See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Obama’s Abortion Alliance: « Riggword Weblog
2. Obama is just EVIL ! - Politics
3. PAXALLES
4. jillstanek.com
5. southchild » Blog Archive » The Lying Senator Infanticide
6. The lying liar continues to lie. I shall call him “It”. « Because No One Asked
7. Obama voted No on Born Alive Legislation : BigMouthFrog
8. Obama’s concern over born alive act? « The Daley Gator
9. If you are still looking for a reason NOT to vote for Obama…here it is…. «
10. Obama’s Abortion Stance Disgraces Christians: « Riggword Weblog
11. Sarah Palin Strong Christian Mom and Soon to be Grandmom: « Riggword Weblog
12. Obama Corruption and Faith, « Riggword Weblog

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #415978
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

   30,

   I get the feeling TOS can’t answer you – LOL

2. #415979
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

   you just love to stay in your little cone of ignorance.

   Pot, meet Kettle.

   Explain to me his text from my link on pages 30 through 35. Then try and defend how his very words ARE AGAINST SAVING CHILDREN BORN ALIVE WHO SURVIVED AN ABORTION. He says he “trusts” the judgement of the doctor aborting the child to determine if it is born alive without the second opinion of another doctor. Does he trust the doctors who left those children to die in Christ Hospital in a soiled utility room?

   Sickening, but no surprise from you TPOS.

3. #415981
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:18 pm, FamilyMan said:

   My father was 16oz when he was born. That is five and a half months term delivery. He now is 96 years old. Alive and kicking. Using pro abortion mentality, what was he at 15oz?

4. #415983
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

   How did he vote to let kids die when this was already State law (Illinois Abortion Law of 1975):

   Did that state law protect the children who died in Christ Hospital? Did those doctors get the felonies that is prescribed by law for their crimes?

5. #415986
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

   Soap,
   I am afraid you are correct.

6. #415987
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:22 pm, rooster said:

   On August 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm, TheOtherSide said:
   I encourage those outraged here to read this piece in the Chicago Tribune. I find it to be the most unbiased account.

   I also encourage you to get a clue TOS typical liberal moron that you are, why is it you have to try to explain what Barry the baby killer meant by his support of infanticide?

7. #415990
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm, Paul Revere said:

   Technology is winning the war against murderers like Obama. The more people see premature babies live, the more people will realize abortion is murder.

8. #415996
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm, TheOtherSide said:

   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:
   TOS,
   An agenda… doesn’t everybody have one? What exactly is yours?

   To present “the other side” of issues, as I know most on this board rely on WorldNetDaily, Rush, Hannity, etc. for their information and receive only half of a story filled with half-truths and misrepresentations. I know the left does the same and that is why I visit sites and listen to the news from both sides, I find that’s the only was I can get an accurate assessment.

9. #415997
   On August 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm, rooster said:

   What is it that odumbo says about the least of us PTOS?
   Didn’t he quote from the bible about what we must do for the least of us? Maybe he got the quran and the bible mixed up?

10. #415998
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:28 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm, Paul Revere said:

    Yes, Paul, and the earlier in development it can survive outside the womb, unless some POS doctor or politician gets in the way.

11. #416000
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm, FamilyMan said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:18 pm, FamilyMan said:
    My father was 16oz when he was born. That is five and a half months term delivery. He now is 96 years old. Alive and kicking. Using pro abortion mentality, what was he at 15oz?

    TheOtherSide
    Answer my question.

12. #416003
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:30 pm, Joy said:

    b. Hussein is a vile man. This action is one of pure evil.

13. #416008
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:32 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm, alaskangrizzly said:
    you just love to stay in your little cone of ignorance.
    Pot, meet Kettle.

    Explain to me his text from my link on pages 30 through 35. Then try and defend how his very words ARE AGAINST SAVING CHILDREN BORN ALIVE WHO SURVIVED AN ABORTION

    see pg. 33…

    The source of the objections of the (Illinois State) Medical Society (was that this proposal) puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact his is a non-viable fetus; that if that fetus, or child—however way you want to describe it—is now outside the mothers’ womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s non viable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, (the fetus is) not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved….. The only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor – the attending physician – who has made an assessment that this is a non-viable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, …that labor is being induced, that that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment and b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if—if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense. But I suspect –and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well –that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that ,essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

14. #416009
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm, rooster said:
    Didn’t he quote from the bible about what we must do for the least of us? Maybe he got the quran and the bible mixed up?

    Socialists don’t truly believe in God, so quoting scripture is merely theatre. Socialists believe religion to be the opiate of the masses.

15. #416012
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm, alaskangrizzly said:
    How did he vote to let kids die when this was already State law (Illinois Abortion Law of 1975):
    Did that state law protect the children who died in Christ Hospital? Did those doctors get the felonies that is prescribed by law for their crimes?

    The hospital was not found to be criminally negligent in that case. I haven’t seen the court proceedings nor the complete evidence, so I can’t judge whether that judgement was a good on e or not. However, if this was a case of injustice, couldn’t this injustice occur even under the BAIPA law?

16. #416013
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    From roughly pages 30ish through 35 of my first post link:

    Senator O’Malley:

    ‘Senator Obama, first of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the — you know, the practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that — an attending physician be — brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where there’s a — suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child may — may be — may be viable – that there’s a suspicion – so that the attending physician would make that decision as to whether that would be the case. The other one is where the child is actually born alive and then is — is — is actually born alive, in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability’

    Senator Obama:

    ‘As I understand it, this puts a burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if the fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call in a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child……. Because if these children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.‘

    Yeah, I trust the guy who is killing a fetus child to make sure that if it is born alive and survives your attempt to kill it that you will do everything in your power to keep it alive. /sarc

17. #416014
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm, GJCorby said:

    Do we really need any more proof that Obama is the Anti-Christ?

18. #416018
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm, FamilyMan said:
    My father was 16oz when he was born. That is five and a half months term delivery. He now is 96 years old. Alive and kicking. Using pro abortion mentality, what was he at 15oz?
    TheOtherSide
    Answer my question.

    Thank you for misreprenting pro-choice as pro-abortion FamilyMan. He was a fetus at 15 oz. All I know is that your grandmother made the choice to have the baby and I am happy for that.

19. #416020
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm, Elwood P. Dowd said:

    The Other Side – two things:
    1. You say that since babies were already protected (#97), Obama wasn’t voting to let kids die. In honest curiosity though, can you clear up for me what he really was voting against and what his reasons were?

    2.

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    To present “the other side” of issues, as I know most on this board rely on WorldNetDaily, Rush, Hannity, etc. for their information and receive only half of a story filled with half-truths and misrepresentations.

    Can I ask how you know where most of us receive our news?

20. #416022
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    Can I ask how you know where most of us receive our news?

    Because he’s omnipotent. /sarc

21. #416024
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm, FamilyMan said:

    TheOtherSide
    What was my father at 15oz
    What was my father at 12oz
    What was my father at 8oz
    When did my father deserve protection under the law?
    Do you or Obama care?

22. #416027
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:42 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    …I find that’s the only was I can get an accurate assessment.

    …unless it comes straight from your candidates own mouth? Obama told Planned Parenthood he would sign into national law (setting precedence – unlawfully) a bill making abortion on demand for any reason legal and he would do it in the first ten days. Forgoing the abortion issue for the moment, think of the consequences of being able to circumvent state laws with the stroke of a pen.

    As for allowing babies to die, Obama HAS made his position pretty clear. We do not need any of the referenced web sites or news services to tell us Obama is devoid of humanity. The idiot could not even answer a simple question with his own opinion. He could have said, “In my opinion I believe life begins…”

    It is real easy – watch and learn. I think life begins at conception. Obama is trying to appeal to both sides of the issue and to have an opinion either way it to snub one side which he is not willing to do.

    Obama is an empty suit and I do not need to read DKOS or Huf-POS to know it.

23. #416028
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:43 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    Thank you for misreprenting pro-choice as pro-abortion FamilyMan.

    Pro-choice is the smiley face label on pro-abortion. You can’t be Pro-choice and anti-abortion, nor pro-abortion and anti-choice.

24. #416029
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm, Elwood P. Dowd said:
    The Other Side – two things:
    1. You say that since babies were already protected (#97), Obama wasn’t voting to let kids die. In honest curiosity though, can you clear up for me what he really was voting against and what his reasons were?

    As most of the democrats in the Illinois senate did at this time, he feared that this was a back-door effort by pro-lifers to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    2. Can I ask how you know where most of us receive our news?

    It’s blatantly obvious.

25. #416032
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:45 pm, FamilyMan said:

    TheOtherSide
    One second my father is a fetus, the next he is human. What insanity!!!!!!!!

26. #416035
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    TheOtherSide… that implied argument, or whatever you want to call it… doesn’t fly. You seem to be saying that Obama’s position was that doctors would never ignore the fact that a live birth would occur and in fact would always give care.

    The whole issue is that Doctors were in fact letting infants die in this situation, as Jill Stanek was witness to, and the bill was intended to protect these newborn children instead of having nurses and doctors leave them to die alone in some closet.

    Obama knew this was the issue and his bullsh#t argument was that this wasn’t happening. So, therefore his real issue was the potential liability of doctors and he didn’t (doesn’t) give a rats ass about the life of these children.

    Obama is scum as far as I’m concerned.

    The only people that will give him a pass is the people that also could not case less about a newborn child’s life.

    I’m glad the country may finally get a chance to see the real Obama.

27. #416038
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:43 pm, b-cat said:
    You can’t be Pro-choice and anti-abortion

    Why not? Can someone not smoke yet be for the right of others to do so?

28. #416040
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    As most of the democrats in the Illinois senate did at this time, he feared that this was a back-door effort by pro-lifers to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    What would be so terrible about that?

29. #416042
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    And lets say the Roe v. Wade thing was the issue for him.

    Obama would let newborn babies die to protect “A Woman’s [alleged] right to choose”. He’s still scum.

30. #416043
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm, ajmontana said:

    Obama is scum as far as I’m concerned.

    I second that.

31. #416045
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm, NJ-Aviator said:
    TheOtherSide… that implied argument, or whatever you want to call it… doesn’t fly. You seem to be saying that Obama’s position was that doctors would never ignore the fact that a live birth would occur and in fact would always give care.

    The whole issue is that Doctors were in fact letting infants die in this situation, as Jill Stanek was witness to, and the bill was intended to protect these newborn children instead of having nurses and doctors leave them to die alone in some closet.

    Obama knew this was the issue and his bullsh#t argument was that this wasn’t happening. So, therefore his real issue was the potential liability of doctors and he didn’t (doesn’t) give a rats ass about the life of these children.

    Bingo.

32. #416046
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:54 pm, Elwood P. Dowd said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    can you clear up for me what he really was voting against and what his reasons were?

    As most of the democrats in the Illinois senate did at this time, he feared that this was a back-door effort by pro-lifers to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    2. Can I ask how you know where most of us receive our news?

    It’s blatantly obvious.

    How can protecting babies born alive be a back-door attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade? If that was his fear, why has he played all sorts of games in explaining his vote since then?

    How insulting can you be? To presume to flat-out know where we all get our news… Just because you are on the opposite side of the issues from me (and consistently regurgitate liberal headlines and talking points) I don’t presume to know that you get all your information from HuffPo or DKos or MSNBC… I will gladly engage in discussion with you in an attempt to better understand the other side, but not if you are going to be this arrogant and ignorant.

33. #416047
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:56 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    Why not? Can someone not smoke yet be for the right of others to do so?

    Not if you believe that the cigarette is itself worthy of protection as an anti-abortion stance would protect the unborn.

34. #416050
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm, LibTired said:

    This is clearly not the dead baby in a closet that Obama knew.

35. #416051
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:45 pm, FamilyMan said:

    TheOtherSide
    One second my father is a fetus, the next he is human. What insanity!!!!!!!!

    The mental contortionism is enough to make you sick, isn’t it? And it’s all a load of crap. If abortion is, as liberals claim, a constitutionally guaranteed right, then it cannot be overturned by any state statute. And of course, let’s also ignore that this bill dealt specifically with children who survive abortion attempts. It didn’t have jack sh*t to do with Roe v. Wade.

36. #416059
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:00 pm, Trollman said:

    TheOtherSide, since you are the informed one, explain something to me.

    How can Obama, who claims he doesn’t know when a fetus becomes a human, support the slaughter of fetuses?

    I can imagine taking Obama hunting:

    Obama: I see something moving, is that a deer, or a fellow hunter?

    Me: I’m not sure…

    Obama: Then let’s kill it and let God sort’em out. That is His pay grade, after all!

37. #416063
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm, FamilyMan said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    Why not? Can someone not smoke yet be for the right of others to do so?

    You are equating a social interaction (smoking) with a fundamental social contract (the rights of being human)

38. #416064
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm, Trollman said:

    All politicians have skeletons in their closets. In fact, we all have skeletons in our closets.

    But Obama literally has tiny skeletons in his closet. I think I need to vomit.

39. #416065
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm, sonofdy said:

    How can protecting babies born alive be a back-door attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade? If that was his fear, why has he played all sorts of games in explaining his vote since then?

    And how do explain him voting against the protection of the babies AFTER his desired abortion protection was put in place.

40. #416072
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Thanks for image Trollman. I needed to drop a few pounds.

41. #416073
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    How did he vote to let kids die when this was already State law (Illinois Abortion Law of 1975):

    Clearly, even if it was law, it wasn’t working according to the testimony of at least one nurse – Jill Stanek.

    Please – enough with the links and the rhetoric, Other Side. Answer these questions directly:

    1) Do you support abortion up to and including the moments before and after birth?

    2) How is it burdensome to the mother if the child is saved and put up for adoption?

    3) How is this not infanticide?

    4) Who is and isn’t worthy of protection under the law? In other words, who is human?

42. #416077
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Obama to Pro-choice:

    ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ANY REASON!!!

    Obama to Pro-life:

    It’s above my pay grade.

    Gee, and I didn’t even need WorldNetDaily for that.

43. #416078
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm, DagneyT said:

    This is an issue that will NOT go away, regardless of how the Obama’s people try to spin it!

44. #416081
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    What would be so terrible about that?

    No dead babies. In a liberal’s world, that’s the tragedy.

    The day Roe V. Wade is overturned will be the greatest day in the history of mankind.

    I’m sick of liberals defending law breakers, criminals, terrorists but going out of their way to ensure babies die painful deaths.

    We wouldn’t rip criminals apart limb from limb. We wouldn’t stick scissors in their skulls and suck out their brains.

    But we do that to babies. BABIES.

    My tolerance for those who support this evil is waning.

45. #416083
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm, b-cat said:

    englishqueen, you go right for the throat!

46. #416084
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ANY REASON!!!

    Indeed – Abortion uber alles.

47. #416086
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    englishqueen, you go right for the throat!

    You damn right. Now – and let me make this clear for the lefties out there – I have never and will never support violence and abortion clinic bombings. Totally against the pro-life movement.

    But I’m going to fight you, tooth and nail, until every woman and child is spared from the butchers that are known as abortionists and until you – who preach tolerance and compassion – stop demonizing children who’ve committed no crime save existing (and they didn’t ask to be created, either).

    I am going to make you look as bad as abortion really and truly is. It’s not a day at the hair salon – it’s death. It’s violence. And it’s unnecessary in the richest, freest nation in the world.

    The end of abortion is coming and I will go to my grave working to bring it about. And those of us who fight for life will be rewarded.

48. #416090
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm, Yashmak said:

    You can’t be Pro-choice and anti-abortion

    – b-cat

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

49. #416091
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm, Misscheryl said:

    EQ – #144

    DITTO what you said with me as well.

50. #416097
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:22 pm, Big Hammer and Anvil said:

    EQ – excellent posts!

    Alas, TOS is over its head with generalizations and no thought out answers.

    Notice the lowering of the bar in response to FamilyMan’s query: Not months, but weight (a 1 ounce difference now). What BS.

51. #416098
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:23 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm, englishqueen01 said:
    The end of abortion is coming and I will go to my grave working to bring it about. And those of us who fight for life will be rewarded.

    Well said, milady. It is a disgrace to the nation that this practice is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

52. #416100
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    The day Roe V. Wade is overturned will be the greatest day in the history of mankind.

    I’m sick of liberals defending law breakers, criminals, terrorists but going out of their way to ensure babies die painful deaths.

    We wouldn’t rip criminals apart limb from limb. We wouldn’t stick scissors in their skulls and suck out their brains.

    But we do that to babies. BABIES.

    My tolerance for those who support this evil is waning.

    Tell me about it. I find this particular aspect of murder completely indefensible and heinous. The fact that Obama and his Obamatons engage in such deceitful mental gymnastics is staggering. What a society we live in.

    I’m still waiting for Rusty to show up and try to justify killing babies, as he usually does. Lgm is MIA as well. I guess he’s busy being envious of rich (Republican) people.

53. #416101
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    No you can’t. There is right and wrong in this world and those definitions are not ever-changing or shifting with cultural “norms”.

    Killing babies is wrong. Advocating killing babies is wrong. Passively supporting the “right” to kill babies is wrong.

    Obama is wrong and I’m not afraid to say it anymore. Abortion is wrong and it must end.

    PERIOD.

54. #416102
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pm, Misscheryl said:

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    This is a lie – TO ABORT A LIFE IS MURDER – not a choice.

55. #416105
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm, FamilyMan said:

    TheOtherSide
    Brother brother there’s more baby to smother

56. #416106
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:27 pm, Jim M. said:

    Obama said that the country’s greatest moral failure was not doing enough for its underprivileged.”We still don’t abide by that basic precept of Matthew — whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me,” Obama said.

    America Online

    It would seem by any rational measure that a Christian who took those words to heart would look upon a fetus born alive as the least of us.

    The difference between one financially “underprivileged” and an infant struggling to breathe with underdeveloped lungs while losing blood from the “procedure”? One can vote, and one cannot.

    Here’s a newsflash: Obama is no more a Christian than the Pope is an atheist. He has used Christianity as a stepping stone to political office. Nothing more.

57. #416108
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:27 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm, Yashmak said:

    You can’t be Pro-choice and anti-abortion
    - b-cat

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    Sorry, but that’s a pile of crap. You’re either against murdering the unborn (or in this case the already born) or for it. The position you propose is hypocrisy and double standards.

    That’s like saying, “I’m against murdering an innocent child but I’ll never stop anyone else from choosing to”.

    See the idiocy in that?

58. #416112
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Brother brother there’s more baby babies to smother

59. #416114
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm, Elwood P. Dowd said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm, Yashmak said:

    You can’t be Pro-choice and anti-abortion

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    If a person believes abortion to be wrong, how could he possibly support others doing it?

60. #416116
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm, Yashmak said:
    Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    There you go again. If you are actually against abortion, you are against the practice.It is wrong for me. It is wrong for you.

61. #416120
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm, Big Hammer and Anvil said:

    Sorry, but there is no shades of gray here.

    Try to obfuscate the matter with terminology (he who controls the verbage controls the arguement) all you want. But it boils down to one question:

    Either you support killing of babies or you do not.

62. #416125
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    It would seem by any rational measure that a Christian who took those words to heart would look upon a fetus born alive as the least of us.

    And I think the next rational question would be who’s next on Obama’s list of “burdens” and “punishments”?

    Would my grandfather – who had a stroke in 1988 and was left paralyzed – be a “burden” on us? My parents cared for him for 5 1/2 years until he died, 24/7/365. Was that “punishment”? Did my grandfather need to be eliminated because he was an inconvenience or expense to someone?

    Peter Singer already advocates stripping rights from children up to one year of age (and especially disabled children) so why not the elderly? Why not the disabled?

63. #416131
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:32 pm, Snowfire said:

    I’ve been reading these posts and feel I need to respond to the person (or is he/she/it still a fetus) who makes statements that we get our information from WND or Hannity and that dictates how we think and what we believe.

    I’ve got news for him/her/it. What I believe and think comes from common sense, common decency, and a deep belief in the sanctity of human life (until a murderer or worse forfeits his life through his actions). I don’t need anyone to tell me what to think or believe.

    “The problem with common sense is that it is not very common.”

64. #416135
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm, englishqueen01 said:
    And I think the next rational question would be who’s next on Obama’s list of “burdens” and “punishments”?

    Oh, you know as well as I do that euthenasia is next. There are many burdens on society, and there are punishments to, ugh, um, er, escape.

65. #416136
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm, Yashmak said:

    There you go again. If you are actually against abortion, you are against the practice.It is wrong for me. It is wrong for you.

    – b-cat

    Uh, no. I’ll never force the choice on any woman I’m with, even though if she were to have the procedure I’d leave her. I would discourage the practice in my friends and family, but am opposed to making the choice illegal.

    Sorry if that makes your head explode. . it’s just the way it is.

66. #416139
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm, Big Hammer and Anvil said:

    Did this not happen before?

    Elimination of a burden on society…unwanted infants, disabled, handicapped, elderly…

    The lessening value of human life in any circle is to the depreciation of all.

    Think it was Nuremburg circa 1930…

67. #416140
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    This is why I’m not a Libertarian
    There is no choice in legal social contracts ( our Constitution) The choice you speak of is a creation of the court and not a constitutional right.

68. #416143
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm, Yashmak said:
    Uh, no. I’ll never force the choice on any woman I’m with, even though if she were to have the procedure I’d leave her. I would discourage the practice in my friends and family, but am opposed to making the choice illegal.

    Sorry if that makes your head explode. . it’s just the way it is.

    Now why would you leave her for her choice. In fact, it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others. And no, my head hasn’t exploded, but thank you for the concern.

69. #416144
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm, Elwood P. Dowd said:

    Yashmak (sorry, I just can’t let that one go) – What you are saying is basically, “I wouldn’t have an abortion – they’re just not for me, however, if you want to have one then that’s your choice.” The thing is, that is clearly not being against abortion. A person who is against abortion believes abortion to be wrong. And, in doing so they believe it to be equally wrong for everyone. How can something be wrong, but okay for others to do anyway? The person in your example is someone who is pro-abortion (or pro-choice or whatever you crazy kids are calling it) but wouldn’t get one. Clearly a very different thing.

70. #416147
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    I’ve been reading these posts and feel I need to respond to the person (or is he/she/it still a fetus) who makes statements that we get our information from WND or Hannity and that dictates how we think and what we believe.

    Once again – I point to Atheists for Life. Just one example that defies the notion only right-leaning Christians support life. There are pro-life Democrats out there and I’d actually consider voting for them if their party didn’t throw them under the bus for denying the sacrament of abortion.

    Oh, you know as well as I do that euthenasia is next.

    Yeah, I do. But this is one instance where being right doesn’t make me happy, though.

71. #416148
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm, sambo said:

    englishqueen01 said:
    No you can’t. There is right and wrong in this world and those definitions are not ever-changing or shifting with cultural “norms”.

    You just called out one of the libs strategy. The other big one is to desensitize…

72. #416150
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm, atheling said:

    Peter Singer is also a hypocrite. He advocates the killing of “non persons”, i.e., those who fail the litmus test of certain types of “consciousness”, like Downs Syndrome children, and Alzheimer’s patients, but when his own mother came down with Alzheimer’s he couldn’t put his money where his mouth is:

    A recent article in The New Yorker shrewdly identified a key contradiction in Singer’s approach to ethics. Confronting him with the fact that his own mother was dying of Alzheimer’s disease, which rendered her, in Singer’s scheme, a “nonperson,” but that he had not euthanized her, Singer responded by saying it was “different” in the case of someone he knew and loved, and that he choose to care for her as long as possible, spending copious amounts on health care, albeit on someone doomed to die, rather than giving the money to aid those who could live. “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult.” Betraying the abstract viewpoint that is an occupational hazard of the academic, Singer had no problem of prescribing euthanasia to imaginary others, but found it impossible to do in his own case with someone all-too concrete.

    http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Peter%20Singer–summary.htm

73. #416153
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm, englishqueen01 said:
    Yeah, I do. But this is one instance where being right doesn’t make me happy, though.

    I hear ya. I’m getting older everyday, too.

74. #416154
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Uh, no. I’ll never force the choice on any woman I’m with, even though if she were to have the procedure I’d leave her.

    So you wouldn’t force her to do it, but you’d leave her if she did? How about this – if she gets pregnant, help her through the pregnancy. Help her raise the child…even if you aren’t suited for marriage. Or help her put the child up for adoption.

    Just as an FYI, read this blog. Some pro-aborts here will dismiss it as “biased” but it offers hard-hitting stories about what really goes on in abortion clinics across the nation.

    You’d let a woman go through the hell of an abortion and dump her? That’s no better than the men here who’d let a woman go through that hell and dare to call themselves progressive, sensitive men.

75. #416158
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:45 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Peter Singer is also a hypocrite. He advocates the killing of “non persons”, i.e., those who fail the litmus test of certain types of “consciousness”, like Downs Syndrome children, and Alzheimer’s patients, but when his own mother came down with Alzheimer’s he couldn’t put his money where his mouth is:

    Yeah, he’s a hypocrite but at least he didn’t kill his mother.

    Alzheimer’s is a nasty disease. My aunt has a very, very severe case of it – I’d never imagine any of my cousins or family putting her to death, though. We take care of her. We love her.

    But I guess we’re just oppressive, ignorant fools, right?

76. #416162
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm, FamilyMan said:

    I’m not religious. I believe it’s socially and legally dangerous to allow abortion. Fox News is not my prime source of information.

77. #416164
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm, sambo said:

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    So personally I would never bash someones head in with an ax…but I’m not against other people bashing someone else’s head in.

78. #416179
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Sure you can. Someone who is pro-choice can (for instance) be personally against abortions, but believe that it is wrong to eliminate the choice for others.

    This is why I’m not a Libertarian

    Exactly. I have found that libertarianism has become a code word for libertinism. They don’t want morals, they want the freedom to do whatever they please, even if it means killing those who stand in the way of their pursuit of pleasure.

79. #416180
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm, Trollman said:

    I remember a philosophy of ethics class I was in. Everyone in the class was bashing China for allowing the infanticide of baby girls.

    Then the professor (who was a pro-choice, flaming liberal) pointed out that “we allow abortion, how is that really different?” The class, which was overwhelmingly pro-choice, just sat there in stunned silence.

80. #416184
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    I remember a philosophy of ethics class I was in. Everyone in the class was bashing China for allowing the infanticide of baby girls.

    Then the professor (who was a pro-choice, flaming liberal) pointed out that “we allow abortion, how is that really different?” The class, which was overwhelmingly pro-choice, just sat there in stunned silence.

    No – it isn’t. Just like China, girls are often specifically aborted because they’re girls.

    Way to go feminism. Kill off future feminists.

81. #416186
    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm, Trollman said:
    I remember a philosophy of ethics class I was in. Everyone in the class was bashing China for allowing the infanticide of baby girls.

    Then the professor (who was a pro-choice, flaming liberal) pointed out that “we allow abortion, how is that really different?” The class, which was overwhelmingly pro-choice, just sat there in stunned silence.

    You have a flawed education. That kind of thinking is dangerous.

82. #416193
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm, terrig said:

    EQ, as usual very eloquent posts! I cannot fathom how this man sleeps at night but unfortunately there are plenty of morons like him out there. Today at Walter Reed I overheard another parent saying “It’s really a shame that resources are being used on that kid who doesn’t even know she’s alive. The parents should just let her die because she shouldn’t have been allowed to be born in the first place.”. I had to leave or I would have smacked her across the face.
    The Pete Singer thing is typical of the liberal mindset.
    I worry about our country.

83. #416195
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm, FamilyMan said:

    TheOtherSide
    Where did you go? Come out and play. We promise not to throw so hard next time. Promise! Really! Honest injen.

84. #416211
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pm, Scooter36 said:

    pack your bags and go back to France then Terrig

85. #416212
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    EQ, as usual very eloquent posts! I cannot fathom how this man sleeps at night but unfortunately there are plenty of morons like him out there. Today at Walter Reed I overheard another parent saying “It’s really a shame that resources are being used on that kid who doesn’t even know she’s alive. The parents should just let her die because she shouldn’t have been allowed to be born in the first place.”. I had to leave or I would have smacked her across the face.

    I’m to the point now where I would have said something.

    Whether or not someone knows they’re alive is a moot point. We don’t *know* we’re alive while we’re asleep, do we? Is murder justified if the victim is in bed, then?

    I think not.

    I refused prenatal testing when pregnant with my son. I will continue to do so but if something abnormal showed up on the ultrasound, I would not abort.

    Even if my son was stillborn, or died shortly after birth, I could lay him to rest knowing full well I treated him like a human being and loved him with all my heart.

86. #416216
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    pack your bags and go back to France then Terrig

    Just what the heck is that supposed to mean?

87. #416217
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    LOL FamilyMan. He got beat up the last time this issue came up. I suppose he ran off to huff-POS so he could equalize.

88. #416225
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    EQ, ignore him. Someone let crappy pants out of the basement and he’s trolling all the threads for attention.

    Pathetic little thing, isn’t he?

89. #416228
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm, terrig said:

    EQ, I hope that Scooter is never visited with a child who is dying. I hope that he gets some mental health help that he so richly deserves.

90. #416229
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm, FamilyMan said:

    God On-my-soap-box are you saying we aborted him?

91. #416231
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    I’m to the point now where I would have said something.

    Me too. I would have brought up the fact that the same kind of attitude prevailed in Nazi Germany, where they killed off the mentally retarded, insane, elderly, handicapped, etc… because they considered it a waste of “resources”. Shame on that person.

92. #416237
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:11 pm, sambo said:

    Scooter36 said:
    pack your bags and go back to France then Terrig

    I believe you would fit in better there Scooter. You could also pickup a good deal on antique guns that have never been fired and dropped only once!

93. #416242
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:13 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Me too. I would have brought up the fact that the same kind of attitude prevailed in Nazi Germany, where they killed off the mentally retarded, insane, elderly, handicapped, etc… because they considered it a waste of “resources”. Shame on that person.

    The technical term for such individuals was “useless eater” and is apropos of this situation.

94. #416246
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:15 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm, FamilyMan said:
    God On-my-soap-box are you saying we aborted him?

    Self inflicted retroactively aborted me thinks!

95. #416249
    On August 21st, 2008 at 4:16 pm, terrig said:

    I usually say something but I knew it would be useless and I was so tired and I had that long drive back that I was afraid that if I had started, I couldn’t stop.

96. #416375
    On August 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm, Papa Louie said:

    TheOtherSide said:

    How did he vote to let kids die when this was already State law (Illinois Abortion Law of 1975)…

    TOS, did YOU read the link you posted? Or was it “that far over your head”? It clearly states:

    Prosecutors in Illinois entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on “born alive” definitions and other definitions

    So the 1975 law you quoted wasn’t being enforced. That’s why they needed a new law to clear up ambiguities in the old law and protect the rights of infants.

    TheOtherSide said: I’m sorry you found the piece obfuscating. It didn’t think it would be that far over your head.

    Here’s just one example of obfuscation in the piece:

    Senate Bills 1661, 1662 and 1663 — also failed. Obama voted both “present” and “no” on these bills — same effect, different optics. Six Republican senators voted “present” or “no” on at least one of these “born-alive” bills as well.

    By lumping all these bills together, Zorn is trying to make it look as if six Republicans voted the same as Obama on all these bills. But they didn’t vote with Obama on the main bill in question. Zorn avoids this fact in his piece precisely because he wants to obfuscate. His piece is not the “most unbiased account” because it is clear that he is carefully choosing his words and cherry-picking his facts to put Obama in the best light possible on this issue.

    Your link only gives one side of the story. If you’re really interested in learning The Other Side, read this article by David Freddoso. Here’s an excerpt:

    But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired.
    …the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee — against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.

    By the way, the document linked above shows that all Republicans on the committee voted for the bill that Obama voted against.

97. #416387
    On August 21st, 2008 at 5:16 pm, GraniteMan said:

    Obama lied—Children died!!!