Face It, Pro-Lifers: Obama Is Just Not That Into You
The president has meticulously chosen advisors and top administration officials who have outstanding pro-choice credentials, including the secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, who is in charge of the nation’s health care system. Make no mistake — in Washington, people are policy.
Then of course there is his latest appointment to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who has already said in her Senate confirmation hearing that Roe v. Wade is settled law and that there is a constitutional right to privacy. Americans United for Life’s research of her record warns that she is far more radical then even former Justice Souter.
There are many other “indiscretions,” but let’s cut to the mack daddy of all slights: health care reform. The Obama administration is pushing relentlessly and recklessly for government run health care that would force almost all health care plans to include unlimited number of abortions for any reason and would make Americans complicit in these abortions due to the pooling of premiums. The current legislation on the table, the House “tri-committee” bill and the Senate bill authored by Ted Kennedy, amounts to the largest expansion of abortion in U.S. history. How could he? He said he loved me?
My fellow pro-lifers, grab a tissue and listen up. The truth is, he’s not scared to get into a relationship, he hasn’t lost your number, and he is not simply busy. Noooo! He is in bed with someone else. That’s right! President Obama loves the abortion lobby. He takes their money and their calls but more importantly he does their bidding. So wake up and smell the popcorn.
Apparently President Obama doesn’t think abortion “is above his pay grade.” He is 100 percent dedicated to the idea that babies in the womb are not life and deserve no protection. Don’t get mad; get even.
Get involved in backing truly pro-life candidates and let Congress know what you think. Finally in 2012 break up with Obama. It hurts, but he’s just not that into you!
People who perform abortions do not kill human beings; they remove a woman’s unwanted uterine tumor. Don’t believe that? Look up the definitions of “human being” and “tumor” and see which one fits the fetus and which one does not. Hint: A human tumor is a collection of 100% human cells growing where they are not wanted and incapable of surviving outside the host they are parasitizing.
Telling a woman that she can’t have her tumor removed because it violates some command in your holy book is pure religious bigotry and therefore unconstitutional under the first amendment.
“That’s right! President Obama loves the abortion lobby.”
This is not even slightly surprising to those who were paying attention. Barack Obama is a non-violent radical leftist in the tradition of Saul Alinsky and Martin Luther King. Jr. The latter man, it should be added, was a champion of Planned Parenthood. King received this organization’s Margaret Sanger award in 1966. Millions of black babies have been aborted during the last 45 years. The abortionists have killed vastly more blacks than the Ku Klux Klan.
If anti-abortion voters need to feel like jilted girlfriends, then take a look at the guys who pretended to be your loving boyfriends: the GOP. They’ve been sweet-talking you and using you, with absolutely no intention of rescinding abortion rights, for half a century.
It won’t help to pretend that Obama is the lying two-timer here. He never told you he loved you. That was You-Know-Who.
Come on now,who ever thought Obama was “into” the prolife movement?
I would disagree on three of Nance’s four givens,that Barack Obama is cute,smart,likeable,charismatic. I would go along with her on his being cute in a way. On the other three–smart,likeable,charismatic–I would have to add qualifiers.
Barack Obama has a loony desire to aid baby-killing,and that is just one of his many smart,likeable and charismatic qualities.
Look up the definitions of “human being” and “tumor”
This is called an argument from authority. It only works if both parties give credence to the authority. And ironically, it is precisely the same error that you ascribe to those who take their moral direction from the Bible.
#1 PROCHOICER
While I would defend your right to your beliefs, I am truly saddened by your incredible coldness and unconscionable stupidity. Would that your mother had opted to remove the uterine tumor that matured into an
unfeeling, selfish, immoral hag.
77/88
S.M.
P.S. – Before you start spouting inanities regarding the Constitution, you might want to first read the document and then have a person of reasonable intellect dissect polysyllabic words into monosyllables you might be capable of understanding.
Anybody who thought Obama was abortion neutral had to be dumb, deaf and blind. His record as an extreme pro abortion politician was evident to all who cared enough to look at his record and listen to what he said.
Since none of this is news the purpose of this article would be…?
“Its okay, admit it. He’s cute, he’s smart, he’s likable and he’s charismatic.”
Excuse me?
Since when is arrogant “cute”?
Since when is “know it all “considered “smart”?
Since when is mealy-mouth people-pleaser seen as “likable”?
…or since when does snakeoil car-salesman equal “charismatic”?
4. Donna V “Come on now,who ever thought Obama was “into” the prolife movement?” Agreed. Don’t use straw man assumptions as a foundation for supposed insight.
“Unwanted uterine tumor????????????”Never heard a baby referred to that way.I’ll be sure to mention that to my kids when they bring their 6 uterine tunors to see granpa.
Answer to PROCHOICER, commenter #1:
To reduce a potential new life in the womb to the equivalent of a tumor is, in my view, a very limited argument indeed. I don’t know on what level such a definition could be useful, but I would assume it would only be a dispassionate legal or academic one.
But a view of the matter which I think everybody can relate to would be to think about where we all came from – a mother and a father – and that we were carried by our mothers in our mother’s womb.
I think even the people who advocate abortion or have had an abortion cannot deny it, even a child can understand its simplicity: the cells growing in the womb of the mother are a human being, a potential human being, a developing human being, an individual, a personality, a person – depending on what stage the fetus is at. It is common sense.
All of the legal arguments and pseudo scientific arguments like the equivalence between a fetus at a certain stage and a tumor can never take away the basic understanding that is available to everybody: that a mother becomes pregnant and the pregnancy involves a the mother, the child and the father – the family.
To say that there is a similarity between a tumor and a fetus is, I assume, an attempt to make it more morally acceptable to terminate the fetus.
Every person in the world is unique, and even those born into dire conditions of poverty or war can turn into productive citizens of the world; each is an individual.
Who knows what individuals with potential to benefit the world have been snuffed out by being aborted?
Look, it’s obvious that comment #1 by “Prochoicer” is a fake, an antiabortion parody of the “prochoice” position. Don’t be so gullible.
Why stop at just babies? Are babies the only human cells growing where they are not wanted? Medicare and Social Security are moving towards bankruptcy – isn’t that the result of just too many elderly? National Health Care can address that issue. Rationed health care = less elderly population = less Social Security payments = less Medicare expenses = federal deficits solved! The elderly can join the list of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” as Ginsburg so eloquently expressed. Why not abort the elderly? Maybe government should have the “choice” of which citizens to keep alive. Aren’t you for “choice”?
@ #1 PROCHOICER
What a disgusting post, calling unborn fetuses “parasites” and “tumors.” No doubt you voted for Obama, who stated he didn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby,” if they ever had an unwanted pregnancy.
This is not a religious argument, it has to do with freedom to live, as in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Tell me, oh wise one, where does life begin? Do you know? Even your demi-god Obama doesn’t, as he considers that question above his “pay grade.” Yet he has no qualms in defining it to suit his pro-abortion agenda. For many of us, life begins at conception (life begets life, pure and simple), so destroying anything after conception is murder.
The only reason religion plays into the equation is because churches like mine uphold the dignity of man as the ultimate right. And don’t give me the “you hypocrite religious pro-war” left-wing prejudiced bullshit, because you don’t even know where I stand in terms of the war, and you don’t even understand all I do to preserve life every day. BTW I’m against the death penalty in the vast majority of cases, as I am sure you are, because in most cases it’s murder -just like abortion.
So far as your “tumor” argument, does a tumor have the potential to grow into a full person? A finger, a nose, as well as a tumor are all composed of 100% human cells. But only a fetus has the components necessary to grow into a thinking person. In terms of being “incapable” of surviving outside the host, tell me, how long would a newborn survive if not properly cared for? I challenge you to seee photos of aborted fetuses here http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm and tell me they’re just “tumors.”
The only cancerous tumor this society has is egotistical, self-serving people who think an unborn child is simply an inconvenience. (Hint: a cancerous tumor is a collection of 100% human cells that grows to take over the host, ultimately destroying it.)
#1-The definition for tumor is an
abnormal mass of tissue that serves no
purpose that may be benign or malignant.
Pay close attention to the word abnormal.
Also using your intended definition of
human being someone who was in a coma or
was mute and mentally disabled in a wheelchair
would not be considered human. You sound
like a Nazi.
Dumb wordplay on your behalf to create a
straw man target for you but typical. Every
leftist has this massive ego that they are
the most clever being that ever existed.
Douglas Kmiec, we told you but you would not listen.
What I can’t understand is how any pro-life person who really cares about it, ever thought Obama was anything but pro-abortion. His record on that is quite clear, it’s one of the few issues he did not simply vote present on. He considers babies punishment. I wonder how his daughters will feel about that as they grow?
I have family, who are quite christian, who voted Obama, and a few still support him. How they can reconcile those 2 thoughts in their head, I do not know. The bible is clear on when life begins, so as a christian there is no doubt whatsoever which side of the fence you should be on. Science is pretty clear too now, that life begins in the womb. Proabortionists either don’t care, or try to skim over that with random arguments that aren’t backed up by facts.
@ 13. Shef Rogers, “it’s obvious that comment #1 by “Prochoicer” is a fake…”
If a mother can destroy the the child she carries within her simply because, on most occasions, it’s an inconvenience, anything is possible.
You underestimate the self-serving, self-deluding nature of the pre-abortion ideology.
Exit polling from the presidential election sponsored by Beliefnet.com showed that 20 percent of those voting for Obama defined themselves as “pro-life.” According to Christianity Today, 25 percent of self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians voted for President Obama.
Why?
Perhaps they aren’t single-issue voters. Perhaps they understand that the president’s stance on abortion has limited real-world effects. Perhaps they thought McCain was a terrible candidate. Perhaps evangelicals and born-again Christians don’t share a hive-mind.
There are many possibilities.
Obama didn’t stop there. He voted thrice to allow doctors to “withhold medical care” to babies born normally when they were to be aborted.
In other words, allow them to be thrown in the trash alive, or at least stick them in a room until they finally die.
That, in anyone’s book, is the definition of infanticide.
A majority of African-Americans are pro-life.
Didn’t seem to matter to them.
The president is smart to ignore the pro-life movement, and should continue to ignore it, as he is intelligent enough to understand that it’s comprised primarily of totalitarian evangelical psychopaths whose ultimate goal is to control the sex lives of American citizens.
Because if conservative pro-life groups somehow are able to gain the influence necessary to usher in a new era of right-wing authoritarian judges that outlaw abortion, they will not stop there. They will continue their battle against free men and women to have a private sex life – by working to outlaw contraceptives of any kind.
Focus on the Family posts a kind of contraceptive warning label on its Web site: “Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary.”
This is why the “common ground” movement is such crap. Social conservatives don’t care about “life” they care about sex. In fact, they are the ones who are obsessed with it. And until they can establish social and legal sanctions against other people having unapproved sex, they will not stop.
And look at what conservaties have accomplished in their last eight years of forcing abstinence-only sex ed on our nation’s youth:
Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush’s evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US’s major public health body.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-report
This is the horror that the conservative movement, and specifically, the pro-life movement would like to force on this nation: An epidemic of underage pregnant teens with STD and AIDS infections who have no access to contraceptives and who have been wrongly educated to believe that contraceptives will not work properly.
Ultimately, this twisted right-wing movement will result in an population of destitute single mothers that have no access to family planning. It will also result in a massive boom of unwanted children that will be forced upon the State, and given that the right wing dreams of drowning the federal government in the bathtub, there will not be social services to care for the unwanted kids.
We’ve already witnessed the results of conservative right wing’s actions on reducing unwanted pregnancy, and they are both dismal and clear proof that conservatives don’t really give a crap about “life”. If they did, they would be doing something constructive to help the lives of all the teenage girls who are now pregnant and syphilus-infected because their evangelical conservative sex ed classes told them that condoms will not prevent pregnancy or STDs.
Instead, the pro-life movement reveal itself to be nothing more than a bunch of authoritarian psychos who want to control the private sex lives of American citizens. The movement has miseducated our children for eight years, and they are suffering because of it.
For those reasons, the president is correct to marginalize them wherever possible, pointing out their faliures and hypocrisy whenever necessary, until Americans understand the pro-life’s true motives – not to protect life, but to control it and mislead it.
The population of Yemem doubles every 17 years. It is obviously in the interests of the West to limit the population of the country that produced bin Laden. But for reasons I can never understand, the same people who screech about the threat of Islam cut the funding of birth control agencies trying to slow population growth in places like Yemen. Can one of you conservative pro-lifers explain how helping radical Islam increase its population is part of God’s plan?
#23 Mike W.
Just another paranoid, hysterical left-wing fanatic who cares more about his own sexuality than the life of the unborn. How dare you justify murdering millions of babies in the name of “sexual freedom”? Personally I don’t care a rat’s ass what you do behind closed doors. You have a God-given right to do as you please with your life. But once a child is conceived, it’s no longer an issue of two consenting adults, but between three living forms.
Regarding your idiotic argument about STDs: So now the Bush Administration is to blame for all of America’s STDs? Ever heard of personal responsibility for your acts? If you think you’re big enough to have unprotected sex, then you should be big enough to take the adverse events that come with it. You sow what you reap.
And in terms of the legions of unwanted babies you fear would come about if abortions were banned: Currently there’s a SHORTAGE of babies for adoption in the US. Because so many babies are lost through abortion, many couples who want to adopt are forced to look outside the US.
I’m sorry, but your arguments are as moronic as your thought process.
@#16, Joe Bison
As most women are not pregnant, pregnancy is therefore “abnormal”, therefore the *unwanted* growth in their uterus is an abnormal one. Don’t deliberately confuse “abnormal” with “bad” for the purpose of making an argument. For those who accuse me of playing lawyer-like tricks with words; but of course! It is ALL about tricks with words. Anti-abortionists call the fetus a human being, a word trick if there ever was one! Since when is a human being an obligatory internal parasite?
@#15, Chilino
All human cells contain DNA and, therefore, have the potential of developing into a human being. Don’t take a bath, you will be killing billions of potential babies.
I wouldn’t have voted for Obama if you put a gun to my head. Don’t try to divert the question by turning it into another issue. I am a true conservative. I want the government out of my life. I don’t want the president deciding what medical care I am to receive, period. I especially don’t want the government deciding what medical care I am to get based on some clergyperson’s interpretation of a holy book. Some religions would ban all medical care and rely solely on prayer. Do you want THAT as your socialized medicine solution?
@#7, Sherlock’s Evil Nemesis
Don’t behave like a liberal retard. Insulting the messenger only proves you have no argument against the message. Here’s the first line of the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
That was a cut-and-paste from the National Archives web site (ellipsis added). It is my belief that you think the fetus to be human because your *religion* teaches you that. If so, making abortion illegal is establishing a religion, pure and simple and, as I originally stated, is clearly unconstitutional. If you still think otherwise, present your argument, not a personal attack.
@#14, Maggie
Don’t erect a straw man. Nobody is questioning a person’s being human *after the umbilical cord is cut*. The question is this “is a glob of a few hundred thousand undifferentiated cells a human?” I say no. You say yes. Now comes the important question:
Upon what criteria do we decide what is human?
You say a single fertilized cell is “human”.
I say a fetus is not human until the umbilical cord is cut and the baby is surviving on its own.
Which definition is correct IS NOT THE IMPORTANT QUESTION. The crucial question is “upon what criteria is the question decided?” If the fetus is declared to be human because the Christian Bible, the Koran, and the Pope say so, then that is a religious issue and making laws about it is clearly establishing a religion and is unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, you have an argument based on science or some other non-religious criterion, then let’s hear it.
MORNING AFTER PILL.
If you get raped:
Morning after pill
If your a horn-dogging, raging whore:
MORNING AFTER PILL
If Daddy is trying to touch you:
MORNING AFTER PILL
There is no excuse for abortion any longer.
NONE. NADA. Zilch.
Grow up, ladies.
27 Delia
Many anti-choicers consider the morning after pill to be abortion, aka murder, because it can prevent the implantation of a blastocyst on the uterine wall. So they would ask you: why do you support murder?
“Look up the definitions of “human being” and “tumor” and see which one fits the fetus and which one does not….”
Several posters have tried to answer this challenge by “moving ahead”, and advancing the argument, as if “PROCHOICE” made any sense. But I say bring it one. Let’s look at the definitions.
Tumor: “An abnormal growth of tissue resulting from uncontrolled, progressive multiplication of cells and serving no physiological function; a neoplasm”.
Human: “A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens”.
A fetus, quite simple, is a member of the human species in an early stage of development. Biology textbooks classify animals in their early-stage developmental phases as members of that species; a Monarch butterfly in its caterpillar stage is still a member of Danaus plexippus. By the same reasoning fetuses are members of our species, Homos sapiens.
Tumors are rogue cells-cells that multiply against the interest of the body as a whole. The cells of fetuses multiply according to a plan; the plan imprinted in our DNA, the blueprint to form an adult human being.
Previous posters noticed the morally disgusting message of “PROCHOICER”. But in doing so they let the impression that, somehow, what PROCHOICER said was more or less scientifically correct. In truth, it has no scientific or logic standing either. It is so wrong, calling it “bull manure” would not even begin to describe it.
28. Blarty Blarckleblart,
At the cellular level, I don’t consider that murder.
When a ‘baby’ becomes a ‘baby’ with eyes, hands, baby feet and tiny fingers and such, then, I consider that murder.
I don’t agree with the people who think life is a fully formed human being at ‘conception’.
I also don’t believe if a guy masterbates, that his ‘seed’ is ‘wasted’ life. Every sperm is sacred? Nawwwwwwwwwww. lol
#25 Chileno: in response to Mike W. in #23….”just another hysterical, paranoid left wing fanatic…..” So, how do you know he is left wing? I’m a life long conservative Republican and I happen to agree with most of what Mike said. I have read that once the anti-abortion lobby gets rid of Roe v. Wade, their next target is Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 decision regarding privacy and contraceptives. Maybe YOU need to do some research on web sites like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council.
You also wrote: “you have a God given right to do with your life what you please…..” Excuse me, but I don’t acknowledge any deity, so my life is my own.
And: “I’m sorry, but your arguments are as moronic as your thought process.” Wow, but how is YOUR thought process and thinly disguised attempt to impose your personal religious views on other citizens any different? And I doubt you’re sorry, so why say that?
#30 Delia: “I don’t agree with the people who think life is a fully formed human being at conception….” For a change, you and I are in agreement. However, you may not be aware that last November here in Colorado, we actually had a ballot initiative to declare that a fertilized egg is a human being and fully entitled to all rights accorded other humans.
Obviously, any kind of morning-after pill would be illegal. It was possible that any kind of birth control could have been banned, except for abstinence, as the initiative was not clearly worded. Other legal ramifications were staggering and had it passed, would have created a “full employment for lawyers” scenario.
Fortunately, it lost something like 27% to 73%. Unfortunately, the anti-abortion and religious right crowd are rumored to be bringing back a differently worded initiative for 2010.
#26 PROCHOICER wrote:
“As most women are not pregnant, pregnancy is therefore “abnormal”, therefore the *unwanted* growth in their uterus is an abnormal one. Don’t deliberately confuse “abnormal” with “bad” for the purpose of making an argument. For those who accuse me of playing lawyer-like tricks with words; but of course! It is ALL about tricks with words. Anti-abortionists call the fetus a human being, a word trick if there ever was one! Since when is a human being an obligatory internal parasite?”
To say that since most women are not pregnant pregnancy is abnormal, is like saying that since most humans are not running running is abnormal. Both running and not-running are normal states of human movement. Both pregnancy and non=pregnancy are normal states for human females*.
To reiterate; there is no trick in calling fetuses human. That is true by both definition and logic.
To call a fetus an internal parasite is, to be kind, a bad analogy. A parasite, as my Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines it, is “an organism living in, with, or in another organism in parasitims.” The key word there is ‘parasitism’, which is “an intimate association between of two or more kinds, especially one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures.” (Note: the definition should strike the word ‘usually’; if the host organism is not injured the relationship is called COMMENSALISM.”
But that only shows that PROCHOICER’s analogy is wrong. It doesn’t show how wrong it is. When a parasites exploits a host, the host’s defenses fight back, or try to. The relationship between a mother and her child is THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Evolution has shaped the female body to protect and nourish her child. Comparing a fetus to a parasite is not only wrong, but epically so.
* A second trick used in PROCHOICER’s fallacy is to “take a snapshot” of human females and see whether they are pregnant at a given point in time. Most human females are pregnant at least one in their lifetimes.
#30 Delia;
“I don’t agree with the people who think life is a fully formed human being at ‘conception’.”
Huh? Like whom? A conceptus is a human being from the moment of conception. This is true by both logic and definition. Two points:
1. This is not saying that the embryo is “fully formed”. It obviously needs to develop! One thing is not the same as the other.
2. The second question that people tend to jump ahead is what to do with the fact that an embryo is, in fact, a human being. My answer is “I don’t know”. I really don’t. But that’s no excuse to lie to ourselves.
32. SteveB/Colorado & 34. Ruy Diaz:
I believe a baby is a ‘baby’ within weeks of conception. ‘The morning after’ pill is to stop the forming of a human being at the cellular level. This is my humble opinion and certainly not meant to be a blanket statement for ‘all’ here.
Let me put it this way:
If a woman was killed and she was…let’s say ’4′ months pregnant, there would be a good chance of that woman’s murderer being charged not only for ‘her’ murder’ but for her child’s murder by proxy as well.
If that same woman is pregnant one week, maybe doesn’t even ‘know’ that she was pregnant yet…the murderer would most likely NOT be charged with murdering her unborn/undeveloped child.
That’s my take anyway.
Kudos to Ruy Diaz!
Prochoicer: Science is clearly your religion. You put a lot of faith into an activity engaged upon by flawed men. Men who sometimes let their own personal agendas get in the way of objectivity. You also put a lot of faith into something that cannot answer the very questions of life that really matter. Science can never answer the higher story questions of life that deal with purpose, origins, the nature of evil, the nature of goodness or value. It can only address the lower story questions of observation. With that being said, science cannot tell us when life begins. It can only theorize and theories are more often wrong than right. Please remember that today’s indisputable science was yesterdays eugenics and earth centered universe.
The “establishment clause” of the Constitution was designed to prevent Congress from establishing a state sponsored church not to remove government from the realm of God. Reading the Founding Fathers if you doubt me on this one. Only Jefferson would support some of your points but he is not the authority on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as he had little to do with either document. He was in France at the time. Even Jefferson has been misquoted and miscontrued on the issue by the modern judiciary.
The separation of church and state is a good thing for both entities. However, the current Separation of Church and State crowd is not about that but about the separation of God and the State. They want no authority higher than the government and thus the government has all authority. Welcome to totalitarianism and a return to the divine right of kings (government).
God is the source of truth and as such defines our values. People who do not believe in God elevate something else to that role. You have elevated science, which has failed us countless times in the past and will continue to fail us. Others elevate philosophy. Some elevate their own understanding thus making themselves a god. I would rather rely on the word of the true God who spoke to man from outside the system. His word is never changing and answers the higher story questions that plague man.
Funny how we can all agree on when the murder of a born person takes place, but even pro-lifers can’t agree on when the murder of an unborn person takes place.
Food for thought, that.
Why should he be? He’s not a christian fundamentalist
The definition of a parasite is an organism that harms its host for its own benefit. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, one’s own offspring BY DEFINITION ARE BENEFICIAL to oneself. Therefore, a fetus CANNOT be a parasite to its mother. This is because, from an evolutionary standpoint, the only thing of value is passing on your genes to the next generation. I don’t believe in macroevolution or its implications, but natural selection is an established fact that Brother Mendel would endorse to God’s glory without error, because it’s a simple biological fact arising from genetics.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand why there is so much passion from the abortion crowd for the man-given right to abortion.
If abortion is so wonderful, then where are the happy testimonials? I suppose that the millionaire abortionists’ club has a few, but it would be unseemly, and dangerous, for them to give them.
37. Blarty,
Hon, you act as if everyone who is a \’conservative\’ is supposed to think in lock-step with each other.
I think the clear definition is the right to \’agree to disagree\’, babe. Mmmmmmmm?
That\’s what creeps me out so much about the Lefties. It\’s like you have to defend everything that is supposedly \’left\’.
Me? I fly my own sail and I\’m more than \’OK\’ with being on the outskirts or the \’fringe\’ of the typical \’right winger\’. I\’m ME. That\’s all I can be, darlin\’.
MUAH!
To the people who think the zygote is a human baby, can you take one out and cuddle it? No, you can’t even see it without a microscope. Can you take a month-old fetus and suckle it? Can you stare into its eyes and bond with it? Why, you can’t even tell if it a donkey’s at that stage. How can you possibly equate that with a human baby?
The fetus connects up with the mother’s blood supply and extracts her nutrients for its own growth without giving the mother’s body anything in return. If that isn’t a parasite, what is?
A tumor is a collection of cells growing where they aren’t wanted. If you want to play Clintoneske word games about normal and abnormal, go ahead and waste your time.
If you think the fetus is a human being, then I claim it is trespassing on the most private property I can imagine. I want it evicted.
If you decide to build a sailboat and buy a bolt of canvas, is that a sail? Is it a boat? If you buy a 20 foot 4X4 is that a mast? Is it a boat? If you collect everything you need to build a boat; the wood, brass fittings, the ropes, and the pulleys and dump it on the floor of your garage is that a boat? Given that you certainly intend to build the boat, is it one at that stage? If you load up all the parts and dump them in the ocean will they float? Can you sail around the dock? Certainly not. A load of lumber is not a boat. A fetus is not a baby.
I don’t have to prove my ideas. You are the ones wanting laws passed. Therefore, YOU have to prove yours are not religious. Without thumping a bible can you state *why* you think a zygote is a baby entitled to everything you say it is?
Who said this?
“I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.[7]
A. The Pope
B. George Bush
C. Margaret Sanger
C. The founder of Planned Parenthood. And yet, I doubt you’ll find that particular line, written in 1920, on the walls of any PP clinic today. (You also won’t find them quoting her thoughts on the inferiority of blacks.)
Sanger was only repeating what was generally agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of Americans up until the 1960′s. Yes, abortions took place, but abortionists were on the same moral plane as pimps. The common consensus was that it was a disgusting and immoral procedure.
What has happened is a sort of civil rights movement in reverse. People in 1920, or 1960, had no recourse to ultrasounds and yet the wrongness of abortion seemed self-evident to them. Fetal medicine has come a very long way – we know now that unborn babies have memories and they can feel pain and show distress. That’s not sentimental thinking – that’s science. And yet, the pro-aborts will shut out any evidence that is inconvenient – because it incoveniences them.
Fetal memory study:
http://www.livescience.com/health/090720-fetus-memory.html
As wejust keeping finding out more and more about the little buggers, the pro-abort position become more and more indefensible. But you want your freedom. Oh yeah. I get it.
If only 20% of Obama voters were pro-life, why are you acting like the entire pro-life community needs to be addressed? All the pro-lifers I know have been way over Obama for a long time, and most of them were never for him in the first place.
The developing embryo/fetus is human by virtue of its genetic material, its DNA. That is pure science. The advent of ultrasound has been instrumental in revealing the real science of human development. What is not science is the overlay of social definitions of what a “baby” is, especially to deny the science and justify the destruction of human life for personal convenience.
Good Lord, Prochoicer, a “tumor”?? Yeah, right, a tumor with a heartbeat.
I know aelf-proclaimed “devout” Catholics who voted for The One because they feel that pursuing “social justice” issues is more important than protecting unborn life. As if more government handouts, public housing. subsidized abortions and closing Gitmo truly help the poor make a better, more peaceful life for themselves.
@44
The article talks about fetal memory at 30 weeks. Most abortions in the US are performed before 24 weeks and many states have restrictions on abortion after this time period.
Having said this, you are correct in pointing out that we are finding out more and more about fetuses all the time.
However, there are two things which concern me (amongst many other things) in the choice debate. First, if we are to argue the growingly common pro life position (apologies to Delia), it would seem a next logical step to say that if life begins at conception, then the mother must not act (or indeed anyone else) in anyway to harm that life. That then raises the specter of more government invervention in the life of the woman and in peoples’ lives in general–mandatory pre-natal check-ups (who is going to pay for this in cases of poor mothers without health insurance?), avoidance of pollutants, smoking bans–everywhere that a pregnant woman could possibly be– and what if a woman required a medical proceedure that would harm the fetus? I know many people here feel that the question of abortion is one of moral absolutes–it is always morally wrong to kill the fetus/child. I just think this is a much more complicated issue.
Secondly, most pro-choicers I know are just that–pro-choice and not pro-abortion (maybe I am running with an outlier crowd, but I would argue not). But the strenuous defense of abortion stems partially from what other posters have asserted: the belief that for anti-abortion advocates, ending abortion is just a thin end of a wedge to control reproductive choices of both women and men. I can’t tell you how often now–much more frequently than in the past–those whom I know who defend abortion cite this fear.
Why bother to respond to somebody like prochoicer? Surely that has to be a farce.
First, it is scientifically wrong; second, if it is that morally vacuous, who would want to associate with that kind of cretin?
It could do the world a favor and choice itself with a little retro-abortion. Everyone left would be better for it.
You vill all be prochoice. And you vill LIKE it! Ve haff our methods.
(Well, they think they do, now don’t they?
Especially old BHO himself. Truth of the matter is that when it comes to intimidation
the whole kit and caboodle of them would not make a blemish on a bo doi posterior.)
Penny Nance,
A first for Pajamas Media. A magnificent missive based on a concept, a good idea. A deep thought process.
Most of what we get here at PJM is experienced J school writing. Words strung together skillfully, but with no unifying idea.
Then Penny Lance comes along and demonstrates to everybody how interesting an article can be if it comes with a concept attached; woven throughout.
You, my lady, are a killer writer.
Killer.
In a very distant sense, like Obama.
Who’s now killing the unborn at an annual rate higher than 1940′s Germany killed Jews.
Of course, he’s also killing our economy (private enterprise). Killing the hope for a fair and balanced new supreme court judge thanks to the nomination of one Sonia Sotobigot who thinks most any ethnic group’s thought process is superior to Caucasian white males.
Actually, she might be right. Those people (the white males) surely did a lousy job starting this country. Writing the Declaration of Independence(Too dry). The constitution.(Too wordy and too many rights). Any socialista would have done a much better job. A decidedly better job.
When Nathan Hale quipped that his only regret was that he had only one life to give for his country, I’m sure someone of another ethnic makeup could have delivered a better line.
Now I’m not saying Obama wants to slaughter all the unborn. Just the ones who are inconvenient to have.
At the same time, women who are realizing what a baby killer they slept away the primaries with are starting to realize he’s even killing their chance for the kind of pregnancy they want in the near term.
For Obama is killing healthcare as we know it. The change is to ObamaCare. Heck, we rationed gas in WWII, rationed it in 1975 under Carter; maybe rationed health care isn’t such a bad idea.
Who knows? Women wanting abortions may have to wait in line, too.
Maybe long enough to realize there are 10 amendments to the constitution and 10 commandments from God. Important documents. Both of which kind of discourage (one could say in the strongest terms) baby butchery.
If Obama’s treated you like an old chew and is making whoppee with the abortion lobby as Penny states, maybe it is time to give him his walking papers, especially considering the fact he won’t even give anyone his birth certificate.
What does Obama want that’ll get him to stop this killing spree?
How many pounds of flesh till he’s had enough?
How many little beating hearts must he silence?
How many perfectly formed baby fingers and toes must be sacrificed on the alter of expediency and an invisible right to privacy in the constitution?
Well, I’m at a loss, Barack, what more is there to say? This is my final pleading of the evening.
“Barack, you can take my money
Take my wallet with my credit cards
Here’s the watch that my grandpa gave me
Here’s the keys to my car
Go on, Obama, give it a whirl
But, please, Barack, don’t take the life
Of another little boy or another baby girl.”
(tim mcgraw, “Don’t take the girl”, 1993)
@ @ 26 PROCHOICER
“All human cells contain DNA and, therefore, have the potential of developing into a human being.” All cells? Really? Let’s cut your damn nose off and stick it in a woman’s uterus, and see if it grows. Your inane argument on cells only reveals how rudimentary your knowledge is on basic biology. Either that or you are so deluded in your own ideology that you won’t let facts get in your way. There is none so blind as he who does not want to see. I repeat my challenge, go to this website http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm and tell me these are just “cells.”
“I am a true conservative. I want the government out of my life.” You sound more like a left-wing anarchist to me. You care more about your “freedom” than the life of a child. So, if you have a baby and the government tells you it must be vaccinated, is that government intrusion? Your rights end where the baby’s rights begin. According to you, the fetus has no rights because it’s not alive. Look up the “Cell theory,” which states that A) Cells are the basic unit of life, and B) Cells only derive from cells. That is, cells ARE life, and life begets life. A fetus is very well alive, even at the microscopic level, and is the ONLY cell unit with the potential to grow into a thinking person. Notice this argument has nothing to do with religion. Why are you so hung up on religion? Did the nuns at Sunday school beat you as a child?
“I say a fetus is not human until the umbilical cord is cut and the baby is surviving on its own.” Again, if left to fend “on it’s own,” a newborn baby will die. An elderly man on life support will also die if left “on his own” as well. By your logic, late term abortions should be allowed, despite the fact most fetuses are viable, even by weeks 21-24 of gestation.
@ #31 SteveB/Colorado:
“So, how do you know he is left wing?” True, I made the assumption about him being left-wing. Atheist pro-abortion conservatives like you are generally rare, while atheist pro-abortion liberal are much more common. What remains true is the hysterical, paranoid part….
” I have read that once the anti-abortion lobby gets rid of Roe v. Wade, their next target is Griswold v. Connecticut.” This is the same paranoid slippery-slope argument people make against gun control or any other hot button issue. It’s as if the slightest alteration in the law will open the floodgates to full blown repression. Get a grip on reality, nobody is going after your precious sexual “freedoms.” The Pope is not about to unleash Iranian-style religious police on anyone. Even Catholicism, that staunch anti-abortion entity, understands that each has the free will to sin or not to sin. Of course it will speak out against what it considers morally wrong (including contraceptives, which it sees interfering with the mystery of the creation of life), but it will not force people one way or another. Abortion is an exception, because the life of another is involved. Doing nothing to stop abortion is more like doing nothing to stop a murder in progress.
I don’t NEED to look up Focus on the Family or Family Research Council. They don’t form my opinions on what is life.
“And I doubt you’re sorry, so why say that?” I am sorry, really, to realize there are so many people like you or PROCHOICER who would deny the existence of a God so loving He would give you the freedom to deny His existence. But in your egotistical, self-centered world, where your religion is your unrestricted freedoms, God is an inconvenience, as are unwanted babies.
“Unfortunately, the anti-abortion and religious right crowd are rumored to be bringing back a differently worded initiative for 2010.” Those eeevil conniving zealots are at it again, forcing a BALLOT INITIATIVE on us, which may actually show (gasp!) that there is a lot of people out there who agree on a fetus’ right to life! The previous initiative was likely defeated precisely because it was so poorly written. And it clearly shows that the overwhelming majority will not support banning contraception. Stop your childish “they’ll take away my condoms -and my sexual freedom!” rant already.
@36 Kipling
Well said!
@ #42 PROCHOICER
“Can you take a month-old fetus and suckle it? Can you stare into its eyes and bond with it?” Have you ever LOOKED at month-old fetuses? Take my challenge above, and then we’ll talk.
“The fetus connects up with the mother’s blood supply and extracts her nutrients for its own growth without giving the mother’s body anything in return.” Have YOU ever been pregnant? Do you KNOW the beautiful feeling most women get when they’re pregnant? Do you KNOW the emotional pain many feel when they miscarry? You’re either ignorant, heartless, or again, so blind in your quest for ultimate freedom, you are capable of denying the wondrous joy that a pregnancy brings to countless women. But then again, to you, being pregnant is “abnormal,” and clearly something never to be “wanted.” Be grateful your mother did not share in your self-centered opinion.
“A load of lumber is not a boat.” And a newborn baby cannot walk, nor talk, nor feed or clothe itself, and yet still see it as a full person. A disorganized mass of tissue has no potential as a human, yet a fetus does, get it through your thick, self-serving skull already.
oh dear: Thank you for your thoughtful and civil response. I don’t have time now to write a full reply – I’m already running late for work, and your observations call for more than one or two quick lines – but you’ve given me something to ponder.
It takes roughly 48 hours for sperm to make the journey up the fallopian tube. Taking the morning after pill the morning after washes out the sperm. No fertilized egg. No blastocyst. No dilemma.
41 Delia
I referred to “pro-lifers,” not “conservatives.”
50 One Ass America
There are 27 amendments to the Constitution.
Also, are you aware that Barack Obama doesn’t perform abortions, and as president has very little authority over the issue?
53 momof3
No fertilized egg. No blastocyst. No dilemma.
You may want to pass the word on to the other pro-lifers.
Blarney boy,
You’re not dumb. Of course you realized I was talking about the first ten amendments to the constitution, The Bill of Rights.
However, I should have spelled it out for anybody who was confused by the 10 amendment number.
By the way, did you drop the Boy King a note when he told the world there are 57 states?
To my missive, you decided not to comment on the substance of anything I said. What you threw in is what the law calls a negative pregnant.
A negative pregnant (sometimes called a pregnant denial) refers to a denial which implies its affirmative opposite by seeming to deny only a qualification of the allegation and not the allegation itself.
They you pulled some condescending crap out of your little mind. I can see you writing this with your east coast teeth clenched like the pompous libtard you seem to be.
You wrote:
Also, are you aware that Barack Obama doesn’t perform abortions, and as president has very little authority over the issue? No, I am not aware of that, kangaroo breath.
Like a guy who hires a professional killer to off an unwanted, say, wife or business associate, the law blames the person who set the process in motion as much or more than the actual professional hit man who does the killing.
Whether or not the hirer knows how to handle a guy is totally immaterial.
Your logic would say the person who did the hiring had little to do with the death. My RX for you” A high school logic class.
Get real. The brown eyed handsome man has a lot of authority over the issue that decides life and death for the unborn.
The proof was right in the pudding of the article which apparently you didn’t read.
I quote Ms. Nance.
” On January 23, 2009, one day after the 36th March for Life and on the president’s third day in office, he issued an executive order reversing U.S. policy that prohibited the use of U.S. funds to promote or pay for abortions abroad.
In March, Osama restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that had been frozen due to their support of organizations that promote and even coerce poor women in other countries to have abortions. He opened the door for the federal funding of research that requires the destruction of human embryos and canceled the Bush “conscience clause” regulation that protected health care workers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions.
Then Bamabrownshirt takes it on himself to nominate a sexist, racist judge to fill the vacancy in the supreme court, in the form of Sonia ( I never miss a meal or a chance to put down whitey) Sotobigot) who is so pro abortion she actually watched one, and commented afterwards, “it’s a hard world my little friend, you’re better off not in it”. Sonia would have gotten along well with any people butcher outfit throughout history, especially the Khmer Rouge.
The point: if Obama had nominated someone on record as being for protecting unborn life instead of killing it, Obama would have exercised much positive authority on the issue. Eventually maybe stopping America’s private holocaust.
Why did Obama ramp up, make more efficient the abortion baby killing lobby he’s in bed with to the extent they’re moving ahead of the German annual rate of Jew killing they set in the 1940′s? For the female, abortionist vote, that’s why. Dead babies/votes.
I can almost see Barack weigh them in his mind. Six milion pounds of votes/versus six million pounds of dead babies.
For a guy like Obama who was brought up politically on Bill Ayers brand of domestic terrorist, and Jeremy Wright’s brand of American-hating, racist, sexist socialism, the unborn unfortunately get the short end of the trusty old Kelly Clamp which helps crush the skull of the almost newborn.
If God’s on the pro life side, and all indications are that he is, you and your blohard wonderboy may have a lot of splaining’ to do when judgment day rolls around.
“Maybe in your will you should ask to be buried in an asbestos suit.” (RP, PJM, July 22,’09)
Or spend your last days hanging around the equator to get used to the heat.
It’s not only powerless, fully formed babies, utterly unable to beg for mercy or escape horror and terrible suffering, who are endangered:
U.S. HEALTHCARE: CUT YOUR LIFE SHORT
Obama promised HOPE and CHANGE. The media never asked what frightening changes Obama planned for Americans.
WORLDNETDAILY.COM
July 22, 2009
Obamacare for old folks: Just ‘cut your life short’
Health plan provision demands ‘end-of-life’ counseling
By Bob Unruh
The version of President Obama’s universal health care plan pending in the U.S. House would require “end-of-life” counseling for senior citizens, and the former lieutenant governor for the state of New York is warning people to “protect their parents” from the measure.
At issue is section 1233 of the legislative proposal that deals with a government requirement for an “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”
Betsy McCaughey, the former New York state officer, told former president candidate Fred Thompson during an interview on his radio program the “consultation” is no more or less than an attempt to convince seniors to die.
“One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session,” she said. “They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner.”
McCaughey also said the Obama administration is suggesting that medical care be withheld from seniors based on the expected years they have left to live.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=104719
Obama’s Civilian National Security Force
Obama promised change. The End of America as we know it:
Obama: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y
PRAVDA: America’s Descent into Marxism – Brief Video
http://www.solutionsfromscience.com/
Ass America:
I see a lot of innuendo, wingnut rhetoric, and misunderstanding of the law in your post. Do you have any facts? Thanks
#26-Yes you are playing word games and a
pregnancy is not abnormal. In your thought
sleeping is abnormal because most people
are awake at that moment. Your argument is
totally flawed and you can’t make it.
Secondly if you don’t want the “parasite”
in your body simply don’t get pregnant.
You are an adult I presume-Doh there are
ways to prevent pregnancy you know. Why
invite the “trespasser” into your most
private property in the first place?
Thirdly you sound like someone feeling
guilty about something and then venting
on others or is making money doing
something and having to justify it.
Fourthly Clinton just like Obama is yours
not mine.
I have read that once the anti-abortion lobby gets rid of Roe v. Wade, their next target is Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 decision regarding privacy and contraceptives.
Oh yeah, and there’s so much support in this country for banning contraceptives.
Linda Rivera: “Obama promised HOPE and CHANGE. The media never asked what frightening changes Obama planned for Americans.”
Uhh, yes they did:
Transcript from September 15, 2008 CBS News interview with Presidential candidate Barack Obama
KATIE COURIC, CBS NEWS: As your campaign begins to get into specifics on proposed policy for an “Obama administration”, I’m sure a question on many American citizens’ minds right now concerning how you might govern, especially perhaps those Americans who are concerned with your proposed policies and plan not to vote for you. So on behalf of these folks, I would like to know, what kinds of frightening changes do you have in store for them?
PRES. CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Katie, that’s an excellent question, and I’m glad you brought it up. You know, uh, there are a lot of ways in which I hope to frighten Americans in the next eight years. Now if you’ll notice, I just said eight years. Right off the bat, uh, I think a lot of people are very frightened by that statement, because it implies not only that American citizens will have to contend with the notion of having a black president for eight long years, and I know that there are many Americans who are truly terrified by this prospect (chuckles). But it also implies that I somehow already know that I am going to win, which is a very frightening implication for a host of reasons (winks at camera).
But to answer your question Katie, honestly, I have a great deal of frightening changes in store for America, in terms of policy especially, so much so by the end of my term, even the most radical liberals will be mortified. That is, uh, the ones who are still alive (laughs). I mean, after I outlaw firearms of any kind, force women to get abortions, and declare myself dictator for life, I think you’re going to see a lot of particularly terrified Americans who are going to just be, you know, looking up to the heavens sort of wondering “what happened to my country?” And I know they are going to be very angry about all this. But fortunately, uh, our incoming administration planned for this, and so I’m proud to say that we’ll be using hundreds of pre-established federal detention centers set up all across the country to detain and re-educate citizens whose acts of fear-induced acts of disorderly conduct could be a threat to national security. But in addition to crapping their pants and basically having the holy bejeesus scared out of them, uh, Americans should also be very pleased to know that by using pre-existing, dilapidated, rat-and-disease-infested facilities to detain disorderly conservative Americans, my administration will be saving taxpayers billions of dollars in construction costs.
COURIC: Well, thank you, Mr. Obama, for your candid response.
OBAMA: My pleasure.
COURIC: (Giggling) And to think, Americans would never have been exposed to the terrifying truth about your candidacy had I not simply asked.
OBAMA: Well, to be honest, no one before you asked me the question. I’m happy to talk about my nightmarish vision for the United States to anyone who is willing to listen.
I haven’t waded through all of the comments here but it is obvious that PROCHOICER doesn’t know the difference between symbiotic and parasitic lifeforms.
“I don’t have to prove my ideas. You are the ones wanting laws passed. Therefore, YOU have to prove yours are not religious. Without thumping a bible can you state *why* you think a zygote is a baby entitled to everything you say it is?”
From conception, a human zygote meets the four criteria that define life (as put forth in Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary): That is, a zygote is metabolizing, growing, responding to outside stimuli, and the means for reproduction are somewhere in the genome. Thus, the zygote meets a rigorous definition of life and so the unborn child should be protected by the same laws that the rest of us enjoy.
50. One Bad Ass Mistake America
“Who knows? Women wanting abortions may have to wait in line, too.”
obama will then identify that as an unintended consequence. That circumstance will then become the foundational rationale for allowing women to kill babies up to 6 months old (for administrative reasons, doncha know)
It will be called an administratively delayed abortion. That particular live-born abortion will not be given a birth certificate, but a death appointment certificate. At the appointed time and place, the parent will show up with the ADA (Adm. Delayed Abortion) subject, which will then be aborted.
So abortion seeking women having to wait in line will be taken care of.
In addition, of course, funding for reparations for those women will be written into the federal budget for all the lost time and angst caused by the delay in federally funded abortions.
Friend Delia, I appreciate your discussions here on “when’s a baby a baby”, but will have to say that I have never considered a 7-day pregnancy a fully formed human. But the 7 day pregnancy IS human life.
A cake mix being beat in the mixing bowl certainly isn’t a fully formed cake. That doesn’t mean I will look kindly on having it thrown out by my husband if he uses the reason, “Come on. It wasn’t a real cake.”
For the nimrods who want to pretend that I, as a Christian, am interested in THEIR “private sex lives”?…..give me a break. I just would like them to keep their sex lives private.
It’s a old debate trick to make exaggerated claims in order get your opponent to try to defend and dismantle the exaggerated claim.
To ProChoicer:
You have an incorrect understanding of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Just because a position is consistent with what is found in the Bible or Koran does not mean that passing a law that is consistent with the Bible or Koran is the unconstitutional establishment of religion. For example, I am sure that you are aware that among the Ten Commandments is the prohibition of theft. Is it your position that laws against theft are unconstitutional because the Bible says theft is wrong?
Also, assuming your definition of tumor to be correct (cannot survive outside of the host), what do you say about the fetuses who are killed by abortion after they attain “viability” (i.e., the ability to survive outside of the womb, currently at 22 to 24 weeks of gestational age, and getting lower all the time due to advances in technology). Fetuses can be aborted right until birth (39 to 40 weeks of gestational age)and even be killed with partial birth abortion (with only the head in the womb when they are killed). These are viable babies being killed who can survive outside of their mother.
Your argument fails on both the constitutional analysis and the scientific analysis. Thanks for reading this post.
“intelligent enough to understand that it’s comprised primarily of totalitarian evangelical psychopaths whose ultimate goal is to control the sex lives of American citizens.”
I am a woman who finally got enough intelligence to understand the scientific fact abortion is not my body in which a tube is stuck in the nape of my neck in order to suck out my brain but abortion of a uniquely distinct human being with its own unique human DNA.
Just because I have an orgasm does not give me the right to abort another human being.
What horrifies me the most is the grotesque nature of Medea’s barbarism drilled into the feminist’s brain waves; She has become the most hideous of creatures with butchered wombs and empty hearts, soulless, empty, hallow sehlls formerly known as human.
Social Justice preaches to the flock ‘exterminating the innocent and euthanizing the elderly’ is the legal means to helping the poor.
If you are sitting in a church today and hear the words Social Justice being preached, you are listening to the evil serpent’s slithering tongue; a false prophet.
The Church of Social Justice is evil; United Church of Church, Catholic Church, Episcopalian, Lutheran are full of false prophets preaching Social Justice.
Social Justice, this is the reason why so many ‘religious Americans’ ended up Judas selling their souls for a few measly pieces of government silver.
United Church of Christ
is just like the hospital in Chicago named after Christ, where doctors denied comfort and care to a human being left to die without the right to life.
Judas is rich in the United Church of Christ
Mike W
Silly boy, you know nothing about sex; no doubt an amateur whose greatest climax came from watching internet porn.
Any one who believes condoms prevents anything are NOT having sex; if they were having sex they would know that condoms interfere with the sensitivity factor.
Ask any of the 53% of homosexuals males in San Francisco who are today infected with AIDS; ask them how come condoms did not prevent them from spreading the disease from one friend to the next?
No one is really Pro abortion. They are pro choice. Get it? Or maybe it should be, anti stupid Republican, holier than thou, racist southerner, white supremacist, greedy, fake christian, homophobe, confederate, loser. The GOP is always saying the Gov. should stay out of our lives, then why don’t they stay out of women’s wombs? It’s her body, leave her alone. You think maybe they’re concerned that too many white babies are being aborted and this will cut down on the number of soldiers for the upcoming race wars they have planned?
sue: “Silly boy, you know nothing about sex; no doubt an amateur whose greatest climax came from watching internet porn.
Any one who believes condoms prevents anything are NOT having sex; if they were having sex they would know that condoms interfere with the sensitivity factor.”
Sorry, Sue, I know this isn’t the first time you’ve been told this, and clearly it won’t be the last, but you’re crazy!
As an adult male, I can 100% attest to the effectiveness of condoms. I have used them every time, and in the past ten years of regular “activity” I have never been responsible for a single pregnancy! Condoms work! And the fact that you’re peddling this ignorant crap is really pathetic.
“Ask any of the 53% of homosexuals males in San Francisco who are today infected with AIDS; ask them how come condoms did not prevent them from spreading the disease from one friend to the next?”
Probably because they did not use condoms?!
Everyday I grow more and more convinced that ignorant people like you, who spread your ignorance to others, are a bigger threat to America than any terrorist group could possibly be.
@ 71. JackT:
“..They are pro choice. Get it? Or maybe it should be, anti stupid Republican, holier than thou, racist southerner, white supremacist…You think maybe they’re concerned that too many white babies are being aborted…”
Actually, blacks make up 12 percent of the US population, but have 35 percent of all abortions. HALF of black babies conceived are aborted. Obama supports Planned Parenthood, which has 78 percent of its clinics in minority neighborhoods, and whose founder, Margaret Sanger, was a RACIST who supported eugenics.
On the other hand, Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is PRO-LIFE. “I know in my heart that if Uncle Martin were alive today, he would join with me in the greatest civil rights struggle of this generation — the recognition of the unborn child’s basic right to life.”
Abortion has been called by some in the African American community a “Black Gencide.”
Who’s the ignorant racist now?
Some quotes from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief aim of birth control.”
“Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.
Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …”
“It now remains for the United States government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or a yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means.”
“Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race…”
And you have the gall to call pro-lifers racist?
I never really knew why my teachers were so adamant that only verified sources be used for papers. now i believe i do. reading this article which caters to the pro birthers and other radical crackpots, and uses a movie most conservatives- ironically- would derive as tasteless and yet another reality of hollywood smut. the point is common ground comes from looking towards ways in which the need for abortions- as President Obama said. the pro birthers just like the anti smoking anti drinking anti everything that bothers them are indicative of everything that plauges this country today. the belief that people need to be treated like children, and told what is wrong and what is right is exacatly how tyranny starts. the point is that pro birthers need to stop pretending as though they have been betrayed. pro birthers have degraded life with their tedious and plain old misleading diolouge by reducing life to the mere mechanics of the physical, as though people were defined by their genetic coding. through relentless attempts to secure rights to even the flimsiest elements of life they have weakened the true value of life, the acutual lives. in short pro birthers in all of their dogma supporting innocent life they have forgotten the value of a life: the individual who expierences life over the physical and coporeal.