I showed this one earlier in the week but have to repost. It’s another classic by my favorite political cartoonist, Glenn McCoy:
Here are a couple other good ones….
By Bob Gorrell…
By Chuck Asay…
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.
I really like the Bob Gorrell cartoon. Let’s hope this comes back to haunt Obama – who is all charisma and nothing but fluff…..
Now that Mr. Obama has selected Mr. Biden as his running mate, Mr. Biden needs to be asked the same questions of Pastor Warren’s Civil Forum. Of course, this will apply to Mr McCain’s choice as well.
Of course, as a pro-life Christian, the question that is most important to me is: “When does life begin”?
Mr. Biden will certainly say this, “I agree that the answer is above Mr. Obama’s pay grade as well, as this is obvious to just about every one, even Mr, Obama, I mean why do you think he selected wonderful me? I will now attempt to fill the obvious voids and answer that question in the most convoluted way I can (Barack, take some notes son). Let’s start by asking the question: ‘What does the word begin mean”? Is it the start of something or not? In the beginning, God…..evolution…..St. Thomas Quinas…New Age……Oprah said….in conclusion, I have now proven life does begin at conception, however, who cares? The really, really, really important question is: How do we get elected……base…..wackos….Michael Moore…….NARAL….infanticide…..money…..Planned Parenthood…support..Hollywood……more money……power?
I heard Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty is on the short list for McCain VP choice. From what I see he would be a great choice. He has a history of presence in the March for Life and he has youth which should both serve the Repulican ticket well.
Wow Job, I think it’s my favorite book. Or one of them, there are too many good ones : ) Nice quote of the day.
Oops, Sunday quote. Hey what happened? Something is different on the right side of this site…
Jess,
It’s just a little wider because of the video Jill posted …
I love that first cartoon with Obama and the baseball bat ..LOL
Sure, this cartoon may be funny to you anti-choice people, but it totally misrepresents Obama’s position on abortion. He’s not out to kill living infants. He is just opposed to legislation which would interfere with a woman’s right to choose. When will you people get your facts right?
As for Biden, it sure takes guts for a Catholic to be pro-choice today.
Obama’s choice will probably cost him the Catholic vote, though.
“He’s not out to kill living infants.”
I agree in general Robert, but he is out to make sure aborted alive infants don’t survive. There is no disputing that fact, look at his record.
Robert Berger,
I agree he isn’t out to kill infants, but rather for finishing the job the abortionist started in the first place. It might be more accurate to say he’s for just letting them die. It can be so annoying when they’re born alive, not dead like they’re supposed to be.
Robert,
Obama wasn’t getting the Catholic vote anyway.
Robert, you have been around long enough to understand that facts have no place here.
Obama is s baby killer, just as he is a muslim that got sworn in on the Koran, who hates America and doesn’t wear a flag pin, and his wife hates whitey….Jill has the tape…
On this board, facts are not inconvenient, they are utterly irrelevant.
He’s not out to kill living infants. He is just opposed to legislation which would interfere with a woman’s right to choose. When will you people get your facts right?
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 24, 2008 10:57 AM
Mr.Berger, you have put yourself in a deep state of denial. These are babies that are already born, how do you possibly correlate that with a woman’s right to choose? You and Barry Hussein show great understanding of the burdens babies can cause when they don’t just cooperate and die before being delivered. Then a second doctor other than the abortionist gets burdened just to take a look at the live baby and see if they can help said baby in any way. Then society gets another several years of burden educating and possibly even having to feed said baby and find said baby a suitable home. The FACTS are that BHO believes we should just let the baby’s of bothched abortions die because of the burdens in caring for them. Is that what you think too?
Planned Parenthood Counselor. The FACTS are that BHO believes we should just let the baby’s of bothched abortions die because of the burdens in caring for them. Is that what you think too?
“As for Biden, it sure takes guts for a Catholic to be pro-choice today.”
If by guts you mean “a belief that oneself is god” then I agree.
Bobby do you ever wonder that maybe this world was created solely for you? Like maybe none of this is actually real? Like in, “The Truman Show”?
PPC,
Please. Could you just intelligently argue the issue here and stop whining about how poor Barack is being picked on. You’re starting to sound a lot like he does.
“Bobby do you ever wonder that maybe this world was created solely for you? Like maybe none of this is actually real? Like in, “The Truman Show”?”
Not really. I mean, what would be a good reason to believe that?
I dunno : / I never thought it, I was just wondering if you did.
The first cartoon is definitely the best. It gets to the meat; we can do without Mr. Obama’s nuance.
Has anyone been keeping up with this?:
http://www.operationrescue.org/?page_id=1020
Daily Video Reports Available From The DNC In Denver, Colorado
August 24th, 2008
Denver, CO – As the Truth Truck fleet rolls through the streets of Denver, Colorado, Operation Rescue’s President, Troy Newman, will be producing brief daily video reports of all the action during A Prayer for Change events at the Democratic National Convention.
Events on Saturday, August 23, 2008, included:
An exchange between pro-lifers and pro-death people on the streets of Denver.
A Rose Memorial for the Pre-Born at the Pepsi Center, site of the DNC.
Introduction of a young woman who survived a saline abortion.
Photographs are also available of the pro-life outreach at the DNC:
http://operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=4619
So, for the record, let’s state what Obama supports:
1) Abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
2) Higher taxes.
3) Admitting defeat in Iraq.
4) Government run health care.
5) Not supporting Born Alive Infants Protection Acts.
6) Punishing corporations.
7) Restricting or preventing increases in domestic oil drilling.
8) Cursing America
9) The blowing up of buildings by radical leftists.
10) Banning gun ownership.
11) Gay rights.
12) The NEA
13) NARAL
14) Planned Parenthood
Now what is Obama against?
1) Overturning Roe v. Wade
2) Lower taxes.
3) Defeating terrorism by direct confrontation and opposition to dictators like Hussein and Aminadejhad.
4) Private health care.
5) Passing any laws that would restrict the murder of innocent babies in the womb.
6) Eliminating burdensome regulations on business.
7) Love for this country.
8) The military.
9) The right to bear arms.
10) School choice.
Now, what have I left out?
To top this off, Obama praises a country like China, a country after his own heart, which cannot reveal who it truly is, you know, like Obama. A country which has the highest pollution in the world, slave labor, no health care protection, shoddy construction, forced abortion, restrictions on the practice of faith, and the inabilty to print truthful birth certificates.
What is the heck am I missing here?
But HisMan,
Don’t you know that, according to Obama, the Chinese have a marvelous infrastructure, far superior to ours?
So can we nominate him as President of China?
What is the heck am I missing here?
You are completely drowning in your side’s kool-aid and likes, HisMan. Most of what you have said there is completely the opposite of the truth, and the rest is distortion. Doesn’t your religion teach you not to lie? Perhaps you are counting on absolution by saying a few Hail Marys.
Oops that is: kool-aid and lies, not kool-aid and likes.
Mary:
It does not surprise me that Obama praises a country like China where Christians are tortured and murdered for their faith in Christ.
Does it surprise you that it is the same pro-abort types that support Obama and his policies also hate Christians, especially Catholics?
If you don’t, just read some of the rants of Hal, SoMG, Amanda, PPC and all the other pro-aborts on this site that blaspheme God and consider any believer as a persona non grata.
You have to ask the following question: “Why do pro-aborts, who are anti-Christian and anti-God, support a guy like Obama who claims to be a Christian”? Perhaps pro-aborts can red between the demonic lines and code talk better than we can. To them, ridding the world of Christ and His followers would be a good thing.
It is hard for me to believe how any Christian or Catholic can even consider voting for Obama, unless they believe that suicide is the same as turning the other cheek.
Ray:
I challenge to to list each of the items one by one and counter my claims as to what Obama supports and doesn’t support.
Go ahead, make my day, I’m not immune to correction.
His Man,
It baffles me when I pull into my Catholic Church parking lot when I see an Obama bumper sticker. I have yet to run into the driver, but wonder if I would have enough nerve to ask them why they would vote for someone who is so clearly against Catholic teachings.
Maybe someday I will and let you know how it goes.
Robert,
Obama wasn’t getting the Catholic vote anyway.
Posted by: DeeL at August 24, 2008 11:35 AM
Obama is polling higher among Catholics than McCain is.
Obama is polling higher among Catholics than McCain is.
Obama is polling higher among Catholics in name only. He is not getting the votes of faithful Catholics.
Ray, I’m waiting for your retort.
And Hal, calling oneself a Catholic and living as one is not the same.
I submit that no Catholics are voting for Obama.
And a biblical warning to Christians who are being tempted to vote for Obama. Do you really want to be joined to unbeleivers like Hal and SoMG, radical pro-aborts who balsheme your God? Here it is:
2 Corinthians 6:14 “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (NIV)
There is no absolutely humor in the first cartoon of Obama swinging a baseball bat. It is sickening and beyond belief. But then, so is abortion…
From the FRC:
“Research by FRC Action into Obama’s statements on same-sex “marriage,” reported today in an op-ed by Peter Sprigg on our website, confirms that although presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama claims to oppose same-sex “marriage,” what he “truly feels” is support for radically re-defining marriage. Obama supports granting 100% of the legal rights and benefits of marriage to homosexual couples; opposes virtually any legal means available of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman (calling marriage amendments “divisive and discriminatory”); “respects” courts that unilaterally overturn the democratically determined definition of marriage; compares legalizing same-sex “marriage” with legalizing interracial marriage; and “congratulates” homosexual couples who have entered into legally-recognized civil marriages. This is the definition of a supporter, not an opponent, of same-sex “marriage.””
HisMan:
He supports civil unions (which is giving the rights of marriage to the couple, albeit it may only be recognized by that individual state) but is able to respect the decisions the judiciary branch makes, as would be his duty if he became president. You can’t just ignore the courts, they are there for a reason. And who doesnt congratulate anyone who gets married? Why would you not congratulate someone for committing themselves solely to the person they love? Then again you dont think it’s love, so I guess you wouldnt congratulate them. As for ammendments being divisive and discriminatory, they are by definition. they divide americans onto each side of the ammendment, who then battle, argue, etc, creating a rift perhaps as large as communities or even regions of the country, and by definition of what the ammendment would say it IS discriminatory. Laws can be discriminatory, in fact many laws have to be simply by definition. May not be good word choice depending on what he is truly trying to convey, but the fact of the matter is that it is true.
JUSTICE STEWART: Does the Texas law in other areas of the law give rights to unborn children-in the areas of trusts, estates and wills, or any of the other
MRS. WEDDINGTON: No, Your Honor, only… only if they are born alive. We have-the Supreme Court of Texas recently has held in one case that there is an action for prenatal injuries at any stage prior to birth, but only upon the condition that it must be born alive.
“The same is true of our property law. The child must be born alive. And I think there is a distinction between those children which are ultimately born; and I think it is appropriate to give them retroactive rights. But I think that’s a completely different question from whether or not they had rights at the time they were still in the womb.”
Sarah Weddington’s own words
I have worked at several hospitals in NC and at each one if an infant was going to be born extremely premature (less than 26 or 27 weeks – depending on the hospital – because of induction for severe maternal illness or premature labor, etc.) the parents were given the choice of intervention by the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) specialists or ‘comfort care’ only – wrapping the infant in a blanket and being watched (held if the parents wanted) until its heart stopped. Parents not infrequently made this decision based on morbidity/mortality rates quoted by the NICU staff – especially at 23-25 weeks. Is there a difference here? Or would those who disagree with Obama also disagree with this policy? NC is hardly a liberal haven…
Ray, I’m waiting for your retort.
Not worth my time, HisMan. Not worth my time. Besides, the real information is out there if your eyes are open to it. If yours aren’t, then no amount of rebuttal is going to persuade you. Besides, I would suggest that in many cases the burden of proof is on you. For instance, where is your evidence that Obama supports, ” The blowing up of buildings by radical leftists?”
And what’s up with your “burdensome regulations on business?” If you want to know how I feel on the issue, read both versions of this essay:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:A_Day_In_The_Life_of_Joe_Conservative
Green,
Well, I haven’t had the best experiences with NC hospitals so I could be a little biased ;)
When my water broke at 23 weeks my doctor told me I could either do nothing and face my very grim odds or they could attempt to stop my labor. I honestly didn’t even understand why this would be an option. I mean, who says “yeah…well I know it’s basically a death sentance, but I guess this kid just wants to be born!”?
Anyways, my particular hospital allowed be to visit the NICU prior to my son’s birth so that I would see first hand what to expect. I think this is a much better protocol than simply giving parents statistics and expecting them to make that sort of decision.
In my opinion, everything possible should be done to save the life of an infant regardless of the likelyhood of survival. Unless the child has a condition incompatible with life (anacephaly for example) I do not think comfort care should be an option. Now of course, there does come a time when decisions about lifesupport must be made, but I believe we should ere on the side of life and not assume that a child will die and thus not provide care.
Ray,
I think if you’re going to accuse someone of distortion and lies then you should put your money where your mouth is.
Why not make a real fool of HisMan and prove him a liar?
Oh yeah, and my son was born at 31 weeks…so I guess it’s a good thing I got the tocylitics!
Blah tocolytics*
Ray:
One can know a person by whom they associate with. Obama launched his campign from Bill Ayers house, a radical who blew up Federal buildings and police stations. Obama must agree with Mr. Ayers that this is a bad, bad, evil country, otherwise, why we he associate with him? Oh, I know, Obama really is stupid after all.
And it doesn’t take much to understand what Obama stands for. All you have to do is listen to him speak.
It is you who refuses to acknowledge who he really is because if people really understood what a far left radical Obama is he loses hands down. He must work at hiding and masking and obfuscating who he really is and so far, it ain’t workin’. You and all Liberals know this. It’s a shame that you can’t even acknowlege what your own candidate is for and what he is against.
His campaign will fall apart, you know it, the Dems know, Hillary and Bill know it and are ecsatic about it because she gets to run in four years against McCain who’ll be four years older. No fear, Huckabee, an absolute class act, will smoke her too.
For the record I’ll repeat it here:
Obama supports:
1) Abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
2) Higher taxes.
3) Admitting defeat in Iraq.
4) Government run health care.
5) The defeat of all Born Alive Infants Protection Acts legislation.
6) Punishing corporations.
7) Restricting or preventing increases in domestic oil drilling.
8) Cursing America
9) The blowing up of buildings by radical leftists.
10) Banning gun ownership.
11) Gay rights.
12) The NEA
13) NARAL
14) Planned Parenthood
15) The radical re-definiton of marriage.
Obama is against:
1) Overturning Roe v. Wade
2) Lower taxes.
3) Defeating terrorism by direct confrontation and opposition to dictators like Hussein and Aminadejhad.
4) Private health care.
5) Passing any laws that would restrict the murder of innocent babies in the womb.
6) Eliminating burdensome regulations on business.
7) Love for this country.
8) The military.
9) The right to bear arms.
10) School choice.
11) Any type of Born Alive Infant Protection Act legislation.
12) An increase in the domestic drilling of oil even if it meant that doing so would drop gasoline prices. You see he’s beholdng to tree huggers that are overjoyed that people have to spend more oney to drive their Yukons, Hummers, Suburbans, etc. No matter that these wackos want to turn our food supplies into gasoline and starve most of the Third World.
“lauren at August 24, 2008 7:31 PM”
Exactly Lauren.
HisMan 842pm
talk about assumptions and twists. Anymore to that and I think Dorothy would end up back in Oz
Dan:
You set yourself up for a great comeback but I won’t indulge. Just too funny.
Poor Liberals, they can only get a few things straight, just a few.
Hairy Littlestick,
That’s a little more about your anatomy then we need to know. But yeah, it is a shame that some people look at babies and children as a burden and would rather kill them then care for them.
HisMan-
I tend to set myself up for comebacks. Each side sees the other as making false assumptions and/or twists, so either way neither side will really see it the same way as the other.
But I still vote there are false assumptions and twists in your post :p
==…as a pro-life Christian, the question that is most important to me is: “When does life begin”?==
Secular humanists and evolutionists say that life on Earth began with the first cell and that everything followed from that. Conception.
Yet, they deny that life of an individual begins at conception.
Inconsistency. You can always get’em on inconsistency.
Jefferson said that the Right to life begins when we are created [read: conception].
So, this is not that difficult.
Further…
Obamarama says that fatherhood and the accompanying responsibility begin at conception. If there’s no life in there, responsibility for what???
==I agree he isn’t out to kill infants, but rather for finishing the job the abortionist started in the first place.==
Obamarama holds their coats.
Why are taxpayers, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, still subsidizing Planned Parenthood abortuaries?
Obama also wants to “educate” your kids from 0 to 5 years old…maybe brainwash is a better word…
Early Childhood Education
* Zero to Five Plan: Obama’s comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, Obama’s plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state “zero to five” efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.
The day I let Obama and his ilk come anywhere NEAR my infant or toddler is the day I move to Pakistan! Is this nuts or what?
Not to mention there is no proof that “earlier” education does anything to help kids. The states that have implemented these programs have some of the lowest national test scores…Head start is a failure.
But sure, take my tax money. I wasn’t doing anything with it anyway…
Mr Incredible, the answer to your question (“Why are taxpayers … still subsidizing Planned Parenthood…?”) is for two reasons: 1. PP lowers the abortion rate, and 2. Funding PP saves the taxpayers more $ than it costs.
And there is a more important question to the abortion debate than when life begins. That question is: even if life begins at conception and fetuses are persons, should pregnant women be forced by government to provide them with life-support, to allow fetuses to remain inside their bodies, and to endure labor and delivery in order to keep the fetuses alive? The answer is no.
Regarding marriage, someone please explain to me: why should Government have anything to do with marriage? In particular, why should Government attempt to DEFINE marriage? Why not let the participants in each marriage define it? The government that defines your marriage rather than letting you define it for yourself is violating your freedom. Do you really need Uncle Sam’s stamp of approval to f*ck your spouse?
If government gets out of marriage, then most of the problems with immigrants from strange countries (and American cultists) who want polygamous marriages or group marriages would disappear. There would be no gay-marriage debate. Each church/synagogue/mosque/other would issue standardized suggested marriage contracts to its own members.
This is very much in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Avoiding fights among religions by keeping religion out of govenment.
SoMG,
Mr Incredible, the answer to your question (“Why are taxpayers … still subsidizing Planned Parenthood…?”) is for two reasons: 1. PP lowers the abortion rate, and 2. Funding PP saves the taxpayers more $ than it costs.
The Catholic Church lowers the abortion rate AND saves taxpayers more money than it costs (IE Catholic Relief Services/Catholic Charities) but I don’t see taxpayers funding the church!
SoMG,
SoMG: “Regarding marriage, someone please explain to me: why should Government have anything to do with marriage? In particular, why should Government attempt to DEFINE marriage? Why not let the participants in each marriage define it? The government that defines your marriage rather than letting you define it for yourself is violating your freedom. Do you really need Uncle Sam’s stamp of approval to f*ck your spouse?
If government gets out of marriage, then most of the problems with immigrants from strange countries (and American cultists) who want polygamous marriages or group marriages would disappear. There would be no gay-marriage debate. Each church/synagogue/mosque/other would issue standardized suggested marriage contracts to its own members.
This is very much in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Avoiding fights among religions by keeping religion out of govenment.”
For once we agree on something. I dont personally see why marriage has anything to do with us. Now would I personally recognize a homosexual marriage as valid in God’s eyes? No. The trick is that God wants us to make the decisions for ourselves. I want abortion to be illegal not because of God, but because of basic human rights. The “gays” can do whatever they want as far as Im concerned.
Obama is NOTR a muslim, and all those other
things said about him are absolutely false.
I you conservatives don’t like Obama and what he stands for, that your right. But you are gullibly swallowing a lot of garbage about him.
Here’s what conservatives, evangelicals and anti-choicers support: Making abortion illegal, and doing nothing to see to it that unwanted children ever get decent food,shelter,clothing, education and medical care. To unwanted babies: You’re on your own kid.
Making contraceptives illegal, thereby INCREASING abortions greatly and creatin g a black market in contraceptives.
Thwarting vital medical and scientific research because of ridiculous religious scruples.
Telling those who are poor or out of work to eat cake.
The government prying into our bedrooms.
Denying rights to homosexuals and even persecuting them.
Denying appeals to those falsely accused of murder, and increasing the risk of executing the innocent.
Teaching religious superstition in our schools as scientific fact.
Forcing students to pray even if they are atheists.
Banning any books, magazines, films, television programs etc, those in charge of our government find indecent, even though not every one finds the same things indecent or offensive.
Teaching abstinence only in schools, thus
increasing teenage pregnancies, and STDs.
In short, turning our great country into a theocracy, the very thing that so many have come here to avoid.
Robert,
Lots of “good” stuff in there, but this was my favorite.
Robert “Teaching abstinence only in schools, thus
increasing teenage pregnancies, and STDs”
This is a huge misconception. If you want to argue that teaching abstinence does not lessen teenage pregnancies and STD’s as much as contraceptives, go ahead, but to say that it actually increases those problems is to imply that if we taught nothing, the problem would be better than if we taught abstinence only, which is absurd.
Mr. Berger,
Here’s what conservatives, evangelicals and anti-choicers support: Making abortion illegal, and doing nothing to see to it that unwanted children ever get decent food,shelter,clothing, education and medical care.
Your first sentence accuses us of spreading lies about Obama and then you print this????
Helllllloooooo!!!!!
Marykay,
lol, really!
It is most accurate to say that LIFE begins at FERTILIZATION so as not to confuse conception with implantation.
==…even if life begins at conception and fetuses are persons, should pregnant women be forced by government to provide them with life-support, to allow fetuses to remain inside their bodies, and to endure labor and delivery in order to keep the fetuses alive? The answer is no.==
Ok, so, to you, not ALL persons get constitutional protection. We get that.
However, if you believe that ALL persons are protected by the Constitution, the answer is “yes.”
In Roe, the Court says that, had the State established even a sugestion that the unborn Roe kid is a person, the Court would have had to give the unborn child Fourteenth Amendment protection. You want that not to happen cuz you feel that not all persons should be protected.
You want that not to happen cuz you feel that not all persons should be protected.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at August 25, 2008 10:10 AM
Well, actually he wants that not happen because then he’d be out of a job…
Planned Parenthood enables and encourages abortions at taxpayer expense of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. We need to stop this subsidy!
==…actually he wants that not happen because then he’d be out of a job…==
Well take point. Except that women who want an abortion, even if the unborn is a person, will still be able to choose to go to a back alley.
Roe doesn’t require the State to provide alternatives, only the atmosphere for choice.
However, if the unborn are defined as being “persons,” then the undue burden of Roe would turn into a due burden, wouldn’t it.
Mr Incredible, the answer to your question (“Why are taxpayers … still subsidizing Planned Parenthood…?”) is for two reasons: 1. PP lowers the abortion rate,
Thanks SoMG! That actually made me laugh out loud. :-)
Hellooo Don’t these women realize when they sleep with a man they might get pregnant.. Are they just trying to fulfill there want to murder.. ITS SICK THEY NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THERE OWN ACTIONS AND FIND A LOVING FAMILY FOR THEIR FLESH AND BLOOD INSTEAD OF KILLING WHAT THEY THEMSELVES GAVE LIFE TOO..
MK, the Catholic Church does not lower the abortion rate. Sorry. Philippines, you know.
Mr Incredible, you wrote: “Ok, so, to you, not ALL persons get constitutional protection. We get that.”
Wrong. All persons get Constitutional protection but Constitutional protection doesn’t always include everything you need to live.
DeeL, laughing out loud because a new idea seems contradictory to what you previously thought can be a sign that you are about to correct an error. If you think the abortion rate wouldn’t go up if PP disappeared, you are seriously in error.
And PP does not “encourage” abortions. They DO encourage abstinance.
Lots of ways around the 14th Amendment besides non-personhood (although if you take an originalist reading of “personhood” rather than a modern reading it is very unlikely to include the unborn and certainly not before quickening so non-personhood isn’t quite as bad as it seems.) First of all the one depriving the fetus of life is not the state but the patient. Secondly you could argue that the patient’s request which is a medico-legal event constitutes “due process of law”.
==All persons get Constitutional protection but Constitutional protection doesn’t always include everything you need to live. ==
So, if the unborn child is a person, he gets due process, and the woman’s burden becomes due. Gee, that was easy.
==PP does not “encourage” abortions.==
It’s precisely what PP does, and it does so with OUR money. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It’s it’s just a matter of choice, let them choose their own money.
Question??? If New York City would be the victim of a “dirty bomb”, would the decision on how to respond be above Obama’s pay grade as well????
Jefferson said that the Right to life begins when we are created. That means “conception.” Everything the human needs for development is there, at conception.
==If New York City would be the victim of a “dirty bomb”, would the decision on how to respond be above Obama’s pay grade as well????==
He would wanna discuss it with those who set it off.
SoMG :”And PP does not “encourage” abortions. They DO encourage abstinance.”
Interesting because the last study I saw on condoms showed their condoms to be some of the most ineffective out there. I believe there were 20+ condoms involved too…
Coincidence? Maybe…
Mr Incredible, you are badly misinformed about PP. PP is very serious about clinical neutrality. I personally have seen a counsellor fired from PP because she was using facial expression and vocal tone to disproportionately encourage clients to choose abortion rather than adoption or parenting.
You wrote: “It’s it’s just a matter of choice, let them choose their own money.”
If government stopped funding abortions for indigent women, taxes (or government debt) would go up. Labor and delivery is a lot more expensive than abortion. B/c is cheapest of all. How much extra are YOU willing to pay the tax man for a RTL policy?
I doubt very much that Jefferson was thinking of conception when he wrote “created”. Someone who knows more about history of embryology please correct me if I’m wrong.
I agree that Obama would probably want to discuss it with the people who set off a dirty bomb. That might not be all, though. What would McCain do? Bomb Iran? Designate Democrat Senators enemy combatants and lock them up somewhere?
There is absolutely zero reason for a serious person to believe the agencies that prevent spectacular terror would function any less well under Obama than under McCain. On the other hand there is good reason to believe McCain might respond to spectacular terror more the way the terrorists would want (incautiously, disproportionately, expensively, harmfully to freedom) than Obama.
“the Catholic Church does not lower the abortion rate. Sorry. Philippines, you know. ”
——————————–
Check this out:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072901.html
With the support of the President..what do you think will happen?
I have still not seen documentation for any of your accusations, HisMan. Some of your little bits there are pretty smelly. I suppose you have a good source for this one: 9) The blowing up of buildings by radical leftists. And how do you prove this? 7) Love for this country. That I’d like to see.
Here are a couple of rebuttals for starters, though I maintain that the burden of proof is on you.
15) The radical re-definiton of marriage.
From the website: “Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights.”
Civil unions, HisMan. Marriage stays the same.
2) Higher taxes.
For whom? Certainly not for you and me. From the website: “Barack Obama wants the tax code to favor honest, hard-working people, and he has proposed a $1,000 tax cut for middle class families.”
4) Private health care.
From the website: “Obama’s Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.”
and
“Q. I like my current insurance coverage. Will I have to change plans? A. No, you will not have to change plans. For those who have insurance now, nothing will change under the Obama plan
Not to mention: we desperately need higher taxes.
Oliver, there’s not much difference among condoms.
DeeL, laughing out loud because a new idea seems contradictory to what you previously thought can be a sign that you are about to correct an error.
Or it could simply be that what you said was really funny. Thanks, but I’m pretty sure the error’s already been corrected.
If you think the abortion rate wouldn’t go up if PP disappeared, you are seriously in error.
All in favor of testing this theory say “Aye”.
And PP does not “encourage” abortions. They DO encourage abstinance.
See, there you go again. You must mean on that classy new web site of theirs, “Take Care Down There”
No, I mean this.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/abstinence-4215.htm
SoMG,
MK, the Catholic Church does not lower the abortion rate. Sorry. Philippines, you know.
Just as you couldn’t prove how many illegal abortions took place before Roe v Wade, you can’t prove that there aren’t less abortions because of the Catholic Church. Just the fact that the Church teaches that abortion is a mortal sin so grave that you are excommunicated for having one, will stop many women from having them. I know women that didn’t have them because they were Catholic…that’s at least 3 that the church stopped.
SoMG,
Lots of ways around the 14th Amendment besides non-personhood (although if you take an originalist reading of “personhood” rather than a modern reading it is very unlikely to include the unborn and certainly not before quickening so non-personhood isn’t quite as bad as it seems.) First of all the one depriving the fetus of life is not the state but the patient. Secondly you could argue that the patient’s request which is a medico-legal event constitutes “due process of law”.
When my tax dollars are being used to fund abortions, the state is indeed depriving the fetus of life…with my money!
Same with birth control.
And I’d like to see some proof that abortions would go up…heck, I’d like to hear your personal reasoning!
SoMG,
If government stopped funding abortions for indigent women, taxes (or government debt) would go up. Labor and delivery is a lot more expensive than abortion. B/c is cheapest of all. How much extra are YOU willing to pay the tax man for a RTL policy?
I don’t believe anyone here on the pro life side would care if our taxes went up to protect life. What we care about is the fact that our taxes, no matter the size, are being spent doing something that we think ranks right up there with child rape.
That promotes contraception not abstinence.
Contraception promotes more sex (especially sex outside of marriage), more sex produces more pregnancies (unplanned pregnancies, when they’re outside of marriage), more (unplanned) pregnancies, more abortion. Perhaps the math is just too simple for a brilliant mind like yours.
Ray,
For whom? Certainly not for you and me. From the website: “Barack Obama wants the tax code to favor honest, hard-working people, and he has proposed a $1,000 tax cut for middle class families.”
Tax cut or welfare check?
MK, you wrote: “And I’d like to see some proof that abortions would go up (if PP disappeared)…heck, I’d like to hear your personal reasoning!”
OK! PP is the cheapest place to contracept. The Economic Theory of Marginal Costs says that means if it went away some women would stop contracepting. Some of those would abort. Probably not many since getting rid of PP would not make it MUCH more expensive to contracept. But some. A finite non-zero number.
You wrote: “Tax cut or welfare check?”
How about paying off the national debt?
You wrote: “I don’t believe anyone here on the pro life side would care if our taxes went up to protect life.”
That would depend on how much they went up, wouldn’t it?
DeeL, you wrote: “That promotes contraception not abstinence.”
Are you referring to the PP link I posted? If yes, did you read it??? It offers some of the best advice available to abstinence users. Like resolving not to change your mind about it during a sexually-charged situation. If I had a daughter and she told me she intended to abstain that would be my first suggestion. Are you b*tching about the final line about making sure you know how to contracept when you decide to stop being abstinent? LOL They put that in because too many abstinence-users get unplanned pregnancies immediately after deciding to halt their abstinence which they sometimes do suddenly, unexpectedly to themselves. It’s a pattern. It’s one of the observed disadvantages of abstinance as a bc method. (The other is that it doesn’t protect you from unplanned pregnancy due to rape.)
You wrote: “Contraception promotes more sex (especially sex outside of marriage)”
Sure. That’s why the lowest abortion rates are in places like Scandinavia where contraceptives are easiest to obtain. Holland, where prostitution is legal. I don’t know whether you’ve noticed but one characteristic of the sex drive is it causes people to deny things that get in its way. Like fear of pregnancy or STIs. This is an effect of natural selection.
Tax cut or welfare check?
Could you elaborate on that? Are tax cuts (to certain classes) the equivalent of a welfare check in some minds?
MK, you wrote: “I know women that didn’t have them because they were Catholic…that’s at least 3 that the church stopped.”
I wonder how many unplanned pregnancies the opposition to contraceptives has caused. I bet the net result is more abortions. Some women conceive because they’re too Catholic for b/c and then find that they’re not Catholic enough to go through with the pregnancy. I first encountered a case like this when I was a premed. She begged me to call the clinic for her and make her appointment. Her religion besides preventing her from contracepting also made it unbearable for her to do this herself. I have always regretted not charging her a fee or collecting a favor in return.
Her sex-partner’s response when she told him about the pregnancy was “Ha ha you can’t prove it’s me!” This tells you how long ago this was. I wonder how many abortions have been prevented by the ability to prove paternity.
==Mr Incredible, you are badly misinformed about PP.==
No, I know propaganda when I see it.
== PP is very serious about clinical neutrality.==
Uh huh.
== I personally have seen a counsellor fired from PP because she was using facial expression and vocal tone to disproportionately encourage clients to choose abortion rather than adoption or parenting.==
One case.
==If government stopped funding abortions for indigent women, taxes (or government debt) would go up. Labor and delivery is a lot more expensive than abortion. B/c is cheapest of all. How much extra are YOU willing to pay the tax man for a RTL policy?==
Is the Liberal the one who says that one life is too much to waste???
==I doubt very much that Jefferson was thinking of conception when he wrote “created”.==
Really!!??? He was thinking of “preganacy,” and a woman is pregnant upon conception/fertilization, not when a doctor tells her she’s pregnant.
So, then, when ARE we created?
==Contraception promotes more sex …==
This is true cuz the tendency is more toward eliminating consequences rather than eliminating the bad conduct.
SoMG
When I use your link I get a whiny letter about the Bush administation trying to redefine BC along with a request for money. Nothing about abstinence.
Give me a break. There’s unlimited access to contraception in the US and yet babies are being aborted at a rate of over a million per year. It’s not lack of birth control, it’s lack of self control. I do agree that teaching abstinence is not enough. We need to be teaching chastity, which is a whole different animal altogether…and one that PP will never get on board with. Chastity education would put them out of business
SoMG
When I use your link I get a whiny letter about the Bush administation trying to redefine BC along with a request for money. Nothing about abstinence.
Give me a break. There’s unlimited access to contraception in the US and yet babies are being aborted at a rate of over a million per year. It’s not lack of birth control, it’s lack of self control. I do agree that teaching abstinence is not enough. We need to be teaching chastity, which is a whole different animal altogether…and one that PP will never get on board with. Chastity education would put them out of business
==It’s not lack of birth control, it’s lack of self control.==
My point precisely!
SoMG
When I use your link I get a whiny letter about the Bush administation trying to redefine BC along with a request for money. Nothing about abstinence.
Give me a break. There’s unlimited access to contraception in the US and yet babies are being aborted at a rate of over a million per year. It’s not lack of birth control, it’s lack of self control. I do agree that teaching abstinence is not enough. We need to be teaching chastity, which is a whole different animal altogether…and one that PP will never get on board with. Chastity education would put them out of business
Posted by: DeeL at August 25, 2008 10:57 PM
…………………………………….
What would this chastity education exist of?
==What would this chastity education exist of? ==
It would begin with Knowledge of the Truth [Matthew 6:33] — that is, the Word of God. It would include instruction, by mothers to their daughters, in some sense of modesty. Fathers would teach their sons about it, too.
Today, girls and women are more interested in doing what the boys/men do, in the name of “equality,” than in being the last line of defense against pregnancy from promiscuity. Of course, dudes, with hormones in overdrive, is gonna get ideas when girls and women slut themselves around the way they do today; they may not put the ideas in dudes’ heads, but they encourage what may already be there.
So, if you wanna cut down on rapes and abortions, get girls and women to be just a leeeetle more modest.
==It’s not lack of birth control, it’s lack of self control.==
That’s a great way to put it. That fact eliminates the need for further facts. The whole argument in eleven words.
Sally,
What would this chastity education exist of?
Google “chastity education” and you’ll find 1,820,000 ideas.
Mr Incredible, the question isn’t when we are created, but when Jefferson thought we are created.
And you’re right of course–women get raped because of the way they dress. ROTFL!
DeeL, I don’t understand–when I click the link I get PP’s abstinance page. Well if it’s not working for you then google “Planned Parenthood abstinence” you’ll find it.
You know what you should do, DeeL? Go to PP and tell them you want to volunteer as a counsellor. Take their training. Then you will know first-hand what they call for and value in a counsellor instead of repeating bullshit.
Sally,
It would first consist of teaching that each of us is a separate, unique and unrepeatable human being deserving of love, respect and dignity. In kind, we must treat each other with genuine love, respect and dignity. To use each other for selfish pleasure (even when that utilization is entered into mutually) denies the personhood and dignity of the other and he/or she is no longer recognized as an unrepeatable human being but rather a replaceable means to an end. Contraception actually reinforces this attitude of using each other and moving on and that is why its widespread use has had devastating consequences for our culture.
Chastity would also teach the beauty and power inherent in sexual relations. PCs like to believe that people who advocate chastity are frigid, sex hating, passionless prudes out to steal everyone’s fun. In fact, those who advocate chastity are those who truly recognize that sex has great power, both to bring forth life (not only children, but also the unity necessary to sustain the relationship) and to destroy (infidelity, divorce, undesired pregnancies, STIs, homosexuality, promiscuity etc.) . As such, it must be approached with the utmost awe and respect and should only be entered into by fully committed (married) adults who are able and willing to accept children, even when unplanned, into their lives.
Challenging? Yes. It flies in the face of all of the lies the culture has been pushing on us since BC became widely used, and certainly since abortion became the back up plan of choice. The “choice” generations have reduced sexual relations to something even more base than animal instinct, at least they bear their young. The “choice” mindset denies the reality that sex always has consequences, and that the more one tries to manipulate and control sexuality, rather than accept and respect it as it is, the more devastating those consequences are, for the individual, the family and society at large.
Ironically enough, the children are our hope. Young people are growing weary of the loveless manipulation of the “sex without consequences” ideology. Their hearts are imprinted with a desire for genuine love, respect and dignity so when they hear the truth of sexuality, it rings true and they abstain, not out of fear, but rather in understanding and love.
Genuine love never (ab)uses another. When we come understand this, contraception and abortion are seen for what they are, instruments of evil and death and they are set aside for the more loving option of chastity, of which abstinence is a small but vital part.
Mr. Incredible,
I agree with some of what you say, but placing the blame for rape on the woman is plain nuts. Yes, immodesty is intended to incite lust, but power, not lust, is what is motivates most rape. That aside, your argument gives men an exemption from exercising the very self control you advocate for just a few posts above.
DeeL, you wrote: “[Chastity is] Challenging? Yes. It flies in the face of all of the lies the culture has been pushing on us since BC became widely used, and certainly since abortion became the back up plan of choice.
Right. Before BC became popular, chastity wasn’t challenging. There was no sex outside marriage. (Sarcasm)
You wrote: “The “choice” generations have reduced sexual relations to something even more base than animal instinct, at least they bear their young. ”
Sometimes they eat them.
==Mr. Incredible,
I agree with some of what you say, but placing the blame for rape on the woman is plain nuts.==
I’m not singling her out.
== Yes, immodesty is intended to incite lust, but power, not lust, is what is motivates most rape.=
That is part of the problem. I agree that rape is a crime of violence, not sex.
However, men’s lust is a known quantity arising from the sin nature. Knowking this, the woman has some last-line-of-defense responsibility to redirect it. Dressing slutty-like doesn’t help. It encourages. So, the woman, in general, has to take some of the blame as an accomplice. She must take precautions, ‘specially today.
== That aside, your argument gives men an exemption from exercising the very self control you advocate for just a few posts above.==
I exempt nooo-body. I just wanna be honest in assessing blame, especially for the atmosphere.
If I go out on a date, and the laaa-dee comes down the stairs, swingin’ and swayin’, hangin’ out and jigglin’ all over all up in my face, she insults me by having ASSUMED that I am what she thinks men are like: rapacious scum, that I am like other men, as she sees them. It really is insulting, and it is equally insulting when women dress like that out in public, not cuz they wanna be nice-looking and attractive, but cuz they know how too many men will take it. They crave that attention, not the attention due a lady. Then they complain about being treated like sluts.
Today, in far too many cases, girls/women have forgotten how to attract a man, and, so, they resort to slut-wear to appeal to the wrong, initial sense in a man.
Before the date begins, I’d tell her, politely, to dress up a little; but I hope that I would have communicated, by then, that I am turned on by other things in her, that she doesn’t need to get up all up in my face with her lady parts, to get me.
I think looks is important, but not controlling, and overflowin’, jigglin’ lady parts all up in gentlmen’s faces tells them that the woman is good for one thing. That doesn’t necessarily lead to rape, but it turns something on in a man, signaling some degree of permission, though he has responsiblity to stop himself, and that goes to the Word of God. So, the woman has to be careful not to contribute to the atmosphere where she could get hurt by some Godless body.
I’ve just tried to give you some insight into what a man thinks, what goes through his mind. You don’t have-ta accept it; it is what it is, that’s all, and the girs/women can go on doing what they’re doing and getting into trouble and blaming men.
==Mr Incredible, the question isn’t when we are created, but when Jefferson thought we are created.==
He didn’t say that it is a truth evident to himself, rather that that truth is self-evident.
==And you’re right of course–women get raped because of the way they dress. ==
It’s one element of responsibility, as Camille Paglia has said.
==…each of us is a separate, unique and unrepeatable human being deserving of love..==
Really??? What kinda love? The “like” kinda love, or what??
==…each of us is a separate, unique and unrepeatable human being deserving of love..==
Interesting and quite arrogant that you believe that you “deserve” my love.
==…each of us is a separate, unique and unrepeatable human being deserving of love..==
Interesting and quite arrogant that you believe that you “deserve” my love, as the world understands it.
Go to PP and tell them you want to volunteer as a counsellor. Take their training. Then you will know first-hand what they call for and value in a counsellor instead of repeating bullshit.
An interesting idea. Perhaps I will take you up on it. Of course, my experience with those neutral, compassionate counselors consisted of ” You have your whole life ahead of you, why would you want to sacrifice that for a baby?’ and “That will be $300, CASH!”
In the mean time, you should visit Teenwire and Take Care Down There. They have been created to lure teens into sexual activity for the purpose of selling birth control and abortion. They explicitly tell kids their parents and squares and don’t understand them, and therefore should be bypassed when looking for the real information they so desperately “need”. They are in self preservation mode and exploiting children for their survival. They understand fully that the day people stop buying these “services”, Planned Parenthood ceases to exist.
Sure, for appearances sake, and to claim some legitimacy, they give a cursory nod to the advantages of abstinence but then they intentionally undermine that by convincing kids that their hormones and desires are what really matter and therefore should be explored rather than controlled. They offer abstinence
as a utilitarian method of pregnancy and STI avoidance, but they know, just as you have said, fear is not enough to master the sex drive. Only love can do that. It is for this reason precisely, that they dismiss the more loving reasons for abstaining, love and respect for self, and love, respect and fidelity toward another. Again, PP understands better than most, that when we give up our abandonment to our basest instincts and strive for genuine love, PP will be turning out their lights and shuttering the doors of their multimillion dollar death centers. Their business plan? Perpetuate and appeal to what is base.
That is not repeating of B******t. That is an articulation of experience and reason.
Right. Before BC became popular, chastity wasn’t challenging. There was no sex outside marriage. (Sarcasm)
Chastity is always challenging. BC perpetuates the myth that it is unnecessary.
Mr. Incredible
Again, I agree with much, but I don’t think labeling girls as slutty is going to do much to change anything.
I’ve just tried to give you some insight into what a man thinks, what goes through his mind. You don’t have-ta accept it; it is what it is, that’s all, and the girs/women can go on doing what they’re doing and getting into trouble and blaming men.
You seem to be very understanding of man’s fallen desires and yet dismissive of women’s. Both genders have been brutally wounded by this culture of rampant sex. Both genders have a genuine desire for love and both have bought into sex as a valid substitute.
Yes we need to teach modesty. But we need to emphasize the positives of modesty rather than simply pointing to the negatives of immodesty. Just as SoMG rightly pointed out, fear does not sufficiently motivate self control. Love, and genuine concern for ourselves and for others is what motivates self control. Self control demands responsibility, to self and others.
So while yes, too many women and girls are sending out the message, whether they mean it or not, that they’re sexually available through their clothing, it is never acceptable for a man or boy to force himself on her. His lust is HIS fallen response and it is his responsibility to master it.
==I don’t think labeling girls as slutty is going to do much to change anything.==
Call it what you want. It amounts to the same thing.
==…fear does not sufficiently motivate self control. Love, and genuine concern for ourselves and for others is what motivates self control. Self control demands responsibility, to self and others.
==So while yes, too many women and girls are sending out the message, whether they mean it or not, that they’re sexually available through their clothing, it is never acceptable for a man or boy to force himself on her.==
Nobody is saying that it does. I’m saying that, while it’s not justifiable, it’s understandable.
== His lust is HIS fallen response and it is his responsibility to master it. ==
However, the last line of defense is to defuse what attracts his lust.
Nobody is saying that it does. I’m saying that, while it’s not justifiable, it’s understandable.
Then why isn’t it equally understandable that these women and girls dress this way because they have bought into the lie they have to sell themselves sexually in order to find love?
Interesting and quite arrogant that you believe that you “deserve” my love, as the world understands it.
I don’t believe we deserve love as the world understands it. I believe we all are deserving of love because God commands it.
“Love one another as I have loved you.”
==I don’t believe we deserve love as the world understands it. I believe we all are deserving of love because God commands it.
“Love one another as I have loved you.”==
So, you’re talking about biblical “love.”
What does bibilcal “love” mean? Ok, I love. Now what?
==…why isn’t it equally understandable that these women and girls dress this way because they have bought into the lie they have to sell themselves sexually in order to find love?==
It IS equally understandable that they have done so.
Still, they are the last line of defense against the lusts of wicked men. Provocative dressing and behavior won’t stop rape, but it will show, just as easily as dressing slutty shows slutty intentions, that the girl/woman is respectable and demanding respect. Her stand will set the standard. As it is now, wicked boys and men have set the standard, and the girls and women happily follow.
What does bibilcal “love” mean? Ok, I love. Now what?
Now learn to live as Christ loves, and help others to do the same.
As it is now, wicked boys and men have set the standard, and the girls and women happily follow.
Yes. Both men and women (boys and girls) need to realign their attitudes and actions when it comes to sexuality. Not out of fear, but out of recognition that they themselves have value and dignity, as does everyone else.
Learn to *love* as Christ loves, and help others to do the same.
That’s a pretty sick cartoon, but I didn’t expect much better on your website.
==Learn to *love* as Christ loves, and help others to do the same.==
How did He love?
If you closely examine the “love” Jesus displayed, you will come away with the impression that biblical “love” is “unselfish concern for the Salvation of others, as much concern for others’ Salvation as you have for your own.” It has nothing to do with worldly affection for, nor attraction to, others. Jesus was worried that we would faint, as sheep without a shepherd [Matthew 9:36]. There’s your definitionof “compassion,” too, that we should be concerned, unselfishly, that others will die without Christ [Salvation].
Worldly love says that you should listen to others you love.
Worldly love says that, if somebody gets mad at what you say, you keep quiet.
Yet, Jesus said that we shouldn’t care about what others think, in the worldly sense. He came with a Mission, and THAT was and is His focus; it doesn’t matter what your, my and everybody’s reasonings are, unless they agree with Him that the ONLY Way is Him; and He should know. He rejected worldly reasoning.
So, His kinda love is to spread His Word. His kinda love — the Word — is more important than feelings. Your Salvation is more important than your friendship as the result of worldly love.