The Washington Post is profiling bloggers who attended the Democrat and Republican National Conventions. Am pleased today it chose this blog (click to enlarge)…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
“Lipstick on which pig?”
Lest you think this blog’s profile in the Washington Post today might go to my head, never fear, there will always be those ready to humble me. From today’s Birth Pangs blog, referring to my “Lipstick on a pig” post…
Jill, that’s very nice.
Congratulations Jill! We’re soooo proud of your work here. Keep it up!
Nice Jill, congrats.
Did they edit out your comments about infanticide or did you manage to get through the interview without attacking Obama?
Well done Jill!
U da man, Jill.
Cheers!
Did they edit out your comments about infanticide or did you manage to get through the interview without attacking Obama?
Posted by: Hal at September 5, 2008 1:00 PM
———–
Hal, could you just show a little class just once in a while?
We know you are greatly challenged in this area, however, if you want to continue blogging here, I suggest you win a few friends.
Also, how much is Planned Parenthood paying you to be a potted plant on this site. Or is it NARAL or NOW?
Hal, yep, just like a man to give a woman a compliment, then stab her in the back.
what? You’re anti-man now?
Anyway, I’m out of here, must catch a jet plane.
Carry on.
Hal, actually, yes they did edit out my comments about Obama and infanticide.
Hal:
Anti-man? No, anti-jerk.
Jill,
You told the Washington Post there is no room for compromise
on the sanctity of life – from the moment of conception.
So, how do you square that with your support of John McCain,
who clearly supports experimenting on and destroying our tinyist
pre-born boys and girls?
He and Cindy believe the states should be allowed to decide whether greedy abortionists will be allowed to carry on their dirty work and he won’t support Personhood.
How does that differ from slave holding states believing that black americans were less than human and could be held against their will and exploited?
Either the government legally protects all life, from the moment of fertilization, or our God-given rights are meaningless.
John McCain would render them meaningless.
In fact his McCain-Feingold measure demonstrates his willingness to descimate our constitutional right to free speech.
How much more compromise can be stomached?
Hal 1:00, Jill 1:13 Mental telepathy. LOL
Just slightly off topic. My favorite Palin story from the Wall Street Journal. While Mayor, she built the town rec center on land the town didn’t own, and the town went broke when it got sued and had to buy the land from the owner. Now THAT is the “executive experience” we need in the White House!
Les, McCain is not perfect. But he’s very good, and he has been made better by his running mate. You will vote for Keyes, which is your right. But lambasting those of us – like Dobson – who are voting for McCain over Obama for obvious reasons, is senseless and woefully misspent energy.
yea Jill!! that’s neat.
“yes they did edit out my comments about Obama and infanticide.”
Oh really…
corrupt, just corrupt. Boy, they really trying to cover Obama’s behind.
Hi Jill!
Great interview. I am so glad you are out there making news!!
A conservative, pro-life blogger at the DNC…
Jill: “I know! I was not sure how I would be treated, but people were very nice. The guy in charge of the Big Tent sought me out every day wondering if I was okay. I got into minor disagreements with some people, but it never turned into blows.”
Still, from the notion that it was somewhat like “Animal House,” I want to see the pictures from the toga party.
Jill,
Of course Mc Cain isn’t perfect – no one is.
But this is what FOTF’s Tom Minnery said about him not that
long ago:
What objections do evangelicals raise about him as a candidate?
He’s inconsistent on the abortion issue, given his view of the stem-cell research side of it. He has caused great mischief for a lot of organizations including our own who try to do issue advertising to let people know how the politicians stand during the election. We can’t do that because of McCain-Feingold. Finally, the Supreme Court knocked that part of it out, but there’s an increasing number of regulations that we have to deal with, so we don’t appreciate that. I think that his joining the gang of 14 to take control over the Supreme Court justices was ineffective. Obviously we’d like a candidate that supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17393820/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news
Focus spokesman Tom Minnery said Dobson “supports,” but has not yet formally endorsed McCain.
What’s changed? And do tell; what’s “very good” about your candidate?
Way to change the subject when you were cornered on Palin cutting funding for services for teen mothers, Jill.
Les:
You know we agree on life issues.
Jill is right about this though. We can win the battle but lose the war. While the battle may be about our principles and a vote for Alan may make us feel good about that, however, our war is against abortion and we must do everything to defeat it.
Please read the story about Rahab the prostitue, then maybe you’ll understand what I am trying to tell you. God is not so interested in the letter of the law as He is in the Spirit of the Law.
Do you want abortion to remain as long as you can win an argument? I don’t think any of us would be against Alan Keyes, however, we all know he hasn’t got a chance to win.
McCain is not perfect. I do believe he will be a staunch supporter on life issues and will appoint judges that will look at Roe v Wade to see if it really is constitutional. If McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin does not convince you of that I don’t know what will. Please try to read between the lines.
Every vote for Keyes, as much as I love Alan, does not counter a vote for Obama.
Please vote for McCain.
Thanks, bro. Peace.
Way to change the subject when you were cornered on Palin cutting funding for services for teen mothers, Jill.
Posted by: Ray at September 5, 2008 5:00 PM
—————–
Ray:
Your concern for teen mother’s is only exceeded by your willingness to destroy Sarah Palin’s pregnant 17, that’s seven-TEEN, year old daughter.
I seriously doubt that before McCain had the GOP nomination wrapped up, any of his new supporters on this blog would have allowed themselves to make these compromising arguments. From a pro-life perspective, Sarah Palin doesn’t add to this ticket anymore than Jack Kemp made Sen. Dole more appealing, or Dan Quayle cleaned up the George H.W. Bush ticket, or Dick Cheney made G.W. Bush more pro-life. We’ve been down this road for decades. The simple truth is that not a single baby will live under a McCain administration that would have died under an Obama administration. Dr. Dobson’s guilty mind now has Focus on the Family parsing words in the vein of Bill Clinton. According to my dictionary, one meaning of the word endorsement is support. There is no difference. If Dobson, and others want to support McCain, that’s their privilege. They shouldn’t do it under the guise of a Christian decision however, as Christ never told us to compromise in matters of life and death.
If Dobson, and others want to support McCain, that’s their privilege. They shouldn’t do it under the guise of a Christian decision however, as Christ never told us to compromise in matters of life and death.
Posted by: Bear at September 5, 2008 6:44 PM
okay so go ahead and support Keyes and watch Obama get sworn into the Presidency in January and FOCA enacted in February. It’s like digging a pit and throwing yourself into it!
Your concern for teen mother’s is only exceeded by your willingness to destroy Sarah Palin’s pregnant 17, that’s seven-TEEN, year old daughter.
What on earth are you talking about, HisMan? If you are demonstrating your tendency to make wild accusations in complete ignorance, then congratulations, you have succeeded.
The FOCA is of course, exactly what we have in America today, so what are you so afraid of Patricia?
Well done, Jill.
I also REALLY like the photo of you with the red highlights! You remind me of Molly Ringwald who was and is still such a pretty woman. :)
LTL, (lots to learn)
So you have had a few days to thing about it.
What species of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
affectionately
your knuckle dragging neanderthal, not bitter, but still clinging to Jesus and my guns
Excellent.
Bear,
Read HisMan @ 6:06.
lesforlife,
Vote for McCain. God will understand.
Ray,
Get your facts straight. You and the Washington Post are having a hard time at it.
Palin did not cut dollars to a teen pregnancy center, she cut funds to Covenant House. Covenant House has, as one portion of their activities, a program geared towards helping pregnant teens. They also run many other charitable programs. Palin cut funding to the entire Charity, not to one section of the Charity. She also left them with 3.9 million, down from 5 million. This is only a 20% reduction in funding.
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/ewthrockmorton/11581381/
Even better. Again, Ray, please dont believe what Obama tells you in your text messages.
(By the way, as an aside… “The Audacity of Hope??” Has anyone really sat down and pondered that hilariosly pretentious book title? Seriously? Audacity?)
“Two, the report leaves the impression that the Governor reduced existing funding levels, when in fact, the Palin-approved budget allowed a massive expansion of funding for this worthy faith-based organization. The organization
Intellectual Inconsistency
I was once charged with trespass for refusing to move from the doorway of a building where pre-natal humans were being killed. In the subsequent trial I was interviewing perspective jurors. They all answered questions under oath, understanding that lying would be perjury, a crime. I read the part of the 14th amenndment to the U.S. Constitution which states: ‘nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I asked each perspective juror which of these three rights was pre-eminent, life, liberty, or property. Each one of them said liberty was the most important. I then asked them how you could possibly enjoy liberty if you had been denied life. They all said you could not. I then said, ‘If that is true, then you would have to say the right to life trumps all others, would you not?’ Each one of them, in turn, agreed. Life is numero uno/number one.
Now here is the interesting part. I could only interview one juror at a time. The remainder of the jury pool was present and heard me ask all the previous persons the same questions. But when it came their turn, each one of them answered the same way. Initially, liberty was the most important right, but when asked how you could enjoy liberty without life, logic dictated that the right to life is our most valuable right.
All the perspective jurors answered the questions honestly. But initially they were all honestly wrong. When required to exercise logic they had to acknowledge the truth: Without life every other right is meaningless.
What kind of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
Here are some clues: not bovine, not feline, not canine.
I know this is really difficult for some of you. You do not want jeopardize your bliss by giving up on your willful ignorance.
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
And all the fifth graders said, “Human!”
What do you say?
ps:They convicted me of criminal trespass. I believe they would have voted to execute me if the penalty had been available. I know some of you would have.
What kind of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
A human one, of course, but that’s not the issue.
“What kind of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?”
A human one, of course, but that’s not the issue.
Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2008 11:47 AM
Of course it is. If it were a baby whale, it would be protected.
What kind of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
“A human one, of course, but that’s not the issue.”
Janet: Of course it is. If it were a baby whale, it would be protected.
Non sequitur. We don’t allow third-parties to harm wanted fetuses and we don’t allow third-parties to harm baby whales (and I presume unborn baby whales).