Obama: Roe v Wade Gives Daughters the Same Chance as Sons to ‘Fulfill Their Dreams’
- Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:30pm by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” the president said as he commemorated the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court nationalized abortion law.
“I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right,” the president continued, according to barackobama.com. “While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”
Although most of the presidents’ remarks were unsurprising (his record shows that he has long favored pro-abortion legislation), the way he chose to end his commemoration has drawn criticism.
“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams [emphasis added],” the president said.
It’s because of this type of rhetoric that many anti-abortion critics have accused strong “pro-choice” advocates of being intellectually dishonest in regards to the discussion of abortion.
Even though the president made sure to include all the politically safe buzzwords (i.e. “rights,” “opportunities,” etc.), his message failed to mention what many consider the fundamental issue at stake: is it a human life?
One would expect that an intellectually honest discussion — either for or against abortion — would at least include a reference to this question. However, the president avoids this, claims that it’s “a sensitive and often divisive issue“ and then throws his support behind the side of ”choice.”
Why?
If it’s such a “divisive” issue, then surely the leader of the free world has a good reason for falling so hard on one side of the debate. Perhaps he knows something that opponents of abortion don’t. Maybe it’s not a life.
Why ignore this critical question, admit that abortion is a “divisive” issue, choose one side, and then simply move on?
Perhaps President Obama, like many proponents of a “woman’s right to choose” (or as the columnist Ann Coulter likes to say, a woman’s “right to have sex with men they don’t want to have children with”), has opted to avoid the “life issue” because the possible answer to that question — that it is indeed a human life — would render his position on “choice” indefensible. That is to say, should the debate over life ever conclude that the unborn child is a human being, but advocates of “choice” still want legalized abortion, they may find it awfully difficult to defend the Orwellian idea that all humans have a “right to choose,“ but some have more ”choice” than others.
“Those who are helpless are, it is all but universally held in America, to be protected,” the conservative author William F. Buckley Jr. once wrote. “The one-day-old child is protected with the full force of the law. The proposition that he is without rights when he is minus one day old is nothing more than a social convention conflating various concerns.”
Maybe it’s because abortion advocates realize the apparent absurdity of the “minus one day” argument that they have chosen to avoid the “life issue” altogether and focus entirely on “women’s rights.” So when Buckley asks if an abortion involves the termination of a human life, his question is ultimately ignored and the response is something along the lines of “one can‘t infringe on a woman’s ‘constitutionally protected reproductive rights.’”
But is it a human life?
Critics believe that this refusal by abortion advocates to engage in the debate over whether an unborn child is a human being, and instead couch the issue in terms of “choice” and “rights,” has led to an increasing amount of frustration among opponents of abortion.
And why shouldn’t it? If one truly believes that a human life is at stake, as “pro-lifers” surely do, then the idea of “disposing” of it — even if it’s “safe,” “legal,” and “rare” — is wholly unacceptable and no amount of repeating the “safe and rare” mantra will change that. Furthermore, as far as “pro-lifers” are concerned, wrapping the abortion debate in politically correct terms and then trying to market it as a means to help women “fulfill their dreams” is more than disingenuous — it’s insulting.
Joseph Scheidler, who Pat Buchanan once referred to as “the godfather of the pro-life moment,” says that the “safe, legal, and rare” argument (first employed by the Clinton administration and now used by the Obama administration) is “illogical.”
“They’ve been saying that since the beginning. That’s still something we must fight,” Scheidler told this author last year. “The bottom line is still the same: You cannot destroy an innocent human life. You don’t target children. What kind of a society does that? We cannot and will not buy any of that illogical ‘safe and rare’ argument.”
“When you say ‘legal but rare,‘ that’s like saying, ‘We’ll still kill children and old people but only rarely.’ The fact is that you are still killing a person. It shouldn’t be legal. Those are just words,” he continued. “It‘s got to be illegal because it’s wrong to kill people. If you don’t stop it there, then it only makes sense to continue down the road we have been on.”
Of course, Scheidler’s line of reasoning only works if the unborn child is indeed a human being — which is precisely the discussion being avoided.
Rather than address these arguments and come to an agreement over whether or not the unborn child is a human being, staunch “choice” advocates prefer to defend their position with arguments about “personal health choices” and “keeping the government out of the bedroom” (ironically, these “bedroom rights” and “health choices” are all but forgotten the moment advocates of “choice” get involved in regulating light bulbs, gallons-per-flush, the amount of salt in food, trans fats, school lunches, and cigarettes).
Considering that the president is a strong supporter of a “woman’s right to choose,“ and that ”pro-choice“ rhetoric often invokes ”rights“ and ”choice“ but ignores the ”life issue,” should his Roe v Wade speech come as a surprise?
Recall that as a senator, the president voted four times against legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion, according to CNS News. He voted against such legislation at the state level in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
“The 2003 bill was assigned to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time,” writes Fred Lucas of CNS News. “It mirrored a law passed by Congress, which said nothing in federal law should be construed to undermine the Roe v. Wade ruling.”
As president, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (i.e. “Obamacare”), which would “appropriate federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.”
Therefore, after taking into consideration his continued support for pro-abortion legislation and even the fact that he believes pregnancy can be a “punishment,” the presidents’ comments regarding the 39th anniversary of Roe v Wade aren’t terribly surprising.
In fact, as far as an open and intellectually honest discussion from a strong supporter of “reproductive rights” is concerned, his remarks are about par for the course.
(H/T: Weasel Zippers)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (533)
chips1
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:01pmI just looked up the stats and having Obama as a father, his kids are 3 times as likely to have an abortion. Maybe he is just clearing the path.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:03pm————————————————————————————————————–
Pregnancy from rape is “a gift” -Santorum
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-rape-victims-must-make-the-best-out-of-a-bad-situation/politics/2012/01/23/33560
——————————————————————————————————————
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:06pmI doubt it, His kids have a better chance of preventing the need abortion, because Obama and Michell will make sure they have the education to make informed decisions about their choices.
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 4:45pmI think one day the Obamas will have to eat this statement when they find out one of the girls aborted their Grand Child. I have a friend whos younger child, a boy turned out Queer. There daughter who is about 40 had a abortion 11 years ago now is married and can’t have children. These 2 only kids will noy carry the family bloodline on and no grand kids – what a shame.
Report Post »sealwifenyc
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 5:13pmTurkey13-Seriously shame on you! Being gay is not shameful, implying that a gay person tarnishes a family name is disgusting, immoral, and flat out ignorant. FYI- I had an abortion when I was 16, my parents do not grieve for a grandchild that never existed they celebrate their daughter who became s Pediatric Neurologist. Thank god my parents believed in my dreams and a chance to go after them. Let me tell you a little secret, I have unfortunately seen many people pass away, I practice neuro-oncology so it comes with the territory, but the people who are the most unhappy when they die are people who have lived with hate and disregard towards others but believed some obtuse belief in god would save them. It doesn’t and they are always the most alone in the end. If God actually exists he doesn’t hang around for the people with brain tumors, but people do, especially if you live a life of kindness.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:29pmHey @VOTEBUSHIN12, are you preposterously stating that a new born baby can live on its own? Yep, that’s just what you said. And anyone should listen to you?
Show me any mother who giggles and says “Oops, the fetus just kicked again.” You can parse terms as much as you want, but it is still a human being. Notice that no baby can life without shelter, warmpth, being nursed or fed, probably until about age 3, and then it must be watched and kept from harm such as burning its hand on the stove or crawling into the oven. Perhaps when it is 13 it can leagally watch other children, and when it is 18 it can sign a contract. Words like fetus and embryo have specific medical uses and are more descriptive than just calling it a baby, but never forget, regardless of what we call it for whatever information that imparts, it is in fact a human baby. It is alive, not dead. It has a developmental direction unlike all your somatic cells, and if you don‘t take it’s life away, it will die of old age.
Report Post »uncleeddie
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 11:41pmSEAWIFEYC
Report Post »Do you seriously believe your dream of being a doctor was more important than another human life? Have you ever heard of adoption; then both your dream and a couple’s dream of having a child would have been made possible. You and your parent’s selfish choice destroyed a human life that could have made the difference in thousands of people’s lives.
danno1964
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 11:48pmWhat about the “daughters” (and the “sons”) who were aborted. Guess they are not going to have the same opportunities you were just mentioning Mr. President. Didn’t think of that, huh?
Report Post »danno1964
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 11:55pm@sealwifenyc. That’s one of the most selfish things I have ever heard. You abort a child that could have been a better neuro oncologist than you (we’ll never know) just because you didn’t want to take the responsibility of your actions. Oh yah, you wanted to be a “doctor” also. I hope you learned that “doctors” are first supposed to do no harm. I’m thinking that killing a human being counts as harm. And BTW, I’m not a religious person, but I do think it was a life. I also believe that we have to take responsibility for our own actions, which you were not willing to do. You made the most innocent party of your “transgression” pay the ultimate price for your selfishness. Pathetic….
Report Post »sealwifenyc
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 12:37amTo UncleEddie and Danno (?) I was a 16 year old girl who had been taken advantage of by a man in his late twenties, I was a child. I was, like a lot of girls in my position, completely incapable physically, emotionally, intellectually of sustaining another life. To have forced me and to force other young women is what is selfish. If I did not feel passionately for children I could not do what I do, I know its hard for you to believe but I have seen enough to know without a shadow of a doubt a 7 week old fetus, is not a baby. That fact I know, as I have so selfishly spent the past 14 years of my life in the study of pediatric medicine. To the person who referenced a physicians obligation to do no harm, how dare you, attempt to correlate a decision I am lucky I was able to make at 16 years of age to my treatment of my patients. You have cheapened the struggle of parents who watch their 5 year old child suffer through chemo, bone marrow transplants, brain surgery. Don’t you dare cite a sentence that you have no idea the true meaning of, nor the struggles that go along with treating the children that I do. Its a reality you can’t comprehend.
Report Post »barbaraw62
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 10:04amAre you saying SPARKY 101….. You would not have become a doctor if you had the child and gave it up for adoption at the age of 16????….. Ah, not saying you are doing good things with your life, but I know as a woman you think about that child every day as you treat ANOTHER’s child for cancer…. You extend life to others, but to your own child…… you did not even give that child a chance….. sorry, but those are the facts. You are a doctor and know the science and you have no excuse!
Report Post »barbaraw62
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 10:06amsorry Sparky101…….. meant to say the above to SEALWIFE…… sorry again
Report Post »danno1964
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 10:40am@sealwifenyc. I am sorry for the situation that you were in at 16. However, you made that child pay the ultimate price for your problem when in reality it was the older man who was at fault. That child was an innocent bystander. I know it may have been difficult to carry that child to term and then give it away, but that would have been best for both of you, especially the child. You may think it was just a “zygot” or a blob of protoplasm, but I am certain that it was a human being. Period. No other cells in your or my body can become a human being. A fertilized egg is a live human being in its earliest stages. Please understand, I can accept abortion as a required medical procedure in 2 instances: the child will not be viable outside the womb or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. I find doctors promoting abortion on demand for the convenience of the mother reprehensible.
Report Post »Jessica Tufts
Posted on January 29, 2012 at 4:41pmSEALWIFENYC, your ignorance is astounding, especially if you are indeed a medical doctor. You think that just because you aborted your baby, it “never existed.” It most certainly existed — right up until the day you had it dismembered. You seem to think that if you hadn’t had an abortion, you would not be a neurologist today. It’s a shame that choosing adoption, which used to be the standard way of dealing with situations like these, is now a concept so far “outside the box” that it never occurs to many people. (This of course is the result of generations of “progressive” brainwashing. And “progressive” goes in quotes because, like the rest of the “progressive” agenda, killing unborn children results in the opposite of progress.) In fact, SEALWIFENYC, if you had given your baby up for adoption, that would have presented no impediment to going to medical school.
Report Post »Jessica Tufts
Posted on January 29, 2012 at 4:47pm(continued)
Report Post »SEALWIFENYC arrogantly claimed to know “without a shadow of a doubt a 7 week old fetus, is not a baby.” But for some reason this self-appointed oracle of human life failed to inform us when a fetus *does* become a baby. That’s because medical training notwithstanding, she don’t know the answer any more than the rest of us. Human beings undergo continuous development; the only thing resembling a “shazam!” moment when human life begins is the moment of conception. There is nothing approaching proof that a seven-week-old fetus is not a human life. Therefore, the unborn deserve the benefit of the doubt; they deserve the protection of the law all the way back to the moment of conception.
Jessica Tufts
Posted on January 29, 2012 at 4:50pm(continued)
“To the person who referenced a physicians obligation to do no harm, how dare you, attempt to correlate a decision I am lucky I was able to make at 16 years of age to my treatment of my patients. You have cheapened the struggle of parents who watch their 5 year old child suffer through chemo, bone marrow transplants, brain surgery. Don’t you dare cite a sentence that you have no idea the true meaning of, nor the struggles that go along with treating the children that I do. Its a reality you can’t comprehend.”
Listen to the incredible arrogance. In fact, SEALWIFENYC, your abortion doctor did the ultimate harm to you child, by terminating his or her life. To honor the lives of unborn children in no way cheapens the struggles of your young patients. This is a reality that you clearly don’t comprehend.
Report Post »Lutheran
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:00pmGive babies a chance to achieve great things in their lives.
Report Post »Male and female babies.
Give life a chance.
President Obama, was it a good idea that your mother gave birth to you?
Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:10pmHe’s just another confused azz. Save the trees, kill the babies! How stupid.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:12pmHe’s just another confused azz, “save the trees, ki ll the babies.” How very heartless and stupid.
Report Post »Komponist-ZAH
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:13pm“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
Great, then—since I, a man, don’t have the “right” to an abortion, you agree, Mr. President, neither should a woman.
And how and since when does having a baby interfere with your “rights, freedoms, and opportunities”??
Report Post »Techster64
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:17pmSome would argue on that premise.
Report Post »Lamarr01
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:18pmVery few aborted fetuses can achieve their dreams.
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:28pmLIBERALS love killing babies. It’s the central pillar of their cult to Self Indulgence. They march by the thousands to promote chopping up babies inside of the womb, and sucking the bloody parts out with a vacuum, and disposing of human life like trash.
It’s their right, got it?
But don’t you dare pray in school, set up a nativity scene at Christmas, or keep and bear arms. Those are vile sins.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:31pmFor now the issue of Abortion is lost in the political arena …the effort must be on education for the young people to respect the life..not yet born
Report Post »Kankokage
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:33pmAbortion is reprehensible. The wholesale, profitable business of killing children. The sacrament for the religion of Liberalism. Modern-day human sacrifice to the gods of indulgence, convenience, and apathy. Except when the mother’s life is in jeopardy, it should never be considered. Why should a child have to pay the ultimate price for the since of one or both of the parents?
There are plenty of families aching for a baby. Abortion in place of adoption is pure, unadulterated wickedness.
Report Post »Kankokage
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:35pm*since = sins
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:38pmChildren are a gift from God.
God said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb”.
Report Post »taxwarrior
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:41pmRemember – it’s every American girls birthright to have an abortion
Report Post »schroeder123
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:47pmNow that was ashame to give birth to that. In Kenya, no doubt..
Report Post »marion
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:52pmHis mother gave up the choice, too, so totally agree.
Liberals in general are backwards on the whole issue. Allow a fetus to be destroyed or killed, but turn around and allow a murderer, pedophile or other life sentence adult remain in jail the rest of their life. How can they believe in abortion but not capital punishment? At least the conservatives have the adult human fetus commit crimes against another/other human beings and then sentence them to death and give them 17-25 years before they carry out the sentence to ensure they are guilty of the crime.
Report Post »CobraBill
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:54pmObama: Roe v Wade Gives Daughters the Same Chance as Sons to ‘Fulfill Their Dreams’
How can their dreams be fulfilled when they are torn apart, limb from limb, and discarded like trash?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:00pm@MCDAVE
That’s not going to be easy with the marxists in charge of edumacating the yoots.
Report Post »islamhater
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:02pmI see he is bring’ing Agenda 21 along just fine. The day the court passed abortion should have started civil war or a major upriseing..So why do you now call for civil war ? If the life of a unborn child is not enough then what is? Cleaning house is way over due and we better start getting our prioritys right.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:05pm“Obama: Roe v Wade Gives Daughters the Same Chance as Sons to ‘Fulfill Their Dreams’”
WTF !! Did Barack Hussein Obama read his teleprompter correctly? If so, just what does George Soros mean by that? Anybody?
Report Post »AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:19pmSo, according to Obama, daughters didn‘t have the chance to ’fulfill their dreams’ without the contingency of an abortion? Really? What kind of lowlifes has this ersatz president been hanging with?
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:26pmWait…I thought preventing pregnancy was what contraception was for. But thank you, Mr Obama, for admitting that abortion is just birth control for people too lazy or too stupid to use contraceptives. “Life of the mother in danger,” indeed.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:33pmAbsolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »carolewash
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:51pmI guess he doesn’t remember Justice Ginsbergs reason for voting for Roe vs Wade in the first place. It was as she said to get rid of the undesireables in the population. It had nothing to do what so ever with giveing women anything but heart break and going completely against God. There they go again changeing history. Oh and one more thing it was only supposed to be to save the mothers life or in case of incest or rape. Not a form of birth control. Boy did that ever get out of control fast.
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:53pmI believe in a woman’s right to choose.
I believe that choice is made at the time the woman chooses to be careless and get pregnant.
A woman’s right to choose happens in the bed. Stop killing babies.
Report Post »rs9
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:55pm“prevent unintended pregnancies” The pregnancy has already occured it is now called ending the pregnancy or murder
Report Post »NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:04pmHow about we give all post pubescent girls a dime to hold between their knees until they’re married. That should fix it.
Report Post »NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:08pmWell well well. Look at BiblequotinScienceFearinConservative acting all …………..conservative. Maybe there is a chance for you. You actually made sense for once and didn’t sound all angry……..spouting MSLSD talking points and hate for Christians and such. I think hell just froze over.
Report Post »boundforglory
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:12pmBut obama wants all religous businesses to make sure that they give contraception devices to their employes and make abortions availible to them. obama, you are a hypocrit. Women might have the right to do with their bodies as they please, but the child growing in them is not their body and they have no right to take that life! obama says that evryone deserves the chance to have a good life, but also says the businesses must provide the morning after pill and abortions. I am a Christian and a right-to-lifer. Jesus is coming soon and the proof is in the bible, just check out: Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, then take a good look at whats going on the world. The parable of the fig tree has blossomed. The fig tree is Israel, if started to blossom in 1948 when it became a nation again and came back into their own land.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:34pmBabies who are wanted by parents who are prepared to take care of them have a much better chance of growing up to do something worthwhile than babies whose birth is the result of their parents’ stupidity and irresponsibility. Hooray for abortion! The more abortion we have, the better. Anyone who is even considering having an abortion should do it!
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:38pmTo bad his pos mom didn’t use a coat hanger to save the world from this terrorists.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:44pmexactly, what he says makes 0 sense.
and i’m deeply sorry for people who are blind to every one of natures gender specific roles.. but hey… why should we look to nature for any “Real” examples of anything…
Report Post »Leader1776
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:57pm@Lutheran
Report Post »Phenomenal. No one has put it better!!
Jaycen
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:13pmRoe v Wade is just another excuse by government to intrude on our lives.
Report Post »RRFlyer
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:16pmSure it’s worth a human life if a woman can go party all she wants.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:18pmLet’s not forget our position against insurance companies providing free birth control. I’m not taking a position on abortion, but if you’re against free birth control and would outlaw abortion (nobody “likes” abortion, please) then you’ve lost a lot of votes.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:33pmSo JZS, as long as you can get something for free you are happy? Of course there is no “free,“ us working people will have to pay for your ”guiltless” se x. That‘s why it really makes you happy isn’t it?
Report Post »AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 10:05pmHEY, BIBLEMISQUOTINPHAHRT:
Good Lord, what a complete, total, imbecilic, idiotic, and asinne loser you are. Get a brain, get a clue, and get a life, for the love of God and for crying out loud.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 10:25pm@JZS
I beg to differ JZS. Many in your party “like” abortion.
Just look at the post in this thread from Chet.
Those “evil rich” doctors that make a fortune in that……..“business” for lack of a better word, “like” it just fine.
Why aren’t the owsers occupying the abortion clinics. I bet they are part of the 1%. Ya think?
Funny thought JZS. The only place the owsers were not kicked out of, was their mothers womb.
And my, how morally principled of you to “not take a position” on an issue that almost requires one to either have, or not have a good moral foundation.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:02pmObama is a baby killer, a job killer and a freedom killer. He creates and preserves nothing. He is absolutely good for nothing!
Report Post »SpeckChaser
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:10pm@BILLY
You making great points on abortion. Here are a couple of my favorites. A baby has a heart beat between 3 and 5 weeks, which in many cases, is before pregnancy is realized. Early abortions range from 5-10 weeks.
In America what is the punishment for partial birth abortion, which is jamming a pair of sizzors into a baby‘s head then sucking it’s brains out with a suction catheter? Nothing. What is the punishment for pursuing, shooting in the direction of, or disturbing a bald eagle or it’s fetuses? Fines and up to two years in prison.
Report Post »NOBAMA201258
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:19pmLUTHERAN – Pro-choice activists are not only intellectually dishonest,they are intellectually disabled! Don’t you love how they twist the language to try to cover their murders of the unborn,pro-choice,anti-abortion and how does abortion give the daughters the same opportunities to succeed as the sons? What about the psychological scars that occur once they realize they were an accomplice to the murder of their own child it wasn’t just some lump of flesh the abortionist removed? Ever see Silent Scream? How about adoption? obama’s approval of partial birth abortion is sickening! Life begins at conception,I will take God‘s word over planned parenthood’s anytime
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:34pmJZS,
Let me apologize for yet another multiple post, but like I have said many times, your posts are the gift that keeps giving.
After reading your short post once again, something very very telling jumped out at me.
We are talking about the abortion of babies here, and to you, the most important factor seems to be whether or not one side or the other either gains, or loses VOTES?
Report Post »proantisocialist
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:37pmwhat does that say about the sanctity of life ?
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:37pm@jzs
“Let’s not forget our position…”
Our position? OUR position? How utterly sociopathic of you to include everyone “into” your position! I hope your Mother is watching and spanks you with “OUR” blessings!
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:38pmHi Speckchaser,
I sometimes find it hard to even type the details.
But I’m glad you did, because it needs to be stated bluntly, otherwise they have a way of sanitizing the whole thing to make it seem less than what it really is.
Hope all is well.
Report Post »Mother of JZS
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:42pm@jzs
Dad nabit… Get back down in the basement where you belong and turn that stupid puter off! You no good stupid Son of mine!!! I should have listened to your no good Father and ####### you!
Love,
Report Post »Your Mother.
The-Monk
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:51pm@jzs
Report Post »I guess your Mother is watching you….
@ The Mother of JZS
Did you ever consider aborting your sociopathic Child? I hope not because you can’t ever tell what they will turn out to be just weeks after conception. My sincerest sympathies for all you have had to go through razing JZS who thinks he is JeZuS.
GollygeeMrwilson
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:54pmUnfortunately, in order to not be disingenuous, I must say yes
Report Post »SpeckChaser
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 12:05am@BILLY
Yea, unfortunatly that is the truth. My father worked with a lady in her upper fifties that said he was lying about the procedure of partial birth abortion. She, an uninformed straight ticket dem voting Clinton praiser said there was no way ANYONE would allow that to take place.
The simple truth is the more we learn and advance the less defensible abortions are. Why do you think the left got so infuriated when the video X-ray of the abortion leaked out showing the baby convulsing during the abortion. They like to position the argument like the baby just painlessly disappears.
Another one of my favorite abortion facts is most who support abortion oppose the death penalty.
Report Post »NeoFan
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 12:36amThere was a story yesterday here on the local news about a 16 year old girl that may have found a cure for cancer. I am sure when Barbara Boxer heard that she must have started stabbing herself in the eye with a sharp object. How dare that girls parents not have aborted her. What right did she have to not be aborted. Just a question for you abortion lovers out there. If a women does not abort a fetus what is born? 1. a puppy 2. a giraffe 3. a human 4. a republican
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 6:54am@luth…
My response exactly.
A court case that “gives our daughters” a chance??
REALLY?
I‘m certain he meant our daughters we didn’t murder before they ever hit a chance.
How much chance did Roe v Wade give to the MILLIONS of our daughters and sons who will never get ANY chance because we murdered them so we could avoid the responsibilities and consequences that come from our own actions?
Our daughters HAVE a chance to succeed. Just like our sons.
If they make babies instead of careers, they have CHOSEN. We did not force them to have sex.
They are free to put their babies up for adoption if they want to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood.
To say that some case law GAVE THEM THE CHANCE to succeed is SEXIST in and of its self!!
Report Post »Many women have babies AND are successful. Plus success need not necessarily be a career as a lawyer. Many women have found the most rewarding career imaginable is MOTHERHOOD!!
000degrees
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 7:33ambut also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,”
Report Post »Since when is that important to this group????
old white guy
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:46amit is sad when opportunity is equated with killing a child in the womb.
Report Post »jkjk
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:04amWho cares what this idiot says, just looking at pictures of him makes me want to puke!!!!
Report Post »ACLUHater
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:15amWhy doesn’t a “woman’s right to choose” ever result in a 16 year-old girl in da hood NOT becoming knocked-up in the first place? Tradition?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:28amtaxwarrior
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:41pm
Remember – it’s every American girls birthright to have an abortion
-______________________
Its every American’s brth right to have control over their bodies. I thought his was the party that didn;t want the government to interfer with the relationship between a doctor and patient.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:32amcarbonyes
Report Post »Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:02pm
Obama is a baby killer, a job killer and a freedom killer. He creates and preserves nothing. He is absolutely good for nothing!
_____________________________________
Yet thanks to his actions America still manufactures cars, and children now have health care. The Blaze is nothing more than an echo chamber for mindless Right Wingers to voice their hate and anger over their lose of power and influence.
cessna152
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 11:52am“that government should not intrude on private family matters,” the president said ”
____________________________________________________________________________
This is a joke…right? Kind of how your wife is staying out of our food, what we eat and our freedom to choose our own HEALTHCARE? How about the family that wants to discipline their child and the government thinks differently and takes them away? How about the intrusive government in our schools forcing an agenda upon them. How about the hard working “Joe” that gets audited, dragged through the mud for speaking what is on his mind and sends their family into turmoil. You, are a dictator with NO clue!
Report Post »pslm5119
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 11:55amDoes anyone follow the lives of the women who survive abortions? The broken relationships, addictions, and emotional suffering they endure is profound. It is the elephant in the room. Oh, if we could give the post abortion support groups the voice they need. Do we ever see women stand tall and proud of their abortion? How about the women who are not given a choice, but are dragged by parent or boyfriend to the clinic? I have never met a woman who was proud of her abortion. I have met many who hold that day with great sadness, as a weight around their neck.
Report Post »We have lost an entire generation to this sin. Every single day 4,000 children are lost. Can we even comprehend that number? And we complain that our entitlement programs are broke. We killed the workers, doctors, care givers, scientists, and even politicians who should be supporting the generation who brought us Roe V. Wade. As a society, we can’t have it both ways.
I have had to explain abortion to my older children at different times recently. Their reactions was the same, though they did not know it. “You would never do that mommy, would you?”
VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 12:13pm@ Anyone who cares
Definition of Baby: “A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.”
Notice how it does not say recently conceived. Until a life can live on its own, it is not a life. A fetus is not a baby, it is not a human LIFE, and it is not entitle to the same rights.
In Jewish tradition, the mother has a greater right to life during the pregnancy UNTIL the baby is out of the womb. At such a point, and only at such point is the doctor is required to treat both lives as equal ensuring no emergency procedure gives preference to one life over the other. Prior to this moment, the mother’s life is the only one that is a true life and worth protecting.
I know how much you guys claim to love Jews, so I thought I’d toss that fact at ya.
cja23
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 12:39pmExcellent analogy. Save a tree, kill the babies. That’s just how a radical liberal thinks, their logic is totally zero common sense. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for murdering babies and that’s what Obamacare does.
Report Post »cosette
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:13pm@Lutheran- May I answer that question?
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:32pmThis is exactly what evil would say. Make it sound positive. He is exposing himself for what he really is!
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:41pmDid Glenn have an episode where New York had a banner stating how many abortions they had that year but were told to take it down for it offended the people who had the abortions? I do remember Glenn saying to the effect that “They should be proud of this milestone” You know Margaret is.
The only time I have ever heard of people having an abortion was because of pride or money. I have never seen a prideful or a rich person do any better with or without children. I have seen humbled/meek/poor who don‘t take handouts and muddle through teach their kids why they shouldn’t take handouts and take what is given to you to be the most respected members of their town/community. I know a family of 8 that grew up in a small log cabin all have at least their Masters Degrees and have provided what people call incredible insight. Their method? They learned their way of living through God and instead of telling and preaching, they live it. And people love them, praise them and want to work with them. The others… they always act like they would rather be killed than talk about it. But ya know, I don’t think MSM wants us to see that side, do they? Of course we always have wackos like TheAmazingAthiest and Waterboro Baptist Church to remind us of the WRONG way to live our lives. Abortion is wrong. Period. The mothers health and rape excuses is old news and people are getting immune to its guilt over it. They can see the forest through the trees.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 7:42pm@VOTEBUSHIN12 Re: “Until a life can live on its own, it is not a life.” By your definition, a new born baby is no more a human life than a fetus one day before birth. Neither is Stephen Hawking. Are you proposing it is acceptable to empty out the neonatal units, nursing homes, and hospices with the “final solution?” Only those that can live on their own deserve to live, is that it?
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 12:33am@SCHOENETANTE
Your response is called a Straw Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
A baby one day before birth is capable of living on its own, so NO I don’t think it would be alright to abort it. A baby 3 months before birth… now that is a different story. I don’t believe in late term abortions, but I do believe in a woman’s right to chose within a reasonable time frame.
Also, I stated life BEGINS when a human is able to live on its own. Hawking was not always as handicapped as he currently is, he was once (prior to around age 20) a “normal” functioning human being.
Nice try, try again.
Report Post »Cornflake
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 2:07amIsn’t it amazing how many people will grandstand for the legality to take a life of a baby, yet stand in front of a prison and hold candles for murderers who are being put to death? Our natural citizens are being sucked from the care of their mother’s wombs and thrown in the landfills. It’s disgusting! It‘s a woman’s choice to commit legal murder on another’s life. A life that is half her genes? So many people can’t have children, yet without a thought our children are being murderered by the thousands each year. In the meantime, our demographics are changing, our values are also changing because of that. Has anyone considered that this fits the agenda the government has for this country? The Bible states that our children are a blessing, and our sons an inheritance from G-d. Yet, the little ones in the womb are considered as an inconvience, and tossed in landfills to rot. The government can make it legal, but this nation will be judged by G-d for this.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 1:01pmBUSHIN12BUSHIN12– No need to condescend to me. I know what a straw man is. The problem for you is that I quoted you exactly at the beginning of my comment. The definition of life that you gave is similar to eugenics proponents: “Until a life can live on its own, it is not a life.” The analogy is a perfectly valid one. It is not a straw man—it is historic fact.
Once you have introduced viability as a prerequisite for life at one stage of its existence, you will find it extremely difficult to get the camel’s nose back out of the tent at a later stage of existence. Witness the increasing phenomenon of “right to death” and euthanasia laws being passed around the world.
It is you who introduced a non sequiter to the argument in the first place. You were at pains to give a definition for a baby which rules out a fetus as being a baby. This is a logical fallacy. The issue is not whether a fetus can be technically defined as a baby. The issue is whether a fetus can be defined as a human life. I am not a baby. That doesn’t mean I am not a human life.
My dictionary defines a baby as “an extremely young child.” It defines a child as “an unborn or recently born person.” So much for dictionary definitions. The scientific, biological definition of when a new life begins is at the moment of conception. Everything that follows is just maturation and development along a continuum.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 1:03pmBUSHIN12
You also have not dealt with the fact that a new-born baby cannot “live on its own,” to use your words. It must receive all its needs–shelter, nourishment, sanitation—from someone else, which is why women seek abortions. They don’t say—“I can’t handle being pregnant with a fetus.” What they say is “I can’t take care of a baby.”
Bushin12, if you weren’t alive when you were a 3 month old fetus, how are you alive now? If you weren’t human when you were a 3 month old fetus, how are you human now? Women have ultrasounds during pregnancy to see if the fetus is still alive, or whether it has died. If it weren’t alive, there would be no need for an abortion in the first place.
How can you define a fetus as not being a life? But, of course, you know that it is a life, which is why your definition contradicts itself—“Until a life can live on its own, it is not a life.” You admit that the fetus is a life. It’s just not a life you define as worth living. Shades of the “Final Solution.
I notice that all of the discussions that I have with pro-choice advocates involve people whose mother’s didn’t kill them in the womb. Convenient for them, isn’t it?
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 11:17pm@SCHOENETANTE
“You also have not dealt with the fact that a new-born baby cannot “live on its own,”… ”
It certainly can. Succoming to starvation and the elements does not mean it didn’t live on its own. A newborn no longer NEEDS its mother to live – anyone can take it and keep it alive. Such is not the case with a fetus.
“Bushin12, if you weren’t alive when you were a 3 month old fetus, how are you alive now?…”
What kind of question is that? I wasn’t alive in 1903 either so how am I alive now?
“…you know that it is a life, which is why your definition contradicts itself—“Until a life can live on its own, it is not a life.” You admit that the fetus is a life.”
It’s not and here is why. What do you do to women who miscarry? Arrest them for Murder? Involuntary Manslaughter? No (at least I should hope you’d answer no to that).
“It’s just not a life you define as worth living. Shades of the “Final Solution.”
That‘s called Godwin’s Law. I would explain, but I don’t want to come off as “condescending” again.
“I notice that all of the discussions that I have with pro-choice advocates involve people whose mother’s didn’t kill them in the womb. Convenient for them, isn’t it?”
And I notice that all of my discussions with pro-life advocates involve people who started life when they were born form their mother’s womb. Convenient for them, isn’t it?
Bottom line,
Report Post »I celebrate my birthday on May 1st, the day I was BORN – I
VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 11:19pm@SCHOENETANTE
My bottom line got cut off, so I will take this time to tell you that I see your point on some issues. How close is too close when determine “too late to abort”. And frankly, I don’t know. But If you want to play the all or nothing game, then I’d rather see a million near birth abortions than see one woman forced to survive the pains of an unwanted pregnancy.
Here is my Bottom line:
Report Post »I celebrate my birthday on May 1st, the day I was BORN – I don’t celebrate it in August when my parents had sex.
SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:28amYou have not offered a scientific or biological definition of life, but rather a definition of a quality of life that you believe is fit to be allowed to live. Our constitutional right to life does not hinge on what sort of support system we need to live. Parents have a legal right to see that their babies are cared for. Why does this not extend to pre-birth?
If Stephen Hawking had been born paralyzed and needing a ventilator to breathe, would he fit your definition of “life?” He would never have been able to live on his own, therefore he would never be a true “life” by your definition. You are on a very slippery legal and moral slope in this area.
“’Bushin12, if you weren’t alive when you were a 3 month old fetus, how are you alive now?’
“What kind of question is that? I wasn’t alive in 1903 either so how am I alive now?”
It’s a very obvious and easy question to answer. You weren’t alive in 1903. But you were either alive as a three month old fetus, or else you died in utero or were aborted. If you died when you were a fetus, then you can’t be alive now. The purpose of the abortion is to kill the fetus.
“What do you do to women who miscarry? Arrest them for Murder? Involuntary Manslaughter?” Do you really not understand the difference between death by natural causes and premeditated homicide!?!
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:34amRe: Godwin’s law. Just because a Nazi reference may be used a million times, and used inappropriately 999,999 of those times, does not mean that it is not perfectly appropriate in this instance. When you define a life as not a life because it “cannot live on its own,” I honestly can’t see the difference.
“And I notice that all of my discussions with pro-life advocates involve people who started life when they were born form their mother’s womb. Convenient for them, isn’t it?” You are not having these discussions with 2-year old babies, either. Does that make them unfit to live also?
“How close is too close when determine “too late to abort”. And frankly, I don’t know. But If you want to play the all or nothing game, then I’d rather see a million near birth abortions than see one woman forced to survive the pains of an unwanted pregnancy.” Most people would rather err on the side of caution and not risk killing an innocent baby. You must not be one of those people that say it is better to let a million murderers go than to execute one innocent .
This is one of the scariest things I believe I have ever heard. You would sacrifice a million lives to save one person pain? There is pain and trauma involved in an abortion, as well. My mother had two miscarriages, and for decades after she still wondered what those babies would have been like.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:42amBUSNIN12
One correction to a previous post. I meant to say “Parents have a legal obligation (not right) to see that their babies are cared for.”
My nephew was born 5 weeks premature. He had a collapsed lung and needed a chest tube, incubator and medication to survive. He couldn’t live on his own until some days later. At what point did he become a life? According to you, he was not a life before he was born. At what point after his birth did he become a life? When he was able to leave the hospital?
Don’t you see that you are not offering a quantitative definition of life, but rather a qualitative one? A quantitave definition is needed in order to enact reasonable abortion legislation.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:26pm@SCHOENETANTE
“Parents have a legal [obligation] to see that their babies are cared for. Why does this not extend to pre-birth?” (correction accounted)
Because until it is born, the fetus is really just a parasite in the mother’s womb. It steals her nutrients until it is matured and then leaves to start its own life – very similar to some tape worm like parasites. The only difference is this parasite happens to have similar DNA as its host and 99% of the time the mother put it there on purpose and loves it. If a woman did not love it, she should be allowed to remove it.
“If Stephen Hawking had been born paralyzed and needing a ventilator to breathe, would he fit your definition of “life?” He would never have been able to live on his own, therefore he would never be a true “life” by your definition.”
I fail to see why you are so desperate to paint Hawking as a crippled youth, but I do see your point on babies born with medical hardships. If it is born, it is a human life. If it is not born then it is not.
“Just because a Nazi reference may be used a million times, and used inappropriately 999,999 of those times, does not mean that it is not perfectly appropriate in this instance.”
Report Post »Hitler was pro-life (Citation if needed). So now think really hard as to which one of us more closely resembles Hitler.
VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:28pm@SCHOENETANTE
“You weren’t alive in 1903. But you were either alive as a three month old fetus, or else you died in utero or were aborted. If you died when you were a fetus, then you can’t be alive now. The purpose of the abortion is to kill the fetus.”
Ah, now I see your argument. I think the place we differ is where we define life versus a right to life. Scientifically, a fetus is “alive” just as scientifically a staph infection is “alive”. My point is, simple scientific life should not (and does not) equate to legal right. If I am on breathing tube with minimal brain activity, my family has the right to do with me what they wish. In cases where I am well, my family cannot chose to euthanize me. There is authority given to the care holder.
“Do you really not understand the difference between death by natural causes and premeditated homicide!?!”
Report Post »First of all, involuntary manslaughter is not premeditated. People can be charged with that for running a red light and killing someone – hence why it is involuntary.
That aside, I can think of a million cases where the line becomes “gray” as to what is socially acceptable behavior for a pregnant woman and what is not. Exercising? What if she trips and kills the baby? Leaving the discretion up to a jury seems tragical.
VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:29pm@SCHOENETANTE
“You must not be one of those people that say it is better to let a million murderers go than to execute one innocent.”
I would say that, but I don’t consider abortion to be an execution.
“There is pain and trauma involved in an abortion, as well. My mother had two miscarriages, and for decades after she still wondered what those babies would have been like.”
I’m sorry to hear that, let me clarify that no one is “Pro-Abortion”. In a perfect world, every conception would be wanted and every baby would be cared for. I don’t take lightly the decisions these women must make, but for how traumatizing and devastating it is on their psyche, just remember they chose it over having the baby. That means to them, the alternative must have been unimaginably more painful and difficult.
“At what point after his birth did he become a life?”
At birth. I‘ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Until you leave the mother’s womb, you do not have a right to life.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the Plan B pill. Technically, conception has taken place, but the pill prevents the fertilized egg for embedding into the walls for the uterus. Is that murder?
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:32pm@BUSHIN12
I was about to dispense with this discussion thread, because I think we’ve said about all that we can say, but then I thought of one more tack to take. I will assume that you find this discussion in some way profitable, else you would long ago have discontinued it. So at the risk of overstaying my welcome, here goes.
I am going to paraphrase your statement: “Until a life can live on its own, it is not a life.” This is the way I understand what you are saying: “Although a fetus is alive, it is not a human being until it can survive in a different environment.”
Is that a fair statement? If so, maybe you can see the problem I am having with your definition of “life.”
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:51pmBUSHIN12
I think our comments are overlapping by this point. So I’ll try to sort them out.
By “pro-life,” I assume you mean Hitler was anti-abortion, since no one who kills millions of people in concentration camps is “pro life” in any universe I live in. I could easily see him being anti-abortion in the case of Aryan fetuses, since they fit his definition of life that was worth living. I’m sure he had no problems with Jews having abortions. Their fetuses weren’t human, by his definition. Or by your definition either, for that matter. He could have accomplished his goals without the gas chambers by adopting a China-style policy of forced abortions on “undesirables.”
Re: Plan B–I wouldn’t take it. The time for contraceptives is before sex, not after.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:06pmAs far as the fetuses are parasites statement. That is a new one to me. It‘s also the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long while. You like dictionary definitions. Here is one. “Something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support WITHOUT MAKING A USEFUL OR ADEQUATE RETURN.”
A parasite weakens a specie’s survival chances. Fetuses are absolutely necessary for survival of the species. If every single woman who has a tapeworm is treated for it, great. If every single pregnant woman was aborted, within a few decades no one would be having this discussion anymore. The abortion dilemma would be solved by extinction of the human race. Parasite–good one!
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:18pmBUSHIN12
You say no one is pro-abortion. The Chinese government is. Women who have multiple abortions as a form of birth control are.
Besides, why not be pro-abortion? If I believed an unborn baby is just a parasite, not a human being, and it has no right to life, then why in the world would I not be in favor of abortion? I fully support parasite removal.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:32pmBUSHIN12
I’m sorry, I am just so struck by your parasite reference that I can’t seem to quit thinking about it. It is the most enlightening thing you have said in all the comments you have made. And it illustrates so concisely and clearly why there can never be rapprochement between so-called pro-lifers and pro-choicers. One side thinks of the fetus as a baby, as her offspring, her flesh and blood, and her hope for the future. The other side thinks of it as a parasite, sucking the life out of the mother. How sad.
I’ll have to remember that reference at the next baby shower I attend, excuse me, the next “parasite shower.” I‘ll refer to the expectant mother’s unborn baby as a parasite and see how that goes over!
By the way, I just remembered that my college roomate had Type I diabetes, we called it juvenile diabetes back in those days. Anyway, when she got pregnant, she didn’t have to take insulin anymore due to the insulin produced by her fetus. Who was the parasite in this case?
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:56pmRe: . “Scientifically, a fetus is “alive” just as scientifically a staph infection is “alive”. My point is, simple scientific life should not (and does not) equate to legal right.”
Boy, pro-lifers are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. We’re usually told to keep our religion/morality out of the abortion issue, and keep it on a rational, scientific basis. It is good to finally have a pro-choicer admit that it is pro-lifers who adopt the scientific definition of life, no religion or philosophy needed.
It is pro-choicers who bring the moral/philosophical judgments into the matter, with their definitions of which life is worth preserving, and which is not. Your opinion that a human life only qualifies as a human life after it is born is just that, your opinion, your moral judgment. It is completely subjective. The legal (constitutional) right to life we have guaranteed to us in the Constitution makes no such distinction.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 2:31pmBUSHIN12
I also see that you have now contradicted yourself and changed your definition. Before, a life wasn’t a life until it is able to live on its own. Plenty of premies can live outside the womb, given a chance. Thus, I inferred that you might be open to banning late term abortions.
However, your new definition is that a life isn’t a life until it is born. Thus, I assume that even late term, so-called “partial birth” abortions are okay with you. Does a baby with its head in the canal and its torso outside qualify as a life, not a life, or as a partial life?
If your requirement of fetal viability is needed for defining right to life, as indeed was the case for Roe V. Wade, if I recall correctly, then logically you must oppose late term abortions.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 4:20pmBUSHIN12
Sorry that I keep making these disjointed posts, but reallly, my head and heart are in rather a dark place at this point. I keep trying to go do other things that need doing, but this keeps spinning around and around in my mind, and I can’t concentrate. It occurs to me that by your definition a chicken or a snake fetus counts as a true life, since it takes nothing from the mother. A buzzard fetus is a life, a human one is not. Truly a bizzaro world.
You talked about manslaughter if the pregnant mom doesn’t take care of herself. Well, it would be much easier to teach pre-natal care in a society that valued life. It’s difficult to advise pre-natal responsibility if you start the conversation with “You’re carrying a parasite.”
I really have to get away from this comment thread for my own emotional and spiritual well-being. But I have to say that I am so thankful to live with my world-view, and not yours. I come from a world-view where parents sacrifice for their children; they don’t sacrifice their children for their own pain-free existence. I come from a world-view where we are not guaranteed happiness, but the right to pursue happiness. We are not to avoid pain at all costs, even the cost of our own offspring. Pain is part of life, to be lived through, and learned from. I am so thankful to my mother, so very thankful, that she considered me worth the pain she went through. It seems that your mother valued you as well. Best of luck to you
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:18am@SCHOENETANTE
I enjoy discussion for the sake of discussion, I have no secret agenda.
I understand I used various analogies to get my point across, but they seem to have done more to confuse than to clarify. Let me put it simply:
Until the baby is BORN, the mother has final say. It may be living inside her, but it is by her permission alone that it remains. Not until it is born does it have an equal right to life.
The Hitler comment is not even worth my time. I was not actually implying you are like Hitler for being pro-life, I was simply saying anyone can be compared to Hitler for one reason or another so don’t bother.
“A parasite weakens a specie’s survival chances” Not necessarily. A parasite simply uses a host without giving anything back – but does not necessary take anything away from said host. You have bacteria that live on your skin and eat dead flakes. This does not hinder your survival, nor does it bolster it – thus it is parasitic.
“You say no one is pro-abortion”
Report Post »No one in the American debate is Pro-Abortion. The two sides are “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice”.
VoteBushIn12
Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:18am@SCHOENETANTE
You are so drawn by the parasite comment because you are miss-characterizing what a parasite it. I’ll agree it is an unfair analogy because clearly a baby means more to a person than a parasite. But my point remains, it is the woman’s body to do with as she pleases.
“It is pro-choicers who bring the moral/philosophical judgments into the matter”
I see nothing wrong with morality. I take this as a compliment.
“Thus, I inferred that you might be open to banning late term abortions.”
I said I don’t feel as comfortable with late term abortions and given the choice I would discourage them, but I promptly followed that statement with, “…But if you want to play the all or nothing game, then I’d rather see a million near birth abortions than see one woman forced to survive the pains of an unwanted pregnancy.”
Your little plug at the end is cute and idyllic and I can respect it for what it is, but it’s unrealistic. Sorry, but if teaching kids safe sex didn’t work, I don’t think teaching them good pre-natal practices would.
We can agree to disagree.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:19amBUSHIN12
Yes, I’m back. I’m incorrigible, I guess. But I must point out that it is not I who have mischaracterized a parasite, but you. The fetus is not a parasite because it most definitely gives something back to the host. It allows her genes to be passed on, which is the driving force of nature. Something which is an integral part of the life cycle of the species cannot be a parasite by definition. At most, it is a symbiotic relationship. That is why parasitism is usually understood scientifically to mean that one species lives off of a DIFFERENT species.
I believe I finally understand your definition of life. It is when the baby is finally mature enough for the mother to dump the responsibility for her child’s care off on someone else. Thanks for clearing that up. That exlains a lot.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. Too bad that the 50+ million aborted babies won’t get the same chance.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:44pm@BUSHIN12
Below is a link to a very good and concise article which explains exactly why the fetus is not a parasite. This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 30, 2012 at 11:49am@BUSHIN12
A couple of things I forgot to say previously. I agree with you that an abortion is not an execution. For an execution, the fetus would need to be accused of a crime, provided a lawyer and a jury trial, and allowed to face its accuser and defend itself. Then it would have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. An abortion is more like an assassination than an execution.
Also a question I wish I had asked concerning the reptile/avian comparison I made previously. If science develops an incubator, a true artificial womb, that could develop the fetus apart from its mother, would you then define it as a true “human life?” If not, why not? It would no longer be a parasite sucking energy from its mother. But if you say yes, you stand convicted of the Nazi tactic of defining life by a completely subjective standard–whether it is wanted or not. With all your postings, you have yet to give a consistent, objective, scientific standard of when human life begins.
Report Post »evaluator
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:59pmAnd that, my friends, is the black perspective on human life. If a pregnancy gets in your way, abort it. That levels the playing field because boys don’t get pregnant. What a tool !!!!! It‘s too bad his mother didn’t get to full fill her dreams.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:11pmLol, white people get abortions too,as do asians, hispanics, etc. What an idiot you are.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:26pmAnd you, my friend, are a racist!
Report Post »taxwarrior
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:44pmyeah it’s every American (regardless of race creed color or religion) girl’s birthright to have an abortion
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:08pm@MOD,
Yes, people of all races also get abortions……. people that think like you, that is.
And they, along with you, are also idiots.
LOL
Give me a break.
Speaking of LOL, did you like my joke?
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 12:50amThe great irony of history, black people in America will dogmatically support the same thing that will cause them to become extinct. African Americans will become another bit of ash in the dustbin of history. Somewhere Margret Sanger is laughing, and Dr. King is weeping.
Report Post »ares338
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:58pmOh yes……murder is always helpful to dream fullfillment!
Report Post »chips1
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:10pmI‘m looking up all kinds of stats and I’ve found out that as horrible as slavery was, the blacks in slavery lived longer than they do in todays freedom to murder a baby. Black slave owners wanted them to reproduce. Obama doesn’t. This is disgusting!!!!!!
Report Post »Steverino
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:26pmPresidents of the United States of America DON’T WEAR SHORTS.
Report Post »Or at least they shouldn’t.
Steve
The-Monk
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:56pm@Steverino
Report Post »He does have skinny legs. How does he stand SO TALL on those 2 toothpicks?
heavyduty
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:58pmToo bad his mother couldn’t take his advice. I wouldn’t mind paying for that one. If a woman decides to have an abortion then she should also have to consent to having her tubes tied so she can’t make the same mistake twice.
Report Post »Lamarr01
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:31pmA single child can change history for the better or worse.
If Ann Dunham would have had an abortion, the world would have been spared so much misery.
Report Post »grandma7
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:28pmYes, but we wouldn’t be as informed as we are. BO‘s right to life was God’s way of waking us up and we are. With McCain, we would, probably, still be “strollers” just meandering through a candy coated life. Every baby – even BO has a purpose……I‘m praying that BO’s existence will save the US….
Report Post »Sumrknght
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:57pmWe’re going about this all wrong – someone should just point out to Obama how much more money he’d have to spend if ALL those aborted babies were alive right now to pay his increased taxes.
Abortion would be illegal INSTANTLY.
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:52pmYes, about 50 million taxpayers have been slaughtered in the name of convenience. Obama is calling for more.
Pregnant women of America, hear the voice of our Dear Leader! Fullfil your duty and quench his thirst for blood. Offer your babies up for Obama!
Report Post »angelcat
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:56pmHow about the babies who will never have a chance to dream much less fulfill their dreams? Those daughters can prevent pregnancy if they choose except in the case of rape. Babies can fulfill dreams if you are responsible about when you have them and, if you aren’t responsible about conceiving them, if you make up your mind to raise them to the best of your ability or to let them be adopted by someone who wants them very much. Murder is NOT the solution to having a daughter’s dreams come true. Dreams can change or be postponed.
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:01pmAbortion is a legal medical procedure, and has Never been considered murder, even when it was illegal in some states. . Don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. Other woman’ choices aer none of your business.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:11pm@Bernbart –
Google – “Dr. Steven Chase Brigham“ and ”Dr. Nicola Irene Riley”… both are being currently tried for murder stemming from late-term abortions.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:21pmBeanbart, taking the life of an innocent human is ALWAYS murder. Go pick on someone your own size for a change.
Report Post »Komponist-ZAH
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:33pmBern—
“Abortion is a legal medical procedure”
Slavery was a legal labor institution.
“Legal” does not mean moral.
“has Never been considered murder”
…Ummm…Ok…What have you been smoking??
Still you fail to address the question: Is it a life?
Report Post »Blue Istari
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:39pm@Bernbart – Legal procedure or not, it doesn’t change the fact that children in their earliest stages of development are human by logical deduction, nor does the legality of an action/procedure justify it on a moral level. If you don’t want kids, don’t have sex. Simple. Nobody dies as a result, and young boys and girls can “achieve their dreams” even faster without the distraction.
Report Post »taxwarrior
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:47pmBiologically Life begins at conception Duh!!!
Politically Life begins when you mass murder policemen, and are tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Then your life is sacred.
Report Post »angelcat
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:56pmBernbart, you can consider abortion whatever you want to. To many of us, when you kill another human who is not threatening your life deliberately, you are committing murder.
Report Post »boundforglory
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:23pm@Bernbart
Report Post »Abortion is murder in the eyes of God!!
Proud Stray Dog
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:44pmOK, Burnbutt, under your theory, I should be able to blow my neighbor away and call it an abortion. If it’s not a life at conception, then it’s not a life at birth. If it’s not a life at birth, then it‘s not a life when it’s snuffed out.
Slippery slope there, no?
Report Post »ChuckJ
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:56pmDreams to be the first kid on their block with a body count. How about condoms, birth control pills or dare I say abstain from premarital sex. Its the only true 100% method and helps prevent STDs.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:55pmThat all depends if that baby in the womb is a boy or girl…doesn’t it…they both don’t have a chance if their aborted.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:26pmRoughly 33% of all women entering an abortuary ary ki lled.
Report Post »Balthazor
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:55pmThe dude is just nauseating. Roe v. Wade is nauseating. Anyone who carries on talking about abortion as a protected right is nauseating. Abortion is at least as despicable as the Nazis tossing Jews into ovens, only on a much much grander scale. It is one of the great evils in our world today, and those who condone it, encourage it, facilitate it, or partake in it aren’t, in my opinion, worth the cost of the rope I’d love to see them hanging from. Your mileage may vary.
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:04pmExcept Nazi were anti abortion. Hitler banned legal abortion in German, when he became the great right wing dictator of Germany. Jews had no choice, women do.
Report Post »Roaran
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:15pmWhat Rick Santorum wants to do, a federal law to outlaw abortions is what the nazis did. It didn’t stop abortions, it just made people do them secretly and illegally.
It’s far better to let the states have abortion be considered manslaughter or murder, and we will get much better results.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:22pmBernbart, know thy history: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_the_hippocratic_oath/
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:33pmBernbart:
Report Post »Take your meds and go to sleep.
And don’t worry about overdosing.
Balthazor
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:20am@bernbart: that’s incoherent.
Look, women have a choice. We all have a choice. I can still choose to open fire on my next-door neighbor and shoot him dead in the street. But I will suffer the consequence of that choice, namely prison. Pro-abortion women don’t want a choice, they already have a choice, they want choice without consequence. They want freedom without responsibility. It doesn’t work that way.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:54pmYeah, cuz its a lot easier to pursue your dreams after you murder your kid !!! This dipwad is sick…
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:00pmMurder is a crime. We legalized it with Roe vs. Wade…sickening! And I see the photo of him playing golf wishing God would take out his pitching wedge and bash his sorry a@@ in the ground.
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 5:55pmDETROIT PAPERBOY,
Odd, NON? President Dunham takes time.., and gives a speech to mark the passage of Roe v Wade.
He extols it’s importance and rightness.
His mother was 18 and unmarried when she became pregnant with him. Of course there was no legalized abortion in the 60′s. Hmmm.
Our President Dunham did not blink when shown the brutality of partial birth abortion when he was an Illinois State Senator. I believe he voted against making it illegal.
That’s twisted.
Oh…,to BERNBART…,SHUT UP you propaganda spewing BOOB!
Report Post »TRILO
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:53pmSo it is ok for women to abort their baby so they have freedom to be unburdend with children! Just like men have! I am usually not at a loss for words but I am with this statement.
Report Post »subsailor
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:53pmPerhaps, dear leader, if your daughters keep their legs closed, and stop screwing like rabbits. They can have the same opportunities as the sons. You talk as if the sons have no obligation either. If the boys use condoms, and make sure the girls are on the pill then abortions(murders) won’t occur. Oh but then the generational welfare would stop wouldn’t it? Oh never mind then….ok kids, act like animals and you can have all the babies or abortions you want. We’ll keep paying for your bad behavior.
Report Post »rationallyurs
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:51pmobama–semi-american hoodrat
Report Post »Phoneguy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:49pmDon’t forget Mitt was a big abortion guy also, till it bit him in the butt, shame on Barry standing by this crap, burdened with a baby remember that, God must be about to go off!
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:54pmToo bad the Sorteros‘ didn’t believe in abortion??
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:32amSorteros was his step father
Report Post »Obama was his Communist Kenyan Father
The_Jerk
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:47pmCan’t have it both ways. If it is a woman’s right to choose, and not the man’s, then there can be no child support from the man who had no choice. The woman must live with her choice.
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:45pmInteresting comment THE_JERK, I am inclined to agree. If a woman becomes pregnant she is legally allowed to abort it or keep it. Either way the man has no say. If she chooses to keep the child the man still has no say. Not that most men would mind financially supporting their child, but it is still very unfair for the male population. I have asked this before and would like to hear back from anyone. If the fetus is not considered murdered in an abortion why is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered by someone that person gets charged with two counts of murder? One for the mother and one for the unborn child. Seems strange to me that the fetus isn’t considered a life when aborted yet suddenly is of importance in the murder of the mother. Another thing that is ridiculous to me is the idea that that there should be no co-pay on contraceptives. So who is going to police the women and make sure the pill is taken or the device is used? I doubt very much that the pregnancy rate will go down yet our tax dollars will be used to pay for abortions as well as the contrceptives. If they think that will solve the problem then there is no need for the abortion claus in HC because afterall there would be no logical or accepted reason for an unwanted pregnancy, would there? I can see the mass amounts of paper work listing rape as the reason for the pregnacy so the abortion will be covered without question. Gotta cover their butts.
Report Post »sealwifenyc
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:33amLet me give you a little biology lesson, it takes two, to make a baby. Shocking I know. Men do have a choice, they have a choice to not have sex and they have a choice to only have sex if they are certain they are practicing safe sex. Shame on you, for trying to make it one person’s responsibility, the female’s. In my experience males who don’t take responsibility for their actions are week, self hating, pathetic, incapable, insecure boys. While I am sure it may make you feel better about yourself lo blame the girl, you are just as culpable, but the male is rarely affected. Young girls that make a mistake should not be forced to raise kids. kids should not have kids. Girls should have the ability to follow their dreams. Reading your definitions for what constitutes a life is comical. Apparently our public school systems do not teach biology anymore. I am a physician and I guarantee you life is not life for a very long time after conception. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. But don’t try to inject your religious beliefs onto others. For practical purposes you can not be pro life and anti social programs,. My family sent me to the best private schools and to medical school, and now I help kids who have brain cancer. thank god they believed in my dreams otherwise I would probably be answering phones while squandering my talents.
Report Post »fatsomann
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:46pm“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams [emphasis added],” the president said.
Whatever happened to abstinence or birth control? The same opportunities to have loveless sex and walk away with no consequences? What is in people’s hearts that lets them think murdering the innocent, unborn is ok?
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:14pmYeah, the only problem is
Birth control and condoms aren’t 100% as well as the catholic church and many people also being anti birth control.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:37pmModeration, what he is saying is don’t do things that make babies, but if you do, then bear the responsibility for what you created. Abstinance is 100% effective for those morally strong enough to practice it, all others should raise their children.
Report Post »staythecourse
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:46pmThe jewish people wandered for 40 years in the desert. This year marks the 39th year for the March for Life. Always amazes me that no network EVER covers the March for Life. What about you Blaze? Will you cover anything about the march that was held today. 40 years…..next year is the 40th year for the march….Obama’s message to the marchers….girls have a right to “dream”. Get ready folks…there is so much more to the health care act than abortion. Your children now belong to the state. Hospitals will close…schools will close….universities will close. Churches will close. Marxism is and always has been anti-religion and anti dignity of the individual person.
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:58pmOf course most jews supoort Roe v. Wade, as do the majority of voters in this country.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:15pmBlast your facts, Bernbart!
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:45pmUntrue twisting of the truth beanie. Most Americans are against abortion, but are willing to let others get an abortion because they are compassionate people who are being lied to by the likes of you. If they knew that the baby was human (of course it is), and how its poor little life was taken, more would be against even others having abortions. Being honest should become part of this debate, so take your dishonesty and wash it clean.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:46pm@ Bernbart – actually if you check the Gallop Polls on whether people identify as pro-life or pro-choice – the latest poll has it at 47% to 47% (2011). Doesn’t exactly sound like a majority either way.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:54pmHis “facts” are a lie. Over 50% of Americans do not agree with abortion, but not all of them are willing to “force” their moral views on others. If Beanie and others like him would simply tell the truth, we’d all be better off. Beanie, go wash your mouth out.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:45pmLOL….the most intelligent president ever..ever? Yes nothing says “fullfilling your dreams” like an abortion. Do you liberals even hear yourselves when you say this stuff?
Report Post »Today the “liberal” faith requires an extraordinary act of ignorance, purposeful forgetting, and constant spinning. To be a faithful “liberal” today you have to forget the whole 20th century.
A deep guilt has to be eating away at liberals today, at least the ones who are not innate sociopaths.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:14pm@AVENGERK
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
Report Post »Bill
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:47pmI have to agree. Also, I don’t recall the Constitution specifying that anyone had a “right” to an abortion. Since it’s not specified, the 10th Amendment should kick in.
But this whole issue contradicts the Declaration of Independence that stated that everyone has the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Seems to me that abortion revokes the every one of those rights for the unborn.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:41pm.
Obama: Roe v Wade Gives Daughters the Same Chance as Sons to ‘Fulfill Their Dreams’
What Chance? As a Son myself I’ve never “Dreamed about Kill’in Babies”….
But in your Mothers case, I…………….
Report Post »mllyjul
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:41pmHe also supports your obligation to pay for those abortions. He has also supported partial birth abortion and voted against the Infants Born Alive Act. His first act as President was to recind the ban on American dollars going to foreign countries for abortions. So in all….he is the most PRO-ABORTION president in the history of this country.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:58pmGood! Anyone who can’t afford an abortion sure as hell can’t afford a baby, so whatever we spend for abortions will save us a lot more in the long run. And the Infants Born Alive Act is just a sleazy extortion scam trying to use the threat of financial ruin to scare health providers out of performing abortions. Who do you think is going to pay to supply babies that are going to die in a few hours anyway with all these treatments that’s are so expensive they’re not always available to parents who wanted to have their babies? The parents who just wanted an abortion? No, the hospital and all the other patients, that’s who.
Report Post »jungle J
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:39pmonly the sane can see the horror of abortion.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:44pmI am very sane…But told over and over i am insane for voting for ron Paul. The Progressive movement has taken over conservatism when you call Newt a Conservative….Unreal!
Report Post »gvblaze
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:53pm@BADDOGGY
They all want to see what the Newt World Order is all about.
Report Post »3monkeysmomma
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:37pmYeah, I guess if your “dream” is promiscuity without consequense, then I suppose it does.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:50pmexcellent comment!
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:15pmIndeed
Report Post »Diego Roswell
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:36pmObama suports the wholesale genocide of Americans innocents. This must be stopped.
Report Post »3monkeysmomma
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:39pmIts not just Americans. Obama’s first executive order was to repeal the prohibition against tax dollars for abortions in the third world.
Our first Black president has killed God only knows how many black babies.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:41pmObama supports the wholesale genocide of blacks, which abortion disproportionately affects.
Abortion kills more black babies than any other cause.
IMPEACH OBAMA THE TRAITOR/ BABY KILLER!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:35pmOh? What about the hopes and dreams of the children they MURDERED? What a POS we have as a leader. No wonder god is taking us down.
Report Post »taxwarrior
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:43pmIt’s every American girls birthright to have an abortion
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:55pmBADDOGGY, I ask this again. If the fetus is not considered murdered in an abortion, why is it considered murdered in a case where the mother is murdered? This makes no sense to me. It is a human life and should be considered as such. So why aren’t the women who have abortions considered murderers when if someone pregnant is murdered a person responsible is charged with two counts of murder, one count for the mother and one count for the fetus. Either it is a life or it is not.
Report Post »