Santorum had no chance in 2012.

I saw this on HuffPo this morning. As bad as it sounds and as clumsy as it is, I think the point he was trying to make was

Since black people used to be considered less than a whole person , and that was obviously a moral wrong, why would a black man consider a fetus less than a whole person, which, in his mind is equally wrong.

I still don’t like the guy but I don’t think he meant it in the way it’s going to be taken.

Yeah Rick everyone knows that black people have no room to say who is a person or not that is a white man’s job right? You racist pig? At least he didnt mention beastiality this time.

Color Me Badd said:
Yeah Rick everyone knows that black people have no room to say who is a person or not that is a white man’s job right? You racist pig? At least he didnt mention beastiality this time.

That’s because he’s had time to visit the farm since he got voted out and has had a change of heart.

Grab your pen and paper, Cons…tomorrow morning, Rush will tell you what to say when confronted with someone offended by Santorum’s remarks. Luckily, Hannity still has a couple of hours to figure out how to blame this on liberals. So make sure you listen to Sean today.

Don’t worry, Cons. It’ll all be fine.

I invite Badd and Redleaf to read the comment by your fellow liberal poster Dan. You jumped the shark on racism the second the journOlist brought to light the DEM planned strategy of calling everyone a racist.

redleaf said:
Grab your pen and paper, Cons…tomorrow morning, Rush will tell you what to say when confronted with someone offended by Santorum’s remarks. Luckily, Hannity still has a couple of hours to figure out how to blame this on liberals. So make sure you listen to Sean today.

Don’t worry, Cons. It’ll all be fine.

Yep that is basically it, I would expect the teabag brigade to start defending this on here in the next few minutes, they have to get their talking points together and focused.

and abortions kill more african americans than any other cause………in the USA

I don’t guess any of a righties finds this in least racist or offensive?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I invite Badd and Redleaf to read the comment by your fellow liberal poster Dan. You jumped the shark on racism the second the journOlist brought to light the DEM planned strategy of calling everyone a racist.

Right. No problem with this vile, blatant racism I see, Michelle-in-Utah. I wish I could say I were surprised. I find it terribly interesting than so many of us condemned Cohen today, but you want to give Santorum a pass and play your stinking little games.

I wonder if “Foxnews” will stand by there employee?!

Matt,

I have to commend you on your posts. Every one that I have read is fair and objective–even in your columns–and that’s something I haven’t seen on this site very often.

However, I feel as though I have to disagree with you on Santorum’s comments. While I feel that he was a longshot for the Presidency anyways, I don’t think that his comments–taken in the correct context, of course–were offensive. I took it as, since the history of the black man is so, well, troubled, shall I say, in the subject of life, Rick is arguing that Obama really doesn’t have the right to effectively decide that another life isn’t another life since the black community has faced those same, as he perceives it, struggles for legitimacy.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I invite Badd and Redleaf to read the comment by your fellow liberal poster Dan. You jumped the shark on racism the second the journOlist brought to light the DEM planned strategy of calling everyone a racist.

The person who brought race into equation is Rick Santorum. Obama’s ethnicity and abortion have nothing to do with each other.

what is wrong with his comment? blacks were underrepresented in our country for a long time, and now unborn children are underrepresented, and in fact are targeted, intentionally or not, by blacks (who voted overwhelmingly democrat) in the last election.

“I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘no we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

Poor libs, he is referring to the fact that for a long time in this country blacks were considered property and not people.

In fact in the Constitution , a black was considered as 3/5ths. of a person for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives.

You libs are truly dullards.

CosmosDan said:
Since black people used to be considered less than a whole person , and that was obviously a moral wrong, why would a black man consider a fetus less than a whole person, which, in his mind is equally wrong.

Well said , Dan that’s EXACTLY what he meant , and everybody knows it , people like TRRK enjoy expressing their faux outrage though.

Dave Noland said:
So since one time in the the black culture they were viewed as animals African Americans can’t think on their own? Obama must apply what ever logic his white predecessors say? Abortion is legal you Right wint nuts. LEGALl! Do you know what that means? It’s 2011 and it’s legal. BY this poll over 70% of Americans agree with some sort of abortion. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

How about for a change some of you RWNJs come out and condem this statement?

I have no idea why you responded to my post with is. I did not defend his position at all.

mcf1757 said:
I wonder if “Foxnews” will stand by there employee?!

Undoubtedly. Perhaps that is why PBS is the most trusted newsource in America whilst FOX “News” is the least trusted. Actually, it’s amusing. FOX “News” is more trusted than CNN and MSNBC (43%) but also less trusted than CNN and MSNBC (46%). And, FOX “News” is one of two (2) newsources less trusted this year than last year.

Thanks to CosmosDan for succinctly summarizing the absurdity of trying to make this an outrage.

Dave Noland said:
FAIL

You are the world’s biggest failure.

I find it offensive because it implies a false history.

Slaves were declared to be three-fifths human in order to keep the south from having a disproportionately larger representation and thus more power and to keep at bay a Constitutional crisis that could have broken apart a burgeoning nation.

murf said:
Well said , Dan that’s EXACTLY what he meant , and everybody knows it , people like TRRK enjoy expressing their faux outrage though.

Look, That doesn’t make its okay. I gathered from his tone that he was trying to find some way his feeble mind could see as positive. It’s a dumb ass comparison to make even if he’d said it the way I described.

The Real Royal King said:
Undoubtedly. Perhaps that is why PBS is the most trusted newsource in America whilst FOX “News” is the least trusted. Actually, it’s amusing. FOX “News” is more trusted than CNN and MSNBC (43%) but also less trusted than CNN and MSNBC (46%). And, FOX “News” is one of two (2) newsources less trusted this year than last year.

Actually FOX is still trusted more in that poll you refer ( by 42-41 %) , than ABC , CBS , NBC and CNN , but keep blowing ..

murf said:
Well said , Dan that’s EXACTLY what he meant , and everybody knows it , people like TRRK enjoy expressing their faux outrage though.

Believe me, my outrage is anything but faux. Sanatorium has a long, long history of thinly veiled racist comments which he backs out of on a technicality and wink-wink, nod-nod, Know what I mean? Know what I mean?

But, I condemned Cohen strongly and loudly. Speaks volumes that you can’t condemn Sanatorium’s remarks.

murf said:
Actually FOX is still trusted more in that poll you refer ( by 42-41 %) , than ABC , CBS , NBC and CNN , but keep blowing ..

That’s exactly what I said Numbnuts. More trusted and less trusted. And, apparently, increasingly less trusted.

Some of you libs are determined to find racism EVERYWHERE and so you will. A majority of American’s aren’t buying your boy (and I mean an actual boy, since I’ve been called a racist for using that word on this very website before) who cried wolf routine anymore. Sorry.

CosmosDan said:
Since black people used to be considered less than a whole person , and that was obviously a moral wrong, why would a black man consider a fetus less than a whole person, which, in his mind is equally wrong.

I still don’t like the guy but I don’t think he meant it in the way it’s going to be taken.

Well, that was Santorum’s mistake. He’s supposed to sit back and be called a racist if he criticizes the president. He’s not supposed to the one who invokes race.

Cecelia said:
I find it offensive because it implies a false history.

Slaves were declared to be three-fifths human in order to keep the south from having a disproportionately larger representation and thus more power and to keep at bay a Constitutional crisis that could have broken apart a burgeoning nation.

Well, that’s half way there and very well put.

Good Lord, people. Yeah, it’s rucisms. Don’t pull a muscle (or fat) streeeeeeetching to find a way to take offense at this one. I don’t care one way or the other about Santorum but this faux “controversy” is just plain stupid. Everybody knows what point he was making. It is in no way offensive. However, in today’s hyper-sensitive, politically correct world, the mere mention of race by a white honkey cracker gets labeled racism. You lefty wingnuts tire me out.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Some of you libs are determined to find racism EVERYWHERE and so you will. A majority of American’s aren’t buying your boy (and I mean an actual boy, since I’ve been called a racist for using that word on this very website before) who cried wolf routine anymore. Sorry.

I’m not sure that’s true, but I do know you are hellbent to deny its existence and ready to spring to the defense of any and every dark-hearted, dark-souled racist in Amerika if only they sure your extreme rightist ideology.

The Real Royal King said:
That’s exactly what I said Numbnuts. More trusted and less trusted. And, apparently, increasingly less trusted.

Firstly, let me say I don’t trust polls. If a poll said 95% love Obama, I don’t trust it. If a poll says, 88% of America hates Health Care reform, I don’t believe it. I don’t believe in polls. They’re easily skewed. That said, the breakdown of the “do you trust Fox News” poll mirrors of the political makeup of America. Basically, we’re a center-right country.

“With Santorum’s random injection of race into an already politically charged topic, what also no longer seems to be debatable issue is whether Santorum has much of a future left in politics.”

I guess someone should have told him that if you try to have an honest conversation about abortion or race he will be vilified.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I invite Badd and Redleaf to read the comment by your fellow liberal poster Dan. You jumped the shark on racism the second the journOlist brought to light the DEM planned strategy of calling everyone a racist.

Taken at face value it does sound pretty dam racist. I only gathered what he meant from context and tone.

I fail to see how this ruins his political career and future aspirations. Abortion disproportionately occurs in black and Latino neighborhoods. You cannot dismiss the existence of Planned Parenthood clinics in poor neighborhoods AND Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics, inferior mongrel races and the role of abortion in thinning out undesirables. If the author of this piece wants to look into that I’ll gladly look forward to reading it. But I won’t hold my breath. Why do that when there is a Conservative to smear?

The Real Royal King said:
That’s exactly what I said Numbnuts

Really ?

blockquote cite=”comment-288228″>The Real Royal King said:
Perhaps that is why PBS is the most trusted newsource in America whilst FOX “News” is the least trusted.

Dan says:

Taken at face value it does sound pretty dam racist. I only gathered what he meant from context and tone.

That just goes to my point that if you want to be offended by it, you will be. I tend to agree with your first comment. Did he speak poorly, absolutely. Was he being racist, no, I don’t believe that for a second. But since a large part of the left will paint the right as racist no matter what they do, they will indeed jump all over this.

Rick, that was a very stupid remark to make…….why the word “black man”?
You had a lot of potential at the beginning of your career, till we all found out what you are made of.

The Real Royal King said:
Well, that’s half way there and very well put.

Well, I’m going to leave to you the half that argues that it’s inherently racist to invoke the president’s race when Santorum does it, but not when Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd do it.

Royal Pain in the Butt says:

I’m not sure that’s true, but I do know you are hellbent to deny its existence and ready to spring to the defense of any and every dark-hearted, dark-souled racist in Amerika if only they sure your extreme rightist ideology.

Well, my ‘extremist ideology” is shared by 40% of the country and yours is shared by 20%. Surely even you can do that math.

murf said:
Really ?

blockquote cite=”comment-288228″>The Real Royal King said:
Perhaps that is why PBS is the most trusted newsource in America whilst FOX “News” is the least trusted.

I see Numbnuts. You want to play intellectual dishonesty. Well, you are very good at it, but it should be note my quote continued:

Actually, it’s amusing. FOX “News” is more trusted than CNN and MSNBC (43%) but also less trusted than CNN and MSNBC (46%). And, FOX “News” is one of two (2) newsources less trusted this year than last year.

Cecelia said:
Well, that was Santorum’s mistake. He’s supposed to sit back and be called a racist if he criticizes the president. He’s not supposed to the one who invokes race.

As I said, it’s a dumb ass comparison to make and does nothing to help his argument. To imply that the President should be sympathetic to his pov because he’s black, may be blunt and honest, but it’s also pretty stupid. It’s dam close to saying, “well no wonder he likes basketball” or “is a good dancer”

Cecelia said:
Well, I’m going to leave to you the half that argues that it’s inherently racist to invoke the president’s race when Santorum does it, but not when Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd do it.

No, that’s racist as well.

Cecelia said:
Well, I’m going to leave to you the half that argues that it’s inherently racist to invoke the president’s race when Santorum does it, but not when Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd do it.

But Chris only forgets that BHO is black for an hour at a time.

The Real Royal King said:
I’m not sure that’s true, but I do know you are hellbent to deny its existence and ready to spring to the defense of any and every dark-hearted, dark-souled racist in Amerika if only they sure your extreme rightist ideology.

I think that’s the inherent danger of your throwing around the word racist like it was a used pair of socks.

The Real Royal King said:
I see Numbnuts. You want to play intellectual dishonesty. Well, you are very good at it, but it should be note my quote continued:

Actually, it’s amusing. FOX “News” is more trusted than CNN and MSNBC (43%) but also less trusted than CNN and MSNBC (46%). And, FOX “News” is one of two (2) newsources less trusted this year than last year.

Intellectually dishonesty ? You said FOX was the LEAST trusted which is FALSE .. Im done with you.

CosmosDan said:
As I said, it’s a dumb ass comparison to make and does nothing to help his argument. To imply that the President should be sympathetic to his pov because he’s black, may be blunt and honest, but it’s also pretty stupid. It’s dam close to saying, “well no wonder he likes basketball” or “is a good dancer”

Not necessarily: the two phrases in quotations are stereotypes whereas the actual statement is based off of historical information.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Royal Pain in the Butt says:

I’m not sure that’s true, but I do know you are hellbent to deny its existence and ready to spring to the defense of any and every dark-hearted, dark-souled racist in Amerika if only they sure your extreme rightist ideology.

Well, my ‘extremist ideology” is shared by 40% of the country and yours is shared by 20%. Surely even you can do that math.

You insufferable Twit. 40% of America may identify itself as conservative, but that doesn’t mean extreme or radical right. I dare say 5% or fewer of Americans share your whacked out, Stone Age, hate-filled, jack-booted, radical, extreme rightist ideology.

Since this thread is about abortion, I have a question for those of you that are pro-abortion. Do you think abortion should be legal anytime until birth and if not, where should the cut off be? I’m sincerely interested in your honest opinions on the subject.

murf said:
Intellectually dishonesty ? You said FOX was the LEAST trusted which is FALSE .. Im done with you.

He’s being obtuse by noting how polarized the FOX numbers are. False? No. Dishonest? Yes.

King says:

You insufferable Twit. 40% of America may identify itself as conservative, but that doesn’t mean extreme or radical right. I dare say 5% or fewer of Americans share your whacked out, Stone Age, hate-filled, jack-booted, radical, extreme rightist ideology.

Which of my views do you think fit into that category? Be specific please.

The Real Royal King said:
I’m not sure that’s true, but I do know you are hellbent to deny its existence and ready to spring to the defense of any and every dark-hearted, dark-souled racist in Amerika if only they sure your extreme rightist ideology.

Man, you sure are making up lies at record speed.

Name someone on here who has denied racism exists? I see racism everyday on here from the left and some of your left reps:

“A few years ago, he (Obama) would be serving us coffee.” — Bill Clinton

” He (Obama) doesn’t sound like a Negro unless he wants to.” Senator Harry Reid

“He ( Obama) couldn’t sell watermelons to….” Dan Rather

“See, Barack’s been talking down to black people … I want to cut his nuts off.” Jesse Jackson

Bill Maher on how he expected BHO to act with BP: “I was expecting a “real black president”– you know, the kind that “lifts up his shirt so they can see the gun in his pants.”

“Isn’t Obama’s big problem is that he does everything half-assed? Maybe it’s because he’s only half black

CosmosDan said:
As I said, it’s a dumb ass comparison to make and does nothing to help his argument. To imply that the President should be sympathetic to his pov because he’s black, may be blunt and honest, but it’s also pretty stupid. It’s dam close to saying, “well no wonder he likes basketball” or “is a good dancer”

Well,three-fifths human is an actual historical designation. Good dancer is a stereotype.

There’s certainly an analogy between three-fifths human and “not viably human”, but yes, it begs the question of some other arguments as the basis for abortion law.

The reason Obama doesn’t have the perspective that Santorum expects is that Obama has slave owner blood in him, not slave blood. He’s got the whip hand in his DNA.

The Real Royal King said:
You insufferable Twit. 40% of America may identify itself as conservative, but that doesn’t mean extreme or radical right. I dare say 5% or fewer of Americans share your whacked out, Stone Age, hate-filled, jack-booted, radical, extreme rightist ideology.

Oh, shut up! She doesn’t hold whacked out extreme ideology, she’s just your opportunity to browbeat and bully.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Did he speak poorly, absolutely. Was he being racist, no, I don’t believe that for a second. But since a large part of the left will paint the right as racist no matter what they do, they will indeed jump all over this.

I’m not entirely convinced it wasn’t still racist. Just ignorant racist , rather than hateful racist. I repeat
To imply that the President should be sympathetic to his pov because he’s black, may be blunt and honest, but it’s also pretty stupid. It’s dam close to saying, “well no wonder he likes basketball” or “is a good dancer”

I don’t want people to cry racist every time the president is criticized. It’s one more distortion we don’t need. Unless the racism is pretty overt then don’t go there, is my motto. In this case he made an unnecessary black man comparison that doesn’t help his argument. That’s leaning into overt territory.

Cecelia says:

Oh, shut up! She doesn’t hold whacked out extreme ideology, she’s just your opportunity to browbeat and bully.

Now wait, Cecelia, it’s possible I do, but we won’t know until he answers me and tells me which views he’s referring to.

snatchax said:
what is wrong with his comment? blacks were underrepresented in our country for a long time, and now unborn children are underrepresented, and in fact are targeted, intentionally or not, by blacks (who voted overwhelmingly democrat) in the last election.

Fetuses, embryos and zygotes don’t have legal human rights. You get a BIRTH certificate, not a CONCEPTION certificate. Thanks.

murf said:
Intellectually dishonesty ? You said FOX was the LEAST trusted which is FALSE .. Im done with you.

You’re as big a Twit as Michelle-in-Utah and every bit as intellectually dishonest. 46% of Americans distrust FOX “News”. No other network is as distrusted by as many Americans as that. Yes, more Americans trust FOX “News” than trust MSNBC, but more Americans distrust FOX “News” than distrust MSNBC. Why is that so hard to grasp. Have you ever taken a statistics course?

Read this:

“A year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don’t. Conservatives haven’t moved all that much- 75% said they trusted it last year and 72% still do this time around. But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the network- a 12 point gain from 48% to 60% for moderates and a 16 point gain from 66% to 82% for liberals. Voters between left and center tend to be more trusting of the media across the board, which is why a fair number of them were still rating Fox favorably even a year ago at this time. But it looks like with a lot of those folks it has finally crossed the line to being too political to trust.”

Now read the entire article:

http://www.frumforum.com/plurality-of-americans-distrust-fox-news

Here’s the breakdown:

Most Trusted
PBS: 50%
Fox: 42%
NBC: 41%
CNN: 40%
CBS: 36%
ABC: 35%

Most Distrusted
Fox: 46%
ABC: 43%
CBS: 43%
CNN: 43%
NBC: 41%
PBS: 30%

and here’s the source material:

http://boston.com/community/blogs/gatekeeper/2011/01/older_viewers_distrust_tv_news.html

Please spend some time with all of this. I think it may help you.

Cecelia said:
Oh, shut up! She doesn’t hold whacked out extreme ideology, she’s just your opportunity to browbeat and bully.

As I told Janet yesterday, dear, go get a fresh lemon to suck on.

Dan, the definitino of racist is:

•a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

How would his comment fit into that category. I tend to agree with Cecelia when she says it’s more of a stereotype. In my opinion, but term has been SO overused that it’s meaning has been lost and distorted. That’s too bad.

Cecelia said:
Well,three-fifths human is an actual historical designation. Good dancer is a stereotype.

There’s certainly an analogy between three-fifths human and “not viably human”, but yes, it begs the question of some other arguments as the basis for abortion law.

The laws regarding abortion don’t vary from race to race do they? You’re correct, it begs the question when it equates the historical 3/5 black person hood to a fetus as if it’s an accepted fact. It isn’t and that’s the discussion.
Agree or not, Obama said it’s above his pay grade meaning it’s not up to him to make that call for others.

Gasket says:

Fetuses, embryos and zygotes don’t have legal human rights. You get a BIRTH certificate, not a CONCEPTION certificate. Thanks.

So, just to be clear, you think a woman should be allowed to abort a baby even 1 day before she’s due? Just want to make sure I have your position correct.

Wonder what Rick man on dog Santorum thinks about this or any of this supporters, why isn’t it major news? Oh yeah because when we find out it was right wing crazies who did it, it wont fit with the media narrative that both sides do this stuff and its all even, quit picking on conservatives!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/official_spokane_mlk_day_bomb_worst_device_ive_eve.php?ref=fpb

CosmosDan said:
To imply that the President should be sympathetic to his pov because he’s black, may be blunt and honest, but it’s also pretty stupid. It’s dam close to saying, “well no wonder he likes basketball” or “is a good dancer”

Again, those are stereotypes. Three-fifths human is not.

I agree with you, but it’s interesting that race is used to condemn all sorts of political speech based upon the fact of the president’s race.

If you put the president’s face in The Joker makeup, you’re racist, for not considering our racial history. You certainly could never call Pres. Obama “Chimp” as Bush was called, without being called a racist BECAUSE of our racial history.

Invoking the president’s race seems to be very much a matter of who’s doing it.

Pablo said:
The reason Obama doesn’t have the perspective that Santorum expects is that Obama has slave owner blood in him, not slave blood. He’s got the whip hand in his DNA.

Racist.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Dan, the definitino of racist is:

•a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

How would his comment fit into that category. I tend to agree with Cecelia when she says it’s more of a stereotype. In my opinion, but term has been SO overused that it’s meaning has been lost and distorted. That’s too bad.

Well, Santorum seems outraged that a black man would be able to have an opinion different from what Santorum assumes black people should believe. Thus, Santorum has a preconceived notion of what black people should think. That’s pretty racist.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
King says:

You insufferable Twit. 40% of America may identify itself as conservative, but that doesn’t mean extreme or radical right. I dare say 5% or fewer of Americans share your whacked out, Stone Age, hate-filled, jack-booted, radical, extreme rightist ideology.

Which of my views do you think fit into that category? Be specific please.

Please, Michelle-in-Utah, no more games. You know very, very well that your extreme views on denial of a woman’s choice, denial of healthcare, wars of aggression and preemptive strikes, along with your intense xenophobia and racism put you squarely in the most extreme, hostile right.

Color Me Badd said:
Wonder what Rick man on dog Santorum thinks about this or any of this supporters, why isn’t it major news? Oh yeah because when we find out it was right wing crazies who did it, it wont fit with the media narrative that both sides do this stuff and its all even, quit picking on conservatives!

Didn’t you learn anything from your last rush to judgment, Badd?

The Real Royal King said:
I don’t guess any of a righties finds this in least racist or offensive?

Hey grammar expert, what the hell did you just say? “any of a righties”?

NOTHING Santorum said was OFFENSIVE or RACIST. He was never a serious candidate to be nominated anyway. He has NOTHING to apologize for.

Just because you LOONS try to say something is offensive or racist won’t make it so.

Color Me Badd said:
Racist.

How do you figure?

Jesus, stop leaning on polls to prove your point.
For every poll that says “Fox is great” there’s a poll that says, “Fox sucks.”
For every poll that says, “Obama is great” there’s a poll that says, “Obama sucks.”
Why not make an intellectual argument instead of relying on unreliable polls?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Dan, the definitino of racist is:

•a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

How would his comment fit into that category. I tend to agree with Cecelia when she says it’s more of a stereotype. In my opinion, but term has been SO overused that it’s meaning has been lost and distorted. That’s too bad.

Actually, the term hasn’t lost its meaning, Michelle-in-Utah. Some people just find themselves more comfortable with their prejudices, perhaps in any time since 1965.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Dan, the definitino of racist is:

•a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

How would his comment fit into that category. I tend to agree with Cecelia when she says it’s more of a stereotype. In my opinion, but term has been SO overused that it’s meaning has been lost and distorted. That’s too bad.

That’s a valid point and maybe his flawed thinking is swaying me.

Can’t accepting a stereotype be a form of ignorant racism, or is just ignorant an adequate description?
I’m willing to go with just an ignorant bad argument in this case.

gordonbloyershow said:
Hey grammar expert, what the hell did you just say? “any of a righties”?

NOTHING Santorum said was OFFENSIVE or RACIST. He was never a serious candidate to be nominated anyway. He has NOTHING to apologize for.

Just because you LOONS try to say something is offensive or racist won’t make it so.

There you have it folks. End of debate. Gordon has pointed out bad grammar and issued an opinion with no reasoning behind it. Now stop commenting, controversy resolved. He even used caps.

Dan says:

Can’t accepting a stereotype be a form of ignorant racism,

Bases on the definition, I’m not sure how you’d reach that conclusion. Based on the definition, you’d need to think you are superior and I don’t think he was saying anything of the sort.

The Real Royal King said:
As I told Janet yesterday, dear, go get a fresh lemon to suck on.

You go get someone else to abuse around here.

Talk about an idiotic statement. It’s not exactly racist, but it sure is dumb as hell. For starters race has jack shit to do with abortion rights. Santorum makes a fool of himself on that front for even bringing race into the discussion. Second, aren’t conservatives always saying to stop bringing up things like slavery, the civil rights movement, etc because they were in the past and they’re bygone so why is Santorum bringing up ancient history here? Any insight would be appreciated.

King, have you noticed that it’s actually possible to discuss this topic rationally, like Dan and I? You should try it some time.

CosmosDan said:
That’s a valid point and maybe his flawed thinking is swaying me.

Can’t accepting a stereotype be a form of ignorant racism, or is just ignorant an adequate description?
I’m willing to go with just an ignorant bad argument in this case.

I do believe that accepting stereotypes is actually a form of racism because if you actually meet people you see they’re not true.

because abortion is the #1 killer of african-americans

Cecelia said:
You go get someone else to abuse around here.

A better retort would have been to tell him to stop grasping, for dear life, that childhood bully mentality that he seems to do, much to the dismay to anyone who reads his comments.

Honestly, King, I don’t see how you can get so belligerent with Cecelia, she’s one of the few nice conservatives I’ve met on here.

BTW king, how’s that list of my extremist positions coming? You made the claim, now back it up.

ps, Cecilia, If you and the King met in a dark alley and only one could come out, my money would be on you.

The Real Royal King said:
Actually, the term hasn’t lost its meaning, Michelle-in-Utah. Some people just find themselves more comfortable with their prejudices, perhaps in any time since 1965.

Based upon how seldom you seem to look in the mirror, I’m sure that true.

Dave Noland said:

Hey, dullard- you had no clue what he was referring to. If you had, you would have mentioned it and you didn’t!

You said Santorum was saying blacks “could not think for themselves.”

You take the cake, dullard!

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
ps, Cecilia, If you and the King met in a dark alley and only one could come out, my money would be on you.

You better believe it.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
abort a baby even 1 day before

Your showing your ignorance here Michelle.There are LAWS on the books about when and how an abortion can take place.Your the google queen look it up.

cjd ohio 1 said:
because abortion is the #1 killer of african-americans

Behind negro moments, pork chops and fema….it’s a fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8cj9WQuZws

Might not like the word, but it’s still effing hilarious.

NM King, I see that you did provide a list and it’s just as ridiculous as I thought it would be.

Cecelia said:
Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

I find it offensive because it implies a false history.

I agree he really stepped over the line but I don’t follow the “false history” argument.

I suspect that that very 3/5 compromise was what he used as a basis for his comment but why would that be a “false history”?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Honestly, King, I don’t see how you can get so belligerent with Cecelia, she’s one of the few nice conservatives I’ve met on here.

Because I’m ruining his party. On every blogboard where King operates he picks out someone he thinks he can treat like pond scum and feel like a big man.

Michele is his choice here, and he’s insulted her religion, her family, and just about every thing one could.

BOX of ROX, I was responding to this statement by Gasket:

Fetuses, embryos and zygotes don’t have legal human rights. You get a BIRTH certificate, not a CONCEPTION certificate. Thanks.

Perhaps it’s your lack of reading skills that is the problem. They have classes for that you know.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
ps, Cecilia, If you and the King met in a dark alley and only one could come out, my money would be on you.

If the King,Osama Bin laden, and Hitler came out out of an alley and you had a gun with just 2 bullets what wold you do?

Shoot the King twice!

The Real Royal King said:
Actually, the term hasn’t lost its meaning, Michelle-in-Utah. Some people just find themselves more comfortable with their prejudices, perhaps in any time since 1965.

You are wrong……..the word has lost its meaning. And its because people on the left using it to death.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Since this thread is about abortion, I have a question for those of you that are pro-abortion. Do you think abortion should be legal anytime until birth and if not, where should the cut off be? I’m sincerely interested in your honest opinions on the subject.

You idiot. No one is “pro-abortion.” That infers that people PREFER the end result of any pregnancy to be an abortion, which is NOT the case! We are pro-choice. The woman in consult with her physician gets to make that decision, (HER CHOICE) not the government. Now that we have that distortion out of the way, yes, I believe abortion should be legal all throughout a pregnancy, however, that doesn’t mean I endorse abortion after a fetus is viable. In my opinion, the decision to abort a pregnancy should be made within the 1st trimester. The abortion option in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters should be for cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy or there’s a problem/complication with the pregnancy that could lead to a catastrophic problem with the infant. I don’t want legal red tape coming in to handcuff the decision a physician might make. I am quite certain this is the federal framework of the abortion law.

Grammie said:
I suspect that that very 3/5 compromise was what he used as a basis for his comment but why would that be a “false history”?

Because Santorum seemed to imply that it was a designation based upon a comparable expediency.

Wow I gotta say his statement does not sit well with me at all, pretty offensive. I know what he was trying to say but he said it in a completely just flat out wrong way.

Cecelia said:
Because I’m ruining his party. On every blogboard where King operates he picks out someone he thinks he can treat like pond scum and feel like a big man.

Michele is his choice here, and he’s insulted her religion, her family, and just about every thing one could.

Personally I don’t like Michele or mormonism either, but I have reason for both of those. I can only take so much of being told what I am, who I am and what I believe in by somebody who has no knowledge of me. However, I’ve never once had any problems with you, I’ve only had civil conversations and I enjoy your insight.

Gasket said:
You idiot. No one is “pro-abortion.” That infers that people PREFER the end result of any pregnancy to be an abortion, which is NOT the case! We are pro-choice. The woman in consult with her physician gets to make that decision, (HER CHOICE) not the government. Now that we have that distortion out of the way, yes, I believe abortion should be legal all throughout a pregnancy, however, that doesn’t mean I endorse abortion after a fetus is viable. In my opinion, the decision to abort a pregnancy should be made within the 1st trimester. The abortion option in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters should be for cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy or there’s a problem/complication with the pregnancy that could lead to a catastrophic problem with the infant. I don’t want legal red tape coming in to handcuff the decision a physician might make. I am quite certain this is the federal framework of the abortion law.

THANK YOU!! What a woman does and does not do with her body and the consequence that may have on her soul have NOTHING to do with me. That’s between her, her conscience and God and I have no right to limit that.

Yes, libs, your calling people Nazis is perfectly acceptable but Santorum’s comment about BHO’s race is a federal crime.

Cecelia said:
Again, those are stereotypes. Three-fifths human is not.

I agree with you, but it’s interesting that race is used to condemn all sorts of political speech based upon the fact of the president’s race.

If you put the president’s face in The Joker makeup, you’re racist, for not considering our racial history. You certainly could never call Pres. Obama “Chimp” as Bush was called, without being called a racist BECAUSE of our racial history.

Invoking the president’s race seems to be very much a matter of who’s doing it.

Agreed, I don’t see any need or positive angle in being outraged over a foolish slip of the tongue regardless of who does it.
The joker sign, Not racist. The witch doctor sign. Pretty racist.

, Santorum didn’t seem to be claiming any racial superiority with this comment or looking down on anyone. It was just stupid. Thanks for the input from you and Window

Gasket, the fact that you think it’s perfectly fine for a woman to terminate her pregnancy at ANY time is frankly disgusting. Hey have you met this guy? It sounds you have alot in common:

A West Philadelphia abortion doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. …
Gosnell is facing Murder in the 3rd Degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009 when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven Murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the 6th, 7th and 8th month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.
Gosnell is suspected of killing hundreds of living babies over the course of his 30 year practice. However, he is not charged because the records do not exist.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Personally I don’t like Michele or mormonism either, but I have reason for both of those. I can only take so much of being told what I am, who I am and what I believe in by somebody who has no knowledge of me. However, I’ve never once had any problems with you, I’ve only had civil conversations and I enjoy your insight.

I’m glad you feel that way.

There are lots of people who don’t like Catholicism but he’d be the first to call them a bigot if they said half the things about it, that he says about Mormonism.

Cecelia said:
Because Santorum seemed to imply that it was a designation based upon a comparable expediency.

comparable expediency huh? Impressive.

Gasket said:
abortion law.

There ya go, seeing nothing Michelle, look this up. Perhaps your reading skills need some polishing.

I have some real philosophical questions over the difference between severing a late term infant’s spine with scissors, from pulling them to pieces in utero.

That God Santorum didn’t say this:

“”Obama is the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Man, if he had said something as racist as that why, he would be, I say, he would be———- the VP of the USA!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Honestly, King, I don’t see how you can get so belligerent with Cecelia, she’s one of the few nice conservatives I’ve met on here.

Then you really don’t know or understand the foul depth of his nature as Cecelia, I and now 2012 and Sarahinitaly know and have known.

BTW, I am so glad to see you stand up for at least one of we ladies here while seeming to condone his behavior to the rest of us.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/haiti-one-year-later/item/11444-19tmindict

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Honestly, King, I don’t see how you can get so belligerent with Cecelia, she’s one of the few nice conservatives I’ve met on here.

I completely agree. I have always found Cecelia informed and articulate. I don’t always agree with her and sometimes she can be prickly. Nonetheless, I love her like my luggage.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:

ps, Cecilia, If you and the King met in a dark alley and only one could come out, my money would be on you.

Undoubtedly. I am one of those refined Southern gentlemen who would never, never strike a lady like Cecelia. Nor a woman. Nor a females of the species. Nor a female of other species. I know it quaint and dated, but so be it.

notsofast said:
Yes, libs, your calling people Nazis is perfectly acceptable but Santorum’s comment about BHO’s race is a federal crime.

Calling people Nazis is NOT perfectly acceptable and neither is Santorum’s stupid statement. I don’t think his statement is racist, but, it is VERY offensive.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Gasket, the fact that you think it’s perfectly fine for a woman to terminate her pregnancy at ANY time is frankly disgusting. Hey have you met this guy? It sounds you have alot in common:

A West Philadelphia abortion doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. …
Gosnell is facing Murder in the 3rd Degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009 when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven Murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the 6th, 7th and 8th month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.
Gosnell is suspected of killing hundreds of living babies over the course of his 30 year practice. However, he is not charged because the records do not exist.

What that doctor did was AGAINST the law. That has absolutely nothing to do with MY position, which is LEGAL. Re-read it, understand then respond back.

What’s interesting is that you can’t invoke our racial history in order to make a racial appeal to the president, but you can invoke both our racial history and the president’s race, in order to declare some remark or image racially insensitive or racist.

Gasket, you’re both for killing a live human being. There’s not much difference to me, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I’m guessing you’ve never been a parent and seen an ultrasound and if you have and still think you should be allowed to abort up until birth, you are heartless in my humble opinion.

Grammie said:
Then you really don’t know or understand the foul depth of his nature as Cecelia, I and now 2012 and Sarahinitaly know and have known.

BTW, I am so glad to see you stand up for at least one of we ladies here while seeming to condone his behavior to the rest of us.

Well I don’t know how you behave around him. I’m not really condoning anything. I’m just not giving people a pass. I’ve experienced the “foul depth” of Michele’s nature when she has consistently told me how evil liberals are, what I believe in and who I am when she knows nothing of me, my first interaction with her was when she tried to paint Joseph Stack as a liberal and me a sympathizer simply because I am a liberal. Surely you know how it feels to be connected to a killer simply by political association which isn’t even warranted. Frankly i refuse to stand for it and keep quiet simply because she’s a woman. If she behaved that same way to King initially some of his behavior may be warranted, granted he does have a tendency to go to extremes.

King, no matter how much fun you make of Michelle’s religion in order to get her attention, she’s still not going to the prom with you. Give it up.

Cecelia said:
I’m glad you feel that way.

There are lots of people who don’t like Catholicism but he’d be the first to call them a bigot if they said half the things about it, that he says about Mormonism.

Indeed our history is abhorrent. I am often the first to criticize my own Church. We haven’t any recent massacres nor any in America, and we haven’t perpetuated any heresies of late, but we have conducted ourselves very badly indeed. The various deviant sex scandals. Utterly reprehensible.

Gasket said:
I don’t think his statement is racist, but, it is VERY offensive.

Is this racist?

”Obama is the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

or any of these?

“A few years ago, he (Obama) would be serving us coffee.” — Bill Clinton

” He (Obama) doesn’t sound like a Negro unless he wants to.” Senator Harry Reid

“He ( Obama) couldn’t sell watermelons to….” Dan Rather

“See, Barack’s been talking down to black people … I want to cut his nuts off.” Jesse Jackson

Bill Maher on how he expected BHO to act with BP: “I was expecting a “real black president”– you know, the kind that “lifts up his shirt so they can see the gun in his pants.”

“Isn’t Obama’s big problem is that he does everything half-assed? Maybe it’s because he’s only half black.”

Or are they just offensive?

The Real Royal King said:
Undoubtedly. I am one of those refined Southern gentlemen who would never, never strike a lady like Cecelia. Nor a woman. Nor a females of the species. Nor a female of other species. I know it quaint and dated, but so be it.

No, you just call conservative women bags, hags, and sags online and talk about their having stretch marks and moles, as you did at Olbermann Watch.

Just as you would never ridicule a person’s faith, unless it’s politically expedient…

CosmosDan said:
comparable expediency huh? Impressive.

She sure stretched my little mind.

Cecelia has the rare ability to cut thru the flak and get to the underlying thesis of an argument.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Gasket, the fact that you think it’s perfectly fine for a woman to terminate her pregnancy at ANY time is frankly disgusting. Hey have you met this guy? It sounds you have alot in common:

A West Philadelphia abortion doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. …
Gosnell is facing Murder in the 3rd Degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009 when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven Murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the 6th, 7th and 8th month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.
Gosnell is suspected of killing hundreds of living babies over the course of his 30 year practice. However, he is not charged because the records do not exist.

I saw you post this before and read the article. It’s , horrifying. The thing is, if people succeeded in making abortion illegal, guys like this would be more plentiful not less.

per your question above
I don’t think abortions should be preformed once the fetus is viable unless the Mom’s life is in danger. I tend to think that the goal is not to eliminate the choice, but to reduce the number of abortions by offering better education and alternatives.

For those who object on some theological basis , I have a couple of questions

Can we stop a soul from entering this world if it’s God’s will that said soul be born?

Since modern medicine is not rejected , and we see free will as a gift, is it possible this choice provided by modern medicine should be between the person and God, rather than judged by others?

Cecelia said:
What’s interesting is that you can’t invoke our racial history in order to make a racial appeal to the president, but you can invoke both our racial history and the president’s race, in order to declare some remark or image racially insensitive or racist.

I find it even more interesting that we can’t even have a civil discussion without bringing race into it. What do abortion rights have to do with race?

The Real Royal King said:
Indeed our history is abhorrent. I am often the first to criticize my own Church. We haven’t any recent massacres nor any in America, and we haven’t perpetuated any heresies of late, but we have conducted ourselves very badly indeed. The various deviant sex scandals. Utterly reprehensible.

Yeah, but there is lots of history of violence elsewhere, as well as recent pedophilia scandal here. However, I don’t see anyone here relentlessly snarking on this to you.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I find it even more interesting that we can’t even have a civil discussion without bringing race into it. What do abortion rights have to do with race?

The discussion of race isn’t inherently uncivil.

He’s been flipping around being annoying for quite a while now…maybe this will put an end to him.

Cecelia said:
I’m glad you feel that way.

There are lots of people who don’t like Catholicism but he’d be the first to call them a bigot if they said half the things about it, that he says about Mormonism.

I’m a Christian, but I kind of take issues with the fact that we even have denominations at all because it only muddles the message when people who all believe in the same God and same Jesus are all screaming at each other that they’re wrong.
Back to topic, hypocrisy is human nature, as much as we may try we can’t escape it.

Dan, I’m sorry, but I don’t see any evidence that our society is trying to reduce the number of abortions. Did you see the recent stat that 40% of pregnancies in NY are terminated?

I’ll admit to being rather passionate about this issue, but I’m a mother and very early on I could clearly see my son’s face via ultrasound.

You see it as protecting a woman’s choice, but I see it as protecting children.

Grammie said:
Cecelia has the rare ability to cut thru the flak and get to the underlying thesis of an argument.

Grammie that’s such a compliment and I thank you for it. If that’s true it’s through my father’s good intentions, and my brother’s aggressive ones… :D

writer said:
King, no matter how much fun you make of Michelle’s religion in order to get her attention, she’s still not going to the prom with you. Give it up.

You know, I never went to my prom. I spent the last nine (9) weeks of Upper Sixth Form studying abroad.

Cecelia said:
The discussion of race isn’t inherently uncivil.

That’s true. I once tried to have a conversation on what is the proper anthropological label for people of sub-saharan African descent, and it boils down to there being 2 separate distinctions; congoid and capoid. Essentially it boiled down to Pablo and notsofast calling me an uneducated, lying “negro”.

make that brothers’ …they are both fierce in the debate department.

Cecelia said:
Yeah, but there is lots of history of violence elsewhere,

Yes, those millions of citizens slaughters by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot in the 20th. century don’t even merit a flicker on his “abhorrent” meter.

I spent the last nine (9) weeks of Upper Sixth Form studying abroad.

Was her name Brisket?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
That’s true. I once tried to have a conversation on what is the proper anthropological label for people of sub-saharan African descent, and it boils down to there being 2 separate distinctions; congoid and capoid. Essentially it boiled down to Pablo and notsofast calling me an uneducated, lying “negro”.

hahahaha! Well, I’m sure you’d agree that your topic wasn’t uncivil from your side of things.

Cecelia said:
Yeah, but there is lots of history of violence elsewhere, as well as recent pedophilia scandal here. However, I don’t see anyone here relentlessly snarking on this to you.

Only because you’re presence involves many absences. But, I don’t get my back up about it. Many of the snarky comments have truth in them, and I have never felt the Church perfect. How could it be. If the Church attained a perfection, it would be the Church Victorious, which would mean the Church at Rest.

CosmosDan said:
I saw this on HuffPo this morning. As bad as it sounds and as clumsy as it is, I think the point he was trying to make was Since black people used to be considered less than a whole person , and that was obviously a moral wrong, why would a black man consider a fetus less than a whole person, which, in his mind is equally wrong. I still don’t like the guy but I don’t think he meant it in the way it’s going to be taken.

I believe you are correct. He should know better.

notsofast said:
Yes, those millions of citizens slaughters by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot in the 20th. century don’t even merit a flicker on his “abhorrent” meter.

Were any of them Mormon or Catholic, Dimwit?

The Real Royal King said:
You know, I never went to my prom. I spent the last nine (9) weeks of Upper Sixth Form studying abroad.

Missing the prom AND the custom of caning over there, explains your temperament quite revealingly.

Not that up on Catholicism. Which tenets allow one to mock others’ religions, or where they live, or what they eat, or their physical size or appearance?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I do believe that accepting stereotypes is actually a form of racism because if you actually meet people you see they’re not true.

I wonder about that. That’s why I see a difference in ignorant racism, and hateful racism. Ignorant racism doesn’t necessarily have malice although a lot of ignorant racists didn’t think they were being maliciousness because they believed blacks have smaller brains or some lunacy like that.

I tend to agree that the term racism has been so misused lately that maybe stereotypes should be left to the ignorant definition. If we said a Scottsman is cheap is that racist?

The Real Royal King said:
Were any of them Mormon or Catholic, Dimwit?

Totally irrelevant to what they did. The peole didn’t asked what religion their killers were as they died.

I guess I don’t get that as a racial insult. I think Santorum is saying “blacks were the victims of the governement deciding who were full people (and had rights) and who didn’t. I’d expect that would make them more likely to be sensitive to attempts to decide that for others…”.

The Real Royal King said:
Many of the snarky comments have truth in them, and I have never felt the Church perfect. How could it be. If the Church attained a perfection, it would be the Church Victorious, which would mean the Church at Rest.

Oh, come now! If any conservative followed you around making gibes at Catholicism you would most certainly called them a bigot.

And in most cases, you’d just be repeating yourself from some other argument.

CosmosDan said:
Since modern medicine is not rejected , and we see free will as a gift, is it possible this choice provided by modern medicine should be between the person and God, rather than judged by others?

Very nice Dan.

writer said:
I spent the last nine (9) weeks of Upper Sixth Form studying abroad.

Was her name Brisket?

Comment of the Week!!

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Gasket, you’re both for killing a live human being. There’s not much difference to me, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I’m guessing you’ve never been a parent and seen an ultrasound and if you have and still think you should be allowed to abort up until birth, you are heartless in my humble opinion.

Really, don’t you favor the death penalty?

I am a biologist and do discern the difference (which is gigantic) between a week old embryo and an 8-month fetus. So don’t lecture me about that. I look at issues logically, not from an emotional perspective. I don’t want the government dictating what people should do with their personal lives. This is what they tried doing here in Oklahoma by FORCING women who wanted to get an abortion to get ultrasounds. NO f@cking WAY. You are free to do whatever with YOUR own body, Michelle. However, I don’t want YOU or the government dictating what OTHER women should do with their’s. That is subjugation, and women are not property. Like that one woman yelled to Pres. George H. W. Bush back in the day, “STAY OUT OF MY WOMB!”

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Well I don’t know how you behave around him. I’m not really condoning anything. I’m just not giving people a pass. I’ve experienced the “foul depth” of Michele’s nature when she has consistently told me how evil liberals are, what I believe in and who I am when she knows nothing of me, my first interaction with her was when she tried to paint Joseph Stack as a liberal and me a sympathizer simply because I am a liberal. Surely you know how it feels to be connected to a killer simply by political association which isn’t even warranted. Frankly i refuse to stand for it and keep quiet simply because she’s a woman. If she behaved that same way to King initially some of his behavior may be warranted, granted he does have a tendency to go to extremes.

Both 2012 and Sarah are more combative than Cecelia and I but I suspect that is generational.

However, I have seen nothing from them to warrant the exclusively personal and vicious comments he makes whenever he is here.

How often do his comments to we ladies have anything in them other than personal smears. Cecelia and I have known him for six years and he has ever been thus. There is no excuse for it.

I have no problem with point for point debate even when it gets rough. After all, I know I am neither a saint or a shrinking violet.

That is not what TRRK is doing. He virtually stalks 2012, with Cecelia and I running a close second, and many commenters here have noticed it and taking action via their comments.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been but I was surprised and dismayed that you don’t disapprove of his conduct except when it is directed at someone you like.

Gasket said:
Really, don’t you favor the death penalty? I am a biologist and do discern the difference (which is gigantic) between a week old embryo and an 8-month fetus. So don’t lecture me about that. I look at issues logically, not from an emotional perspective. I don’t want the government dictating what people should do with their personal lives. This is what they tried doing here in Oklahoma by FORCING women who wanted to get an abortion to get ultrasounds. NO f@cking WAY. You are free to do whatever with YOUR own body, Michelle. However, I don’t want YOU or the government dictating what OTHER women should do with their’s. That is subjugation, and women are not property. Like that one woman yelled to Pres. George H. W. Bush back in the day, “STAY OUT OF MY WOMB!”

dont want the government dictating what people should do with their personal lives…really…..you against mandated health care too?

As I said Gasket, what ever helps you sleep at night. If I were pro-abortion, it would help me to be able to look myself in the mirror to convince myself it wasn’t a person, but having seen my sons face via ultrasound early on, I know it indeed is.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
What do abortion rights have to do with race?

The discussion that prompted this unfortunate quote from Santorum was about abortion so it is in the body of his remarks.

Some may say the King is an arrogant, hateful gasbag.

That about covers it.

Grammie, you’re right, I am combative. I keep telling myself to tone it down, but I get in the moment and forget that. I shall try harder. I can’t guarantee anything, given who we have to deal with here, but I’ll do my best. The funny thing is, I’m perfectly able to have a rational conversation with Paul and sometimes Dan, but it’s virtually impossible with some who shall remain nameless. Perhaps ignoring them is best.

cjd ohio 1 said:
dont want the government dictating what people should do with their personal lives…really…..you against mandated health care too?

I was waiting for someone to bring either that or prostitution into that particular debate.

This clip should NOT be a big deal. He clearly is referring to the concept that black Americans were once legally had less legal rights as a ‘human being’ than other Americans. I don’t agree with the argument, but it doesn’t strike me as being racist.

As to white politicians, stop acting so dumb. If you’re white and conservative, you are assumed to be a racists by the media, so don’t bring up race EVER. You will not get the benefit of the doubt. Accept it and move on.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Dan, I’m sorry, but I don’t see any evidence that our society is trying to reduce the number of abortions. Did you see the recent stat that 40% of pregnancies in NY are terminated?

I’ll admit to being rather passionate about this issue, but I’m a mother and very early on I could clearly see my son’s face via ultrasound.

You see it as protecting a woman’s choice, but I see it as protecting children.

I get that. I can’t fault anyone who sincerely sees a fetus as a baby, for defending that life. The thing is, IMO it brings with it quite a responsibility. If we’re going to insist that all these babies be born into this world, then we’d better be about the business of making sure they are taken care of, have an education, and opportunities.

Grammie said:
Both 2012 and Sarah are more combative than Cecelia and I but I suspect that is generational.

However, I have seen nothing from them to warrant the exclusively personal and vicious comments he makes whenever he is here.

How often do his comments to we ladies have anything in them other than personal smears. Cecelia and I have known him for six years and he has ever been thus. There is no excuse for it.

I have no problem with point for point debate even when it gets rough. After all, I know I am neither a saint or a shrinking violet.

That is not what TRRK is doing. He virtually stalks 2012, with Cecelia and I running a close second, and many commenters here have noticed it and taking action via their comments.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been but I was surprised and dismayed that you don’t disapprove of his conduct except when it is directed at someone you like.

You seem to not be understanding me. I clearly said I don’t condone his behavior, but at the same time I’m not going to simply give people a pass because I am not fully aware of their relationships or of their personalities. I haven’t seen enough of you personally to pass judgment as to whether such behavior is warranted. I also did say that warranted or not King has a tendency to go to extremes. I have in no way condoned his actions, but at the same time I’m not going to give a pass to people I don’t know simply because somebody said something offensive. Hope this helps.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Dan, I’m sorry, but I don’t see any evidence that our society is trying to reduce the number of abortions. Did you see the recent stat that 40% of pregnancies in NY are terminated?

I’ll admit to being rather passionate about this issue, but I’m a mother and very early on I could clearly see my son’s face via ultrasound.

You see it as protecting a woman’s choice, but I see it as protecting children.

You want to protect children? Do something about the millions of HOMELESS actual living children in the USA. Otherwise, your passion for “protecting children” becomes disingenuous and vapid.

BTW, does Santorum realize that people do not abort black babies in the USA? People go all the way to China to abort babies when there are tons of children needing adopting right here in this country. These (conservatives) are the same people strangling funding (welfare) for those single mothers who have to “raise” kids. This is one reason I despise these moral self righteous hacks. They only give a shit about children in the womb and not the children outside of it.

Grammie said:
The discussion that prompted this unfortunate quote from Santorum was about abortion so it is in the body of his remarks.

But what does race have ANYTHING to do with it?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Grammie, you’re right, I am combative. I keep telling myself to tone it down, but I get in the moment and forget that. I shall try harder. I can’t guarantee anything, given who we have to deal with here, but I’ll do my best. The funny thing is, I’m perfectly able to have a rational conversation with Paul and sometimes Dan, but it’s virtually impossible with some who shall remain nameless. Perhaps ignoring them is best.

I think there comes a point in a conversation when it’s best to walk away. With some posters that point gets here with their first post. ;-}

I’m just so happy Stanley Ann Dunham didn’t get a back alley abortion in late 1960!

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
As I said Gasket, what ever helps you sleep at night. If I were pro-abortion, it would help me to be able to look myself in the mirror to convince myself it wasn’t a person, but having seen my sons face via ultrasound early on, I know it indeed is.

No one is pro-abortion and you know it. It helps you to ignore the argument to put people in the extreme. Whatever.

The point isn’t whether or not an embryo is a person (hint: it’s not), the point is that whether legal or not, whether you like it or not, abortion is a reality of human life. You can choose to demonize it and force desperate women with pregnancies they don’t want and can’t handle to seek backroom butchers with rusty coat hangers, resulting in more deaths, OR you can accept that its a fact of life you don’t like and seek to provide women with options. Why you think another women’s uterus should be subject to your opinions is beyond me.

Your superstitions have nothing do with it, its a matter of society being practical.

CosmosDan said:
I get that. I can’t fault anyone who sincerely sees a fetus as a baby, for defending that life. The thing is, IMO it brings with it quite a responsibility. If we’re going to insist that all these babies be born into this world, then we’d better be about the business of making sure they are taken care of, have an education, and opportunities.

It is a bit of an irony, isn’t it, that across the country we are cutting prenatal and children’s health care budgets and education funding (23% proposed in Texas, thanks to our Borrow and Spend governor) and that those with the scissors are so often the ones who profess their unqualified love for every fœtus and every child?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I find it even more interesting that we can’t even have a civil discussion without bringing race into it. What do abortion rights have to do with race?

Google “black genocide”.

Dan says

If we’re going to insist that all these babies be born into this world, then we’d better be about the business of making sure they are taken care of, have an education, and opportunities.

Adoption! Problem solved! I know that seems simplistic, but I’m of the opinion that if you are gonna do the crime, you gotta be prepared to do the time. I’ll admit to being pretty hard core about this issue. Though I’m for it in cases of a mother’s health or rape, I honestly don’t think I could do it in either case. Of course, I’m just guessing about that, but I can’t see myself ever making that choice no matter what the circumstances.

Pablo said:
Google “black genocide”.

You’re not presenting an argument here. What does the presidents race have to do with abortion?

Gasket said:
You want to protect children? Do something about the millions of HOMELESS actual living children in the USA. Otherwise, your passion for “protecting children” becomes disingenuous and vapid. BTW, does Santorum realize that people do not abort black babies in the USA? People go all the way to China to abort babies when there are tons of children needing adopting right here in this country. These (conservatives) are the same people strangling funding (welfare) for those single mothers who have to “raise” kids. This is one reason I despise these moral self righteous hacks. They only give a shit about children in the womb and not the children outside of it.

people do not abort black babies in the usa …..really

Gasket said:
BTW, does Santorum realize that people do not abort black babies in the USA? People go all the way to China to abort babies when there are tons of children needing adopting right here in this country. These (conservatives) are the same people strangling funding (welfare) for those single mothers who have to “raise” kids. This is one reason I despise these moral self righteous hacks. They only give a shit about children in the womb and not the children outside of it.

I assume you meant adopt.

That’s something I think about as well. You’re very passionate about saving babies and preventing abortions? Okay , what about after they are born or the ones already hear is dire need?

google santorum

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
But what does race have ANYTHING to do with it?

B/c he made a false history (h/t Cecelia) between the 3/5 compromise and abortion. W/o the abortion discussion there would have been no “as a black man” comment.

Perhaps I thought of seeing you here earlier and more than you actually are. Perhaps you don’t have the long view of this that I do. In any case, I’m glad that you don’t condone his behavior.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Dan says

If we’re going to insist that all these babies be born into this world, then we’d better be about the business of making sure they are taken care of, have an education, and opportunities.

Adoption! Problem solved! I know that seems simplistic, but I’m of the opinion that if you are gonna do the crime, you gotta be prepared to do the time. I’ll admit to being pretty hard core about this issue. Though I’m for it in cases of a mother’s health or rape, I honestly don’t think I could do it in either case. Of course, I’m just guessing about that, but I can’t see myself ever making that choice no matter what the circumstances.

The instances you list are the only ones where I think it’s suitable, but I don’t think that i as a man have the right to restrict a woman’s right to choose.

Adoption isn’t a viable option. You’ll end up with things being more crowded and creating more of a burden on the state than what people already complain about. if we limit abortion and introduce this alternative then the only way to keep it afloat would be to raise taxes.

Correction: I intended to write “adopt” NOT abort in my 2nd paragraph. Brain-lock…LOL. ;)

CosmosDan said:
I assume you meant adopt. That’s something I think about as well. You’re very passionate about saving babies and preventing abortions? Okay , what about after they are born or the ones already hear is dire need?

well i think killing them is not the answer

Gasket said:
Correction: I intended to write “adopt” NOT abort in my 2nd paragraph. Brain-lock…LOL. ;)

understand

“The question is – and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that, is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person, human life is not a person, then, I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘no we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

Where’s the controversy here (and where is armwood?). Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person at one time in this country. Now 0bama calls all unborn children of all colors 0/5ths. Interesting.

Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It specifically states that “Representatives shall be apportioned …counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed…”

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Though I’m for it in cases of a mother’s health or rape, I honestly don’t think I could do it in either case. Of course, I’m just guessing about that, but I can’t see myself ever making that choice no matter what the circumstances.

You just defeated your own argument. Every scenario that would cause a woman to think about aborting is unique and personal. Hence the need for “choice.”

Grammie said:
B/c he made a false history (h/t Cecelia) between the 3/5 compromise and abortion. W/o the abortion discussion there would have been no “as a black man” comment.

Perhaps I thought of seeing you here earlier and more than you actually are. Perhaps you don’t have the long view of this that I do. In any case, I’m glad that you don’t condone his behavior.

I understand where the argument stems from, but my point is that the comment has no place in the particular discussion. It’s like me and you talk about beans and then you bring soup. Yes, one could make some type of connection to the two but it has no logical connection.

I’ve been here for a while and I recall Cecelia, but not you (please don’t be offended), that’s why I’m able to make more ofa judgement call on her.

Blacks, just like every other ethnic group in the history of mankind have been deemed either “sub-human” or “not human” by their oppressors.
Aborted babies are also considered “not a person” by most abortion proponents.
So what’s controversial about Santorum’s comment?
Is it because he brought Obama, who supports killing babies who survive botched abortions, into the discussion?
The left is cranking up their character assassination/feigned outrage machine again.

btw, if anyone ever held the thought that Santorum had a political future…seek help.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Adoption! Problem solved! I know that seems simplistic, but I’m of the opinion that if you are gonna do the crime, you gotta be prepared to do the time. I’ll admit to being pretty hard core about this issue. Though I’m for it in cases of a mother’s health or rape, I honestly don’t think I could do it in either case. Of course, I’m just guessing about that, but I can’t see myself ever making that choice no matter what the circumstances.

That’s great for your personal choice and pro choice people support it. You say adoption rather casually.When those who want to make abortion illegal are predominantly the ones adopting babies and providing shelter and expenses for pregnant women I’ll have a lot more respect for their position.
The reality is that even if abortions were illegal they wouldn’t go away.

btw, I did see that poll about NYC and noticed it was described as flawed.

No Obtuse, I don’t think I did. I don’t think, “because I don’t want to be pregnant” is the same as being raped or putting my life at risk. Nice try though.

Gasket said:
You want to protect children? Do something about the millions of HOMELESS actual living children in the USA. Otherwise, your passion for “protecting children” becomes disingenuous and vapid.

BTW, does Santorum realize that people do not abort black babies in the USA? People go all the way to China to abort babies when there are tons of children needing adopting right here in this country. These (conservatives) are the same people strangling funding (welfare) for those single mothers who have to “raise” kids. This is one reason I despise these moral self righteous hacks. They only give a shit about children in the womb and not the children outside of it.

Well, the genius gasket wants more welfare, so that we have more welfare babies. Wow. Who knew??? More liberal programs for more irresponsible behavior. Wow. Who knew? When is a good time to stop the cycle, genius?

He virtually stalks 2012, with Cecelia and I running a close second ….

So blatantly untrue and unfair, Janet. In fact, I now know how St. Sarah, Our Lady of Perpetual Victimization feels.

2012 persistently and consistently dumps the most strident dogma all about, dogma founded upon a myopic, insular, monochromatic narrow world view supported by intellectually dishonest canards and cliches, if supported at all, and then bristles at any suggestion that a reasonable person might have a different view.

And while you like to cast yourself as an ingenue, you stand next to the aspidrista spraying the toxic acid of victimhood all about the room whenever faced with some having the slightest disagreement with you. You are well known throughout the blogosphere for just that, Janet.

I have nothing but respect for Cecelia and genuine fondness for broad worldview and her well-honed analytical abilities. The fact that she is wrong about 50% of the time changes that not at all.

As for your moan about me somehow targeting women, BS. It’s untrue. No strong, confident woman would utter such moanful, mournful blather.

Dan,
We can agree to agree to disagree on it. Debating this issue, unlike others, isn’t likely to change many minds. For what it’s worth, I have several friends adopting and it’s worked great for them.

And ps, I really hope that poll was flawed, because I was floored at that.

Gasket said:
I am a biologist and do discern the difference (which is gigantic) between a week old embryo and an 8-month fetus.

Ever hear of Potentiality?

ndanielson said:
Where’s the controversy here (and where is armwood?).

Where does the Constitution declare an unborn fetus is a person with equal protection under the law?

Santorum made an assumption that it was fact and that Obama should recognize that. It’s not a fact, so the comparison is a failed one.

Yes, grown adults have babies out of wedlock and the genius, gasket want you to take care of those homeless babies? I figured all along that government was to provide for all grown adults in this country. They are, afterall victims of the greedy rich, responsible adults, huh, gasket?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
No Obtuse, I don’t think I did. I don’t think, “because I don’t want to be pregnant” is the same as being raped or putting my life at risk. Nice try though.

I stand by my assessment. Also, a question: where is your compassion for a fetus who has no control over how he/she/it was conceived? Does every fetus deserve the right to life except the ones conceived out of rape?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Adoption isn’t a viable option. You’ll end up with things being more crowded and creating more of a burden on the state than what people already complain about. if we limit abortion and introduce this alternative then the only way to keep it afloat would be to raise taxes.

And the sad fact is that there are classes of children virtually not adoptable. Blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned boys fly off the shelves, and girls of that sort go almost as quickly. There is no part of the modern American experience which more clearly exemplifies our Northern Eurocentric attitudes and demeanor.

Black Conservatives Blast Al Sharpton Protesters in DC 8/28 (yes it has to do with the topic at hand)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX864fXR1A0

ndanielson said:
Well, the genius gasket wants more welfare, so that we have more welfare babies. Wow. Who knew??? More liberal programs for more irresponsible behavior. Wow. Who knew? When is a good time to stop the cycle, genius?

The conflict is that prolifers want a million or so more babies born into our society because they want to protect babies. What happens to them after they are born? Do these same concerned people want to take personal responsibility for them, or does their concern end at birth?

cjd ohio 1 said:
dont want the government dictating what people should do with their personal lives…really…..you against mandated health care too?

Yes I am. Were you trying to catch me in some sort of hypocrisy? *sigh*

The Real Royal King said:
He virtually stalks 2012, with Cecelia and I running a close second ….

So blatantly untrue and unfair, Janet. In fact, I now know how St. Sarah, Our Lady of Perpetual Victimization feels.

2012 persistently and consistently dumps the most strident dogma all about, dogma founded upon a myopic, insular, monochromatic narrow world view supported by intellectually dishonest canards and cliches, if supported at all, and then bristles at any suggestion that a reasonable person might have a different view.

And while you like to cast yourself as an ingenue, you stand next to the aspidrista spraying the toxic acid of victimhood all about the room whenever faced with some having the slightest disagreement with you. You are well known throughout the blogosphere for just that, Janet.

I have nothing but respect for Cecelia and genuine fondness for broad worldview and her well-honed analytical abilities. The fact that she is wrong about 50% of the time changes that not at all.

As for your moan about me somehow targeting women, BS. It’s untrue. No strong, confident woman would utter such moanful, mournful blather.

Most liberal men wet their pant when they get anywhere near strong confident women. Just ask gasket.

CosmosDan said:
Where does the Constitution declare an unborn fetus is a person with equal protection under the law? Santorum made an assumption that it was fact and that Obama should recognize that. It’s not a fact, so the comparison is a failed one.

and where does it say you have to buy health insurance………see its tricky

ndanielson said:
Yes, grown adults have babies out of wedlock and the genius, gasket want you to take care of those homeless babies? I figured all along that government was to provide for all grown adults in this country. They are, afterall victims of the greedy rich, responsible adults, huh, gasket?

You can’t have it both ways fella. If you don’t allow abortion, the system will be flooded with unwanted babies that aren’t getting adopted at rates sufficient to balance out. So you’re spending taxpayer money to take care of them.

So which is it?

Obtuse says:

Does every fetus deserve the right to life except the ones conceived out of rape?

I didn’t say those conceived via rape didn’t deserve life, I can just understand the need for some women to choose abortion in that case.

Gasket said:
Yes I am. Were you trying to catch me in some sort of hypocrisy? *sigh*

no, just seeing if you supported obamacare, then you know who is honest here and can have civil exchanges

Calvin said:
Black Conservatives Blast Al Sharpton Protesters in DC 8/28 (yes it has to do with the topic at hand)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX864fXR1A0

You’re going to have to make your point before I listen to those people yell at each other.

cjd ohio 1 said:
and where does it say you have to buy health insurance………see its tricky

The preamble, silly.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/19/video-time-for-another-bizarre-democratic-constitutional-theory-of-obamacare/

CosmosDan said:
You’re going to have to make your point before I listen to those people yell at each other.

“Those people”? You racist.

The Real Royal King said:
So blatantly untrue and unfair, Janet. In fact, I now know how St. Sarah, Our Lady of Perpetual Victimization feels.

You keep telling yourself that if it eases your conscience but we both know better.

CosmosDan said:
The conflict is that prolifers want a million or so more babies born into our society because they want to protect babies. What happens to them after they are born? Do these same concerned people want to take personal responsibility for them, or does their concern end at birth?

Do you know how much red tape, bureaucracy, and money goes into adopting a baby in this country? And how about saying to unwed mothers something like this: who the hell do you people think you are bringing babies into the world for other people to support? How about shaming these drains on society? But then that would be too much like taking responsibility for ones own action, and that is antithetical to liberal dogma. Just ask gasket.

cjd ohio 1 said:
and where does it say you have to buy health insurance………see its tricky

One subject at a time please.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),was a landmark although controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health.

ndanielson said:
Do you know how much red tape, bureaucracy, and money goes into adopting a baby in this country? And how about saying to unwed mothers something like this: who the hell do you people think you are bringing babies into the world for other people to support? How about shaming these drains on society? But then that would be too much like taking responsibility for ones own action, and that is antithetical to liberal dogma. Just ask gasket.

Again, you miss the point. It doesn’t matter what you think of these horrible unwed mothers. Deal with the reality. The reality is: without abortion, the system will end up responsible for many many more mouths to feed. Do you propose we put these unwanted children to work in factories or what?

Offer an answer, not your condemnation.

CosmosDan said:
One subject at a time please.

ok cosmos

rex-vw said:
You can’t have it both ways fella. If you don’t allow abortion, the system will be flooded with unwanted babies that aren’t getting adopted at rates sufficient to balance out. So you’re spending taxpayer money to take care of them. So which is it?

Killing to save money, who would’ve thunk it? Same with them old codgers, damn they’re expensive.

Penguin60 said:
Ever hear of Potentiality?

Are you familiar with the concept of “delayed ensoulment”? Frankly, I think it’s a crock, but it is a fascinating window into how, throughout history, we have tried to grapple with this issue. In the early church, there was no prohibition against birth control nor was there an outright ban on abortion. A fœtus might be aborted up until the time the soul is imparted. This was known as the moment of quickening, but is not confused with quickening as we understand it medically today (a movement in the womb). The practice suggests that the soul was imparted sometime during what we now call the Second Trimester.

All this suggest to me is that anyone who pretends to know the absolute answer to this matter is fooling only himself or herself.

I am more vehemently opposed to abortion than even Michelle-in-Utah. However, I can’t be so cock-sure of my position that I can impose that on other men and women as a matter of law.

Asked to clarify the comments, Santorum sent Hotsheet a statement that began, “For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. ”

“Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution,” he continued. “I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029076-503544.html

HAHA!
He took off his white hood to do this interview!

ndanielson said:
Do you know how much red tape, bureaucracy, and money goes into adopting a baby in this country?

I don’t , but maybe we can change those laws. I suspect that just saying “STOP THAT YOU”RE MORALLY BAD” is not a realistic solution to this issue.

If you want less babies born into poverty and being supported by the state then why oppose abortion? If you want less babies born into poverty , but can’t morally support legal abortion, what happens to those babies? Any ideas

The Real Royal King said:
And the sad fact is that there are classes of children virtually not adoptable. Blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned boys fly off the shelves, and girls of that sort go almost as quickly. There is no part of the modern American experience which more clearly exemplifies our Northern Eurocentric attitudes and demeanor.

Spoken like a true royal wannabe, with a snotty Euro-centric smugness and the pompous air of self importance to go with it. Unless you ask gasket.

Just one more comment on Obama’s abortion position. He think’s ok for a baby that survives an abortion, and therefore born to still be killed. HIs excuse:

Obama claimed that two doctors helping a baby born alive after a botched abortion would be a burden when he argued against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Illinois state legislature April 2002.

“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…”

Now even you don’t have a problem with abortion, how can you possibly think this is ok?

The Real Royal King said:
And the sad fact is that there are classes of children virtually not adoptable. Blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned boys fly off the shelves, and girls of that sort go almost as quickly. There is no part of the modern American experience which more clearly exemplifies our Northern Eurocentric attitudes and demeanor.

That’s ridiculous. Don’t you have friends and experiences to pull from?

Any baby without health issues is highly adoptable, regardless of race. People don’t choose international adoptions for the ‘fun of it’. Having known a friend (white) who adopted children from the foster system, the older children and ones with health issues are hard to find homes. Babies without health issues are easy to place, though the process takes time. And yes, both her adopted children are racial, not that anyone but you care.

It’s a lengthy process and she was nice enough to foster then adopt a daughter who was born addicted to drugs, who had developmental issues. Thankfully some really good people are in this world to do this.

ndanielson said:
Most liberal men wet their pant when they get anywhere near strong confident women. Just ask gasket.

With my grandmothers, of fond memory, my mother, of fond memory, my mother-in-law, of fond memory, my aunts, all of fond memory, my wife, my sisters, my secretary, all of them, save and except my beloved Cracker mother-in-law, the most unabashed liberals, I should not have lived so long were what you said true. Of course, I don’t really consider myself a liberal.

Penguin60 said:
Killing to save money, who would’ve thunk it? Same with them old codgers, damn they’re expensive.

Clever, but it doesn’t answer the central problem posed? Care to try again?

Grammie said:
You keep telling yourself that if it eases your conscience but we both know better.

I know far less that you suppose, Janet, and I am well aware of and honest about that fact.

The Real Royal King said:
Are you familiar with the concept of “delayed ensoulment”? Frankly, I think it’s a crock, but it is a fascinating window into how, throughout history, we have tried to grapple with this issue. In the early church, there was no prohibition against birth control nor was there an outright ban on abortion. A fœtus might be aborted up until the time the soul is imparted. This was known as the moment of quickening, but is not confused with quickening as we understand it medically today (a movement in the womb). The practice suggests that the soul was imparted sometime during what we now call the Second Trimester. All this suggest to me is that anyone who pretends to know the absolute answer to this matter is fooling only himself or herself. I am more vehemently opposed to abortion than even Michelle-in-Utah. However, I can’t be so cock-sure of my position that I can impose that on other men and women as a matter of law.

That would be a matter of faith, would it not? Potentiality crosses all essence of humanity. Life is life, if that embryo is nutured protected and allowed to grow what will happen? Aristotle was one sharp cookie.

CosmosDan said:
Where does the Constitution declare an unborn fetus is a person with equal protection under the law?

Santorum made an assumption that it was fact and that Obama should recognize that. It’s not a fact, so the comparison is a failed one.

Where did he say that was a fact?

He didn’t- he asked the question, “is that( unborn fetus), is that human life a person under the Constitution? “

sarainitaly said:
Asked to clarify the comments, Santorum sent Hotsheet a statement that began, “For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. ”

“Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution,” he continued. “I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029076-503544.html

We’ve already established that was his point. His assertion that the unborn have civil rights is the fail. That isn’t the law, it’s his personal preference.

CosmosDan said:
I don’t , but maybe we can change those laws. I suspect that just saying “STOP THAT YOU”RE MORALLY BAD” is not a realistic solution to this issue.

If you want less babies born into poverty and being supported by the state then why oppose abortion? If you want less babies born into poverty , but can’t morally support legal abortion, what happens to those babies? Any ideas

No answers off the top of my head, but I believe there is enough money in this country to feed and clothe, and make them be responsible for their own actions. Churches used to offer all kinds of support, but churches are just something for most liberals to debase and spit at.

notsofast said:
Where did he say that was a fact?

He didn’t- he asked the question, “is that( unborn fetus), is that human life a person under the Constitution? ”

Read his response that Sara just posted. He assumption was the basis of his surprise that a black man didn’t get it.

CosmosDan said:
Read his response that Sara just posted. He assumption was the basis of his surprise that a black man didn’t get it.

I did and it is you who fail.

He said the question was- if he had a question, obviously he didn’t not believe it was a settled fact. If he believed it was in the Constitution, he would have said that.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Obtuse says:

Does every fetus deserve the right to life except the ones conceived out of rape?

I didn’t say those conceived via rape didn’t deserve life, I can just understand the need for some women to choose abortion in that case.

That would make you pro-choice, 2012.

CosmosDan said:
I don’t , but maybe we can change those laws. I suspect that just saying “STOP THAT YOU”RE MORALLY BAD” is not a realistic solution to this issue.

Shame my friend. What ever happened to shame? What ever happened to “STOP THAT! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO BRING A BABY INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT? Is that better? Heaven knows that bringing MORALITY into it is verboten. Some of do think it is morally wrong to have babies that society has to care for?

Whatever Obtuse, you hear what you want to hear.

ndanielson said:
No answers off the top of my head, but I believe there is enough money in this country to feed and clothe, and make them be responsible for their own actions. Churches used to offer all kinds of support, but churches are just something for most liberals to debase and spit at.

It’s amazing science has found out what causes pregnancy. How did they deal with this problem 50 yrs ago? I wonder if the 16 and Pregant reality shows has had any effect on teen pregnancy?

CosmosDan said:
He assumption was the basis of his surprise that a black man didn’t get it.

No- his surprise was that blacks had been treated as property and not thought as humans so he made the statement he was surprised that BHO said that a fetus was not a human life.

Just like I said in my first post:

notsofast said:
notsofast says:
January 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm notsofast(Quote)
Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8

“I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘no we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

he is referring to the fact that for a long time in this country blacks were considered property and not people.

In fact in the Constitution , a black was considered as 3/5ths. of a person for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives.

Penguin60 said:
That would be a matter of faith, would it not? Potentiality crosses all essence of humanity. Life is life, if that embryo is nutured protected and allowed to grow what will happen? Aristotle was one sharp cookie.

I think we should respect and honor potential life , but we need to get better at honoring existing life.

CosmosDan said:
That isn’t the law, it’s his personal preference.

In some states the unborn are recognized as persons in say murder statues and inheritance. Doesn’t the Fed recognize unborn children for survivor benefits of a father.

In fact I believe there was a case where a woman used the frozen embryos that she and her had stored after his death and Medicare recognized the child for survivor benefits.

Actually, Dan, none of this is nearly as monochrome as you seem to think.

CosmosDan said:
I think we should respect and honor potential life , but we need to get better at honoring existing life.

Ain’t that the truth.

Just saw another typo, it’s nurtured. Where is the edit feature?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Whatever Obtuse, you hear what you want to hear.

I “heard” nothing. I read a bunch of contradictions.

notsofast said:
No- his surprise was that blacks had been treated as property and not thought as humans so he made the statement he was surprised that BHO said that a fetus was not a human life.

Read his own words that sara posted. When he implies that Obama , a black man, is deciding who is and isn’t a person, he’s getting it backwards. He assumes a fetus has equal rights, but that isn’t supported by the law.

ndanielson said:
Shame my friend. What ever happened to shame? What ever happened to “STOP THAT! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO BRING A BABY INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT? Is that better? Heaven knows that bringing MORALITY into it is verboten. Some of do think it is morally wrong to have babies that society has to care for?

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

You just keep missing the point. Get morally superior, get outraged. Go for it. Watch what it will accomplish. When you’re doing yelling at the sky or however you exercise your moral outrage, start looking for real world solutions. You can’t stop people from making poor decisions. You can have input on the options available to them.

I’m still waiting on an answer to how we will deal with all the babies under state care when that is the only option left to incapable mothers. As you are against the whole idea of social programs and taxes being used to help the disenfranchised, I’d like to hear your ideas.

Penguin60 said:
Ain’t that the truth.

Just saw another typo, it’s nurtured. Where is the edit feature?

I hear ya. I cringe sometimes after I hit submit. Another site I frequent has a two minute edit window and it’s great.

rex-vw said:
Again, you miss the point. It doesn’t matter what you think of these horrible unwed mothers. Deal with the reality. The reality is: without abortion, the system will end up responsible for many many more mouths to feed. Do you propose we put these unwanted children to work in factories or what?

Offer an answer, not your condemnation.

Condemning bad behaviour is PART of the action. Damn, dude. Unwed mothers, good or bad? Unemployed mothers, good or bad??? Society should start SAYING it’s bad. Not just “oh well”. Start calling tramps, tramps and worthless fathers, worthless fathers. Great place to start. Orphanages that the babies are raised at, where the parents can visit is not a bad start. Bad parents don’t visit. Offer free sterilization, not free abortions. Note the word OFFER.

Grammie said:
In some states the unborn are recognized as persons in say murder statues and inheritance. Doesn’t the Fed recognize unborn children for survivor benefits of a father.

In fact I believe there was a case where a woman used the frozen embryos that she and her had stored after his death and Medicare recognized the child for survivor benefits.

Actually, Dan, none of this is nearly as monochrome as you seem to think.

I’m open to consider other information, but it seems to me that in neither case does the embyo have person hood. It’s the child that is born later that receives the benefits. If no child is born no benefits right?

You guys are all pathetic hypocrites. Your stupid ideologies have made it impossible for sane discussions or debates. the fact is that progressives and liberal white America have one common enemy and it is the —black man. The naive black man has been brain washed to think that the democratic party has its interest at heart. that is a complete delusion of the naive black mind. It was the progressives that worried about the explosion of the black race in America in the early 1900s and decided that setting up abortion clinics in predominantly black neighborhoods would help control the explosion in the black population in America JUST as the conservatives help introduce lax gun laws to make guns readily available to black people so that those who the survived the progressive abortion plan, would leave just enough to kill each other with the guns provided implicitly and indirectly by the conservatives. And just to spice it up a little, they added crack as an added incentive while removing education, jobs, security from these neighborhoods
But the same progressives that until the late 60s were slave owners and segregationists would now want you to believe that they have all of a sudden undergone a moral transformation and if you just vote for them, they can undo all the centuries of injustice to the black man during a term in office. Unfortunately that has worked as naive black people have voted for democrats in 90% margins and guess what? the situation has not changed.
The republicans who just recently got rid of their own magic negro( Micheal Steele) are not hypocritical about their racism and I respect them for that. They would tell a black man to his face ” go sit in the back of the bus boyyyyyy” but the democrats would not do that. they would just make sure that before a black man gets to the bus, all the front seats have already been filled !!!!
BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD WISE UP..LET THESE POLITICIANS EARN YOUR VOTE. DONT JUST VOTE COS OBAMA, CLINTON, PELOSI , REID TOLD YOU TO…. AS FOR FOR ANY PERSON NEGRO WHO MAY THING REPUBLICANS ARE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, JUST LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO STEELE.

notsofast said:
If the King,Osama Bin laden, and Hitler came out out of an alley and you had a gun with just 2 bullets what wold you do?

Shoot the King twice!

Flagged for violent rhetoric

rex-vw said:
Jesus tapdancing Christ.

You just keep missing the point. Get morally superior, get outraged. Go for it. Watch what it will accomplish. When you’re doing yelling at the sky or however you exercise your moral outrage, start looking for real world solutions. You can’t stop people from making poor decisions. You can have input on the options available to them.

I’m still waiting on an answer to how we will deal with all the babies under state care when that is the only option left to incapable mothers. As you are against the whole idea of social programs and taxes being used to help the disenfranchised, I’d like to hear your ideas.

So outrage as long as it is not moral outrage is okay. I got it. Cannot have morality be the issue, I got it. That would invoke some type of moral superiority conflict for you, right, sweet pea. Is this better for you, cupcake.

Would state funded privately run orphanages work for you sweet pea? Offers of free steralization work for you sweet pea? Offered to consenting adults, sweet pea? The kind of consenting adults who bring babies in the world, cupcake?

And your solutions, honey bunch?

rex-vw said:
Get morally superior, get outraged.

Aren’t you the guy that posts we will save money by abortion? Yikes where is that on the moral superiority meter? Is it morally superior to want to limit(cause I know they will never go away) unwanted pregnancies?

minorityreport said:
You guys are all pathetic hypocrites. Your stupid ideologies have made it impossible for sane discussions or debates. the fact is that progressives and liberal white America have one common enemy and it is the —black man. The naive black man has been brain washed to think that the democratic party has its interest at heart. that is a complete delusion of the naive black mind. It was the progressives that worried about the explosion of the black race in America in the early 1900s and decided that setting up abortion clinics in predominantly black neighborhoods would help control the explosion in the black population in America JUST as the conservatives help introduce lax gun laws to make guns readily available to black people so that those who the survived the progressive abortion plan, would leave just enough to kill each other with the guns provided implicitly and indirectly by the conservatives. And just to spice it up a little, they added crack as an added incentive while removing education, jobs, security from these neighborhoods
But the same progressives that until the late 60s were slave owners and segregationists would now want you to believe that they have all of a sudden undergone a moral transformation and if you just vote for them, they can undo all the centuries of injustice to the black man during a term in office. Unfortunately that has worked as naive black people have voted for democrats in 90% margins and guess what? the situation has not changed.
The republicans who just recently got rid of their own magic negro( Micheal Steele) are not hypocritical about their racism and I respect them for that. They would tell a black man to his face ” go sit in the back of the bus boyyyyyy” but the democrats would not do that. they would just make sure that before a black man gets to the bus, all the front seats have already been filled !!!!
BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD WISE UP..LET THESE POLITICIANS EARN YOUR VOTE. DONT JUST VOTE COS OBAMA, CLINTON, PELOSI , REID TOLD YOU TO…. AS FOR FOR ANY PERSON NEGRO WHO MAY THING REPUBLICANS ARE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, JUST LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO STEELE.

Awesome David Duke posts on Mediaite!

ndanielson said:
Shame my friend. What ever happened to shame? What ever happened to “STOP THAT! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO BRING A BABY INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT? Is that better? Heaven knows that bringing MORALITY into it is verboten. Some of do think it is morally wrong to have babies that society has to care for?

Sure, teaching personal responsibility is great, but it’s not an all encompassing solution by a long shot. Peple get pregnant and decisions have to be made. That’s been reality for a long long time.

By the way, I prefer teaching personal responsibility to shame.

CosmosDan said:
I’m open to consider other information, but it seems to me that in neither case does the embyo have person hood. It’s the child that is born later that receives the benefits. If no child is born no benefits right?

but in car accidents in ohio, you kill a fetus, you can be charged with manslaughter

ndanielson said:
Most liberal men wet their pant when they get anywhere near strong confident women. Just ask gasket.

Just one pant? :)

I would bang the hell out of Kristi Noem, the SD freshie. I don’t care what your politics are in the bedroom if you are hot. :) By the way, the only conservative female politician I respect and admire is Margaret Thatcher. Nothing sexier than a strong, confident & INDEPENDENT woman. Too bad you conservative men feel so emasculated by them. That’s why you despise them. Don’t forget that it’s you people who were resistant to giving them the right to vote Einstein.

CosmosDan said:
By the way, I prefer teaching personal responsibility to shame.

Don’t you think they are intertwined?

Gasket said:
You idiot. No one is “pro-abortion.”

Sure you are. Pro-choice just sounds better.

CosmosDan said:
Sure, teaching personal responsibility is great, but it’s not an all encompassing solution by a long shot. Peple get pregnant and decisions have to be made. That’s been reality for a long long time.

By the way, I prefer teaching personal responsibility to shame.

Shame is a heavy motivator, buddy, towards directing one to responsibility for bad behavior.

ndanielson said:
Most liberal men wet their pant when they get anywhere near strong confident women. Just ask gasket.

most conservative men don’t have strong, confident women because they beat them frequently. just ask ndanielson. (unless you are a woman)

Presidents are nothing but corporate pitch men. Why the voters fight about frivolous social issues(like abortion, gay marriage etc), the have unwittingly surrendered their mandate to Wall Street and globalists.
American believe that the debate and fight is between democrats and republicans, No !!! it is between Wall Streets/

ndanielson said:
So outrage as long as it is not moral outrage is okay. I got it. Cannot have morality be the issue, I got it. That would invoke some type of moral superiority conflict for you, right, sweet pea. Is this better for you, cupcake.

Would state funded privately run orphanages work for you sweet pea? Offers of free steralization work for you sweet pea? Offered to consenting adults, sweet pea? The kind of consenting adults who bring babies in the world, cupcake?

And your solutions, honey bunch?

Well, thanks for the loving tone. I feel fuzzy.

Actually, I do agree with the free sterilization idea. And I thank you for getting a practical idea out there. That’s what I was after. I constantly hear these anti-abortion arguments from the same people who oppose putting tax money into social programs designed to combat these issues. It just doesn’t figure. You have to be willing to provide solutions.

As for the moral outrage bit, my point is that we’re all entitled to our opinions and our moral points of view, but that doesn’t mean much until translated into practical applications.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
most conservative men don’t have strong, confident women because they beat them frequently. just ask ndanielson. (unless you are a woman)

What do we have for her Johnny? Congrats on the most inane post of the day.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
most conservative men don’t have strong, confident women because they beat them frequently. just ask ndanielson. (unless you are a woman)

scratch that…i like gasket’s more.

Gasket said:
Just one pant? :)

I would bang the hell out of Kristi Noem, the SD freshie. I don’t care what your politics are in the bedroom if you are hot. :) By the way, the only conservative female politician I respect and admire is Margaret Thatcher. Nothing sexier than a strong, confident & INDEPENDENT woman. Too bad you conservative men feel so emasculated by them. That’s why you despise them. Don’t forget that it’s you people who were resistant to giving them the right to vote Einstein.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
most conservative men don’t have strong, confident women because they beat them frequently. just ask ndanielson. (unless you are a woman)

wife beating now huh, ed schultz gets pissed when you call him a conservative

pant 2 (pnt)
n.
1. Trousers. Often used in the plural.
2. Underpants. Often used in the plural.

Who cares what you’d bang? Your big problem would be finding something TO bang. If strong conservative woman get you hot, sweet pea, why does Governor Palin cause you to stain your under pant? Clown.

Penguin60 said:
CosmosDan said:
I think we should respect and honor potential life , but we need to get better at honoring existing life.

Ain’t that the truth.

Two very wise men.

CosmosDan said:
It’s the child that is born later that receives the benefits

True, but not in the case of the murder statutes.

In the case of the frozen embryo that entity had the right to the benefits for practically eternity until and unless someone chose to have it implanted? Would there be consequences for anyone who deliberately tampered with the equipment and destroyed it? It seems as if the embryo has some rights..

ChiliPeppersFan said:
Gasket said:

ndanielson said:
pant 2 (pnt)
n.
1. Trousers. Often used in the plural.
2. Underpants. Often used in the plural.

Who cares what you’d bang? Your big problem would be finding something TO bang. If strong conservative woman get you hot, sweet pea, why does Governor Palin cause you to stain your under pant? Clown.

Because I know that putting 1 plus 1 together is might be difficult for some.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Just one more comment on Obama’s abortion position. He think’s ok for a baby that survives an abortion, and therefore born to still be killed. HIs excuse:

Obama claimed that two doctors helping a baby born alive after a botched abortion would be a burden when he argued against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Illinois state legislature April 2002.

“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…”

Now even you don’t have a problem with abortion, how can you possibly think this is ok?

Jesus F’n Christ, you people are hilarious. I just dismantled ndanielson’s bullshit attempt to say just that yesterday. I suggest you read that thread. It’s getting tiresome re-reading these falsehoods. Just to reiterate, Illinois already had those protections in it’s state’s abortion LAW.

ndanielson said:
Shame my friend. What ever happened to shame? What ever happened to “STOP THAT! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO BRING A BABY INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT? Is that better? Heaven knows that bringing MORALITY into it is verboten. Some of do think it is morally wrong to have babies that society has to care for?

That’s just the thing. We do not give a shit about YOUR morals and we will resist the urge of YOU using the government to impose YOUR morals on US.

ndanielson said:
Because I know that putting 1 plus 1 together is might be difficult for some.

Watch the clowns pounce on that one. In 5…4…3…2…

Gasket said:
Jesus F’n Christ, you people are hilarious. I just dismantled ndanielson’s bullshit attempt to say just that yesterday. I suggest you read that thread. It’s getting tiresome re-reading these falsehoods. Just to reiterate, Illinois already had those protections in it’s state’s abortion LAW.

That’s just the thing. We do not give a shit about YOUR morals and we will resist the urge of YOU using the government to impose YOUR morals on US.

Kinda like the government forcing doctors to perform abortions? Are you really that dense?

ndanielson said:
No answers off the top of my head, but I believe there is enough money in this country to feed and clothe, and make them be responsible for their own actions.

I get it. Slogans are better than solutions

ndanielson said:
Churches used to offer all kinds of support, but churches are just something for most liberals to debase and spit at.

A false meme you should lose.

rex-vw said:
There you have it folks. End of debate. Gordon has pointed out bad grammar and issued an opinion with no reasoning behind it. Now stop commenting, controversy resolved. He even used caps.

You just proved how stupid you are. RRK is the grammar king, he just need to be reminded to shut up. Just like YOU.

ATTN: ndanielson, you have exceeded your daily post quota of 400. For more post bandwidth, please deposit $1.00.

Gasket said:
Jesus F’n Christ, you people are hilarious. I just dismantled ndanielson’s bullshit attempt to say just that yesterday. I suggest you read that thread. It’s getting tiresome re-reading these falsehoods. Just to reiterate, Illinois already had those protections in it’s state’s abortion LAW.

That’s just the thing. We do not give a shit about YOUR morals and we will resist the urge of YOU using the government to impose YOUR morals on US.

And just like the selfish baby makers that you want society to support, you don’t care about the baby or the people that have to support your banging lifestyle. Tell us something about gasket that isn’t so apparent for all to see. I mean duh, genius. We know you don’t give a sh!t about anyone but gasket and his sweet pea hangin’, are you THAT dense, cupcake?

ndanielson said:
pant 2 (pnt)
n.
1. Trousers. Often used in the plural.
2. Underpants. Often used in the plural.

Has to be a bitch when you have no command of the English language, asshole.

Who cares what you’d bang? Your big problem would be finding something TO bang. If strong conservative woman get you hot, sweet pea, why does Governor Palin cause you to stain your under pant? Clown.

Who cares who I bang? You seemed to care, otherwise you wouldn’t have broached that subject with your earlier stupid interjection. Your level of comprehension is almost as good as your grammar. Lacking. I never said I found conservative women hot. See? This is the problem with conservatives. They respond to imagined statements. I will answer your question though. I never said I’m attracted to stupid women. Sarah Palin is one of those. Now go back to stalking abortion doctors. :)

Gasket said:
Has to be a bitch when you have no command of the English language, asshole. Who cares who I bang? You seemed to care, otherwise you wouldn’t have broached that subject with your earlier stupid interjection. Your level of comprehension is almost as good as your grammar. Lacking. I never said I found conservative women hot. See? This is the problem with conservatives. They respond to imagined statements. I will answer your question though. I never said I’m attracted to stupid women. Sarah Palin is one of those. Now go back to stalking abortion doctors. :)

well at least gasket is against obamacare

The Tea Weasel said:
ATTN: ndanielson, you have exceeded your daily post quota of 400. For more post bandwidth, please deposit $1.00.

Wow liberals are grammar police, spelling police, bandwidth police, speech police, salt police, lightbulb police, morality police, hate speech police, on and and on. Is there anything you don’t think you should control? Unbelievable watching you sheep go at it. And still contribute NOTHING to the conversation except exposing your sheep fidelity to…sheep!

gordonbloyershow said:
You just proved how stupid you are. RRK is the grammar king, he just need to be reminded to shut up. Just like YOU.

What?

CosmosDan said:
That’s great for your personal choice and pro choice people support it. You say adoption rather casually.When those who want to make abortion illegal are predominantly the ones adopting babies and providing shelter and expenses for pregnant women I’ll have a lot more respect for their position.
The reality is that even if abortions were illegal they wouldn’t go away.

btw, I did see that poll about NYC and noticed it was described as flawed.

george carlin does a great bit on that and the ‘sanctity of life’ .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

cjd ohio 1 said:
but in car accidents in ohio, you kill a fetus, you can be charged with manslaughter

That’s interesting. I did not know that.

ndanielson said:
Kinda like the government forcing doctors to perform abortions? Are you really that dense?

Who was forced to perform such a procedure? Give the name and the “force” used! Waiting…

cjd ohio 1 said:
well at least gasket is against obamacare

Dude, gasket is gonna hate that sentence. 0bama without a capital O is blasphemous to gasket, and that is just the beginning. Just like a losing sheep though, gasket will ignore and obfuscate whenever he aint outright lying and wrong. And, isn’t calling it 0bamacare racist? gasket, honey?

CosmosDan said:
That’s interesting. I did not know that.

i was surprised also but it is the law here

Penguin60 said:
What do we have for her Johnny? Congrats on the most inane post of the day.

try to read it again, with reference to the quote. slowly if you need to…if you’re still having trouble, let me know and i’ll explain it for ya.

gordonbloyershow said:
You just proved how stupid you are. RRK is the grammar king, he just need to be reminded to shut up. Just like YOU.

“he just need to be reminded” Gordo, want to retract that grammar comment?

minorityreport said:
Presidents are nothing but corporate pitch men. Why the voters fight about frivolous social issues(like abortion, gay marriage etc), the have unwittingly surrendered their mandate to Wall Street and globalists.
American believe that the debate and fight is between democrats and republicans, No !!! it is between Wall Streets/

I believe this has a lot of merit. While we bicker those who control the money and power pull the strings.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Who was forced to perform such a procedure? Give the name and the “force” used! Waiting…

You can lead a liberal sheep to knowlege, but you can’t make it think. We aint playin’ this game. You are worthless in any type of discussion. Worthless.

But just for giggles: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=4806

http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-4865/

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32347

Liberals think they have that right. They have the right to whatever they want. Just ask gasket. Clown.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Who was forced to perform such a procedure?

I think it was Sebelius who made a statement a few weeks ago about Catholic hospitals and being eligible for federal monies b/c they refuse to do elective abortions. It seems that it is at least on the radar for this Admin.

ndanielson said:
You can lead a liberal sheep to knowlege, but you can’t make it think. We aint playin’ this game. You are worthless in any type of discussion. Worthless. But just for giggles: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=4806 http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-4865/ http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32347 Liberals think they have that right. They have the right to whatever they want. Just ask gasket. Clown.

So you cannot give me a name or a “force that was used. Thanks for the confirmation.

ndanielson said:
And just like the selfish baby makers that you want society to support, you don’t care about the baby or the people that have to support your banging lifestyle. Tell us something about gasket that isn’t so apparent for all to see. I mean duh, genius. We know you don’t give a sh!t about anyone but gasket and his sweet pea hangin’, are you THAT dense, cupcake?

I will disabuse your premise. I do not want to support irresponsible people’s babies. Stop making stuff up. I am not the one preaching about the ills of abortion, you are. The only selfish asshole here is YOU thinking of your own beliefs. The paradox is, you care so much for that unborn fetus or zygote, but are not willing to help or are hostile to the real world repercussions of your myopic dogma. That is, with more babies born to a parent(s) unwilling to take care of them, they end up in the bottomless pit of despair. Orphanages and foster homes. It is YOU conservatives who are most hostile to the social safety net that attempts to take care of these society “rejects.” You are also being deceptive about the adoption situation in America. It is a well known fact that white babies are the most desired children to adopt, and hence — most difficult to adopt. Neglecting to mention these facts aids in your distortion and misrepresentation of the realities of this very complex issue. You can adopt a child of “color” TOMORROW if you wanted to. So if you want to talk about the dynamics of race when it comes to the abortion/adoption, issue….let’s talk. No sound reason, however, can penetrate that mass in your skull we would call your brain.

Penguin60 said:
Don’t you think they are intertwined?

They can be but the important difference is IMO,

When I teach my kids to take personal responsibility I teach them to be their own person, make their won choices and pursue what they feel led to, but take responsibility for the consequences of their choices. I teach them to think positively about themselves but to try and think things through without making excuses. I also teach them that it’s okay to make mistakes and there’s no reason to hang their head for that.

My experience with shame is parents who expect their kids to live up to the parents expectations and standards and teach them they are letting their parents down for making choices the parents don’t approve of. These are parents who continue to tell their kids what they should do well into their adult life, and will use the phrase
How could you do this to me?

Grammie said:
I think it was Sebelius who made a statement a few weeks ago about Catholic hospitals and being eligible for federal monies b/c they refuse to do elective abortions. It seems that it is at least on the radar for this Admin.

jim bronson 990cc said:
So you cannot give me a name or a “force that was used. Thanks for the confirmation.

Check out his response. I should be called Carnac, huh? Sheep are so predictable.

ndanielson said:
You can lead a liberal sheep to knowlege, but you can’t make it think. We aint playin’ this game. You are worthless in any type of discussion. Worthless.

But just for giggles: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=4806

http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-4865/

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32347

Liberals think they have that right. They have the right to whatever they want. Just ask gasket. Clown.

Grammie said:
I think it was Sebelius who made a statement a few weeks ago about Catholic hospitals and being eligible for federal monies b/c they refuse to do elective abortions. It seems that it is at least on the radar for this Admin.

Thank you. This is an intelligent comment, unlike n’s. Being on nthe radar is not being forced. Further, from what I see from your comment, there would not be any “force”. There is the possibility of opting out of federal dollars, for example.

ndanielson said:
Check out his response. I should be called Carnac, huh? Sheep are so predictable.

Did you read her responses or simply lose control and post without thinking? HHHHHHHMMMMMMMM???!!!???

Gasket said:
I will disabuse your premise. I do not want to support irresponsible people’s babies. Stop making stuff up. I am not the one preaching about the ills of abortion, you are. The only selfish asshole here is YOU thinking of your own beliefs. The paradox is, you care so much for that unborn fetus or zygote, but are not willing to help or are hostile to the real world repercussions of your myopic dogma. That is, with more babies born to a parent(s) unwilling to take care of them, they end up in the bottomless pit of despair. Orphanages and foster homes. It is YOU conservatives who are most hostile to the social safety net that attempts to take care of these society “rejects.” You are also being deceptive about the adoption situation in America. It is a well known fact that white babies are the most desired children to adopt, and hence — most difficult to adopt. Neglecting to mention these facts aids in your distortion and misrepresentation of the realities of this very complex issue. You can adopt a child of “color” TOMORROW if you wanted to. So if you want to talk about the dynamics of race when it comes to the abortion/adoption, issue….let’s talk. No sound reason, however, can penetrate that mass in your skull we would call your brain.

This is where you just don’t get conservatives. No conservative would want any baby to go hungry or not have a welcome home. But no conservative believes in helping those that will not help themselves. Taking responsibility is the first step in helping oneself. Too bad you don’t get that about conservatism.

ndanielson said:
jim bronson 990cc said:
So you cannot give me a name or a “force that was used. Thanks for the confirmation.

Nor did I attempt to.

I simply pointed out that high ranking official in the Admin had made noises about it. Only time will tell where and how far they go with it but the question was laid on the table by those that have the power to act.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Did you read her responses or simply lose control and post without thinking? HHHHHHHMMMMMMMM???!!!???

So let me get this straight you DIDNT READ THE PART WHERE YOU CAN LEAD A SHEEP TO KNOWLEDGE…???

I am supposed to read the articles for you, too??? I get your response they are always the same. Obfuscate, deny the source, deny the evidence, and attack the message, and attack the messenger. Did I miss anything, sheep boy?

ndanielson said:
#

jim bronson 990cc said:
Did you read her responses or simply lose control and post without thinking? HHHHHHHMMMMMMMM???!!!???

So let me get this straight you DIDNT READ THE PART WHERE YOU CAN LEAD A SHEEP TO KNOWLEDGE…???

I am supposed to read the articles for you, too??? I get your response they are always the same. Obfuscate, deny the source, deny the evidence, and attack the message, and attack the messenger. Did I miss anything, sheep boy?

I gave you all the links to knowledge that you need, sheep.

ndanielson said:
Dude, gasket is gonna hate that sentence. 0bama without a capital O is blasphemous to gasket, and that is just the beginning. Just like a losing sheep though, gasket will ignore and obfuscate whenever he aint outright lying and wrong. And, isn’t calling it 0bamacare racist? gasket, honey?

It’s like talking to a rock. :) Seems like I got to you yesterday. Your obsession with Gasket and sheep in general is rather creepy. Get out of your sty for some fresh air sweetheart and give the sheep some downtime. :)

jim bronson 990cc said:
Thank you. This is an intelligent comment, unlike n’s. Being on nthe radar is not being forced. Further, from what I see from your comment, there would not be any “force”. There is the possibility of opting out of federal dollars, for example.

blackmail is the best word for it

jim bronson 990cc said:
Thank you. This is an intelligent comment, unlike n’s. Being on nthe radar is not being forced. Further, from what I see from your comment, there would not be any “force”. There is the possibility of opting out of federal dollars, for example.

I gave you links and predicted the response. I said it would be worthless, and just for giggles, proved it. I’m still giggling. I bet Grammie is too. But she’s no sheep, she knew the standard sheep response.

Gasket said:
It’s like talking to a rock. :) Seems like I got to you yesterday. Your obsession with Gasket and sheep in general is rather creepy. Get out of your sty for some fresh air sweetheart and give the sheep some downtime. :)

I admitted that 0bama didn’t vote yes to prevent late term abortion on a bill, but voted no instead, to approve it, thereby siding with PP to keep it up as business as usual. And you still don’t get it??? You gloat over a mis-wording with the same result??? Wow, I guess you’ve got to bask in your little victories when you can, huh, genius? Wow. Freaking WOW!

ndanielson said:
This is where you just don’t get conservatives. No conservative would want any baby to go hungry or not have a welcome home. But no conservative believes in helping those that will not help themselves. Taking responsibility is the first step in helping oneself. Too bad you don’t get that about conservatism.

So, the baby in the womb is YOUR business, but once it is out it is the parent’s business? Got it Captain! You are giving yourself an excuse to abdicate ‘your’ responsibility to the needy child. After all, the child’s woes are the result of it’s parent(s) action or inaction, and not by a fault of it’s own. However, you are perfectly willing to throw the baby out with it’s bath water to claim superior moral ground. That is what the conservative does. We see what you do, we do not need to listen to your useless platitudes and equivocations. You are pathetic hypocrites.

Gasket said:
So, the baby in the womb is YOUR business, but once it is out it is the parent’s business? Got it Captain! You are giving yourself an excuse to abdicate ‘your’ responsibility to the needy child. After all, the child’s woes are the result of it’s parent(s) action or inaction, and not by a fault of it’s own. However, you are perfectly willing to throw the baby out with it’s bath water to claim superior moral ground. That is what the conservative does. We see what you do, we do not need to listen to your useless platitudes and equivocations. You are pathetic hypocrites.

yeah,danielson..just kill it , it is easier

jim bronson 990cc said:
There is the possibility of opting out of federal dollars, for example.

Which is the equivalent of the death sentence for an individual. The Feds sets the rules for a huge proportion of all health care dollars and precious few hospitals and many doctors would be forced to go against their conscience or go out of business if the conscience exception were rescinded.

The net effect would be to reduce the supply of health care at the exact same time that enormous new burdens (baby boomers coming online for Medicare) are placed upon them by Obamacare.

Gasket said:
So, the baby in the womb is YOUR business, but once it is out it is the parent’s business? Got it Captain! You are giving yourself an excuse to abdicate ‘your’ responsibility to the needy child. After all, the child’s woes are the result of it’s parent(s) action or inaction, and not by a fault of it’s own. However, you are perfectly willing to throw the baby out with it’s bath water to claim superior moral ground. That is what the conservative does. We see what you do, we do not need to listen to your useless platitudes and equivocations. You are pathetic hypocrites.

I really don’t care if they abort their own baby, I just don’t want my tax dollars spent to do it. Not a penny, because I am supporting irresponsible behavior without any consequence. And I don’t want it to be the law of the land. I want to live in a state that does not support it. Get in now, sheep? Pay for your own abortions big responsible guy. Have fun cupcake you are worthless too. I also don’t think doctors should be forced to perform them Clear, now sheep boy?

cjd ohio 1 said:
yeah,danielson..just kill it , it is easier

Kill your own babies, sheep. Don’t make other people pay for it.

ndanielson said:
Kill your own babies, sheep. Don’t make other people pay for it.

sarcastic damn

ndanielson said:
“The question is – and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that, is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person, human life is not a person, then, I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘no we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

Where’s the controversy here (and where is armwood?). Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person at one time in this country. Now 0bama calls all unborn children of all colors 0/5ths. Interesting.

Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It specifically states that “Representatives shall be apportioned …counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed…”

And this whole conversation was supposed to be about Baaaaaaaraaaaaaak 0baaaaaaaama. Leader of the sheep, ewe guys.

cjd ohio 1 said:
yeah,danielson..just kill it , it is easier

That is a simplistic conclusion that is just meant to demagogue this complex topic. Different dilemmas in life require an option of choices or decisions. None of them are easy or palatable. It’s a fallacy to think outlawing abortion cures any(every)thing. It doesn’t. I like solutions based on logic, and pragmatism — not those based to appeal to some abstract “moral” standard or religious ideology.

I will listen to and respect a staunch anti-abortionist’s opinion who has had a few children of their own and has adopted some over some nut kvetching in their basement who has done none of that It’s called speaking with actions. I will actually value their perspective.

More proof that what government wants, sheep will want. Question authority, sheep. Law of the land because of 9 judges??? Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sheep.

Gasket said:
That is a simplistic conclusion that is just meant to demagogue this complex topic. Different dilemmas in life require an option of choices or decisions. None of them are easy or palatable. It’s a fallacy to think outlawing abortion cures any(every)thing. It doesn’t. I like solutions based on logic, and pragmatism — not those based to appeal to some abstract “moral” standard or religious ideology. I will listen to and respect a staunch anti-abortionist’s opinion who has had a few children of their own and has adopted some over some nut kvetching in their basement who has done none of that It’s called speaking with actions. I will actually value their perspective.

i was being sarcastic, but you post above was civil for once, and i agree the problem is complex, but you last statement was one of the few that did not contain a insult

Gasket said:
That is a simplistic conclusion that is just meant to demagogue this complex topic. Different dilemmas in life require an option of choices or decisions. None of them are easy or palatable. It’s a fallacy to think outlawing abortion cures any(every)thing. It doesn’t. I like solutions based on logic, and pragmatism — not those based to appeal to some abstract “moral” standard or religious ideology.

I will listen to and respect a staunch anti-abortionist’s opinion who has had a few children of their own and has adopted some over some nut kvetching in their basement who has done none of that It’s called speaking with actions. I will actually value their perspective.

And the sheep knows my family. Wow. Ronald Reagan said: Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.

And Reagan knew a thing or two about liberal sheep. He had to guard most of them from self proclaimed bangers like gasket.

but your use of abstract “moral” standard can bite you in the butt. on other issue that you do support

Gawd Obama, we Whity’s made you a full person and now you won’t even pay us back in kind?!?!? Where’s your gratitude?!?!?!

—–Rick Santorum

How’s that “fetus in a jar” going for ya Rick?

Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person at one time in this country. Now 0bama calls all unborn children of all colors 0/5ths. Ironic, aint it? Happy grazing.

If it wasn’t racist it is still incredibly offensive for a White man to tell a Black man how he should think.

The are not the slave masters anymore.

ndanielson said:
This is where you just don’t get conservatives. No conservative would want any baby to go hungry or not have a welcome home. But no conservative believes in helping those that will not help themselves. Taking responsibility is the first step in helping oneself. Too bad you don’t get that about conservatism.

It’s not that those principles aren’t understood. It’s that principles must meet the realities of life. Deciding where the line is drawn in helping those who are trying to help themselves, and when to stop helping those who aren’t trying isn’t something people agree on. That’s where the process of deciding real world policies come in.

watch “jesse ventura censored” before Obama’s croonies remove it from the web. They pulled it from TV because Ventura showed what Obama has in store for America. FEMA reprograming centers for political disidents & hundreds of thousands of coffins. Watch it while you still can. Vote Obuma out 2012!

Obama, worst president in history!

Z

Gasket said:
So, the baby in the womb is YOUR business, but once it is out it is the parent’s business? Got it Captain! You are giving yourself an excuse to abdicate ‘your’ responsibility to the needy child. After all, the child’s woes are the result of it’s parent(s) action or inaction, and not by a fault of it’s own. However, you are perfectly willing to throw the baby out with it’s bath water to claim superior moral ground. That is what the conservative does. We see what you do, we do not need to listen to your useless platitudes and equivocations. You are pathetic hypocrites.

Damn we need a new award, inane is already used.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Since this thread is about abortion, I have a question for those of you that are pro-abortion. Do you think abortion should be legal anytime until birth and if not, where should the cut off be? I’m sincerely interested in your honest opinions on the subject.

I am only half wa through the commenys so not sure if anyone answers. I am pro-choice of course. I think abortion should be last resort. Adoption if possible. But if one is having an abortion it should never be done after three months. Not three months and 1 day either. I personally think it should only be done at all except for the life of the mother and then it should be her choice. But I don’t think it is in my place to say what another woman chooses.

kdluhy said:
watch “jesse ventura censored” before Obama’s croonies remove it from the web. They pulled it from TV because Ventura showed what Obama has in store for America. FEMA reprograming centers for political disidents & hundreds of thousands of coffins. Watch it while you still can. Vote Obuma out 2012!

He discredits himself with his 9/11 truther crap.

And to all you abortion supporters, I never hear any whining about how 9 supreme court justices made abortion the law of the land, and not the people. I know you twist the Constitution to say it’s a “right”, but rights end when another’s rights are infringed upon to grant it. If millions of tax dollars are spent on free abortions, and doctors are compelled to perform them, they have lost a right. But then sheep aren’t the lightest bulbs in the pack.

blurgh. said:
Well, Santorum seems outraged that a black man would be able to have an opinion different from what Santorum assumes black people should believe. Thus, Santorum has a preconceived notion of what black people should think. That’s pretty racist.

Santorum was my senator when I lived in PA. Truist me that he is racist. My daughter worked on his campaign until she decided she had had enough.

cjd ohio 1 said:
i was being sarcastic, but you post above was civil for once, and i agree the problem is complex, but you last statement was one of the few that did not contain a insult

I project insults when they are thrown at me first. I’m always civil when the other person is. I will respond to guttersnipes with my own invectives and vitriol. I’m not Jesus or MLK. :)

ndanielson said:
I really don’t care if they abort their own baby, I just don’t want my tax dollars spent to do it. Not a penny, because I am supporting irresponsible behavior without any consequence. And I don’t want it to be the law of the land. I want to live in a state that does not support it. Get in now, sheep? Pay for your own abortions big responsible guy. Have fun cupcake you are worthless too. I also don’t think doctors should be forced to perform them Clear, now sheep boy?

You are being a sophist. This whole argument is about you not wanting abortion to be legal at all. I have no problem with the banning of taxes to subsidize abortions if there’s a direct link to it’s happening. It is already federal law anyway. If you can prove it, have it prosecuted.

Your job or oath as a doctor is to the patient, not your scripture — nor is it an avenue or venue for you to proselytize. If there’s conflict, GTFO of the profession. You have no right to be employed. What will be next? A physician refusing to prescribe drug X for a cancer treatment regimen because it was R&D’d using embryonic stem cells…..something he/she views as immoral? Do you realize how slippery that slope can be when you inject subjective discretion (unrelated to medicine) to a doctor’s options? It’s so silly…I can’t even imagine it’s being debated. When I go to to the doctor, I want him/her to use 100% of his/her ability and resources to make me whole. The last thing I’m concerned about is his/her “feelings” on said resources.

Rick is a tea-baggers tea-bagger.

Just today! Just ‘cuz 0bama says you’re 0/5ths of a person, conservatives don’t! Dang, heartless conservatives! http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/20/video-gop-introduces-ban-on-federal-funding-for-abortion/ Personal responsibility, what a concept.

Gasket said:
I project insults when they are thrown at me first. I’m always civil when the other person is. I will respond to guttersnipes with my own invectives and vitriol. I’m not Jesus or MLK. :) You are being a sophist. This whole argument is about you not wanting abortion to be legal at all. I have no problem with the banning of taxes to subsidize abortions if there’s a direct link to it’s happening. It is already federal law anyway. If you can prove it, have it prosecuted. Your job or oath as a doctor is to the patient, not your scripture — nor is it an avenue or venue for you to proselytize. If there’s conflict, GTFO of the profession. You have no right to be employed. What will be next? A physician refusing to prescribe drug X for a cancer treatment regimen because it was R&D’d using embryonic stem cells…..something he/she views as immoral? Do you realize how slippery that slope can be when you inject subjective discretion (unrelated to medicine) to a doctor’s options? It’s so silly…I can’t even imagine it’s being debated. When I go to to the doctor, I want him/her to use 100% of his/her ability and resources to make me whole. The last thing I’m concerned about is his/her “feelings” on said resources.

i see you point on the cancer, but abortion is a elective procedure, just like any other speciality, most likely a regular doctor cant do a boob job either

Gasket said:
I project insults when they are thrown at me first. I’m always civil when the other person is. I will respond to guttersnipes with my own invectives and vitriol. I’m not Jesus or MLK. :)

You are being a sophist. This whole argument is about you not wanting abortion to be legal at all. I have no problem with the banning of taxes to subsidize abortions if there’s a direct link to it’s happening. It is already federal law anyway. If you can prove it, have it prosecuted.

Your job or oath as a doctor is to the patient, not your scripture — nor is it an avenue or venue for you to proselytize. If there’s conflict, GTFO of the profession. You have no right to be employed. What will be next? A physician refusing to prescribe drug X for a cancer treatment regimen because it was R&D’d using embryonic stem cells…..something he/she views as immoral? Do you realize how slippery that slope can be when you inject subjective discretion (unrelated to medicine) to a doctor’s options? It’s so silly…I can’t even imagine it’s being debated. When I go to to the doctor, I want him/her to use 100% of his/her ability and resources to make me whole. The last thing I’m concerned about is his/her “feelings” on said resources.

Yes throw your whole profession and training out the window so that gasket can get his fetuses aborted on the tax payer dime. You know, on second thought…

Not any evidence, none of any success with embryonic stem cell research. NONE. Adult stem cells, yes. Here from sheeple, news even: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/02/health/main6735628.shtml

ndanielson said:

And to all you abortion supporters, I never hear any whining about how 9 supreme court justices made abortion the law of the land, and not the people. I know you twist the Constitution to say it’s a “right”, but rights end when another’s rights are infringed upon to grant it. If millions of tax dollars are spent on free abortions, and doctors are compelled to perform them, they have lost a right. But then sheep aren’t the lightest bulbs in the pack.

Dumbass.

“It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury V Madison, 1803.

A zygote is not a person.

Gasket said:
I project insults when they are thrown at me first. I’m always civil when the other person is. I will respond to guttersnipes with my own invectives and vitriol. I’m not Jesus or MLK. :)

You are being a sophist. This whole argument is about you not wanting abortion to be legal at all. I have no problem with the banning of taxes to subsidize abortions if there’s a direct link to it’s happening. It is already federal law anyway. If you can prove it, have it prosecuted.

Your job or oath as a doctor is to the patient, not your scripture — nor is it an avenue or venue for you to proselytize. If there’s conflict, GTFO of the profession. You have no right to be employed. What will be next? A physician refusing to prescribe drug X for a cancer treatment regimen because it was R&D’d using embryonic stem cells…..something he/she views as immoral? Do you realize how slippery that slope can be when you inject subjective discretion (unrelated to medicine) to a doctor’s options? It’s so silly…I can’t even imagine it’s being debated. When I go to to the doctor, I want him/her to use 100% of his/her ability and resources to make me whole. The last thing I’m concerned about is his/her “feelings” on said resources.

Gasket said:
I project insults when they are thrown at me first. I’m always civil when the other person is. I will respond to guttersnipes with my own invectives and vitriol. I’m not Jesus or MLK. :)

You are being a sophist. This whole argument is about you not wanting abortion to be legal at all. I have no problem with the banning of taxes to subsidize abortions if there’s a direct link to it’s happening. It is already federal law anyway. If you can prove it, have it prosecuted.

Your job or oath as a doctor is to the patient, not your scripture — nor is it an avenue or venue for you to proselytize. If there’s conflict, GTFO of the profession. You have no right to be employed. What will be next? A physician refusing to prescribe drug X for a cancer treatment regimen because it was R&D’d using embryonic stem cells…..something he/she views as immoral? Do you realize how slippery that slope can be when you inject subjective discretion (unrelated to medicine) to a doctor’s options? It’s so silly…I can’t even imagine it’s being debated. When I go to to the doctor, I want him/her to use 100% of his/her ability and resources to make me whole. The last thing I’m concerned about is his/her “feelings” on said resources.

You really need to look at where the oath came from and what it says. GTFO out of the profession do you realize how sick that sounds?

Gasket said:
Dumbass.

“It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury V Madison, 1803.

A zygote is not a person.

Wow, We 9 Judges supercedes We The People? Who knew??? The federalist papers warned of clowns like you. A judicial tyranny. What’s new? Sheep are sheep.

As long as the president appoints great empathetic judges, who needs a Constitution. Who knew??? Damn gasket, will you run someday?

Is there really no end to your ignorance, gasket?

Penguin60 said:
You really need to look at where the oath came from and what it says. GTFO out of the profession do you realize how sick that sounds?

He’s something, huh? He keeps digging, though. Give him credit for that.

cjd ohio 1 said:
i see you point on the cancer, but abortion is a elective procedure, just like any other speciality, most likely a regular doctor cant do a boob job either

I want to make sure I’m responding to the right thing here. What id your definition of an “elective” procedure?

ndanielson said:
He’s something, huh? He keeps digging, though. Give him credit for that.

The original Oath mentions abortion. The law and individual ethics sometimes clash. If a Doctor feels that zygote, fetus is life then he would be violating his oath. Doctors do not manipulate their ethics for patients.

abortion is a elective procedure…….boob jobs, plastic surgery, vasectomy, hysterectomy in a lot of cases

cjd ohio 1 said:
abortion is a elective procedure…….boob jobs, plastic surgery, vasectomy, hysterectomy in a lot of cases

For the most part correct, but not in all cases.

Penguin60 said:
The original Oath mentions abortion. The law and individual ethics sometimes clash. If a Doctor feels that zygote, fetus is life then he would be violating his oath. Doctors do not manipulate their ethics for patients.

Go read gasket. He thinks government should be able to compel doctors to do so, by force. As does Mr. 0bama. http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-4865/

Definition

An elective surgery is a planned, non-emergency surgical procedure. It may be either medically required (e.g., cataract surgery), or optional (e.g., breast augmentation or implant) surgery.

Any non life-threatening procedure. Unless you want the procedure to kill you.

ndanielson said:
Wow, We 9 Judges supercedes We The People? Who knew??? The federalist papers warned of clowns like you. A judicial tyranny. What’s new? Sheep are sheep.

If you don’t like federal law, or the Constitution as written, there is a procedure to change it. You know….make changes and amendments to said “oppressive” or “tyrannical” laws that do not (allegedly) reflect the will of the people. You do realize that YOU can do that, right? To equate the USSC to an autocracy demonstrates your lack of cognitive thought or reflection on this issue. The USSC judges are nominated by the President (the executive) and confirmed by the US Senate. The former and the latter are elected by the PEOPLE to their respective offices. To infer judicial despotism shows your stupidity.

Penguin60 said:
You really need to look at where the oath came from and what it says. GTFO out of the profession do you realize how sick that sounds?

How about you stop being a little coward and actually put up your own logical arguments in support instead of responding with snide proclamations. I want to hear you argue how the doctor is justified in using his religious beliefs (from a medical perspective) — to refuse offering a legal service to their patients. I’m all ears, Susan.

ndanielson said:
Go read gasket. He thinks government should be able to compel doctors to do so, by force. As does Mr. 0bama. http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-4865/

Liberals like him are clueless. As long as their rights supersede another’s rights, it is all good. They just don’t get it.

SarahP. says:
Rick is a tea-baggers tea-bagger.

Eloquent, as always.

Gasket said:
ndanielson said:
Wow, We 9 Judges supercedes We The People? Who knew??? The federalist papers warned of clowns like you. A judicial tyranny. What’s new? Sheep are shee

Like I SAID they warned of people like YOU. HOW DOES 9 JUDGES COMPORT WITH YOUR IDEA OF WE THE PEOPLE? Please give that one a crack, genius. Does it in any way sound like judicial tyranny at all to you, genius? Read Hamilton and Madison. They are speaking of people like you.

Gasket said:
How about you stop being a little coward and actually put up your own logical arguments in support instead of responding with snide proclamations. I want to hear you argue how the doctor is justified in using his religious beliefs (from a medical perspective) — to refuse offering a legal service to their patients. I’m all ears, Susan.

Logic does not work on you no matter how many ears you have. Your ears go to nowhere. There is nothing in between.

Yes, penquin, the doctor has no rights just the person wanting an abortion. Get it. Strictly from a “medical perspective”, and all. Wow.

I’m out of here. I gotta go share some gasket wisdom with some people who could use a good laugh.

Gasket said:
How about you stop being a little coward and actually put up your own logical arguments in support instead of responding with snide proclamations. I want to hear you argue how the doctor is justified in using his religious beliefs (from a medical perspective) — to refuse offering a legal service to their patients. I’m all ears, Susan.

You are one angry lib, but that’s OK you get used to it on this site. My guess is you are not a physician, have no idea what the Oath, medical ethics or personal integrity is about? Just because you are a physician doesn’t mean you don’t have core ethics. Physicians may decline to treat patients, they will refer, not abandon, but are not required to treat you, that is their decision, not yours. Conversely if you don’t like the Physician it’s your prerogative to find another. I like the way you avoided the Oath question, Susan.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
SarahP. says:
Rick is a tea-baggers tea-bagger.

Eloquent, as always.

I think you mean “Elequest.” LMAO!!

Peggy, you are conflating ethics with morals. I know the original hippocratic oath mentioned abortion, but, we do not live in those times. There are many things done then that are not done now. A physician goes into medicine to help people. If you have a problem with the means, you are in the wrong profession. Yes, I do not want moralists in science. I am a scientist and know that their effect in this field is regressive with their moralist mindset. Even Nancy Reagan had to embrace embryonic stem cell research after what happened to her hubby. Logic defies emotion, every time. It’s the reason why conservatives make up less than 10% of scientists in this country.

mdanselson, like the pussy you are, see ya. Don’t forget to refill your flavor-aid drip, ass. :)

How dare any white man think he has the right to say what a black man should say or think! How dare he!

Gasket said:
If you have a problem with the means, you are in the wrong profession. Yes, I do not want moralists in science.

Wow, you prove your illness with each post. Google medical ethics. I’m glad you want to impart your morals on me. Physician patient relationship is a partnership, you don’t like it go somewhere else.I’m sure you can find a Physician without morals. Why is that so hard to understand? Thanks but I’ll stay in my profession. Have a nice night.

He’s just another douche bag Republican.

Sorry Rick or any other tool who likes to hide behind both Jesus and The Founding Fathers to disguise their failed policies, neither Jesus or the Founding Fathers said ANYTHING about abortion. In fact, abortion was a perfectly legal procedure in the United States for the first 80 years of our existence. And Jesus would have seen POVERTY (you know, the thing too many Americans who claim to be Christians like to avoid talking about if not downright blame the impoverished for their fate) as the pre-eminent issue that contributes to abortion and addressed the root causes.

Face it, the attack against the reproductive rights of women and against homosexuality by the Tea Party’s fake conservative forbearers, the Religious Right, had more to do with denying people who weren’t white straight males rights than it had to do with the fake outrage about abortion. If any of these fake conservative clowns were, at all, REAL CONSERVATIVES that would mean that you truly believe in LIMITED GOVERNMENT and respect the will of the FOUNDING FATHERS and would get off the anti-abortion kick. LIMITED GOVERNMENT means keeping your laws out peoples wombs and bedrooms and addressing the rates of abortion means addressing poverty rates and education levels, two things red states tend to a dismal job at doing.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Rick is a tea-baggers tea-bagger.

Eloquent, as always.

You mean he is a tea-baggers tea-bagger. Racist, as always.

ndanielson said:
So let me get this straight you DIDNT READ THE PART WHERE YOU CAN LEAD A SHEEP TO KNOWLEDGE…??? I am supposed to read the articles for you, too??? I get your response they are always the same. Obfuscate, deny the source, deny the evidence, and attack the message, and attack the messenger. Did I miss anything, sheep boy?

Yes. You missed the part where you were supposed to provide a name. You missed the part where you were supposed to provide the conditions of “force”. Can you not read?

armwood said:
How dare any white man think he has the right to say what a black man should say or think! How dare he!

Since the Tea Party anointed themselves the defenders of a Constitution they’ve never read and cherry pick which parts apply to which Americans. And since the Tea Party was simply built out of the remnants of the dying Religious Right that itself was formed out of white reactionaries to LBJ’s civil rights legislation and other civil rights movements of the era. You know, the Religious Right that spent 40 years not fighting against poverty and for compassion, like the Jesus they like hide behind would of, but attacking the civil rights of any non white non male American who they weren’t accustomed to having Constitutional protections for the first nearly two centuries our our existence. These are people who think there are a finite amount of rights to go around and thus they wrongly believe that to share their rights with others means to dilute their own rights.

The Tea Party, being the reincarnation of the Religious Right (which Santorum also pandered to), have no new economic ideas and actually spend a preponderance of their time fighting long dead social policies that REAL CONSERVATIVES could give a hoot about (as evidence by the fact that the GOP, once in power, immediately forgets about those social concerns) and the majority of America simply don’t support.

ndanielson said:
Read Hamilton and Madison.

Let’s not just read our Founding Fathers, let’s follow their lead. ABORTION was a LEGAL PROCEDURE during the era of the Founding Fathers and well beyond. So that is the most important reflection of their opinion that can be found, what actually happened under their rule.

You can’t keep hiding behind the Founding Fathers and a Constitution you’ve never read to defend your bad policies and illogic especially if they stood in direct contrast to your position. Again, you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If you want to decrease the numbers of abortions (you know, one of the oldest medical procedures known to man), then try addressing poverty and education levels, something that too many conservative states do a dismal job at addressing.

Let see the black man Obama with a white mama said he will never kill a child but supports the law of the land…Santorum problem is… he does not know who his real enemy or enemies are the desire of a 50 member tea party does not rule nation…this man wants to follow foools…I find it difficult to listen to the right when those that read the tail of the right are so stuck in ignorant ranting and actions…the only good thing is the people of his state knows they will be cpnsidered low if they elect someone of less character…in to high office…if any one from this Santorum state loves this nation select your leaders like you would select your babysitter

Penguin60 said:
Wow, you prove your illness with each post. Google medical ethics. I’m glad you want to impart your morals on me. Physician patient relationship is a partnership, you don’t like it go somewhere else.I’m sure you can find a Physician without morals. Why is that so hard to understand? Thanks but I’ll stay in my profession. Have a nice night.

It’s you who wants doctors to impart their morals onto their patients. I just want them to do their f@cking job. What’s so hard to understand about that, Susan? Do you think it’s OK for a pharmacist to refuse to sell an emergency contraceptive (24hr-post coitus), a drug prescribed by a physician and sitting on the shelf — to a female patient because he thinks it’s (abortion & is) morally wrong? That’s what the asswipe who works with my brother (a pharmacist intern) does. I have a big problem with that and he’s lucky he hasn’t been snitched on. I am not asking them to break any laws. I want them to do their job.

Yes, I think conservatives in the science field on the most part are stupid, but I am not forcing you to leave your profession. There’s no room for morality in science. We are in the pursuit of knowledge. That’s our quest. Too bad you are too ignorant to realize that.

Gasket said:
<Pf@ There’s no room for morality in science. We are in the pursuit of knowledge. That’s our quest. Too bad you are too ignorant to realize that.

that is a pretty harsh statement there sir, maybe you should think about that again. a general statement like that looks pretty bad

lol – from Gasket: There’s no room for morality in science. Notice his mushroom cloud pic.

cjd ohio 1 said:
that is a pretty harsh statement there sir, maybe you should think about that again. a general statement like that looks pretty bad

Maybe he meant that it’s not for doctors to impose their personal morality any more than it’s the job of legislators to legislate their morality especially when their morality is in direct contradiction of the majority of Americans. As it stands, the majority of Americans support the legality of abortion as did our Founding Fathers. In fact, the reason there was a push to criminalize abortion (one of the oldest medical procedures known to humanity) in the US was because there was a sharp decline in the White Protestant (ie the ruling class of the era) population after the release of slaves and the huge immigration push in the mid 19th century. It had nothing to do with morality, it had to do with white self-preservation.

And Santorum’s racist spewings have nothing to do with his feelings toward the would-be lives of aborted fetuses, it has to with a reactionary white man trying to salvage what’s left of a decaying era where he and his racist and sexist ilk are being left behind.

A Kim Bo said:
Maybe he meant that it’s not for doctors to impose their personal morality any more than it’s the job of legislators to legislate their morality especially when their morality is in direct contradiction of the majority of Americans. As it stands, the majority of Americans support the legality of abortion as did our Founding Fathers. In fact, the reason there was a push to criminalize abortion (one of the oldest medical procedures known to humanity) in the US was because there was a sharp decline in the White Protestant (ie the ruling class of the era) population after the release of slaves and the huge immigration push in the mid 19th century. It had nothing to do with morality, it had to do with white self-preservation. And Santorum’s racist spewings have nothing to do with his feelings toward the would-be lives of aborted fetuses, it has to with a reactionary white man trying to salvage what’s left of a decaying era where he and his racist and sexist ilk are being left behind.

thank you but i like to hear what gasket means, but thanks………abortion is the #1 killer of african-americans in the US, so i guess the tea party should be for it them. i understand his stance on some things but he generalizes to much out of anger

A Kim Bo said:
Since the Tea Party anointed themselves the defenders of a Constitution they’ve never read and cherry pick which parts apply to which Americans. And since the Tea Party was simply built out of the remnants of the dying Religious Right that itself was formed out of white reactionaries to LBJ’s civil rights legislation and other civil rights movements of the era. You know, the Religious Right that spent 40 years not fighting against poverty and for compassion, like the Jesus they like hide behind would of, but attacking the civil rights of any non white non male American who they weren’t accustomed to having Constitutional protections for the first nearly two centuries our our existence. These are people who think there are a finite amount of rights to go around and thus they wrongly believe that to share their rights with others means to dilute their own rights.

The Tea Party, being the reincarnation of the Religious Right (which Santorum also pandered to), have no new economic ideas and actually spend a preponderance of their time fighting long dead social policies that REAL CONSERVATIVES could give a hoot about (as evidence by the fact that the GOP, once in power, immediately forgets about those social concerns) and the majority of America simply don’t support.

Since the liberal sheep have allowed government to trash the constitution…blah blah blah blah. 9 judges are “We The People. See how easy that is kimbo? Sheeeeeep.

cjd ohio 1 said:
i understand his stance on some things but he generalizes to much out of anger

Still, if you don’t want to deal with the potentiality of abortion as medical professional because it assaults your sensibilities then don’t become a gynecologist or a pharmacists who might have to dispense LEGAL pharmaceuticals that you disagree with. It’s like being someone who works in the burn unit who has a strong disliking toward plastic surgery. At some point, you’re going to have to advice your patient on something you find objectionable. If you can’t do it legally and responsibly, then refer that patient to someone who can.

cjd ohio 1 said:
thank you but i like to hear what gasket means, but thanks………abortion is the #1 killer of african-americans in the US, so i guess the tea party should be for it them. i understand his stance on some things but he generalizes to much out of anger

Barak 0bama calls the unborn 0/5ths of a person, the sheep agree. What is new? armwood says how dare any white man question a black man on what is and isn’t a person, the sheep agree. What’s new on this post?

gottosay said:
Let see the black man Obama with a white mama said he will never kill a child but supports the law of the land…Santorum problem is… he does not know who his real enemy or enemies are the desire of a 50 member tea party does not rule nation…this man wants to follow foools…I find it difficult to listen to the right when those that read the tail of the right are so stuck in ignorant ranting and actions…the only good thing is the people of his state knows they will be cpnsidered low if they elect someone of less character…in to high office…if any one from this Santorum state loves this nation select your leaders like you would select your babysitter

The law of the land, wow. 9 judges have declared the law of the land, and the sheep agree. Why even have a constitution, sheep? 9 supreme court justices declared abortion the LAW OF THE LAND! The sheep agree.

ndanielson said:
Since the liberal sheep have allowed government to trash the constitution…

AGAIN TOOL, the FOUNDING FATHERS formulated a Constitution and they also accepted the legality of abortion. If anyone TRASHED IT, it was either those Founding Fathers who wrote it who disagreed with you or those who worked to make abortion illegal 80 years after the beginning of our nation. You’re the one having a difficult time defining what is in the Constitution and who has no working knowledge of the law of the land under the Founding Father’s you’re trying to hide behind. Face it TOOL, there are some things about the Founding Fathers Glenn Beck is not going to tell you about because it doesn’t fit his narrative. At some point, you’re going to have to be an adult and do your own research or admit that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

ndanielson said:
Barak 0bama calls the unborn 0/5ths of a person

And so did the Founding Fathers.

ndanielson said:
The law of the land, wow. 9 judges have declared the law of the land, and the sheep agree. Why even have a constitution, sheep? 9 supreme court justices declared abortion the LAW OF THE LAND! The sheep agree.

This bizarre sheep fascination of yours has me worried about you. I mean, to each his own right, but I’m not sure I’d keep talking about it.

A Kim Bo said:
Still, if you don’t want to deal with the potentiality of abortion as medical professional because it assaults your sensibilities then don’t become a gynecologist or a pharmacists who might have to dispense LEGAL pharmaceuticals that you disagree with. It’s like being someone who works in the burn unit who has a strong disliking toward plastic surgery. At some point, you’re going to have to advice your patient on something you find objectionable. If you can’t do it legally and responsibly, then refer that patient to someone who can.

i understand your point of view, but doctors refer people to other doctors all the time, now on pharmacists , you have a very good point, and i am not really sure how to respond

A Kim Bo said:
AGAIN TOOL, the FOUNDING FATHERS formulated a Constitution and they also accepted the legality of abortion. If anyone TRASHED IT, it was either those Founding Fathers who wrote it who disagreed with you or those who worked to make abortion illegal 80 years after the beginning of our nation. You’re the one having a difficult time defining what is in the Constitution and who has no working knowledge of the law of the land under the Founding Father’s you’re trying to hide behind. Face it TOOL, there are some things about the Founding Fathers Glenn Beck is not going to tell you about because it doesn’t fit his narrative. At some point, you’re going to have to be an adult and do your own research or admit that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Roe v Wade was set the president allowing 9 justices to make abortion the law of the land, numbnuts. Are you that dense? Would you like their names?

cjd ohio 1 said:
i understand your point of view, but doctors refer people to other doctors all the time, now on pharmacists , you have a very good point, and i am not really sure how to respond

You understand liberal sheep dogma and nothing else. You hardly understand that. Sheep.

A Kim Bo said:
And so did the Founding Fathers.

until the baby moved in the womb and the women could fell it

feel it

ndanielson said:
You understand liberal sheep dogma and nothing else. You hardly understand that. Sheep.

stay blind if you like, i listen to people’s points of view and will judge for myself

CosmosDan said:
This bizarre sheep fascination of yours has me worried about you. I mean, to each his own right, but I’m not sure I’d keep talking about it.

You worry about me more than a citizenry that places the judiciary in place of WE THE PEOPLE. Who knew, sweet pea?

Critius said:
lol – from Gasket: There’s no room for morality in science. Notice his mushroom cloud pic.

What does that have to do with anything? You need to realize Dr. Oppenheimer, a scientist was very much against what his work was later used for. He was one of the pariahs of McCarthyism. It’s politicians who abused his work. Geez…why am I even trying?

A Kim Bo said:
Maybe he meant that it’s not for doctors to impose their personal morality any more than it’s the job of legislators to legislate their morality especially when their morality is in direct contradiction of the majority of Americans. .

Precisely. I have already said it a dozen times too.

cjd ohio 1, you are an ok dude so I will respond. Morality in this country tends to be shaped by religion, and religion is very hostile towards science. Have you ever wondered why most scientists are agnostics? This is the main reason I don’t like morality in the science field. My comment may have been hyperbolic, but it reflects my genuine personal feelings on the issue.

ndanielson said:
You worry about me more than a citizenry that places the judiciary in place of WE THE PEOPLE. Who knew, sweet pea?

Well yeah, I worry because all you seem to have are some libertarian conservative talking points and a strange fascination with sheep. And now you’re calling a stranger sweet pea? You poor thing.

BFD said:
If it wasn’t racist it is still incredibly offensive for a White man to tell a Black man how he should think.

Isn’t it offensive irregardless of whoever is whatever color?

If not, why not.

Kim Barker said:
It’s like being someone who works in the burn unit who has a strong disliking toward plastic surgery.

That is a false equivalency of the highest order.

CosmosDan said:
Well yeah, I worry because all you seem to have are some libertarian conservative talking points and a strange fascination with sheep. And now you’re calling a stranger sweet pea? You poor thing.

That guy is a total fruitcake. Waste of time talking any sense into him. Oh…and he really loves sheep. He’s Baaaaaaad. :)

cjd ohio 1 said:
pharmacists , you have a very good point, and i am not really sure how to respond

Use one of the other pharmacies in your area.

To use the weight of law to compell one to choose between honest employment or committing what they consider murder is an unjust application of the power of the state.

Gasket said:
Oh…and he really loves sheep.

So I noticed. I mean, comon. Sometimes when you’re in love you feel like telling the world but that usually works best within the same species.

…you are an ok dude so I will respond. Morality in this country tends to be shaped by religion, and religion is very hostile towards science.

Can’t have morality and be a scientist. Okay. Who knew that?

Kim Barker said:
Let’s not just read our Founding Fathers, let’s follow their lead. ABORTION was a LEGAL PROCEDURE during the era of the Founding Fathers and well beyond. So that is the most important reflection of their opinion that can be found, what actually happened under their rule.

You can’t keep hiding behind the Founding Fathers and a Constitution you’ve never read to defend your bad policies and illogic especially if they stood in direct contrast to your position. Again, you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If you want to decrease the numbers of abortions (you know, one of the oldest medical procedures known to man), then try addressing poverty and education levels, something that too many conservative states do a dismal job at addressing.

And here all along we thought it was Roe v Wade. Who knew?

At issue:

* The 2008 Democratic Party Platform states that abortion should be generally legal, supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, and supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. The platform also states that the Democratic Party strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

* The Republican Party Platform states that abortion should be generally illegal and supports a Constitutional Amendment that would assure preborn humans the right to life. It opposes “using public revenues to promote or perform abortion” and states

We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. … Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.

Look at the mean ol’ republican view. Wow, settling it once and for all with we the people, not we the courts. Imagine that. But, then what would the democrat party run on???

ndanielson said:
At issue:

* The 2008 Democratic Party Platform states that abortion should be generally legal, supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, and supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. The platform also states that the Democratic Party strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

* The Republican Party Platform states that abortion should be generally illegal and supports a Constitutional Amendment that would assure preborn humans the right to life. It opposes “using public revenues to promote or perform abortion” and states

We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. … Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.

Look at the mean ol’ republican view. Wow, settling it once and for all with we the people, not we the courts. Imagine that. But, then what would the democrat party run on???

Hey democrats, why the fear of settling it once and for all??? The Tea Party will do just that or they will be gone.

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

ndanielson said:
The Republican Party Platform states that abortion should be generally illegal and supports a Constitutional Amendment

Isn’t that something? The RWers and the Tea Party keep preaching about how they want to protect the Constitution but they keep wanting to change it to suit their desires.

Look at the democrat party platform. Forcing someone to pay for their mistakes. Wow. Right there in plain view. Not just abortion but everything about liberal democrats is abdication of personal responsibility. So you’re not sheep. You’re not liberals. Your democrats. Wow big difference. Most of you have no clue how abortion became the law of the land. It’s just astounding.

the real john t said:
Isn’t that something? The RWers and the Tea Party keep preaching about how they want to protect the Constitution but they keep wanting to change it to suit their desires.

I see the words right to bear arms, I see the words freedom of religion, but I don’t see any word, abortion in the Constitution. It is about time we put it there. What say you, dum-dum? We will settle all this real soon, dum-dum. Because if this climate is the liberal idea of what is settled and what isn’t, I for one cannot wait for the next civil war. You people are sick with stupid.

A 2008 platform that openly states that it wants tax payer money to fund abortion, and this country just turns a blind eye? The only citizens gaining rights in this country are the immoral. There needs to be a remedy for that. I cannot wait to have a Constitutional summit in this country. It is long over due. I have never witnessed so many clueless people in my life as I have here these past few weeks. But there is no other explanation for the rise of 0bama.

And just today the story broke in Philly about the butcher who is charged for 8 murders. He was making a million a year for years off the blood of babies. The silence from most media outlets is once again deafening

ndanielson said:
I for one cannot wait for the next civil war.

Why, so you can run and jump under your bed in a fetal position and scream for your mommy?

ndanielson said:
* The 2008 Democratic Party Platform states that abortion should be generally legal, supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, and supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. The platform also states that the Democratic Party strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Liberal always like it both ways (no pun intended). Have an abortion, tax payers pay. Have a baby you cannot afford, tax payers pay. Un freaking believable.

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

the real john t said:
Why, so you can run and jump under your bed in a fetal position and scream for your mommy?

Why don’t you crawl under yours and scream for your government?

Dsiscokid said:
And just today the story broke in Philly about the butcher who is charged for 8 murders. He was making a million a year for years off the blood of babies. The silence from most media outlets is once again deafening

I posted the link here yesterday, and the freaks here attacked it like it was their own father that got caught.

ndanielson said:
Why don’t you crawl under yours and scream for your government?

What war did you serve in? Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq II, Afghanistan? Tell everyone when you served in the military tough man.

Dsiscokid said:
And just today the story broke in Philly about the butcher who is charged for 8 murders

I read the news story. He has been doing it for years and these 8 are just the recent ones. God alone knows what and to how many over the years.

BTW – God’s Word states that we should avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).

ndanielson said:
Liberal always like it both ways (no pun intended). Have an abortion, tax payers pay. Have a baby you cannot afford, tax payers pay. Un freaking believable.

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

I seriously did not know this was their stated position on abortion rights. I find a new reason to be disgusted in liberalism every passing day.

Dsiscokid said:
BTW – God’s Word states that we should avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).

They’ll eat you alive here for the mere mention of God, or anything resembling it.

the real john t said:
What war did you serve in? Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq II, Afghanistan? Tell everyone when you served in the military tough man.

Bite me, hard, cupcake.

ndanielson said:
Bite me, hard, cupcake.

So you never served in the military huh Skippy. But you want to come on here and talk tough about how you can’t wait for the next civil war. You’re nothing but a low life scumbag.

Oh well ndanielson if more Christians (myself included) read our Bibles and obeyed God’s Word we could see our neighborhoods, our cities, and our great nation turn to the Lord! That is the only way to turn things around! The LORD has to do it and His people need to turn from our sins and turn our hearts to Him (2 Chronicles 7:14)

the real john t said:
So you never served in the military huh Skippy. But you want to come on here and talk tough about how you can’t wait for the next civil war. You’re nothing but a low life scumbag.

You support a government of democrats that want people to pay for abortions and pay for “a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs”, and you call me a scumbag? It’s amazing ANY person joins the military to fight for people like you, scumbag. No wonder they are sick of it. Scumbag.

The 2008 democratic platform on ABORTION RIGHTS. Worth repeating: * The 2008 Democratic Party Platform states that abortion should be generally legal, supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, and supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. The platform also states that the Democratic Party strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Wow. Just f’n wow. I am so glad I am retired and will never support this again with my taxes from working in this society. I will give twice the amount of my yearly taxes to any programs that oppose this.

ndanielson said:
No wonder they are sick of it.

How’s your Medicaid card doing for you? You getting your monthly SSI checks okay? I know you get them because you’re too much of a rambling ranting idiot to have a job.

ndanielson said:
You support a government of democrats that want people to pay for abortions and pay for “a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs”,

Shorter: “F*ck all you want, we’ll pay for whatever you need.”

ndanielson said:
The 2008 democratic platform on ABORTION RIGHTS. Worth repeating: * The 2008 Democratic Party Platform states that abortion should be generally legal, supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, and supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. The platform also states that the Democratic Party strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Wow. Just f’n wow. I am so glad I am retired and will never support this again with my taxes from working in this society. I will give twice the amount of my yearly taxes to any programs that oppose this.

Tax payers are forced to pay for the abortion, and forced to pay for the non-abortion.

the real john t said:
How’s your Medicaid card doing for you? You getting your monthly SSI checks okay? I know you get them because you’re too much of a rambling ranting idiot to have a job.

john, I assume you’ve paid into those. How’s that return on investment working out for you?

the real john t said:
How’s your Medicaid card doing for you? You getting your monthly SSI checks okay? I know you get them because you’re too much of a rambling ranting idiot to have a job.

Bite me, harder. I have more money than you will ever earn. Even without 0bama’s help.

the real john t said:
How’s your Medicaid card doing for you? You getting your monthly SSI checks okay? I know you get them because you’re too much of a rambling ranting idiot to have a job.

I turn 50 in May, nutsack. Bite me as hard as you want.

ndanielson said:
I turn 50 in May, nutsack. Bite me as hard as you want.

I retired at 40, nutsack. Something your kids will never be able to do. But 0bama and abortion rights thank you. Nutsack.

ndanielson said:
Bite me, harder. I have more money than you will ever earn. Even without 0bama’s help.

HAHAHAHA! Yeah, talk big little man, talk big. You’re probably on every government program you can be on.

If I am, you are paying for it. Thanks, nutsack. And I mean it. More than you know.

ndanielson said:
I retired at 40,

It isn’t considered retirement when you have to quit working because you are dependent on drugs or alcohol. Sorry little man, you lose.

the real john t said:
HAHAHAHA! Yeah, talk big little man, talk big. You’re probably on every government program you can be on.

ndanielson said:
If I am, you are paying for it. Thanks, nutsack. And I mean it. More than you know.

Keep paying for a “woman’s right to choose”. I’m not. Looks like a win-win to me.

ndanielson said:
Keep paying for a “woman’s right to choose”. I’m not. Looks like a win-win to me.

That’s because you don’t pay any taxes.

the real john t said:
HAHAHAHA! Yeah, talk big little man, talk big. You’re probably on every government program you can be on.

I’ve paid for enough government programs, that I will never pay for again. My money is more untouchable than 0bama can dream of. More and more people I know are fed up with paying your way. My passport is clean, and my kids are grown and everyone of them run circles around the low life trash I have seen on here in the past few weeks. You liberal sheep don’t deserve a dime more of my money. Nutsack.

the real john t said:
That’s because you don’t pay any taxes.

You got that right, sweet pea.

ndanielson said:
You got that right,

How much food stamps do you get a month?

Wow. With this level of discourse, I predict a happy and fruitful future for the republic.

I hope that the hundreds of millions of Americans who AREN’T posting on here are not as rigidly idiotic as are many of the voices I see in this forum.

You are all, with very few exceptions, mouth-breathing bottom feeders. Enjoy your petty, squalid lives, and congratulations on your fine contributions to the downfall of the American empire.

kflynn said:
You are all, with very few exceptions, mouth-breathing bottom feeders. Enjoy your petty, squalid lives, and congratulations on your fine contributions to the downfall of the American empire.

So, you had to join in with your “mouth-breathing bottom feeding” comment. Typical hypocrite.

ndanielson said:
Roe v Wade was set the president allowing 9 justices to make abortion the law of the land, numbnuts. Are you that dense? Would you like their names?

Did you mean “precedent” Einstein? The President just nominates the judges…unless your clueless ass has a problem with that too.

ndanielson said:
…

Can’t have morality and be a scientist. Okay. Who knew that?

That was not directed to you, and NO, that’s not what I said. Surprise…again. Impeccable comprehension skills you have there!

Dsiscokid said:
Oh well ndanielson if more Christians (myself included) read our Bibles and obeyed God’s Word we could see our neighborhoods, our cities, and our great nation turn to the Lord! That is the only way to turn things around! The LORD has to do it and His people need to turn from our sins and turn our hearts to Him (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Hahaha…it’s you “Christians” having wife-swaps when people are not looking, have homosexual relationships (I have no problem with that) and other vices according to your holy book. Do you know that STDs, teenage pregnancies, divorce etc seem to be concentrated in these so called Bible belts? I live here. I know how “Christians” act. Very unlike their Christ.

ndanielson said:
They’ll eat you alive here for the mere mention of God, or anything resembling it.

You are a Christian? LOL. I couldn’t tell from your incendiary rhetoric. What would Jesus say to you? :)

the real john t said:
Isn’t that something? The RWers and the Tea Party keep preaching about how they want to protect the Constitution but they keep wanting to change it to suit their desires.

Absolutely. They want to change the Constitution so it can embrace their views. If a Judge makes a decision based on the Constitution that they don’t like, they vote them out and vote others in who will make a decision they want. THEN they accuse liberals of being “activist.” Thank GOD the Supremes and federal judges have life appointments.

Um, no. I comment on your squalor from outside (and, frankly, above) your petty “political” system. I do not join you. I refudiate you.

Good luck with your broken country, my friend.

the real john t said:
HAHAHAHA! Yeah, talk big little man, talk big. You’re probably on every government program you can be on.

He’s too busy “playing” with his sheep in the barn. Excuse him.

Gasket said:
Absolutely. They want to change the Constitution so it can embrace their views.

Yeah, don’t they want to change the 14th Amendment to that not everyone born in this country is a US citizen. Yeah they really want to protect it as long as the can rewrite it to suit there views.

ndanielson said:
I’ve paid for enough government programs, that I will never pay for again. My money is more untouchable than 0bama can dream of. More and more people I know are fed up with paying your way. My passport is clean, and my kids are grown and everyone of them run circles around the low life trash I have seen on here in the past few weeks. You liberal sheep don’t deserve a dime more of my money. Nutsack.

Surely it’s irresponsible not to pay one’s taxes, but to rat out yourself and family online is absolute madness. Don’t you think the IRS might sniff around to find tax dodgers like you and your kids (your admission)

Ok so he said Obama is a black man…AND? It is remarkeable that a black man, who has ancestors that were slaves, would think any human has the right to say that (fetus) is not good enough to be considered a human life. As a black man he should be floored to think of someone else determining that a fetus isnt good enough to be called human life. The correlation the guy was making was to the period of slavery. The Confederate Americans didnt consider black people (equal) human life. So they rationalized to themselves that they weren’t doing anything wrong. This is the same thing pro-abortion people do(such as Obama). Who cares if he said a “black man”. It was relevant to his point.

myfriend89 said:
As a black man he should be floored to think of someone else determining that a fetus isnt good enough to be called human life.

It is wildly inappropriate for a White man to tell a Black man how he should think about the Black experience and how it relates to today..

Why don’t you just leave that to them and debate the issue, mkay?

ndanielson said:
Roe v Wade was set the president allowing 9 justices to make abortion the law of the land

It’s PRECEDENCE. Obviously you know even less about legal jargon as you do the history of abortion in this country. AGAIN, I thought REAL CONSERVATIVES believed in LIMITED GOVERNMENT. LIMITED GOVERNMENT means government stays out of an individuals womb and bedroom. It’s a good thing no one will ever mistake you for a REAL CONSERVATIVE.

BTW, whose the DENSE one now?

Grammie said:
That is a false equivalency of the highest order.

And so too is it a false equivalency to say that only the COURT decided the legality of abortion. Currently the majority of Americans support it in some form or another and that also includes a majority of Republicans and an overwhelming majority of men, ironically enough. The only people who take issue with it are those fake moralists who have an emotional response to some of the GOP’s favorite wedge issues.

Not even the GOP leaders have shown a willingness to go to the mat for those fringe few. They don’t dare risk the middle majority who believes that abortion should remain legal and merely pander to that fringe minority with talking points and lip service while delivering ZERO in the way of legitimate results.

AGAIN, real conservatives believe in a LIMITED GOVERNMENT. The right to choose is a prime example or what is meant by LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Your morality is not shared even by the majority of Americans. Get over it.

ndanielson said:
Can’t have morality and be a scientist

Morality is SUBJECTIVE, the aim of science is to be OBJECTIVE. There are thousands of religions in the world and many have completely divergent believes in when life begins. And even within the same religion, like Christianity, those views vary from sect to sect. You can have your OPINION but it is merely that. You need to face up to the fact that the majority of Americans don’t share your OPINION on morality.

There are people who have the opinion that meat is murdered and even some religions support that notion. But since our Constitution nor a democratic consensus supports that opinion, then you can’t LEGISLATE that morality. SO SHEEP what it is about the Constitution and DEMOCRACY that you hate so much?

ndanielson said:
And here all along we thought it was Roe v Wade. Who knew?

Roe v Wade simply supported what had already been the case. It argued SUCCESSFULLY that the prohibition of abortion had been an abuse of the Constitutional rights of Americans just like Jim Crow laws were an abuse of the Constitution.

You can try to bring a case to the Court again if you reject the outcome. But at the end of the day, the GOP leaders who like to pander to tools like you just simply don’t have interest in truly overthrowing reproductive rights. That doesn’t stop them from pandering.

They know that there is a certain segment of the population who have such an overly emotional reaction to this and other wedge issues like immigration that paying lip service to you is like blowing a dog whistle for their faithful lapdog followers. BUT once in power, that GOP drops the ball on the vast majority of those wedge issues partly because they don’t want to tick off independents in the middle and partly because their top priority IS and has ALWAYS BEEN the fiscal needs of their corporate buddies and not the social needs of their ever dwindling base of social conservative reactionaries.

And the reason they don’t tackle the needs of the social conservative is because the majority of their corporate buddies are REAL CONSERVATIVES when it comes to social issues (not so much when it comes to corporate welfare). REAL CONSERVATIVE believe in limited government. A woman’s right to choose is what limited government is all about. So stop pretending you are a REAL CONSERVATIVE and just admit that you’re a overly emotional sheep like the rest of the reactionaries.

ndanielson said:
The Republican Party Platform states that abortion should be generally illegal

The GOP can STATE whatever they want but the reality is that they have DONE nothing to prohibit access to abortion. And that’s because few in the upper echelon of the party have a desire beyond paying lip service to sheep like you to reverse the law.

Your issues shouldn’t be with the Democratic Party, they are open and honest about where they stand and continue to support that very position through legislation. The Republican Party, on the other hand, SAYS one thing and DOES the complete opposite. It’s the same with other social conservative wedge issues like homosexuality and immigration. They’ll talk and talk during the campaigns but conveniently forget to addess the issues once in power.

For example, remember Bush’s attempt during the 2004 campaign to impose a “Defense of Marriage” Amendment to Constitution. That little stunt sure got people to the polls particularly in key swing states. But the very second the election was over, he completely forgot about it. That’s typical of the GOP. It’s sheep like you who are blaming the Democrats for being true to their core principles when you really out to be blaming the GOP who use and abuse sheep like you for sport.

ndanielson said:
Bite me, harder. I have more money than you will ever earn.

And yet you’re still a historically and politically illiterate sheep. Obviously money is wasted on you. BTW, you do realize that by NOT PAYING TAXES you are actually NOT supporting the military you claim to love so dear. But that’s pretty typical of fake conservatives who tend to come from states too piss poor to carry their weight and continually rely on federal tax funds from wealthier blue states to compensate.

In other words, RED STATES only TALK about supporting the military, but their lower than average tax revenues show that they don’t WALK THE WALK. Just like the GOP leaders DON’T WALK THE WALK of true social conservatism once they get elected. HYPOCRISY runs deep with the fake conservative sheep and their corporate-sponsored shepherds alike.

myfriend89 said:
Who cares if he said a “black man”. It was relevant to his point.

Yes, just like a fake conservative, Santorum used his OVERT RACISM to disguise his COVERT sexism. When you’re a hypocritical hater, why don’t you just kill two birds with one stone.

What a disgrace you are Mediaite. I really don’t think objectivity means anything to you in your own version of “Journalism”

I complained about your pattern last week when you posted this nonsense:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/dr-marc-lamont-hill-media-must-stop-language-of-violence-pres-obama-is-a-murderer/

Here again you obviously had the full clip of this interview, but decided (for reasons known to you) to post this edited version in order to divert people’s attention from the issues. Rick Santorum gave a sensible analysis of the Journey African Americans have gone through in America and cited Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who argued in his 1963 letter from Birmingham Jail that:

“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I-it” relationship for an “I-thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus is it that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.”

Rick Santorum used a common sense analysis and highlighted the fact that he found it almost remarkable for a black man to say “now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.”

Full Context here: http://www.cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/80379

As a matter of fact it was a valid argument, taking into account the horrors of Slavery,Racial Segregation and injustice suffered by African Americans in the past; but decades later a black man as enlightened and powerful as Obama, refuses to acknowledge the value of life of the unborn humans, even when science acknowledges that human life begins at the moment of conception.

Instead of focusing on the issues(49,551,703 babies killed since Roe v. Wade according to Center for Disease Control Statistics http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5511.pdf) you prefer to report on a matter in a sensational way to stir up racial innuendos that have no positive contribution towards the society; you should be ashamed of yourself Matt Schneider.

The NAACP is a HUGE supporter of Planed Parenthood, which is of course the #1 killer of African Americans. Planed Parenthood kills more African Americans than AIDS, cancer, cigarettes, street violence, and heart disease all combined. Alveda King (the niece of MLK) tried to take on the NAACP over their support of the Maafa (final solution) against African Americans and abortion which Rev. King would not support were he alive today, but she has been blacklisted by the black progressive movement who have hijacked Rev. King’ dream and refer to her as “Aunty Tom”

The so called “Reverend” Jesse Jackson once called abortion “black genocide” but once he was going to run for office, he needed the support of the so called “Democratic” party so his rhetoric changed form “Black genocide” to “woman’s choice” They (including Obama) all have blood in their hands. We have heard about the recent arrest of the abortion Doctor charged with killing 7 babies with scissors.

Left to their own devices, the religious right would not only impose laws prohibiting abortion, but require prayer in school, close down shops on Sunday, ban alcohol, and force the NFL to change its rules to allow Tim Tebo to put Bible quotes on his helmet.

Gasket said:
It’s you who wants doctors to impart their morals onto their patients

No it’s you that wishes to impose your will. You seem to be under the impression that if I don’t perform an abortion, it doesn’t mean the patient will not get one. Your rage has consumed you. You glossed over the refer not abandon, the Physician-Patient relationship is a partnership, that’s a 2 way street. But that doesn’t fit into your hideously disgusting crescendo. Now if you went to an abortion clinic and they refused, don’t know why, but you might have a case. I’ll have to tell all my collegues how stupid they are if they don’t conform to your will. I love how the left is so willing to tell others how stupid they are. Stick to the microscopes, you can impose your will on them and they won’t talk back.
This is from the AMA code of ethics:
VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

You want to go to an abortion Dr., fine go to one no one is stopping you. Try this guy:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

You seem to think physicians are McDonald’s attendents, gee doc I think I need Rx for Percocet and give me a double order of Xanax while you’re at it, good luck with that.

A Kim Bo said:
the aim of science is to be OBJECTIVE.

So let’s be objective, sperm and ovum meet, split and become what? Ever heard of Potentiality?

Penguin60 said:
So let’s be objective, sperm and ovum meet, split and become what? Ever heard of Potentiality?

So we should gather all those little sperms and make sure they all get partners? You would never want to waste the potential of one of those little sperm to generate a second coming of pat robertson.

Valkyrie101 – Nice try in your attempt to deflect from the issue of unborn deaths and make false accusations against Christians. I’d love to debate the merits of your stereotypical slurs but perhaps on a related topic, no?

valkyrie101 said:
So we should gather all those little sperms and make sure they all get partners? You would never want to waste the potential of one of those little sperm to generate a second coming of pat robertson.

Is that an answer? Perhaps you’ve heard of Sperm Banks? Your projection of Pat Robertson has nothing to do with the question or me. I believe you’ll find most men had no concern of excess sperm as they were growing up. I thought the question was what do you get with sperm and ovum meet? Being purely objective. No snark needed.

Dsiscokid said:
Valkyrie101 – Nice try in your attempt to deflect from the issue of unborn deaths and make false accusations against Christians. I’d love to debate the merits of your stereotypical slurs but perhaps on a related topic, no?

Satire? We let the living woman who must bare them decide which conceptions result in births, in the same way that God decides which sperms end up on the toilet seat.

Hey Gasket – If you would have read my whole post where I said things must start with Christians to get their own lives in line with God’ Word perhaps your response to my comment (2 Chronicles 7:14) would have been different

Penguin60 said:
Is that an answer? Perhaps you’ve heard of Sperm Banks? Your projection of Pat Robertson has nothing to do with the question or me. I believe you’ll find most men had no concern of excess sperm as they were growing up. I thought the question was what do you get with sperm and ovum meet? Being purely objective. No snark needed.

And really, your concern for the unborn is legitimate, I do not doubt that, I only wish the conservative right also felt that way about the 40K (formerly) living people a year who die from lack of medical care, or the 40 million uninsured.

Does the father have any say so in the matter, Valkyrie? I know this culture disparages the one father, one mother, and children raised with both parents family model. Perhaps we’d see less abortions if the culture promoted monogamy? Thoughts?

I find it a bit troubling when one advocates for “health care for all” but then seems to have no problem denying certain citizens the right to live.

A Kim Bo said:
It’s PRECEDENCE. Obviously you know even less about legal jargon as you do the history of abortion in this country. AGAIN, I thought REAL CONSERVATIVES believed in LIMITED GOVERNMENT. LIMITED GOVERNMENT means government stays out of an individuals womb and bedroom. It’s a good thing no one will ever mistake you for a REAL CONSERVATIVE.

BTW, whose the DENSE one now?

It’s actually precedent, but that would never stop you from making a fool of yourself, right? You are equally clueless about the role of government, or how it functions, but would anybody but you be surprised by that after reading your drivel?

valkyrie101 said:
And really, your concern for the unborn is legitimate, I do not doubt that, I only wish the conservative right also felt that way about the 40K (formerly) living people a year who die from lack of medical care, or the 40 million uninsured.

I think you’ll find that all of my collegues treat any comers that walk through our ER doors. We do not ask their ability to pay or their religious or political affiliations. I volunteer my time, and money as do many of my collegues, and yes we are conservatives. I believe one of the ideas to correct the indigent population was just to do that. Focus on them not restructure the entire health care system. Also if the government can tell me how much I can make, why can’t they do the same with lawyers? Would there be so many frivolous lawsuits if those that lost had to pay, or majority of reimbursement (90-95%)went to the claiment not the attorneys? But I know that will never happen, they make the rules.

A Kim Bo said:
The GOP can STATE whatever they want but the reality is that they have DONE nothing to prohibit access to abortion. And that’s because few in the upper echelon of the party have a desire beyond paying lip service to sheep like you to reverse the law.

Your issues shouldn’t be with the Democratic Party, they are open and honest about where they stand and continue to support that very position through legislation. The Republican Party, on the other hand, SAYS one thing and DOES the complete opposite. It’s the same with other social conservative wedge issues like homosexuality and immigration. They’ll talk and talk during the campaigns but conveniently forget to addess the issues once in power.

For example, remember Bush’s attempt during the 2004 campaign to impose a “Defense of Marriage” Amendment to Constitution. That little stunt sure got people to the polls particularly in key swing states. But the very second the election was over, he completely forgot about it. That’s typical of the GOP. It’s sheep like you who are blaming the Democrats for being true to their core principles when you really out to be blaming the GOP who use and abuse sheep like you for sport.

Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

The 2008 democratic platform on ABORTION RIGHTS. Worth repeating: * The 2008 Democratic Party Platform states that abortion should be generally legal, supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, and supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. The platform also states that the Democratic Party strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

See? If the baby gets aborted, taxpayers pay, and if the baby is born taxpayers pay. Responsible, productive citizens do not need any of it, but they will get the bill for a “woman’s right to choose”. But that is the only platform that matters to the geniuses like kimbo, and his following flock of cheerleaders.

Like global warming changed to “climate change” so if it is too hot, liberals have that covered. If it is too cold liberals have that covered. It is all man’s fault, and liberals have a solution for that, too – unelected tax an fine efforts of the EPA. Where is that in the Constitution? It really doesn’t matter.

Our kids are obese, and our kids are malnourished. So liberals let Michelle, government, fix both for $1.2 billion in union nutritionists to fill our failing schools is the answer. Less parenting, more government. The successful always blamed and paying for the losers. Higher education as more than tripled the rate of inflation, because government is there, too to fix the playing field.

Bankers get rich, so that makes the poor, poor, somehow. So government is there to fix that, too.They dream of unions that back the government for all the inequities of “greedy’ businesses and companies. How’d that UAW work out for the automakers and MI? How’s those school unions working out for educating the next generation of government dependent know it-all government cheerleaders?

Jared Laughner goes nuts and commits murder because of some pictures and words from Sarah Palin, (according to the media. Except for one news outlet) and he is a victim, so government will fix free speech, and the bleating flock are cheerleaders once again.

The government finds anyway it can to take money form the working people of this country so that they can spend it on whatever it pleases. Forcing money to pay for things that the taxpayer does not believe in morally, wants, or in reality is caused by the government in the first place. And the flock of cheerleaders hail their Harvard educated benevolent rulers. I know how they are sensitive to being called sheep. But what else are they? They actually go from sheep to attack dog if someone questions their benevolent government. I bet Mr. Laughner had much the same problem too, only he lost track of which enemies to attack.

Penguin60 said:
I think you’ll find that all of my collegues treat any comers that walk through our ER doors. We do not ask their ability to pay or their religious or political affiliations. I volunteer my time, and money as do many of my collegues, and yes we are conservatives. I believe one of the ideas to correct the indigent population was just to do that. Focus on them not restructure the entire health care system. Also if the government can tell me how much I can make, why can’t they do the same with lawyers? Would there be so many frivolous lawsuits if those that lost had to pay, or majority of reimbursement (90-95%)went to the claiment not the attorneys? But I know that will never happen, they make the rules.

Sounds good. Your concern is not at issue. Thank you for caring.
By statute, most PI lawyers take 1/4 or 1/3 of anything recovered, plus out of pocket expenses. 90% of personal injury claimants settle their suits prior to litigation and receive more than half of the amount recovered. If they do not recover anything they pay nothing and the lawyer swallows the costs. Of course, all of that is a red herring in the health care debate because medical malpractice insurance represents a small percentage of the cost of medical care, perhaps as low as just a couple percent.

Dsiscokid said:
I know this culture disparages the one father, one mother, and children raised with both parents family model.

What are you basing this on? I don’t think the culture discourages it unless you mean people resort to divorce to quickly. I think what has happened is as the divorce rate climbed we dealt with the reality of single parents and over time we’ve accepted that other family models are also very viable.

myfriend89 said:
It is remarkeable that a black man, who has ancestors that were slaves, would think any human has the right to say that (fetus) is not good enough to be considered a human life

Were his ancestors slaves? Obama’s father was from Kenya not the south. And to be clear , Obama did NOT say a fetus is not a person. He said that wasn’t his decision to make, which is true. Santorum, because of his religious beliefs, thinks he knows what God thinks, and because of that, what a black man should think.
He presumes to much.

valkyrie101 said:
Of course, all of that is a red herring in the health care debate because medical malpractice insurance represents a small percentage of the cost of medical care, perhaps as low as just a couple percent.

Overall it may be a small amount but we were seeing many a OB/Gyn leaving PA due to malpractice costs then that lends to availablity of care. Also, independent docs are forced to join hospitals or groups to offset that cost. So on an individual basis it is significant. The other real factor, which I have not seen legitimate numbers is the practice of defensive medicine. These costs could be huge, I just looking at my training, if you think of a test, order it. Multiply that across the country. This CYA medicine is in direct result to our litiginous society. The other aspect of this health care plan is just how does it reduce costs? An MRI charge is let’s say $1400, how does Obamacare make that go down? Seems like the price will be the same but someone else will be paying for it.

LOGICandREASON said:
Rick Santorum used a common sense analysis and highlighted the fact that he found it almost remarkable for a black man to say “now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.”

When did Obama say that?

I appreciate you posting the link for the whole interview. I can appreciate his point about trying to understand natural law. I agree that’s a part of the conversation. I think where he goes off the rails is assuming he and those that agree with him know what that higher law is and everyone who disagrees is wrong. It is in no way an obvious truth that an embryo is a human life from the moment of conception and the science he tries to use to make his argument is over simplified.
His complaint is that a a black man claims we {I assume he meant people, and our society} are going to decide
who are people and who are not people. In assuming he is correct Santorum himself is doing exactly what he criticizes Obama for. He is declaring that a clump of cells in the womb is a person. More than that, he is ignoring the very obvious fact that it is indeed WE, our society, that has to struggle with these decisions. During the slavery he mentioned people tried to use the Bible to justify slavery, as well as later laws to make mixed race marriages illegal. I except people to pursue what they truly believe is morally correct according to their conscience and I can respect that, but misplaced piety , and assuming your vision of what God thinks must be the correct one, doesn’t further the discussion or add to the weight of an argument. Come to the discussion understanding that you have an opinion, and yours isn’t made more valid by claiming you’re defending God’s will.

I think people would generally agree that we should hold human life in high regard , but that belief applies to a whole host of issues in modern society, such as the years long wars we’ve been in, and the care of the poor including babies born into poverty.

CosmosDan said:
He is declaring that a clump of cells in the womb is a person.

A person? or a life? I may look at it in too much of a simplistic way, if that “clump of cells” is nurtured, cared for and allowed to grow what will it become? Same vein, if that child manages to make it through birth, is not nurtured fed ,clothed, what will happen? Can we agree that life begins at conception? This has nothing to do with religion. Aristotle had the same thoughts.

Penguin60 said:
Overall it may be a small amount but we were seeing many a OB/Gyn leaving PA due to malpractice costs then that lends to availablity of care. Also, independent docs are forced to join hospitals or groups to offset that cost. So on an individual basis it is significant. The other real factor, which I have not seen legitimate numbers is the practice of defensive medicine. These costs could be huge, I just looking at my training, if you think of a test, order it. Multiply that across the country. This CYA medicine is in direct result to our litiginous society. The other aspect of this health care plan is just how does it reduce costs? An MRI charge is let’s say $1400, how does Obamacare make that go down? Seems like the price will be the same but someone else will be paying for it.

It certainly is true that med mal cases hamper doctors, especially in the OB/gyn as you suggested. But the PI lawyers would say that it also keeps the doctors on their toes. As you know, I favor a single payer system. But reform of the personal injury rules, placing reasonable limits on liability (ala the workers comp model), etc., would be a good thing too. IMHO.

Penguin60 said:
Can we agree that life begins at conception? This has nothing to do with religion. Aristotle had the same thoughts.

Every atom in the universe is alive. But only a fetus that is “born”, is a human being.

valkyrie101 said:
Every atom in the universe is alive. But only a fetus that is “born”, is a human being.

That’s 0bama’s view, exactly. You get it!!! 0/5ths of a human being. If 0bama was still 3/5th of a human, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion about 0bama, huh, val? Ironic, yes? Santorum got it.

valkyrie101 said:
Every atom in the universe is alive. But only a fetus that is “born”, is a human being.

So a 7 month gestation child that’s mother is seriously injured and the baby is taken by C-section, the baby survives. That 7 month old is not a human being? And I really don’t want to get into case scenarios, but can you see my point? Cnan you extrapolate on the every atom is “alive”, every atom has life? Every atom has the potential to develop into a human? I’m not sure I understand your point.

ndanielson said:
That’s 0bama’s view, exactly. You get it!!! 0/5ths of a human being. If 0bama was still 3/5th of a human, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion about 0bama, huh, val? Ironic, yes? Santorum got it.

Yes, this is a passionate issue. You want to call a lump of cells a human being, immediately at conception, but most of us have settled on protecting the rights, and the medical decision of the woman, up to a certain designated period in the gestation period.

valkyrie101 said:
Yes, this is a passionate issue. You want to call a lump of cells a human being, immediately at conception, but most of us have settled on protecting the rights, and the medical decision of the woman, up to a certain designated period in the gestation period.

No I don’t. What I think is a good start is taxpayers quit funding abortions. And the only people who settled it is 9 judges in black robes.

Penguin60 said:
So let’s be objective, sperm and ovum meet, split and become what? Ever heard of Potentiality?

Well in 50% of the cases they result in MISCARRIAGES. See even NATURE aborts half of human pregnancies.

valkyrie101 said:
So we should gather all those little sperms and make sure they all get partners? You would never want to waste the potential of one of those little sperm to generate a second coming of pat robertson.

Every sperm is sacred. Which is why NO ONE should ever wear a rubber because you are hindering GOD’S will. Right, fake conservative hypocrites ;).

Dsiscokid said:
Valkyrie101 – Nice try in your attempt to deflect from the issue of unborn deaths and make false accusations against Christians.

Yes Valkyrie, if you want to be honest about CHRISTIANS you need to admit that not even they all agree when live begins. Roman Catholics think it begins even while the sperm are still in their sacs. See how SUBJECTIVE morality is.

Here’s an idea fake conservatives “CHRISTIANS”, you get your collective sh!t together amongst yourself about when life indeed begins and then you can preach to the rest of us about it when Christians FINALLY reconcile one of the longest debated issues known to mankind. Until then, admit that even Christians aren’t united in thought on this one.

And that’s precisely the reason the Founding Fathers were adverse to Church dogma being included in State matters (and part of the reason they kept abortion legal). It’s because ANYONE can claim that church dogma supports this or that but even the CHURCHES themselves don’t agree on the majority of issues that plague us. That’s why there is in Protestantism alone over 1500 separately recognized sects. If there was FULL AGREEMENT, there would only be only ONE SECT and even Protestants wouldn’t be allowed to wear condoms or use birth control or even exist as “Protestants” for that matter.

So go off and have a meeting of the minds with your church elders and have them meet with all elders of all the other churches and then have them meet with the leaders of all the other religions and they can come to a consensus and then we can all sing KUMBAYA and agree. Until then, the MIXED feelings of the divergent CHURCHES themselves tells me all I need to know about what Christians think. They’re more confused about the matter than anyone.

Penguin60 said:
A person? or a life? I may look at it in too much of a simplistic way, if that “clump of cells” is nurtured, cared for and allowed to grow what will it become? Same vein, if that child manages to make it through birth, is not nurtured fed ,clothed, what will happen? Can we agree that life begins at conception? This has nothing to do with religion. Aristotle had the same thoughts.

I don’t think your view is too simplistic. I’d say we need to consider more when we consider real world scenario’s. I think it’s undeniable that an embryo , if properly nurtured, becomes a person, and a baby or person if properly nurtured can become a contributing member of society. I think it’s also undeniable that we have a history that includes not nurturing all children or each other as humans. In this country we killed each other by the tens of thousands for the right to own other people, and a hundred other examples.
If we agree that life, or at least human potential, begins at conception, we still have to decide what our other choices are? Often our laws are a balancing act of what we perceive as human rights and differing views on right and wrong That’s what’s tied up in the abortion issue. Do we deny a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body because of the potential inside her. . Is the potential human a person?

A Kim Bo said:
Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is great. When a sperm is wasted, God get’s quite irate.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to sell some of you kids for scientific experiments.

ndanielson said:
No I don’t. What I think is a good start is taxpayers quit funding abortions. And the only people who settled it is 9 judges in black robes.

Actually the Founding Fathers SETTLED IT but then a bunch of whites who felt threatened by the dwindling number of whites after the immigration push in the mid 19th century and the freeing of slaves undermined the Constitution and criminalized abortion. The REVERSAL of those unConstitutional acts is what those NINE JUDGES were decided just like NINE JUDGES reversed the decisions of states to unConstitutionally deny African Americans their full Constitutional rights with the creation of Jim Crow laws.

Your hung up on ONE DECISION instead of the historically context that decision was made it just like the fake conservative sheep you are. You’re wasting your retirement BTW on misplaced anger instead of informing yourself.

@CosmosDan: You said:

“Were his ancestors slaves? Obama’s father was from Kenya not the south. And to be clear , Obama did NOT say a fetus is not a person. He said that wasn’t his decision to make, which is true. Santorum, because of his religious beliefs, thinks he knows what God thinks, and because of that, what a black man should think.
He presumes to much.”

I agree with your comments. My first thought was: What in the hell is Rick Santorum talking about? Barack Obama’s ancestors were not slaves! Then immediately I began analyzing this guys comments. Here’s the deal!
If Rick Santorum believes what he said, then his logic is flawed. Because…if Barack Obama -President Obama- should be anti-abortion because of slave laws; then Rick Santorum should be pro- choice. You see, according to Rick Santorum, all blacks should be anti-abortion because we should believe in saving as many of our black babies as humanly possible since we’ve experienced the horrors of slavery. Well, if that;s so then he (a white man) should want black babies destroyed…as many as possibleAgain based on his logic and slave law (blacks being 3/5 a person)…well…Rick should be thrilled by the large # of black babies aborted. Now I know Rick doesn’t believe that. So what would make him use THAT argument??? Kinda crazy huh?
And, Rick didn’t do his homework. It’s Michelle Obama who has slave ancestors…not President Obama the Constitutional Professor and lawyer. And for Pat Buchanan to say that Rick’s statement didn’t bother him, well it should have because it was a race- baiting, disgustingly, unintelligent statement coming from a man…his white brother…who wants to run for the president of the United States. What other nonsensical statements will we hear as these jokers suit up for the 2012 election? My people are ready for what ever they got!

Finally, Rick Santorum should take up his fight with the U.S. Supreme court.

I’d like to know Rick Santorum’s thoughts about War. Does he believe in sending our troops off to war? You see, that’s where I see useless killing of babies. Does Rick Santorum believe War is not the answer? You can’t have it both ways. Agree with war and disagree with abortion. Both are forms of killing.

During the 1960′s and 70s, I saw many friends, who were right out of high school, drafted into the army. They couldn’t resist. They had to go to war. Some of my friends were killed. Some came home wounded and on drugs. It was horrible. But the U.S, sent them off to kill others. During the Viet Nam war, our babies were killing babies. THAT’S A FACT. I LIVED THROUGH THAT WAR!!!

So, can we agree that killing is killing? Get rid of war, abortion and guns…period. And let’s save our babies lives. If you can’t agree with this, then there’s no sense in prolonging this conversation about abortion. There are actually too people that believe it is okay to stop abortion; but let’s have these children grow up so we can send them off to war. Doesn’t make any sense at all.

Kim Barker said:
Well in 50% of the cases they result in MISCARRIAGES. See even NATURE aborts half of human pregnancies.

Point?

Kim Barker said:
Every sperm is sacred. Which is why NO ONE should ever wear a rubber because you are hindering GOD’S will.

You agree with the Church?