The candidate forum at Saddleback Church last weekend seemed to present a clear contrast: John McCain is pro-life, and Barack Obama is pro-choice. But a Washington Post article noted that it’s not quite that simple. Obama, who is more open and reflective about his faith than McCain, has been seeking common ground on pregnancy prevention and adoption and was criticized by Hillary Clinton for not being sufficiently pro-choice. Meanwhile, McCain, who has been at odds with pro-life groups on campaign finance reform and stem cell research, is under fire for not ruling out having a pro-choice running mate. But how many voters does this really matter to? Twenty-six percent of Republicans and 18 percent of Democrats said they would not vote for a candidate who didn’t share their views on abortion, according to a Time magazine poll.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- janeeyre on Bad timing on mammogram recommendation
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
136 Comments
McSame isn’t even baptised and yet he claims all this Christian views. So whatever.
Obama has the far more sound view. McSame saying that life begins at conception is setting up to remove birth control from the population just like the Bush administration is trying to do right now.
PAY ATTENTION FOLKS. This is important, they’re trying to take away ANY reproductive choice- and that is the most important issue for women in regards to economic freedom. You can’t have a good job when you’re trying to feed 20 kids.
Seriously- think about what that means. When McSame said that his administration would be anti-choice- he meant it…he isn’t going to stray from his base one iota- he will pick an anti-choice Veep.
Obama is PRO INFANTICIDE!
If a baby is born alive, during an abortion, Obama thinks it is ok to deny medical help to that baby, and simply let it die.
Even NARAL, the radical pro-abortion group, was NEUTRAL on this legislation. NOT Obama, Obama spoke against granting health care rights to such newborns.
Obama’s campaign now admits that Obama “mispoke” on the “Baby Born Alive” bills in question.
You pro-choicers need to make sure that you have Obama’s MOST RECENT statements, to make sure which statement is now “operative” in the campaign.
Do you folk’s believe you’ll ever really get a straight answer on any issue with these clowns? Seriously?
I’m reluctantly Pro-Choice as it is the law and I obey the laws of this land. Morally, I find the decision to use abortion as birth control fiendish and evil.
However, it’s not my decision.
Yeah, believe it or not, there are as many different opinions about abortion as there are people. Not everyone is clear cut in their mind or in deference to their voting.
“If a baby is born alive, during an abortion, Obama thinks it is ok to deny medical help to that baby, and simply let it die.”
One in a million case.
Meanwhile? The “pro life” folk think it is ok to deny medical help to EVERYONE who cannot afford it and simply let them suffer and die.
To continue on the theme of my most recent post on another thread –
The significant difference between CONs and Liberals is the process of leading with ideology vs. reality.
The effort by desperate women to end a pregnancy before term sure leads to a lot of ideological issues, but there’s never been a culture of humanity that did not have abortion.
There always will be abortion.
If it’s made illegal, the only choice a truly desperate woman will have is an illegal abortion. Abortion abolitionists advocate illegal abortions.
Most people have nuanced views on this subject. Including McCain.
Obama’s position has been law since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. It “specifically says that neither biologists nor doctors nor theologians can agree upon the moral status of the fetus.”
But since there is “absolute certainty that the woman herself does have moral status, then the conservative thing to do is to protect the woman’s interests first,” the court concluded.
McCain’s stated positions are totally inconsistent. If he believes in human rights at the moment of conception, then he ought to be against embryonic stem cell research, and IVF.
Personally, I fail to see why any state or national legislature (made up of mostly older men, who cannot get pregnant) should have any say in this very personal matter.
It is essentially a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. I feel totally unqualified to issue an opinion on the right/wrong of that, especially since I cannot get pregnant.
And, shock of shocks, I actually agree with MH that there will always be abortion. Making it illegal will not stop it–criminalizing abortion will only stop medically safe ones.
One more case of the government getting way too involved in our lives.
“Raptor” shares –
“…shock of shocks, I actually agree with MH…”
No shock from here, “Raptor.”
It happens a lot with CONs in this forum. I consider their premises, consider their rationales, and take them to the logical conclusion… which turns out to be totally opposite from Republic Party cant.
Mostly, they run away from the thread with their tails between their legs. I’ve killed more threads here than I can remember.
A few, such as “Regular” and “Nathaniel” resort to ad homenim and name-calling ‘cuz that’s all they’ve got. I could post that I think fuzzy kittens are cute and would be attacked for wanting to shoot “Nathaniel’s” dog.
No one wants to confront my about my basic premise — that CONs approach issues ideologically and Liberals approach issues realistically.
“Are abortion views that clear?”
I don’t quite get this headline. Of course it’s clear. As clear as it can get. One is for it, one is against it. Stupid thread topic.
NEXT!
MonkeyHawk makes a premise, along comes Fleetwood to prove that premise. WOW! Was that staged? How long did you need to practice to get the timing perfect?
I didn’t call names, linda.
I will take that premise on. It is the same type of unsubstantiated generalization that you are fond of making.
So…you made that statement…let’s see you back it up. Provide some proof that ALL people in this country that consider themselves conservative in political thought only approach EVERY issue they face based on an ideological point?
I just stated my non-ideological opinion on abortion. My one example blows away your gross generalization that ALL conservatives think/act in the same way.
That is what is so nice about your silly generalizations. When you claim “all” or “always”, all it takes is one little example to prove you wrong.
Chuckle…. Raptor, aren’t you happy to have learned that you agree with Monkeyhawk because you have fallen under the spell of his persuasive brilliance?
Usually, Monkeyhawk’s persusive brilliance consists of vile words and insults mixed with Democrat talking points. There may be a nugget of truth in his writings, but who cares enough to try to find it?
ahhh…is that what happened? Hmmm…maybe that would explain the compulsion..
“must…..go….change….voter….registration…”
nawww…ain’t gonna happen. mh ain’t that persuasive! Thanks for the laugh, out!
“It happens a lot with CONs in this forum.”
I can’t find where ALL or EVERY were used. I did find “mostly,”
You do NOT want them to reverse the therapeutic abortions. do you not see waht they are tryin to do? THey are TRYING to take away the rights of parents to decide whether lifesaving measures should be given to a fetus that is severly disabled and likely going to die.
Obama was absolutely right. Therapeutic abortion is like…ending an ectopic pregnancy, inducing a woman who has eclampsia- inducing a woman who is carrying a fetus with severe anomalies. And they’re trying to say taht no matter what or how undeveloped this fetus is, they insist that you do everything to save it NO MATTER WHAT. YOU WILL NOT HAVE A CHOICE ON WHETHER YOUR CHILD IS FORCED TO SUFFER FOR DAYS. Comfort measures will be forbidden.
Spontaneous abortion- a miscarriage.
Therapeutic abortion- severe risk to mother’s health and fetus that abortion is recommended.
Elective abortion- when one chooses to end a pregnancy with no known medical reason.
“Obama thinks it is ok”
PROVE IT!
Regular – I think you and I are pretty close on this. My family contributes to entities like Gerard House whic works to prevent abortion by supporting the life alternative. However i remain pro-choice … but still think abortion sucks.
MonkeyHawk-
Ideology is important. Otherwise, inthe name of expediencey, why not just ignore the First amdmedment, or any other amendment? Why not torture to get answers, after all, it is expedient and “reality”. WHy not …… On the other hand, why not legitimize murder, they’ve been doing it from the beginning. There will always be some sort of “they’ve always been doing it” That shouldn’t be the litmus test.
So I guess then liberals don;t have ideologies?
Please, give us a break. You know better than that.
the reason they are trying to define life AT CONCEPTION is because the medical definition of pregnancy is when implantation occurs. We know that more than half of pregnancies end before implantation, before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
Since the right believe that birth control PILLS prevent implantation *which is NOT likely*, they think that they can get hormonal birth control pills ruled as abortions.
Some even believe that sperm and ova are life- and that interference with their path should not be interrupted.
See, they think anyone who is well versed on this are rooting for abortions. They call us pro-abort. It isn’t at all, we are pro-choice, and are vocally opposed to the tactics of the right wing nuts who want to use every opportunity to control your decision.
If you don’t believe me, please, go to the state capitol on any given day and I will show you antis who are there talking and plotting to work their agenda into policy. They will try to use even small words as to not be detected as to their true meaning. If you think that choice is always safe, think again. It takes a lot of people watching out for all the legislation- for wording that they stick in there to advance their agenda.
That’s why it irritates me so bad when people think we make too much of this.
Right now, the Bush admin has been pushing to define life at conception- and has put anti-choice people in charge.
“Raptor’s hissy fit –
“…Provide some proof that ALL people in this country that consider themselves conservative in political thought only approach EVERY issue they face based on an ideological point?
As “lindainks55″ pointed out, I didn’t make a generalization that claimed “all” or “every” anything.
But I know how to bet.
Just to placate you, though, I’ll admit there’s probably a CON in America who doesn’t approach issues first from an ideological basis. That CON is Clarence Morgan, of 1928 Cornsilk Lane, Hollyhock, West Virginia.
The difference PMom, at least to me, is that abortion requires the intervention of other human beings out side of the ‘choice’ of the mother.
That ‘choice’ requires the services of a Physician, one that has sworn to ‘do no harm’ and a practitioner of the healing arts.
I see the tight-rope validity of abortion in quite a few cases, incest, rape, medical emergency and etc.
What I don’t see is using abortion as a method of birth control.
Will I interfere with a woman’s choice? No.
Do I object to the wholesale, unrestricted use of abortion. Yes.
Note below the phrase “if it be perfectly formed:
“in the Septuagint text of the Old Testament, killing the fetus was considered to be taking a life, “if it be perfectly formed”.[7] Thus, quickening perceived by a woman has been only one of the standards used to mark when a human life legally begins. Others include viability, birth, and conception.”
Also – note the term ‘quickened’:
“If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the foetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide”
When I studied religion back in college we discussed the views of people like Aquinas and Augustine and it seemed to generally come to quickening; not conception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening
“littlejohn” says –
“Ideology is important. Otherwise, inthe name of expediencey, why not just ignore the First amdmedment, or any other amendment? Why not torture to get answers, after all, it is expedient and “reality”.
Irony is so… ironic.
Part of the reality of torture is that it doesn’t work. Or was the starting offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers really flying fighter jets alongside John S (for “senile”) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) over North Vietnam?
“WHy not …… On the other hand, why not legitimize murder, they’ve been doing it from the beginning. There will always be some sort of “they’ve always been doing it” That shouldn’t be the litmus test.”
So if you really believe “Abortion is Murder,” step up and advocate it! Execute every desperate woman who feels the need to terminate a pregnancy. Lynch Dr. Tiller and take your bows.
That’s what you believe, isn’t it? That “Abortion is Murder”?
“Regular” shares his ignorance with –
“…abortion requires the intervention of other human beings out side of the ‘choice’ of the mother.”
“Regular,” meet coat hanger.
Shall I demonstrate it on you?
So if you really believe “Abortion is Murder,” step up and advocate it! Execute every desperate woman who feels the need to terminate a pregnancy. Lynch Dr. Tiller and take your bows.
That’s what you believe, isn’t it? That “Abortion is Murder”?
Sorry, too wide a brush. I never said abortion was murder. You can bone dig all you want. Go ahead. Make my day. SPend all friggin day looking for it!
I have stated my views on abortion multiple times. I will do so again.
Thru the first trimester, do whatever you want. Thru the second, I think some sort of limitations are valid. During the third, no abortion unless medically necessary.
I beleive at some point, the unborn are definably human, definably alive, definably geneticall smilar but independent of the mother, and deserve Constitutional protection.
But go ahead an bone dig. Make my day
mh…your insulting comment about a hissy fit is unwarranted and juvenile. You asked for a confrontation.
Your earlier comment was a declarative statement of:
“that CONs approach issues ideologically and Liberals approach issues realistically”
It does not say “most”, does not say “many” and does not say “a majority”. It states as a fact that one group of people acts in one way. Period. There were no limiting qualifiers–that makes it a universal claim, easily disproven.
I attempted to respond in a reasonable, non insulting and mature manner..and you claim hissy fit? Must you be so juvenile towards everyone that disagrees with you?
Political_mama
Spontaneous abortion- a miscarriage.
Therapeutic abortion- severe risk to mother’s health and fetus that abortion is recommended.
Elective abortion- when one chooses to end a pregnancy with no known medical reason.
You forgot one.
Mandatory abortion- severe risk to taxpayer, no means to raise a child (welfare, housing, schooling, breakfast, lunch, overcrowded jails etc….)
I could care less about Tiller, by the way. I think some of what he does is probably necessary, I think some of what he does is preying (for a decent amount of cash) on others. I have no desire to “lynch” Dr. Tiller, so don;t try putting that one on me. Go ahead, bone dig for that one too!
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 21, 2008 at 9:14 am | Permalink
“Regular” shares his ignorance with –
“…abortion requires the intervention of other human beings out side of the ‘choice’ of the mother.”
“Regular,” meet coat hanger.
Shall I demonstrate it on you?
================================
I didn’t discuss the techniques of abortion, why did you bring that up?
Yes, there are chemical, physical and radiological outside forces that can cause abortion.
Even the human body rejects the fetus. Probably other types of abortion methods I’m not familiar with.
As I said before, I’m not the one standing in the way of women getting an abortion. I just have my own objections to it. It’s the law and I obey the law.
Doesn’t mean I have to agree with the choice or like the decisions being made.
So please do continue to be irrelevant to the discussion MonkeyHock.
Here’s Some food for thought. Two Supreme Court justices (Scalia and Thomas) are on record for wanting to overturn Roe. What about the others? Well.. .
Arguing a case for the first Bush administration in 1990 when he was deputy solicitor general, Roberts said Roe v. Wade “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
In his 2003 confirmation hearing, however, he told senators he was acting as an advocate for his client, rather than presenting his own positions.
He told senators Roe was “the settled law of the land” and said “there’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”
Roberts, a native of Buffalo, New York, who now lives in Maryland, is married and has two children. He is a Roman Catholic.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html
While working as a Justice Department lawyer in 1985, Samuel Alito wrote in a memo that the government “should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade,” the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5033132
The next justice to retire will very likely be John Paul Stevens. Stevens joined the Court’s Webster decision:
Held:
(Written by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter; joined in part by Stevens and Blackmun)
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned.
1. We are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed, in three parts: The right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability.
2. The State may restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s health.
3. The State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_Paul_Stevens_Abortion.htm
Talk aside, both the candidates have voting records that can be examined. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to guess what a McCain presidency would mean.
“Regular” lies (then later resorts to name-calling) starting with –
“I didn’t discuss the techniques of abortion, why did you bring that up?”
No, “Regular,” you said –
“…abortion requires the intervention of other human beings…”
I mentioned the coat hanger which is commonly known as the tool of choice for desperate women who tried, and died, to terminate pregnancy before Roe v. Wade.
And then you, eighth grade wit that you are, hauled out “…MonkeyHock.”
Real Lincoln-Douglas debating techniques there, “Regular.”
Maybe I should starting calling you “irRegular.” Ha ha ha ha ha! Get it? It means you’re constipated, get it? It means you’re full of s#it! Ha ha ha ha ha! Get it?
As usual, you try to turn my comments on the issue into a bunch of personal insults. It’s because you cannot seem to address the issue.
(Ya see? “MonkeyHOCK” sounds like “Monkeyhawk,” and a “hock” is the butt, get it? It’s “Regular” calling “Monkeyhawk” the same as “Monkey Butt,” get it? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
When does the life of a child begin?
When does a baby get the rights of a human being?
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 21, 2008 at 9:48 am | Permalink
“Regular” lies (then later resorts to name-calling) starting with –
“I didn’t discuss the techniques of abortion, why did you bring that up?”
No, “Regular,” you said –
“…abortion requires the intervention of other human beings…”
I mentioned the coat hanger which is commonly known as the tool of choice for desperate women who tried, and died, to terminate pregnancy before Roe v. Wade.
And then you, eighth grade wit that you are, hauled out “…MonkeyHock.”
Real Lincoln-Douglas debating techniques there, “Regular.”
Maybe I should starting calling you “irRegular.” Ha ha ha ha ha! Get it? It means you’re constipated, get it? It means you’re full of s#it! Ha ha ha ha ha! Get it?
As usual, you try to turn my comments on the issue into a bunch of personal insults. It’s because you cannot seem to address the issue.
(Ya see? “MonkeyHOCK” sounds like “Monkeyhawk,” and a “hock” is the butt, get it? It’s “Regular” calling “Monkeyhawk” the same as “Monkey Butt,” get it? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
————————-
A nice try, but you and your input are irrelevant to the discussion.
“SolDevVB” asks the obvious metaphysical question –
“When does the life of a child begin?
When does a baby get the rights of a human being?”
Good question.
Because we’re talking civil law, here. And civil law under the Constitution of the United States of America is supposed to be a religion-free zone.
There might be all sorts of religious reasons, or philosophical reasons, or practical reasons, or logical reasons to draw the line between, say, “murder” or “justifiable homicide.”
I upset a lot of twice-born Biblical literalists a while back when I pointed out the many scriptural references that associate human life with breath.
All common law is based on date of birth (date of breath) rather than date of conception or date of in viability in the womb. Doesn’t matter whether you “came late” or were born a premie; you don’t get your driver’s license ’til you’re 16 years out of mommy.
Civil laws are arbitrary. You’re not the slightest bit more dangerous driving through the school zone at 21 mph than if you obey the 20 mph signs, but they can write you up for it. Arbitrarily. That’s what civil laws are.
“If a baby is born alive, during an abortion, Obama thinks it is ok to deny medical help to that baby, and simply let it die.”
This would be illegal then, by your stated standards Monkey?
“Regular” squirms –
“A nice try, but you and your input are irrelevant to the discussion.”
Really?
Who made you the superior to “BlogMonitor” anyway?
“When does the life of a child begin?”
Quickening, apparently. Or perhaps “when perfectly formed”.
Quickening, apparently. Or perhaps “when perfectly formed”.
These are your standards Ben?
Let’s leave Franklin’s false crap out of the debate, okay? Abortion debates are emotional enough as it is.
Carry on. . .
“SolDevVB” gives us –
“If a baby is born alive, during an abortion, Obama thinks it is ok to deny medical help to that baby, and simply let it die.”
An interesting, if strained, hypothetical.
Just for a reference, how often has that happened in real life?
“This would be illegal then, by your stated standards Monkey?”
Maybe. Maybe not. Just what is “life,” after all? Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones died last night after suffering a brain aneurysm. After she was considered dead (but on life-support) she apparently experienced a refibulation of the heart and, technically, was “alive” until they pulled the plug.
Terri Schiavo was brain dead, but still could breathe. Is Sunny von Bulow alive or not?
The reason there are so many books in your lawyer’s office is because all of these questions have been addressed — or will be, and fill more books — and that’s the way civil law operates in America. Or should.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 21, 2008 at 10:20 am | Permalink
“Regular” squirms –
“A nice try, but you and your input are irrelevant to the discussion.”
Really?
Who made you the superior to “BlogMonitor” anyway?
======================
I was happy to set you on the straight and narrow path of appropriate comments.
Obamanation’s campaign does not contest that in 2003 he voted against a bill in his Illinois Senate committee that was substantially identical to the 2002 federal born alive infants protection bill. His position, the campaign says, was that the same legislative language could have had a different consequence on the Illinois state level, where there were abortion laws that might be affected, than on the federal level, where there were not abortion laws.
Thus, Obamanation continues to demand that comfort and medical care for living, breathing, squirming, premature babies NOT be required by law. The Constitution of the USofA, specifically the 5th and 14th Amendments, does not apply to living premature babies, else abortion mill profits might suffer, in Obamanation’s humble opinion.
[Obamanation is going to choke on that oath to uphold the Constitution, if he every gets to it, which I doubt.]
- – -
CNN correspondent Mary Snow’s report on Monday’s The Situation Room about Barack Obama’s charge that pro-life “folks are lying” about his
abortion record actually just presented both sides of the controversy without getting to the reality of the matter. The report, which was
promoted as “checking the facts” by host Wolf Blitzer, also omitted how Obama’s campaign conceded on Sunday that the pro-lifers were actually accurately representing his record.
[If it’s above Obamanation’s pay grade to say when babies become human, why isn’t it above his pay grade to say that their contract killings should profitably continue up to and beyond the point of live birth?]
- – -
McCain is ahead of Obamanation by 5 points in the polls. Is it because McCain is less iffy on drilling new domestic oil wells, or did a lot of the public get a good look at Obamanation’s callous contempt for human life on Saturday, and recoil in horror and disgust?
We may expect newsrooms across the country this week to cause a small boom in the tranquilizer and antacid industries.
- – -
“Let’s be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide — I wonder if he’ll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: ‘Yes, we can.’”
. . . former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, in a February editorial in “The Philadelphia Inquirer”
- – -
“I don’t know how low you people are going to go. To suggest that Barack Obama would be in favor of killing babies is absolutely the most obscene, disgraceful – stick with your other right-wing stuff but that – come on! He’s got two little kids of his own!”
. . . pro-abortion leftist commentator Bob Beckel, in a Fox News discussion on “Hannity and Colmes” on August 19
[Obamanation would and did vote in favor of out-and-out infanticide, folks, and lied repeatedly trying to cover his vote up. He will do it again, given a chance.]
Back to the point of the thread, I think things are pretty clear. For maybe 28 or 18% (rep or dem) of the voters, this is a single-issue vote. For some other percentage, gun control is a single-issue. (McCain is more pro-gun than Obama) For some, race is a single-issue, right or wrong, and they will vote one way or the other. I would guess that at least 50% of the voters will be swayed by one or two issues. The rest will vote by some composite of reasoning known only to them. So what’s new?
No Sol, they are from references cited above. My point is that this arguement has been going on forever. The “perfect” reference is from the Old testament.
Monkey,
The difference being, all of the parties you listed did not arrive at the hospital to have harm done to them. The late term abortion “mother” did intend to do harm. Should the harm not be successful and the baby is not dead, every effort should be made to care for the child.
As per how often this happens, how many breaths did you take so far today? Doesn’t really matter does it? This is a baby that by your own terms has the rights of a human being. Withholding care should not be legal.
Sol – I ‘mostly’ agree with you. The exception ‘might’ be if the baby is so deformed that death is inevitable. In some ways this then merges with my ‘end of life’ views.
Addendum: If we are this late in the pregnancy why not just induce and go for a live birth?
I agree with the ‘going for live birth’. Within that, the cost of adoption needs some serious review. We looked into it and found that it would be between $40,000 and $60,000 to adopt. That is asinine. Clear the government oversight as much as possible and reduce the cost. Let the baby go to a loving family.
Agreed again. Adoption law needs a LOT of fixing. Add to that an adoptive family then being gone after by biological parents after-the-fact.
I have always wondered what would happen if all of the time, energy, and money spent fighting about abortion were given to gerard house etc.
Sol, from the figures you posted, sounds like an “agency” adoption. Yes, there should be some way to reduce the costs. However, given the “market” (and by that I’m not suggesting there is baby selling happening), with greater demand than supply, I don’t see that happening.
I also infer from those figures that a part of the costs cited include the natural mother’s living expenses for a few months (at least), the medical costs for prenatal care, hospital costs, etc., associated with the birth; the costs of the “home studies” required under most statutes, conducted by social workers; along with the legal costs, and the fee to the agency.
And, in anticipation of a question or comment about the prospective adoptive parents paying the natural mother’s living expenses, etc. Why is it allowed? Well, because statutes have been amended to permit it, I think in recognition that if such is not allowed, there will be fewer adoptions. The natural mother is in control here, to some degree; don’t want to pay for her expenses? Fine; she’ll find someone who will.
BTW, Sol, part of the legal oversight (or, if you prefer, governmental oversight) of which you complain exists to be sure there isn’t “selling” of babies. For example, there is to be filed in Kansas adoptions an accounting of the payments made on behalf of the natural mother to ensure the money is paid for allowable expenses.
(or, if you prefer, governmental oversight)
I understand the need for oversight. That is why I do not advocate elimination. But given the cost, adoption is out of the reach of many who would be able to offer a loving family to the children.
There are several people I work with that have adopted children. There was only one brother/sister set that was adopted in America. The others went outside the country. Apparently there is less red tape and cost.
I can’t think of a woman that would rather destroy a life inside her as opposed to giving that child a chance at life.
Being a male I feel I have no say on this matter,woman’s body,womans,choice. Simple as that. Although my personal views are pro life it is none of my buisness what a woman does or does not do with her body.
Sol, I don’t know that “foreign” adoptions are free of red tape; I’ve been told by my colleagues who do these that the expenses and difficulties of a foreign adoption are substantially greater than for a domestic adoption.
Sol; there are also adoption tax credits that help with the cost. Some companies will also cover expenses as an addition to their health plans. We adopted one of our children.
We need to do whatever we can to encourage adoption as an abortion alternatives.
It always confounds me that the staunchest conservatives are those most in favor of anti-abortion laws.
Whatever happened to the conservative party that did not like government rules and regulations, wanted a small government, state control of issues, essentially wanted the government to stay out of people’s lives?
Outlander just jogged my memory. Several of the adoptions were assisted by our parent company. One of those ‘evil corporations’.
They are not free of red tape, but the folks here had a lot easier time with the foreign adoptions than domestic. The cost was better as well. Knowing you helped a child from an underdeveloped nation may go a long way as well. I would just rather have more domestic adoptions and fewer abortions.
Brain,
Pretty basic. Defend the defenseless. I am a strong advocate of States Rights.
Good points outlander – both tax credits and at least some companies help. I would guess (but am not sure) that entities like catholic Charities help as well.
“Pretty basic. Defend the defenseless.”
I guess therein lies the other crux. To be defenseless implies there is a person to defend.
I believe that the abortion is one of the most defining issues of the day. It is why a lot of ex-democrats became republicans. However, there are a lot of republicans that are pro-abortion. I say pro-abortion because I think the word pro-choice is misleading. Giving a woman a choice to kill her baby instead of giving birth is a rotten deal and no choice at all.
I think we can come up with better choices than that. There are so many couples who cannot have children and we could allow those couples to adopt these babies. I think that our adoption process needs to be improved also for this to work.
I know that there are so many young women that are having abortions because of some relative such as a father, uncle, brother, cousin, etc. have raped them. When you tell this young teenager that her only option is to kill that baby, you have made her a victim twice.
There are so many injustices because we keep allowing abortion to happen. #1, we have women who keep getting raped through incest, especially in other countries. #2, we keep teaching men that it is okay to commit these crimes so they grow up as adult rapists. #3, we keep sending the message to young women that they are the guilty party when they have been a victim of rape & incest. #4, we do not enforce laws or create new laws to protect women from incest. #5, we keep killing innocent lives. #6, we have decreased the amount of dollars that go into Social Security when we kill these babies; millions of babies who would have grown up and now be working and paying into that Social Security benefit.
If we really do care about women, we would be putting our efforts into better choices for women instead of arguing the same old “abortion is a woman’s right to choice”. I really believe that it is coming down not to whether we care about the lives of these women and not even a choice of democrat vs. republican; but rather instead it is a choice of Christian vs. non-Christian.
When you leave out God, you can no longer care about the lives of those women or even, and especially, the babies. Once you allowed abortion, you had new problems to contend with just to prove that abortion is okay such as when does life begin, adult stem cell vs. embryonic stem cell research, and so on.
And don’t throw the old saying that those who are for abortion are for war. I am not for war and I don’t control that. However, we can control whether we kill an innocent baby or not. It is each one of us individually making that decision and actually doing the killing. In war, , we do not control that individually, that is up to our leaders and the leaders of other countries.
“I think the word pro-choice is misleading. Giving a woman a choice to kill her baby instead of giving birth is a rotten deal and no choice at all.”
This statement does not even make sense.
Shame on those so called freedom loving conservatives for defending the unalienable right to life for all human beings.
Ever heard an infant child defend itself against its own murder?
No? Well that is why conservatives speak out.
The tolerance for legal murder for any human being degrades the value of life for ALL human beings.
The opinions expressed here, for both sides, show how deep-rooted, and emotional this is for people. It shows that, for some issues, an election vote can indeed be a single-issue vote. I would like to see a poll which asks, “Will your vote be swayed by any one issue, or will you vote for a candidate regardless of his stand on any one issue?” My guess is that 50% or more of the country will vote based on one or more of these emotional issues.
Abortion was around during (and before) the time of Jesus. No very good birth control back then and the same sexual urges as now, so unwanted pregnancies were common. So was abortion.
As an example, women grew and used herbs to induce miscarriage.
To be defenseless implies there is a person to defend.
Ever feel a baby kick your hand while your hand is on her pregnant belly?
Tell me that isn’t life. You used the term ‘person’. I used ‘the defensless’. How is that baby supposed to defend itself.
Why don’t you go witness a partial birth abortion and tell me that a person was not murdered.
Defend the defenseless? Quite a concept! Unfortunately, for the majority of conservatives, defenselessness stops the moment the kid peeks out of its mother’s womb. They have fought tooth and nail every attempt to provide medical and physical support for mothers and children. One loving soul on this blog even advocated increasing the suffering for poor children as a motivation to avoid the poverty that more than a quarter of all children in this country are born into. I suspect that he was simply the most honest conservative here, and that most share his desire to watch other people’s children suffer and die. After all, (other people’s) misery is cleansing for the soul! Of course when it’s their own pain, bring on the oxy!
When the pro-life movement becomes pro-all-life, not just the unborn, maybe I’ll come to believe all that charitable talk has a charitable heart behind it. Until then, it’s just another bunch of meaningless dogma being promoted for selfish and political reasons, and we already have enough of that!
“My guess is that 50% or more of the country will vote based on one or more of these emotional issues.”
Unfortunately, I would agree with that. I for one will not, but know many, many who do vote that way.
I know that many hotbutton issues like abortion will not be ‘resolved’ so whether or not the President is for or against abortion has no bearing on my vote for them. They are not going to change the law one way or another, there is too much of an even split in the country.
Your arguement can only hold water if you carry it all the way and are willing to fully defend those defenseless babies in all ways you would defend a toddler.
Are you willing to make it illegal for a prenant woman to drink and smoke, as it is illegal for a mom to give her 2 year old scotch and a cohiba?
Are you willing to require by law that all pregnant women undergo prenatal exams and other medical care, just as it is required to give proper care to toddlers?
oops…
my post at “Posted August 21, 2008 at 12:47 pm”
responded to
SolDevVB
Posted August 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
The womb to tomb mantra is just that. Provide free for all for their entire life. Socialist agenda. There are already in place medical and financial assistance programs. I advocate streamlining the adoption process.
Does the health care system need a good looking at? Of course it does. Should everyone have ‘free’ medical coverage from womb to tomb at government expense? Of course not. There is a happy median that needs to be sought and implemented.
“There is a happy median that needs to be sought and implemented.”
Agreed. If we expended our efforts supporting alternatives instead of wasted prosecutions we would accomplish more.
Are you willing to require by law that all pregnant women undergo prenatal exams and other medical care, just as it is required to give proper care to toddlers?
Which law requires a parent to take his/her toddler to the doctor for check ups?
Choice isn’t a word that belongs exclusively to the left. There is a clinic called Choices next to Tillers clinic. Women are given ways in which they can have their babies and keep them, adopt them to a loving family or they can go next door to Tillers clinic and abort if that is their choice. They are helped if they need it before and after delivery. Clothes for themselves before birth and the baby after birth if they decide to keep it. Help with an apartment and some furniture. They can also find resources for finding jobs.
This is a great resource that is much aligned and so many who could use the help don’t get it. We should accentuate the help available like Gerard house and Choices so abortion doesn’t look to a desperate women or girl like their only choice.
I think abortion should be a state issue on the ballot every 2 years right along with death penalty, doctor assisted suicide, legalized marijuana, prostitution and a host of other “morality laws”. That should solve the problem. Which ever side doesnt like something, can fight to have it changed.
newsletter
Posted August 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
Spot on.
Brian, I agree that the country is pretty evenly divided on this, and many issues. Despite Obama’s early lead as a man of “change,” the differences between the two are falling right along with this social divide. Whether it’s abortion, Iraq, guns, race, welfare, taxes, or whatever, each candidate’s position is becoming quite clear. Classic Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal sides.
In the last election, this divide tilted (slightly) in favor of the Republicans, and Bush won. This time, however, I predict that Obama’s race, his radical views, his non-traditional background, his dubious associations, and his lack of experience other than as an Illinois politician will cause even more of the ever-narrowing “undecided” to vote for McCain. On the other hand, his race alone will garner several million votes, too. At this point, the only unknown that remains are the VP choices, which unless are very daring and bold, will have little affect.
Granny,
Yeah, I’ve watched many young couples with three or four small children in tow go into “Choices.” After about two hours they come out carrying a half a bag of diapers and a can or two of formula. Not really a good return on their investment of time. “Choices is mostly a come-on for propagandists and a fraudulent excuse that pro-lifers are actually doing some good in the world, when their only real purpose is building their own private stairway to heaven.
oops, sorry. I should have said, “…will have little effect.”
Jed I guess you and I will have to disagree on this one. I guess we both bring our own reality to the debate. I have seen many people helped by choices. From financial help in the way of housing, clothing and food to counseling in how to find a job, to child care skills if keeping the child.
Many compassionate people care about the unborn as well as born baby. You and I just disagree over how that care is shown. While you mention a family with children maybe they need to go to another resource. You talk as if you see these things alot. Next time you see a situation like this please direct this family to His Helping Hands. On Saturday morning they can go pick up household items, clothing for themselves and their children and food for the family.
There are many more sources for help in our area. The Kansas Food Bank, Catholic Charities to name just a couple. The left and the right alike need to make sure those in need are aware of this.
BTW Jed just in case you have been hanging around with Chas I don’t go by the nic Granny.
“newsletter
Posted August 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
I think abortion should be a state issue on the ballot every 2 years right along with death penalty, doctor assisted suicide, legalized marijuana, prostitution and a host of other “morality laws”. That should solve the problem. Which ever side doesnt like something, can fight to have it changed.”
They could move if they don’t like the laws. The problem would be that the anti-abortionists would move to the pro-choice states to vote abortion out every two years, then the pro-choices would revote it in when they moved on etc….
A concise refutation of Paul F. Rosell’s lies above:
http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/smear/248/
A new saying I am proposing: “There are liars, damned liars, and Paul F. Rosell.”
“This time, however, I predict that Obama’s race, his radical views, his non-traditional background, his dubious associations, and his lack of experience other than as an Illinois politician will cause even more of the ever-narrowing “undecided” to vote for McCain.”
Don’t discount the voters, like myself, who are just tired of career politicians, especially old ones, and will vote for the candidate with the younger*, fresher ideas.
*Note – this will not necessarily be the younger candidate
okob – I guess my view of Choices is colored a bit by its history (Shannons Work Continues). That is why I focus my contributions toward Gerard and other catholic Charities entities.
Granny,
“Many compassionate people care about the unborn as well as born baby.”
Compassion is all well and good, but unless you’re willing to back up that compassion with real, meaningful aid, then it’s just so much more BS.
When I see, as I have right here in Wichita, children so damaged by malnutrition that by the age of 18mos they are already condemned to spend their lives being abused in some institution, I can’t help but think that an awful lot of what isn’t being done ought to be the responsibility of those who demanded that they be born in the first place! Sitting in your comfortable chair, eating bon bons and moralizing just doesn’t cut it! When I see you out in the trenches actually improving people’s lives, maybe I’ll listen. Until then, all that hot air is just adding to the global warming problem.
“I think the word pro-choice is misleading. Giving a woman a choice to kill her baby instead of giving birth is a rotten deal and no choice at all.”
brian_nuevo posted:
This statement does not even make sense.
———————————————————
I can see how you would not understand it. I think it is because you are not a woman and because you don’t consider the baby a life until it is born.
I carried my babies and I knew that they were alive. When I was younger, I went to an abortion clinic and I got very lucky. They said that I wasn’t pregnant. I know what it is to be in the shoes of a woman sitting at an abortion clinic. Everything is happening so fast and your head is spinning.
I feel for women who have had an abortion and I have talked to them. You can talk all you want that abortion is not killing, but these women go through a lot of emotional pain. And they don’t feel that pain just because there is a pro-life movement out there. That pain is real. Why do you just blow it off as though you care more about your pro abortion issue than you do the women.
Also, to argue my post in pieces is like the media with news stories they write. You aren’t one of those are you? Any of you?
Ben
I don’t need to prove anything.
You need to do your own research.
Obama thinks it is ok to allow some newborns to die.
Obama is pro-infanticide!
More to the point: Obama is now lying about his position!
“TheBorgHunter
Posted August 21, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
brian_nuevo posted:
This statement does not even make sense.
———————————————————
I can see how you would not understand it. I think it is because you are not a woman and because you don’t consider the baby a life until it is born.”
I was refering to the grammar and logic in your arguement. It did not make sense, illogical. Of course it is a choice…it may not be a good choice or a prefered choice but it is a choice. To say otherwise is incorrect.
“You can talk all you want that abortion is not killing, but these women go through a lot of emotional pain. And they don’t feel that pain just because there is a pro-life movement out there. That pain is real.”
I have no doubt that what you say it true. I am sure in the moment it is a very painful choice to make, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and probably physically.
“Why do you just blow it off as though you care more about your pro abortion issue than you do the women.”
I have never blown off the gravity of the choice a woman in that position would be making.
“Also, to argue my post in pieces is like the media with news stories they write. You aren’t one of those are you? Any of you?”
One of those – no. I am surely not on of those news stories they write.
“Franklin
Posted August 21, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
Ben
I don’t need to prove anything.
You need to do your own research.
Obama thinks it is ok to allow some newborns to die.
Obama is pro-infanticide!”
How can someone be so presumptuous as to claim to know what another thinks?!?
B,
I spent quite a few years escorting women past the hordes of howling fundies at several clinics, and took the opportunity to listen to many of them.
Yes, it is a difficult decision for most women to make, but it isn’t making it easier when a good christian protester runs up to a woman leaving the clinic and screams “Tell your dead baby Happy Birthday!”
I think this video makes Obama’s true abortion views perfectly clear.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/08/17/obamessiah-has-nowhere-to-hide-on-this-one-the-walls-are-closing-in/
Gotta agree with you there Jed.
“Yes, it is a difficult decision for most women to make, but it isn’t making it easier when a good christian protester runs up to a woman leaving the clinic and screams “Tell your dead baby Happy Birthday!””
Apparently not all life is worthy of the same compassion in the eyes of people like that.
“How can someone be so presumptuous as to claim to know what another thinks?!?”
Paul learned it in freshman economics. Along with paleoclimatology, psychology, Psychiatry, theology, geology, etc etc etc. That is why he is an expert on everything!
Either that or he watches Oprah and Dr. Phil too much!
Steven
your post is crap.
Obama already has admitted that he “misspoke” on this issue.
Obama supports infanticide.
It is very clear from the record.
does Paul = Franklin?
Yes.
brian
Obama TOLD US what he thinks.
Obama is the ONLY politician in the country to speak AGAINST the “born alive” legislation.
Obama is pro-infanticide.
“American_Way
Posted August 21, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
I think this video makes Obama’s true abortion views perfectly clear.”
In the interest of neutrality, I listened to the entire clip on the posted link.
Judging from that, I think the whole pro-life movement would be much more effective if they could communicate their main points better. That was a 5 minute video with 30 seconds of actual content. The rest was just propaganda, stock footage and cheesy music.
I still don’t know what Obama thinks about abortion, only that he did not vote for the born alive infant protection act.
“Obama is the ONLY politician in the country to speak AGAINST the “born alive” legislation.
Obama is pro-infanticide.”
Did he speak FOR infantacide or did he speak against ‘born alive’?
From what you say he would be ‘anti-born alive’, not necessarily pro-infanticide.
You seem to be making an incorrect step in your reasoning.
a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares….
ben is a hypocrite on anything.
Just ask him.
Ben are you a hypocrite on anything?
Obama is pro-infanticide.
There is no other, rational conclusion.
“From what you say he would be ‘anti-born alive’, not necessarily pro-infanticide.”
I appreciate your look at the parse, but what does it really matter? We know where he stands, which makes the headline of the thread so silly.
Barack Hussein Obama is not a centrist on abortion.
Brian,
Let me speak for ben, since he loves to speak fo me:
Yes, ben thinks he is an expert on everything, that is why he posts so much.
However, ben does not like everyone else to post, on opposition.
ben must then list his sheepskins and his resume, to the ohhhhssssssss and ahhhhhhhhhhhhssssssssss (he imagines) from the liberal posters.
ben then talks down to the conservative posters.
ben then calls me names and claims that I think I know everything.
I do not know everything.
I do know that ben is a hypocrite.
(And that ben is a bit too impressed with himself)
‘Franklin’ I couldn’t give an F less about the squabbles between you and ‘Ben’
brian
I know you don’t care.
However, this blog is often reduced to petty personal attacks.
I try to ignore it but —
I am human
(AND outside the womb, so I can defend myself!)
Those asked for some FACTS on the Baby Born Alive legislation:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm
“WASHINGTON (August 18, 2008, Noon) — Senator Barack Obama’s four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.
In the most recent developments, Senator Obama himself, in a video recorded interview Saturday night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was “lying” in asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on August 11 — documents that proved that he had done exactly that, contradicting four years of the Obama cover story.
In response, on Sunday, August 17th, we issued a challenge to Obama to either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he’s called liars.”
Someone please let me know about the truth of Franklins’ story. I have supported Obama inthe past, It has unravelled a bit lately, though I still won’t vote for MCCain. However, if the story is true, and Obama can;t lie any beter than that, he doesn;t deserve the job either.
bueno – NO. And Paul is a pathological liar.
“this blog is often reduced to petty personal attacks”
And for a good example check out the post at 5:32 from the guy who brought us “ZerObama Zombies”
LJ please go up and read my commentary up at the top about what this is in reference to. Think about your position and end of life issues. You do not want these guys making this decision for you.
“ben must then list his sheepskins and his resume”
Like bragging about passing some insurance test and claiming that so many CPAs can’t pass them? I refernce my professional credentials when relevant – just as several of us will turn to our resident lawyers for comments in THEIR field.
ben
First of all, I think that Bloggers should show more respect, for one another, than what is required for politicians and political figures.
This is not an unusual take on thinks.
In Congress, personal attacks against members are frowned upon. Personal attacks on non members are routine, however.
Next? For the “peer reviewed scientist” of the Blog, Ben the Brain, to use a phrase like that, says a great deal more about you than me.
You can not recount a single “lie” I have EVER posted on this Blog ben.
And, just a hint: Just because YOU disagree? That is not even EVIDENCE of a lie. That just means that you disagree.
littljohn
The National Right To Life Committee endorses Democrats, Republicans and Independents, in every election cycle, who support the Right to Life.
You will not find a single time, in history, where the National Right to Life Committee has been involved in any falsehoods, whatsoever:
“WASHINGTON (August 18, 2008, Noon) — Senator Barack Obama’s four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.
In the most recent developments, Senator Obama himself, in a video recorded interview Saturday night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was “lying” in asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on August 11 — documents that proved that he had done exactly that, contradicting four years of the Obama cover story.
In response, on Sunday, August 17th, we issued a challenge to Obama to either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he’s called liars.”
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm
Obama is the “pathological liar” — I can recount a dozen times that Obama has been caught in lies, without even going to my notes.
Even for your pro-choicers — does it not bother you, in the least, that Obama does not have the guts to take a stand and then tell the truth about it, later?
Obama is a liar and a coward, and that HAS been documented.
Cute Paul – you call me names and then whine because I return the favor.
As was pointed out yesterday by the Christian Science Monitor, the McCain campaign was called out for lying about the purported urging of Cindy McCain by Mother Teresa herself to adopt two children at her orphanage back in 1991. Turns out, McCain never met or even spoke with Mother Teresa on that trip.
Once confronted by the Monitor about the deception, the campaign quickly erased such claims from the website, as it did with Cindy’s family recipes, which were proved to be lifted from the Food Network.
But after doing some research, this deception was no careless accident, but rather another shameless and deliberate attempt by the campaign to reinvent and embellish the McCain family history in time for his 2008 presidential bid.
full story at
http://tinyurl.com/5q6dw4
Paul – to change the topic big time: I seem to recall reading long ago that there were corelations between the market and which year of a president’s term we are in. Regardless of party etc. Do you recall any of that? Here we are in Year 8 – is ‘down’ in 7-8 year typical? Going into the election? – try to goose the economy?
ben
You are a cerebral narcissist.
That IS what you are.
When confronted with a strong argument, you ALWAYS turn to “mental intimidation” first, not to logic.
And you always assume that YOU are right, and your opponent is wrong.
You hurl insults like “liar” or you make fun of “insurance agents” or “freshman economics” or some other point, trying to intimidate. You try desperately to heep contempt and ridicule on your opponent, and you feel no need to justify your “superior” position.
I understand you perfectly, personally, but the posters who are not used to your bellicose mental bullying should be warned.
I am not bothered by it, but you should know that many of us have you pegged.
You are often wrong Ben, which is odd for a true “scientist” —
You see, a good scientist would be more of an “analytic” personality.
Your greatest fear should be that you MIGHT be wrong about something.
Instead, you are motivated by a need for control and domination of the conversation, not much unlike BJ.
For example, Chas is not like any other true “minister” that I know. He might have had minimal training, but he does not have the personality or temperament for that field.
You, ben, are not like any other “scientist” that I know, and I have several friends and family members with inventions and patents and discoveries, in their name.
You do not seem to have the temperament to be a good scientist.
You should seek “truth” and not “control” — that is the nature of science, is it not? And when “truth” is obvious, you should be greatful for the discovery, regardless of authorship.
Lay off the attacks and I will do the same.
However, your attempts to claim intellectual superiority are getting old
I do not believe you are smarter than me, and even if you were — who the hell cares? The contest, itself, is getting ridiculous.
Grow up and quit putting down posters you disagree with. At the very least, attack the argument and not the person making the argument.
Why don’t you try and prove that my National Right to Life Committee link, in my post, is wrong?
Why must you attack me, for my very honest post?
“You are a cerebral narcissist.
That IS what you are.
Why must you attack me, for my very honest post?”
And you, Paul, are an ignorant bully who squeals like a baby whenever anyone returns the same back at you.
bth
If I am a pathological liar, than you must be a contrarian lol
Why else would you want my advice?
Actually, presidential years usually do well.
Also, bear markets are usually short.
We might have both things running in favor of the market towards the end of the year.
I hope so (market) …
Heading off – tomorrow will come far too early.
Dammit ben we missed you at the the Thomas Frank book signing/impromptu meetup.
And I missed a good meltdown from paulie. Damn.
Well, the meetup was more fun than another game of tetherpaul.
“You can not recount a single “lie” I have EVER posted on this Blog ben.”
If ben can’t?
I can.
But like I told gathered friends and have told you paulie, if you did not post this blog I would have to invent you.
You are our agreed on comic relief.
ugust 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
A concise refutation of Paul F. Rosell’s lies above:
http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/smear/248/
A new saying I am proposing: “There are liars, damned liars, and Paul F. Rosell
*****
Waiting for Paul F. Rosell’s refutation… It won’t happen, folks, Rosell is a LIAR!!!!!!!
But, that would be obvious to have any who paid attention!
Franklin
Posted August 21, 2008 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
Steven
your post is crap.
Obama already has admitted that he “misspoke” on this issue.
Obama supports infanticide.
It is very clear from the record.
*****
Oh, no!!!! Paul the liar, says I am telling untruths, which, by logic and definiton, must therefore, be untrue.
Oh, the shame, I feel. Sorry assh*le, your posts are NEVER true!!! Therefore, I am correct. Go phuck yourself, Rosell!!! QED…
Davis,
Dude, you sound like an 11 yr old.
“Cerebral narcissist?” Pall’s term (derogatory?)for anyone smarter than himself. He uses the term frequently, since there are an awful lot of them around.
seriously, I prefer the point rather than [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/game/?id=17]maplestory power leveling[/url]
this is exactly what i said all the time