Doug. Just trying to make a point with SoMG and see if he needs to modify “cruelty”.
SoMG 1:39, you didn’t think very carefully, in my opinion. I don’t pray to a zombie; I pray to Jesus’ Father, the Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And I’m a Protestant, so I don’t believe in transubstantiation. But even if I was a Roman Catholic, I would still believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is reigning on His throne, happy with those who remember Him in the specific way that He commanded.
No, I don’t believe in “laws forcing people to donate blood and/or transplantable organs.” I believe in parents’ taking care of their children. It’s rather natural; it’s even common sense, and the animals do it too (many of them). I would encourage people to donate blood, but I’m not a bloody communist to demand that they do so. Parenting is an obligation for parents; giving blood is not an obligation for anyone. It’s just a loving thing to do. Love is the fulfilling of God’s law, but love is expressed in different ways by people of different temperaments and different means.
Should people give transplantable organs? That’s a big question that would require a great deal of time to answer.
Carder at 12:45 Excellent post!!!
SoMG,
Is stupider a word? :p
SoMG: (Beaumarchais, for those illiterates among you.)
Dang….
Just trying to make a point with SoMG and see if he needs to modify “cruelty”.
Okay, Carder, and where you said:
So perhaps cruelty is a matter of perception.
That there’s a big Yes Ma’am!
Jon I did not ask whether people should give transplantable organs. I asked whether government should FORCE people to do so. If not, why not?
Yes, Doug, the line is from The Marriage of Figaro, the play. At first Mozart and DaPonte were discouraged from making an opera of it because of its anti-nobility message, but DaPonte pacified his sponsor (I forget who it was, some king or other) by making it all about love and replacing Figaro’s anti-nobility speech with an aria about women and cuckoldry (you can hear the two horns, representing the horns he thinks are sprouting from his head. This joke is repeated in Verdi’s FALSTAFF during Ford’s similar aria). In the end the sponsor liked the opera so much he made them perform it all over again immediately from beginning to end.
You have absolutely NO understanding of what constitutes a democracy Doug and quite frankly, I’m NOT surprised.
In Canada it is NOT the duty of the judiciary to MAKE laws, it is their DUTY to uphold the law. Our parliament, which consists of ELECTED representatives (I’m assuming you know what this means) make our laws – NOT judges.
A panel of judges made the abortion decision in Canada. We no longer have a democracy in Canada – we have a socialist state which has an elite few – in this case judges who make out laws for us. There is no input from the people. In fact, the head of our Supreme Court, Justice Beverly McLachlin has publicly stated that in her view it is the perogative of the Supreme Court of Canada to MAKE new laws based on the morals of the judges!
So before you blow your horn, Doug, learn about what you are writing about!
There’s no “redefining” personhood. It’s a societal construct and it always has been.
You are upset because the unborn are not attributed a certain status. That’s really the bottom line.
Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 1:19 PM
I’ve never read such absolute NONSENSE in entire my life. Do you HONESTLY believe the garbage you write Doug? In all sincerity, PLEASE! Think about what you are writing?
If you believe this then any one can be deemed a nonperson! It is a completely utilitarian approach and irrational. (Not surprising since the proabort argument is irrational)
I note you completely ignored my question about the 50 year old men! I wonder why…….
And BTW, I’m disturbed that people like you have taken AWAY the rights of unborn children, promoted the pornification of women and children and degraded women by not respecting their integrity. Please don’t tell me that you haven’t because by the very promotion of your values (or lack thereof) you have. If not by the life you have lived……
Carder, you’re right that cruelty is a matter of perception and my perception is, that attempting to force a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to grow her pregnancy and endure childbirth against her will is too cruel for a civilized society in the Twenty-First Century to consider.
Posted by: SoMG at August 17, 2008 1:29 PM
That is 9 months out of her life! The baby’s life is snuffed out forever! More and more women are revealing that their abortions have wounded them emotionally, psychologically and physically. How much more damage are you going to cause before you see the truth?
SoMG @1:29,
Again, stop pretending to be stupider than you are. You are stupid enough in real life to satisfy any connoiseur of stupid things.
Aren’t you a sweet heart?
SoMG, any law you are in favor of, I am against. (FOCA)
That’s all I have to say about that…..
Janet, I didn’t mean to insult you, just to state a fact. One of the things you learn in clinical rotations is to state unpleasant or shocking facts as baldly as you can. You can improve your intelligence by reading PG Wodehouse which is also extremely entertaining.
Eileen, donating a kidney is much LESS than nine months out of your life and the patient who dies because you didn’t is snuffed out forever. Does that mean it’s cruel to let you keep both of yours?
You have absolutely NO understanding of what constitutes a democracy Doug and quite frankly, I’m NOT surprised. In Canada it is NOT the duty of the judiciary to MAKE laws, it is their DUTY to uphold the law. Our parliament, which consists of ELECTED representatives (I’m assuming you know what this means) make our laws – NOT judges. A panel of judges made the abortion decision in Canada. We no longer have a democracy in Canada – we have a socialist state which has an elite few – in this case judges who make out laws for us. There is no input from the people. In fact, the head of our Supreme Court, Justice Beverly McLachlin has publicly stated that in her view it is the perogative of the Supreme Court of Canada to MAKE new laws based on the morals of the judges! So before you blow your horn, Doug, learn about what you are writing about!
Patricia, you are ranting and raving. (Have to laugh – IMO I sound like SoMG there, rather deadpan.) You asked:
In Canada, we can’t pass a victim’s unborn crime bill. Why?
And the answer is that there’s not enough sentiment for it, just as I said.
……
I know about Democracy, etc. The point is that there has to be sufficient opinion for a law to be, to get passed, and regardless of the existing political system, etc., that’s the deal.
……
“There’s no “redefining” personhood. It’s a societal construct and it always has been. You are upset because the unborn are not attributed a certain status. That’s really the bottom line.”
I’ve never read such absolute NONSENSE in entire my life. Do you HONESTLY believe the garbage you write Doug? In all sincerity, PLEASE! Think about what you are writing?
I do think about it, both before and as I write, much more than you.
…..
If you believe this then any one can be deemed a nonperson! It is a completely utilitarian approach and irrational. (Not surprising since the proabort argument is irrational)
No, what is operative is that personhood hasn’t been attributed to the unborn in the first place. It’s never been, not now, not when abortion was illegal.
…..
I note you completely ignored my question about the 50 year old men! I wonder why……
Baloney. I said I’d party like a big dog for the next 7 months (until I’m 50). A humorous response to an inapplicable question, because we are not talking about “taking away” personhood from anybody, we are talking about whether or not to attribute it in the first place.
……
And BTW, I’m disturbed that people like you have taken AWAY the rights of unborn children, promoted the pornification of women and children and degraded women by not respecting their integrity. Please don’t tell me that you haven’t because by the very promotion of your values (or lack thereof) you have. If not by the life you have lived……
Again, you’re just simply wrong, there.
PG Wodehouse is most definitely the least painful way to improve your intelligence. Your grammar, vocabulary, and ability to keep track of several thoughts at once will improve and you won’t even notice it happening because you’ll be laughing too hard.
Start with a book of short stories called CARRY ON, JEEVES. Then, a novel called RIGHT HO, JEEVES. Then THE CODE OF THE WOOSTERS. Then the Mr. Mulliner stories which are distributed among several books and anthologies the most complete of which is THE WORLD OF MR. MULLINER. Then the stories about golf, also distributed but available in one volume called THE GOLF OMNIBUS. (No, it doesn’t matter if you don’t play golf.) You’re still a beginner–he wrote more than a hundred books. He once wrote in an introduction that a critic had complained that his most recent previous novel contained “all the old Wodehouse characters under different names”, and that in order to fool this critic he had put into his current novel all the old Wodehouse characters under the same names.
Janet, I didn’t mean to insult you, just to state a fact. One of the things you learn in clinical rotations is to state unpleasant or shocking facts as baldly as you can. You can improve your intelligence by reading PG Wodehouse which is also extremely entertaining.
Ha ha! I’m not offended or feeling insulted, just amused imagining how clever you must think you are. I guess you didn’t catch the Forrest Gump quote.
It’s very thoughtful of you to offer unsolicited advice on improving one’s intelligence, but you might want to consider charging for it (just in case the day job at the clinic doesn’t work out).
Janet, I didn’t mean to insult you, just to state a fact. One of the things you learn in clinical rotations is to state unpleasant or shocking facts as baldly as you can. You can improve your intelligence by reading PG Wodehouse which is also extremely entertaining.
Ha ha! I’m not offended or feeling insulted, just amused imagining how clever you must think you are. I guess you didn’t catch the Forrest Gump quote.
It’s very thoughtful of you to offer unsolicited advice on improving one’s intelligence, but you might want to consider charging for it (just in case the day job at the clinic doesn’t work out).
Jon, you wrote: “You’ve got a brutal, selfish religion, SoMG!”
At least I don’t pray to a zombie or eat human flesh (Eucharist).
Posted by: SoMG at August 17, 2008 1:39 PM
******************************************
Nah, you don’t eat it, SoMG, you just rip it apart.
Oh, to one day be as intelligent as SoMG and talk down to everyone around me, showing no compassion for the most innocent in society!
Yeah, a girl can dream.
Is anyone else offended by Jon’s view of feminism (“So should homosexuals and feminists to the extent that they destroy themselves as men and women”)? My view of feminism is that women can do anything they put their mind to and shouldn’t be held back because of their sex. Carla, Bethany, Patricia (if you don’t all have daughters, sorry for the assumption), don’t you think your daughters can be doctors or lawyers or engineers if they want? If they agree, does that make them feminists, and if so, people doing a disservice to men and women, Jon? Ladies, I’m not trying to implicate you here, just using you as examples.
Jon I think you’re suck in a 70s version of screaming women with bad hairdos burning bras and making you feel emasculated. Today’s feminist wants to have it all, and that shouldn’t be at all threatening.
I consider myself a feminist because I believe that if I try, I can and should be able to do anything. The fact that I want to devote my life to having children doesn’t change that.
Common, I agree with you and your view of feminism.
Unfortunately, it’s not really what’s typically thought of when we see the term “feminism.” I don’t believe Jon was trying to insult anyone, but I see his point of view.
True feminism has long been pushed aside in favor of a “do whatever you can to get whatever you want” mentality by some who are extremely militant. There are many groups who do seek the “emasculation of men” because of their hatred for males in general. If you don’t believe that, you should research a little bit more. The movement begun by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony has deteriorated to the point that now many women believe that they can and should further themselves and their careers by sacrificing their unborn children in order to “be equal with men.” What they don’t get is that we ARE equal with men, created from the rib and not the feet…but we are DIFFERENT from them. When God created humanity, he made “man” both male and female. Women aren’t a subspecies beneath men. But there are too many “modern feminists” who aren’t willing to acknowledge any difference at all between the sexes and are very militant in their pursuit of power at any cost.
I happen to think that giving birth and/or raising the next generation is an honor and incredibly empowering for me as a woman.
I’m quite certain that most of the women on these boards believe that their daughters can be anything that God has called them to be. :)
LOL Janet, I actually do get paid for helping people improve their intelligence. My interest in abortion is part-time.
Kel, you wrote: ” The movement begun by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony has deteriorated to the point that now many women believe that they can and should further themselves and their careers by sacrificing their unborn children in order to “be equal with men.” ”
That’s right, Kel. Women have abortions because they feel it will make them “equal with men”. The desire to avoid continued pregnancy, labor and delivery, and parenthood has nothing to do with it. It’s chosen in order to acheive equality with men. The docs do the abortions because they want the women to get breast cancer. The mastectomy surgeons and the chemo people pay us kickbacks for increasing their workloads.
Why not just admit it: you want to go back to the 1950s, when most high-school girls’ goals were to marry a high-earning man as soon as possible?
“Patricia, you are ranting and raving”. Ad hominem
“much more than you” Ad hominem
“No It’s never been”. Is that a absolute consistent fact and reality Doug? A appeal to shut down the opponent by appealing to a absolute consistent fact of reality by Doug. First a No, then a appeal to eternity and the realm of infinity by the use of the word NEVER. Hey, “that’s just the way it is”. Ain’t it Doug? Care to query yourself and answer what logical fallacy you have committed Doug? JusT how do you know that personhood has NEVER in ALL time since human beings have existed that it has never existed Doug???? I can’t help it, It’s a dogmatic statement.
“Baloney”. Ad hominem
“Again, you’re just simply wrong, there.”
Appeal to the invincilbe authority of Doug’s consistent facts of reality. At other times is written by Doug as, Hey that’s just the way it is.
always has been. Another absolute appeal to his forceful consistent facts of his reality.
“we are not talking about” The opening that Doug is going to use to define the facts and reality of Doug. Always useful to one creating fantasy, a whole cloth, arising from the mind of one creating his own terms and definitions of facts and reality.
“we are talking about” Of course this leads to Doug actually writing to himself in a consistent reality of facts where your not talking to Doug, as Doug wants and needs you to talk or write to Doug about his facts of reality.
Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 10:33 PM
LOL Janet, I actually do get paid for helping people improve their intelligence. My interest in abortion is part-time.
Posted by: SoMG at August 18, 2008 5:21 AM
So you are not an abortionist after all? What a revelation!
Jon, thanks for replying. I didn’t see your reply until now.
I thought that BAIPA would force abortionists to reconsider what they do because–as SoMG said–they would have to use some different way to kill the child. As SoMG said, some ways are more efficient than others.
There wasn’t the ban on D & X abortions back then, but I question whether BAIPA would have in effect outlawed the procedure. I guess it depends on where we draw the line for “birth” at.
Yet even if it was the difference between D & X (let’s say that “born” was applied to that) and D & E, it would be the same as what we have now, doctors do D & E’s versus the other procedure. It’s not like that forces them to “reconsider what they do” as far as the morality of abortion, and that was what I thought you meant.
……
I also thought that abortionists are not immune to human feelings of sympathy. SoMG asked, “Is it better to die in utero from cardiac arrest or ex utero from non-continuation of maternal life support?” Of course, he failed to recognize a third option of not dying at all. So maybe I’m naive to think that abortionists would quit the business rather than be “forced” to become more cruel.
I don’t see where your “more cruel” is coming from. Again, we’re talking about different procedures that do the same thing. It’s early in the day and maybe I’m missing something.
:: laughing ::
yllas, I knew that I could rub the magic lamp and then you’d appear on other threads. Anyway, welcome back.
“Patricia, you are ranting and raving”.
Ad hominem
Well, yllas, that really was some ranting and raving. She launched into this big tirade, You have absolutely NO understanding… when my answer was straight and to the point.
….
“No It’s never been”.
Is that a absolute consistent fact and reality Doug?
It’s like asking, “has anybody from earth been to Mars?”
There is no record of it, same as for attributing personhood to the unborn; and of course this is real personhood, the granting of rights same as for born people, the full legal status.
Abortion was illegal for a time in the US, but that was not deeming personhood to be present for the unborn, for example.
…..
“we are not talking about”
The opening that Doug is going to use to define the facts and reality
Well, yes, but it’s just the truth.
The issue is not that we’ve “taken away” personhood from the unborn, but that some people want it granted to them, while others don’t because that would mean taking away the freedom that women currently have in the matter of their own pregnancy.
SoMG: Doug, Paul Campos is wrong. The critical question is not fetal personhood, but whether one person should be forced to sustain another person’s life inside her body. (The answer is no.)
You are inserting your own favored definition of personhood in place of what is operative for the US as a country.
Legal persons have the protection of the Constitution, and since personhood hasn’t been attributed to the unborn, abortion can be legal, etc.
Going clear back to the Roe decision, to paraphrase: “if ever personhood would be established for the unborn, then the woman’s right to an abortion would be negated.”
Doug,
You are inserting your own favored definition of personhood in place of what is operative for the US as a country.
Legal persons have the protection of the Constitution, and since personhood hasn’t been attributed to the unborn, abortion can be legal, etc.
Going clear back to the Roe decision, to paraphrase: “if ever personhood would be established for the unborn, then the woman’s right to an abortion would be negated.”
No Doug. The constitution was never meant to include the right for a woman to abort her unborn child. Most likely it was not mentioned specifically because it was considered unconscionable by most. The fact that the so-called point of viability had varied so greatly throughout history is proof that it is arbitrary. The establishment of “a point of viability” was necessary to keep the minority of people in favor of abortion in check.
I know about Democracy, etc. The point is that there has to be sufficient opinion for a law to be, to get passed, and regardless of the existing political system, etc., that’s the deal.
Doug you are being stubborn to the point of stupidity. Stop making comments about the Canadian situation when you as an American know NOTHING of Canada’s political workings. It’s beyond what you as an American experience in your country. At the time the abortion law was being flaunted and brought down public support for the prolife position was overwhelming.
Baloney. I said I’d party like a big dog for the next 7 months (until I’m 50). A humorous response to an inapplicable question, because we are not talking about “taking away” personhood from anybody, we are talking about whether or not to attribute it in the first place.
……
To make this statement is outright IGNORANT and shows your inability to accept the facts of history. Too bad Doug. Means I won’t be debating you again (as usual) because you refuse to acknowledge even basic historical facts.BTW – this IS the liberal mindset – didn’t I say that before – you will have what you want when you want without any care towards others..
And BTW, I’m disturbed that people like you have taken AWAY the rights of unborn children, promoted the pornification of women and children and degraded women by not respecting their integrity. Please don’t tell me that you haven’t because by the very promotion of your values (or lack thereof) you have. If not by the life you have lived……
Again, you’re just simply wrong, there.
Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 10:33 PM
NOPE. I’m not and YOU know it. If you had “modern” sexual lifestyle Doug, you abused that woman. You degraded her and made a mockery of her femininity. You used her for your own self-gratification. Even if she co-operated with you in this, you as a man have a duty to protect the virtue of women. If you doubt this, ask yourself what your motives were at the time and what YOU were thinking of? You should be ashamed of this. In this way, you personally, HAVE contributed to the culture which today regularly degrades women, mocks their ability to have babies and be open to new life. Again, thanks for nothing, Doug!
Janet, abortion was not an issue when the Constitution was written. English common law held that it was okay until quickening, and that was the deal in the Colonies for decades upone decade before 1789, and for decades afterwards. The writers of the Constitution knew that some women had abortions, and there was no expression that abortion was “wrong.” It was a right that women had, along with many other rights, and the Constitution is not about enumerating those rights, but about keeping government from infringing upon those rights.
You didn’t really address what I said, though. If personhood would be established for the unborn, then the Constitution would apply.
Doug you are being stubborn to the point of stupidity. Stop making comments about the Canadian situation when you as an American know NOTHING of Canada’s political workings. It’s beyond what you as an American experience in your country. At the time the abortion law was being flaunted and brought down public support for the prolife position was overwhelming.
Patricia, I did live in Canada for four years, and worked there for nine.
However, nothing you say above relates to what we were talking about. Regardless of Canada’s political system, and regardless of how much you or I know about it, the fact remains that there has to be sufficient opinion for a law. If there is not enough sentiment, then the law won’t be. That’s it. You asked, and I answered….
…..
“A humorous response to an inapplicable question, because we are not talking about “taking away” personhood from anybody, we are talking about whether or not to attribute it in the first place.”
To make this statement is outright IGNORANT and shows your inability to accept the facts of history. Too bad Doug. Means I won’t be debating you again (as usual) because you refuse to acknowledge even basic historical facts.BTW – this IS the liberal mindset – didn’t I say that before – you will have what you want when you want without any care towards others..
No, the facts of history are that there is no record of any society on earth, at any time, attributing personhood to the unborn. Abortion being illegal does not do that. Personhood for the unborn would mean that abortion would be illegal, but the reverse is not true.
This isn’t about what you or I care about, this is just how it’s been, looking back through history. I’m not saying it’s impossible, either; just that it has not happened.
……
“Again, you’re just simply wrong, there.”
NOPE. I’m not and YOU know it.
Yeah, you are. It’s that we don’t (enough) attribute rights to the unborn that has you dissatisfied, not that personhood was “taken away.”
……
If you had “modern” sexual lifestyle Doug, you abused that woman. You degraded her and made a mockery of her femininity. You used her for your own self-gratification. Even if she co-operated with you in this, you as a man have a duty to protect the virtue of women. If you doubt this, ask yourself what your motives were at the time and what YOU were thinking of? You should be ashamed of this. In this way, you personally, HAVE contributed to the culture which today regularly degrades women, mocks their ability to have babies and be open to new life.
Heh – now this is another rant.
What woman are you even talking about? I think you are confusing me with somebody else.
Janet; you are correct. It’s also considered even within proabort/liberal circles that the Roe decision by point of law is of the WORST kind. They simply made it up as they went along, reinterpreting the law and reading points in that were never there. Ditto Canada!
Amazing the people like Doug now state that the unborn were never persons and never protected simply because it fits their now liberal world view and for their own personal expediency!
Patricia,
Thank you.
What they don’t get is that we ARE equal with men, created from the rib and not the feet…but we are DIFFERENT from them.
Kel 2:05, thanks for your explanation. I agree with it, except I don’t like your word choice. To say that men and women are different is to say that they are not equal in those ways in which they are different. We should specify in what men and women are equal: they are equal in worth, not authority.
Hmm–maybe I’m wrong about your use of equal. I was checking the language of the Athanasian Creed for its description of the Persons of the Trinity. It says (in the version I looked at): “And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.”
What always strikes me as radical in today’s world–even with Christian women–is the apostle Peter’s praise of Sarah: “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (1 Pet. 3:6). A wife belongs to her lord, her master. There is a real sense in which he belongs to her also, but there is a difference in authority. A Biblical marriage destroys feminism and its “my body, my choice” emphasis on independent existence. So does our belonging to God.
Even in the matter of voting, is there more than one reason that women should vote? That reason might be that in our society so many households are already run by single women because of broken marriages. In the past, when marriages were stronger and more marriages lasted, only one vote would be necessary per household, the father’s. The wife thinks the same way as her husband because they are one flesh.
Didn’t the original ideal of a republic limit voting to only men of property? They have an interest in ruling well; the masses just want a free lunch.
The woman was made of a rib from the side of Adam.
Not made out of his head to rule over him;
Nor out of his feet to be trampled on by him;
But out of his side to be equal to him,
Under his arm to be protected and
Near his heart to be loved. (Matthew Henry)
Amazing the people like Doug now state that the unborn were never persons and never protected simply because it fits their now liberal world view and for their own personal expediency!
P, no, it’s not amazing at all. You are just confusing the act of abortion being illegal with personhood for the unborn, when they are not the same thing; that’s all.
Not that it’s “impossible” that personhood would be attributed – it could happen. It’s just not happened to this point, regardless of the legality or illegality of abortion at the time.
Roe isn’t objected to “in liberal circles.” The Constitution has themes of individual rights, among them freedom, liberty, privacy, etc., and not interfering with the individual unless the state was a good enough reason to do so. Does the state have a good enough reason to take away the rights women currently have with respect to abortion? No, not in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Here’s ancient Israel’s BAIPA (Lev. 21:22-25):
If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (New American Standard version after 1995)
That the injury is not specifically attributed to either the woman or her child would seem to indicate that it could be attributed to either. There is some debate about the Hebrew for “giving birth prematurely,” but the New American Standard now agrees with the New King James Version and the New International Version, to name just two other versions.
Jon, excellent topics and thoughts.
Didn’t the original ideal of a republic limit voting to only men of property?
I doubt it, about “a republic,” but specific to the United States, the Declaration of Independence was about a bunch of white, male landowners telling King George to go screw off, basically. I don’t know if it was only “propertied” men that were allowed to vote, early on….?
…..
They have an interest in ruling well; the masses just want a free lunch.
I don’t think that’s true of the masses. And one’s definition of “well” can vary all over the map. It’s like with economic systems – pure, unbridled capitalism is the system that produces the most wealth, but it tends to accumulate in the hands of the few rather than the many, and you end up with a very few super-rich people with the rest being basically serfs.
So compromises are made, etc…
Patricia, can’t we let Doug keep his concept of personhood? Isn’t man’s original likeness to God a much more effective argument that we shouldn’t even–besides having marital sex–deliberately create, harm, or destroy a human zygote? I think Doug’s saying that personhood is just a legal invention in Western civilization. Other societies didn’t use it, I guess.
Well, perhaps we do need it. Not to explain to each other the evil of induced abortion, but to make it illegal. We have to work with the legal code and legal precedents that we have.
Kel, you wrote: ” The movement begun by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony has deteriorated to the point that now many women believe that they can and should further themselves and their careers by sacrificing their unborn children in order to “be equal with men.” ”
That’s right, Kel. Women have abortions because they feel it will make them “equal with men”. The desire to avoid continued pregnancy, labor and delivery, and parenthood has nothing to do with it. It’s chosen in order to acheive equality with men. The docs do the abortions because they want the women to get breast cancer. The mastectomy surgeons and the chemo people pay us kickbacks for increasing their workloads.
Why not just admit it: you want to go back to the 1950s, when most high-school girls’ goals were to marry a high-earning man as soon as possible?
Posted by: SoMG at August 18, 2008 5:29 AM
**************************************
Considering I wasn’t around in the 1950s, I’d prefer not to go back to it. ;)
And if you read my comment, I said “many” women believe that. Not all. And your other statements about purposefully giving women breast cancer are ridiculous, but you know that already.
Jon said: “To say that men and women are different is to say that they are not equal in those ways in which they are different.”
Well, that’s interesting, I could swear I said nothing of the SORT, but you’ve decided to interpret it that way. You’ve put words in my mouth, Jon.
Jon said: “What always strikes me as radical in today’s world–even with Christian women–is the apostle Peter’s praise of Sarah: “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (1 Pet. 3:6). A wife belongs to her lord, her master. There is a real sense in which he belongs to her also, but there is a difference in authority. A Biblical marriage destroys feminism and its “my body, my choice” emphasis on independent existence. So does our belonging to God.”
I agree with you. But I take issue with your portrayal of feminism. If you haven’t already, do some research on the early feminists…they’re not much like the current feminist movement today. They embraced womanhood and motherhood, and knew that raising up the next generation was incredibly important, among other things. I am very thankful for their brand of feminism!
“Even in the matter of voting, is there more than one reason that women should vote? That reason might be that in our society so many households are already run by single women because of broken marriages. In the past, when marriages were stronger and more marriages lasted, only one vote would be necessary per household, the father’s. The wife thinks the same way as her husband because they are one flesh.”
Wow, Jon…I am one flesh with my husband, but I have a mind of my own, too! ;) He and I agree on every important issue, but the times when we have been in disagreement over minor details, I defer to his authority as the head of the house. I have not regretted this, but I do not always *think* the same way as my husband. My husband values the way I think and values my input and experiences. I am ME. God made me, too, not just my husband. My husband does not complete me but we complement each other; my Lord completes me and has a purpose for me AS A WOMAN, married or unmarried.
“Didn’t the original ideal of a republic limit voting to only men of property?”
I don’t know, but I am certainly glad that thanks to true feminism in this country, daughters and not just sons can inherit their father’s property. (Who would honestly want to live the way they did in the days of Jane Austen, where the woman’s only hope was to marry well? -SoMG, are you listening to what I’ve just said?-)
Women can help to support their families, earn college degrees, vote, have traditionally “male” careers, and choose whom they will marry. We are contributing members of our households and of society, so we should have a right to vote.
Women can help to support their families, earn college degrees, vote, have traditionally “male” careers, and choose whom they will marry. We are contributing members of our households and of society, so we should have a right to vote.
Posted by: Kel at August 18, 2008 2:34 PM
I agree that women should have all of the above rights but unborn children should NOT be the ones to pay the price of these rights with their lives.
The new feminisim that JP II talks about recognizes woman’s true gift of the abiltiy to accept new life and to be the nurturer of life. The dignity of women is inherently tied to this unique ability – men and the angels do not have it! Until we attend to this model, women will never have true equality with men. What we have today degrades women.
Jon:9:24,
“Even in the matter of voting, is there more than one reason that women should vote? That reason might be that in our society so many households are already run by single women because of broken marriages. In the past, when marriages were stronger and more marriages lasted, only one vote would be necessary per household, the father’s. The wife thinks the same way as her husband because they are one flesh.”
I used to hear this attitude expressed when I was young, so I was very surprised to see your comment. I used think it made sense, but now I like the fact that if I don’t agree with my husband on an issue, at least my vote cancels his out. :)
Women can help to support their families, earn college degrees, vote, have traditionally “male” careers, and choose whom they will marry. We are contributing members of our households and of society, so we should have a right to vote.
Posted by: Kel at August 18, 2008 2:34 PM
I agree that women should have all of the above rights but unborn children should NOT be the ones to pay the price of these rights with their lives.
The new feminisim that JP II talks about recognizes woman’s true gift of the abiltiy to accept new life and to be the nurturer of life. The dignity of women is inherently tied to this unique ability – men and the angels do not have it! Until we attend to this model, women will never have true equality with men. What we have today degrades women.
Posted by: Patricia at August 18, 2008 3:10 PM
*********************************
I’m confused here…was I not clear that I agree with all of this already? I hope no one is misinterpreting my comments to mean that I believe that women should have the right to terminate the life of someone else for any reason. Because I do NOT believe in *that* sort of feminism.
It feels weird today…like Jon is putting words in my mouth and Patricia is disagreeing with me when we don’t disagree. :D
Maybe I’m just confused. :-/
You and Patricia are definitely on the same page, Kel. I think she was just expounding upon your point. God love you.
I think Doug’s saying that personhood is just a legal invention in Western civilization. Other societies didn’t use it, I guess.
Jon – it’s not “my concept,” it’s a societal construct. It’s granting legal status, like citizenship. Legal invention, convention, etc., – yes, that’s getting there. It’s saying, for example, that one can’t be killed without due process of law, or in self-defense, etc. I think all societies have laws/proscriptions against what is held to be murder, don’t they? I really don’t think it’s restricted to any part of the globe nor time period.
Eileen, donating a kidney is much LESS than nine months out of your life and the patient who dies because you didn’t is snuffed out forever. Does that mean it’s cruel to let you keep both of yours?
Posted by: SoMG at August 17, 2008 10:26 PM
That analogy doesn’t work and you know it.
“Even in the matter of voting, is there more than one reason that women should vote? That reason might be that in our society so many households are already run by single women because of broken marriages. In the past, when marriages were stronger and more marriages lasted, only one vote would be necessary per household, the father’s. The wife thinks the same way as her husband because they are one flesh”
Ok I’ve tried to be on a nice streak here but…ICK! That type of thinking terrifies me. I love the idea of a husband and wife being of “one flesh” but I’m college educated and have my own mind, and I like the fact that I can disagree with my fiance. It makes our conversations interesting and makes us both smarter. And I like voting. I like having more rights than a baboon.
And the “authority” idea scares me too. I think it’s important to have equal “authority” otherwise I feel like I’d be scared of him. Could he beat me because he feels like he has authority over me? Take my children away? Kick me out of my house?
You and Patricia are definitely on the same page, Kel. I think she was just expounding upon your point. God love you.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 18, 2008 4:38 PM
***********************************
Thanks for clarifying, Bobby. I was beginning to wonder! ;)
“Ok I’ve tried to be on a nice streak here but…ICK! That type of thinking terrifies me. I love the idea of a husband and wife being of “one flesh” but I’m college educated and have my own mind, and I like the fact that I can disagree with my fiance. It makes our conversations interesting and makes us both smarter. And I like voting. I like having more rights than a baboon.
And the “authority” idea scares me too. I think it’s important to have equal “authority” otherwise I feel like I’d be scared of him. Could he beat me because he feels like he has authority over me? Take my children away? Kick me out of my house?”
Posted by: common at August 18, 2008 9:28 PM
************************************
Common, I think you’re viewing authority as something more negative, like authoritarianism. Husbands aren’t supposed to be despotic, they’re supposed to be loving and self-sacrificial and lead by example. Too many husbands demand respect when they don’t deserve it because their treatment of their wives and children is reproachable. I understand your fears; I just think you’re viewing authority as a thing to be feared rather than a place to be “safe.”
If that makes any sense. :)
Eileen, the analogy DOES work as long as you don’t push it too far. Abortion and withholding transplantable organs have commonalities and differences as any pair of concepts does.
One of the commonalities is, in both cases one person’s ownership of her body justifies her causing another person’s death, often for the sake of mere convenience.
Janet, it is possible to be both an abortion provider and an educator.
Jon, I missed your answer way up above. OK. So you invoke the difference that organ/blood donation benefits a stranger rather than ones child. How about a law forcing you to donate blood/organs to your children if needed? What gives you the right to kill your child by saying no?
SoMG, I still have to disagree — your analogy is blatantly illogical.
Eileen, forget about the analogy. Just answer the question: what justifies you in killing someone by withholding transplantable blood or organs? And don’t say it’s because the person is a stranger–what is it that allows you to refuse to donate blood/organs to your children?
You seem to be a legend in your own mind.
Abortion on demand and w/o appology.
SoMG, I would not be directly killing someone in that instance. There is no moral equivalent. Stop triangulating the truth like so many liberals try to do — the Clintons and B. Obama are prime examples of it.
BTW, if I had a child or family member in need of an organ transplant and my tissue was compatible, then I would donate.
LOL Janet, I actually do get paid for helping people improve their intelligence. My interest in abortion is part-time.
Posted by: SoMG at August 18, 2008 5:21 AM
++
So you are not an abortionist after all? What a revelation!
Posted by: Janet at August 18, 2008 6:19 AM
++
Janet, it is possible to be both an abortion provider and an educator.
Posted by: SoMG at August 19, 2008 3:29 AM
++
It is POSSIBLE, but ARE YOU?
Eileen, the analogy DOES work as long as you don’t push it too far. Abortion and withholding transplantable organs have commonalities and differences as any pair of concepts does.
One of the commonalities is, in both cases one person’s ownership of her body justifies her causing another person’s death, often for the sake of mere convenience.
Posted by: SoMG at August 19, 2008 2:49 AM
You are pushing it too far. One, you assume bodily autonomy is an excuse to abort. Two, you assume foregoing organ donation is not a moral choice. Neither is correct.
what justifies you in killing someone by withholding transplantable blood or organs? And don’t say it’s because the person is a stranger–what is it that allows you to refuse to donate blood/organs to your children?
SoMG, I am a Christian. I believe that God is fully in control of everything that happens. I am not “killing someone by withholding [my] transplantable blood or organs.” Many people can and do donate blood, and I encourage them to do so. Many parents do donate even their organs to their children. I know of an African Christian, Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship, who recently did so for his child. That’s the kind of love that the Bible encourages, the kind of love that the Lord Jesus Christ has. “Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friend.”
The civil government does not have the authority to redistribute wealth. Neither does it have the authority to force one human being to give vital or non-vital organs to save another human being. Only God has that authority.
Ultimately natural abortions are also our fault. We sinned against God, and He kept His promise. His curse came true. To live apart from God is death. Death and dying are now common in our world. They’re not good, but they’re common. We don’t welcome them, but we sadly accept them, believing a far greater, positive new promise that God has made, a promise of life. Let’s build a culture of life.
What I called ancient Israel’s BAIPA I should really have called much more comprehensive legislation than the BAIPA, anti-abortion legislation. I wasn’t thinking clearly. Here it is again (Lev. 21:22-25):
If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (New American Standard version after 1995)