Declaring “I'm not that convinced that that's her baby,” far-left comedian Bill Maher, Friday night on his HBO show Real Time, forwarded left-wing blog rumors about how Trig Palin, born in April, is really the son of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter Bristol who is now pregnant. Maher raised his theory during a one-on-one interview with CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, who didn't accept Maher's belief in such deceit, leading Maher to concede “it could be her baby,” but he still insisted “it is a little suspicious” because “the daughter -- who we know is fertile because she's knocked up again, or maybe for the first time” had taken:
...a five-month leave from high school because she had [uses fingers to make quote marks] “mononucleosis” right around the time the baby was being born. And the mother, the so-called, you know, okay, maybe it is the mother, but, you know, she was back to work three days later. You don't smell something?Toobin remained unconvinced: “You know what, I don't.” Maher then turned to the old left-wing stand-by argument: all Republicans and conservatives are liars. To applause and laughter from the audience, Maher quipped: “Yeah, but look who we're talking about....it's not like they're not willing to lie about everything else.”
Audio: MP3 clip which matches the video above (1:55, 650 Kb)
From the Friday, September 5 Real Time with Bill Maher which aired live at 11 PM EDT on HBO, picking up as Toobin denies any media but MSNBC and FNC are biased:
JEFFREY TOOBIN: We're not talking about MSNBC or Fox, which are separate cases. But I don't think most of the news media -- the major news networks, CNN -- are biased in favor of one party or the other. There are certain kinds of stories we like. Say, you know, pregnant people. But we don't, I don't think there is a lot of sort of bias in favor of one party or the other.
BILL MAHER: Well, I'm glad you brought that up, tawdry as it is, because I'm not that convinced that that's her baby.
TOOBIN: You know, I'm willing to take their word for it on that, take their word for it that that is her baby.
[Audience laughter]
MAHER: It could be her baby, but it is a little suspicious -- if what I read in US magazine has any weight. I mean-
TOOBIN: I am actually convinced it is her baby.
MAHER: -the daughter -- who we know is fertile because she's knocked up again, or maybe for the first time–
TOOBIN: Yeah, I think for the first time.
MAHER: Okay, but she did like take a five-month leave from high school because she had [uses fingers to make quote marks] “mononucleosis” right around the time the baby was being born. And the mother, the so-called, you know, okay, maybe it is the mother, but, you know, she was back to work three days later. You don't smell something?
TOOBIN: You know what, I don't. I have to say I'm willing to take their word for it on that part of the story. And frankly, I have never been involved in a journalism story where someone who claimed to have a baby, that was ever in dispute. I mean, that's just sort of something we usually take people's word for and I think that's appropriate in this case.
MAHER: Yeah, but look who we're talking about.
[laughter and applause]
TOOBIN: That may be.
MAHER: I mean, but it's not like they're not willing to lie about everything else. You know, this is the party of character.
TOOBIN: Put me down as a believer.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Idiocracy
September 6, 2008 - 00:51 ET by dodecahedronAm I the only person who sees our country turning into the movie Idiocracy? This is the only explanation behind the popularity of clowns like Maher, Letterman, and Stewart. This is the only reason I can think of why an inexperienced Senator who has accomplished nothing in his career can make empty promises and vow to raise taxes and be ahead in the polls.
People are just getting dumber.
"Welcome to Costco, I Love You" - Idiocracy
Saw the first 20 minutes. . .
September 6, 2008 - 06:32 ET by WingletDriver. . .of Idiocracy because I thought the premise sounded funny and Office Space (by the same writer/director) was so funny. But it was so bad I couldn't watch any more. From what I saw though, your analogy is right on target.
To guys like Maher lack of evidence is proof positive. The existence of exculpatory evidence is still proof positive.
Idiocracy is a "love it" or "hate it" movie...
September 6, 2008 - 06:44 ET by dodecahedronIt's one of my favorites. I've watched it several times. It isn't hilarious, but the more I watch it the more it really seems like it is happening.
The "sons and daughters of Clevon" are growing in numbers every day.
MsUnderestimated has the video
September 7, 2008 - 01:24 ET by Amanda JusticeMsUnderestimated has the video here http://msunderestima...
What happens if the unborn baby dies from the trauma
September 6, 2008 - 00:52 ET by Lame CherryBill Maher uses women as sperm dumps and Jeff Toobin beats up on women. Wonderful pair discussing a family.
No one on the left appears to have any capibility to stand up to Maher on his show and say, "This is purely stupid and it has nothing to do with Muslim terrorists, Russian expansionism, nuclear shields, rebuilding Americas manufacturing and oil liberation".
Those are the policies of John McCain and Sarah Palin and they are the only topics which matter.
We now return you to beat on a disable war veteran and a mother of five..........and don't forget if the bashers traumatize the Palin family enough the pregnant daughter could miscarry.
WAKE UP PEOPLE and start considering what trophies you want God seeing hanging on your wall for your all out victories.
You want a dead child on your conscience the rest of your life for slashing and raping the Palin family?
There is a book of judgment where all this is noted. Do you really want that coming up before Jesus the Judge on your last day and you trying to defend putting an unborn child in danger.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
These poor little quivering
September 6, 2008 - 01:14 ET by bigtimerThese poor little quivering critters accidentally called men are afraid...very, very, afraid of a woman that is going to clean their little Obamakins clocks...
Tick...tick...tick...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Remember this one
September 6, 2008 - 01:14 ET by KC MulvilleYou know, part of me wonders what Maher could possibly get out of this? Other than being a jerk, what possibly could be his motive? Does he consider this comedy? Social analysis?
This is simply taking political cheap shots at a target who can't fight back. This is nothing but cowardice.
Remember those media hacks who deny that the media ever did or said anything inappropriate about Palin? This guy goes on Larry King, who encourages Maher (and every other guest) to take these cheap shots. This creep gets a special column at the Huffington Post. This coward goes on the late night talk show circuit. Every single one of these "enablers," including O'Reilly, who gives this fool airtime without challenging him is as cheap and cowardly as Maher.
Remember...
September 8, 2008 - 12:26 ET by cest moi...in Maher's world, Larry King, HuffPo, Letterman, etc - are all "A-list" venues.
The poor dear really believes himself to be relevant and (dare I say, with a smirk) powerful, just 'cause a bunch of dodos clutching their free tickets snigger at him.
Bill Maher's jes' compensating for a small male appendage.
Bill
September 6, 2008 - 01:26 ET by well99Any truth that you and KOed got married in Cali?Since you both have diarrhea of the mouth it is really pretty obvious.What your smelling is that #### coming out your mouth.
Uh oh he's drinking the
September 6, 2008 - 01:47 ET by winston smithUh oh Bill's drinking the bong water again!
Must be, Winston
September 6, 2008 - 01:52 ET by Cool ArrowUnless he can explain overlapping pregnancies.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
Enough already!
September 6, 2008 - 02:22 ET by connmanTommorrow morning I'm taking my cable box back to the cable company and cancel HBO and the rest of the garbage that no one watchesanyway. Then when I come home I'm going to email HBO and tell them why I cancelled their BS network.
OT a little, I was flicking the channels and stopped at Countdown. The woman who talks like a man was hosting for KO. The couple of minutes I was tuned in she was with some gray haired JackASS from HuffPost trying to come up with a reason for McCains selection of SP. The only two reasons they came up with were:
1) That JM is acting immature and this pick reflected that. And the fact he's 72 (which they said he would be the oldest president ever) and his advanced age vs her youthful inexperience would make him seem older and would make people nervous about this pick being a heartbeat away.
2) That his real choice was Joe L and Karl Rove shot him down.
I kid you not!
What pisses me off is they are trying to pass this crap off as serious news.
This town needs an enema! - The Joker
Do It
September 6, 2008 - 13:19 ET by JoelCTIf you are really going to do it, I applaud you.
Once you have cut the cable and carefully explained to HBO why you have done it, do what I did. After I cut the cable several years ago, I called DirecTV and asked them to give me "the bare minimum that includes FoxNews."
I was amazed at how much cheaper it was than cable. Even adding in $5 a month for local stations it was still close to half what I paid for cable. I honestly do not miss HBO or Cinemax at all. Sometimes we get free weekends with some of the premium channels, and when I watch them, it just reminds me of how much money I wasted on their crap.
So do it, connman! You won't regret it.
Cool....
September 6, 2008 - 05:31 ET by motherbeltI was thinking that too. Trig is barely 5 months old, and she's already 5 months pregnant again?
Do these people give 10 seconds' thought to what they are going to say? Nevermind, I answered my own question.
They don't even care if their accusations are preposterous. The point is to get it out there and get the laugh. And Toobin is just as bad, for treating Maher's fantasy as if it were a serious discussion. He just wanted to be thought of as "cool" by Maher's empty-headed audience. He embarrassed himself.
mb
September 6, 2008 - 05:37 ET by Cool ArrowI thought the specific reason the Campaign released the "5 months along" information when they did was to prove the press was following a false story.
Obviously Maher was too close to airtime and didn't have time for anything like doing the math.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
motherbelt
September 6, 2008 - 06:00 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI was thinking that too. Trig is barely 5 months old, and she's already 5 months pregnant again?
As a self educated medical professional, let me explain this to you. Trig was born 2 months premature which would make him -2 months old at birth, so, at 5 months old, it is actually 7 months since he was born. I used tried and true liberal math to explain this.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Sharing bong water...
September 6, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Clear thinkerBill has an awful lot of company when it comes to the crappola liberals are coming out with. What they are saying about the Palin baby saga is beyond contemptable. Palin Baby Wars - Liberals on Warpath
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Gosh he is just SO
September 6, 2008 - 05:19 ET by Jack BauerGosh he is just SO hilarious is Bill Maher. He's in Jon Stewart terrority of funniness.
I'll be back when I've had a hot shower.
But even that won't be enough to wash off the stench of that pile of manure masquerading as a human-being.
Sharing the same tank
September 6, 2008 - 05:22 ET by Cool ArrowAnd the water doesn't change. But they burn a lot on incense.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
Maher raised his theory
September 6, 2008 - 05:38 ET by Jack BauerCNN's Toobin and his media ilk are so disconnected from reality it's actually quite laughable.
First he says that oh, it's just MSNBC and Fox who are biased:
No HIM or CNN, doncha know.
But then in the next sentence, he just brazenly all but calls Republicans LIARS, right off the bat when he agrees with Naher.
Does Toobin really think people do not understand English. Too stupid to listen too what he said in one sentance and compare it to the next.
What the frack is WRONG with these people.
Read Sarah's Lip Stick. We ain't buying this shit no matter how often you tell us it's shinola.
What is wrong with these
September 6, 2008 - 05:48 ET by motherbeltWhat is wrong with these people is they don't care about truth, or even about thought. It's all about the one-liner, the zinger, and getting the outrageous speculation out there.
And Toobin just admitted that he believes Republicans will lie about everything. So much for unbiased news. That should cost him his job. Oh, but we're talking about CNN. Nevermind.
mb -- more than that, he
September 6, 2008 - 08:03 ET by Jack Bauermb -- more than that, he must believe people are just that dumb.
Oooops, well, he was talking to the Maher audience. Sure totally contradict yourself in the space of a minute. Who cares. He doesn't.
doctrins
September 6, 2008 - 07:35 ET by rick007To hell with the fairness doctrin .
I want a Morality Doctrin.
Oh My! That will make Matthews wet his pants again. That was what he did when he said he felt a tingke up his leg.
Who would
September 6, 2008 - 07:40 ET by txcoWho would you want covering your back....Bill Maher or Sarah Palin?????
Wonder when's the last time Maher went hunting or fishing...??? You know, the things us "knuckle draggers" do?
Toobin is so phony! He's pretending to be objective.
September 6, 2008 - 08:03 ET by Ted ClarkeToobin really bothers me. He said, "I'm willing to take their word for it..." He's willing? Man-oh-man, that sure is generous of him. His comment doesn't sound like a testament to Sarah Palin's honesty. It sounds like a testament to his own goodness. "Look at me, everybody. I'm willing to believe her even though there are plenty of reasons not to."
How difficult could it be to cast all doubts aside? These news organizations have all the money and resources to dig up dirt on the ones they don't like. They're also quite good at burying dirt on behalf of the ones they DO like. But if they simply float a scandal out there that is neither validated nor invalidated, then they can pass themselves off as objective (like Toobin) while scoring political points for their side. If they really wanted the truth, they would have it. But the truth doesn't serve their agenda. The better play is to dangle a question mark over Sarah Palin's head. By doing this, they can sully her good name and reputation without risking their own credibility. Jeffrey Toobin and his pals at CNN are slime-covered, mudsucking, bottom-dwellers of the most repugnant kind. I can't wait to see them fall to pieces when their Boy-Toy Obama dissolves into the insubstantial puff of smoke that he is.
That reminds me. I saw a movie the other day called "Perfume". The main character is a guy with a super-human sense of smell who believes that a person's individual scent is the manifestation of his or her soul. But when he discovers that he, himself, HAS no scent, he is driven to despair and to murder. To me, this guy has a lot in common with Barrack Obama and the ending of the movie looks to me like a vision of what is in store for the Democratic Party. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it (but for adults only). If you have seen it, I'm curious if you see the same parallels that I do. Isn't Barrack a lot like the guy who can't smell himself? And aren't the Democrats a lot like those people who lose their minds to a cloud of nothingness? What do you think?
Downs Syndrome
September 6, 2008 - 08:22 ET by Baltimore_BethI don't believe it's possible for a 17 year old to have a baby with DS. DS babies are born to women over forty. A woman whose eggs/ovaries are young wouldn't have a baby with chromosome abnormalities.And as pointed out above, it would be nearly impossible for a woman to get pregnant again within a month of giving birth.
It is possibel Beth
September 6, 2008 - 08:29 ET by Cool ArrowBut probabilities rise dramatically after 36.
What is impossible is for a woman to have overlapping pregnancies. i.e A four month old child and one still in the oven.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
"What is impossible is for
September 6, 2008 - 09:31 ET by ckc1227"What is impossible is for a woman to have overlapping pregnancies. i.e A four month old child and one still in the oven. "
Bingo. You can't be 5 months pregnant if you had a baby 4 months ago....well, except in liberal fantasy land, where anything is possible.
“I'm not that convinced
September 6, 2008 - 08:37 ET by Jack BauerWow. An eight word sentence, and three of them are "that."
What's up with that?
The only reason I watched him at all...
September 6, 2008 - 09:04 ET by connmanwas because I heard Laura Ingraham say she was going to be on. Did anyone see her? I stayed tuned in for a few minutes because I saw that Steele was a "guest" on his panel. As it was mentioned earlier, Maher throws out his BS, venom, and lies and nobody ever challenges him. His dolts in the audience are constantly ROFL. Maher is a gutless snivelling jackass. If he had a pair he would have a conservative guest on with a pair! Oh and Michael Steele your nervous laughter just wasn't doing it for me. Just once I'd like to see somebody stick it in his ear. Oh yea the show is taped and edited, fat chance of that happening. One last thing, when he had the gay guy on I think his name is Savage, he couldn't help but bring up Larry Craig with the RNC being in ST Paul and all.
His disgusting language and behavior were bad enough, but there has always been something I wondered since the sting that bagged the despicable Craig.
You see, this wasn't a sex sting operation, no no it was a GAY sex sting operation. You would think this moron Savage and GLAAD would have been up in arms. I wonder why they weren't ummmm oh never mind!
Time to cancel this garbage!
This town needs an enema! - The Joker
"That-man" and "Toobin".
September 6, 2008 - 09:08 ET by Jerry"Wow. An eight word sentence, and three of them are "that.""
Hey, it's "That-man" and "Toobin".... Do-do do-do do-do do-do...
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Maher is the typical East
September 6, 2008 - 08:40 ET by ConservativeRexMaher is the typical East Coast smartass who thinks he knows everything, everything he says is witty and intellectual and people from other places in the country just wouldn't get it anyway. The crowd he speaks to nods their head and laughs with him. Everyone else just wants to kick his ass for being such a lunkhead. But, if you're a real American, a patriot, he doesn't want anything to do with you. These fellas are yellow-bellies. They always will be. They weren't raised right is the biggest problem.
Why would I pay for HBO
September 6, 2008 - 09:18 ET by evilcontractorJust think, HBO actually pays Bill Mayer to say this crap. It is a really terrible business plan to insult 40-50% of your potential customers. All they have to do is look at MSNBC and see where this kind of programming decisions leads----Dead Last Place.
Evilcontractor, my sentiments exactly!
September 6, 2008 - 10:37 ET by goldenthroatI blogged about this yesterday when it first came out on NewsMax - can you imagine if it had been Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Dennis Miller making a comment about one of Osama Bama's children like this? They would have been fired on the spot!
HBO has no guts to get rid of this pond-scum, low-life, left-wing, pathetic excuse for a human being and never will.
"The sun's not going down, the horizon's moving up!" - Firesign Theatre
I am convinced
September 6, 2008 - 09:53 ET by ShaftBigScoreThat Bill Maher's mother passed up on a late term abortion. She should have used her motherly right on him. The world would have less one clown.
" On my signal, unleash hell" Maximus Decimus Meridius
Cancel HBO
September 6, 2008 - 10:02 ET by ClericalGalIf people can cancel US Magazine for smearing Palin, why not HBO?
Helping...... Barack...... Obama
September 6, 2008 - 10:28 ET by connmanHell no HBO....Hell no HBO.
Cancel HBO and tell them why NOW!
This town needs an enema! - The Joker
Can you cancel..
September 6, 2008 - 10:33 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. BHO too?
PALIN/McCain 2008
Sarge Rock... Don't I
September 6, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Clear thinkerSarge Rock...
Don't I wish! Palin Baby Wars - Liberals on Warpath
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Being a unfunny comedian is no job for a man
September 6, 2008 - 10:59 ET by jefflebowskiMaher is a whiny, pasty little pathetic waste of oxygen. He is not funny, intelligent and has no endearing qualities whatsoever.
What is it with these types that make them so popular to the left wing? Oh, they're miserable losers too!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Trig is just as possibly
September 6, 2008 - 11:10 ET by dmntd1Trig is just as possibly Bristol's son, as Natasha Obama is Malia's daughter. I demand DNA testing to PROVE that these children are the actual children of BHO and Ms Proud-To-Be-An-American!
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!
September 6, 2008 - 11:24 ET by STANISZCHARLIE This is one of many reasons why the doctrine has to be reinstated immediately. From what i hear or watch on radio or the tv it would seem to damage the left more than the right. PBS, MSNBC, CNN, HBO, ABC, NBC AND CBS. Every one of these socalled news and entertainment are run by left wing loonies who want this country turned into a gomorah. And as for the right if they keep up the truth and factual reporting they would have nothing to worry about as the left would never request equal time.
I'm with Bill Maher
September 6, 2008 - 17:37 ET by kathy5319I'm with Bill Maher on this... not convinced at all. There are way too many oddities, and circumstantial stuff, without any clear refutations... like, the DaRn Birth Certificate or hospital photos of Sarah Palin with Trig. These have been asked for and ignored. You skeptics are assuming your timelines are perfect.
Also, the relevance as to why this matters, is 1) Truthfulness 2)Sarah Palin and the New Evangelicals want to govern women's reproductive choices.
Kathy... Sarah Palin and
September 6, 2008 - 17:54 ET by bigtimerKathy...
Sarah Palin and the New Evangelicals want to govern women's reproductive choices.
Govern womens reproductive organs...are you nuts?
Oh please...get real.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Holy Smokes!
September 6, 2008 - 18:04 ET by BlondeAnother 1 Week, 6 Hour wonder.
Go figure!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
B... Yep...I checked that
September 6, 2008 - 18:11 ET by bigtimerB...
Yep...I checked that out too...gettin' to be more fun than a barrel of maraca's...
For you PC sensitive critters..I meant that in good humor.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BigTimer, You don't
September 6, 2008 - 18:10 ET by kathy5319BigTimer,
You don't understand me? -or- are you proposing that you, A Rush fan disagree? I think Palin's pro-life/anti-choice stance is non-disputable. Spin it for me, will you?
Kathy, kathy,
September 6, 2008 - 18:13 ET by bigtimerKathy, kathy, kathy...
Spin what...I asked you if you were nuts....
I mean it too.
I know a trollster when I see one sweetheart.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BigTimer, BigTimer,
September 6, 2008 - 18:21 ET by kathy5319BigTimer, BigTimer, BigTimer,
I stated that Palin and the New Evangelicals want to govern over the reproductive choices of women. ((some people think that this topic is really kinda private, and shouldn't be news as well as dictated by the govermment)))
You replied somehow surprised? I disagree with the Party that speaks for god and summons hurricanes.
Kathy...little one...you
September 6, 2008 - 18:33 ET by bigtimerKathy...little one...you take care of your own reproductive rights. YOU and you alone.
Didn't you know that?
Geesh...
...why do we have to explain everything to trolls...
By the way, the term reproductive rights is so...I don't know...icky...plus it is way past old...you leftist NOW women are insane...let alone pathetic.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT,Why do you assume, I'm a
September 6, 2008 - 18:47 ET by kathy5319BT,
Why do you assume, I'm a troll? I googled Bill Maher and found this article (saw the video) and wanted to respond. I think Maher is Brilliant!!
I also think that while abortion is a tragedy... no one is pro-abortion. I also think Palin's daughters pregnancy is a tragedy and Palin's mothering of this country would be a nightmare. Icky.
I also think it is a tragedy what is happening to the Constitution and Civil Rights* and that Fundamentalists want to mess with it via their stealth tactics.
*'lest you misunderstand, I'm speaking of many other issues.
I also think Rush is a fine (cough) Christian
Good luck! Go Obama/Biden Go Maher!!!
kathy... ROFLMAO! Surely
September 6, 2008 - 18:51 ET by bigtimerkathy...
ROFLMAO! Surely you jest...
I don't assume...I know.
You made it too easy also, right off the bat...didn't they teach ya' better?
But heck, it's been fun...I like amusement in the evenings...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT
September 6, 2008 - 19:01 ET by MrShy"I think Maher is Brilliant!!"
Bigtimer, this one's a whole lot worse than we thought.
Talk about "Icky".
How old are you, Kathy? Yes, it's a condescending question, so sue me.
There's always gay lounges and private "parties" you could do.. Stop the videos.. ask your boyfriends for a "reach around"! -- Rog "all class" the Shrub, YouTube :p
Howdy Mrs.... Yeah, she's
September 6, 2008 - 19:19 ET by bigtimerHowdy Mrs....
Yeah, she's a load of fun...I like playing with little trollsters like her if it's a slow mellow evening and I'm in the mood.
Much more to come before election day too...they just keep on truckin' in here.
Wonder how many we're gonna' get just from all the different arena's they guys were on during the convention...a lot of advertising for NBs with the work they did.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BigT
September 6, 2008 - 19:25 ET by MrShyYes! I'm noticing this, too, that since the Palin pick and the major shift of momentum back in the GOP camp, we're suddently getting a serious up-tick of new trollster sign-ups.
Ranting and raving on their little libturd sites isn't fulfilling enough for them these days, so they're taking their anger out going into the enemy's den.
There's always gay lounges and private "parties" you could do.. Stop the videos.. ask your boyfriends for a "reach around"! -- classy Roger the Shrubber, YouTube :p
BT, Back at 'ya! Have a nice
September 6, 2008 - 19:01 ET by kathy5319BT,
Back at 'ya! Have a nice evening!
kathy
September 6, 2008 - 18:55 ET by MrShyKathy, Kathy, Kathy... Shy, Shy, Shy here....
"I disagree with the Party that speaks for god" is such kool-aid/stereotype crapola that you've been drinking, of the GOP and religion. I'm atheist/agnostic, and you think I've gotten any beef about that from members around here? No, none... nada.
A party that's, well, more rooted in God (I'm respectful of the religion, btw, so I use the capital "G", as I even do this with one I have a lot less respect for, Islam, or in mentioning Allah) than the religiously-fervent non-religious left/Democrat party, is maybe the reason I find it more appealing. By all accounts, it's way less hypocritical, less narcissistic, less full of b.s. about feeding the world and the whales, oh, but "f**k you" to the person next to you (sort of quoting an old friend there) and so on...
There's always gay lounges and private "parties" you could do.. Stop the videos.. ask your boyfriends for a "reach around"! -- Rog "all class" the Shrub, YouTube :p
ShyShy, I want to respond,
September 6, 2008 - 19:03 ET by kathy5319ShyShy,
I want to respond, but I gotta go.
Have a good one.
Mr.Shy
September 7, 2008 - 03:41 ET by well99You mean we have been saving all that wood for nothing?Guess I better cancel the order for marshmellows.Still waiting on next video on youtube.
Kathy
September 6, 2008 - 19:03 ET by BlondeYour little diminuative version of the dKos talking points are still totally recognizable here. So your subterfuge didn't quite pan out, now, did it?
So, to address one of your DKOS points: No one wants to "govern" reproductive rights of women. We'd just like you to think about it, make your "choice" before you spread your legs....like that.
I think it is a really private choice, BTW. Apparently, you and your liberal sisters prefer to make one's reproductive choices a matter of public debate....hence your relentless attacks on Sarah Palin.
But I digress.
You'd disagree with God if he reached down and smacked you on the forehead.
Go for that....it might work out for you yet.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I'll respond to this, too.
September 6, 2008 - 19:05 ET by kathy5319I'll respond to this, too. But not now. FWIW
Terribly clever for a liberal
September 6, 2008 - 22:30 ET by BlondeWow, Kath....you are a freakin' tactical genious.
Carry on.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Kathy, reproductive choices of women
September 6, 2008 - 19:40 ET by jefflebowskiI really think its a little strange for people of both sides of this controversy. Especially, when that is the sole focus of whom they will vote for.
I believe personally that abortion is wrong. I believe that life begins at conception. It certainly isn't a basketball that starts growing. But I also believe that the decision is between the mother and God. If she aborts a baby, she will have to answer for it one day. I also, however, believe that States should be able to make laws concerning abortion..not the federal government.
Just my two cents.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Well exactly Jeff...she
September 6, 2008 - 19:51 ET by bigtimerWell exactly Jeff...she knows Palin is for states rights too...she's just a trollin'...
Plus she just had to put that line in there about hurricanes too...hmmm...seems to me it was Don Fowler who had the great glee for the hurricane happening...seems to me the former DNC head was caught on tape....lmao!
By the way, I finally caught up with your site today...commented on a lot of the blog posts too....love it!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Jeff - reply to you
September 7, 2008 - 01:25 ET by kathy5319Jeff,
My opinion of this issue, referred to on tv-coverage as the "social issues"... and "when will they come up?" etc, remarks the analysts is that this issue Women... Women's bodies, and feminism IS the Elephant in the room this election. Trumping Race, perhaps. I think there are other issues, hugely important... and I think Sarah Palin was chosen well for the Republican strategy, precisely for the social issues. I also think it is divisive on so many levels and distracting, and I also think Sarah Palin is solely in the election for the Evangelicals, who own the party. (That would be a different blog)
Concerning abortion: Currently as it stands now, as we know, abortions are available to women in the US, all states, period. Yes, I have heard the push to have the issue be voted state by state. You just stated, that although you believe it is wrong, it is between a woman and God. I know that Palin and Pro-Lifers ultimately want abortion outlawed, period. And any steps they are taking, pushing for is towards that goal in small steps. Palin also is against sex education. I know that for a fact, in her own words. I also know that many in "Feminists for Life" consider hormonal birth control methods as abortificants and that s/b illegal, and promote only natural cycle/method or abstinance only.
Palin is against a woman being able to seek abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.
I too, think abortion is wrong, but I think the decision must be and remain a womans to make.
Kathy I have to take issue
September 7, 2008 - 04:19 ET by James2306Kathy I have to take issue with your last statement "but I think the decision must be and remain a womans to make." This statement shows a level of hatred towards men that is unbelieveable. How can any decision involving the child or potential child be only the womens to make? I believe it takes two to make a woman pregnant so why is this only a ONE person decision? Do you support a mans right to not pay child support if the mother chooses to have the baby against his wishes? Without shared responsibility in the decision you are holding men in exactly the same situation that you say you are in without the unfettered right to abortion on demand i.e. no reproductive freedom. Wouldnt that make you a hypocrite?
Pacifism is a luxury bought with the blood of the valorous
Bullseye, James!
September 8, 2008 - 08:43 ET by Indiana Joe"I believe it takes two to make a woman pregnant so why is this only a ONE person decision? Do you support a mans right to not pay child support if the mother chooses to have the baby against his wishes?"
This is an intrinsic part of the abortion debate that has thus far been completely ignored. Why doesn't a man have the "right" to decide he's "not ready" to be a father?
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
kathy
September 6, 2008 - 18:03 ET by MrShy"I'm with Bill Maher"
Stay with Bill Maher.
There's always gay lounges and private "parties" you could do.. Stop the videos.. ask your boyfriends for a "reach around"! -- Rog "all class" the Shrub, YouTube :p
This is the scumbag
September 6, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Jack BauerThis is the scumbag opinions we've come down to. A mother has to "prove" to a moron like you something about the birth of her child.
What an offensive jerk you truly are. Utterly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately leftists have no shame. You wouldn't know "truth" if it kicked you in the ass.
By the way, everything Maher does or says is for publicity and ratings. Stick that in your birth canal.
Brother Jack! Amen and
September 6, 2008 - 19:02 ET by bigtimerBrother Jack!
Amen and hallelujah to that!!!
Can I have an Amen?....I can't hear you...can I have an Amen brothers and sisters?!....I still can't hear you!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
A response to Kathy about abortion.
September 6, 2008 - 22:20 ET by Ted ClarkeHello Kathy,
First off, I think your willingness to opine with this group, knowing full well that you won't find much support, is very admirable. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. As far as I'm concerned, the term "troll" describes a person who is interested in disrupting or corrupting a discussion through mischief. From what I've read of your posts, you are not a troll.
I just want to respond to a comment you made. You said that no one is pro-abortion. This is blatantly not true. Imagine an abortion clinic protest where pro-life people and pro-abortion people are faced off against each other. If a conflicted woman goes there to abort her baby, a kind of tug-o-war takes place over her. The Pro-life crowd says, "Don't do it! Let your baby live!" The Pro-abortion crowd says, "Don't listen to them! Do it!" One side will be energized by her ultimate choice and claim victory. The other side, however, will cry "Foul!" and slink away in defeat. If the so-called "Pro-choice" movement were truly pro-choice, they would have no interest in influencing her decision one way or the other. It's her choice, right? So what business is it of theirs? The simple fact that they are there and taking sides exposes their hand. To them, life is the wrong choice and abortion is the right one.
I do, however, make a big distinction between the Pro-abortion movement and your average, everday Pro-choice person. The former is a political machine with an anti-human and anti-freedom agenda. The latter is simply a person who has bought into the false idea that kind, sophisticated, open-minded people are "Pro-choice" and mean, religious, close-minded people are "Anti-choice".
You, Kathy, can assert that you are not pro-abortion. But you can't claim that about all of those who are on your side of the debate. Some of you are for barbaric partial-birth abortion techniques and some of you aren't. Some of you agree with Barrack Obama that the life of a baby that survives a botched abortion has no inalienable right to live and should be neglected to death. Some of you don't agree. And there are even some of you who support a parent's "right" to get rid of an unwanted baby 6 months after he or she is born. So please don't be so bold to assert that no one is pro-abortion. That is just flat out wrong.
There's much more to say on the subject but I've said enough. I would hope that you think a bit more deeply about this subject and understand what is truly at stake. If you want to take issue with me, I will keep an eye out for your response. I promise I'll be respectful and open-minded. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out. I appreciate it. Take care.
Ted
Ted, - reply to you
September 7, 2008 - 01:19 ET by kathy5319Ted,
I realize that in this forum there are irreconcilable differences, just like there is on the issue of abortion. Because of this, I think Pro-choice is the right response. Currently, we have a Pro-choice landscape. And I think that because we do, "agree to disagree" and society concludes (for the moment) that "It is a woman's personal decision" then... No, actually I don't think people should be playing tug-of-war with her as she is walking into the clinic. Just like under ANY OTHER circumstance, I would have reacted differently to a womans privacy being invaded in a tabloid. It's her personal business, That is, if it really is her personal choice. OR, I guess not?
Consider this as posted here to me:
No one wants to "govern" reproductive rights of women. We'd just like you to think about it, make your "choice" before you spread your legs....like that.
I don't know about the abortion methods, what tri-mester, or any activism whatsoever. So, I'm going to have to state that I assume/hear that there are regulations and time limits. When discussion gets into a purist debate of "what" even is abortion, many Pro-lifers include birth control. Personally, I think abortion is a bad choice. I also don't like the KKK, but they have a right to believe what they want, and have freedom of speech... and I don't have to like it, nor agree.
Thank you for the reply, Kathy
September 7, 2008 - 03:45 ET by Ted ClarkeHi, Kathy,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I have a few thoughts and questions for you to consider.
1) First off, I hope we don't have any "irreconcilable differences". If that's the case, then there's no point in continuing. Right? I promise that if your arguments are stronger and more logical than mine, then I will reconcile my views with yours. To do otherwise would reflect badly on me.
2) You wrote, "...Because of this, I think Pro-choice is the right response." I really don't understand what you mean. Can you explain more clearly why you think "Pro-choice" is the right response? And it's a "response" to what, exactly?
3) My original post to you made a case that there really are people who are Pro-abortion. I gave you a very real and provable example of how they passionately encourage mothers to choose abortion and reject life. It sounds like you might be willing to accept my argument and reconsider yours. But I'm not quite sure where you stand. To be clear, do you still insist that no one is pro-abortion?
4) You wrote, "Personally, I think abortion is a bad choice. I also don't like the KKK, but they have a right to believe what they want, and have freedom of speech..." There are two things here that I find troubling:
A) You seem to view abortion as a freedom of speech issue. This is very wrong. The government has no business dictating to us who we can or can't love. Likewise, they can't dictate to us who we can or can't hate. That's why the KKK are free to believe what they want. But they aren't free to commit violent crimes against the innocent. Abortion is not about freedom of speech. It's about action. It's about denying a living human being a right to live in a society that has proclaimed that right to be inalienable.
B) If you defend Roe V. Wade, then it is very difficult for you to also defend freedom of speech. A majority of the American people would love to exercize their freedom of speech and vote on the issue of legalized abortion. But the Supreme Court robbed us of that freedom by unilaterally discovering hidden language that established a constitutionally protected right to abort babies. This hidden language now trumps the glaringly obvious language that we are all endowed by our creator with an inalienable right to live! What gives? Why is it that you are not moved by this assault on the American people's freedom of speech? Here in Japan, where I live, there is no controversy about abortion. Why? Because the Japanese people did not have 12 men in robes who foisted it upon them against their will.
Do you see my point, Kathy? I feel you really need to figure these things out much more carefully. Until you do that, you can never know for sure if our differences are truly irreconcilable.
Anyway, let me know if I'm making sense or not. Thanks a lot and take it easy.
Ted - another reply to you
September 7, 2008 - 09:53 ET by kathy5319Ted,
(1 & 2)
Thanks for your reply, but yes, unfortunately, I do think our views, or rather, conclusions are irreconcileable, which is why I stated that I think Pro-Choice is the correct "response" or maybe a better word is "position" on this issue.
(3)
I would have to take you at your word that some people are "pro-abortion" as ideal or motive, or pushing influence for women to have abortions. And the other side of that, is there are people who are actively pushing the issue from a pro-life side. I believe, yes, on that point there is surely activism on both sides. And one wouldn't exist without the other. At the end of the day, there is the individual. Look, I don't think there is anything casual about this issue. I don't think abortion is a great choice.
(4)
I used the KKK as example of voice, and I think it applies. Concerning interpretations of this issue and other issues of hidden language, or constitution, or the bible, or religious doctrine, there are contradictions... I used to think there was black and white on this issue, and other issues. I don't think that anymore. There is gray.
(4B)
What is the difference if States concede, or Judges concede that abortion is a woman's choice. How is another's choice forced upon you or anyone?
Getting back to Gray on the topic of abortion. If technically, in some instances of use of "the Pill" as contraception, an egg is fertilized but fails to implant or "aborts", thus is the Pill an abortificant? Among "Feminists for Life" there is no clear consensus. IF it were, and as some believe, the pill should be outlawed, also. Do you believe contraception should be outlawed?
Which brings us back to this:
No one wants to "govern" reproductive rights of women. We'd just like you to think about it, make your "choice" before you spread your legs....like that.
If contraception is abortion, then do WE really think that WE are going to vote about whether "She spreads her legs like that?" And where does that lead?
More Gray: Eggs that are fertilized and discarded.
Hi Kathy, Thanks again
September 7, 2008 - 12:34 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
Thanks again for replying to my post. But I'm still not clear as to why you are pro-choice. You have said (twice now) that you are Pro-choice because "our views, or rather, conclusions are irreconcileable". Forgive me, but this makes no sense. Are you, in effect, plugging your ears and making "la! la!" noises? Because that's what people do when they have no interest in reconciling their views with others. Do you see?
"I would have to take you at your word that some people are "pro-abortion" Again, I don't understand. It is not a matter of you taking my word. It's a matter of you accepting or rejecting the logic of my argument. If you disagree, then make your case. But if you simply take my word for it, then I scratch my head and say, "Huh?" This has nothing to do with my "word".
"I used to think there was black and white on this issue, and other issues. I don't think that anymore. There is gray." I can fully understand your feelings here. There are definitely gray areas. But for me it comes down to the question of when life begins. To determine this, simply define when life ends and then match that with its polar opposite. Life ends when the cells stop replicating. Draw a straight line backwards to the point when the cells start replicating, and that's where life begins (i.e. conception). The DNA that marks the identity of that human individual is present at ever single point on that line. If you follow this reasoning, there is a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of when life begins. And if it begins at conception, who has the right to deny that individual the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Certainly not I. Where do you draw the line? When does a baby gain his or her right to live? With an issue as grave as this one, "gray areas" and cop-outs like "It's above my pay grade" don't cut it. This is an issue of life and death.
"How is another's choice forced upon you or anyone?" An abortion affects not only the woman and the baby that are directly involved. It also affects the siblings of that baby. It affects the father. It affects the minds of everyone in society. Imagine two Americas. One defines abortion as murder and the other defines it as a simple procedure a woman can choose. In your opinion, which America is strengthened and which is weakened? Which one succeeds and which one fails? Your quote above ignores these questions, and that troubles me.
And yes, your side does, in fact, force abortions on people and violate their religious freedoms. Take Florida, for example. Picture a Christian parent with a pregnant daughter in a public school. The girl asks her school nurse for advice. The nurse is prohibited, by law, from taking her to a church that counsels a pro-life view (separation of Church and State and all that). But the nurse is not prohibited from taking her to an abortion clinic to abort the baby. The law also stipulates that the parents need not be notified. If the girl has a headache and wants aspirin, parental consent is necessary. But for a potentially life-threatening operation like an abortion, the parents are out of the loop. So the secular values of the State trump the Christian values of the parents. Their grandchild is murdered by the government and you're fine with that?
Ted - Kathy is very representative of most pro-choice women
September 7, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Dee Bunkthey don't understand what is going on within the Dem party. Most people think that they only advocate for limited abortions in the first trimester but they are much more radical than that. Especially Obama. He even supports killing babies born alive. NOW and other major contributors to the Dems want zero restrictions on abortion. They think it's okay for an 11 yr old girl to get one without the counsel of her parents and they don't want any limits on what trimester a woman is in. They also appose charging someone with murder who purposefully attacks a pregnant woman with the intention of killing her baby.
Conservatives need to do a better job of exposing liberals for their radical positions. And when it comes to the President, it doesn't matter if he/she CLAIMS to want limits if they will appoint judges (as Obama will) that will declare all limits unconstitutional.
Ted -- last reply, probably?
September 8, 2008 - 08:37 ET by kathy5319Ted,
Thanks for your sincere effort to dialogue. I know this last reply -- out of respect for your time, won't satisfy you. I hate to sound defeatest, but I don't think our two Americas can meet anytime soon. Yes America has culture wars, I hope that the culture wars can find a way to co-exist in tolerance and democratic discourse. I also hope the assurances of the Founding Fathers as intended are preserved and guarded with care with respect to the separation of church and state.
I do not know the details of policy concerning abortion, such as the school nurse example in Florida you cited. And I don't have a response for you, or choose not to... for sake of trying to explain to you where I'm coming from. FWIW. My interest on this topic is maybe philosophical. I will try one more time why I think "Pro-Choice" is the wisest position.
It is a neutral position, which is no answer to you because neutral is not Pro-life. This is as where it stands now.
If speaking for myself-- It allows, condones with regret clinical abortions in early stages of pregnancy. It doesn't push or promote women to have clinical abortions. It strives to educate young women that promiscuity isn't a wise or healthy lifestyle, and monogomy is rewarding. It also provides information and educates women, and explains to them everything about reproduction, STDs and birth control. It encourages them to talk with parents, but if they cannot, encourages them to find an adult or family member or church group, or therapist to talk to. It works to combat alarming, harmful and negative messages from pop-culture, and tries to replace insecurity and peer pressure with self-respect. It is available for those who women who have made this decision.
I Googled Europe to see where Europe is on this issue. And the EU predominantly allows abotions up to 13 wks. I know that doesn't count for anything (here) And that also Europe is not "Christian America" and the Catholic Church does not rule over Europe. BTW, I'm not assuming your religious/denominational views.
You believe that a human being is created the moment and egg and sperm unite. Thus contraception which in some cases still allows an egg to be fertilized, but prevents it from being inplanted is an abortion. Thus contraceptive methods should be outlawed according to this view. Consider, also that many women are put on the pill for medical reasons, due to problems with their menstrual cycle. We need national policy to begin this necessary gynecological inquisition.
Not everyone agrees that a fertilized egg is a human being, as it's not viable. "Abortion stops a beating heart". "Abortion stops a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus." "Abortions happen naturally" While pro-life activists fight tirelessly to make sure that no woman can interfere with her eggs being fertilized or tampered with and are eager to discuss the menstrual problems of some women, there is a level of hypocrisy that renders this absurd... and that is the value of viable life as evidenced by this same moral agenda and activism, such as "just wars" and collateral damage, and encouraging turning a blind eye omission to the trials and tribulations of viable life, including born babies of unwed mothers.
Am I my brothers keeper? asked someone in a book somewhere... and someone else spoke of this in a campaign. Apparently, the latter is a Marxist without lipstick.
American women, and men, of course, on abstinence, (and w/o sex education per the Evangelical party) as the moral choice. With the given that this America is using the Bible as either "the inerrant Word of God" or as moral guide, filled with buckets of contradictions and violence, used to justify terrible acts, and also inspiration of kindness, mercy, charity and forgiveness, and intolerance.
Abstinence as the only sanctioned method of birth control leads to Unwed mothers, boys named Levi that state "I don't want kids", rape victims, underground contraception trafficking, and knitting needles. And because we care so much about fertilized eggs, and a Father's right to his zygote in case he genuinely wonders if he might have helped create one Friday night: "“I’m a redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey." 17 year old girls knocked up, without much help or resources after the fact... because, "she's a whore". Hey, Life Happens... we don't have to care what happens to it. Adultery happens. The Morality Police have a dream and plan to deal with these problems. Christian Dominionism! It's far off? but the same think-tanks that constructed Sarah Palin, are at work on it. While they will never agree on theological doctrine... like whether or not man has free will, or if some are pre-destined to hell for God's good pleasure, history is littered with the dead saints and/or heretics over these issues. They now think that politics is the 21st century frontier. I find it typical and troubling that the ones who are so obsessed about 17 year old girls not tampering with their eggs are adulterers running for office or church leadership with an agenda that is in no way reflective of Jesus Christ. Among the threads here was cited a statistic as if it matters, concerning race and the number of abortions. I'm sure somewhere there is am insightful viewpoint as to why that is, backed up of course by the Word of God.
Morally, on this issue and in this vein, I would much rather vote for someone honest to admit that it's not his pay-grade, but believes we can reduce the number of abortions through constructive education and measures, than someone who is pushing a pro-life passion, now that he's sown those wild oats of youth and found wife number 2, then just say "I'm sorry" and smile.
Kathy,
September 8, 2008 - 09:41 ET by Indiana JoeI've followed your dialogue with Ted, and would just like to step in here for a moment.
"It [Pro-choice] is a neutral position, which is no answer to you because neutral is not Pro-life." I can't understand defining "pro-choice" as a "neutral position." Neutral would mean passive, a kind of "let the chips fall where they may" position. Now, I suppose I can see where someone who agrees with the Roe v. Wade decision would think we should just let it be, and be "neutral" in that regard. It's settled, don't fight it, be passive and "neutral." That may be a "politically neutral" way of dealing with conflict. But actively aborting a life isn't at all a "neutral" response to that life.
"Thus contraception which in some cases still allows an egg to be fertilized, but prevents it from being inplanted is an abortion. Thus contraceptive methods should be outlawed according to this view." Just as there are extremists on the pro-choice side, there are some on the pro-life side. I'm sure you don't agree with those who condone partial-birth abortion, or those who believe in letting a child who survives abortion die of neglect. The majority of those who object to clinical abortion are not interested in banning whole classes of b/c medications. This is a "slippery slope" argument, similar to the one that pro-life people made following the Roe decision. The problem with it is, we've actually slipped down that slope, to third trimester abortions and beyond. Theorizing that all abortions at any stage of development must be protected to prevent birth control from being outlawed is as disingenuous as the pro-life argument was... except that one has borne out.
"It encourages them to talk with parents,..." No, see, that's a big part of the problem. That's why Ted gave the example of the Florida laws, and how some "pro-choicers" are truly "pro-abortion." The phrase "parental notification laws" has entered our lexicon in the years since Roe v. Wade. They have become necessary (and are vehemently fought against by the "pro-choice" side) precisely because female children are not encouraged "to talk with parents, but if they cannot, encourages them to find an adult or family member or church group, or therapist to talk to." Well, maybe a therapist, but the "therapist" is probably the first person they go to, the one who sometimes needs to be forced by law to inform the girl's parents. You see the problem, I trust?
Now, you surely don't believe the Catholic Church, or any church, "rules over" America. But people have as much right to decide their social and political beliefs based on their religious and moral beliefs as for any other reason. The fact that many pro-life people have their decision informed by their religious beliefs does not make this country a "theocracy." In fact, the concept of "government by the people" is much more firmly entrenched here than in most of Europe. And, although most of Europe allows first trimester abortions (I'll take your word for that), how many allow 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions? Not that I feel anything about Europe is relevant to us here; I believe that the US exists precisely because people didn't want to do things the European way over here.
"Am I my brothers keeper? asked someone in a book somewhere..." That "book somewhere" is the Bible. Cain asked it of God, when God asked him where Abel was. Cain, of course, knew very well that Abel was dead. Cain had killed him. Not really sure why you bring that up. You're interjecting a lot of irrelevant stuff here, "such as "just wars" and collateral damage, and encouraging turning a blind eye omission to the trials and tribulations of viable life, including born babies of unwed mothers." These sound like more talking-points about the Evil Republicans, and I'm not sure what they're doing in a discussion of abortion.
Beyond this point, I'm afraid I must note that your argument continues to devolve into these types of things, a lot of fear-mongering statements and assertions about all the "good" that abortion on demand does, and all the "evil" that it prevents. Evils like "underground contraception traffic" and "rape victims." Not sure exactly how abortion stops rape, and I can't imagine street-corner condom sellers, but there you go. By that final paragraph or two, it's clear you're on a roll. Sorry if this last seems less than respectful. I merely wanted to address your points of logic, not go into the land of emotional feelings. It's clear that you feel you should vote for Obama (the point you close with) and people (myself included) are rarely rational about their feelings.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Joe
September 8, 2008 - 12:07 ET by kathy5319Joe,
I think the whole topic is a slippery slope. I just Googled Palin, and now find she is OK with contraception, and in previous statements (hers) is not. Concerning Sex Ed she is against 'explicit' sex education and advocates abstinance education... WHATever that means. In contrast, and to un-clarify his position, "McCain and the GOP platform" are Pro-life Abstinance only and opposes birth control -OR- opposes insurance covering it, but is for insurance covering Viagra. At Present, I have no confidence in their true positions or statements concerning their true positions.
No, I'm not in favor of late-term, or partial birth abortions. I will concede, Neutral that it (should be) is a woman's choice to use contraception, and have an abortion in early stages of pregnancy.
You misunderstood me, and/or I was unclear: The below is MY SUBJECTIVE PRO-CHOICE POSITION -
If speaking for myself-- It (this position) allows, condones with regret clinical abortions in early stages of pregnancy. It doesn't push or promote women to have clinical abortions. It strives to educate young women that promiscuity isn't a wise or healthy lifestyle, and monogomy is rewarding. It also provides information and educates women, and explains to them everything about reproduction, STDs and birth control. It encourages them to talk with parents, but if they cannot, encourages them to find an adult or family member or church group, or therapist to talk to. It works to combat alarming, harmful and negative messages from pop-culture, and tries to replace insecurity and peer pressure with self-respect. It is available for those who women who have made this decision.
wE'RE still back to a slippery slope. An abortion-facts (Pro-life) site holds the conclusion that b/c is OK, but admits, this practice sometimes accounts for "micro-abortions". Strange wording.
No, I don't think that faith influence upon decisions institute a theocracy. I think powerful lobbying by the Religious Right to take over the Republican Party with goals to undermine the constitution and vote for judges versed in Christian Dominionism is a serious real threat.
I wasn't suggesting the Catholic church ruled America or Europe. That was the point.
Yes, I knew about the bible Cain reference. And I brought it up as and stated my reason and context. It still stands.
I never stated "all the *good* that abortion does".
Also, I didn't mean to suggest abortion stops rape. I meant that pregnancies resulting from rape will be the additional emotional burden the rape victim will endure. No, not street corner condoms... street corner birth control pills. Don't forget knitting needles. Fear mongering? Really? How?
There were issues brought up here that I had not considered, and as stated at beginning of this post, I have no idea *now* what McCain and Palin actually promote as the GOP platform on this issue. Just prior, I read that they were divided, but Palin's stance didn't matter, but McCains... then couldn't find the article to quote.
But overall, am highly not-happy about an Evangelical Party that wants to lead. And overall, am more impressed with Obama/Biden on character. And as so far this is the personality contest portion. I will be studying the issues, and will try to be rational about my feelings as well.
You do realise that most
September 11, 2008 - 12:29 ET by RESTLESS 1You do realise that most pro-lifers are willing to make an exception in the instances of rape, incest, or death of the mother. Nobody I know of is for a woman having to live with a reminder of a violent action growing inside of them. Yes, I have heard the argument that they can put the baby up for adoption, but they are marginalized even within the pro life camp.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Kathy. Be honest. You are not "neutral".
September 8, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Ted ClarkeThank you, Kathy, for clarifying your views. I appreciate the time and attention you have given me.
I have some final points to make:
1) Just so it's clear, we Pro-life people are NOT Bible-thumping moralists who want to control women's bodies and force them to have babies. Of course, every cause has its share of extremists, but most of us are reasonable people who have strong values and carefully considered positions. My wish has not been to convert you but to help you understand us a bit better. So if you DO hold cartoonish stereotypes of us, I urge you to reevaluate them.
2) You wrote, "...there is a level of hypocrisy...'just wars' and collateral damage..." Kathy, think of it like this. If you come to a fork in the road, you choose one way and reject the other, right? (Assuming, of course, that you want to move forward.) This is what the human condition and our Culture War are all about. Folks on the Right believe in moral clarity, where one choice is better than the other, regardless of who is facing those choices. Folks on the Left believe in moral relativism where one choice is no better or worse than the other, where a truly good person is one who rejects the idea of true goodness. Consider these questions:
Which is better, teaching kids how to have sex or teaching kids not to have sex?
Which is better, nurturing a Pro-abortion society or nurturing a Pro-life society?
Which is better, surrendering to a home invader or killing him?
Which is better, a world where North Korea (with one nuclear weapon) is the lone nuclear power or a world where the United States (with 10,000 nuclear weapons) is the lone nuclear power?
Who are better, Anti-war protestors who peacefully enable Saddam Hussein to rape, torture and murder a million people or American armed forces who violently bring Saddam's brutal dictatorship to an end?
Kathy, there is no hypocrisy. The Pro-life movement is all about elevating the value of human life and protecting the innocent. The war in Iraq is guided by the exact same principles. But all wars have terrible costs. I live between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the people of those cities hadn't been bombed, World War II would have continued and far more innocent people would have died. Harry Truman was confronted with a moral dilemma and his decision was guided by a love for life and a hatred for war. It was a morally clear decision. One last example. I saw a movie where a man was hanging by a rope on a mountainside. His weight was putting too much stress on a lifeline that he shared with his son and daughter. He realized that if he didn't cut himself free, all three of them would die. So he cut the rope and killed himself. This was a moral act, guided by a love for life. So my point is that you have to look deeply to the fundamentals of any act. You have to have moral clarity. We Pro-life people are NOT hypocrites. Wars we defend are truly just. And when it comes to collateral damage, we are like the father hanging from the rope. Cutting the rope is a terrible choice. But NOT cutting the rope is much worse. Do you understand?
3) Final point. You wrote, "I think 'Pro-Choice' is the wisest position. It is a neutral position." It is not neutral. The so-called "Pro-choice" position is predicated on the fundamental idea that an unborn baby is not entitled to the full protections of the law. You believe the fetus has no inalienable right to live. How can you define this as neutral? When I say the baby is a unique, individual human being with a right to live, I am not taking a neutral position. Likewise, when you say the baby is not a baby (what then? a fetus? a clump of cells? an unwanted growth?) you deny it human status and all the human rights with which it is endowed. You say the mother can get rid of it if she wants. When you say it's nothing more than a choice, you are not being neutral. You are taking sides. Am I right?
Anyway, I'm done. If you want to respond again, feel free. But of course, I understand if you'd prefer to call it quits. You have been very kind and very respectful and I wish you nothing but the best. Take care, Kathy. You have helped me clarify my own views, so for that, I thank you.
Ted
Ted
September 9, 2008 - 12:31 ET by kathy5319Ted,
The discourse here, has given me alot to think about. Also, I do not think all Christians are the same. I do hold certain sterotypes, as do we all, including Christians of other Christians. There are among Christians of all denominations, thoughtful unified pro-choice groups stating reasons as to why they support Pro-Choice legislation.
Also, your candidate McCain believes that life begins at conception, and I assume would share your argument about protecting the dignity of life at its earliest embryonic form. McCain advocates embryonic stem cell research. That's not neutral.
Ted (2)
September 9, 2008 - 16:22 ET by kathy5319Ted,
I want to express a few more thoughts concerning the pro-life position and moreso the Christian Right and government. In your faith I assume, inextricably linked to your position is the belief in absolutes, that there are clear distinctions, right, wrong and that truth is not relative. This same ideology is held by all Christians,
who espouse spiritual, moral and cultural absolutes and support them by Scripture. As we know there exists such diversity among the conclusions of these groups, leading various brands of Christians to claim other brands as "not true Christians", One perfect example is the debate between Arminians and Calvinists, of which there is no common ground.
John Wesley wrote of Calvin's God:
"a doctrine full of blasphemy" and the God of predestination "as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust"
The majority of Christians who first settled America were Calvinistic Puritans, as well as Anabaptists and Quakers who theologically held irreconcileable doctrinal differences, concerning baptism, predestination and free-will. They had one thing in common, they wanted religious freedom "freedom to practice their religion". The Puritan Calvinists belief system does not/ nor did not allow for any pluralism with regards to their belief in God, and believed that Elect Christians and Reprobates must conform to Biblical law, and it is the role of the Elect to keep society moral and godly.. and everyone in line. Case in point was Calvin's Geneva, which was a theocracy. (And Salem) While it is true, that many of the Founding Fathers denominational ties were on record as Calvinistic, not all were, and many were Deists, Masons, and Unitarians.
My point is that the concensus drawn by these men, regardless of their denominations, was not to create a Christian Government, (and you probably know this) opting to recognize only nature's god/creator. The conclusions and allowances for religious pluralism even among Christians, was definitely not the language of Calvinism, but more of Masons, Deists, and Unitarians; Yet Calvinists insist on taking credit for the religious freedom in America. At the time, the Puritans considered the Founding Fathers "liberals".
Thomas Jefferson wrote this:
"It is not so in the districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power. Systematical in grasping at an ascendancy over all other sects, they aim, like the Jesuits, at engrossing the education of the country, are hostile to every institution they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others begin to attend at all to that object."
and aslo this:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to
comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
My reason for bringing this up in the context of our prior discussion, is that the headship of the Political Christian Right is a Calvinistic offshoot in philosophy concerning their desire to "take back America for Christ" and disdain for democracy as it was intended. Case in point, their views towards homosexuality vs. other Christians positions, who may disagree with it and consider it a sin, yet, are not as extreme as the Christian Right. Calvin's opponents to this day point out that Calvin was a murderer who had Servetus burned at the stake for heresy over his interpretation of the Trinity. Calvinisits retort (with icy relativism) that it wasn't murder, it was the legal code of the time to exterminate heretics.
What I'm getting at, is that regardless if you are a Calvinist, Methodist, or Catholic, there is not one voice that speaks for the Bible, and among these groups alone are people on both sides of the issue of Abortion who yet believe in absolutes. This country was designed to house intolerant Christians as well as tolerant Christians, as well as allowing religious liberty to non-Christians, even infidels. While this has nothing to do directly with the issue of abortion, I think it makes a point that Biblical Absolutes as basis for ending the dispute is unAmerican. I think it also makes the case that Christian Fundamentalism needs to be kept in check.
Holy cow! You have no
September 9, 2008 - 16:27 ET by Clear thinkerHoly cow!
You have no idea the can of worms you just opened.
Moron’s On Parade
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Wow Kathy! You did your homework!
September 9, 2008 - 23:36 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
Thanks for the replies. I feel a need to point out that I never made any kind of religious argument. Why not? Because I'm not a religious person. I try to be practical and discriminating (but only in the most positive and productive sense of the word).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your previous e-mail can be boiled down to this: "If it feels good, do it. And if anyone tells you otherwise, then they must be a religious nutcase who burns people at the stake." If this is not what you are saying, then please set me straight.
Your post has reminded me of something I heard recently on Dennis Prager's radio show. A caller called in and took issue with him for making moral judgements. I'll provide the transcript here for you to read and consider. What do you think of the caller's argument? Do agree with him? I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Here it is:
Dennis: Let me go to San Antonio, Texas--this is important to me--Jason in San Antonio. Dennis Prager. Hi.
Jason: Hi, Dennis, uh. I'm very upset with you. You have...
Dennis: You're "what" with me? I'm sorry?
Jason: ...upset with you.
Dennis: You're upset with me. Okay. You're upset with me because...
Jason: Because you continue to perpetuate these archaic notions of Liberalism and Conservativism, of Right versus Wrong, Good versus Bad. Those ideas have been proven to be obsolete. Right now, the Democratic Party is...are the only Americans who are seeking to uh...bring America together under the common good. You stated earlier...
Dennis: No, wait...wait. You just said...wait. You just said to me that good and evil are archaic concepts and now you're talking to me about "the common good". So you're using the term you think that is archaic.
Jason: Well, the common good is not the old notion of "good". It is the new notion of...
Dennis: ...A NEW notion of good...
Jason: Yes. It's a feeling. That's what we do. Everything is based on our emotions now. Just like Lucille Ball in "I Love Lucy". We do the things that make us feel good in the moment. Therefore, this idea of long-term goodness and viability...they don't work anymore.
Dennis: Listen, I want to thank you. I'm not going to even take issue with you. Jason, you have clarified exactly what I worry about America. I...I...want to keep this call and...I'm not kidding. And it's certainly never to make fun of Jason. Jason embodies what has happened to half of America. See? "Good and Evil" are...is an archaic notion. "Right and Wrong" is an archaic notion. Rather, we should go with what the emotions and the feelings of the moment are. You have described the Left of America perfectly. That's exactly right. That's why the emotions are so deep here.
[By the way, this was during one of his live broadcasts at the Republican convention. I'm sorry I don't know the exact day or time.]
Anyway, Kathy. I'm hoping my arguments are making some sense. And just one final point, you claimed that you don't hold cartoonish stereotypes of people like me. From what I've read so far, your whole argument for the Pro-choice side is entirely based on cartoonish stereotypes. I'm hoping you can change my mind on that score. Thanks very much.
With kind regards,
Ted
Damn!!!!
September 9, 2008 - 23:43 ET by RESTLESS 1That idiot caller just had to be from San Antonio. :>/
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Ted -
September 10, 2008 - 03:40 ET by kathy5319Hi Ted,
I don't know how you concluded what you did from my post... and what you didn't conclude from it.
While although I did assume you are generically Christian, I internally made no assumption as to if it was an identification with Christian culture or devout. I think that Christians are diverse. What I think you are seeing as "stereotype" is what I meant to be this: the Political Christian Right leadership and agenda - and the fact that they are Pro-Life. That would be correct, and that is my disclaimer. And in my aim, are not individuals who hold a Pro-Life position, although I'm Pro-Choice, but the Political Machine of Christian Right Politics... a specific group that is also, Pro-Life... and not indicative of all sects that are Pro-Life -- (because of their tactics and because they are dangerous and won't stop there)
It's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing entirely. It's democracy itself.
The caller transcript to me:
Emotions are the litmus test, and there is no good and evil.
Represented the 1960's calling in from Woodstock, which I think mainly was a time of extreme selfish youthful rebellion. Although, I do think there were some constructive fruits, too.
Question Authority... Absolutely, yes.
Some would argue that non-religious people or atheists or agnostics have no base for a moral compass. I disagree.
I painstakingly tried to provide a synopsis of Christian American denominational pluralism and its challenges. That the Political Christian Right does not reflect the values nor doctrine of all Christians. That different Christian denominations come to vastly different conclusions, And I was not talking about emotions but about their interpretation of Scriptural Absolutes... of good and evil, of the trinity, of whether Christ died for all mankind, or some.
And not all Christianity is Pro-Life... And these also believe in good and evil and you can dismiss them entirely and conclude that their version of good and evil and mine is (really) emotion or a fraud. And John Wesley can call Calvin's God -- the Devil, and visa versa. And each will and can write books supporting their case, quoting scripture.
Meanwhile - I think the Founding Fathers ironically really did have Providence and nature's God on their side in their wisdom.
Ted implores Kathy NOT to devalue human life...
September 10, 2008 - 11:03 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
Thanks again for replying. I'm enjoying our exchange. But I have to be honest....I still have no idea why you believe it's okay to kill human beings inside the womb. I asked earlier if you could identify the moment a baby gains it's human rights, but I never got an answer. So, I'll ask it again. When is it NOT okay to kill a human baby? If you can identify that moment and defend your reasoning, I will understand you better.
"I don't know how you concluded what you did from my post..." As I said, Kathy, I was open to you setting me straight. It's just that your detailed rundown on religious history and the dangers of religious people felt a bit off-topic to me. I thought, "Why is she talking about religion? What has religion got to do with it?" You see, I never once made a religious argument. I explained to you very clearly why I think life begins at conception. My reasoning was based on two things: logic and science. If I conclude that human life begins at conception, then I must also conclude that it has human rights. If murdering an innocent human being is wrong (and I'm sure you agree with me on that) then murdering the most innocent of human beings (i.e. a baby in the womb) is also wrong. If it's wrong, then we should not try to repackage it as a simple procedure that can't be judged or disputed. And we can't live under the delusion that it has no negative consequences for the society at large.
When you talked about the "Political Machine of Christian Right Politics" I noticed a rather hateful tone. What's with that? Why are you so hostile? When you say they are "dangerous and won't stop there" what else can I conclude? These people want to elevate the value of human life. How is that dangerous?
If you want to talk about danger, then let's talk about the so-called "Pro-choice" movement. These folks want to cheapen human life. They want to make it disposable. You have to be honest enough and clear-thinking enough to see that this mindset poses far more dangers to us than what Christians propose. To illustrate this, I don't have to site examples from ancient history. All I have to do is read today's headlines:
Example 1- http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D932M7JO0&show_article=1 An Ohio woman put her month-old baby in a microwave oven and killed her. Why? Because she got into an argument with her boyfriend over the baby's paternity. See? The woman's feelings were much more important to her than the life of her baby. Had she been raised to believe human life was sacred rather than disposable, she would have never done such a thing.
Example 2- http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/09/09/new-line-attack-palin-behar-cnn-shes-very-mean-animals Joy Behar finds Sarah Palin's meanness to animals to be far more troubling than the killing of unborn children. Do I have to explain to you why this is simply unbelievable?
Example 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA "The Earth First" Eco-group mournes the death of a tree. If they have this much compassion for a tree, they can't possibly have enough compassion left over for human beings who "slaughter" trees by the billions. In fact, groups like this compare the lumber industry to the Holocaust. To these people, killing babies must be a good thing. Fewer living humans means fewer dead trees.
Example 4- http://archive.redstate.com/story/2006/4/2/233421/0795 This one is truly unbelievable. Dr. Eric Pianka believes that humans are no better than bacteria. This Texas Professor wants to spread a disease like ebola with the express pupose of killing 9 out of every 10 human beings. Do you think this guy agrees with you or agrees with me about the sanctity of a human baby in the womb?
Kathy. I could list example after example which demonstrate the profound dangers of your views. You talk about freedom but you fail to understand that the most brutal and dehumanizing dictatorships of human history found great utility in aborting their unwanted children.
Speaking of dictatorships, here's my final point:
Hitler's greatest crime against humanity was undoubtedly his systematic genocide of the Jewish people.
The United States' greatest crime against humanity was undoubtedly the enslavement of Black Africans kidnapped from their homeland.
What two elements do these monstrous acts of human evil have in common?
1) They were both predicated on the false proposition that their victims were sub-human.
2) They were both done in order to satisfy the selfish needs and conveniences of the victimizers.
If the victims are robbed of their humanity, then they have no human rights. If they have no human rights, then what's to prevent them from being raped, tortured, enslaved, murdered or aborted? Don't you see? When you classify an unborn baby as being "sub-human" and unworthy of human rights, then you are following in the footsteps of Nazi's and slave traders.
This is not meant to insult you, Kathy. Understand this. I'm not comparing you to Hitler. If I were to do that, I would be saying that you are evil. And, of course, I would never do that. But I honestly believe that you have not thought very carefully about this issue. You are not thinking. You are feeling. You are a product of a world that is intent on converting us into tree-hugging, dehumanized narcissists. Sure, humans can do evil in the name of Christianity. But we can do far more evil in the name of Secular Humanism and its most sacred of sacriments: abortion. Think about it.
Ted
September 10, 2008 - 13:55 ET by kathy5319Hi Ted,
Let me say... I have thought about this issue, I will continue to think about it. And it is a difficult one, absolutely, no doubt it is. But if today, I have to commit to a stand for sake of argument, and my summation, stance and why, I submit the following. I don't think there is much else I can say or you can say. I appreciate the dialogue with you.
*************************************************
You stated:
"When you talked about the "Political Machine of Christian Right Politics" I noticed a rather hateful tone. What's with that? Why are you so hostile? When you say they are "dangerous and won't stop there" what else can I conclude? These people want to elevate the value of human life. How is that dangerous?"
I've stated why at least a few times, My reason for stating that the Political Christian Right Leadership and Agenda is Dominionist Theocracy and Anti-American. I quoted Thomas Jefferson, who then must have also been hateful for his loathesome rejection of it. Can't say any more Ted, because you are twisting my words.
I support that it must be a woman's choice and hers alone to bring a pregnancy to term, or to choose to terminate the pregnancy. I do not believe that it is moral for government and others to legislate that the rights of the fetus take precedence over individual womens bodies, decision making and their personal difficulty/circumstance for carrying the pregnancy to term. Further, the skewing of all concern to the defense of the dignity of potential bringing to term of the fetus, at all costs over the person of the woman, irrespective of her own decisions, health, age, circumstances, ability to cope, whether she was a victim of rape or incest I cannot support.
Further, I think a fetus is a non-viable living entity with potential, I don't think it is ours to say that it takes precedence over the woman's agency.
Further, the realized outcome of outlawing a woman's right to choose: The priveleged and elite and mistresses of elected officials and mega-church leaders will quietly have their abortions. The growingly poor will meet back alleys and women and young girls will die, because "we value life". Instead, I think we ought value life, by valuing women, and building a society infrastructure more condusive for better outcomes. I think that society ought instead look for ways to counter abortion as a CHOICE, through education, knowledge of contracepive preventive methods, AND by discouraging promiscuity, and negative images and role models and building self-respect among girls and boys about healthy sexual identity.
Further, I think that women without the OPTION - is also sheer misogyny. Its very telling... again I will say it again, that McCain at 72 is passionate about 'life beginning at conception" over the choices of women, while he discarded a woman, the mother of his children, had affairs and opted for a younger new wife. And yet, has the gall to define and dictate morality and abstinence (as if he championed this), and somehow yet conclude that embryonic stem cell researh is something he promotes.
Sorry I twisted your words, Kathy.
September 10, 2008 - 20:19 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
I'm sorry if I twisted the meaning of your words. Perhaps I was reading into them too much. There is one thing that is very prevalent with folks on your side of the issue. They often let a deep and troubling hatred for Christians creep into their arguments. And this kind of overt hatred is totally irrational. It's all based on feelings. Some of your tone and the fact that you went off on a direct attack at religious people led me to believe that you were hostile. I didn't mean to twist your words. I was trying to understand your argument.
"I think a fetus is a non-viable living entity..." Why do you think this? There's no way you can possibly know if it's viable or not. It's as if you were to find a box on your doorstep that said, "This box contains garbage. Or maybe it contains a living baby," and you shrug your shoulders and stuff it into an incinerator. Trust me, Kathy. You are not thinking these issues through. There are profound moral issues and fatal consequences.
Let me demonstrate how I think issues through. You basically argued that we should kill babies in the womb because if we don't, women are going to have dangerous back-alley abortions. Right? You are worried about the unintended consequences of outlawing abortion. Well, first of all, I never once argued that we should outlaw abortion and I never made demands that women in extreme situations should be denied that option. Remember what I said about the father hanging by the rope? He let himself fall to his death rather than risk the lives of his children. If he cuts the rope in a normal situation, he is committing an immoral act called suicide. If he does it in an extreme situation, he is a hero, guided by moral truths. If a doctor saves a woman's life by aborting her baby, then that too, is a moral act. So please understand this. I'm Pro-choice, but I want everyone to choose life knowing full-well that abortion is immoral in a normal situation. The Pro-abortion people want abortion to be no better or worse than giving birth. They don't want to suffer the scorn and judgement of a pro-life society.
As for women in back-alley abortions, I feel that we should not lower our standards out of fear of what others might do. It's like O.J. Simpson. Many people made this argument, "Yes, he murdered his wife and Ron Goldman but we had better not send him to jail because blacks will get angry and we'll have more L.A. riots." There are many other examples of this kind of thinking. When you make that argument about unintended consequences, you must understand that it's a very shallow argument. And it is one-sided. Why don't you read these articles from my previous post. Those are unintended consequences, too. Why don't those bother you?
Anyway, I have to go. Thanks for the interesting discussion and again, sorry I twisted your words.
Ted
"I think a fetus is a
September 10, 2008 - 20:37 ET by general company"I think a fetus is a non-viable living entity..." Why do you think this? There's no way you can possibly know if it's viable or not.
Hhmm, I think it is pretty well proven that a "fetus" is a perfectly viable entity . Shit, you two are proof. We all survived, how the hell is that not a viable entity?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Miscarriages and the viability of a fetus.
September 10, 2008 - 22:34 ET by Ted ClarkeHello there General Company,
You wrote, "I think it is pretty well proven that a "fetus" is a perfectly viable entity . Shit, you two are proof. We all survived, how the hell is that not a viable entity?"
I like what you are saying, but to be fair to Kathy, some fetuses are unviable. If not, then what is a miscarriage? Why do they happen? Who knows? Perhaps the answer is that they are simply unviable. Nature or God or whatever puts an end to them and starts over, for whatever reason. My issue with Kathy is that she somehow has the power to decide which lives are viable and which lives aren't. I challenged her on that point. Fair enough?
Thanks.
Ted - (9/11)
September 11, 2008 - 08:03 ET by kathy5319Religion:
We've all had our own history, experiences and time to develop our thoughts and conslusions about religion and doctrine ahd evaluate its history, diversity, outcomes -- good and bad, etc. To suggest that I have a deep hatred for Christians is wrong. I was raised Catholic, my family is Catholic. I've struggled to understand what I believe, have been steeped with the message of the Gospel, have been profoundly impacted with that message and have had a long journey as consequence of being challenged by Protestant Christianity, etc. After much time, I've evolved to this point concerning what I actually believe about the Bible, doctrine, and Church History in all its diversity. There is much to love and there is much to hate. One could take that out of context, but it wouldn't be fair.
Ted, you said this to me:
"If a doctor saves a woman's life by aborting her baby, then that too, is a moral act. So please understand this. I'M PRO-CHOICE, but I want everyone to choose life knowing full-well that abortion is immoral in a normal situation." (and you think we/society must "scorn them" by presuming to understand and know their personal reasons, ie, whether or not their reason was because they were to lazy to buy condoms).
You make no sense to me. I have been trying to explain to you from the beginning, That I am "Pro-choice"... but would hope that A. It doesn't come down to this B. I would hope that people choose Life.
Only difference is that, after saying so.... I'm going to respect the fact that it is a choice, no matter how difficult, no matter how much I would hope otherwise. But your position, refuses to honor its own commitment.
How can you state to me that you never once argued that we should outlaw abortions. Are you saying you will allow abortions if it saves a woman's life? Is that what you mean?
However, since you have pushed me to define myself, my views, answer if the fetus is a person, or a lump of tissue, and other questions raised, and told me in a sense, that "Pro-Choice" is actually "Pro-Abortion" etc. I have tried in a short space of days, to make decisions about points in the whole debate I haven't examined, to challenge them or answer, I guess what must be answered, in order to state "I'm Pro-Choice" or otherwise. ((To date -- I have arrived at some conclusions, that I wouldn't have otherwise, ie about the Fetus))
I will address them, but can't today due to my schedule.
Bob Dylan can clear things up, Kathy.
September 11, 2008 - 11:28 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
I wrote a lot over the past few days so I'm not surprised that some of it might not make sense to you. Let me clarify. There is right and wrong and we have to know which is which. Do you understand?
If you cut my leg off with the intention of killing me, then I will judge that to be....shall we say...."bad". However, if you cut my leg off with the intention of saving my life, then I must judge it to be something different...in this case, "good". Does this not make perfect sense?
When it comes to abortion, we have to be similarly discriminating. We have to be able to say, "This abortion is right, but that abortion is wrong.". Folks on my side of the debate are trying to do just that. We are trying to advocate moral clarity, on this issue and many others.
Folks on your side of the debate are different. Your prevailing sentiment seems to be "anything goes". And because of this, you are obliged to attack anyone or anything that draws divisions between good and evil. Likewise, you hail anyone or anything that breaks down those divisions.
Take George Bush and Barrack Obama for example. Bush draws a line in the sand and says, "You're either with us or you're against us." He talks about "evil-doers" and the "Axis of Evil". People like me say, "Absolutely right!" People like you scream bloody murder.
Now look at Barrack Obama. He looks at Russia's invasion of Georgia and concludes that both sides are equally bad and should show equal restraint. His kindergarten fantasy of "Unity!" has obviously made it impossible for him to tell the good guys apart from the bad. Unity? Give me a break. Look at what comes from such nonsense. Folks on the Left look at a mass-murdering, blood-thirsty dictator like Saddam Hussein and fall all over themselves in a desperate attempt to reinvent him as a sympathetic truth-teller who was wronged by that Hitler of the 21st century, George W. Bush. They dillute the evil of our enemy and dillute the goodness of our leader, making them indistinguishable from each other. Actually, that's not true. Given a choice to abort one or the other at birth, they would certainly abort Bush...for the good of the world.
I mean, be real. Can't you see the number that this whacky Church of Indiscriminateness has done to you and your ideological brethren? Isn't it obvious? Saddam feeds innocent people to hungy lions. He rapes and murders thousands upon thousands of innocent people for sport. He drops little children, feet first, into wood chippers. He chokes off water supplies to cities and mass exterminates entire populations with chemical weapons. He fills countless mass graves all across the dessert. Yet to folks like you, he's simply "a bad guy".
But Bush is the true villain. He carries a Bible and wears a flag pin. He's the spawn of Satan. We must try him for war crimes. (This is the stuff of alternate universes.)
The twisted reasoning that compels people on your side of the fence to attack George Bush and defend Saddam Hussein is the same twisted reasoning that compels them to urge a woman to abort her baby rather than give birth to it.
I'll sign off, Kathy, with a verse from Bob Dylan, who happens to be very good with words. It's from, "Ring Them Bells". Everything I've written basically boils down to this. If I have not made sense, then maybe ol' Bob can clear things up for you:
"Ring them bells St. Catherine from the top of the room.
Ring them from the fortress for the lillies that bloom.
For the lines are long and the fighting is strong
And they're breaking down the distance between right and wrong."
Ted - Bobby Dylan backs Obama
September 11, 2008 - 17:01 ET by kathy5319Ted,
I cannot resist telling you that :)
Yes, me too... I like Dylan, alot. And the number of times his words pop in my head and color my thoughts are numerous. And you obviously beat me in the race to quote him. I surely don't know his views on Women's right to Choose... he smartly remains silent.. such that everybody who loves to disagree, agrees that Dylan is a national treasure. Later to respond to other points.
http://www.femalefir...
Bob Dylan Backs Obama.
3 months ago 09th Jun 07:17
Bob Dylan has offered his support to U.S. presidential wannabe Barrack Obama in an interview with a London newspaper.
The folk rock icon tells The Times he has become disillusioned about the state of America and feels Obama offers the country hope.
Dylan states, "Right now America is in a state of upheaval. Poverty is demoralising. You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor.
Comment on this Article
"But we've got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up. Barack Obama. He's redefining what a politician is, so we'll have to see how things play out.
"Am I hopeful? Yes, I'm hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to".
Dylan isn't the only musical heavyweight supporting the Democrat - Bruce Springsteen, will.i.am and Stevie Wonder have also offered the Senator their support.
Ted - 9/11 post #2
September 11, 2008 - 11:25 ET by kathy5319Ok Ted,
Something else I would like you to think about, concerning our discussion, your responses, which have been praised for their patience and the fact that neither one of us hurl insults and are respectful. I am well aware that otherwise I wouldn't still be dialoguing with you, because of some incredibly crass things said (here/elsewhere on this blog either direclty to me/about me). When persons here went ahead and added an "AMEN" or, then just went ahead and responded -- hmmm? In all of my internet activities ie, posting in a forum on various topics, discussions with people who disagree with me. Even with the rather anonymous nature of the web, I have never resorted to those types of responses. Nor do I resort to stooping to that level.
What I'm saying is that you have responded back to those praising your responses, all the while heving no issue with the above... none that I can tell.
So while you yet think that you are being very patient (and you are... so am I) and inside are so sure you are taking the higher moral ground and are keeping good company with other high-minded individuals, please consider that. Because, I'm a leftist liberal that wants to destroy family values.
Even when it started because I inflamed this group with my statement about Palin, question the Trig rumor, and stated my reason WHY the QUESTION was valid... because Palin's candidacy platform and the Pro-Life position has everything to do with personal, very personal female choices... a person named Jack Bauer stated this:
***********
This is the scumbag opinions we've come down to. A mother has to "prove" to a moron like you something about the birth of her child.
What an offensive jerk you truly are. Utterly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately leftists have no shame. You wouldn't know "truth" if it kicked you in the ass.
By the way, everything Maher does or says is for publicity and ratings. Stick that in your birth canal.
********
Aside from the fact that Jack thinks I am scum, apparently he cares deeply about women and mothers and whether or not they need to prove anything about their pregancies. He cares deeply for teenage girls being dragged through the mud in scandal and shame.
I don't want to turn this back to a Sarah Palin topic. The topic is abortion... and this post is about A. Respectfulness B. Caring deeply about women and personal thngs.
Here's another message for Kathy.
September 11, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
I just read your most recent post about respectfullness and caring. I have to be honest. I'm not quite sure what you were getting at. Are you taking issue with me for responding to people who said kind things to me? Should I have defended you from crass remarks? Can you set me straight on this? And if I offended you, I'd like to be clear about it so I can either explain myself or take things back. You've been kind to me and you deserve no less from me. Thanks.
Ted
Ted - 9/11 #3
September 11, 2008 - 15:35 ET by kathy5319I don't know Ted. Regarding crassness and my comments. Perhaps this was nothing more than an observation that I felt necessary to make right here. I'm not upset with you.
But what I also was pointing out is Jack's and others extreme hypocrisy (and sexism, by choosing to reply in such manner) about any concern whatsoever about privacy and the female and her uterus. No, you want an inquisition... Oh, I get it. I understand why. It is because you are convinced that if she terminates her pregnancy she's killing a child. Since the argument demands most Pro-Lifers to be totally purist in their definition to when is the fetus a living person, you (collectively you) are crusading the cause for embryos... whether or not they have implanted, miscarry or in jeapordy of not coming to term... and what to do, and what goes on in the head and uterus of the countless women you don't even know, and do they feel miserable enough if they are considering an abortion.
You still haven't answered my question... Please explain:
Do you think Abortions should be available to women? Under what circumstances, etc.
Thank you, Ted.
Bob Dylan's words contradict his politics.
September 11, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Ted ClarkeHello again, Kathy,
Glad to hear you're a Dylan fan. But I believe his personal politics of today have nothing to do with his quote. And they certainly don't have anything to do with my ultimate point. Rather than evading it with a non sequitur, why not address my point head on? Agree with it. Refute it. Cite examples that prove me wrong. But please don't suggest that Bob Dylan's support for Obama weakens my argument or strengthens yours. That really makes no sense.
"You still haven't answered my question... Please explain:
Do you think Abortions should be available to women? Under what circumstances, etc." I made a point of answering this question very carefully. Two examples were specific in illustrating my views. If a man cuts his rope in order to save his children, it's a moral act. If a friend cuts off my arm in order to save my life, it's a moral act. If a doctor aborts a baby in order to save the mother's life, it's a moral act. Under what circumstances? Under circumstances guided by a respect for human life and an ability to judge right from wrong. The central pillar of the Pro-abortion movement is the destruction of any and all such moral distinctions. Do you see?
With issues of rape, I am very conflicted, because the definition of "rape" is changing. For example, if a girl drinks too much, seduces a guy and then gets impregnated, I don't consider this rape. But nowadays, when rape is being redefined as anything the woman says it is, she can wake up the next day and file charges against the guy. Then, for the sake of convenience, she can abort the baby on the grounds that she was "raped". I want us to be able to tell right from wrong. Does this answer your question?
Incidentally, you never clearly answered my question. When does a baby gain its human right to live? The second trimester? The third? An hour before he or she is born? A minute? When the head is outside of the mother? When the shoulders appear? The feet? Before the umbilical cord is cut? After the umbilical cord is cut? When? You have to be able to define the moment and explain it or you'll end up in Barrack Obama territory where killing the baby after it's born is okay or in Peter Singer territory where killing the baby six months after it's born is okay.
"I don't know Ted. Regarding crassness and my comments. Perhaps this was nothing more than an observation that I felt necessary to make right here." When I share my thoughts on Left-wing blogs, I get hammered with foul-mouthed tirades, hate and bile that is far worse than anything here. With regards to some of the people who have had more heated exchanges with you, why not do what the Left always demands of Americans. When our Islamo-fascists enemies fly planes into our buildings or blow up our embassies or slam explosive-laden boats into our ships or saw the heads off of our people, or strap suicide vests to children who blow up our soldiers, folks on the Left demand that we try to understand their anger. Can you do that? Can you try to understand their anger. If you can, then perhaps you won't feel so bad. You'll understand that they are simply offended by the serious trend in our society to make human life disposable. If we, as a people, can't be offended by that, then we can't be offended by anything.
Thanks again, Kathy. I really appreciate your time and attention. Take care.
Oh, one more thing. What's your response to my argument that your side is anti-woman? When you accused Pro-choicers like me of being misogynists, you didn't back it up. You simply tossed out an empty assertion. When I countered, I gave you several reasons to back up my claim that you were totally wrong. I was hoping you would come back and take me to task, Any thoughts? Any defense? What do you think? Thanks.
Hi Ted
September 12, 2008 - 00:07 ET by kathy5319The reason why I haven't responded to all of your points, is because I haven't gotten to them yet. It's a slow process for me. I'm not trying to ignore them.
BTW, when I posted that Dylan backs Obama, I did state that I know nothing of his stance on this issue, and that Dylan is smart(?) in a way to remain enigmatic with the media and his fans. I just posted it, because I couldn't resist.
TED... I didn't ask you if you *think* it's a moral act.
(Pretend I'm Nancy Grace)... Ted, Should women have LEGAL access to an abortion in the US? TED??? YES or NO!!! (You've watched Nancy Grace.... a simple Yes or No.
(I'm not asking you if you think it's moral)
Since I know that you want to answer this with an illustration, instead of an answer... and I already have read your analogy... here is the space where I'm asking you to elaborate if desired, BUT with Legal disclaimers you think should be added in the instanc of a YES, if you are Legally allowing for any scenario of choice.
Again... Yes or No
Disclaimer/Conditions - not analogy!
Thank you
To Kathy...
September 12, 2008 - 07:48 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
To answer your question clearly, the answer is "yes"...However, it is a conditional "yes".
But your question sounds like this to me: "Yes, or no. Do I have the right to cut your arm off?"
I hope this definitive answer clears things up.
And with regards to your comments about the Dylan quote, I stand corrected. You explained yourself very well and I can see how you were just having a bit of fun with your comeback. Nicely done. And just so you know, I really love to praise people when they make solid and reasonable points. I really don't want to always take issue with what you say. If you make a great point, believe me, I will notice it and give you credit for it.
Thanks, Kathy.
Ted - (we're not done)
September 12, 2008 - 05:26 ET by kathy5319Thank you Ted,
I also appreciate your ideas and honesty and I respect your convictions.
But we're not done on the Yes/No. Sorry, I'm not trying to be obnoxious.
Ok.. I get it I forced you to state, as you say w/o chance to explain, etc. -- to be Yes
Then I stated that I wanted you to qualify, IF Yes, what the conditions ought be, i.e., - in case of rape, life in jeapordy, and also some distinction pregnancy time-frames.
I know how you feel about this morally, I want to know how your stance would look legally...
Nancy Grace and I need clarity.
Hi Kathy,First off, you
September 12, 2008 - 07:26 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
First off, you didn't force me to state anything. You asked me a fair question and I answered it. However, I'm confused as to why my answer is not sufficient. And don't worry, you're not being obnoxious.
My answer was, "Yes, but it depends." Give me a situation in which an abortion is performed and I'll tell you if I think it's a moral act or not. I tried to cover all possible corners by establishing guidelines that place a premium on innocent life. In other words, it all depends on the person's motive.
Anyway, more later. I have to go.
Ted
Ted - 9/12
September 12, 2008 - 07:34 ET by kathy5319Hi Ted,
I'm not asking you to stipulate when you believe an abortion is moral or not. I'm asking you, based upon your convictions and morality to say something like this... AS IF you are writing a law.
"A woman has the right to choose"
Only under the following conditions:
ie., Rape, Incest, Life is endangered.
"This abortion can take place in the following time frames of pregnancy"
Please list...
A woman should have access to birth control: Yes or No
My motive... clarity Ted.
Thanks
Kathy, the moral issue is the only issue.
September 12, 2008 - 08:57 ET by Ted ClarkeHello Kathy,
You wrote, "I'm not asking you to stipulate when you believe an abortion is moral or not. I'm asking you, based upon your convictions and morality to say something like this... AS IF you are writing a law...."
Well, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to pretend that I am. But Kathy, I never argued that laws should be passed to ban abortion or punish offenders. Frankly, I don't understand why you are asking me about that. It only makes sense in the context of me making a legal argument. Perhaps the problem is that I'm focused on moral issues while you are focused on legal ones. You wrote, "I'm not asking you to stipulate when you believe an abortion is moral or not...." My response to that is, "Well, there's nothing more to say, then. I simply cannot divorce myself from the moral implications of abortion. If I find a bag labled, "This is garbage or maybe this is a living baby," I have to follow my moral compass and err on the side of life. So, to be absolutely clear, here is my opinion in a nut shell. I'll set it apart and highlight it so you can understand me. And if you understand me, then there will be no need for you to ask your Nancy Grace question again. Here it is. Are you ready?.......Drum roll please........:
I would much rather protect a bag of garbage that I mistakenly call a human being than kill a human being that I mistakenly call a bag of garbage.
Does this make any sense to you? I hope so. But if you insist that I ignore the moral implications of killing a baby in the womb, then I'm afraid you will be making zero sense to me.
Ah, there's that word "hope". That reminds me of something I wanted to say earlier. But I'll save that for the next post. For now, though, I'll leave it here.
Thanks Kathy. I hope all is well with you.
Ted - the Legal Issue was my only issue
September 12, 2008 - 14:21 ET by kathy5319Ted,
(from the very beginning of this thread... my only issue was the Legal issue and context)
And specifically **the Morality of the Legal Position*** that a **Woman has/should have a Legal Right to Choose**, not as to whether abortions are immoral, which of course we covered.
And concerning you stating that the Moral issues are the only issue, I'm not saying they aren't, in the manner you speak of. But, still I was coming from somewhere else... which I understood as: Whether or Not it's Moral to support this Legal position: that it is a woman's right to choose... and that Legal position is what I call "Pro-Choice"
I'm very sorry for miscommunicating... maybe you can now see why I resorted to bullying you for what I thought was a simple answer.
Even though you stated at least a few times you weren't suggesting outlawing abortion. Other things you stated did not jive, etc. and so on.
Sorry -- sorry,
(and thank you)
How about the legal question of Roe V. Wade
September 12, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
No need to apologize. Not at all. You and I are in agreement in that we both want clarity.
If you want to talk about legal issues of abortion, let me ask you a straightforward question:
Should we Americans, as a free people, empowered with authority over our three branches of Government, have the right to turn back Roe V. Wade on the grounds that it was bad law foisted upon us by a Supreme Court whose allegiences to the Constitution were corrupted by its allegiences to Leftist ideology? In other words, should our freedom to vote on the issue of abortion be honored? Yes or no?
Thanks Kathy.
Ted - 9/12 Roe v Wade
September 12, 2008 - 23:25 ET by kathy5319Ted,
No. I don't think the issue should be up to the states. That is my opinion.
It is my observation that to suggest this is only in hope that states will vote to strip a Woman's Right to Legally choose to have an abortion. I object to the notion. And I think it is a fundamental/privacy issue, that should not be up for vote.
"...Supreme Court whose allegiences to the Constitution were corrupted by its allegiences to Leftist ideology?"
So after your committing to me that, you don't support outlawing abortion... (after we went through all of painful clarification... that you believe abortion is immoral, but that you support (with regret) that a woman should have legal access and ability to make her own choice, etc. etc.
You then state this... It appears you speak out of both sides of your mouth Ted.
Your tell is showing for "Leftist Ideology" - whatever the heck you're convinced that is - and stereotypes and prejudice in spades.
Its apparent... *Some* conservatives push push and then some. I found this article on McCain's moral dilemma on this issue back in 2000 as he was pushed in like manner to eventually tell people what they wanted to hear. Soon we can all be stammering and break everybody down 'til bullies win. I hope you read it. Please read it.
http://archives.cnn....
An open vote on Roe doesn't equal a full-out ban, Kathy.
September 13, 2008 - 12:06 ET by Ted ClarkeHello Kathy,
I'm sad to say this, but you got me all wrong when you wrote:
"It appears you speak out of both sides of your mouth, Ted."
No. I'm simply arguing in favor of freedom, as opposed to you, who is arguing against it. I think we, as a free people, should have the right to determine the moral character of our country. I feel we should have the right to re-examine Roe v. Wade in light of the fact that many Constitutional scholars question its constitutionality. And I know for a fact that the Supreme Court is not Congress, meaning that the Justices are not empowered to legislate from the bench.
Kathy, I didn't argue that abortion should be outlawed. And I didn't even argue that Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I simply suggested that the American people should have the right to vote on the matter. Am I not making myself understood? Aren't the distinctions obvious?
Incidentally, if anyone is speaking out of both sides of the mouth, it is you. Your arguments have been all about rights and freedoms. But when I asked you about Roe v. Wade you wrote, "I don't think the issue should be up to the States." And you said it "should not be up for vote". So in your view, The American people should be kept "out of the loop" when it comes to framing the moral and legal issues that impact all of our lives. In your view, our rights and freedoms should take a back seat to our need to kill babies in the womb. In your view, unborn Americans have no right to live and born Americans have no right to question Supreme Court rulings. The guys in black robes have spoken and that's all that needs to be said. End of issue. Have a nice day.
Well, all I can say is that I disagree with you, Kathy. I hope my words make sense and that your criticism of me will seem less justified.
Have a good one, Kathy and thank you.
Ted
Prejudiced, Kathy? Are you serious?
September 13, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Ted ClarkeHey Kathy,
I have just a bit more here. You wrote,
"Your tell is showing for 'Leftist Ideology' - whatever the heck you're convinced that is - and stereotypes and prejudice in spades."
Huh? What are you talking about? Earlier, you implied I was a misogyinist. Now you're calling me prejudiced? What is it about the term "Leftist ideology" that elicits such an inane comment as this? What's the big deal? People on the Right think one way and people on the Left think another way. Their world views are identifiably different and their core values are often at odds. Can we not agree on this? If you were to refer to "Rightist Ideology", I would appreciate it as a term that means something. And I would definitely not interpret it as a "tell" that exposes hidden "steroetypes" or "prejudices".
Was the Roe v Wade decision more closely alligned with the Left or the Right? If the Supreme Court had more rock-ribbed, conservative, strict constructionists, do you think they would have reached the same judgement? If making distinctions between Left and Right is prejudiced and unfair, then why are Presidential elections often fixated on the winner's list of potential Supreme Court nominees?
Prejudiced? I don't think so.
Ted
September 13, 2008 - 15:34 ET by kathy5319Yes I do care about rights and freedom. Thus when it comes to "let's consider whether women ought have rights and freedom" at a state level... Please. Then again, if that's not the angle -- let judges decide if abortion be banned nationally. Let there be heavy pressure from the loudest wheels and stealth lobbyists and power mongers in sheepskin to twist the screws. Either way, women are in jeapordy, and so is freedom. However you want to spin it, Ted. You go right ahead.
Then again, if the Old South will just succeed already... maybe that would work.
Whoopi, is that you?
September 14, 2008 - 01:09 ET by RESTLESS 1You don't even know the difference between "succeed" and "secede", yet you presume to tell us that the state's have no rights when it comes to abortion? Are you serious?
Ted has been much nicer than I would have been, but even then, you can't bring yourself to concede that each state should have their own say on the legality of abortion. You are crazy.
In your view, it is fine to force people who are fundamentally opposed to abortion, for whatever reasons, to pay for them. If you can find the phrase in the Constitution that says abortion is a fundamental freedom, the I will admit I am wrong.
You are so worried about a living woman's right, that you would kill a living soul, a viable baby, a LIFE!!!, to protect your idealogy, and in the interim, deprive the states of the rights afforded them in the Constitution. You are a piece of work.
I, myself, would be willing to grant you the "woman's right" to abortion, IF, you would not expect me to pay for it, and would allow me the right to move to a state where it is illegal. How about that compromise? Pay for your own murder.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
To Restless
September 14, 2008 - 09:55 ET by kathy5319Restless,
Mis-spelling Secede... is rather like Bush and Palin pronouncing "Nucular"
Can't we honor secession? Can't we do that on this issue and great divide? From the absolute get-go, this country was never unified ideologically.
As it stands individual states already do have different funding distinctions and regulations concerning abortion.
Over ideological, philosophical and theological differences, you make a leap of faith that an embryo is no different than a thinking, self-aware person, above all else and consequence in the manner that you do, that not everyone agrees with for one. And you make this conclusion and want to impose this as policy at all cost, no matter what.
But, the consequence of fighting the availability of this choice for women is this:
"Thousands of women will die"
In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would "not support repeal of Roe vs Wade" because it would force women to undergo illegal operations.
http://www.ontheissu...
To which Restless replies: "Hey Mr. McCain, Pay for your own Murder!" Better change your mind.
I support the pro-choice position, not because I think abortion is a good option, or a good choice. I agree with McCain's previous stance. Persons here, as well as Pro-life lobbyists would never accept such a position. But I think your position is myopic and is not productive to your cause, IF you really mean what you say, and care about life and the "culture of life".
Kathy,
September 14, 2008 - 11:39 ET by RESTLESS 1So you truly believe that if the legality of abortion was restored to the states, that every state would outlaw them? You think California, Massachussets, Illinois, others would actually outlaw abortions? Right. And don't give me the song and dance that some can't afford to travel, or pay for their own "choice". If they can't afford to, then they probably should think about that before having sex. If a woman makes the "choice" to go to a back alley, let someone put a coat hanger in their vagina, and dies as a result, then no, I have no sympathy. My sympathy is saved for those who have these "choices" made for them.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
September 14, 2008 - 12:53 ET by kathy5319I looked up the states issue you propose. I read language that seeking an abortion in another state, should that be the case, would be illegal. I also know that those suggesting that abortions can be legal in some states, know this will go right back to the Supreme Court, -to be staffed with pro-life judges... and to then federally ban abortions.
'Tis nothing to you if women (not knowing them or their circumstances) should proceed with the coat hanger - because "they made their choice"
How convenient.
Then I leave it to the fine upstanding "Moral Majority" and their skeletons in the closet, who share this position and also "Screw around" to help bear the responsibility and shame of putting them in that situation as they are so non-chalant with their choices. Let it be known... I'm not speaking about You. I don't know you. But I can start naming names I do know... Adulturers and Hypocrites that promote this ruling and play Russian Roulette with their "Choice" -- All... Off the Hook,
Its known that psychologically and physically sex... the act of sex is viewed differently between the genders. And women, as a rule... are far less flippant than men. And women don't rape ment. To many men (and liars) it "meant nothing honey".
SHEEEEER misogyny. Yes, I'm so angy at this.
So, let me see if I have
September 14, 2008 - 22:27 ET by RESTLESS 1So, let me see if I have this straight. You are arguing that women can't control themselves, and make good choices when it comes to sex? They know that men see sex as little more than a way to pass some time between football games, yet they still consent to it? Wow. Who is the one with a low opinion of women here? Or men for that matter.
By the way, I have expressed many times that I can see making exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, or imminent death of the mother. I think the majority of pro-lifers would as well. It is the prophylactic use of abortion that pro-lifers disagree with. It is you guys on the left that want to keep abortion "legal, safe, and RARE". By limiting abortion to those three scenarios above, wouldn't that be the case?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Ted - on Prejudice.
September 13, 2008 - 17:13 ET by kathy5319Yes, Prejudiced
You think your "Right" ideology is actually moral, and that "Left" ideology is immoral... across the board, it allows you to make sweeping generalizations. Meanwhile your premise is flawed, as well as historically inaccurate.
Misogynistic:
You defend a misogynistic agenda... so yes, true.
Double-sided speech:
You state you are not in favor of outlawing Roe v Wade, yet you vehemently attack it and oppose those who support Women's Rights.
I guess all along because you are concerned about state's rights and Leftist Ideology. You are a walking contradiction supporting a decision created by ideology you abhor. Let it go, then.
Well Kathy, My belief is
September 13, 2008 - 22:33 ET by Ted ClarkeWell Kathy,
My belief is that if you think I'm prejudiced and misogynistic, there really is no point in discussing things with me. Why? Because any point I make will be dismissed out of hand. "Ted hates women so that's all I need to know about him. Ted's a bigot, so anything he says is immediately invalid."
That must be very convenient for you, Kathy. But for me, it's a bit frustrating. I think the big thing I can take away from our very interesting dialogue is that you and I live in different universes. Discussing things further, then, is little more than an exercize in futility.
Anyway, if you have more to say, I'm always game.
Thanks Kathy.
p.s.
You offered me a link and asked me to check it out. I did and I'll offer you some thoughts on it if you insist. But I really see no point in that. We're not speaking the same language, I'm afraid. Thanks.
Ted - 2 worlds.
September 14, 2008 - 11:01 ET by kathy5319Ted,
Different Universes... isn't it you who is creating them?
Good and Evil. Republican = Christian = Pro-Life = Capitalism = Good.
Democrats = Atheists = Pro-Death = "Communism" = Bad.
Bob Dylan doesn't understand/support his own use of words, but you do. (I'm not sure anyone understands Bob's words, but Bob)
I think the Founding Fathers tried to create this "experiment" in circumstances not that disimilar - in the sense that they were between 2 worlds: the European Enlightenment and Protestant Christianity and its own internal rivalry. I argue that we still are. Many of whom can find common ground, and make it work - and some cannot. I wanted to be an optimist. Maybe that's not possible.
Horray! We are in the same universe, Kathy.
September 14, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Ted ClarkeHi Kathy,
Okay. We are in the same universe. But to be honest, I don't understand you. Almost nothing you say makes sense and you seem to have no use for logic. Of course, you will reject this criticism reflexively and without thought, but I will offer it to you all the same. I don't do it with a mean spirit nor ill will. I do it with an honest hope that you will rethink your very misguided views. We may not be in different universes but we might as well be. You don't respond to reason. You ignore evidence. You seem to have no understanding of history and everthing that should inform your life has somehow been drained from it. I shake my head and shrug my shoulders because that's all I can do.
For example, when you made reference to the Bob Dylan line that I quoted, you wrote,
"Bob Dylan doesn't understand/support his own use of words, but you do. (I'm not sure anyone understands Bob's words..."
Here's the key line in question:
"And they're breaking down the distance between right and wrong."
For me, this line is pretty self-explanatory. But for you, it's somehow so obscure that not even Bob Dylan is equipped to understand it. Kathy. Your arguments are strewn with thoughts like this that are just beyond absurd. What can I do? I can only wish you the best and hope that someone better than I can reach you through all that fog.
Take care and please forgive me if I have hurt your feelings. You don't deserve to have them hurt.
With respect,
Ted
Ted
September 14, 2008 - 12:25 ET by kathy5319Look... I don't know you - beyond this encounter here and all these exchanges, but I do like you and appreciate you. And this exchange has reminded me of someone I used to talk to online after irreversible arguments ensued over Calvinism and whether Christ died for all men or some. And he, this person - sounded much like you... He wanted to save me with Christ-like heroism from my self and my convictions. It was futile. But, I don't want an otherwise respectful sharing of views to end the way that conversation went.
What I meant about Dylan and right and wrong. Is I meant I think you assume to know (better than himself) what he thinks is right and wrong and whether or not he "copped-out" and sold his soul, politically. And my stating that most people don't understand his lyrics... well, that I acutally meant in a way that is not about right/wrong but maybe more "Subterranean Homesick Blues".
The Bible speaks of reversal of up/down, black/white and while most believe in the notion, not everyone agrees. We both know that. And this is true among Christians.
Also, with respect and hope.
Kathy
A long response for Kathy....sorry.
September 15, 2008 - 05:49 ET by Ted ClarkeAs I said before, Kathy, I appreciate your tone. So, thank you for that. Although we don't agree on much, I'm sure that you're a very nice person who would prove to be a worthy friend.
Just so you know, a majority of my friends back home in the States are very Liberal and very "Pro-choice". And my friends here in Japan are no different. When we get into political discussions, where ideological lines are drawn, the breakdown is predictably lopsided: It's I, alone, on one side and everyone else on the other. I mention this for two reasons. 1) When you are routinely outnumbered in debates, there's no way you can hold your own unless you have a reasonable argument to make. And 2) I don't think my friends on the Left are bad people. (They are, after all, still my friends.) I simply think they are wrong.
Regretably, this is not a shared sentiment. Folks on the Left tend to believe that we, on the Right, are beyond wrong; we are evil. In fact, we are the embodiment of evil. They impugn us with every insult in the book: Hatemonger! Warmonger! Blood-thirsty Bushbot! http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/14/atlantics-editor-appalled-lib-photographers-altered-mccain-pics We are the rapists and pillagers of Mother Earth. We hate blacks. We hate women. We hate homosexuals. We hate Muslims. We hate immigrants. We are not Christian. We are "Christianist". We are thuggish capitalist pigdogs with our high-priced, leather jackboots pressed against the necks of the poor and downtrodden. We are global warming deniers who are the natural enemies of all living things. Not only are we evil, but we're also stupid. Our thinking is unnuanced. We are not free-thinkers. We are anti-science. Our beliefs are not our own. They are programmed into us by a dystopian army of sinister Right-wing conspirators. We're heartless. We're mean. We're divisive. And all the cute, fuzzy woodland creatures of the world tremble at the sound of our SUV's grinding mercilessly over their pristine, old growth habitats.
Leftists also tend to believe that their history of lost elections is never their fault. Again, it's the evil Right-wingers, doing mischief with butterfly ballots. It's Bush being "selected" by an evil, Right-wing Supreme Court and Gore being elected by a "disenfranchised" electorate of minority voters. It's Bush doing his dirty work a second time by "swiftboating" the much more brilliant and Euro-friendly war hero, John F. Kerry. To the Left, elections aren't lost, they are stolen.
In debates, they similarly can never lose. Why not? Because they don't mispronounce the word "nuclear". They don't misspell words. They aren't prejudiced and they aren't misogynist. In other words, they win by definiton. A Lefty always wins the debate simply because he or she is on the Left.
This may be an over-the-top, stereotypical broadbrush description of the way Liberals think and hate, but trust me, it's all on display now in the behavior of the Obama campaign and their enablers in the corrupted media.
I have leveled a charge, and now I will back it up:
1) South Carolina Democratic chairperson, Carol Fowler, belittled Sarah Palin by insisting that her primary qualification for being McCain's running mate was that "she hasn't had an abortion." Can you possibly understand what kind of poison this comment injects into Obama's campaign? Do you have any idea how stupid and hateful it is? This is not a mere impolitic thing to say. This is a Lefty who has let the mask slip. Fowler and her whole party are cracking up. That's the only thing I can think of to explain this and countless other idiotic blunders. I think the cracks first appeared in 2000 when Al Gore failed to steal the election from Bush. But now they are beginning to crackle and expand at an alarming rate. (Kind of like the polar ice caps, yes? Damn that global warming!)
2) Dr. Andre Lalonde, from Ottawa, Canada, lamented that Sarah Palin and her baby would have negative consequences for Canada, namely that abortion rates might go down. Oh no! Fewer aborted babies! God forbid! Kathy, do you recall my original beef with you? You claimed that no one was pro-abortion. Doesn't this story prove me right? Incidentally, this story has mysteriously disappeared from the web. Here's the missing link:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-dow.html
But if you are interested in more details about it, here is a link to a commentary thread:
http://help.lockergnome.com/general/Canadian-doctor-worried-reduced-number-abortions-ftopict55840.html
3) Kathy. Listen to this call Hugh Hewitt took from a woman named Cheryl. She says it all. And if Obama ever hears this, he will curl up into a little ball and start sucking his thumb.
http://townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=f32b86cc-7572-4227-97d5-13b82f659be6
Now here's the good news. I'm done
Take care, Kathy
Ted -- 9/16
September 16, 2008 - 16:41 ET by kathy5319Ted,
A closing reply to you, not wishing to be open-ended. What I am frustrated about is the challenge put forth by agreeing to disagree... which is partly why I think Pro-Choice* is where this needs to end.
FYI, my bringing up the mis-pronunciation of "nuclear" was after "Restless" exclaimed "Whoopie is that you?" after he corrected my mis-spelling of Secession with petty glee. I recognize pettiness, and thus responded tit-for-tat.
Also, for anyone that didn't understand where I was coming from when I mentioned hurricanes. Not sure if that person knows why I said it, but I'll say this: The *Left* didn't start it, the genesis of an ironic statement.
Pigs, Lipstick and the issues:
I think there are extremists on any issue.
While I'm sure there is alot of broad-brushing that helps no-one, the fact is that it goes on - on both sides and all sides of any issue, including this campaign.
Heck... even Karl Rove admitted it with regards to some latest McCain ads. And after your long discourse of *some* Leftist portrait of the "Conservative Monster" -- I was following you, and agreeing (yes, this goes on)... and then you blew it (somewhat), your case.. via that thing called your own Right-wing bias.
Do you think Obama sits up at night worried that a woman might choose to keep her baby and prays that she will have an abortion? (Rhetorical question).
I do- genuinely believe in conspiracies. I also do genuinely belive it is not a good idea to forward chain emails that ask me to forward this letter on to "everyone I know" or that flouride and chem-trails have Masonic connections. Have you Googled "Obama Antichrist"? Personally, I don't think that's your style.
I'll speak for myself... I'm genuinely not pro-abortion. We've beat the issue up and depending upon how you look at it, accomplished nothing.
I wish you the best, and like Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality, also hope for World Peace.
Kathy
Oh please!!!
September 16, 2008 - 18:09 ET by RESTLESS 1Kathy, save the claptrap will you? Nobody cares why you mispronounce "nuclear" or that others do as well. Talk about being petty.
You have done nothing on this topic but strain credulity by repeatedly spouting off about how since we can't agree, we should just agree with you. Bullshit. Pro-choice, at least the way Roe v. Wade ties to it, is not the right answer. I you want abortion to be legal everywhere, then pass a constitutional amendment making it so, if you can. If you can't, then the SCOTUS has no business stripping the states of their rights to self rule. This can't be that hard a concept for you to grasp. We are talking freshman Poly Sci. here.
You have not answered one of my points yet. I have answered yours, and I have done so without resorting to moral or religious motives. Nothing is getting accomplished here because you are bringing nothing to the debate except a closed mind. You have not, and cannot, defend public funds (taxes) going to places like "planned parenthood", expecting those that are fundamentally opposed to it to help pay for it. You have not answered that point.
Oh, and by the way, while obama may or may not pray women have abortions, planned parenthood certainly has a financial interest in keeping the status quo, wouldn't you agree?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless - (response)
September 17, 2008 - 01:39 ET by kathy5319Restless,
Here it is - you said:
"You don't even know the difference between "succeed" and "secede", yet you presume to tell us that the state's have no rights when it comes to abortion? Are you serious?"
then... this:
"Kathy, save the claptrap will you? Nobody cares why you mispronounce "nuclear" or that others do as well. Talk about being petty."
No contradiction there.
Since you started it - the pettyness of making an issue of my typo, and attacking my reasonable response to your pettiness... Yes, I'm going to point out that I'm not the Leader of US, nor do I have PR advisors, such as yourself that might have prompted me over the years... after numerous appearances on National TV and thus sacrificing me to late night satire.
I have responded to numerous points you have made - and as this topic has moved here from a moral issue, to a money issue, to a states rights issue... I have responded to those points, but not as you wanted me to.
1. I never "presumed to tell you that states have no rights when it comes to abortion" - In the manner that you wanted me to -- as in "Well do they have that right?"
--- Because, "NewsFlash" - I'm not a political science student or prepared to argue in that manner. I never said that I was. If I use the word legal, I would also add that I'm not a lawyer. Yet, that does not censor me from using the word or having opinins about legal matters.
Yet, I have an opinion, convictions, my reasons, as well as Google, and a dictionary and have tried to answer you, as the layperson I am. Are you a right-wing elitist snob?
If abortion were ever to be legally defined as murder... then NO, It is impossible to conclude that murder is legal in Illinois, and illegal in Alaska. It is impossible to suggest that this would be up for vote.
conversely,
As it stands, the Law respects and affords "A Woman's Right to Choose" in such manner that this is not a State's issue. It's a privacy issue.
As it stands, Roe v. Wade decision was based upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
I don't presume to be able to be in league to argue loopholes and Constitutional Law, nor do I wish to.
If Roe v Wade went the other way, I doubt you would be crying "foul".
As it stands, abortion is legal, and it is against the law to bomb abortion clinics.
2. Since apparently your main issue with abortion is one of money - I looked up the facts... you can Google them yourself. There are already numerous *state specific* restrictions and regulations concerning funding/monies... and I have no issue with this. - BTW, I already answered this.
And also, McCain has voted for Medicaid's inclusion of Viagra (including for sex offenders) but does not include birth control.
Restless, doesn't it make sense that - on this great divide, education, birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies is a productive direction? McCain's record doesn't seem to care about productive directions.
While I would agree with you that if Planned Parenthood were concerned about their quota (abortions) to justify their existence - the idea is repugnant. Planned Parenthood also provides information on birth control, and if abortion rates were to go down, I believe they should strive for that being a goal and consider that true success.
Kathy,You don't get it.
September 17, 2008 - 12:10 ET by RESTLESS 1Kathy,
You don't get it. You could have answered my admitted pettyness by finding a typo of mine with which to respond. They are everywhere. :)
You, however, decided to engage in some BDS over what amounts to nothing other than a colloquial pronunciation by Bush. That was my point there.
I never "presumed to tell you that states have no rights when it comes to abortion" - In the manner that you wanted me to -- as in "Well do they have that right?" When you assert that we should just aquiesce to the "pro-choice" argument, you are by default telling me the states have no rights on the issue, as the "pro-choice" side is heavily weighted to Roe v. Wade.
Are you a right-wing elitist snob? Uh, no. I have no degree in Poly-sci either, nor the law. Just call them like I see them.
As it stands, the Law respects and affords "A Woman's Right to Choose" in such manner that this is not a State's issue. It's a privacy issue. It's not a privacy issue. It's a life issue and a State's Rights issue.
If Roe v Wade went the other way, I doubt you would be crying "foul". Wrong. If they had ruled the other way, while the religious side of me would be fine with it, the Constitutional side of me would still argue that it's a State's Rights issue, and your side would then be able to make that argument. Then you would have me dead to rights, as I have you now. The only "correct" plan of action the SCOTUS could have made, was to refuse to hear the case.
As it stands, abortion is legal, and it is against the law to bomb abortion clinics. Nice to bring up bombings. When was the last one again, and who beside fringe right-wing kooks condoned them? You took issue with Ted for strereotyping, why are you doing it now?
2. Since apparently your main issue with abortion is one of money - I looked up the facts... you can Google them yourself. There are already numerous *state specific* restrictions and regulations concerning funding/monies... and I have no issue with this. - BTW, I already answered this. You obviously have not been reading my posts close enough. While the issue of those fundamentally opposed to abortion are forced to provide money for them is repugnant, that is not may main issue. Take another guess. As for the *state specific* restrictions, as long as federal money goes to planned parenthood, we are all forced to pay for abortions.
And also, McCain has voted for Medicaid's inclusion of Viagra (including for sex offenders) but does not include birth control. I agree, it was a stupid decision, but then, I am no big fan of Medicaid either. Big surprise, I know.
While I would agree with you that if Planned Parenthood were concerned about their quota (abortions) to justify their existence - the idea is repugnant. Well, they are.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
September 17, 2008 - 13:53 ET by kathy5319When I said to you that *apparently* your main issue was one of money and or states/rights, I was mirroring where this thread is going. I'm well aware of your fundamental objection/reason for opposing a woman's right to choose.
Before I step into a gaffe, and Whoopi fodder and the option for legal-ese... actually I do not think the issue is a states rights issue. I think it is an ideological and civil rights issue.
You have completely not-focused on "What can we do as a society to prevent unwanted pregancies". If your attitude is "not our problem... keep your legs together" then, I'm going to object morally with regards to you and your position. That attitude isn't helping.
I didn't mean to suggest that bombing abortion clinics represents all or even most Pro-Lifers.
Also, not all Republicans are Pro-Life. This polarizing of Dems as Leftists and Republicans as Right-wing over this issue, and other 'family values' is generalized.
"You have completely
September 17, 2008 - 14:31 ET by RESTLESS 1"You have completely not-focused on "What can we do as a society to prevent unwanted pregancies". If your attitude is "not our problem... keep your legs together" then, I'm going to object morally with regards to you and your position. That attitude isn't helping." Alright, you have me completely confused with this statement. I hope you are not trying to say that abortion on demand helps prevent unwanted pregnancies. That would be silly. It seems to me that "keeping your legs together" is the only foolproof way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Why should abstinence be taken off of the table? Is a little self-control too much to ask? "This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless - No, not suggesting that
September 17, 2008 - 22:59 ET by kathy5319No, I am not suggesting that abortion on demand helps prevent unwanted pregnancies. Abortion on demand, however is the sometimes result of unwanted pregnancies.
Abstinence works for those who are abstinent. The reality is that men and women are having sex, who aren't prepared to have children and aren't using birth control. Abstinence only didn't work for Bristol. No, I'm certainly not suggesting she should have had an abortion. I certainly am saying that for all the young Bristols and their boyfriends, becoming parents at 17 years old... while emotionally, financially unprepared is not desireable.
Abstinence only, IMO, should not be taken off the table in this regard: Abstinence and monogomy are virtuous and ought be portrayed as such. But young people should not be ignorant about birth control, STDs, etc.
I think also that self respect and personal dignity/empowerment over ones own body and sexuality is a message that needs to be coming through. What I mean is that young people especially are being bombarded with degrading messages, and promiscuity is promoted and expected among many young persons. Regardless of whether in a Christian/secular context, promiscuous sex has health risks and psychological/esteem issues are at play, which educators (I think) should include as part of the dialogue.
Absolute Control
September 18, 2008 - 13:54 ET by kathy5319"Also, not all Republicans are Pro-Life. This polarizing of Dems as Leftists and Republicans as Right-wing over this issue, and other 'family values' is generalized."
************************
FACT: Polls have been conducted that Prove that the majority of the Republican GOP are Pro-Choice. It is also obvious that a minority of extreme conervatives are in control and want nothing but total control.
If you are so confident
September 19, 2008 - 10:48 ET by RESTLESS 1If you are so confident that most Americans support unlimited abortion, then perhaps you would support a Constitutional amendment to legalize it, instead of allowing nine judges to decide for all of us.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Regarding your "fact", you
September 19, 2008 - 11:01 ET by RESTLESS 1Regarding your "fact", you left out an inconvenient one. Most republicans are in favor of allowing abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or death of the mother. I would love to see your polls so as to study the wording and other details of them. Most republicans do not agree with using abortion as a prophylactic device. Try again.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless - the Moral Majority
September 19, 2008 - 18:33 ET by kathy5319Restless,
Firstly: To be Pro-Choice does not mean "Abortion as prophylactic device"
Pro-Choice means that it is not up to you. Kinda like when Sarah Palin was asked her view on whether abortion s/b allowed in case of rape/incest "Would you allow it" and she stated it wasn't up to her, but her view. When we know what she really meant.
So when men and women, Republicans and Democrats state they support Roe v Wade, they are stating they believe it is a Woman's Choice. I guess according to you, when Democrats support it, they are too lazy to buy condoms, and when Republicans support it they mean only if the woman has been raped by her father and will die due to complications.
Because, as we know Republicans are "moral", and Democrats are not.
Cindy McCain (John's newer wife who wasn;t mangled in a car accident, and who didn't wait for 5 years for her POW husbanc) has an interesting opinion: She is staunchly "Pro-Life" like her husband. She also supports Roe v Wade and does not wish to see it overturned.
Laura Bush also stated in a 2001 interview that Roe v Wade should not be overturned, and believed instead that the number of abortions should rather be diminished through education, abstinence and church programs. She didn't say, "it ought be overturned and be up for state vote" no sir-ee. Laura Bush... Feminazi.
Updating my statistics/statement:
http://www.harrisint...
Per a 2007 poll over support of Roe v Wade
51% of Republicans oppose it
33% of Democrats oppose it
"Interestingly, the percentage of Republicans who favor it has significantly increased (from 37 percent to the current 45 percent) in the past year and the percentage of Democrats who oppose the U.S. Supreme Court decision has decreased (from 43 percent to the current 33 percent)"
Of American adults polled in 2007, 56% are in favor of Roe v Wade, 40% opposed, 4% unsure.
While I was not correct to state that the majority of Republicans are in favor of Roe v Wade, 45% (and increasing) do support it.
With all the woes that the Republicans face this term with the economy and an unpopular president, it is shrewd to call in such a culturally divisive topic as this. Who better to rally the troops than the likes of a devoutly pious loud mouthed radio personality who talks about feminazis, abstinence and the sanctity of marriage... while searching for that 4th wife, prior separate houses, no kids -but with a bottle of Viagra and rumors of Sex Tourism industry in the Dominican Republic. So much for keeping his legs crossed... I just hope that he marries the child. ahhh.... but who am I to judge.
kathy...
September 19, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Clear thinker"FACT: Polls have been conducted that Prove that the majority of the Republican GOP are Pro-Choice."
The only truth in your sentence is this... "FACT: Polls have been conducted".
Polls are terrible at proving anything!
Hate Rush Limbaugh Week - Again
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
September 19, 2008 - 20:33 ET by kathy5319Yes, with regards to honesty in the Republican party and the RNC... Polls mean nothing when they are corrupt.
But independent surveys... all of 'em carte blanche... please go right ahead and dismiss them. Dismiss Laura Bush as well.
So in context of the Politically (moral) Right, who better to "perscute" than the Christ... the preacher/community organizer. He loves this stuff, I know. Be of good cheer!(the Christ I didn't name). Now, let me ask you - have I offended you that I pointed out that Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite in that he endorses the sanctity of marriage "the marriage of one man to one woman" (til death to you part) and has the the masses stirred and audacity to sell to naive listeners that morality and abstinence means anything to him.. other than the propaganda that sells and moves/excites persons such as? you? I call 'em as I see 'em Restless.
Well... good luck to you Restless.
Kathy,
September 20, 2008 - 01:46 ET by RESTLESS 1Was this response to me, or Clear Thinker? As I said below, the thread is completely screwed up on my laptop.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
To Restless
September 20, 2008 - 12:35 ET by kathy5319Restless,
This thread is screwed up on my display as well. I mistakingly addressed the last post to you, thinking I was replying to your post.
At this point, I didn't think any one else was engaged in the topic.
Perhaps, minus my anger over this debate/issue not meant to be as personally targeted at you or others as it may come across... my reply then was to Clear Thinker and you.
I think philosophically/morally/ideologically/spiritually we disagree.
Kathy
Restless - concerning Planned Parenthood ads
September 17, 2008 - 14:25 ET by kathy5319Restless,
I also will share my laywoman's opinion from what little I admittedly know about Planned Parenthood's PR and my own subjective thoughts.
I had trouble viewing their ads (with my Flash player) -but happened across one on MTV (which is not a channel I watch). I know the ad was geared toward young perons - MTV crowd. For that matter - the same channel gears Condom ads and other ads -with a very casual, permissive, pro-seductive overtone. Personally, I think that this is irresponsible... and reminds me of ads of old that aimed to seduce/recruit young smokers.
I don't know what the answer is. I'm not in favor of banning free speech, or getting into that territory. But I do think that Planned Parenthood's educational efforts need improvement. That said, I think "abstinence only" won't work.
(duplicate post) - ignore
September 17, 2008 - 01:37 ET by kathy5319(duplicate post)
Ted - 9/12 - on the Fetus
September 12, 2008 - 01:30 ET by kathy5319On the Fetus:
Up until this discussion, I had not greatly considered this topic. I've seen the pictures. At one time I was on a mailing list for a Pro-life group, and had contributed to them. Until, I began to realize that -- for one it is just too easy to be self-righteous and throw stones and refuse to care, refuse to look in the mirror and judge. And to the number of people out there hovering about Mary Magdalene... What would Jesus do? I think Jesus is Pro-Choice. Uh-oh, I threw religion in.
Although I don't think you will admit it, Ted. For the majority of us -- I don't think our senses are shocked at the thought or sight of an aborted embryo or miscarried embryo. I think it's when any of us are confronted with a picture of a fetus that looks like a baby, or late term abortion, that horror is the reaction.
I think in order to be consistent with opposing those images of abortions, it is necessary to deduce that the very moment the sperm and egg unite... and say... There, right there... "that's a human person, and I'm sticking to that definition", "it's the only one I can understand". That is if you are one looking for concrete answers also for questions such as "What is the age of accountability" "intent" "sane" etc.
Yet, as you correctly pointed out... a percentage of these embryos never make it... or mature a little and miscarry naturally. It's a loss, what could have been -- might have been. No death announcement, no funeral, there was a loss of a potential birth. The order is birth then death. And I think that it is best when potential comes to fruition, but it doesn't in the case of miscarriage or abortion. Both are a loss. But I don't think abortion is murder. I would support early term abortions, with allowances for late term, when the woman's life is in jeapordy, which is the reason why a late term abortion takes place. Women carry babies for many months because they intended to carry them.
Life... a sperm is alive, so is an egg, so is an embryo and a fetus. Not sure when it is EXACTLY defined as a fetus. Is it human? Yes it is a human fetus. Is it a person... I don't think so. Some define Life, in that sense... as "breath" ... the "breath of life", and I think that is how it is currently legally derived, and may? be based or influenced by the Bible... as in God breathing life into Adam's nostrils. I don't support partial birth abortions nor failing to try to save the lives of failed abortions, where in some rare instances this has happened. I think if a baby can thrive outside the womb, it should and be given the medical assistance to do so.
Some define "Life" in the sense you are asking me to define... as consciousness, self-awareness.
The Legal judges of the ancient Hebrews detailed the following legal conclusion about abortion, of sort, whereas a pregnant woman is struck by a man and loses her baby (miscarries as result)... They expound on what justice should transpire, both in regards to the miscarried fetus as result, as well to the extent of harm of the woman:
And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
Yeah, and if you read that
September 14, 2008 - 01:14 ET by RESTLESS 1Yeah, and if you read that passage correctly, if a woman causes the death of her own child, she too should die. Care to put the passage in context, or do we just go with my interpretation? Hmmm?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless - Interpreting
September 14, 2008 - 10:44 ET by kathy5319"Yeah, and if you read that passage correctly...
Perhaps? Many people claim to read the Bible correctly and want to enforce that interpretation into US Politics. They don't speak for all Christians.
Jesus said that the Kingdom of God was within.
Some Christians... disagree
************************************
http://www.sullivan-...
Religious Liberty
"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.
Citizenship
"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."
Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 87.
Nice link, I'm sure,
September 14, 2008 - 11:28 ET by RESTLESS 1straight to a Christian bashing site.
You let my point fly right over your head though. Re-read it, and see if you can come to a coherent conclusion. If not, help will be given.
(Hint: I've never argured against abortion on religious grounds. Just pointed out the hypocrisy of those who, hilariously, try to argue for it through God's word.)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
September 14, 2008 - 11:52 ET by kathy5319If you've followed this thread, you will note that I stated that this decision should not be argued by the Bible. And I stated why. I presented my view, other views, and I stated what Hebrew Judges decided. Which I thought was a clear cut legal passage and less open to interpretation. Of course, I was wrong on that. I got your point. So who decides according to the Bible?
Aside from which, the US is not ancient Israel, who also believed that women should be stoned to death for adultery.
You are so very very very wrong to accuse me of "Christian Bashing". To say that is to suggest that I think the KKK's agenda for the White Race represents Causcasians.
You are very close-minded that you can't (I mean choose not to) appreciate the difference.
Also, -- is not a "Christian Bashing" site, but has alot of interesting articles. Author is Unitarian, opposes Secular Humanism, and the Christian Dominionist movement. And, he is for McCain/Palin.
Besides, that -- I guess you have zero problem with the actual quotes, regardless of where they are hosted. Good Logic.
Restless
September 14, 2008 - 12:07 ET by kathy5319Something else to consider... regarding Christian bashing. The Bible warns numerous times of False Prophets *that would come in his name* and calls them wolves in sheeps clothing.
I didn't say you were
September 14, 2008 - 22:45 ET by RESTLESS 1I didn't say you were Christian bashing. I said you link is. That site goes to great pains to "prove" some movement toward "Christian dominionism". Most Christians don't want that for our govt. as the Constitution strictly prohibits it. I appreciate the author's support for McCain/Palin, but it does not change my opinion of the article.
Christ is my moral compass, not Hebrew judges, so I don't know why you keep throwing them in either. You are going to bring up stoning in the Bible, yet conveniently forget that that is not what Christ is about. He stopped the stoning of an aldulterer with the line "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Remember that?
Alas, at least we agree on something, as I too don't argue this debate through the Bible. I just contradict those that say God would support abortion.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
To Restless - 9/16
September 16, 2008 - 19:02 ET by kathy5319Restless,
In closing to you. While I do believe that your belief is that Christ is your moral compass. Fine. That's great. I truly respect that.
You stated concerning the link I posted - you disagreed with "the article"... and dismissed the site owner for posting. "The article" was entirely a collection of quotes "Words of Christian Reconstructionists".
I am going to take issue with something you implied -- that Christian Dominionism/Reconstrucionism is not what you or most Christians have anything to do with... thus is "moot" to you, does not reflect your values, Is not an issue to care about, etc. And that the only people who would bring it up are probably (Christian bashers).
There is much info on the web - concerning the dominating and self-described stealth influence and goals of the Dominionists and their influence within the political Christian Right, if you actually wished to challenge yourself and what I consider to be your knee-jerk reaction - that is speaking something without knowing the facts.
From a Christian perspective, at least I hope you understand that there are many false prophets. And from a doctrinal point of view (and I don't know your theology) it would be good to understand the implications of doctrine and whether or not the kingdom of God is within.
Here is where you can read a brief synopsis from A Christian Apologetics Research Ministry:
http://www.carm.org/...
I'm not going to get all into this with topic with you, which I alluded to in context of the "Political Machine of the Christian Right" etc. It's a valid topic and I believe a mistake to dismiss it carte blanche.
The "Pro-choice" people are the true misogynists.
September 10, 2008 - 23:32 ET by Ted ClarkeKathy, you wrote, "I think that women without the OPTION - is also sheer misogyny."
Pro-life people want more girls to be born.
So-called "Pro-choice" people want fewer girls to be born.
Pro-life people want unborn girls to become women who, in turn, give their own children a chance at experiencing the joys of life.
So-called "Pro-choice" people want to deny unborn girls the opportunity of growing up and becoming women or mothers.
Pro-life people demonstrate their true concern for women by shining light on the serious physical and psychological consequences of abortion. (Isn't it telling that "Roe" is now denouncing the "Pro-Choice" people as frauds who used her and abused her?)
So-called "Pro-choice" people want to cover up and hide the facts of abortion and disguise it as a simple, clean and harmless procedure. They want women to be kept in the dark, handcuffed to a Leftist political movement that sucks them dry and spits them out.
Compare the number of females killed by Pro-lifers to the number of females killed by "Pro-choicers". Now try to defend your claim that the Pro-life movement is misogynist.
If anyone has it in for women, it's the ones who want them to betray the most fundamental, primal instincts of their very nature.
Ted... You said it
September 10, 2008 - 23:37 ET by bigtimerTed...
You said it all.
Thank you.
Btw...you have the patience of a saint.
I've been keeping up with all of this since the beginning, just wanted you to know.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hey Bigtimer! Thanks for joining in! You made my day.
September 11, 2008 - 00:08 ET by Ted ClarkeThanks BT,
Kathy has been really nice to me and has tried earnestly to make her case. I really appreciate her a lot and care for her. I know there's very little chance of me persuading her to change her mind so my patience is never really tested. What she does--which is great--is she tests my own ideas. When I read her posts, I have to figure out how to respond. And that helps me zero in on what I believe and why I believe it. The more she and I discuss this issue, the more certain I am of my convictions. The best I can hope for with her is that she becomes less certain. Also, I'm hoping that she feels welcome here at this site. She has been very friendly and respectful to me so I owe it to her to respond in kind.
Thanks so much for tracking this discussion. I thought it was on such an old thread that Kathy and I were on our own. It's good to know that we have an audience.
Take care!
Ted
Misogyny and Racism
September 10, 2008 - 23:37 ET by Cool ArrowDon't stop there Ted. The abortion movement makes a special effort to ensure blacks have an abortion rate almost three times the rate of whites.
The party of Robert Byrd pops a lot of champagne corks. And Obama is his puppet selling genocide under another name.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
Cool Arrow hits a bullseye!
September 11, 2008 - 00:55 ET by Ted ClarkeHey Cool Arrow,
Damn straight. It's an absolute crime what the "Pro-choice" people have done to African-Americans. And more so, what they have done to the family unit (the building-block of any society) is nothing short of catastrophic.
And consider this: This year's election might very well be swayed in the Republicans' favor because a huge majority of potential Democrat voters have been denied the right to vote? How could this have happened? Simple. Their "Progressive" parents simply denied them the right to live. Talk about unintended consequences!
»→ Thanks, Ted
September 11, 2008 - 01:06 ET by Cool ArrowI'm sure there are women who walk away from the clinic without misgiving. And some like Whoopi Goldberg who monotonize the experience with multiple trips.
But I have to believe a great number of these women are stunned and very saddened afterwards.
Bad Analogy
September 7, 2008 - 04:24 ET by Cool ArrowThat organization you mentioned certainly has the right to believe what they want, but do they also have the right to carry their beliefs to the same bloody conclusion the Pro Abortion group does?
Does that other group have the right to demand my tax dollars fund their organization?
Of course there is one similarity of belief between the two. Have you checked the statistics of abortion by race?
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
Pretty sure she couldn't prove she didn't give birth
September 8, 2008 - 06:26 ET by theduck6to an outerspace alien's baby while mayor but you usually have trouble proving a negative, dontcha.
You believe it because you WANT to believe it.
You shouldn't vote for McCain/Palin because they have a woman on the ticket any more than you should vote for Obama/Biden because thay have a Hair Club for Men graduate on theirs.
"Experience? We don't need no steenking experience!"
Down her Kathy
September 20, 2008 - 01:38 ET by RESTLESS 1The thread had gotten so skinny that I couldn't read it without changing page settings.
Anyway, you forgot to mention in your link to your poll that only 25% of respondents are in favor of abortion in ALL instances, against 52% who favor abortions in only some circumstances. Guess which circumstances those are.
Also, from YOUR link, 42% are in favor of making abortions more difficult against 38% that are in favor of "no change", and only 16% that favor making an abortion easier to obtain. Look it up, it's on YOUR link. Did you really think I wouldn't read it?
(BTW, you could conger up the ghost of Reagan to argue against the state's rights issue regarding this, it wouldn't change my mind. I can read what the Constitution says just fine).
I must ask, why do you feel the need to bring up Rush Limbaugh? I believed the way I do far before I even I knew who he is. Have I not made my arguments of my own accord? I have not pointed you to "Democrats for Life" now have I? You're taking cheap shots and making generalizations, the true sign that you have lost the debate.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008