In today’s Opinion pages, we have some excerpts of newspaper editorials from around the nation about the murder of George Tiller. To read the full editorials: USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, New York Times, Boston Globe. Here are links to more editorials: Kansas City Star, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Washington Times, Tulsa World, Cleveland Plain Dealer.
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
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
318 Comments
From first hand accounts here on the WE Blog, the funeral went without incident.
The taking of life is never an answer to problems.
I was glad to read that the American Legion honored George Tiller for his Navy service. It was appropriate and apolitical.
P-Mamma stood out with the NOW people, providing a barrier against protesters.
Unfortunately, there were no lessons learned that could be applied; just a senseless tragedy that need not had happened. Killing, or should I say executing someone because of your views is never an answer.
Let’s hope justice will be swift and deliberate, I have confidence that District Attorney Foulston will deliver a solid case to a jury.
Agreed Reg, and as crass as it may sound right now lets hope Wichita can lose it’s reputation as an abortion capital of the world.
I would love for that building to never open again as a place of death, but instead maybe one of support and/or adoption.
Wouldn’t that be ironic.
The anti-abortion movement will be glad to know that they were well represented at Dr, Tiller’s funeral by their good friend and fellow activist Fred Phelps.
Yep… you called it.. crass.
That building has always been a place of support for women and families facing difficult reproductive situations. And Dr. Tiller is known for initiating adoptions for women who made that choice after consulting with him.
I posted this on the wrong thread –
Here’s a post from a former employee at Women’s Health Services –
”
“For some few years I volunteered as an escort at Dr. Tiller’s and several other clinics. I didn’t know the good doctor well, but met with him on several occasions and was impressed with his kindness and the care he obviously felt for the women who needed his services.
“Of course I have been heartbroken by his assassination, but I’m not so full of hate towards his killer. I’ve seen too many of his kind on the lines; in fact I remember seeing him. We knew Mr. Roeder as ‘Prom Queen’ from the flowers he usually carried there, and the screaming fits he would throw when approached by escorts. He was one of many not-too-bright mentally ill recruited by various self-appointed fundie leaders who groomed them to scream the threats they themselves were so careful not to utter aloud.
“I’m pretty sure that he has been exploited again to shoot Dr. Tiller. I don’t know who is using him this time- when I saw him, he was in Troy Newman’s stable of nuts, but the fundie leaders are an incestuous bunch who tend to swap followers as needed.
“According to papers Roeder filed today, his possessions amount to a 16yr.-old Taurus and $10, and he only works occasionally at minimum-wage jobs. Yet he managed to finance several 400-mile round trips to Wichita from the KC area in the last month to case the church and know Dr. Tiller by sight, bought a handgun, gas and meals etc. Also, he asked — begged — for bail to be set today, despite his total lack of assets. Obviously, the poor b@st2rd expects someone to post it, all of which leads me to believe that he is not the solitary nutcase the fundies claim he is.
“Somebody had to put him up to it, help him plan it and pay his expenses, and will now feed him to the sharks. Hopefully, and maybe with a bit of psych help, he will realize how he was used and name names.”
While you ponder Monkey’s post, some appropriate theme music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADoR89-nuI&feature=PlayList&p=E09097296DB2D3E4&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18
For those of you still pondering Monkey’s post, if the music isn’t sounding crisp an clear, removing the ear flaps from your Reynolds Wrap chapeau may help.
Interesting quote pasted by MH…
“Somebody had to put him up to it, help him plan it and pay his expenses”
If the person who is claiming that has any concrete (as in legal) proof, they should be contacting the feds who have opened an investigation. If not, it is pure speculation, rumor, theory and unfounded musings.
Interesting quote pasted by MH…
“Somebody had to put him up to it, help him plan it and pay his expenses”
“If the person who is claiming that has any concrete (as in legal) proof, they should be contacting the feds who have opened an investigation. If not, it is pure speculation, rumor, theory and unfounded musings.”—Raptor
And don’t ya know Raptor that Monkey has the sincere hope that the responsibility (culpability) can be extended to all, everyone, that believes in the sanctity of life.
…That said, fire-breathers on the right don’t help, whatever the cause. They may warm the base, but the Republican base is becoming a remote island in mainstream America. Everyone else is paddling away.
Accurately or not, the right-wing wacko contingent increasingly dominates the public perception of the GOP. And, fairly or not, that perception makes it easier for characters such as Scott Roeder, the suspected shooter, to become associated with the party.
No, it isn’t fair. The GOP can’t control who joins the party, and Republicans don’t have a corner on random crazies. But what the Democrats have that the Republicans lack is a moderating voice to neutralize the party’s more strident characters. While Democrats have Obama, Republicans are stuck with the squeakiest wheel du jour.
One can convincingly argue that the media have a hand in perpetuating the conservative caricature, but the GOP has contributed to the distortion by pandering to its less rational elements.
We should never shoot the messenger, it should go without saying. But until the Republicans marginalize those who belong in the margins, they won’t be attracting many new recruits. And the messengers will continue to obscure the message.
–Kathleen Parker, today
—
I would just add that things are so bad for the GOP right now that all it takes is a little push now from David Axelrod (Rep. John McHugh, R-Y, was appointed Secretary of the Army) to further marginalize the party.
A little, eeny teeny tiny push from the Democrats results in a heavy body blow to the GOP’s Congressional hopes come next year. You gotta wonder when the party leadership will start listening to moderates like Parker.
Right, “Boxlock20″ –
No better way to express ones belief in the “sanctity of life” than to shoot someone in the face at a worship service.
I too believe he had help and encouragement. I also think he was truly mentally ill and used.
“A little, eeny teeny tiny push from the Democrats results in a heavy body blow to the GOP’s Congressional hopes come next year”
Don’t forget: It’s the economy stupid (not you personally. It’s the saying.)
Auto industry job losses continue to expand.
Union job numbers falling at record pace.
Nonfarm payroll employment fell by 345000 in May
Dollar to Canadian Dollar at civil war record low
May 2009 Job Losses Push Safer Mortgages to Foreclosure
Analysts: Tweaks May Not Save Congress’ Failed Foreclosure Fix
Obama and Democrats spend $1.00 for evcery .50 in revenue
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President Janet Yellen said if the increase in Treasury and mortgage yields is being fueled by rising inflation fears
There are legitimate reasons for concern about the Treasury’s trillion-dollar borrowing needs, the
reluctance of creditor nations to accommodate them and the Federal Reserve’s money printing.
President Barack Obama’s proposed defense budget includes $130 billion for two US wars
means no war savings for other proposed programs.
President Obama’s planned $533 billion deficit for fiscal 2013 is more than twice as large as the $248.1 billion
deficit Bush ran in 2006 and more than three times as large as the $162 billion deficit Bush ran in 2007.
President Obama is planning to permanently increase the scale of government borrowing — even before
we are hit by the fiscal tidal wave that will come when the bulk of the baby boom generation retires and
begins collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.
President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing
interest rates for consumers. (duh)
If Scott Roeder was mentally ill, than we must begin to question, is the “pro life movement inherently mentally ill?”
I submit that it is.
“than we must begin to question”
We? Who is “we”? Most rational people will not come to your illogical conclusion.
But it is a nice place to start a flame.
Whether they are honest about it or not, every single “pro life” person is celebrating the murder of Dr. Tiller.
In their heart of hearts, (hard to find though THAT may be) they are glad. They tell themselves,”Now, a baby will be born that might not have before!”
But let’s look at that.
What woman was helped to choose life by this murder?
What woman will decide to take on the awesome responsibility of parenthood simply because she has no other choice?
Indeed, the knowledge that “pro life” people are willing to murder people they disagree with will no doubt drive troubled pregnancies from them.
By and large, the “pro life” movement is dishonest, hypocritical, self defeating and yes, mentally ill.
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:10 am | Permalink
Don’t forget: It’s the economy stupid (not you personally. It’s the saying.)
—
That’s an argument for the presidential race in 2012.
My argument is that, with just a teeny bit of help from President Obama, is isolating itself into a very small geographical footprint.
Whenever you see the GOP lose a seat in the Northeast or the West or the Atlantic Coast or Texas, you’re seeing it become more and more difficult for the GOP to take back Congress in 2010.
Thanks to the current GOP leadership, at things stand now the Democrats blink and the GOP staggers.
It’s just the facts as they are today. >shrugs<
…with just a teeny bit of help from President Obama, the GOP is isolating itself…
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink
Whether they are honest about it or not, every single “pro life” person is celebrating the murder of Dr. Tiller.
In their heart of hearts, (hard to find though THAT may be) they are glad. They tell themselves,”Now, a baby will be born that might not have before!”
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
When you make ridiculous blanket statements like that you do harm to your cause. In fact, that’s where I stopped reading your post.
Posts like that cause those who disagree with you to become defensive and even more entrenched in their view. Posts like that shutdown any possibility that people of differing views can find any common ground or beliefs from which to work from.
I got it the first time Pedant. My point is much can happen before 2012 and certainly 2010 is up for grabs. Nothing is for certain. How many people had heard of Obama just two short years ago?
Congressional and the presidential elects were close in many contests.
Obama didn’t win by a landslide. There was no mandate for change.
Obama won because independents and many republicans and conservatives (myself included)were p*ssed off at the conduct of the republicans, the war, deficit spending, and I’m certain the economy.
We are probably venturing off the thread topic here, so if you want to continue, I’ll look at the open thread.
We prob
Daniel, as outrageous as BJ tends to be sometimes, he does know one thing. Aint no amount of logical reasoning going to make one bit of difference in this fight.
God knows I’ve tried.
” Aint no amount of logical reasoning going to make one bit of difference in this fight”
So lets flood the blog with illogical reasoning and fan the flames. (sigh)
I’ll explain more Daniel. How many of these nuts still sit here and claim that Dr. Tiller ripped babies apart a week before they were to be born? And how many times have we PROVEN that doesn’t exist?
See, it really doesn’t matter. They don’t care. They want to use any rhetoric they can in order to punish women for the audacity to want to control what happens to their bodies and their babies- even if significantly sick and deformed.
No, their sole purpose is to create an environment where women are forced into back-alley abortions, which of course would end their lives…but that life doesn’t ‘count’. They deserve to die for having an abortion. Just like they believe Tiller deserved to die for offering them hope of legal safe abortion.
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:51 am | Permalink
My point is much can happen before 2012 and certainly 2010 is up for grabs. Nothing is for certain.
We are probably venturing off the thread topic here, so if you want to continue, I’ll look at the open thread.
—
It’s not off topic. Parker’s point is that the GOP has allowed itself to be defined by Republics like Scott Roeder, who has been charged with first degree murder in the death of Dr Tiller. I think President Obama is doing some extremely effective and efficient, if slight, strategic pushing behind the scenes that is helping shrink the GOP. The heavy damage, though, is being done by the GOP itself (although all it takes is a nudge by the Democrats and real damage is done to the GOP).
For better or worse, the GOP has allowed its image to be linked to Scott Roeder. That’s a leadership problem anyway you look at it.
I’ve been posting here a lot longer than you Daniel.
I come originally from the pro life side and have fought this battle a thousand times.
I stand by my opinion that very few folks are truly pro life and honest in their agenda. In four years of posting here, I know of maybe two such persons.
You cannot expect the reasonable and diplomatic from folks who will not even be honest with themselves.
In fact, if you ask me the mugshot published all this week in every newspaper across the country is probably doing the same kind of damage to the GOP that the mafia pic of Jack Abramoff did a few years back.
Roeder: angry elderly white male, charged with first degree murder.
Dr Tiller is murdered AFTER the GOP already allowed the public to associate the party with angry elderly white males. I mean, this has been in the news for months before Scott Roeder’s pic very likely sealed the association in the public opinion.
Certainly just a nudge of further Democrat pushing in this direction would pay off handsomely. And it’s probably coming, too.
Think about it.
Political_Mama,
I agree with that logical reasoning isn’t going to do any good with clinic protesters or people who shoot Doctors and those who support them.
There is some overlap of common belief that both sides should be able to get behind….reducing the number of abortions. I can get behind that. The vast majority of pro-life people can get behind that.
I realize that many posters here have been personally involved with defending a woman’s right to legal medical procedures on the front lines and the have my undying respect for doing that. I’ve heard some call the protesters a Dr. Tiller’s clinic ‘advocates of illegal abortion’ and I don’t doubt that, either. I suspect that the regular protesters at Dr. Tiller’s clinic represent the worst of the worst and the most extreme faction of the pro-life movement. What I doubt is that those people represent the vast majority of those who hold pro-life views.
I, too, wonder how Roeder managed to pull this off without some sort of help. The guy seems like a total mental-cypher without any financial resources. I hope that any co-conspirators, if they exist, are identified and brought to justice.
I understand that people are upset and still feel the need to vent, but Bluejay painting all those who hold pro-life views with the same brush as those who hold the most extreme views really serves no useful purpose.
#
Political_mama
Posted June 7, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink
I’ll explain more Daniel. How many of these nuts still sit here and claim that Dr. Tiller ripped babies apart a week before they were to be born? And how many times have we PROVEN that doesn’t exist?
See, it really doesn’t matter. They don’t care. They want to use any rhetoric they can in order to punish women for the audacity to want to control what happens to their bodies and their babies- even if significantly sick and deformed.
No, their sole purpose is to create an environment where women are forced into back-alley abortions, which of course would end their lives…but that life doesn’t ‘count’. They deserve to die for having an abortion. Just like they believe Tiller deserved to die for offering them hope of legal safe abortion.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I see your point and I’m mostly in agreement. I just finished reading through the editorials posted at the top of the page and was thinking ‘beyond the blog’ this morning. A place like this does tend to draw those who are the most strident in expressing their views.
The idiots you referenced in your first paragraph, I generally don’t bother reading the posts, anymore.
“GOP has allowed itself to be defined by Republics like Scott Roeder”
O.K., your key were I believe is allowed. I’ll grant you that. But the democrats are the ones doing the defining. Republicans nor conservatives, IMHO would ever agree with the statement that Scott Roeder defines or represents them.
It is illogical and sick thinking for people to even pretend that to be true. By stating it as fact, it becomes an issue to keep fires burning.
It will accomplish absolutely nothing else nor lead to common ground or even discussion without a fight. So I guess it becomes logical for the crazy folks on the left to flame attack the crazy folks on the right. And we let them define all of us.
Advertising.
crazy folks on the left to flame attack the crazy folks on the right
and vice-versa.
When was the last time a crazy leftist PHYSICALLY attacked ANYONE.
Daniel, did you know that yesterday was a national campaign to stop people from using birth control? The federation that promotes this ‘the pill kills’ agenda have 300,000 members nationwide.
They don’t wish to reduce the number of abortions. THey want to totally control women’s bodies and health.
“crazy leftist PHYSICALLY attacked ANYONE”
I posted a bunch of them the other day. The murder of the first famous homosexual in Congress – by a lifelong democrat.
James Earl Ray who murdered MLK?
There is a list. Get down off your high horse. Don’t continue to ride with the blue crazy team.
This tragic event will not define republicans or conservatives – as much as you try. And if you really BELIEVE the vies of the few reflect the majority, you need help.
Ok…let’s use BJ’s”logic”.
John Wayne Gacy was obviously mentally ill to kill 33 young men.
John Wayne Gacy was an active, long term Democrat.
Therefore, all Democrats are mentally ill.
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it? But..change a couple names/nouns and it is EXACTLY the same “logic” that bj presented.
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 11:29 am | Permalink
Republicans nor conservatives, IMHO would ever agree with the statement that Scott Roeder defines or represents them.
—
Most of them, sure. However, I am positive there are more than a few — a marginal few, granted, but again the GOP is allowing itself to be defined by its marginal people — who support Dr Tiller’s death and who would if it could be held secret support Roeder’s criminal defense.
The problem with the GOP right now is that it just can’t rise above events and grow. You make a statement about current Republics and conservatives, but what you should be concerned about is future or potential Republics and conservatives.
Until the GOP gets its ship in order, it will be inordinately vulnerable to even the slightest Democrat attacks, imo.
AmWay, if MLK would be alive today, he would be a democrat. It was the republicans who welcomed with open arms the fleeing racists from the democratic party. We became the party of civil rights in the 60’s. Had I been a registered voter alive before, I probably would have been a republican.
To say that MLK’s killer was a leftist, is beyond absurd.
And raptor’s JWG….that was quite a long time ago.
Your people get the support of the Raders, the Roeders, the WACO’s, the Terry Nichols, the Timothy McVeigh’s of the today.
uh…pm…my point was made to demonstrate the idiocy of bj’s ridiculous conclusion. I could do it another way..
I have a pet, and that pet is a dog.
Therefore, all pets are dogs.
See the fallacy? bj obviously doesn’t….takes the actions of one person and ascribes those behaviors and attirbutes to millions of other people.
It is non-supportable, fallacious and laughable in the ridiculous extreme.
Uh huh Raptor.
Go check out the marquee in front of Spirit One church.
Dr. Tiller is dead and they STILL can’t let him go.
They just don’t get it Raptor.
Or they are playing you.
(Hard to imagine they are THAT stupid.)
On Friday, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Oliver North visited Rock Church in Hampton Roads, Virginia, to give a three-hour long lecture on “Rediscovering God in America.” The speakers warned the audience about the “continuing availability of abortion, the spread of gay rights, and attempts to remove religion from American public life and school history books.” The Virginia-Pilot reported that Gingrich argued that, while Christianity is the foundation of American citizenship, Americans are experiencing a period where they are being “surrounded by paganism”:
GINGRICH: I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States because only in the United States does citizenship start with our creator. [...] I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history. We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.
Huckabee also equated America’s victory against the British in the Revolutionary War with the right-wing’s success in the Proposition 8 fight in California as being miracles “from God’s hand.”
yeah..jj…bj appears pretty dense. takes one murderer, throws in one wackjob and POOF is able to define the actions of mililons of people.
It is saw when hatred has festered to such a degree that it completely destroys any ability to reason whatsoever. But..that is about what we have come to expect from certain extremist here, isn’t it? Lack of reason just outrageous and unsupportable flames.
“saw” = “sad” (typo)
#
Political_mama
Posted June 7, 2009 at 11:41 am | Permalink
When was the last time a crazy leftist PHYSICALLY attacked ANYONE.
Daniel, did you know that yesterday was a national campaign to stop people from using birth control? The federation that promotes this ‘the pill kills’ agenda have 300,000 members nationwide.
They don’t wish to reduce the number of abortions. THey want to totally control women’s bodies and health.
==-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yes, I was aware of that and it blew my mind when I read it. I still don’t believe they represent the majority pro-life view just because they yell the loudest. The Catholic church holds the same view but a large portion of rank and file Catholics reject that position.
The ‘pill kills’ group is going to end up doing more harm than good for the pro-life cause.
If any of you who support choice are interested in helping, either by volunteering your time or giving money, there are many ways. These groups are the most active in Kansas.
Any and all of these groups desire hands-on volunteers, so if you’re poor and can’t give money, that’s ok.
If you’ve got the money to spare, but don’t have the time, that’s ok too.
Kansas National Organization for Women has a lobbyist fund so that we have someone watching up at the capital whenever legislation is introduced that could impact any one of the women’s issues they cover. NOW is not solely about abortion, but also for LGBT rights, pay equity, ending racism, and ending domestic violence. The lobbyist watches closely for ALL of those issues. They recently opened a new PAC which will interview candidates on their beliefs.
The National Abortion Federation and the Peggy Bowman second-chance fund provides funding to those seeking an abortion. Since there is no federal funding nor insurance coverage for abortion, these private organizations allow for the very poorest to help offset the cost of an abortion.
George Tiller’s family recently set up a fund to help fund new abortion doctors.
Planned Parenthood covers the gamut from lobbying at the capital, to helping women obtain birth control, to all sorts of medical procedures.
ProKanDo is no more unfortunately.
Gingrich, North, Huckabee…
All VERY dangerous people.
If you call people’s rights derivative of God, you can deny them those rights based on your judgment of how well they measure up in the eyes of the faithful.
Raptor have you read the comments from people all across the nation who have said things supporting the shooter? It isn’t just a few.
Pedant
Posted June 7, 2009 at 11:01 am | Permalink
—
It’s not off topic. Parker’s point is that the GOP has allowed itself to be defined by Republics like Scott Roeder, who has been charged with first degree murder in the death of Dr Tiller.
=====================
No, the DEMOCRATS are attempting to define the Repbulicans by using Scott Roeder and his crime for your political advantage.
Nice try though.
You DO need to falsely label your enemy when you ain’t got nothin else you can think of.
The attempts to label all Conservatives as Roeder supporters is laughable.
Amazing how the Libs here are threading lies to gin-up hate toward conservatives.
It’s a brainwashing attempt, and there are many weak minded people here that may actually fall for it.
Carry on with your psycho babble……
(Oh that’s right, I can’t stop you anyway!)
ok pm….then I saw TWO people with pets that were dogs. Therefore, ALL pets are dogs.
Wait…I saw THREE pets that were dogs. That conclusively proves it!
Oh…FOUR pets that are dogs…no argument anymore..ALL pets are clearly dogs. End of discussion, I can be as irrational as bj!
Raptor
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
I can be as irrational as bj!
—————–
I disagree. That isn’t possibly possible.
Jim Jones, of all the people here complaining about being lumped in with the cons who are terrorists, you’re the laughable one to try to distance yourself from them. If anyone belongs in that category you’re it.
Ouch P Mom, that really hurts.
Say PMOM, please find some posts of mine which show that I’m a terrorist, and support your statement above.
Can you do that?
Or you just blowing smoke today?
And btw, O’Bama isn’t using the word Terrorist anymore.
Pmom, you need to come up with something else.
Pmom, you’ve just called all Cons Terrorists?
You smokin somethin?
I see the CONs are on a toot today to torture logic, evidence, and their own credibility to somehow disassociate their rhetoric and actions from last Sunday’s murder.
They’re pretty unconvincing so far.
But keep trying!
There is some group or person, who has put up a web site to raise funds for the $5 Million bail for Scott Roeder…
Today, one week later, many are attending worship services, and still feeling the dull pain, because of what happened last Sunday at Reformation Lutheran, not to mention the Worship disruption that happened there some time ago…
When will we learn that violence is not the way to solve problems..
Those who are against “the pill” are very much a part of “Pro Life” movements… Others oppose even the use of condoms… ONE group in the Dakotas, has even gone so far as to declare that no couple incapable of reproduction, should be allowed to marry… They think if they can get that made into law, it will forever kill gay marriage… They have been referred to in the Dakotas as the “american taliban”
JimJones, you’ve been just as nasty as boxlock, and I think you’re probably the poster formerly known as Fleets Enema (fleetwood) who has quite an extensive anti-choice antic.
It doesn’t matter, even under this id you’re using now, it is quite obvious that you’re a fanatic & off your rocker.
Chas
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
There is some group or person, who has put up a web site to raise funds for the $5 Million bail for Scott Roeder…
—————————
You writing a check Chas or are you gonna put it on ‘the card?’
Oh it’s obvious PMom that you do not know what you are writing about.
It’s humorous to watch though.
You and Chas and Monkey can now continue to demonize whatever groups of people you don’t like by labeling them as “American Taliban” or other such slogan/labels given to you by the dailykos.
I hope someday, for change, and that you can learn to think on your own, examine facts, use reason, and not base every thing you believe on your Feelings of the Moment.
That make you feel better? I hope so.
so, mh, are you jumpin on bj’s bandwagon that all pro lifers are mentally ill? The “logic” he used to get there is laughable and utterly without defense.
Regular
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
Chas
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
There is some group or person, who has put up a web site to raise funds for the $5 Million bail for Scott Roeder…
—————————
You writing a check Chas or are you gonna put it on ‘the card?’
=============
What are you talkin about? Chas has opened a Bank Account.
Chas is the “some group” and this is a money raising scheme Chas is advertising on the WE Blog. Just watch, he’ll post a link to it next.
“Aint no amount of logical reasoning going to make one bit of difference in this fight.
God knows I’ve tried.”–P_mama
The part you are so sadly mistaken on, and the reason your arguments make no difference, is that they do not in the least contain “logical reasoning”. And, BJ is totally irrelevant, branding everyone that has a different opinion as dishonest and mentally ill causes most to completely dismiss him and mentally ill.
Daniel, your statement, “When you make ridiculous blanket statements like that you do harm to your cause. In fact, that’s where I stopped reading your post”, is absolutely correct, and the case for many here.
#
JimJohnson
Posted June 7, 2009 at 1:03 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
Chas
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
There is some group or person, who has put up a web site to raise funds for the $5 Million bail for Scott Roeder…
—————————
You writing a check Chas or are you gonna put it on ‘the card?’
=============
What are you talkin about? Chas has opened a Bank Account.
Chas is the “some group” and this is a money raising scheme Chas is advertising on the WE Blog. Just watch, he’ll post a link to it next.
—————————–
Well, I’m just confused about it.
Didn’t think that Chas would support Roeder in a legal defense fund.
Perhaps Chas is going to deliver some ‘care packages’ to SG County Jail for Roeder later on?
Whenever you talk to a pro-life person, don’t talk to them about the baby being killed.
Simply tell them that they are just trying to control women and their bodies.
Do not mention the death of the baby!
Anything to make a buck Regular. You should know that about Chas.
Amway,
“So lets flood the blog with illogical reasoning and fan the flames. (sigh)”
Well, we watched you anti nutcases do it, and the end result was murder. Heard of fighting fire with fire?
“Perhaps Chas is going to deliver some ‘care packages’ to SG County Jail for Roeder later on?”
That would be the Christian thing to do.
Jed, are you attempting to literally inflame a riot and violence and murder?
Yeah because to you, its only a group of cells that can’t even feel or think that matters.
“branding everyone that has a different opinion as dishonest and mentally ill”
NOT everyone.
There are two long time posters to this forum who call themselves pro life who I very much respect.
But in balance, those who call themselves “pro life” are really on some other agenda. Some have sexual hang ups, others have religious issues. But very few of them actually contribute to the cause of adding value to life.
To Pmom, that growth inside a woman isn’t human.
It’s a group of stupid, insensitive cells.
Pmom now labels women as stupid!
Searching the dailykos for my next response…..
Just what on the ‘hierarchy of harm’, that a human can suffer, is higher than death?
Sure an unplanned pregnancy is inconvenient to say the least but it’s not anything like death.
Women, being the one that nurtures and bares the child should take primary responsibility to make those decisions before another human is formed, but not kill it because they didn’t live up to their responsibility.
Mistakes happen, but an innocent defenseless child should be electively killed for it for another’s convenience.
It isn’t a child. It isn’t even an infant. It is a fetus.
It isn’t until late in the pregnancy that it begins to have the ability to feel.
Should read:
“Mistakes happen, but an innocent defenseless child should [NOT} be electively killed for another’s convenience.”
“It isn’t a child. It isn’t even an infant. It is a fetus.”
It is a live human being, it can not be anything else. Those that say differently are lying to themselves and everyone else to justify their own selfish nature.
It is self preservation. Not selfishness. If you were to take a gun to someone for potentially hurting you, you have no problem with that at all, even if you are taking a REAL life of a REAL human being- one who is loved, one who has value to someone.
Lets just clear up this myth right now. Women who have abortions are not selfish. Do you really think the opposite of that..the octomom…is selfless? Do you think it was fair to all of those kids to be born to one woman? What about her already disabled other kids she can’t take care of?
If I remember, everyone was up in arms over her decision. If a woman wants a bright future for herself AND HER FUTURE CHILDREN, then it is responsible for her to choose not to bear children until she is ready. Selfish is forcing your decisions upon HER.
JimJohnson/Regular/etal — ALL LIARS!!! I hqave posted nothing about supporting a Roeder Bail fund… So, letss just stop the LIES NOW… Your free speech stops where you cross the line from speech to slanderous/libelous personal attack.. The Editors know who you are…
#
Chas
Posted June 7, 2009 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
JimJohnson/Regular/etal — ALL LIARS!!! I hqave posted nothing about supporting a Roeder Bail fund… So, letss just stop the LIES NOW… Your free speech stops where you cross the line from speech to slanderous/libelous personal attack.. The Editors know who you are…
———————————
Ah, you mean like saying anyone conservative is responsible for Tiller’s murder?
That kind of lie? :)
Very few would argue the necessity of abortion to save the life of the mother, but those are few and far between. Few would argue the acceptability of abortion to terminate a pregnancy of a badly deformed or handicapped child, but again those are not what constitute the vast majority of abortions.
Most are simply convenience abortions. People don’t think or act responsibly and they just kill the ‘little inconvenience’ and walk away from it.
I never said THAT either, you dumb schitt — So you are STILL a LIAR!!
Anti-government; anti-taxes; anti-woman; and anti-american…
Maybe Johnson might be related to Granny, given its poor ability to red properly.. LOL
red read
hookt awn fonix werkt fer mee
#
Chas
Posted June 7, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
Anti-government; anti-taxes; anti-woman; and anti-american…
——————————
I didn’t realize Chas – are you a charter member of the Freemen?
YOu call it an abortion of convenience, which is so far from the truth it is absurd. There is nothing convenient about having an abortion. Women don’t treat it as some little thing.
It isn’t merely inconvenient to lend your entire body to another person for 9 months-pregnancy affects EVERY CELL of your body, your chemistry…everything. It isn’t merely inconvenient to be trying to make a living and supporting your family while on bedrest.
It isn’t merely inconvenient when you can barely afford the bills you’ve got. It isn’t merely inconvenient when you’ve already got a disabled child who demands 24 hour non stop care to not wish to bring another into the world. There are a million GOOD reasons why women seek abortions.
Box if you don’t argue the necessity for abortion, why do you hate Dr. Tiller?
“There are a million GOOD reasons why women seek abortions.”—P_mama
There are almost NO GOOD REASONS, make your choices before you feel the necessity to kill another living human being for your own convenience.
DNFTT’s
Tiller = 60,000+ abortions = 60,000+ lives killed.
I don’t hate him….I simply have a greater respect for the God given sanctity of life I guess.
Love is but the song we sing,
And fear’s the way we die
You can make the mountains ring
Or make the angels cry
Know the dove is on the wing
And you need not know why
C’mon people now,
Smile on your brother
Ev’rybody get together
Try and love one another right now
Some will come and some will go
We shall surely pass
When the one that left us here
Returns for us at last
We are but a moments sunlight
Fading in the grass
C’mon people now,
Smile on your brother
Ev’rybody get together
Try and love one another right now
If you hear the song I sing,
You must understand
You hold the key to love and fear
All in your trembling hand
Just one key unlocks them both
It’s there at your command
C’mon people now,
Smile on your brother
Ev’rybody get together
Try and love one another right now
Right now
Right now!
Political_mama
Posted June 7, 2009 at 1:31 pm | Permalink
It is self preservation. Not selfishness. If you were to take a gun to someone for potentially hurting you, you have no problem with that at all, even if you are taking a REAL life of a REAL human being- one who is loved, one who has value to someone.
So Political Mama says that killing a baby is self-defense. That is just like shooting a robber who is attacking you.
Political Mama, that robber is choosing to attack you.
The baby is not choosing to attack you.
But it is taking your life in so many ways.
Box, I look at it as 60,000 women’s lives saved.
Lee Rodney
Posted June 7, 2009 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
that robber is choosing to attack you.
The baby is not choosing to attack you.
—
Not if you believe Boxlock. After all, it’s a human not a fetus. Human’s have free will, and are perfectly free to attack another human being. Even though you know absolutely nothing about the mother, her life during the gestation of the fetus, you CHOOSE to equate the fetus always with a human being, just as you CHOOSE to infuse it with complete human innocence. (in fact, I’ll go a step further and predict your reaction will be that it can only be innocent, no matter what)
If it’s a human, it has sinned, no? Why is it not possible for the baby to choose to attack the mother?
Sorry P_mama but I look at that as attempting to rationalize or spin it into something not as terrible as it is.
Those developing babies are killed, a far greater loss than what the mother would have to put up with.
Pedant, it is a parasite, isnt it?? A Parasite takes everything, and gives nothing…
GENESIS says that the “man” or “Adame’” doesnt become a living being until God breathes in his nostrils the breath of life.
How many fetuses are breathing??
Boxlock20
Posted June 7, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
Those developing babies are killed, a far greater loss than what the mother would have to put up with.
—
You can’t make that judgment, it’s not possible. Only if you argue that the baby’s life is valued above the mother’s life can you make that conclusion.
And if you argue that the mother’s life is valued less than the baby’s life, then I doubt you are truly pro-life.
Pedant, IF you believe in the doctrine of original sin, then we are all born BORN in sin…
IF you dont believe in that, not so much…
The accused says more attacks are coming. Now if that is the act of a lone gunman, you’re off your rockers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting
Chas
Posted June 7, 2009 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
Pedant, IF you believe in the doctrine of original sin, then we are all born BORN in sin…
—
Well, it seems to me that the doctrine of original sin implies that fetuses are not in fact human, then.
It’s a simple syllogism:
All humans have sinned.
Humans are only born into sin.
Fetuses have not been born.
—
Therefore fetuses are not human.
“I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal,” Roeder said.
—
Interesting. Revolting, but interesting.
I hope the US Attorney’s have opened a conspiracy investigation, then.
Pedant don’t be ridiculous! The mother does not die, the baby does. The mother is inconvenienced, sometimes greatly but she survives. If her life is in danger sure…abort. But in the absence of a risk approaching death the baby has the most to lose.
Inconvenience does NOT equate to death.
Oh an Pedant, remember the mother made a choice at the time of conception, the baby didn’t. Once that choice was made the baby deserves to be protected and to live.
Boxlock20
Posted June 7, 2009 | Permalink
The mother is inconvenienced, sometimes greatly but she survives.
…the mother made a choice at the time of conception, the baby didn’t. Once that choice was made the baby deserves to be protected and to live.
—
Well, let’s just make this simple. You don’t even know this hypothetical mother, you feel free to consign her to “great” inconvenience, yet you judge that the baby’s life comes ahead of the mother’s every time (unless the mother’s life is directly at stake).
Pardon me, but it’s just a no-brainer here. As the GOP used argue (back when it was sane), these kind of local decisions are best left to the local decision makers.
It’s the mother’s call here. I am perfectly willing to trust her judgment about her pregnancy, in all cases. In no case do I conclude that you know more than the mother — unless of course the mother is carrying your child. But even in that case, the better decision is made locally: by the mother carrying your child, and you.
Like I said, it’s pretty simple. There is no case where you can make a better judgment on the mother’s preganancy than the mother herself.
“Like I said, it’s pretty simple. There is no case where you can make a better judgment on the mother’s preganancy than the mother herself.”
That absolutely correct….before the life of another person enters the situation. After that point BOTH need to be considered and since our Constitution guarantees LIFE first of all that should be respected over the inconvenience of the mother.
Boxlock20
Posted June 7, 2009 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
… since our Constitution guarantees LIFE first of all that should be respected over the inconvenience of the mother.
—
Again, you can’t make that call. You have no idea of what the inconvenience is – you can’t. However, the mother has perfect knowledge of the inconvenience. She knows its every feature, and is therefore best able to judge its magnitude.
Again, the choice is best left to the mother.
The mother will often choose life, btw. Can there be any doubt?
In those cases where she does not choose life, how in the world can I second guess her when she possesses far more knowledge than I?
I cannot, not unless I am willing to base my choice on dogma.
And I won’t do that.
The monologue Pedant has posted above proves once again that it takes two intelligent people to have an intelligent discussion.
“Those developing babies are killed, a far greater loss than what the mother would have to put up with.”
Congratulations!
You just made women property.
Ever tried parenthood alone?
No?
Hmm, that AND the fact that you seem to be a man would tend to disqualify you almost completely from this debate.
Millions of women have risked their lives in order to have abortions. THAT is the life you risk when you take away her choice. She’ll choose…and it may cost her her life as well.
They aint gonna say it political mama.
But most of them would probably consider the woman’s death summary judgment for having an abortion,
“That absolutely correct….before the life of another person enters the situation. After that point BOTH need to be considered and since our Constitution guarantees LIFE first of all that should be respected over the inconvenience of the mother.”
Uh OH!
There go the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother!
My Choice
I grew up believing that abortions are wrong. Now, I expect to perform them someday.
By Rozalyn Farmer Love
Sunday, June 7, 2009
…I’m a third-year medical student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. I plan to become an obstetrician-gynecologist. I dream of delivering healthy babies, working with families and supporting midwifery. But as part of my practice, I also envision providing abortions to women who need them.
The road I took to get here isn’t your stereotypical one. My parents are conservative Christians who believe that abortion is wrong. Growing up, I naturally shared their view. But I’ve also wanted to be a doctor since I was 4 years old, and in high school, I began to feel drawn to issues of women’s health. In college, I designed my own major to broaden my understanding of women’s health by including psychology, sociology and women’s studies courses.
…I agree that ending an unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy. When I advocate for reproductive rights, for choice, I don’t claim that abortion is morally acceptable. I think that it’s a very private, intensely personal decision. But I was stunned when one of my professors, a pathologist and a Planned Parenthood supporter, told me that decades ago, entire wings of the university’s hospital were filled with women dying from infections caused by botched abortions. It’s clear that women who don’t want to be pregnant won’t be deterred by limited access to providers or to clinics. And I believe that it’s immoral to let them die rather than provide them with safe, competent care.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060502006.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Yup BJ, it suddenly becomes women’s sole purpose on earth to bear children. Whether they want to or not.
Parenthood is described by bawks as an inconvenience to women.
Let’s follow where that goes….
Let’s say you ban abortion. You make the abortion of the baby a capital offense against the mother, strap her to a gurney and force her to gestate, whatever.
What do you do when she delivers?
Do you then mandate by force of law that she will be a good and fit parent for as such time as is necessary? You’ll have to have some teeth for that too, of course. But to truly FORCE someone to be a parent for something approaching 10-12 years at a minimum? You’re gonna need the SRS on steroids. We’re talking REALLY big government here.
Or, you’ll have to come up with some sort of infant orphanage. Who gets to run that? Government raised children is not likely to be attractive to the right. Church raised children with the faith as their parent is not likely to be acceptable to the left. Maybe this is a new business opportunity for Haliburton? Outsorce the kids to be raised by a company? Yeah I can feel the love there.
The fact of it is that the drive for sex greatly outweighs the desire to be a parent. The animal kingdom has an answer for this. In many cases, child rearing is a shared activity.
It takes a village?
Either the unborn child is a life worth protecting or it isn’t.
If it is, then it shouldn’t matter what excuse you can come up with.
If it isn’t, then you don’t need any excuse.
Yet the Pro-Choice crowd loves to come up with all these reasons and excuses for abortion. They are little more than red herrings.
The (unverified) virgin “Nathaniel” declares –
“Either the unborn child is a life worth protecting or it isn’t.”
The depth of your wisdom knows no surface, boy.
Women have the choice to bear children or not before conception. We are not talking about the marginal percentage situations but the norm.
After that there is another life, a very real life, involved.
One should not decide to terminate another’s life out of convenience.
Period!
Abortion is selfish and leads to a disrespect for life, and that disrespect then manifests itself in all aspects of our lives like euthanasia, and as we’ve so clearly seen right here in river city….MURDER!
“Boxlock20″ –
.
Tell us all your personal experience of the “inconvenience” of pregnancy.
(And while you’re at it, tell us from your personal experience which is the most comfortable tampon on the market.)
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
“Parenthood is described by bawks as an inconvenience to women.”—the great liar BlowJ
What an ass/hole liar you are there BlowJ.
I never said that, parenthood is a blessing, and only people like you (frankly scum) can make it less than that.
Nathaniel, now you know better than that.
“If it is, then it shouldn’t matter what excuse you can come up with.
If it isn’t, then you don’t need any excuse.”
They do need an excuse to rationalize their own knowledge of what they do and advocate as being death of a human for their own perceived well being. It is the height of self-centerednes.
Thdy are liars unto themselves.
Political_mama,
The pro-abortion national media refuses to report on the violent assaults on pro-lifers, far more numberous that those against abortionist quacks.
- – -
Mr. Roeder is mentally disturbed and a loner.
However, we are not a nation of laws while the contract killings of children in abortion mills remain legalized by federal fiat, and while criminal abortionist quacks flagrantly violate Kansas laws and medical regulations with impunity from lawmakers, prosecutors, judges, and governors bought off with abortion mill blood money.
- – -
Babies breathe before they are born through the oxygen exchange in the placenta, using the umbilical cord which the baby creates and attaches herself while maintaining a separate blood supply, with a heartbeat at 18 days, to obtain nutrients and oxygen from the mother’s blood. The baby controls the entire pregnancy herself, by causing the release of hormones in the mother’s body – unless mangled, dismembered, poisoned, or beheaded by an abortionist quack.
“Tell us all your personal experience of the “inconvenience” of pregnancy.”—Monkey
Neither do I have to commit murder to know it’s wrong, or to treat any other living human in a way that harms them to know that is wrong.
Don’t act more ignorant with arguments like that than you are.
“Boxlock20″ –
You know nothing about being pregnant.
(Sitting down to pee doesn’t make you a woman.)
There’s bawks questioning my fitness as a parent again!
And I have many years of successful experience.
But he is prepared to trust women with no desire to be a parent with the responsibility?
How DO you get there from here?
You are just getting yourself into all SORTS of logical traps bawks.
The fetus has just as much rights as the woman!
Unless ….
The blogs only known single parent is unfit!
But women who don’t want the responsibility are candidates for it! Whether they like it or not!
“The baby controls the entire pregnancy herself, by causing the release of hormones in the mother’s body – unless mangled, dismembered, poisoned, or beheaded by an abortionist quack.”
SUCH venom! Ya have to look past the poison to find what he just said.
I do believe our “Parkay” has now made the life of the fetus superior to that of the woman.
Is that what you just revealed Parkay? Or would you like to clarify?
“Mr. Roeder is mentally disturbed and a loner.”
Uh huh. He seems to have had Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger on speed dial.
And BlowJ believes one person has MORE rights to life than another, again out of the one’s convenience concerns, and the fact that the other has no power to object or fight for it’s life.
Real big man there BlowJ.
And I base my opinion of your parenting skills on the skills you display in everything else.
One, easy to punk into standing in a cold parking lot looking like the fool you were.
Two, an unplanned pregnancy with the mother and now she is gone, probably a smart girl.
Three, a near perfect failure career wise and economically.
Hum….there seems to be a pattern here.
And you post in a way that results in no respect from me or anyone else except other excuse making DimLib socialists.
Enough of this…it’s too nice a Sunday evening to trash up with trash.
“And BlowJ believes one person has MORE rights to life than another”
Nope, that’s you and parkay.
You’re “pro life” alright. To the end of the birth canal. You have yet to tell us how you are going to compel an unwilling woman to be a parent or otherwise get your successfully delivered fetus raised, fed, clothed etc.
Why is my comment awaiting moderation? I didn’t curse.
Oh is it the word rhymes with venus?
Box and Nathan say that it is a baby in all cases. That means that it doesn’t matter the reason, you MUST CARRY that fetus.
So easy since it is not the men who have to loan their bodies out for 9 months. Notice that it is MOSTLY anti-choicers who are male?
There you go telling us what to do again. I think in order to prevent pregnancy, we should just cut off your willies?
Its ok, we’ll reattach them later when you’re ready to procreate.
Let it show that Parkay, an OR member, just absolutely defended the killer.
Are you watching Feds?
Yup, that’d be the word.
Question for those who have been to the church where Dr. Tiller was shot:
Was it posted with the typical “No Gun” sign?
Political_Mama,
If your solution is to cut off mens privates, wouldn’t it be far easier for the woman to simply not let those privates into her without protection?
If you are going to resort to calling me anti-choice, then I will simply call you Pro-Death.
I gave you the respect by calling you Pro-Choice, return the favor and use the proper term for us as well? In the spirit of civility?
And if the issue is about how the child is going to effect the mother…
Why should a mom have to be burdened with taking care of a new born child either?
What if it becomes a problem after birth for the mother, should we simply allow the mother to kill her kid then too?
Fortunately, we have means to help abandoned children Nathaniel.
I believe you have some first hand experience with that?
Does an unborn baby have the right to keep and bear arms?
“You have yet to tell us how you are going to compel an unwilling woman to be a parent or otherwise get your successfully delivered fetus raised, fed, clothed etc.”—BlowJ
Ah….I get it, the potential of an uncertain life is justification to kill the young life. Before even given the chance to grow up and find out.
“So easy since it is not the men who have to loan their bodies out for 9 months. Notice that it is MOSTLY anti-choicers who are male?”—P_moma
Oh cry me a river, for pete’s sake.
Women from the beginning of time have been delivering and raising babies along with the fathers. You think you’ve just now stumbled on to something unique.
And believe me there are as many or more women that are pro-life as men. How old are you P-mama…..grow up.
“Fortunately, we have means to help abandoned children Nathaniel.”
I should add, no thanks to Republicans.
Nathaniel has also told us that single women parents should be scorned.
BlueJay,
Once again, you contradict yourself.
First you post questioning what will happen to a baby after birth if a mother is forced to carry to term and now you provide the answer to your own argument while trying to make a seperate point with me.
“Does an unborn baby have the right to keep and bear arms?”
An interesting question, but not as interesting as understanding the twisted mind of a Monkey.
Now I’m just poking fun at you Monkey.
“Ah….I get it, the potential of an uncertain life is justification to kill the young life.”
Well, that is certainly implied. But not what I asked you.
How do you force someone to be a parent and who takes the role when you fail?
“BlueJay” –
” Nathaniel has also told us that single women parents should be scorned”
And no one has more expertise on good parenting than the (unverified) virgin “Nathaniel.”
BlueJay,
You keep posting that same lie.
My exact statement was that single parenthood shouldn’t be celebrated, it is a lifestyle CHOICE that should be scorned.
Not that a single parent should be scorned, but that lifestyle shouldn’t be something glamorized.
It has been proven over and over again that children do far better in a household with two parents vs one.
“My exact statement was that single parenthood shouldn’t be celebrated, it is a lifestyle CHOICE that should be scorned.”
Did YOUR mother get a choice in the matter? I kinda didn’t.
You “pro life” people are amazingly complex.
You argue that any pregnant woman should have the responsibilities of parenthood forced upon her WHILE whittling away people you consider qualified for the job.
I see that DumberthanaMonkey is still obsessed with my personal life.
Isn’t this where you would usually cry about someone else only resorting to such things because they can’t come up with a good argument?
Hmmm…
Take your own advice.
BlueJay,
I argue that life should be protected. Nothing more, nothing less.
The rest is all a bunch of crap you keep saying, not me.
bj states:
“I should add, no thanks to Republicans”
care to back that asinine assertion up there, bj? According to research easily found, it appears that Republicans tend to give significanly more to charity than do Democrats. There have been several studies/reports in the past few months that support that FACT.
Soooo…care to back up your assertion that is clearly based on myopic hatred only?
““My exact statement was that single parenthood shouldn’t be celebrated, it is a lifestyle CHOICE that should be scorned.”
I’ll cut you a break and allow that maybe you mean single women should not get pregnant on purpose and become single parents.
Ok.
How do you know who has chosen to be a single parent before the fact? Don’t you risk attacking the innocent with that sort of thinking? I should think that ANY sort of voluntary parenthood would be embraced by those who say they are “pro life”. These folks chose life like you wanted. A little credit maybe?
“Nathaniel” –
I’m not the one whining, boy.
You are.
I’m merely referring to information you’ve previously presented in this forum.
I’m the only known single parent on the blog Raptor.
Now you personally don’t hang a lot of crap on me. But as a group Republicans here and elsewhere have been less than supportive. Certainly, Republicans fight programs to help needy families at every turn.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
BlueJay,
Innocent or not, I am not attacking any individual, rather the lifestyle.
It is a distinction lost on someone like you who is always more concerned with lying about what someone has said in your efforts to mischaracterize what they said.
Oh I see ProbedMonkey,
You admit you were whining in all those other threads.
“AmWay, if MLK would be alive today, he would be a democrat. It was the republicans who welcomed with open arms the fleeing racists from the democratic party.”
No doubt, but a the time of his murder the democrats voted against equal rights and the southern democrats were the racists.
I don’t believe for a moment the rest of your post. Republicans were not welcoming racists (they are human beings you know). It was more than the democrats were smart and saw that their party should do more for minorities – if they wanted to succeed. Republicans sat on their laurels and expected the public to recognize their good and lost track of supporting minority issues. Whatever the circumstances,
republicans were not busy converting into evil racists. Missed opportunity yes. Racists (as a political party) heck no.
Innocent or not, I am not attacking any individual, rather the lifestyle.
Meaning what?
A single parent should run out and marry the first person they can find so you will approve? Thanks, no.
Shutting down to protect the computer from lightning.
The (unverified) virgin parenting expert “Nathaniel” –
“Oh I see ProbedMonkey,
You admit you were whining in all those other threads.”
Okay, boy. You’re gonna have to explain that one.
And now the LittleChimp is too dumb to understand how he is whining….
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
BlueJay,
Innocent or not, I am not attacking any individual, rather the lifestyle.
It is a distinction lost on someone like you who is always more concerned with lying about what someone has said in your efforts to mischaracterize what they said.
_________________________________________
This whiney POS was/is a Marine?
God help us!
For the record, I am a woman, I am pro-life/anti-abortion and know many women who are pro-life. I find it a manly thing to do for a man to “fight the good fight” of defending the defenseless as in the knights of old. When I say “fight”, I mean speak out against abortion in conversations with friends as the subject crops up, contribute financially to crisis pregnancy centers, be good husbands and fathers etc.
I find it a cop-out for men to say that since they will not be carrying the child it is up to the women to make her choice.
Tiller is dead.
Several times on this thread, someone or other has said they are not attacking the person, only the lifestyle.
Doesn’t attacking someone’s life style automatically attack the person? How can those two things be separate.
FACT: Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by LBJ, a southern Democrat.
FACT: Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 by a Democratic Congress and signed by LBJ, a southern Democrat.
FACT: MLK was assassinated in April of 1968.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, nobody is entitled to their own set of the facts.
Disclaimer: This post was made in a light-hearted manner for entertainment and/or educational purposes only and not intended to disparage or attack any other poster. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Subject to change without notice. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. Use only in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Your actual mileage may vary. This supersedes all previous notices.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
Civil Rights Act Vote by Party:
Civil Rights Act of 1964
House
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Senate
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
FACT: Civil Rights act was passed by a greater percentage of Republicans (those voting for vs against) than Democrats.
FACT: Voting Rights act was passed by a greater percentage of Republicans (those voting for vs against) than Democrats.
You gettin’ the moral, Daniel?
janeeyre,
It depends. Did the person choose their lifestyle? Want that lifestyle? Then yes, to an extent, they are being “attacked” for such a choice.
Otherwise, it is simply that, an assessment of single parenthood. Not the parent.
Single parents can be and often are wonderful people who love their children and want the best for them.
That doesn’t mean the lifestyle should be celebrated when a home environment with two supporting parents is proven to be better.
That lifestyle should be avoided if possible.
That is how you “attack” the lifestyle and not the person.
#
ANTI
Posted June 7, 2009 at 8:10 pm | Permalink
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Is there an inaccuracy in my post or do you have a different definition for being ‘full of bull?’
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html
LBJ may have pushed for the Civil Rights Act, but democrats only came to the table to vote after kicking and screaming AGAINST passage of the Act.
This was the longest filibuster in history, doubling the previous record.
Dixiecrats Over several months in 1964, Southern Democrat Senators, led by Georgia Senator Richard B. Russell led a filibuster against the bill
Contrary to what is often assumed today, a higher proportion of Republicans than of Democrats supported the bill. Its leading advocates included not only Democrats like Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Rep. Emanuel Celler of New York but also Republicans like Sen. Jacob Javits of New York and Rep. William McCulloch of Ohio.
The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley’s Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act’s primary opposition came from the southern Democrats’ 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become – according to the logic of his statement – a Republican.
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Boy you libs really can turn things around.
#
Regular
Posted June 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
Civil Rights Act Vote by Party:
Civil Rights Act of 1964
House
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Senate
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Those are verifiable facts and support my contention that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not passed without the support of Democratic members of Congress.
#
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
FACT: Civil Rights act was passed by a greater percentage of Republicans (those voting for vs against) than Democrats.
FACT: Voting Rights act was passed by a greater percentage of Republicans (those voting for vs against) than Democrats.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Again, those are verifiable facts. You’ll get no argument from me.
No doubt, but a the time of his murder the democrats voted against equal rights and the southern democrats were the racists.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
American_Way,
These are your words. They have been shown to be wrong by my post and by Regular’s post.
You chose to counter the facts with commentary. Commentary is subjective, facts are objective.
Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Under Eastland’s care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself.
The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the “Southern Bloc” of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell <”We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.
On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off the souther democrats filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill, including Senators Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV).
It is what it is, Daniel.
It was not republicans who fought civil rights legislation. It was the majority party democrats and their southern racist democrats who had to be brought to congress kicking and screaming to finally get the bill passed.
American_Way,
I don’t dispute that the Republicans voted for those bills in higher percentages than did Democrats. I don’t even dispute that most of the southern Democrats were opposed to the legislation.
You made a blanket statement about the Democrats saying that they voted against equal rights. That is simply not true. Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act would have passed without the support of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic President.
#
ANTI
Posted June 7, 2009 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
It is what it is, Daniel.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Is the moral that I should shut my mouth when I’m not ‘full of bull?’
Because to me the definition of being ‘full of bull’ is making ‘factual statements’ that can’t be backed up.
Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act would have passed without the support of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic President.
============================================
Well,
Nobody has suffocated because of ‘just enough’ air. A little less and they would have.
Is the moral that I should shut my mouth when I’m not ‘full of bull?’
==================================
No, I thought it was self explanatory.
Dammit, it is storming again! I’ve gotta go out and cover my bait tanks.
“You made a blanket statement about the Democrats saying that they voted against equal rights.”
Where is this blanket statement?
I was responding to another poster on her claim that republicans took in the democrat racists with open arms.
You are tripping over mouse turds.
ANTI
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:08 pm | Permalink
Well,
Nobody has suffocated because of ‘just enough’ air. A little less and they would have.
–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
According to Regular’s numbers the bill passed in the House 289 to 126 and in the Senate 73 to 27.
Those are strong majorities, in fact, those are veto-proof majorities which indicate strong bi-partisan support from both parties.
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
Political_Mama,
If your solution is to cut off mens privates, wouldn’t it be far easier for the woman to simply not let those privates into her without protection?
———————–
She can’t resisit. Opportunities don’t arise very often for her.
#
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
“AmWay, if MLK would be alive today, he would be a democrat. It was the republicans who welcomed with open arms the fleeing racists from the democratic party.”
No doubt, but a the time of his murder the democrats voted against equal rights and the southern democrats were the racists.
I don’t believe for a moment the rest of your post. Republicans were not welcoming racists (they are human beings you know). It was more than the democrats were smart and saw that their party should do more for minorities – if they wanted to succeed. Republicans sat on their laurels and expected the public to recognize their good and lost track of supporting minority issues. Whatever the circumstances,
republicans were not busy converting into evil racists. Missed opportunity yes. Racists (as a political party) heck no.
=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That’s a blanket statement and it’s incorrect to boot.
“How do you force someone to be a parent and who takes the role when you fail?”—BlowJ
The question is totally irrelevant, as we have come to expect from you.
You don’t kill an innocent defenseless human being whether you have that answer or not. You work on the problems as the present themselves with respect for life.
No Daniel, it is not incorrect. Democrats controlled the white house, the house and the senate. But like TODAY, the blame republicans for their failure to act.
DEMOCRATS held up civil rights legislation. That is a fact. There is nothing wrong with my post. You are looking for something that isn’t there. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. And yes, you are tripping over mouse turds.
There is something wrong with your infatuation with me.
Who were you in your former life?
#
Boxlock20
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
“How do you force someone to be a parent and who takes the role when you fail?”—BlowJ
The question is totally irrelevant, as we have come to expect from you.
You don’t kill an innocent defenseless human being whether you have that answer or not. You work on the problems as the present themselves with respect for life.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You shouldn’t kill an innocent defenseless human being under any circumstances?
“How do you force someone to be a parent and who takes the role when you fail?”—BlowJ
“The question is totally irrelevant, as we have come to expect from you.”
There is something unhealthy, unnatural in the fact that Bluejay refuses to take his women home to meet his son. He stated he doesn’t want his son to be exposed to that.
Why?
It is very important for a father to show a son the correct way of treating women. To show a son how a woman is more than a sex object. To do less than that makes sex dirty.
Something is not right in Bluejay not wanting women to know his home address. Something is twisted here and I cannot put my finger on it. But I do know from raising my own children – hiding life isn’t how we taught them.
ANTI Posted
“Tiller is dead.”
And that is a thought worth stopping and pondering on.
Wonder how long he will be that way.
Daniel,
“Those are strong majorities, in fact, those are veto-proof majorities which indicate strong bi-partisan support from both parties.”
Your definition of “strong” here is extremely subjective. Not objective.
I wouldn’t call being in the 60% range “strong” support from the Democrats at all.
Especially considering the facts surrounding those votes where it has been pointed out that it was the Democrats fighting to block the passage of those laws.
Yes, you do bring facts, but the way you present them would lead someone who didn’t know any better that it was the Democrats who were behind the passage without mentioning the Republicans at all.
Not until we pointed out that a greater percentage of Republicans were in support.
Then you once again present the facts trying to say it was a bi-partisan effort as if the Democrats and Republicans worked hand and hand together.
Again, those are indeed the facts, as you keep pointing out, but void of any real context.
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
No Daniel, it is not incorrect. Democrats controlled the white house, the house and the senate. But like TODAY, the blame republicans for their failure to act.
DEMOCRATS held up civil rights legislation. That is a fact. There is nothing wrong with my post. You are looking for something that isn’t there. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. And yes, you are tripping over mouse turds.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
The legislation passed with strong bi-partisan support. That is a fact.
American_Way,
And that is but a portion of my discomfort knowing BlueJay is a part of our society’s world.
So you admit that you don’t even have any idea as to solutions bawks?
Just get them through the birth canal? After, of course you have sorted out the particulars as to rape, incest, life of the mother of course.
So, you tell the unhappily pregnant woman, “Gestate!”
And when you have forced her to carry to term, (You haven’t explained how you do THAT) you tell her “Now, be a parent! Go forth and trouble me no more!”
It isn’t the 19th century anymore bawksy.
Better to abort them all and decrease the surplus population.
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
Who were you in your former life?
=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In the words of President Reagan: “There you go again.”
“You shouldn’t kill an innocent defenseless human being under any circumstances?”—Daniel
Agreed, and not even a human being that may be capable of defending themselves.
We must respect life, all life, and at all stages.
“Again, those are indeed the facts, as you keep pointing out, but void of any real context”
Wow Nathan! Your 2130 post couldn’t be more timely with Daniel’s 2130 following. Perfect slam dunk.
Scott Roeder made an interesting statement today in a phone call to the AP, to the effect that many more acts of violence against abortion providers are currently being planned. Won’t be long now before he spills names of those who helped him plan his assassination of Dr. Tiller. He may not have to stand trial by himself.
“Again, those are indeed the facts, as you keep pointing out, but void of any real context”
Wow Nathan! Your 2130 post couldn’t be more timely with Daniel’s 2130 following. Perfect slam dunk.
“Again, those are indeed the facts, as you keep pointing out, but void of any real context”
Wow Nathan! Your 2130 post couldn’t be more timely with Daniel’s 2130 following. Perfect slam dunk.
“You work on the problems as the present themselves with respect for life.”
Yes, I do.
That’s what I’m doing here.
And you?
Politicall Momma, Pedant, BJ & Chas’ pro-abortion posts earlier today should be saved and archived.
They would be great material for the next Hitchcock/Poe type horror movie, or a sequel to the Concentration Camp documentaries.
It’s amazing the horrendous acts that can be rationalized by those who claim to be human beings.
“There is something unhealthy, unnatural in the fact that Bluejay refuses to take his women home to meet his son. He stated he doesn’t want his son to be exposed to that.
Why?”
Because my son has one mother and I intend to keep it that way. JUST as I do not insinuate myself upon the children of single mothers as a father figure.
Kids have enough to deal with without being tied up in their parent’s personal lives.
“So you admit that you don’t even have any idea as to solutions bawks?”
And neither do you BlowJ, except to kill them.
I have more faith in women than you do apparently.
I say we take life as it comes, but we don’t end it for anyone.
I think my earlier question got buried…
Anyone know if there was a “No Gun” sign on the front door of Dr. Tillers church?
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:30 pm | Permalink
So you admit that you don’t even have any idea as to solutions bawks?
=======================
Try taking care of your own. And yourself.
Be a man for a change.
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
I think my earlier question got buried…
Anyone know if there was a “No Gun” sign on the front door of Dr. Tillers church?
————————
That would have prevented Tiller’s Murder!
“I have more faith in women than you do apparently.”
Hardly! YOU do not believe they can be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
They need you to make laws to force them to do the right thing (according to bawks).
It is not faith in them to force your choice on them and then tell them to deal with it.
“Anyone know if there was a “No Gun” sign on the front door of Dr. Tillers church?”
Too funny Nathaniel, just too funny.
There must not have been or that tragedy would not have happened as all good anti-gun dimlibs know.
“I say we take life as it comes, but we don’t end it for anyone.”
And what part of the “we” are you in this, the mouse in the pocket?
The megaphone in the ear more like. But you’re only on the scene until birth. Then you bail.
BlueJay,
And you don’t believe people should be trusted to make decisions for themselves when it comes to self defense either.
You want to pass laws which force them to be defenseless.
“Hardly! YOU do not believe they can be trusted to make decisions for themselves.”–the confused BlowJ
Not if that decision kills another human being that is unable to speak out in protest, or defend itself.
That decision as you call it involves two, not just the one making it.
How would you like someone making decisions with complete control over your life, including your death for their convenience.
Not much I imagine.
Historically speaking, the Civil Rights Act was brought up under Eisenhower.
JFK had to be talked into supporting it during his Presidential campaign.
In fact JFK voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
“I say we take life as it comes, but we don’t end it for anyone.”
SURPRISE! You’re not in charge. And you never should be.
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:43 pm | Permalink
“I have more faith in women than you do apparently.”
Hardly! YOU do not believe they can be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
=====================================
I think teaching them that they are not a sperm receptacle would be a good start.
“It’s amazing the horrendous acts that can be rationalized by those who claim to be human beings”
JimJohson, early on after the murder when the libs were screaming that all of us – all Americans who did not think like liberals were responsible for this sleasy doctors death, I posted that murder is a matter of definition at the time and place. Every religion has a different code to define when they can take human life. They justify it in the end (I loved Billy Jack, but watching his movies today – not so much).
Anyway, murder is a matter of legal definition which changes within any given society over time.
Killing a witch was legally and politically correct at one time. Killing a homosexual, or a woman who has an affair is still legally acceptable in some middle eastern countries today.
Cracking a babies skull open like a snow crab and sucking his brains out – is today legally and politically correct in America today.
I get you bawks.
BELIEVE me.
“Get ‘em born!”
(Unless they are the result of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother)
1) HOW do you do that?
2) THEN what?
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:30 pm | Permalink
Daniel,
“Those are strong majorities, in fact, those are veto-proof majorities which indicate strong bi-partisan support from both parties.”
Your definition of “strong” here is extremely subjective. Not objective.
I wouldn’t call being in the 60% range “strong” support from the Democrats at all.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-=-=
That is a valid point. I definitely overstated the case regarding the level of support from both parties.
“Not if that decision kills another human being that is unable to speak out in protest, or defend itself.”
(Except in case of rape, incest, or life of the mother)
How DO you people keep track of your gymnastic beliefs?
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
“It’s amazing the horrendous acts that can be rationalized by those who claim to be human beings”
JimJohson, early on after the murder when the libs were screaming that all of us – all Americans who did not think like liberals were responsible for this sleasy doctors death, I posted that murder is a matter of definition at the time and place. Every religion has a different code to define when they can take human life. They justify it in the end (I loved Billy Jack, but watching his movies today – not so much).
Anyway, murder is a matter of legal definition which changes within any given society over time.
Killing a witch was legally and politically correct at one time. Killing a homosexual, or a woman who has an affair is still legally acceptable in some middle eastern countries today.
Cracking a babies skull open like a snow crab and sucking his brains out – is today legally and politically correct in America today.
===================
Yeah, right and wrong vary on time and location.
“I think teaching them that they are not a sperm receptacle would be a good start.”
Who says I teach that?
But I also will not teach that sex is dirty, wrong, or only for procreation.
BlueJay,
Who does teach that sex is dirty, wrong, and only for procreation?
#
Boxlock20
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
“You shouldn’t kill an innocent defenseless human being under any circumstances?”—Daniel
Agreed, and not even a human being that may be capable of defending themselves.
We must respect life, all life, and at all stages.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What if the innocent defenseless human being is killed as collateral damage in a war of choice, say in Iraq, what is your stance on that?
“Because my son has one mother and I intend to keep it that way. JUST as I do not insinuate myself upon the children of single mothers as a father figure.”
Bluejay, I really don’t want to get into your personal life. But when you reveal it on an open blog, well it becomes subject of others opinions.
Your son is what, nearly a teenager? You having a relationship with a woman is NOT going to register with him as a “new” mother. Believe me -millions of retread fathers have gone through this.
No matter whom you date, whom you marry, your son will only have ONE mother. If he was born with both lobs of his brain, and neither was suctioned out – he is smart enough to know this.
But: HE IS NEARING or AT the age of sexual development and his own dating life. You have a perfect opportunity to teach him how to respect and treat women. How to interact with women. How to make friends of both sexes – and bringing them home.
It is not dirty and no one would think the first woman you bring home would be a new “mom”.
Except you?
Forcing women to gestate against their will is gonna be a pretty big stretch.
My own Grandmother died as the result of an illegal abortion 75 years ago.
My Father’s first wife went horseback riding to avoid birthing twins she did not want.
In the information age? I don’t know how you begin to do that.
But the parenting part. THAT is gonna be a real bear.
Will there be someone there for 2 AM feedings? What does the unwilling mom do for daycare?
But let’s stick with the easy.
HOW do you force a woman to carry to term? If you answer honestly, you may learn a lot about yourself.
“But I also will not teach that sex is dirty, wrong, or only for procreation.”
So why do you not want the women you are seeing to know where you live? You stated it was because of your son.
Why for heavens sake?
Will there be another Tiller Topic tomorrow?
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
“But I also will not teach that sex is dirty, wrong, or only for procreation.”
So why do you not want the women you are seeing to know where you live? You stated it was because of your son.
Why for heavens sake?
————————–
He’d have to clean his room.
“Who does teach that sex is dirty, wrong, and only for procreation?”
Many religions and posters here?
#
JimJohnson
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
Will there be another Tiller Topic tomorrow?
————————-
Probably and more when the trial starts and after the trial is finished.
There will be martyrdom flags flying every where.
#
American_Way
Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
“Again, those are indeed the facts, as you keep pointing out, but void of any real context”
Wow Nathan! Your 2130 post couldn’t be more timely with Daniel’s 2130 following. Perfect slam dunk.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The timing of those posts was kinda funny. Point taken. I still say the bill wouldn’t have passed without strong Democratic support in the Senate (46 to 21).
LBJ worried that the Democratic Party would be toast in the south for a generation and I’d say his prediction was pretty much spot on.
“So why do you not want the women you are seeing to know where you live? You stated it was because of your son.”
That’s part of it. Sometimes, they have kids too. I don’t mess with little kids heads.
Daniel,
“What if the innocent defenseless human being is killed as collateral damage in a war of choice, say in Iraq, what is your stance on that?”
The issue comes down to the Sanctity of life. In order to protect life, sometimes life is taken. Not neccisarily on purpose either.
How many innocent people were killed during WWII by allied forces fighting Hitler?
I couldn’t tell you, but it was a lot.
However, were more lives saved in the end? Yes.
Would you advocate that in order to protect the innocent nothing should have been done to stop Hitler? Because we couldn’t kill even one innocent person by mistake?
Then what would you say to the possbily millions more killed by Hitler because he wasn’t stopped?
I do not support killing innocent people in the War in Iraq. (I would also like to point out your added “war of choice” comment as if any war isn’t a choice…) However, we purposefully do almost everything we can to limit those numbers and to avoid the loss of innocent life as much as possible.
BlueJay,
“Many religions and posters here?”
Name them.
No major religion teaches that and I have yet to see any poster here advocate it either.
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
“So why do you not want the women you are seeing to know where you live? You stated it was because of your son.”
That’s part of it. Sometimes, they have kids too. I don’t mess with little kids heads.
——————–
One night stands huh.
“Many religions and posters here?”
Although I’m a little rusty, but I was raised as a Lutheran many decades ago. I had to endure three years of caticism (sp) learning the bible basics and application to our lives. I don’t recall the Pastor telling us that sex was only to make babies.
Many years later, I was involved with a nondenominational christian group – and they certainly didn’t say sex was just to make babies.
I can say however, that in both cases, over the decades sex was reserved for the unique relationship of marriage.
The Catholic church teaches that sex is only for procreation Nathaniel.
Oh and for the record? My son has a very healthy and admirable attitude toward ….girls his age. He is probably more well adjusted sexually and socially than most of the cons who post here.
What stops people from having sex?
Wedding Cake.
I thought marriage ended sex?
BJ, would it be ok if your son liked boys?
“I can say however, that in both cases, over the decades sex was reserved for the unique relationship of marriage.”
Hey you got no arguments from me over the ideal.
But we don’t live in the ideal. Not most of us anyway.
“BJ, would it be ok if your son liked boys?”
I can’t say it would be easy for him or for me.
And that does not seem to be the case.
But if that was who he was?
I could deal with that easier than him being a Republican.
“You have a perfect opportunity to teach him how to respect and treat women. How to interact with women. How to make friends of both sexes – and bringing them home.”
Let me rephrase this Bluejay. You have the “responsibility” to teach your son how to respect and treat a woman.
Set the example. Show him how you relate to other women.
From my own experience – we didn’t allow our kids to date until 16. Never one-on-one. They could go out with multiple friends, groups, and we always knew where they would be (telephone calls to mothers/dads are your friend). At 16, we still were involved EVERY day. If they said they were going to so-in-so’s house – we called the parent and verified it was okeedokee. Our children resented this. Said we didn’t trust them. More than once – we caught them. Today, as they approach 30 something, they thank us.
But do not hide your sex life from them. They are smarter than you think. What do you TELL your son when you venture out for your one night stands?
I cannot imagine the lies.
Everybody I know who has a dog usually calls him “Rover” or “Spot”. I call mine Sex. Now, Sex has been very embarrassing to me. When I went to the City Hall to renew the dog’s license, I told the clerk that I would like a license for Sex. He said, “I would like to have one too!” Then I said, “But she is a dog!” He said he didn’t care what she looked like. I said, “You don’t understand. … I have had Sex since I was nine years old.” He replied, “You must have been quite a strong boy.”
When I decided to get married, I told the minister that I would like to have Sex at the wedding. He told me to wait until after the wedding was over. I said, “But Sex has played a big part in my life and my whole world revolves around Sex.” He said he didn’t want to hear about my personal life and would not marry us in his church. I told him everyone would enjoy having Sex at the wedding. The next day we were married at the Justice of the Peace. My family was barred from the church from then on.
When my wife and I went on our honeymoon, I took the dog with me. When we checked into the motel, I told the clerk that I wanted a room for me and my wife and a special room for Sex. He said that every room in the motel is a place for sex. I said, “You don’t understand. … Sex keeps me awake at night.” The clerk said, “Me too!”
One day I entered Sex in a contest. But before the competition began, the dog ran away. Another contestant asked me why I was just looking around. I told him that I was going to have Sex in the contest. He said that I should have sold my own tickets. “You don’t understand,” I said, “I hoped to have Sex on TV.” He called me a show off.
When my wife and I separated, we went to court to fight for custody of the dog. I said, “Your Honor, I had Sex before I was married but Sex left me after I was married.” The Judge said, “Same here!”
Last night Sex ran off again. I spent hours looking all over for her. A cop came over and asked me what I was doing in the alley at 4 o’clock in the morning. I said, “I’m looking for Sex.” — My case comes up next Thursday.
Well now I’ve been thrown in jail, been divorced and had more damn troubles with that dog than I ever foresaw. Why just the other day when I went for my first session with the psychiatrist, she asked me, “What seems to be the trouble?” I replied, “Sex has been my best friend all my life but now it has left me for ever. I can’t live any longer being so lonely.” and the doctor said, “Look mister, you should understand that sex isn’t a man’s best friend so go get yourself a dog.”
“We must respect life, all life, and at all stages.–my comment
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
“What if the innocent defenseless human being is killed as collateral damage in a war of choice, say in Iraq, what is your stance on that?”
Of course that should be avoided if possible also, but remember, acts of war in defense of ones country or troops are not elective abortions. Those situations equate more to protecting the life of the mother (country).
Does your son feel comfortable to bring his dates home to meet you? Have you met them? Have you called and met the girls parents?
Those are the basics.
AmWay,
Have you considered that maybe BJ has manfriends?
Maybe you are asking the wrong question.
And if he is dating, have you talked about sex with him? Do you tell him about birth control, rubbers (I don’t mean rough riders or ticklers. Just the basics)?
And are you encouraging him to not engage in sex casually?
ANOTHER STORM COMING!
Gotta shut-down for the night. I hate being online during the storms.
#
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:06 pm | Permalink
Daniel,
“What if the innocent defenseless human being is killed as collateral damage in a war of choice, say in Iraq, what is your stance on that?”
The issue comes down to the Sanctity of life. In order to protect life, sometimes life is taken. Not neccisarily on purpose either.
How many innocent people were killed during WWII by allied forces fighting Hitler?
I couldn’t tell you, but it was a lot.
However, were more lives saved in the end? Yes.
Would you advocate that in order to protect the innocent nothing should have been done to stop Hitler? Because we couldn’t kill even one innocent person by mistake?
Then what would you say to the possbily millions more killed by Hitler because he wasn’t stopped?
I do not support killing innocent people in the War in Iraq. (I would also like to point out your added “war of choice” comment as if any war isn’t a choice…) However, we purposefully do almost everything we can to limit those numbers and to avoid the loss of innocent life as much as possible.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I don’t disagree with you. War is sometimes necessary and in the process innocent people lose their lives. I was just asking Boxlock20 if his ‘You don’t kill an innocent defenseless human’ stance applied to warfare as well as abortion.
I have no problem calling people who call themselves pro-life by that moniker. However, I’ve met very few people who I would truly classify as pro-life and most of those were Mennonites.
“Have you considered that maybe BJ has manfriends?”
I’ve always thought maybe Bluejay was a solitary flyer and not close in relationships with either sex. I don’t know when he hasn’t been here long enough to pursue a relationship.
I do have to hope the best since he does have a son.
We know that from Hank. It is the son I’m thinking about posting.
“Set the example. Show him how you relate to other women.”
He is 15 and I am in my forties.
We have a rather different playing field.
I teach him that it is not right to lead people on or give them expectations you do not intend to fill. Just as I practice myself.
“And are you encouraging him to not engage in sex casually?”
SURE. For all the good that will do.
No “Jim” I am not gay.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Disappointed?
#
Boxlock20
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
“We must respect life, all life, and at all stages.–my comment
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
“What if the innocent defenseless human being is killed as collateral damage in a war of choice, say in Iraq, what is your stance on that?”
Of course that should be avoided if possible also, but remember, acts of war in defense of ones country or troops are not elective abortions. Those situations equate more to protecting the life of the mother (country).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I agree with you on the wars in defense of one’s country, but what about elective wars? Aren’t those more akin to elective abortions? I’m defining an elective war as one in which the invader has not been attacked by the invadee.
No Nathan because I don’t consider you at all pro-life. I’m far more pro-life than you. You ignore the stats of what destruction happens when abortion is illegal.
Illegal abortion equals death for women.
Deb is a masochist who depends on men to make her decisions for her. Fabulous. Too stupid are you Deb? Are you afraid without those men you might choose an abortion?
As for the civil rights arguements, the civil rights act sure caused a lot of dems to flee the party. The dixiecrats may have been dems, but they were P’d off and left. Now can you guess which party holds the most racists today? It aint the dems.
But you go right ahead claiming they didn’t come over to your side. Whatever makes you sound better.
Nathan was that you who drove by the funeral flipping us the bird? Or were you the one hanging the bible out the window?
Just so you know, the world is becoming more pro-women’s lives by legalizing abortion. Even the most religious nations have had to finally fess up to how many women were dying as a result.
Daniel you are straying far from the subject at hand.
War, elective or not, is a subject for another day but not after 11pm tonight.
Abortion is a tragedy that should be avoided at practically all costs. And there are many many costs. Cost to the baby, to the mother, to society.
Abortion is a failure all the way around and we and our society, at least some, are taking it all too casually. Taking it as if it’s simply a decision as simple as having a wart removed.
“AmWay,
Have you considered that maybe BJ has manfriends?
Maybe you are asking the wrong question.”–JimJ
Whoa, that’s enough for me to care never to meet him, as if there weren’t enough already.
I promise you that there are no women who take the matter casually.
“I promise you that there are no women who take the matter casually.”—P_mama
Maybe not, but not as seriously as death, and that is exactly what it is.
“Abortion is a tragedy that should be avoided at practically all costs. And there are many many costs. Cost to the baby, to the mother, to society.
Abortion is a failure all the way around and we and our society, at least some, are taking it all too casually.”
YOU included bawks.
Abortion occurred when it was illegal. That’s why my dad grew up without a mother.
You have no more for us than to make it once again illegal. What does that solve? Women will suffer and die because they will not do as you want them to?
Gestate or die?
You haven’t explained how you are going to implement or support that.
Much less how you will do “Be a good mother or die!”
I realize that you are old, a con, and so simple minded. But you do not have the power to make a pronouncement that all pregnancies should carry to term and make an unwilling woman a mother.
I continue to wait and see just how it is in a free society you can encourage rather than inflict your will on others. Why not attack the blog’s only single parent again? THAT would be illustrative.
Political_Mama,
Ok. What are the stats on women dying because of abortions before they were legal?
I seriously doubt it comes anywhere close to the 1 million babies killed each year or around 40 million killed since Roe V Wade.
Then you call yourself more Pro-Life than me?
Yeah right.
Nevermind that those women did have a choice before Roe V Wade.
Choose to have the baby or risk their life getting rid of it.
No one made them risk their lives to kill thier unborn child.
Political_Mama,
Were you at the church where Dr. Tiller was shot? If so, did you see a “No Gun” sign on the front door?
Political_Mama,
“I promise you that there are no women who take the matter casually.”
I promise you that making such a universal statement can’t be proven. You do not know the motives of ALL women and thus can’t proclaim that NONE don’t take the matter casually.
Political_Mama,
No, I was no where near any Dr. Tiller events.
Even if I was, I wouldn’t have flipped you the bird nor would I have been hanging a Bible outside the window.
“Ok. What are the stats on women dying because of abortions before they were legal?”
My paternal grandmother died from an illegal abortion when her born son was four Nathaniel.
I suppose you think she deserved it?
You have no place commenting on this matter Nathaniel. You are not a parent. You come from a broken home where your mother was left to do the best she could while your father roamed the world.
And I did not want to take it that personal. But dammit how dare you try and impose your own will and then remove yourself from any obligation to support it?
Oh yeah, that is how you grew up.
BlueJay,
I see you are bringing out another old favorite from the Pro-Choice crowd.
Telling someone they can’t have an opinion on the subject unless they are a woman/parent/etc….
I have every right to comment on this subject.
“I have every right to comment on this subject.”
As much as I do as to being a United States Marine.
I LIVE being a parent Nathaniel. It is damned hard. There is almost no support for it.
I was “pro life” once too. But parenthood is NOT something you can inflict or enforce on people. And failing changing that, you “pro life” folks are going to have to come up with alternatives or at least help for people who choose as you would force them to do.
Where is the help for doing what you call the right thing?
Just an FYI, the KDOT website reports that Shelly Shannon was released and discharged in 2005. All of the news agencies reported she was still incarcerated.
There is no way to truly know, but the official numbers from 1990 to 2005 is 1,527 DIED due to illegal abortion in Mexico City alone.
Those numbers do not include the hidden numbers, which would be far greater. Those whose families hired doctors to cover up, or who refused to find out the true reason why.
This site has her incarcerated in Waseca, Minnesota with a release date in 2018.
http://tinyurl.com/lwv36v
You “pro life” folks are trying to force parenthood on the inexperienced or the experienced only trying to preserve their limited resources for their already born.
I’m here to tell you that I have done the pro life thing for 15 years now.
I didn’t go into it seeking a return. But how about a little help? Because this trying to do the right thing is very little rewarded and not even much respected. Frankly, I’m close to abandoning the whole thing as a bad idea in light of established realities.
Tiller’s funeral wasn’t at the same church he was shot in. I can’t answer your question Nathan.
The complete lack of logic…
Pregnant women are no more “forced” to be parents than mothers who have already given birth.
Do you support the killing of 5 year olds too? So that no one is “forced” to be a parent if then no longer “choose” to be one?
BlueJay,
You are welcome to form a well reasoned, logical, and educated opinion on things related to the military or the Marine Corps, just like anyone else.
“World Health Organization research shows that abortion rates are consistent regardless of prohibitive law, and demonstrates that where the procedure is illegal, women turn to unsafe means. Women in lower income brackets, who cannot afford the high prices of underground providers, or the travel costs to countries where abortion is legal, are especially vulnerable.
Complications due to these unsafe methods – for example inserting coat hangers into the uterus or drinking turpentine – cause upwards of 67,000 deaths and 5 million hospitalizations, and orphan a quarter-million children, every year. These statistics suggest that the global abortion debate is not about whether or not abortions happen; it is about whether or not they happen safely.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/women-on-waves-abortion-p_n_212009.html
Abortion has been a part of society since the beginning. If you make it illegal, it will still happen. This isn’t up to you.
Nicki,
If the mere fact that something happens regardless of it being illegal or not is your justification for making it legal… well… that applies to every law we have.
Nevermind the fact that even if it were illegal, the numbers of those women choosing to continue with the procedure anyhow would be much less than the millions who do so now for their mere convenence.
My point Nathaniel is that abortion has been happening since the beginning of civilization. Not every woman that gets pregnant can have a child (for a multitude of reasons). Did you not see this: “World Health Organization research shows that abortion rates are consistent regardless of prohibitive law, and demonstrates that where the procedure is illegal, women turn to unsafe means.”
That means that regardless of legal status roughly the same amount of women choose to terminate. So your patronizing assertion is baseless. My question is do you value the lives of your mother, your sister, your daughter, your nieces – more than a fetus?
Nicki,
Murder, robbery, theft, and rape has been happening since the beginning of civilization as well.
I bet if we made it legal for those who did those things it wouldn’t be as bad for them too.
My “patronizing assertion” is more like a logical point.
Nevermind the fact that the WHO’s data and methods are questionable. Abortion has become so accepted and commonplace that it is nothing more than a mere convenence for women that never existed before. Making it illegal will take that convenece away. Women will still have a choice. To break the law and risk their lives to kill another or allow that life to live.
I value life. The unborn child doesn’t have any choice. Those mothers, sisters, daughters, and nieces all have a choice that the unborn child doesn’t.
And history shows us that they will choose to break the law. You value a potential life more than a living, breathing, thinking person.
I assume that you are taking responsibility for this belief by adopting a few of the 500-600k children in foster care or by supporting WIC, SCHIP, Universal Health Care and Comprehensive Sex Education?
And yes thankfully we do still have a CHOICE in this country.
Nicki,
It is not a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the unbron child. I can value both lives.
It is the pregnant woman who would choose to place herself into a situation that will risk her life to terminate another.
Making abortion illegal doesn’t force a woman to do that.
Nathaniel, punishing women with a baby because they have sex will not help you get laid. THAT is my assessment of you.
Maybe Nathan is against abortion because he figures that he wants kids and he’ll probably only have one chance to have sex with a woman in order to knock her up. He’d hate to think she’d get an abortion so he’d have to relive those five seconds of sex with another woman.
“You have no more for us than to make it once again illegal. What does that solve? Women will suffer and die because they will not do as you want them to?”–BlowJ
Sounds like the simple minded tripe we’ve all come to expect from you.
A childish empty threat of “I want this or that or I’ll hurt myself”.
Uncomfortable situations for one does not justify killing another.
Be responsible BlowJ….something you have no concept of it is clear.
“Political_mama
Posted June 8, 2009 at 12:44 am | Permalink
There is no way to truly know, but the official numbers from 1990 to 2005 is 1,527 DIED due to illegal abortion in Mexico City alone.”
You were right the first time. In the USA, there is no way to truly know.
But we do know how many white, yellow, and black babies are being aborted every year.
““You have no more for us than to make it once again illegal. What does that solve? Women will suffer and die because they will not do as you want them to?”–BlowJ
Sounds like the simple minded tripe we’ve all come to expect from you.
On the contrary. It seems I have proved my point.
You HAVE no sort of plan for actually helping these women OR their potential offspring.
YOUR plan is to get abortion illegal again.
I am most happy to inform you. That is not ever going to happen. In 40 years since Roe, the right of women to choose has withstood even Republican control of the White House and Congress.
Who would not DARE actually try to make abortion illegal as it would lose them the issue.
The last women forced to gestate and birth are grandmothers now. It won’t be a third generation since then that climbs back into chains.
You can rant and rave and preach scripture til the end of your days. And you will.
It will not help a single mother or born infant and abortion will be just as legal the day you take your last breath as it is today.
BlueJay,
If it will never happen, then why does the Pro-Choice side spend so much time, money, and resources on fighitng to keep the status qou and to oppose any/all regulations regarding abortion no matter what they are?
Vigilance Nathaniel.
Every generation has its social misfits like you. There’s always a new crop of people with nose trouble.
How does being Pro-Life make me a social misfit?
Feeling the need to act cruelly toward single mothers when you know nothing of their circumstances is a good start?
Oh and this is strictly my opinion Nathaniel.
You are not pro life. Not the way I judge it anyway.
BlueJay,
I have never acted cruelly toward single mothers.
You are not Pro-Choice either. You are Pro-Death.
“have never acted cruelly toward single mothers.”
Well, how DO you scorn them?
If I were “pro death” I would actually be out trying to recruit women for abortions.
Just as you would be pro life if you were actually trying to help women in trouble instead of trying to choose for them.
I thought about this all day while I was working. Why does it matter so much to you crazy fetus fanatics? What smug orgasm do you get out of exerting power over the uteri of women you don’t even know, or care about? You honestly care more about what is in her womb than what her circumstances are….and that’s proven over and over again when you demean their circumstances as merely ‘inconvenient’. Even when it is clearly a fetal anomaly or risky pregnancy- you make excuses why YOU think these women must deliver.
Its always the same people who inject their beliefs on gays too. Is it jealousy?
I don’t want you shooting people, but you do it anyway. And often it is the same people who justify taking the life of someone who committed a crime.
THIS IS NOT YOUR LIFE< YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT OTHERS DO. This is why we have a constitution. If it aint hurting you, it aint your business. You are not the world’s saviors. Just like we don’t want you shoving your religion down your throat, we don’t want your input on what we do with our bodies.
If you’re willing to take away our choice to make our own life decisions and medical decisions, marital decisions…what WON”T YOU stop at?
No, it is just one more way you try to impose your beliefs upon others.
Political_Mama,
They see their influence steadily slipping away as it has been for decades now. Eventually, they’ll be as relevant to society at large as are the Amish.
That’s certainly no slam against the Amish…I can respect the Amish because they don’t try to bend the rest of society to fit their religious beliefs and customs.
BlueJay,
I don’t scorn them. Once again you are more concerned with your own mischaracterizations rather than what I have actually said.
Daniel,
We are hardly slipping away. The country remains evenly divided on the issue as a whole and a majority of people side with the Pro-life side on many of the issues like late term abortion or parental notification for minors.
It is not primarily a religious issue or based on religious customs either. It is about life. Not everyone who is Pro-life is religious, look at Mary for example.
For someone who started off last night being concerned with the FACTS, you are falling well short of them today.
I think the best part of the Republican Party is that their support is concentrated in a few states with electoral votes inadequate to win at the national level.
“THIS IS NOT YOUR LIFE< YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT OTHERS DO. This is why we have a constitution. If it aint hurting you, it aint your business. You are not the world’s saviors. Just like we don’t want you shoving your religion down your throat, we don’t want your input on what we do with our bodies.”
Sure we do. As a society, we have decided doing cerain drugs is illegal. We have decided that being a prostitute is illegal in most states. We have decided that it is illegal to sell your body parts. The list goes on and on and on.
Like the radicals on the right. you have no listening capability, you only know what you want (I am sorry, what you demand)
Linda,
We shall see. The same could be said for the Democrats as well depending on what timeline we use.
Ah Nathan, let them have their delusions. In reality, what goes around, comes around. For example:
BRUSSELS – Conservatives scored victories in some of Europe’s largest economies Sunday as voters punished left-leaning parties in European parliament elections in France, Germany and other nations.
Some right-leaning parties said the results vindicated their reluctance to spend more on company bailouts and fiscal stimulus to combat the global economic crisis.
The European Union said center-right parties were expected to take the most seats — 267 — in the 736-member parliament. Center-left parties were headed for 159 seats. The remainder were expected to go to smaller groupings.
Right-leaning governments were ahead of the opposition in Germany, France, Italy and Belgium, while conservative opposition parties were leading in Britain and Spain.
Greece was a notable exception, where the governing conservatives were headed for defeat in the wake of corruption scandals and economic woes.
Germans handed a lackluster victory to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives and a historic defeat to their center-left rivals in the European Parliament vote months before a national election.
The Social Democrats got an unexpectedly dismal 20.8 percent — the party’s worst showing since World War II in any nationwide election.
Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union and a regional sister party won 37.8 percent, down from 44.5 percent five years ago. But the outcome was enough to boost Merkel’s hopes of ending the tense left-right “grand coalition” that has led the European Union’s most populous nation since 2005, and replacing it with a center-right government.
“We are the force that is acting level-headedly and correctly in this financial and economic crisis,” said Volker Kauder, the leader of Merkel’s party in the German parliament.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s governing conservatives trounced the Socialists, while an ecology-minded party vaulted to a surprisingly strong third place, according to official results.
The Socialists, who dominated the last vote in 2004, suffered a stinging defeat, barely clinging to the No. 2 spot.
“Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe,” said Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament. “(We will) continue to fight for social democracy in Europe.”
Far-right groups and other fringe parties gained in record low turnout estimated at 43.5 percent of 375 million eligible, reflecting widespread disenchantment with the continentwide legislature.
Britain elected its first extreme-right politician to the European Parliament, with the British National Party winning a seat in northern England’s Yorkshire and the Humber district.
The far-right party, which does not accept nonwhites as members, was expected to possibly win further seats as more results in Britain were announced.
Lawmakers with Britain’s major political parties said the far right’s advance was a reflection of anger over immigration issues and the recession that is causing unemployment to soar.
Near-final results showed Austria’s main rightist party gaining strongly while the ruling Social Democrats lost substantial ground. But the big winner was the rightist Freedom Party, which more than doubled its strength over the 2004 elections to 13.1 percent of the vote. It campaigned on an anti-Islam platform.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ anti-Islamic party took 17 percent of the country’s votes, taking four of 25 seats.
The Hungarian far-right Jobbik party won three of 22 seats, with the main center-right opposition party, Fidesz, capturing 14 seats and the governing Socialists only four.
Jobbik describes itself as Euro-skeptic and anti-immigration and wants police to crack down on petty crimes committed by Gypsies. Critics say the party is racist and anti-Semitic.
Fringe groups could use the EU parliament as a platform for their extreme views but were not expected to affect the assembly’s increasingly influential lawmaking on issues ranging from climate change to cell-phone roaming charges.
The EU parliament has evolved over five decades from a consultative legislature to one with the power to vote on or amend two-thirds of all EU laws. Lawmakers get five-year terms and residents vote for lawmakers from their own countries.
The parliament can also amend the EU budget — euro120 billion ($170 billion) this year — and approves candidates for the European Commission, the EU administration and the board of the European Central Bank.
Many Socialists ran campaigns that slammed center-right leaders for failing to rein in financial markets and spend enough to stimulate faltering economies.
“People don’t want a return to socialism and that’s why the majority here will be a center-right majority,” said Graham Watson, leader of the EU’s center-right Liberal Democrat grouping.
In Spain, the conservative Popular Party won two more seats than the ruling Socialists — 23 to 21 seats — with over 88 percent of the vote counted.
Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi’s Freedom People’s Party held a two-digit lead over his main center-left rival in the most recent polling despite a deep recession and a scandal over allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a young model. Italian results were being released Monday.
In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was facing a showdown with rebel lawmakers on Monday after the party’s expected dismal results in the European parliament and local elections were announced.
Brown has been struggling with the economic crisis and a scandal over lawmakers’ expenses. The opposition Conservatives are expected to win the next national election, which must be called by June 2010.
According to a BBC projection, Labour was trailing the United Kingdom Independence Party in third place. It put the main opposition Conservative Party at 27 percent, UKIP at 17 and Labour at 16, followed by smaller parties.
“This time we have come second in a major national election. That is a hell of an achievement,” said Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP — which advocates Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
An exit poll showed Irish ruling party Fianna Fail, which supports EU plans to strengthen its authority, trailing its rival Fine Gael by 23 percent to 30 percent.
The outcome of many Irish races was unclear early Monday. The count was halted for an hour Sunday night in Ireland’s North West EU constituency after candidate Declan Ganley, founder of anti-treaty party Libertas, raised procedural questions about the opening of ballot boxes.
An exit poll in Poland showed Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s pro-business Civic Platform party with 45.3 percent and the nationalist and conservative opposition Law and Justice party second with 29.5 percent — a shift to the center-right for Poland at the European parliament.
The Democratic Left Alliance-Labor Union garnered 12 percent.
In Sweden, the Pirate Party, which advocates shortening the duration of copyright protection and allowing noncommercial file-sharing, looked set to take its first seat with 7.4 percent of the vote.
Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands and five other EU nations cast ballots over the last three days, while the rest of the 27-nation bloc voted Sunday.
Nathaniel,
Political_Mama didn’t only address the issue of abortion. In fact, my response didn’t mention abortion at all. As I read her post, it was about people who feel compelled to impose their moral will on others. BTW, I agree that not all those who are opposed to abortion are religious and that abortion is not solely a religious issue. I’ve had co-workers and friends who were opposed to abortion who had no religious belief at all.
If you take the long view I think you’ll see the prevailing trend is toward expansion of rights and liberties for individuals and a lessening of the ability of groups to impose their moral will on individuals via religious or governmental institutions.
I didn’t say this was going to happen tomorrow. This is a centuries-old trend.
Political_Mama,
Since you were thinking about it all day allow me to answer your questions:
“Why does it matter so much to you crazy fetus fanatics?”
==============================================
Disregarding your calling us crazy and fanatic… It matters because we beleive the unborn child is a human life that deserves to be protected.
“What smug orgasm do you get out of exerting power over the uteri of women you don’t even know, or care about?”
=============================================
Don’t get a smug orgasm. Do you when you exert your power over the millions of unborn children who are aborted by supporting such death?
“You honestly care more about what is in her womb than what her circumstances are….and that’s proven over and over again when you demean their circumstances as merely ‘inconvenient’.”
================================================
We care about what is in the womb, because what is in the womb is a life worth protecting. Circumstances of convenience shouldn’t trump life.
“Even when it is clearly a fetal anomaly or risky pregnancy- you make excuses why YOU think these women must deliver.”
===============================================
Not always. There are many if not most who agree that abortion should be allowed if it is a genuine threat to the life of the mother.
“Its always the same people who inject their beliefs on gays too. Is it jealousy?”
=============================================
No it isn’t. You are stereotyping and categorizing an entire group of people with no evidence here. Again, it is about protecting life.
“I don’t want you shooting people, but you do it anyway. And often it is the same people who justify taking the life of someone who committed a crime.”
===============================================
Who is this “you” whom you are talking to? There have been 4 murders of abortion doctors and about 20 attempts made. Out of the Millions of people who are Pro-Life, those who do such things do not represent us.
“THIS IS NOT YOUR LIFE< YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT OTHERS DO.”
===============================================
When it comes to protecting other innocent life? Yes we do.
“This is why we have a constitution. If it aint hurting you, it aint your business.”
===============================================
It doesn’t hurt me when someone gets robbed, killed, or beat up either. Yet we have laws against such things. This is about protecting life. That unborn child is getting hurt.
“You are not the world’s saviors. Just like we don’t want you shoving your religion down your throat, we don’t want your input on what we do with our bodies.”
=============================================
It is what you are doing to the unborn child which is the problem.
“If you’re willing to take away our choice to make our own life decisions and medical decisions, marital decisions…what WON”T YOU stop at?”
==============================================
Again, this is about protecting life.
“No, it is just one more way you try to impose your beliefs upon others.”
==============================================
Rightly so. I don’t believe killing innocent life is ok. I have no problem imposing that on others.
Nathaniel,
I’ll check back in later, I’m headed out to a ballgame.
“Not everyone who is Pro-life is religious, look at Mary for example.”
VERY good point.
People who are religious and pro life are mostly not truly pro life. Putting it in “God’s ” hands never helped anybody.
““THIS IS NOT YOUR LIFE< YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT OTHERS DO.”
===============================================
When it comes to protecting other innocent life? Yes we do.”
No, you don’t. Not anymore and not ever again.
Blue,
I might also point out that many quite religious folk support a woman’s right to choose.
“Why does it matter so much to you crazy fetus fanatics? What smug orgasm do you get out of exerting power over the uteri of women you don’t even know, or care about? You honestly care more about what is in her womb than what her circumstances are….and that’s proven over and over again when you demean their circumstances as merely ‘inconvenient’. Even when it is clearly a fetal anomaly or risky pregnancy- you make excuses why YOU think these women must deliver.”—P_mama
That is an absolute lie.
Pro-Life folks don’t care one wit about “exerting power over the uteri of women”, that is of no concern at all.
What we care about is the killing of an innocent developing person by another that under the stress of their circumstances is making a selfish and deadly decision.
And we are primarily talking about the overwhelming percentage of elective, yes convenience, abortions, not those that are saving the mother or preventing a terrible defective abnormality.
Be honest and your arguments will not be trashed like the above one has been.