Ever heard of an intellectual free thinking lemming? Good luck in finding one. Blacks have wasted their political capital. The Democrat Party doesn't feel they have to work for the black vote, they EXPECT IT or else. There lies the problem with a racial group giving unfounded loyalty towards a political party that doesn't deserve it.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 2:16 PM
My name is Tyrone. I was born in raised in the liberal experiment gone wrong called Baltimore. I'm a staunch free thinking, analytical conservative. I don't subscribe to political correctness. Only sheep do that.
45 Comments:
Do you really think Obama believes that babies/children are a "punishment?" Or do you believe that Obama used an inappropriate term when referencing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy?
If you believe the former, then you're going after his comments in the wrong way! Obama has 2 kids of his own. Your efforts should be focused on his kids, and taking steps to have them removed from his custody.
You don't believe it because the statement is being politicized to smear your opponent.
Didnt you all learn anything from the "Swift Boat" guys? Go to the kids school. Interview their teachers. Get them to say negative things about how the kids were dressed, if they've shown any mental or physical scars. If you believe Obama thinks kids are a punishment, common sense would tell you his kids are suffering.
You don't believe it because the statement is being politicized to smear your opponent.
If the issue is truly about children, why not place his own children at the forefront of his comments? It can be done without plastering their pictures all over the media outlets.
You don't believe it because the statement is being politicized to smear your opponent.
If you truly have compassion and concern for the "unborn", that passion and zeal should increase by an overwhelming volume for the young, the innocence, the children.
You don't believe it because the statement is being politicized to smear your opponent.
The fact is that Obama's statements, as with most of his "off the cuff" verbal mistakes, are being purposely taken out of context. Conservatives have a low tolerance for verbal faux pas made by those who don't agree with them.
Yet all of this is fair game in politics. If Obama get's the nomination we can expect to see "Swift Boating" from both sides. In 2004 the conservatives won out with their campaign of smear. Look for the Democratic 527's to launch an all out attack on Mccain. Just remember that personal character, all forms of military service records, freinds, associates, religion, sexual partners (past and present), statements made by wives and family, are all fair game.
The only thing that worries me, is if Obama is the Democratic nominee, "race" will become an issue. Conservative will have a lot of spinning to do to avoid the race game, and distance themselves from certain political attack groups.
Perhaps, Obama might like to learn from a rock and roller.
Gary Cherone (former lead singer of Van Halen and Extreme and along with Alice Cooper, the most notable Christians in the secular music industry) challenged those who make the argument about abortion being a fundamental right. His challenge was directed (while he was still lead singer of Van Halen) at Vedder, lead singer of Pearl Jam.
Obama would do well to read this:
http://www.l4l.org/gary/index.html
Life, Rights, and Rock 'n' Roll
Gary Cherone Asks Eddie Vedder Some Questions
"My hope is to introduce as many who will listen,
regardless of where they stand,
to Libertarians for Life.
For their arguments are persuasive,
reasoning from science and philosophy.
Anyone with an objective mind
will find them hard to ignore."
-Gary Cherone
For some time now, Eddie Vedder, lead singer of Pearl Jam has spoken out in favor of abortion choice. In June of 1999, the rock world heard a different take on the issue when Gary Cherone (at the time, lead singer of the band Van Halen, formerly of Extreme) penned an Open Letter to Vedder.
That pro-life letter caused a stir, and in November of 1999, Cherone discussed the matter on Fox TV's "O'Reilly Factor." Vedder has yet to respond, but the issue remains. Here's a second Open Letter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I feel like I know every angle of this issue,"
said Eddie Vedder.
"I know the adoption angle;
I know what it's like to be fifteen and be in a situation
and have to make a decision.
Terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing."
—Eddie Vedder, Rolling Stone 11/12/98 #799
What About the 98.6 Degree Angle?
Another Letter to Eddie Vedder
by Gary Cherone
The vast majority of people who support abortion
take that position with the firm conviction
that life does not begin at conception
That being said...
If one personally felt "terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing"
but was the right of the individual to make that "decision"
Is the life within the mother's womb a human person?
If the answer is no, it is not a human person
Why would one feel it "is not an easy thing" to do?
If the answer is yes, it is a human person
Why would one advocate "terminating" it?
If the answer is I don't know, if it is, or isn't a human person
How many more "decision(s)"
would one make in an uncertain "situation"?
If the unborn is not a human person
No justification for abortion is necessary
However...
If the unborn is a human person
No justification for abortion is adequate.
Nearly all arguments for abortion
are based on the faulty premise
that the unborn are not fully human.
Respectfully,
Gary Cherone
(1/22/2001)
Copyright ©2001, Gary Cherone
Credit for source must be given to Libertarians for Life.
one of life's many choices
Rose Vista
a home for pregnant women
P.O. Box 66879
Mar Vista, CA 90066
donations appreciated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Open Letter to Eddie Vedder
When is a woman not a woman?
Therein lies the only clear refutation of a woman’s rights.
A woman’s rights —
seems a mere tautology, a redundant catch phrase.
Are not rights self evident?
Intrinsic assumptions of the inalienable?
So, when is a woman not a woman,
a right not a right?
When she doesn’t exist.
When does a woman become a woman?
Is it when
her first ballot has been cast?
Or when
she graduates from her class?
Is it when
she makes a wish on her sweet sixteenth?
Would I be amiss if it were her first kiss?
Is it when
she’s diagnosed by the boy next door?
Or as ambiguous as the cutting of the cord?
Is it the time
it takes to travel the distance through the canal?
Or when
she’s kicking and becomes viable?
Is it when
her sex is discovered by a sonogram?
Or after eight weeks when
the changes in her body will be mainly in dimension?
Is it when
her brain waves are detected after 40 days?
Or is it around three weeks when
her primitive heart beats?
Can there be only one true line of demarcation?
One finite measurable point in time that differentiates
life from non-life?
Womanhood from non-womanhood?
Rights from no right?
Is it the moment of conception —
that point when all of the above is set in motion?
That precise moment when
"a separate human individual, with her own genetic code,
needing only food, water, and oxygen, comes into existence"?
Indeed,
It is at that point,
"like the infant, the child, the adolescent,
that the conceptus is a being who is becoming,
not a becoming striving toward being.
She is not a potential life,
she is a life with great potential".
She is not the mother,
she is an other —
a somebody other than the mother.
A woman,
however beautiful, however complex when fully grown,
begins life as a single cell, a zygote —
that stage in human development through which we all pass.
She fulfills "the four criteria necessary to all life —
metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
Her genetic makeup is established at conception,
determining to a great extent
her own individual, physical characteristics":
her eyes, her hair, her skin color, bone structure, her gender.
So let us not be confused,
"she did not come from a zygote — she once was a zygote.
She did not come from an embryo, she once was an embryo.
She did not come from a fetus, she once was a fetus".
She did not come from a little girl — she once was a little girl.
When is a woman not a woman?
The answer is absolute, non-negotiable.
To argue against would be to ignore the innate,
the fact of the matter.
The answer can never be a matter of opinion or choice.
This is not a metaphysical contention.
This is biology 101.
The answer is scientifically self-evident —
as inherent as the inalienable.
Therefore,
the ability to pursue happiness
is contingent upon liberty —
her liberty,
and her freedom is solely dependent upon
the mother of all human rights...
the right of life.
Respectfully,
Gary Cherone
(June 1999)
Allen,
Obama's words speak for themselves. His policies indicate what he meant as well. He is an extremist on the pro-abortion side, even by pro-abortion standards. He is as a big support of partial-birth abortion as one can get, and then some.
Heck, there are abortion doctors who have children and who commit these atrocities. So your point that Obama has two kid somehow excused him of what he said is utterly weak.
45-50 million dead bodies don't mean a thing to liberals does it?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL
by Amanda B. Carpenter
Posted: 12/26/2006
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”
“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.
At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”
As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”
Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”
Tran;"Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”
When the abortion question is asked of a politician, particularly a "male" politician, his (Obama's) is the correct response.
The idea of "choice" (or the politicized term, "Pro-Choice") is the principal component, the foundation, if you will, of keeping politics and politicians out of the abortion issue.
The abortion issue was brought to the forefront by religious groups which represents a large number of voters, turned constituents, turned political activist. To garner these votes, politicians must pander to their ideas and convictions.
Polititians, be they Democrats, Republicans, Independants, ect., all will pander and even "LIE" to get the votes. A prime example was made during the recent primary. On the abortion issue, Mitt Romney "flip-flopped" from being Pro-Choice (protecting a womans right to choose) when running for Massachusetts governor, to Pro-Life (not protecting her choice)when running for the Republican nomination for president.
The bottom line is that a politician can "lie" about being Pro-Choice (or Pro-Life)and who would know the difference.
"When the abortion question is asked of a politician, particularly a "male" politician, his (Obama's) is the correct response."
Me: Like I said, slaveowners used the same argument back in the day. They (like the abortionists) argued that it should be their choice whether or not they should enslave another human being. Abortionists take it one step further and say woman should have a choice not merely to enslave their kids, but to kill them in their womb. Nice, real nice.
Your own words there prove Tyrone was essentially correct in how he took Obama in context.
"The idea of "choice" (or the politicized term, "Pro-Choice") is the principal component, the foundation, if you will, of keeping politics and politicians out of the abortion issue."
And it is indisngenuous argument used by liberals. Liberals opposed choice when it comes to rights to bear arms. Liberals opposed choice when it comes to vouchers. Liberals opposed choice when it comes to creation and evolution debate.
But they invent a right that contradicts the Constitution.
The right to abortion is opposed to right to life.
"The abortion issue was brought to the forefront by religious groups which represents a large number of voters, turned constituents, turned political activist. To garner these votes, politicians must pander to their ideas and convictions."
And guess who brought slavery issue to the forefront SO that politicians must pander to their votes? RELIGIOUS GROUPS, which represented a large number of voters, turned political activists.
The arguments on both issues are the same by religious activists- rights of one person does not extend to taking away the rights to life and liberty of ANOTHER.
"The only thing that worries me, is if Obama is the Democratic nominee, "race" will become an issue. Conservative will have a lot of spinning to do to avoid the race game, and distance themselves from certain political attack groups."
Conservatives don't have to worry about that. Obama needs to do the spinning since he hangs around a pastor who slurs Italians, Jews, whites, and God knows how many other ethnic groups. Obama will also have to spin his way out of his remarks insulting religious folks and those who carried arms among the working classes. He will also have to spin his way of how he hangs around a church that has ties to not only NOI, considered by many to be a hate group, but also have ties to terrorist groups like Hamas (no wonder his pastor takes a stance that has Israel as a terrorist nation while making terrorist groups like Hamas out to be victims of Israel- beyond disgusting). He will have to ask how can be associated with Communist terrorist. Or his acceptance of ringing endorsements of groups like the new Black Panthers.
Conservatives don't have to bring up the race issue. Obama and his followers did that by themselves. And Obama hangs around attack groups. That will hang around the public mind for a long, long time.
Barrack Obama having you for president of the United States would be a punishment.
Barrack Obama please step you morally repugnant wretch!
John McCain is a moral misfit and so is Hillary.
They all suck!
I depise Pro-Abortion Ghouls!
I randomly stumbled upon your blog this evening, and I have to say I love everything I've read. Keep up the good work!
Obama's record on abortion is downright scary, and the mainstream media has given him a complete pass on this issue. I worry he could completely undue the progress the pro-life movement has made in the last 8 years.
Tran continues;"Like I said, slaveowners used the same argument back in the day. They (like the abortionists) argued that it should be their choice whether or not they should enslave another human being.
Like I said, there's no comparison.
It's merely a crutch for your argument.
Speaking of slavery, I wonder how many of those teenage girls in the Eldorado Texas FDLS church had a choice? Being that (in your opinion) abortion is worse than slavery, those children really didn't have it that bad after all, you think so?
One things for sure. All those 50 and 60 year old "buzzard" men were definitely against abortion. They bred those young girls like farm raised hens. After all (as you believe) bred and born as a "sex-slave" is better than not being born at all!
Tran;"Liberals opposed choice when it comes to rights to bear arms.
Attempting to ban guns is like believing you could ban abortion. It won't happen. Doesn't matter who opposes it, the right to bear arms is in the constitution. And it would take an "armed" conflict to remove it...Duhhhh?
Tran;"Liberals opposed choice when it comes to vouchers.
You can send your kids to any school you please. You can send them to Phillips Exeter, Cranbrook, Phillips Andover or even Detroit City High. That's not enough "choice" for you? Of course you'll need about $150,000.00 for an Exeter or a Cranbrook, so I don't think you could find one "liberal" who would be against that voucher...Duuhhhh? (I would hope you're seeing the point here)
Tran;"Liberals opposed choice when it comes to creation and evolution debate."
That one is really "stuuuupid!"
Answer this question;
Which do you believe, a cosmic explosion created the earth and man evolved from an organism, or God created the earth and man?
Have you decided? What is your answer?
Frankly, I don't even need to know your answer. The opposition, on this subject is diametrical. Simply put, people on both side's believe that they're right, and the other side is wrong
To say that liberal are opposed to "choice" is just plain stupid. Someone might be opposed to your idea's, but that has nothing to do with your "choice". You can believe what ever you want to believe in. No one, and nothing is stopping you.
Tran;"And guess who brought slavery issue to the forefront SO that politicians must pander to their votes? RELIGIOUS GROUPS ect.."
Once again slavery is your crutch. Do you use slavery as a balancing rod for all of your arguments Tran?
"Like I said, there's no comparison.
It's merely a crutch for your argument."
A crutch would be if I don't have an argument.
Hmmm, which one is worse? Being enslaved or being murdered?
Pot calling kettle black.
When you can't deal with the real comparison I am making, avoid it then accuse me of using crutch.
Then use your own crutch by comparing those who abort with those enslaved rather than deal with the point of comparing those aborted and those enslaved.
"Speaking of slavery, I wonder how many of those teenage girls in the Eldorado Texas FDLS church had a choice? Being that (in your opinion) abortion is worse than slavery, those children really didn't have it that bad after all, you think so?"
You should take a dose of your advice on not using crutch as an argument.
The reason why abortion is worse than slavery is because it is MURDER. Period.
You are arguing slavery is worse for those enslaved than for those who are doing the aborting. Well of course.
But what you won't deal and what you do avoid over and over again is that abortion is WORSE for the ABORTED AND MURDERED than it is for those ENSLAVED.
So you want to compare the choice of the woman to kill her own baby to that of those ENSLAVED?
You, sir, are the one using the CRUTCH.
The choice of the ABORTED is as much as the choice of the ENSLAVED- which is ZILCH.
I didn't say those children have it that bad.
But it does NOT make murdering others right.
You are basically forced to argue that those who ABORTED their own child are VICTIMS in same way those who are enslaved are VICTIMS.
There is a difference when it comes to abortion.
Those who are ABORTED becomes the VICTIMS, not those who do the ABORTING.
You are playing fast and loose with comparisons and YOU are the one using crutches, not me.
"Once again slavery is your crutch. Do you use slavery as a balancing rod for all of your arguments Tran?"
Once again you are IN DENIAL about history.
It is PLAIN HISTORICAL FACT religious groups (read: Christian) were the ones that made up the core of the abolitonist movement and political activitists on that issue. I was responding to your line of reasoning against religious groups having anything to do with legislation in regards to morality. Would you say the same to those religious groups BACK THEN?
It is PLAIN fact you use the SAME arguments PRO-SLAVERY forces argue, like don't force religious views on other's right to choose.
PRO-SLAVERY forces argue it is THEIR RIGHT to enslave other human beings. You try to avoid te comparison by comparing the enslaved to woman who argue it is their right to abort other human beings, rather than the pro-slavery to those who do the aborting.
In other words, I compare apples to apples (victimisers, as in slaveowners to victimisers, as in abortionists), you compare apples to oranges (victims as in slaves to victimisers, as in pro-abortionists).
In order for my arguments to be crutches, it would have to be comparing apples to oranges, which you are the one blatantly guilty of doing.
"Attempting to ban guns is like believing you could ban abortion. It won't happen. Doesn't matter who opposes it, the right to bear arms is in the constitution. And it would take an "armed" conflict to remove it...Duhhhh?"
Then why do LIBERALS make the core of the anti-gun laws legislation?
Then why do LIBERALS make the core of thoe who OPPOSE vouchers?
Answer that before you call me stupid.
The right to abortion is NOT btw in the Constition. Abortion contradicts the Constitution by denying a whole class of people RIGHT TO LIFE, without due process of law.
And there is no comparison.
If you claim we can't make laws against abortion, though it is MURDER, since people will do it anyways, then why not just legalze other forms of MURDER?
After all, no matter how many laws we pass against using poison on someone or shooting or stabbing someone, people still will break those laws anyways and do them!
That's why liberal rhetoric is both morally bankrupt and logically self-defeating.
I will let Alan Keyes break it down for you why many pro-lifers feel same way I do on this issue:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/Slavery.htm
You see, people wonder why it is Alan, everywhere he goes, he always brings up this issue of abortion and I never go anywhere without mentioning it. Why? Because abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required. Slavery was what discarded and rejected and denied the fundamental principle of right and justice in America, and what was done in the name of slavery then is done for the sake of abortion now. And the paradigm of it is quite clear. What is it that is the argument made in favor of abortion? You can see it in Roe versus Wade and everything else. It's a privacy argument, and privacy based on what? Well, this is the woman's body and she has the right to decide what goes on with it. You start from that. And this child, this babe, this fetus in the womb, what is it? Well, it's a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don't recognize what that's saying? What that's saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother's choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power. Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust. And I see this all the time. I was down in South Carolina not long ago. I was down in South Carolina not long ago and a young lady comes up to me after I had given a talk just like this, and she says "I was listening to your speech and I want to know how come you can prefer the rights of potential persons to those of actual persons." I'll never forget that moment because she was the very paradigm--if you want to think of some little slip of the thing that projected the very wonderful wholesome air of American womanhood. And she was speaking to me in what; in the chilling language of holocaust and atrocity. And she didn't even know what she was doing. I looked at her and I said, "You know, I have a 17-year-old son. How old are you?" And she said, "Nineteen." And I said, "You know, you make a very rash assumption in what you ask me there." She looked me quizzically, and I said, "Because given my experience with my 17-year-old son, I have to tell you there are many days on which I am not entirely sure that people of your age are actual persons at all." And then to drive the point home even further, I looked at her and I said, "I hope you don't think that I will hear those words and forget that 120, 130 odd years ago Frederick Douglass had to go in front of audiences with a speech entitled "That the Negro is a Man." To prove that he and others like me were actual persons." See, why do people forget this? They speak this cold-blooded language to people like myself as if we're too stupid to remember that the day before yesterday we were not considered actual persons. And that if today we deny the principle on which we stood in order to demand respect for our humanity, if we deny it to those human beings in the womb, it will be denied once again to us and to others. Because then it just becomes a matter of who you can get on your side to draw the line between humanity and nonhumanity, personhood and nonpersonhood, and then the majority can oppress and the powerful can abuse. And those who end up on the wrong side have nothing.
And break it further down while there is ALOT of comparison between slavery and abortion that are CHILLING:
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/SlaveryAbortion.htm
SLAVERY
Dred Scott 1857
7-2 decision
Black Non-persons
Property of Owner
Choose to buy- sell- kill
Abolitionists should not impose morality on slaveowners
Slavery is legal
ABORTION
Roe vs Wade 1973
7-2 decision
Unborn Non-persons
Property of Owner (Mother)
Choose to keep or kill
Pro-lifers should not impose morality on mothers
Abortion is legal
And more:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/lincolnquote.html
If Abortion is Wrong, Say So…
Abraham Lincoln's willingness to speak out against slavery in the 1860s was not a popular idea among those who wanted him to accommodate to the times and avoid the controversial issue. His profoundly moral position against slavery was not a cautious one. Boldly he spoke out repeatedly in defense of human life and dignity...
The word 'abortion' can easily be substituted for the word 'slavery' in the following quote from Lincoln, and the passage could be addressed to so many today.
What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think slavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the … party -- where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow (slavery) to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!
I'm waiting on your comments about the bitter white people that cling to their guns and religion:) I live in OK where the quaint small town people live. You know it is on local talk radio.
I heard that the meeting where those insane comments were recorded was where no media were permitted to appear. This is geting really interesting. I grew up in the DC area and know the elitism that people have in that part of the country. The thing that is interesting living in the mid-west is that people in this part of the country could care less what elitists think and are pretty vocal about it.
I just heard that Alan Keyes has left the Republican party and plans on running for president under the Constitution party. Reminds me of when they had five or more parties running back in the 1800s. I think Ron Paul is still officially in the race also. I may actually really follow the madness now.
"I just heard that Alan Keyes has left the Republican party and plans on running for president under the Constitution party. Reminds me of when they had five or more parties running back in the 1800s. I think Ron Paul is still officially in the race also. I may actually really follow the madness now."
I can name many, if not all, of them, from the 1800s: Democrat-Republican Party, Federalist, Whigs, Democrats, Liberty Party, Know-Nothing Party, Republicans. Granted not not all of them ran at same time, but Whigs, Democrats, Liberty Party (founded by former slaveowner turned evangelical abolitionist James Birney), and Know-Nothing Party were all around at same time.
I longed for that day when we have more than two party system.
"I'm waiting on your comments about the bitter white people that cling to their guns and religion:)"
Don't forget about the part where Obama says they become anti-immigrants over that. (Heck, I am a legal immigrant to this country 33 years ago and I am offended by what Obama said about religious folks who believe in second amendment rights.)
Looks like Obama does not need Wright do damage to him (which Wright has again with his once again inane speech at the funeral he spoke at, displaying the usual skill at being inept at history and living out biblical mandate to practice what he preaches- love others as himself).
Obama does that all by himself, though he can still ask his pastor to put a sock in his mouth til past election day.
pamela"I just heard that Alan Keyes has left the Republican party and plans on running for president under the Constitution party."
Talk about Deja Vu. It reminds me of Ronald Reagans most famous words. "I didn't leave the party, the party left me". I don't blame Keyes. I'm also a conservative first and foremost. I'm not a party loyalist like most liberals are. I got into a debate with a liberal the other day, and he said something that really gave me pause. He said " I can less if McCain wins, he's one of us anyways". For the first time in a long time, I didn't have come back to that one. He was right. Just like Kerry was the anyone but Bush candidate for Democrats, McCain is the anyone but Obama candidate for Republicans. Most industrialized nations have more then 2 major political parties. Political pundits have always been telling the masses that third parties can't win. I've wondered how they come to that conclusion. It's them telling everybody that a third party candidate can't win is what keeps third party candidates in the minority. Pamela, I can't for the life of me figure out how did the two political parites develop a "political monopoly" in our country. Keyes won't win of course, but I at least give him credit for standing true to his conservative beliefs.
Pamela "I'm waiting on your comments about the bitter white people that cling to their guns and religion:)"
I'll post it tomorrow Pamela lol. Those comments may have been the seeds of death to his campaign that will bear fruit in November.lol
thuyen tran"And break it further down while there is ALOT of comparison between slavery and abortion that are CHILLING:
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/SlaveryAbortion.htm
SLAVERY
Dred Scott 1857
7-2 decision
Black Non-persons
Property of Owner
Choose to buy- sell- kill
Abolitionists should not impose morality on slaveowners
Slavery is legal
ABORTION
Roe vs Wade 1973
7-2 decision
Unborn Non-persons
Property of Owner (Mother)
Choose to keep or kill
Pro-lifers should not impose morality on mothers
Abortion is legal
It is chilling!!It's virtually an identical parellel!Funny how liberals "especially black ones" can't make the obvious connection. The child has become nothing more then mere property that can be disposed of.
The only reason why I would vote for McCain now is he is more pro-life than either of the other two candidates, and though he comes off liberal for the most part, if my vote contribute in any way to saving at least one child life, than it is worth it.
CB,
One more added to list of comparisons of Dred Scott case and Roe v Wade: historical revisionism by the majority to render its verdict. James McPherson pointed out a bunch of them on Dred Scott in book on Civil War, called Battle Cry of Freedom. And of course, Roe v Wade basically had to invent a right.
Deja vu is right. I don't blame Alan Keyes either. He is trying his best to be a purist. It will be interesting to see if SOME evangelical Christians will vote for him because of his stances on the moral issues.
This is getting really fun now.
Tran says;"Like I said, there's no comparison.
It's merely a crutch for your argument."
A crutch would be if I don't have an argument.
Semantic games JM..,ahhh, I mean, Tran?
No my friend, a crutch as in "YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FAULTY OR BROKEN!" (As in having a broken leg on which you cannot stand, thus one must use a "crutch" to stand or walk...you understand now????)
Tran says;"You are arguing slavery is worse for those enslaved than for those who are doing the aborting. Well of course."
I never said one was worse than the other. I said there's no comparison and that you're using slavery as a crutch to prop up an argument based on personal opinion.
Tran asks:"Then why do LIBERALS make the core of the anti-gun laws legislation?
-and-
Then why do LIBERALS make the core of thoe who OPPOSE vouchers?"
Answer that before you call me stupid.
Guns are here to stay, no matter who are against them.
Have you ever thought about it like this; people who advocate gun control, are considered, or labeled, "LIBERAL"!!! I guess because I own 3 guns, you can call me a conservative, right???
School vouchers????
I guess you did'nt catch the meaning of my Exeter/Cranbrook reference.
Vouchers are a joke! In the "urban" or "inner-city" areas, a school voucher does nothing for a parent that wants his or her child to recieve a quality education.
1. In Detroit, the average spent per child in a school year is about $7600.00. Exeter or Cranbrook cost's can run 5 to 6 times as much. These schools are acedemic achievers, bar none!
2. There is no empirical nor conclusive evidence that private schools (when accounting for demographics) have better or higher achievement rates.
3. In those states that have adopted urban area vouchers, it has been shown that Chatholic schools (which many were in dire need and cash strapped) benefited the most from the voucher money.
4. An Ohio federal court in 2000 struck down the voucher program and ruled the program violated the Constitution’s separation of church and state. The court cited that most of the publics funds were going directly to religious schools, and also that Clevelands suburban schools were not admitting Cleveland public school students.
5. In the state of Arizona, over 70% of the vouchers are being used by students whose parents had already enrolled them in private school, effectively giving families who can afford private schools a "discount" on tutition payments.
6. In Milwaukee, WI. property taxes have increased due to the voucher program. Yet, no study has yet conclusively been able to show any quantifiable improvements in education.
7. The average amount states or local communities issue in a yearly voucher is about $3600.00. The average amount spent a year on a state prisoner is about $26,000.00, in Michigan $32,327.00 is spent per prison inmate.
I'll take vouchers and school choice seriously when vouchers pay for a serious educational choice.
Allen: No my friend, a crutch as in "YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FAULTY OR BROKEN!" (As in having a broken leg on which you cannot stand, thus one must use a "crutch" to stand or walk...you understand now????)
Me: Yes, I understood what a crutch is.
Unfortunately, for you to prove it is faulty and on broken leg, you have to actually examine what I said. And actually examine what I compare. You did NOT. You AVOID my point completely. And then pretend I was comparing victims of a crime against humanity (slaves) with abortionists, who are NOT victims, which shows you can't disprove my point, so you grab any straws you can get. More proof you are the one on crutches not me.
I said compare abortionists to slaveowners, NOT abortionists to slaves themselves.
In other words, compare APPLES with APPLES, not APPLES with ORANGES.
Compare VICTIMS with VICTIMS. Not VICTIMS with VICTIMISERS as you claim I am doing, then say I am comparing those who don't have choice (slaves) with those who do have choice (women who abort).
You persist on comparing victims of one crime against humanity (slaves) to victimisers of crimes against humanity (abortionists).
Allen: "I never said one was worse than the other. I said there's no comparison and that you're using slavery as a crutch to prop up an argument based on personal opinion."
Me: No, based on history. Your problem is with history, not me.
You simply can't deal with historical facts. Nor can you actually deal with what I actually said. Misrepresentating my position my claiming I compare slaves to abortionists is simply ridiculous on your part. You can't deal with my point that I am comparing slaveowners WITH ABORTIONISTS and slaves WITH MURDERED BABIES.
To keep repeating a comparison I never made, like I see slaves in same light as women who abort and then claim I am using that as a crutch is proof you are arguing from a crutch, not me. Otherwise, you would actually argue against what I stated and actually examined what I stated. Not hide behind the strawman argument you have been doing.
You claim don't push morality on others even when a person's life or liberty is involved in case of abortion. I cited case of slavery where SLAVEOWNERS make the same EXACT ARGUMENT YOU DID.
You also speak in terms of rights of mothers to do whatever she wants with another human being, as if they are some FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Guess what? SAME EXACT ARGUMENTS slaveowners USED.
"I'll take vouchers and school choice seriously when vouchers pay for a serious educational choice."
In other words, you deny parents have right to choice of where they want to send their kids for education.
"It is chilling!!It's virtually an identical parellel!Funny how liberals "especially black ones" can't make the obvious connection. The child has become nothing more then mere property that can be disposed of."
That is because they cannot deal with historical facts. Historical facts have evangelical Christians as activists against slavery. Historical facts have slaveowners denouncing them as fanatics. Historical facts have black slaves then declared non-humans, as aborted babies are now treated as.
Nor can they actually deal with the actual comparisons.
It is funny I point out comparisons between dead babies, who don't have choices, and slaves, who don't have choices. And the "best" argument I get back in response is I am comparing women who have choices to abort with those slaves who don't have choice. In other words, dance around the point then claim the point is on crutches when the point has not even been dealt with at all! ROFL
Allen,
What is worse? Enslaving a whole class people or murdering a whole class of people?
How much more choice do MURDERED babies have than the enslaved ones?
Tran says:"You can't deal with my point that I am comparing slaveowners WITH ABORTIONISTS and slaves WITH MURDERED BABIES."
I'M DEALING WITH WHAT YOU'VE SAID!!
There is no comparison between slave owners and abortionist!
Slave owners bred slaves! The last thing a slave owner wanted was "less slaves"!!!! The more slaves he had, the more property he owned, thus, the richer he becomes. An abortionist, which I refer to as "THE WOMAN" has the choice of whether to abort the pregnancy or not.
Note: If you're attempting to equate a DOCTOR, who can facilitate an abortion, to a SLAVE OWNER, you've really gone out into left field!! A woman could go freely to a doctor to get an abortion. So, why would "any person" freely ask to be enslaved??? That's just plain stupid....
You base your argument on a "silly" idea that; "slave owners used the same argument back in the day. They (like the abortionists) argued that it should be their choice whether or not they should enslave another human being."
Mis-leading and Wrong! Slave holders wanted slaves for their own personal gain. The argument that slave owners felt they had a "divine-right" to hold dominion over others, is a "cult-like" idea. The argument uses a false and invalid inference. The slave owner was a businessman. He only cared about one thing....PROFIT!
If the slave owner saw that a profit could be made by aborting babies, he would be an abortionist! Yet, my argument is that it is the "WOMANS" choice in this entire issue. Thus, how could a enslaved woman "PROFIT" [or make money] by aborting a pregnancy??? YOUR ARGUMENT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!
It's you who doesn't understand that there is no comparison. The comparison exists in your head...that alone does not make it true!
Tran says;"I cited case of slavery where SLAVEOWNERS make the same EXACT ARGUMENT YOU DID."
Let me inform you of something you obviously don't know. Only those who could afford to buy slaves, owned slaves.
Slave owners were typically wealthy land owners. You have the right to own a Rembrandt, but you will never here Donald Trump say that, you have the "right" to own one!
By the early to mid 1800's, many Northerners saw slavery as a threat to free and "open" market labor. The slave owners were aristocrats who provided slaves with no incentive for their labor. The only "right" sought by the slave owner was a "property right."
"Northern resistance to southern demands about property rights in African Americans stemmed from a number of sources, but the crucial one was ECONOMIC"
-James L. Huston-
Tran I see what you're trying to do and say. What you've actually done is bought into a "slick" and smartly styled anti-abortion campaign/mantra, and accetped it as fact.
Taking a stance against abortion is fine and indeed a noble ideal. But to compare abortion/abortionist with slaves/slave owners, is disingenuous.
PAA said;"I'll take vouchers and school choice seriously when vouchers pay for a serious educational choice."
Tran answers;"In other words, you deny parents have right to choice of where they want to send their kids for education."
Your "other words" are not "my words!"
I have nothing against school choice, to the extent that parents should be able to send their kids to whatever type of school they please.
I have nothing against a "voucher" that will pay for a student to attend Cranbrook, or any other school of that calibre.
I am against "vouchers" that gives "discounts" to those that have the means to send their kids to exclusive academies.
I am against vouchers that take funds from "failing" public school students, and transfers those funds to a private for "profit" company that cares less about children's education and more so about profits.
Tran asks;"Allen,What is worse? Enslaving a whole class people or murdering a whole class of people?
Both would be wrong, thus there is no "worse". So, whats your point??
Enslaving people is totally different from murdering people, so, whats your point????
How about a different angle Tran. How about comparing abortion to... lets say the Holocaust? I seem to remember that Mike Huckabee caused a stir with his reference...
http://www.forward.com/articles/11931/
How about a comparison to The Irish Potato Famine or the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, Democide of Native Americans, Imperial Japan's occupation of Asia, The Holodomor famine, The Bataan Death March or the Executions of Henry VIII!!!!!
You've got plenty of atrocities to choose from, so, why SLAVERY???? Perhaps you should ask Dr. Willke why he didn't use one of the above comparisons....
"Note: If you're attempting to equate a DOCTOR, who can facilitate an abortion, to a SLAVE OWNER, you've really gone out into left field!!"
Me: Alan Keyes and other pro-lifer sources knock all your arguments way, way out into left field out of the ballpark way past the parking yard. Your arguments on abortion used the SAME arguments as pro-slavery forces on slavery.
Slavery gives slaveowners right to CHOOSE to sell and own slaves as PROPERTY. Abortion gives abortionists and women right to CHOOSE to take or give life of babies as PROPERTY. Slavery advocates say don't force your religion and morality on me. Abortion advocates say don't force your religion or morality on me. Slavery opponents were mainly religious Christian evangelicals turned political and social activists. Abortion opponents are mainly religious Christian evangelicals turned political and social arguments.
All the arguments you used against abortion (about "forcing" religious morality on another, about right to treat the unborn as property of woman, about right to CHOOSE to do whatever the woman wants with her PROPERTY) are all ARGUMENTS used by slavery advocates. You used the SAME arguments they did. That was my point.
Tyrone mentioned the parallels between two Supreme Courts on both issues are virtually IDENTICAL as well.
"A woman could go freely to a doctor to get an abortion. So, why would "any person" freely ask to be enslaved??? That's just plain stupid...."
You accused me of saying that, and that's just plain DISHONEST to resort to that tactic. You know full well I am NOT comparison the woman's freedom of "choice" to the enslaved. I was comparison LACK OF CHOICE of the ABORTED to the LACK OF CHOICE of the enslaved.
Yet you continue to accuse me of comparing woman's right to choose to lack of right to choose on part of enslaved, then accuse me of being just plain stupid based on something I NEVER SAID.
And you keep REPEATING that same drivel you know is FALSE comparison I NEVER MADE. Quite disingenuous of you to accuse me of being stupid there.
"You base your argument on a "silly" idea that; "slave owners used the same argument back in the day. They (like the abortionists) argued that it should be their choice whether or not they should enslave another human being."
Me: Not silly. HISTORICAL.
See the breakdown between Roe v Wade and Dred Scott decision.
"Mis-leading and Wrong! Slave holders wanted slaves for their own personal gain. The argument that slave owners felt they had a "divine-right" to hold dominion over others, is a "cult-like" idea. The argument uses a false and invalid inference. The slave owner was a businessman. He only cared about one thing....PROFIT!"
Regardless, both abortion and slavery advocates see the victim as PROPERTY. Both see those who opposed those things as pushing their MORALITY and RELIGION on others.
And you say I used a cult-like argument?
Do some research and study on pre-Civil War South and the justifications used for slavery. Those folks often appealed to the Bible and the Noah/Ham argument. They claimed it was DIVINE institution as well. They claimed it was righteous and a good thing (they followed Calhourn on that). They claimed it was FUNDAMENTAL right (just like pro-abortionists).
And abortionists and women don't use abortion for profit or personal gain?
How big of an industry is UNBORN CHILD MURDER?
The number one reason for abortion remains for CONVENIENCE since it gets in the way of MATERIAL LIFE.
"How about a comparison to The Irish Potato Famine or the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, Democide of Native Americans, Imperial Japan's occupation of Asia, The Holodomor famine, The Bataan Death March or the Executions of Henry VIII!!!!! You've got plenty of atrocities to choose from, so, why SLAVERY???? Perhaps you should ask Dr. Willke why he didn't use one of the above comparisons...."
That is because no one gives the SAME JUSTIFICATION for those things as you do for ABORTION. But people give the SAME justification for slavery as you do for SLAVERY.
"Tran I see what you're trying to do and say. What you've actually done is bought into a "slick" and smartly styled anti-abortion campaign/mantra, and accetped it as fact."
I also happen to a big time Civil War buff. You don't know much about what slavery advocates used as justification for slavery do you? Try reading books on history of the Southern Confederacy, like Look Away by William C Davis, who showed how many attempt to provide divine arguments for slavery or argue how slavery is fundamnental right. Or read books on evangelical abolitionist movements in both England and America.
The only argument you can hide behind is claim that enslaved have choice to be free as compared to women having choice to abort, when you know I never, never said. So when you resort to misrepresenting my position over and over to claim I am using it as crutch and being disingenuous and being stupid, it shows that you can't refute what I actually said but actually AVOID what I actually said.
"Taking a stance against abortion is fine and indeed a noble ideal. But to compare abortion/abortionist with slaves/slave owners, is disingenuous."
Don't blame me if you don't know what slavery advocates used as justification for slavery. It is virtually identical to what abortion advocates like yourself used for abortion today.
"I am against vouchers that take funds from "failing" public school students, and transfers those funds to a private for "profit" company that cares less about children's education and more so about profits."
Or you are opposed right of parents to choose what they believe is best form of education for their kids. Abortion advocates, however, have no problem taking our tax dollars.
Oh btw, do you know what the ORIGINAL INTENT of Planned Parenthood under Margaret Sanger was? You are not going to like it at all.
http://www.acts1711.com/sanger.htm
Since you want to me to mention Holocaust, I got two words: Margaret Sanger. And you are not going to like the info on that either:
Margaret Louise Sanger
1879 - 1966
"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"
Who spoke these words? The Klu Klux Klan? Aryan Nations? The National Socialist (Nazi) Party? These are the words of Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider and promoter of legal abortion in the United States.
Abortion clinics were originally set up with the intention of slowing the population growth of Afro-Americans and others racial groups considered mentally or otherwise inferior.
Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood is the major force behind the abortion and pro-choice/abortion movement in America. If you are proud of being pro-choice, you should know more about the most responsible person for the pro-abortion-rights movement and abortion industry in the 20th century.
"Lothrop Stoddard was on the board of directors (of Margaret Sanger's Population Association of America) for years.... He had an interview with Adolf Hitler and was very impressed. His book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was written while he served on Sanger's board. Havelock Ellis, one of Sanger's extra-marital lovers, reviewed this..book favorably in The Birth Control Review".
At a March,1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger's beliefs about social works of charity are revealing: She criticized the success-- not failure-- of charity... She called for the halt to the medical care being given to slum mothers, and decried the expense to the taxpayers of monies being spent on the deaf, blind and dependent. She condemned foreign missionaries for reducing the infant mortality rates in developing countries, and declared charity to be more evil than for the assistance it provided to the poor and needy. Sanger's thinking moved to fascism in an elitist attitude that presumes to judge who is worthy to live and to die.
"Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are they being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?" quoted from blackgenocide.org
Adolf Hitler - Fuehrer of Nazi Germany "The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind." Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10
from Hitler and Eugenics
and The Fuehrer Myth
Margaret Sanger - Founder of Planned Parenthood ". . .we prefer the policy of immediate sterilizarion, of making sure that parenthood is ' absolutely prohibited ' to the feeble-minded." The Pivot of Civilization, p102
Margaret Sanger's eugenics beliefs intertwined her with Nazis who were influenced by her. She is truly Hitler's Valkyrie
We are living in frightening days when a pro-life person is compared to a terrorist. I'm from OK. You would not believe how outrageous the campaign was against him when he ran in 2004 for the Senate. Liberals will do anything to get rid of anyone that dares to stand for the lives of babies.
In no way am I proponent of Sanger nor the "pseudo science" of eugenics. I have read some of Sanger's work, and yet I am not totally convinced that her intent was, as some have said, the annihilation of the Black population. Most of her idea's appear to be that of an "equal opportunity" eugenicist. The majority of her idea's on breeding a socially acceptable "race", were formed using "race" in the general term.(such as in "human race")
Tran says;"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"
It is my understanding that the above statement was made to a group of black doctors, with the intent on briefing the doctors about her work and not to cause an unintended outrage.
Rather than reading a "snippet" or a selective second hand quote from Sanger's writings, read and summarize her writings for yourself.
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_sanger_1924.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1689
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8660
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/4.html
Pamela,
Obama claimed the pro-lifer guy is his friend.
With friends like Obama who needs enemies? LOL!
The bottom to the others reading on why we are pro-lifers, it is because if we don't defend the right to life of the unborn, who is next to be declared legally permissible to be murdered? And why should anybody care if we are next if we don't care about human life?
Tran thinks;"Don't blame me if you don't know what slavery advocates used as justification for slavery. It is virtually identical to what abortion advocates like yourself used for abortion today."
Let me get this right...
You saying a slave holders primary intent in owning slaves was his idea that, "as a matter of his own personal right, man can enslave his fellow man, thus use the enslaved man in any way that he see's fit."
Thus, abortion is man seeing the unborn child as a personal right to use or destroy in any way that he see's fit...
Since you see it that way, there is only one conclusion to this entire argument. You believe abortion and slavery can somehow be related in all of this, I can only offer this advice....
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD "YOU" EVER, EVER, EVER, HAVE AN ABORTION!!!!
The day you stop women from choosing what to do with their bodies, is the day you'll be living under "Sharia law".
Dr. Willke's silly comparison has fallen on deaf ear's my friend...
"The day you stop women from choosing what to do with their bodies, is the day you'll be living under "Sharia law"."
No, they are doing with another (babies') bodies. The right to treat another as proerty, to dispense (kill) as they wished.
That is the part you missed.
By your logic, we should get rid of all laws. Rid ourselves of seat belt laws since it is preventing all of us from doing what we want with our own bodies. Forget about public endangerment or danger to kids involved.
Rid ourselves of rape and murder laws as well, since those laws are keeping us from doing what we want with our own bodies. Forget like abortion, there are VICTIMS, too.
"Dr. Willke's silly comparison has fallen on deaf ear's my friend..."
The fact you claim it is silly comparison proves me right.
The slaveowners tried to justify their sin by denying full humanity or any even of their slaves. They even try to claim divine right by claiming black slaves came from Ham, and Ham was cursed by Noah. Or come up with bogus scientific theories about racial inequalities.
You can call it silly all you want. But it proves the point that those who don't know history are bound to repeat it.
But it goes to show the only argument you can make is to say choice, choice, choice of woman, and completely (once again for the nth time) danced around point of full humanity of unborn babies.
According to you, they are subject to the whims of their mothers and abortion doctors.
Their lives have no value in your worldview. They are denied their full humanity.
They are denied the right to life, on choice of another.
They are property of another.
After all according to you, unborn babies are really women's bodies and not seperate human beings.
So, naturally, they are properties to you.
Proves my point there again.
You deny their humanities. You see them as properties of another. You see that religious folks have no right to say women cannot take life or liberty of another.
Where did I hear that type of argument before?
From reading Civil War books!
"You saying a slave holders primary intent in owning slaves was his idea that, "as a matter of his own personal right, man can enslave his fellow man, thus use the enslaved man in any way that he see's fit.""
Not just me saying it. It is history. Dred Scott decision anyone?
"Thus, abortion is man seeing the unborn child as a personal right to use or destroy in any way that he see's fit..."
Yep.
"Since you see it that way, there is only one conclusion to this entire argument. You believe abortion and slavery can somehow be related in all of this, I can only offer this advice....UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD "YOU" EVER, EVER, EVER, HAVE AN ABORTION!!!!"
Unless mother's life is in danger, which one can claim self-defense.
But otherwise, no other circumstance is warranted.
Human life is precious.
A person's right stops when it violates the life, liberty, property of another human being.
Abortion violates the Constitutional principle of right to life.
Tran says;"Unless mother's life is in danger, which one can claim self-defense."
Oh no, he did'nt go there!
Just as I thought, an "aire" of hipocrisy... Tell that to Nikita Hutchings when she gets old enough to understand.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506838&in_page_id=1770
"Oh no, he did'nt go there!
Just as I thought, an "aire" of hipocrisy... Tell that to Nikita Hutchings when she gets old enough to understand."
I said I don't oppose abortion if mother's life is in danger.
But since you want to charge me with hypocrisy on grounds of this, you can tell it to 45,000,000 dead babies when they are old enough to...
Oh I forgot, they are murdered, killed, butchered, and won't grow any older. My bad!
Post a Comment
<< Home