Democrats & Liberals Archives

Why Do Women Even Think About Voting Republican?

Today the Supreme Court began the long, slow, and possibly irreversible process of turning America into the only westernized country in the world to prevent women from choosing whether to take their pregnancy to term or not.

It was on the cards, of course. Ever since O’Connor left and Alito joined the Court, it has been clear that an abortion case would come before them. Indeed, South Dakota’s lawmakers deliberately legislated a particularly vicious bill designed specifically to be challenged in the Supreme Court, with the intention of giving Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas the chance to ‘legislate from the bench’, as our Republican friends like to characterize any decision handed down by a member of the judiciary with whom they disagree.

Today’s ruling may have covered only a small percentage of pregnancies, but the echoes of the decision will be heard throughout hospital wards across the country.

The key element of the ruling was whether a bill with no exception for the health of the mother could be lawful. Three Federal courts said no; the Supreme Court said yes.

So yes, if you are pregnant and in danger, you and any physician attending who makes a decision to save your health can be prosecuted. In essence, what the Supreme Court is saying is that a fetus now has more right to live than its mother.

This baffles me. After all, fetuses can’t vote; women can. Are women so unconcerned with their rights that they can listen to this statement from George Bush, and agree with it?

“Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America.”

Compassion and humanity? Where is the compassion for the endangered mother? Or for the doctor whose Hippocratic oath compels him to operate to save her, at the risk of going to jail?

From here the path is clear: over time, the federal protection of Roe vs Wade will erode and the states will take on responsibility for abortion law. And some of those states will create ever more draconian laws that will eventually – and I believe this fervently – prosecute mothers who terminate their pregnancy for a "crime" no less than murder.

Republican women, why would you vote for an administration that supports this? And that has facilitated this decision through deliberately stacking the Supreme Court deck with jokers like Alito?

Posted by Jon Rice at April 18, 2007 5:09 PM
Comments
Comment #217341

Nice spin Jon. You really should have provided a link though.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion;_ylt=AhgkejSlrg6vp2xWEEm6Q6Ss0NUE

From the link: The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

This “outrage” isn’t really about whats best for the mother or infant though is it? Its about what the left believes is “chipping away at abortion rights.”

Why would a woman vote Republican?
Probably because they believe an infant IS a life also and killing it is wrong.

Women can still get a late-term abortion Jon. The doctor just can’t pull it out and chop it up now.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #217342

kctim - thanks for the hint, link now included.

Posted by: Jon Rice at April 18, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #217345

You also fail to mention that this is not merely some decision dreamed up and turned into law by the courts, as is usally the case with abortion questions. And it wasn’t just something proposed by the “right wing.”

This was a bipartisan bill that came out of Congress which passed 281-142 in the House and 64-34 in the Senate.

Any women offended by this may want to turn their ire on Demcrats such as (from the Senate, at least at the time) Reid, Biden, Leahy, Lincoln, Pryor, Miller, Breaux, Landrieu, Daschle, Conrad, Dorgan, Nelson, Hollings, Johnson, Byrd and Nelson. And the list from the House is much longer.

Agree with the actions of our elected representatives or don’t—that’s your choice. But at least their will is not being overturned by political appointees in the courts.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 18, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #217346

Great article.
Personally, I don’t believe for a moment that this decision won’t end up being revisited with a very different result. Once women living in the red states start dying in droves because their doctors begin saving the life of the child rather than the mother, there are going to be lots of families and husbands very upset about those deaths. Same thing goes for overturning Roe vs. Wade — if red state women begin seeking out illegal abortions and dying from them, we’re bound to see things change in those states, and pronto.
It might sound a little hardhearted, but I’ve come to the sad conclusion that there probably isn’t any other way to make the terrible reality of what they’re actually trying to do sink in, without a horrific bloody wave of numerous red state deaths rolling in to turn back the tide.
Let’s allow them to have what they believe they want — and then suffer the terrible and senseless consequences.
Meanwhile, the blue states aren’t going to cave in to this sh*t, and we stand to make a whole lot of money when hordes of women begin venturing out of state in order to save their lives, or when they choose to make the autonomous personal decision to have an abortion that they’ve now legally enjoyed for over thirty years.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #217350

Once again, much ado about nothing. Women still have abortion on demand, even late-term abortions and no woman need fear for her life. It’s silly to argue that since one procedure has been found unconstitutional that we are on the slippery slope to all abortion being outlawed. As usual, some on this blog mangage to make a mountain out of a small pimple for political gain and grand posturing to the uneducated. Being a liberal today is all about scaring people with unfounded and ridiculous propositions such as “Global Man-made Warming”, Personal Security, big bad corporate America, failing health system…

Posted by: Jim at April 18, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment #217352

This ruling in no way voids Roe v Wade. It is specific to a certain, late term abortion procedure. Very, VERY few of all abortions are carried out in this way, and even in the realm of late-term abortions, there are other ways of going about it.

I understand the slippery-slope argument… but it isn’t a slippery slope if it stops somewhere, and in this case it does.

Posted by: Doug at April 18, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #217353

So the physicians, the experts, should have no say?

the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman.

Someone tell me, that if this procedure is safest for the woman, why the court, non-medical experts, should have the say?

This has always been something that should remain between the woman and her doctor.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 18, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #217354

Jim: you said “Being a liberal today is all about scaring people with unfounded and ridiculous propositions such as “Global Man-made Warming”, Personal Security, big bad corporate America, failing health system…”

So - proven calamities caused by man-made global warming aren’t a problem? Personal security isn’t a problem, two days after Virginia? Enron and companies like it aren’t a problem? Our failing health system isn’t a problem?

Are you saying that all is right with the world (pun intended) and that we should all just close our eyes and ears and pretend that none of the above matters a jot? Because that I cannot understand.

Posted by: Jon Rice at April 18, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #217355

Jon,

I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg. More anti-choice advocates will feel more empowered to further limit abortion. In the mean while pro-choice advocates will be just waiting to document injury or death based on this decision.

This debate will never end. Ginsberg summed it up very well.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 18, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #217361

Well I am against late term abortion, and if this is what the SC voted on then good for them. If a woman wants to have an abortion then she should have it in the first trimester, not 6 months later because it is cramping her style. Now if it is a life/death matter, then that is different, but just because she doesn’t want it, that is not a reason.

Oh fyi I had to make a decision when my wife was carrying my youngest son. She had a heart attack and the doctor came to me and asked if they could only save one, her or the baby which one, and she was 6 months along. Well I said try to save both but if you can’t save my wife. The doctors were great and both were saved.

Posted by: KT at April 18, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #217362

Well, the Republicans are showing their true colors. They don’t want you to choose for yourself. They want the government to decide what’s best. They want to government to decide what your doctor can and can’t tell you about options related to your health.

Let’s go over this:

(1) Partial birth abortions are only used in cases where the woman’s life is in danger.

(2) When a woman’s life is in danger, an abortion of some kind is going to be performed.

(3) But - even though the abortion will happen anyway, the government is going to tell your doctor exactly how it will be performed, even if that means there’s less of a chance of the mother living.

Conclusion: The abortion is going to happen anyway. This only means there’s less of a chance the mother will live in circumstances where partial birth abortions are safest. This isn’t a win for pro-life advocates, it’s a win for the government being able to tell your doctor what’s best regardless of their medical opinion, and that’s okay by today’s “conservatives”.

Who loses out, in reality? Poor people in the sense that they won’t be able to find or get to a real doctor. All of us, in the sense that this is yet another strike against individual rights made by today’s “conservatives”. Where it will end, no one knows.

The ruling is particularly brazen in that this was one of the types of abortion that was considered safe, because it’s an exception case used only when the mother’s life is in danger. By making this ruling, the Supreme Court is declaring that they are “conservative” enough to believe that a fetus is not only alive, but more alive than the mother. If they can believe that, they must be willing to ban abortions of all kinds.

“Conservative”. It used to mean a lot of things. During the Bush administration I’ve crossed a lot of them off my list. Time to cross out “Less government, not more”.

Posted by: Max at April 18, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #217364

KT,

This ruling doesn’t prevent late term abortions. Those were ALREADY ILLEGAL. This prevents your doctor from using one method of abortion WHEN THE MOTHER’S LIFE IS IN DANGER.

Posted by: Max at April 18, 2007 7:10 PM
Comment #217369

Abortion has become a form of birth control including partial birth abortion. Most argue that partial birth abortion are only performed when the mother is in danger but that is BS. Why then are abortions down in this country, is it because most women are getting smarter, birth control methods getting better, or is it some women are taking responsibility for their actions. And so should the fathers. I can’t understand how a women could let a doctor pull her baby partially out of her body leaving the head in her, then sticking a pair of sissors in the back of the babys skull and sucking it’s brains out. BARBARIC!!!! 35,000,000 babies killed through abortion since Roe V Wade more than all the soldiers killed in WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Persian Gulf, and Iraq and Afganistan.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #217373

this ruling means rich women will leave the country to have this done
and poor women will face a more dangerous procedure.
women that do this do it with great emotional trauma. she is carryig this baby for eight or nine months. they do this because there lives are in danger. this is a terribe choice to have to make this decision makes it worse.

Posted by: albert at April 18, 2007 7:49 PM
Comment #217377

kap
i don’t either thats why any woman that has this done should be shown compassion rather than being second guessed

Posted by: albert at April 18, 2007 7:59 PM
Comment #217382
Abortion has become a form of birth control including partial birth abortion. Most argue that partial birth abortion are only performed when the mother is in danger but that is BS.

This just isn’t true. Partial birth abortions are ONLY used in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. Period. That was the law.

I can’t understand how a women could let a doctor pull her baby partially out of her body leaving the head in her, then sticking a pair of sissors in the back of the babys skull and sucking it’s brains out. BARBARIC!!!!

Actually, the method of abortion ruled on is one that attempts to take the fetus out whole. The other method, which is still legally available, removes the fetus in pieces using vacuum suction. If your wife was 8 months pregnant, and was in a position where she could potentially die, God forbid, she could now only choose (or not choose) to have the fetus removed piecemeal. The surgical procedure you just described is now the only choice you would have, whereas you could have chosen to remove the fetus whole before this ruling.

I think this goes to show that there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there…. This wasn’t a ruling against abortions, it was a ruling against a specific type of emergency abortion performed ONLY when the mother’s life was at stake and by her consent.

Posted by: Max at April 18, 2007 8:18 PM
Comment #217384

Max,

Late term abortions are not illegal when the life of the mother is in danger.

The use of the term partial birth abortion indicates the ignorance used discussing this issue. No such term exists in medical manuals.

The insertion of the Supremes into this issue is nothing short of criminal. The blood is on their hands. The rarity of this procedure, which has nothing to do with birth, lessens the number of deaths that the court has sentenced women to, but after a deranged husband kills one or more of the conservative judges in the majority opinion here, he should be applauded as a hero.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #217386

Most of the partial birth abortions done in this country were done because of the womens MENTAL HEALTH not because of her physical condition. I would say that only 1% were because of the mothers physical health. The mental health con is just that the women dosen’t want the child, it could be financial or just plain immaturity. Women cry about choice, what choice did they give that child growing inside her, dosen’t that child have a choice. I forgot liberals don’t consider a fetus a human being. Like I said abortion is another form of BIRTH CONTROL.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #217389

Gergle - while I disagree with your last statement, your statement that ‘partial birth abortion’ is a non-term is correct. It was invented by people who are anti-choice, to further emotionalize (if that’s not a word, it should be) this subject. If you read the actual law passed by Congress, it reeks - reeks, I say - of spin and language deliberately skewed to stir a negative emotion when the Reps and Sens read aloud the parts that they choose.

‘Sucking their brains out’ - yes, that’s in there. Even though in fact, this operation is used almost exclusively on hydrocephalic babies (they have a terminally enlarged head which puts the mother at severe risk of hemorrage if delivered conventionally), we instead hear ‘sucking their brains out’. It’s like the Republicans are reading a bad horror novel out loud.

And if you also read the American Medical Association’s standards for performing the intact dilation and extraction (that’s what real doctors call it) then you will also find that it is stipulated that it should only be used in such cases. (Or, even more rarely, in another complex medical situation.)

(Excerpt from AMA letter to Rick Santorum (may his political career rest in peace) dated 1997 follows. Please note the VERY explicit reasoning behind their SUPPORT for a ban on the IDE procedure - clearly, the AMA wanted an exception for the mother’s health; the Republicans instead took this letter as tacit agreement to their later 2003 bill.)

“Dear Senator Santorum:

The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, “The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997,” as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.

Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician’s judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.”

As for the ‘slippery slope’, as alluded to earlier, when a mother’s life is valued at less than that of a fetus with almost no chance of survival… that’s pretty darn slippery if you ask me.

Posted by: Jon Rice at April 18, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #217398
Most of the partial birth abortions done in this country were done because of the womens MENTAL HEALTH not because of her physical condition.

Show us some proof please. Otherwise this is just your own opinion.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 18, 2007 9:18 PM
Comment #217403

Jon,

Radical times call for radical ideas. To paraphrase Jefferson, “A little spilled blood from time to time in the defense of liberty is a small price to pay.”
Given the cold nature of these charlatan justices, it will indeed, I suspect, be a little blood.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #217409

Kansas state wed sight stated in one of their studies that out of 182 partial birth abortions 182 were for mental reasons. I googled partial birth abortions stats.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #217421

And you would denigrate mental health reasons so soon after the VT massacre? Mental health is more important than your and other people’s rationalizations.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 18, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #217422

KAP,

Many “partial birth” abortions are performed for mental health reasons, but in these cases the fetuses are horribly, horribly, deformed and will not live long past pregnancy.

How can you judge the women that choose to abort in these situations? Have you been in their shoes? What gives you the right to make this decision for them?

Posted by: Max at April 18, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #217424

What is the percentage of partial birth abortions done for the health of the women because of a deformed fetus? I’d venture to say very very low with todays medical science. But in that case I’d understand better. I don’t understand and will not condone partial birth abortion of a healthy child that does not pose any problems to the mother. AND AS I SAID ABORTION IS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL NOW.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #217437

There are many serious deformities, including ones deadly to the mother and or fetus that are not apparent until late in the pregnancy. In these cases, some women have used their mental health as the reason for the abortion. I wouldn’t call this an “excuse”, because I imagine these women are extremely emotionally distraught over the news of the health of their baby.

But….

Let’s take a step back here. When do you think abortion is permissable? For all I know we are in complete agreement. How about incest, rape, serious deformity, or causing grevious harm to the mother? What about right after conception?

South Dakota banned abortion except in the case of a life threatening situation to the mother (ironically, almost everything but the partial birth abortion). Activists lobbied and passed the ban to ballot, letting the people of the state decide what they wanted. Guess what? When the people of this red state had time to think through the issues, they realized they really didn’t want to deny abortion to victims of incest and rape or to mothers whose health was at risk. Voters in South Dakota rejected the ban by a vote of 55%-45%.

Posted by: Max at April 18, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #217440
In essence, what the Supreme Court is saying is that a fetus now has more right to live than its mother.

I never understood that. All Republicans had to do was insert a clause respecting the life of the mother and there never would have been a court battle at all.

I’m against abortion across the board, but making it illegal to save a woman’s life under any circumstance is just wrong.

It’s clear that Republicans view women as nothing more than baby machines.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 18, 2007 11:54 PM
Comment #217452

Well, I of course find the head-crushing thing (if it’s not an exaggeration) disgusting and highly disturbing, but it’s different if it really is a choice between saving either the mother or the fetus. What if the fetus also has an incurable disease that will cause it immense suffering and death after birth? So the woman must die, even if neither can be saved? It’s my understanding this type of abortion is almost never used, it’s not like large numbers of women are happily having that procedure (no matter what Ann Coulter says), it’s a last-resort type of decision made only in rare cases like the above.

“Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.”

Oh I see, the justices have determined the first is not okay, but it’s fine if the fetus is killed, just as long as it’s “dismembered” in the uterus. Makes perfect sense to me.

Again, while this is an ugly topic it sounds too much like politicians and ideologues trying to make decisions best made by the doctors and women themselves. Just like Republicans think they know better than scientists when it comes to science, and even military and CIA experts when it comes to combating terrorism, they think they know about how to practice medicine better than the actual physicians.

Posted by: Greg H. at April 19, 2007 12:45 AM
Comment #217453

Greg H.

The problem with the hysterical( yes, I see the irony of the womb reference) anti abortion nut cases, is they use terror in the form of graffic description to cow people.

If you ever had to witness any surgery, you’d be astonished at the rough way in which surgeons manipulate organs and tissues. Surgery is gross. That’s why the standing joke about fainting is so often used.

The demagogery here is worse than reflexive nonsense, it’s deadly.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 12:52 AM
Comment #217471

Womanmarine….talk about ironic !! As I see it, and this posting seems to confirm, we are still second-class citizens, not worthy of being able to make decisions in a situation where our very life may be in jeopardy.

Why then are abortions down in this country, is it because most women are getting smarter, birth control methods getting better, or is it some women are taking responsibility for their actions. And so should the fathers.

“And so should the fathers”…..an afterthought, obviously, and significant of the way a large portion of society still looks at this subject. Is subservience still our lot?? I wish I could think up some procedure that would equate to this very personal, incredibly difficult and traumatic decision, then sit back and tell (some of) you guys what you NEED to do!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 19, 2007 4:09 AM
Comment #217485

Sandra,

Ummm, Castration? :) After all sperm are humans just waiting to be developed. The Catholic Church does call them “seed” and we all know trees grow from seeds. Considering the billions of wasted human lives every time we whack of to internet porn, there should be an outcry from the right to lifers.

Hell, I’d move to Canada, but I’d support the movement against the greasy, sniveling, weasels like Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy Alito, and Roberts. Tell them to put that in their coke can and drink it.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 6:49 AM
Comment #217486

Sandra,

Ummm, Castration? :) After all sperm are humans just waiting to be developed. The Catholic Church does call them “seed” and we all know trees grow from seeds. Considering the billions of wasted human lives every time we whack of to internet porn, there should be an outcry from the right to lifers.

Hell, I’d move to Canada, but I’d support the movement against the greasy, sniveling, weasels like Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy Alito, and Roberts. Tell them to put that in their coke can and drink it.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 6:49 AM
Comment #217529

Many Women feel that butchering unborn babies in the womb is immoral. I’m surprised that yous support this genocide against the unborn.

Posted by: StephenL at April 19, 2007 10:48 AM
Comment #217532

Stephen L,

Well ignoring your inflamitory language, sure they do. They have every right not to have abortions. My cousin did not have an abortion though she was pregnant at 14. She had the full support of her parents, if not the dead beat dad.

The point is not every one agrees that a 14 year old without that support is capable of being an effective parent and the moral choice is to terminate a pregnancy before there IS a child involved. Many people are not indoctrinated with religious demagogery that calls a few cells a baby. Many people do not believe in the magic totems of religious fanatics.

I always wonder why there is pandemonium about the number of abortions (maybe 40 million) when 50 billion children have died from starvation and treatable disease since Roe v. Wade. Just maybe the moral choice would be to drop the overly dramatic farce, and deal with something besides calling abortions child murder while ignoring dying children. If you really cared maybe you’d be screaming about that.

But you have your beliefs. Just don’t expect me and most American women to chant to your vodoo dance, while you look down your nose and call us murderers. It may be that the real culprits of genocide are in your mirror.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #217588

Thanks, gergle, for your support. I’m sure you’re aware of the attitudes you will deal with now for having thrown in with the “likes of us”.
StephenL….Your comment is so full of hate and empty of knowledge that it barely deserves a response. I’m aware of what it’s like to grow up and being exposed to designated information, then as an adult mingling with a like-minded socio-group. I’m not saying that is bad, but it does tend to limit our quest for knowledge outside that mindset. Surprise yourself, by sitting down some day and glean some information from sources outside of cherry picked and prepared documentation.
I maintain vehemently that I also abhor the idea of using abortions as birth control! Do you believe in birth control? Or does that go against your belief? Stopping nature and natural instincts is pretty close to impossible, so why not educate and arm women with prevention?! Better yet, why not just keep “it” in your jeans !!! Aaahh ya…..that’ll work.
And gergle, there is much to be said about the Bobbit procedure… ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 19, 2007 1:23 PM
Comment #217607

Sandra, so true!!!
And gergle, many excellent posts! You rock.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 19, 2007 2:18 PM
Comment #217616

There are two human beings involved here.
Kind of creepy how some people never even mention the one who cannot defend itself.
Like its not even there.

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #217630

Why Do Women Even Think About Voting Republican?

Because they don’t like the Democrats?

The bigger question is:
Why does ANYONE even want to think about voting Democrat?

Just more hysteria and fear by the hysteria and fear mongers.
Relax Your precious Row v Wade aint gonna get over turned.
Funny how the left who wants everything regulated by the government is getting so bent out of shape when the Supreme Court says it’s OK to regulate late term abortions, and Abortion Doctors.
OHHHH Yeah! Abortion is y’alls sacred cow. Regulate everything else. But don’t ya even dare suggest regulating the sacred cow of abortion. Talk about double standards.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 19, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #217640

jon,

Women vote for Republicans because they have really good spokespersons who attract women.
Ex. Anne Coulter. Admit it, She is a handsome and rugged dude.
If she were a woman I’d go for it.
I’m sorry I was just told she is a woman. My bad.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 19, 2007 3:55 PM
Comment #217755

I always thought it must take a special kind of person to hold a live baby in their hands and shove a sharp instrument up the back of its skull.

But, then I thought those people are nothing special. The really special ones are those that stand in the crowd and cheer for them!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 20, 2007 1:42 AM
Comment #217954

Only in the USA are the people told we can’t allow you to make this choice becayse you might choose life. Isn’t that what pro abortion people really mean no choice but theirs no vote because they might loose . My self I’m pro life and I have the guts to put it into the hands of the people state by state .

Posted by: Steve at April 21, 2007 9:34 AM
Comment #217960

gergle,

You call my language “inflammatory”. Which is a way of trying to say, that 45 million babies killed in the womb is NOT a genocide. Without really saying it.

I say that killing 45 million babies is genocide, it’s monstrous, it’s unthinkable. And yet that genocide has occurred and it’s wildly supported by the left.

Posted by: stephen L at April 21, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #244866

My mother was a born late among her siblings in the 1920’s. Her mother really did not want her because it ruined her plans to get on with her socialite life. The result was my mother got smacked around all the time and was repeatedly told she was unwanted. She suffered great depression all her life and likely her early demise at the age of 28 had something to do with this. I have no doubt that this also damaged my life indirectly. For me, I’m not depressed like my mother but on the issue of abortion I feel an almost pathological hatred for Christians like Adolf Hilter had for Jews (Note: I’ve never hated anyone based on their ethnicity, just their religion). Anyway, I’m old, and thank God that I’m an “atheist” and constantly remind myself that Christianity is not a monolithic faith, and would never ACT on this hatred. However,there is no question I will pass this story down to my grandchildren when they come of age.

Posted by: Dan Barnes at February 8, 2008 6:27 AM
Post a comment