Democrats & Liberals Archives

Should Women Control Their Own Body?

Hollywood Model The answer seems like it should be obvious. Apparently to Sarah Palin and a few rapists it is not. Perhaps she knows something that I don’t. Maybe she likes “it” rough…

Sarah Palin is "Pro-life" on steroids.
See: her position is extreme even within the Republican Party.
See also: Abortion draws clear divide in state races

In comment 260358 of McCain Insults Women I say:

Her policy is to [give the] government the legal right to effectively rape women by forcefully taking control of their reproductive organs. Fetuses have a right to life. Germs have a right to life. I am a full blown human being. I have a right to life. No one is obligated to provide the services of their body, to breathe in my mouth if I can not live on my own. No one is obligated to give me a kidney. No one is obligated to sacrifice their health to keep alive. Many people would make a human moral choice to give me these gifts to keep me alive - but they don’t have to. A woman should not have to either - period. It should be her choice - a gift freely given - not governmental rape. Sarah Palin wants the government to rape women.

In comment 260329 of McCain Insults Women submarinesforever says:

IMHO it is refreshing to see a canidate that is pro life, and lived her conviction not her convienence. IMHO that alone makes her more qualified than most running for office.

In comment 260425 of:McCain Insults Women I replied:

In one important sense, she is not living her conviction, not even close. She chose as a gift freely given to provide the services of her body to maintain the life of a birth defective fetus. I honor that choice of love. She is exercising her freedom of choice and choosing love. I honor that. She is living the convictions of the women’s right to choose movement. That is not what her convictions are. Her convictions are that the government should force women to provide the services of their bodies to keep potential people alive. She thinks that the government should have forceful control over women’s reproductive organs. In order for her to fully live her convictions she should be forced by the government to have an abortion. How would she like that? Forcing her to have an abortion would be the same level of government control over her reproductive organs that she wants the government to have over the reproductive organs of women who want abortions. That would be living her convictions. She is living choice.
As I have pointed out above: Fetuses although not yet fully human, have a right to life. They are free to live that life independent of their mother. I am fully human and have a right to life. No one is obligated to provide the services of their bodies to keep me alive not even to the point of using their body blow air into my lungs for five minutes. I have a right to live and I am free to live but I do not have the right to forcefully control your body or to have my government control your body in order to keep me alive. Forceful control of women’s reproductive organs is called rape.

What Sarah Palin wants the government to do is rape - without the black sky mask - and without all the ichy stickiness - but rape none the less. They will still use the guns as needed to achieve their objective. It is not surprising therefore that she supports rapists by not wanting an exception allowing abortions for rape victims. In so doing she turns rape into an efficient reproductive strategy for rapists. Rape women... Spread your seed far and wide... Ride off into the sunset and allow someone else to raise your "issue"... That is what Sarah Palin wants. Thus making sure that the genes and genetic predispositions of rapists continue to be well represented in future generations. Granted some women will always choose as a gift of love freely given to provide the services of their bodies to support the life of the "issue" of rapists. It may reasonably be hoped that such loving women will raise that "issue" up into decent citizens.

Some might say that doctors are legally obligated to provide the services of their bodies to keep me alive. So are soldiers. Yes but, it is a gift freely given. They choose to take on that responsibility when they become doctors and soldiers. A rape victim certainly does not. A minor below the age of consent certainly does not. A victim of failed birth control certainly does not. A victim of abstinence only education, like Sarah Palin's daughter, certainly does not. An accidental pregnancy... not... Now if you can prove a woman intended to get pregnant, then my argument here won't hold. There are other pro-choice arguments that will still hold however. IMO, those arguments are weaker than this one but still valid. In the case of a woman who has chosen to get pregnant: She has chosen to take on the responsibility, but the fetus is not fully human and a determination has to be made at what point to grant it human rights. Viability outside the womb is the reasonable test.

I think that adoption is a better solution to most unwanted pregnancy but it is not my choice to make for other people. Sincere Pro-life advocates should be standing in line for adaptions. Quit picketing the abortion clinic and go get in line for adoption.

Tangentially related to the issue of abortion:

Questions arose early on about Palin's 5th pregnancy and delivery of Trig. There was reason to suspect that the child was actually her daughter's. See: Questions Raised: Does Sarah Palin Really Have a 5th Child?/ Given her daughter's current pregnancy this seems increasingly unlikely. However some questions remain. Why would she fly all the way from Dallas Texas to Anchorage Alaska and then drive 45 minutes out of Anchorage to a remote ill equipped small town hospital to have a high risk labor and delivery?

She had been leaking amniotic fluid since four AM. She needed medical attention to attempt to prolong the pregnancy and guard against infection which is always a risk with leaking amniotic fluid. This is especially the case given that the baby has downs syndrome which makes it more susceptible to infection. She says she knew the baby had downs. Was she hoping that God would perform an abortion for he? If so, he let her down.

Was her judgment really that bad? If so, do we want her to be VP?

She was delivering the keynote speech at the national governors convention. She has said she was not going to miss that speech. Is she really that egotistical and self centered that she would subordinate the needs of her unborn child to the needs of her political career? It appears so. She says leave her children alone then she puts them front and center in her campaign. She pimps the preg daughter out to prove that her family has faced difficult times. She puts the little cutie out there as political gold... But leave her kids alone...

She styles herself to be just a regular soccer Mom - an ordinary girl - just like you or me - well, me after I get that sex change anyhow. Bush styled himself to be just a regular beer drinkin buddy. How has that worked out for you?

Things just don't seem to add up. Choosing to live a freedom of choice life style and freely giving the gift of the services of her body to maintain the life the of birth defective child shows a true reverence for life and a sincere belief in the so called "culture of life." On the other hand, choosing to neglect the critical emergency medical needs of a late term baby for the petty political expediency of delivering 1 lousy little keynote speech belies a callous disregard for life of staggering, some would say sociopathic proportions. I see only 3 ways to reconcile this contradiction.

The first is that she only gave to birth to the brat for appearances. She don't care about that kid, the "culture of life" or anything else, other than making herself look good and advancing her career. I like Sarah Palin. I refuse to believe that. I am just as shallow and lascivious as John McCain apparently is. She is pretty. She must be virtuous. Miss-Wasilla-1984 See: In comment 260426 of McCain Insults Women Veritas Vincit says:

If he wanted a woman of solid experience and a measure of proven ability, he could have chosen someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or perhaps even a more moderate Republican like Christy Todd Whitman. But no, once again McCain chose a not-too-bright Beauty Contestant to stand at his side. After all, Wife Number One was a pageant winner and professional model — until her car wreck when McCain dumped her for Cindy — the Rodeo Queen and Current Miss Buffalo Chip! Even his lobbyist “friend” Vicki Iseman was a former cheerleader. Now he picks pageant runner-up Ms. Palin-By-Comparison for the Republican VP slot.

The second explanation seems more consistent with the facts. She simply exercised poor judgment. That would account for the 8 hour flight home after the speech. The third possibility has already been mentioned. Trapped by her own pro-life ideology, she simply wanted God to perform an abortion for her. The Christian right would judge her harshly if they found out that was the case. I would not. I understand that it would be difficult to "hold the faith" under those conditions. If she did want God to perform an abortion for her, she still is left with some poor judgment for not using birth control at her age since pregnancy at that age is at high risk of life damaging consequences. All things considered, I think that she simply exercised poor judgment.

In choosing Sarah Palin McCain has signaled a complete sellout to right wing Christian extremist. He will bring them into the white house and remove all barriers separating church and state. He will appoint at least two more extremist Justices in the mold of Alito, Scalia and Roberts. They will strip women of the right to control their own bodies - a right which I contend is more essential and fundamental than the right to life. Remember what Patrick Henry said: "give me liberty or give me death!"

This does not just affect women. If they can deny a woman the right to control her own body, they can deny you the right to even die. Remember what they did to Terri Schiavo. You could be next. The promise and right of death are your most precious possessions. No matter how bad it gets here, the benevolence of nature or God guarantees the right and reality of eventual release. Would we dare to face the vicissitudes and uncertainties of life otherwise. Fates far worse than death exist as John McCain should well know. Republicans would deny you that right to eventual merciful release if they could. Fortunately they can't. Mother nature has our back, but given 2 more Alitos, the Repubs could torture you and your loved ones for a very long time before mother nature's mercy finally steps in and puts a stop to it.

This is your life. This is your body. You should be in control of it. No matter what. Nobody - and certainly, absolutely no government - should have the right to control it for any reason - not even for a reason as emotionally compelling as life. These rights have already been abridged. Those that remain are often violated. The Repubs will completely strip the last of them away if they get the chance. Remember Terri Schiavo. These are the exact people who did that to her and they will do the same thing to you the first chance they get. Do not let them. Stop them now. Defeat John McCain. Do that, also write a medical durable power of attorney and give it someone merciful who will not bat an eye about jerking the plug.

The right to death is the one right that truly is inalienable. God has made it absolutely irrevocable. That does not stop the anti-God fundamentalist Christian extremist from trying to revoke it though. On the other hand, God made the right to life pretty tenuous and iffy. Yuh can liv ifn a meteor don' fall, an ifn the crick don' rise an flood you out, an ifn yuh don' liv in New Awleans when thems Republicuns'r in control - cuz they don' really care about life, they jus care bout control.

If the Repubs actually cared about life they would have some concern about back alley abortions with coat hangers and potassium permanganate that burns holes through the vaginas and into the colons of scared, helpless, defenseless young girls who haven't reached the age of consent or accountability. They are far more concerned about the lives of 5 day old blastocysts which are just tissue - no brain - no spinal column - no heart beat - no respiration - just tissue. It is more important to protect that, then it is to protect the life of an innocent scared teen aged girl who will die a horrible death alone in some dirty back alley in the ghetto. It is OK. The rich kids will fly off to some a modern hospital in some tropical paradise. Who cares about the poor scared girl dying alone in a back alley with her vagina slowly melting down from the chemical burns of potassium permanganate?
See: Blastocyst Culture and Day 5 Transfer
See: Pregnancy and Power
See:DEATH BY POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
See:Criminal Abortion
See:

The World Health Organization estimates that around 68.000 women die every year in the developing world from the effects of unsafe, illegal abortion.

See:When There Was No Choice
See:In Remembrance: Women Who Died from Illegal and Unsafe Abortions
See:>Law in the Philippines reflects most anti-choice ideals: Abortion is illegal and taboo, with only very limited exceptions. And yet the Philippines has a higher abortion rate than the United States. It also has a whole lot more women who are injured and killed by abortion. Some facts:

Start forwarded email chains and send links to this article to all of your contacts with the subject line: Read this - John McCain must be defeated - Please forward. We especially want to reach conservative fundamentalist Christians. The vast majority of them have love in their hearts. They have simply been duped by their corrupt, manipulative, and evil leaders. They simply need to think more deeply about the issues.

Picture of Me - Not Yet Fully Evolved.

I need to write several other articles asap, and I need to work on Obama's campaign. So I will not be defending this article.
________________> It is my baby.
________________> I abandon it like an orphan child,
________________> Much as I was abandoned.
________________> I throw it to the wolves,
________________> Much as I was thrown.
________________> Come it out with hair on its teeth,
________________> Much as I did,
________________> Then it shall have the right to life,
________________> Much as we all do.
________________> It has no right to demand defense.
________________> I created it.
________________> Defend it I would,
________________> Had I the time,
________________> But I am not obligated to.

Posted by Ray Guest at September 6, 2008 9:15 AM
Comments
Comment #261881

The abortion issue should become the major cultural issue of this campaign considering what is at stake. Roe v. Wade hangs by a thread with the current batch of less than qualified SCOTUS judges and the aging moderates and liberals. If McCain gets elected we will likely see the end of safe legal options for women in this country. While, as many conservatives argue, ending Roe v. Wade won’t necessarily end legal abortions all over the US because it will be a state’s rights issue. True, but in essence this becomes a poverty exclusion on choice. Poor women won’t be able to fly to California or to Mexico or wherever they can obtain the procedure. Rich women will always have choice poor women’s rights are what is really being threatened.

The anti-abortion movement talks a great game about preserving life but do little or nothing to preserve it once it leaves the womb. What about child care for all of these poor women that will have to carry their babies to term? What about education for the poor? What about jobs that a single mother can get that will pay for day care so they can work? I have two small children and putting them in the most reasonable day care would be about $1,100/mo - that’s over $13,000 a year. That is about what a minimum wage job pays a year. How is someone supposed to make it on that?

Posted by: tcsned at September 6, 2008 9:29 AM
Comment #261884
I need to write several other articles asap, and I need to work on Obama’s campaign. So I will not be defending this article.

I’m pro-life and I think that this comment was the most rational thing in the article. Nothing like demonization and fear to whip up the base, eh?

Posted by: rhinehold at September 6, 2008 9:38 AM
Comment #261889

First, one can hardly improve on Rhinehold’s comment, but it is fair to point out that the whole article was predicated on innuendo standing in for fact.

Secondly, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned as, in fact, the original plaintiff in that case would have it, individual states would still have to overcome all the “vast” electoral opposition of the pro abortion community to making abortion illegal. The very fact that the Supreme court case is the focus of the discussion reveals the weakness of their political position.

The abortion rights community knows that if they can’t negate your vote in the legislatures of the various states by the fiat of at least five unelected legal sorcerers in black robes they lose.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #261893

Vicki Iseman was married during the time frame that the New York Times noted that top McCain advisors were “convinced the relationship had become romantic” with John McCain. Read the story again with the thought she was married and it changes the story

webofdeception.com

Posted by: Robert Lewis at September 6, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #261901

Ray:

Since you are going to be busy doing other things, I am not going to attempt to argue points with you. I respect that you are putting your energies to use on a cause that you care about. But seeing how you quoted me, I am going to state my opinion on abortion and let it be.

Plain and simple, life begins at some point and time. IMHO at that point and time that person is entitled to all of the human rights that all other people enjoy. I choose to believe that time is at conception, others say it is at birth, Senator Obama defended the position that even after birth the baby is not entitled to those rights.

I personally do not hold anything against a woman that has faced that choice and chose an abortion. I have enough sin in my life that I cannot judge anyone else. I have also faced many difficult decisions in my life, and failed myself in making them. IMHO the “religious right” takes a bum rap on the issue of sin and forgiveness. I belong to a very conservative church, but we are taught that all fall short of the Glory of God and there are none righteous, no not one. we are a very forgiving lot.

Posted by: submarinesforever at September 6, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #261909

submarinesforeve,

You are right about everything you say…it’s the things you don’t say that hedges your bet.

I believe you should not have the right to an abortion. That stems from you religous convictions and your rights under our Constitution. However, if you decide to sin anyway, wouldn’t it be better if you had the legal right to do so? Leaving this up to individual states does just what Ray says. It does not stop abortion, it does not stop rich folks from having the procedure…it ONLY keeps honest, law abiding poor women from fulfilling their life’s promise.

Zygots…embryos…should not have the same citizenship rights as fully developed women. It just does not make practical or common sense to abolish the very law that allows the choise. That only makes sense to religous folks, and as much as I love them, they should not run the rest of us.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 2:13 PM
Comment #261910

Ray, it’s a shame that in your very first sentences, you lost all credibility and fatally torpedoed any argument you might have wanted to make.

The answer seems like it should be obvious. Apparently to Sarah Palin and a few rapists it is not. Perhaps she knows something that I don’t. Maybe she likes “it” rough…

Honestly, if you don’t why starting an article like that calls into question every single word you say afterward, then nobody’s going to be able to explain it to you.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 6, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #261911

I find it most interesting, submarinesforever, that you refer to a woman considering an abortion, for any reason…..a sinner! When did anyone drop that right on you ?
First of all, as toxic a subject as this has become, it just infuriates me that it can still be discussed by some as no more than a decision of what color shoes to wear !
For those proponents on the issue, I personally thank you for the consideration and support. For those who oppose it & make it sound like the most vile action a woman can decide to make, I resent the fact that you feel it’s okay to dicuss our most intimate and personal physical and emotional function on a public forum, using your personal opinion without regard !
This is something that belongs and needs to stay between a woman, her Dr. and her significant other…..PERIOD !!!!
Go pick some other drum to beat !

Posted by: janedoe at September 6, 2008 2:24 PM
Comment #261912

>This is something that belongs and needs to stay between a woman, her Dr. and her significant other…..PERIOD !!!!
Go pick some other drum to beat !

Posted by: janedoe at September 6, 2008 02:24 PM

janedoe,

You are right of course, even if I’m on your side, I should not get involved, but, damnit, the anti’s have a way of setting me off on this issue.

They want to speak as if you, a living, breathing human being has a second class citizenship, and I hate that kind of poop.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #261913

Gentleman,
Instead of trying to take away a Lady’s Civil and Constitutional Rights, maybe the debate should turn to how does America change the debate of the Democratic and Republican Leadership to refelect the Emotions of Society. For why I am sure that most Women would agree that having ever young man reproductive organs removed would slove the abortion problem. In this year of Political History and Change, do you really want to keep debating the same issues using the same words and tactics as your Fathers and Grandfathers?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 6, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #261916

>Instead of trying to take away a Lady’s Civil and Constitutional Rights, maybe having every young man reproductive organs removed would slove the abortion problem.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 6, 2008 02:52 PM

Henry,

I know you say this tongue-in-cheek…but, to be honest, the male of our species has outlived his usefullness. We are no longer needed for the hunt…nor heavy lifting…nor reproduction…so, why not chemically castrate all males under seventy.

I cut off at seventy, because I’ll pass that mark before a bill can be introduced…LOL

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 2:59 PM
Comment #261918

Nice response janedoe.

This is indeed a toxic political issue when one side believes that the other are murderers and the other side believing that their opponents are trying to remove a constitutional right as upheld by the supreme court. No amount of arguing is going to change anyone’s mind.

The one compromise I think that we can all agree on is that we should work to reduce the number of abortions in our country and while I feel the procedure should always remain safe and legal I would prefer if it was rare. Reducing the number of abortions will require that we do more to educate kids about contraception - we have seem how abstinence only doesn’t work at all. If you really want to do something to reduce abortions, how about providing universal child care so if a singe woman does become pregnant she can see a future that is not full of toil and welfare if she does carry her child to term.

Pro-life is a ridiculous term for the anti-abortion crowd. How can you be pro-life when you don’t want to do anything to help struggling mothers once they have their babies? How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty? How can you be pro-life when you support aggressive, unnecessary war? How can you be pro-life when you support the torture of other human beings?

There are people who actually believe in the “culture of life” as outlined by Pope John Paul II and these people deserve to use the term pro-life - but those who only support fetal life fall way short of this ideal and should be called what they are - anti-abortionists.

Posted by: tcsned at September 6, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #261919

dude, my apologies if you thought you might be part of that diatribe.
This whole subject pisses me off….in case you hadn’t picked up on that.
I’m trying to start a movement to have any man who forces himself on a woman castrated. Not chemically….but surgically, totally and hopefully, PAINFULLY !!!! Perhaps that would make a man think for a few seconds before committing rape.
It has more than just a little do with the fact, that this validates the opinion that we still have not “arrived”. Guess that is why I had such mixed emotions watching our nomination process. And don’t anyone throw in here that I should be excited that some bimbo up in bumf**k Alaska is now trying to impose her radical religious extremist beliefs into the mix.
Hmmm….did I take that blood pressure pill yet today??

Posted by: janedoe at September 6, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #261920

LMAO dude !

Posted by: janedoe at September 6, 2008 3:12 PM
Comment #261922

janedoe,
Why castrating a Human is probably out of the question, I do believe that Chastity Belts have been used in the past on some of our ancestors. For like an ankle braclet, could not a piece of equippment be designed to track a Rapist?

BTW, not as PAINFUL for the moment, but I am sure the long term effects would have everlasting results.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 6, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #261923

Thanks tc, and what is so infuriating is that so many feel this is an okay issue to discuss with such venomous accusations on a public forum, which invites all the trolls in the world to drop in and attack us. Not personally, but just by virtue of gender.
I don’t myself believe that abortions should be used for birth control! I believe that females who have reached reproductive age, have not necessarily reached maturity!! So that means that a number of factors are not going to be considered rationally. And in more than a few instances, hormones are going to win out over brain cells.
The day after pill, IMO, is a great thing to consider. That should even satisfy the most rabid abortion opponent, since it only prevents the egg from becoming fertilized.
Life never began, so can’t be ended, but some are so radically opposed to that it doesn’t get much logical consideration.
Oh well, maybe I need two blood pressure pills today………….

Posted by: janedoe at September 6, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #261924

submarines forever,

Please stop making false attributions to Obama. When do the lies stop?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 6, 2008 3:29 PM
Comment #261926

Lee, Have you been to Mississippi lately? For all practical purposes, abortion is illegal there.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 6, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #261927

Well that’s typical Henry…..take the freakin’ responsibility away from the man again. The ankle bracelet tracks his movements, of course, but he has already committed the offense!!!!
And the chastity belt just confirms how long somebody else has been trying to control our bodies.

Posted by: janedoe at September 6, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #261928

The “Antis”, for people who simply believe that once a being with a human genome is alive it should have the rights of a human being in society, is fairly dismissive.

The “rights” of which some of you speak simply did not exist in any form before 1973. They still are not in the text of the Constitution in spite of all the efforts of many to surround that fairly simple document with an obscuring halo of interpretive obfuscation.

If you want them there the process is simple enough. Write and ratify an amendment to the Constitution. If you accomplish this simple task all of our howling becomes mute, no longer the purview of the courts.

It is the fact that the “right” is a figment of interpretation alone that makes this a seething controversy.

So, I note again- even the overturning of Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal. Only the actions of the representatives of the people of the various states, presumably representing the desires of the majority of those people, can make abortion illegal. And even then only one state at a time.

(tcsend, You will of course note the presence of the States’ Rights issue applied in a very different context from our dicussion on the other string.)

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #261930

One other alternate explanation for Palin’s decision give a speech, then fly from Texas to Alaska, even while leaking amniotic fluid with a premature, DS pregnancy. Palin claims she wanted the baby to be born in Alaska.

It seems unbelievable, yet Palin is radical in her loyalty to Alaska, as her involvement with the Alaska Independence Party demonstrates. She willingly risked her life and the life of the baby in order to make sure the baby was born in Alaska, not Texas.

Really, it would be easier to believe she was trying to protect her daughter by pretending to be pregnant, but the facts indicate otherwise.

Sarah Palin is a strange woman. She is ignorant, yet strongly opinionated. There is a good reason the McCain campaign will not allow her to answer questions.

Posted by: phx8 at September 6, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #261931

Okay phx8, your thory has some logic to it, based on her obsessive beliefs. But what I would like to know is what is it costing (ultimately all of us) to keep her mouth shut when not on a leash???

Posted by: janedoe at September 6, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #261932

Marysdude:

“You are right about everything you say…it’s the things you don’t say that hedges your bet. I believe you should not have the right to an abortion. That stems from you religous convictions and your rights under our Constitution. However, if you decide to sin anyway, wouldn’t it be better if you had the legal right to do so? Leaving this up to individual states does just what Ray says. It does not stop abortion, it does not stop rich folks from having the procedure…it ONLY keeps honest, law abiding poor women from fulfilling their life’s promise.” I too feel that abortion is not a right. However, it is the law of the land. I am not trying to hedge my bet, but I am stating what I think is right and am allowing for people to make up their own minds by following their own beliefs and convictions. Again I want to say that I am in no position to judge a person. That position is reserved for Jesus.

Janedoe:

“I find it most interesting, submarinesforever, that you refer to a woman considering an abortion, for any reason…..a sinner! When did anyone drop that right on you?” First of all, I did not say that considering an abortion is a sin. Having an abortion is murder and therefore a sin. It is just that simple by my beliefs.

What gives me the right to say someone is a sinner? That also is simple. According to my beliefs everyone that has ever lived is a sinner, with the exception of Jesus. Here is the part that, IMHO, people are overlooking….there is no relativism in sin. To put it more plainly, when I sit down and drink some beer while I watch a football game, I am sinning. When someone has an abortion they are, IMHO, committing no greater sin than me sitting down with some Octoberfest watching a football game. The key is that if I recognize that I am a sinner, I should focus on what I am doing, and therefore cannot judge anyone else for their transgressions. It is when one judges others sins that they are assuming the duties that only Jesus can fufill, which is of course another sin.

“I’m trying to start a movement to have any man who forces himself on a woman castrated. Not chemically….but surgically, totally and hopefully, PAINFULLY !!!! Perhaps that would make a man think for a few seconds before committing rape.” If you start this movement, let me know and I will support you. I have no problem with castration of rapists and child molesters.

If you have any questions of why I believe as I do, please ask. I do not believe that we are far apart on our views, but IMHO the stigma of the subject makes us unnecessarily defensive to the opposing view. I would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, but to be frank it does not affect my beliefs one way or another. What I think is right or wrong is rarely tied to what is legal.

Googleumpuugus:

“submarines forever,

Please stop making false attributions to Obama. When do the lies stop?”

You, Sir, are accusing me of lying. Senator Obama fought against a bill that allowed for the medical treatment of a baby born after a botched abortion. He did not vote present, but took the floor in vocal opposition to the bill. Please refute my claims or stop the smears which are against the rules of participation of this site.

Posted by: submarinesforever at September 6, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #261934
Sarah Palin is a strange woman. She is ignorant, yet strongly opinionated. There is a good reason the McCain campaign will not allow her to answer questions.

There is something about strong opinions and ignorance that seem to be bedfellows.

If your intelligence tree doesn’t grow very tall you can’t see through the taller trees or really even realize that there is such a thing as a taller tree.

I think they believe that they can out last the press for 60 days and not have this person answer a single question. They’ll blame it on the evil liberal press because they won’t treat her fair. Like ask questions about policy. Those evil media people! Of course the real reason is she can’t answer the questions because she doesn’t understand the issues past what she has been told to say by Bush/McCain handlers. Someone in the evil, liberal press might ask a follow up question or a question on her stance on abortion that would end any hopes of support from moderates or Hillary supporters.

Posted by: tcsned at September 6, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #261944

Choice is the only issue. If a woman can be forced to bear a child against her will, she is not a free person, but is the property of someone else, or the state.

My experience in this area is very small, since most of the people I know are not ignorant of birth control. I had the “talk” with my step daughter, when she was determined to start a serious relationship with a young man whom she later married.

A good “over 40 mother of 5” friend of mine became pregnant by her boyfriend while estranged from her husband. Everyone advised her to have an abortion. It was legal for her to do so. She had the child, who is doing well, and younger than 2 of her grandchildren.

Another friend of mind was raising her 13 year old granddaughter while her daughter was a dialysis patient. The granddaughter, a tiny little girl with glasses, became pregnant. Everyone advised her to have an abortion. She had the baby. Her grandmother sued the parents of the boy for child support.

Women have choices because abortion is legal, not necessarily abortions because choice is legal.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 6, 2008 5:29 PM
Comment #261954




All,

Thanks for your comments. I will monitor the discussion. Here are the 4 pictures that should have appeared in my article. I think that I figured out the problem.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 6, 2008 6:29 PM
Comment #261955

No, I didn’t figure out the problem.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 6, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #261975

I hate to say it, but that was one of the most meandering and extreme post I have ever read on watchblog. My goodness and good grief, is this what the Left is coming to?

Despite being “non-progressive”, some of us have a hard time with infanticide being portrayed as “liberation” and having the nations dumpsters and landfills become the coffins and cememtaries for many of this nations unborn babies. It is simplre barbarism hiding under the blood spattered cloak of convenience and womans rights.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 6, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #261979

Submarineforever,

If you do not wish to be called on repeating lies, then stop repeating them.

“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

That was Obama’s stance. By changing the meaning of words, you participate in the smear of the pro-life liars who continue to try to find dishonest ways around Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 6, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment #261993

Good article, Ray. Thanks for quoting me, and linking to my previous post — I’m very flattered.

Should Women Control Their Own Bodies?

Even posing this question is an insult to the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
It should go without saying, but I’ll go ahead and say it anyway:
Yes, women should control their own bodies, and after thirty years of easily accessible birth control, and (if they so choose) medically safe and sanitary abortions, we will continue to do so. NO MATTER WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DO.
We aren’t going back to back alley, coat-hanger abortions, or obscene horrors like potassium permanganate.

DID YOU HEAR THAT Lee Jamison, and submarinesforever, and David Huntwork, etc, etc.?
Allow me to repeat it:
YOU WILL NOT CONTROL US, AND WE AREN’T GOING BACK.

Many of us don’t care if the Religious Right finally finds a way to outlaw birth control and abortion. If it is outlawed, then legions of women (and likely as many men) will then become outlaws. You’ll have to fill jails all over America with the likes of us. But no matter what you do, we will continue to help other women remain in control their own bodies, and avoid your demand for forced, mandatory motherhood on this entire nation.
No matter how abortion laws are changed, women all over this country will make sure that our sisters will not have to die as we did in the past. And I include myself in this number who will take whatever risks are necessary to do so.

The illogical reasoning, the screaming intolerance and pulpit pounding control-freakishness of American Religious Extremists WILL NOT deter us.

phx8:

One other alternate explanation for Palin’s decision give a speech, then fly from Texas to Alaska, even while leaking amniotic fluid with a premature, DS pregnancy. Palin claims she wanted the baby to be born in Alaska.

It seems unbelievable, yet Palin is radical in her loyalty to Alaska, as her involvement with the Alaska Independence Party demonstrates. She willingly risked her life and the life of the baby in order to make sure the baby was born in Alaska, not Texas.

Really, it would be easier to believe she was trying to protect her daughter by pretending to be pregnant, but the facts indicate otherwise.

Yes, that could certainly be the truth. But as you say, it seems so Unbelievable.
And that being the case, could it be that there is something else that went on here?
Allow me, just for the hell of it, to throw out another theory (no, I don’t have any proof of any of this). Bear with me while I lay out few thoughts that a friend and I were having the other day while discussing how unbelievable Palin’s story is:

What if Sarah Palin’s fifth baby isn’t hers at all? We know it’s not her young teen daughter’s, because she’s supposedly five months pregnant right now.
But what if after McCain became the nominee, the Neocons picked Palin out to fill the VP slot because they knew that by himself McCain wasn’t going to be able to keep them in the White House on his own? So, what if the Neocon powers-that-be in the GOP picked out Palin and knew well ahead of time that they’d be forcing her on McCain?

Remember now, we know he’s really not the one in charge of his own campaign, and we know he “didn’t get what he wanted” as far as the VP choice went.

But to continue, here we have an attractive woman (to counter Hillary) who is a Neocon True Believer and Loyal Foot Soldier for Corporate Interests, especially Oil Interests. She is Mega-Ambitious, and Willing to do ANYTHING. But most importantly, she is a Culture Warrior for the rabid, mouth-breathing Dominionists.
What could possibly counter the overwhelming demand for Change after the Unmitigated Disaster that have been the Bush Years? They knew they couldn’t possibly run on the issues (since they intend to keep everything exactly as they are now), but what could be more appealing and ready to fire up their sagging, flagging, and horribly discouraged base than to restart the Culture War? Now starring a Gun-Toting Beauty Contestant of an Anti-abortion Fanatic with five kids — including a four month old infant with a disability like Downs Syndrome?
Now, go ahead and call me crazy for throwing out such a wild theory, but I’m am a woman, and I know what a pregnant woman carrying a child in her seventh month looks like — and it ain’t what Sarah Palin looked like. Period.
Seriously, show those pictures of Palin to any mature woman you happen to know, and then ask her if that woman looks as though she is seven months pregnant.
I don’t care how small that baby was at birth, Palin wasn’t showing AT ALL. And that makes absolutely no sense. Nor does the idea that a woman who had previously given birth to four children be able to fly around and change planes for 11-12 hours after her water had already broken. And then when she gets on the ground, is somehow still able to go out of her way to drive another forty five minutes in order to give birth to a DS baby (supposedly it also came by induced labor?!?!) in a Wasilla hospital that didn’t have an NICU.
I know, I know, it’s just a crazy crack-pot theory — but remember that’s what they also said to Darwin, too. :^)
All I know is that nothing about Palin’s pregnancy story makes any sense to me at all, nor does it make sense to any woman friend I’ve discussed this with — including a couple of Republican-leaning women I know.

Sarah Palin is a strange woman.

Well, her story is certainly Strange. Indeed it is Totally Unbelievable. Bizarrely so.

She is ignorant, yet strongly opinionated.

Naturally — she’s a true believing Neocon/Dominionist. Ignorant, yet completely willing to tell outrageous lies and feel zero remorse, as long as they win and get their way.

There is a good reason the McCain campaign will not allow her to answer questions.

I think it’s likely she’s as much of a mentally challenged puppet as GWBush. And just like W she certainly fit the bill (on so many levels) to help the Neocons win this election against all odds.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 7, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #261996

Republican Position: Women should control their own bodies.

Democrat Position: Women should control their own bodies. Except women under the age of nine months, who can be bathed in caustic liquid, stabbed, and then chopped into bits if their existence is somehow deemed inconvenient to others.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 7, 2008 1:27 AM
Comment #261998

VV,
The Sarah Palin story does not check out. Something is wrong. I don’t know what is missing, but something is being left out. She goes from not showing at all to obviously showing within a very short time. In addition, Sarah Palin knew she was in a DS pregnancy, and many of those pregnancies end in miscarriage. Furthermore, a miscarriage that far in the pregnancy could be life threatening. Yet after she started leaking, Sarah Palin delivered a speech, then jumped on a plane, drove 45 minutes to a small hospital…

It’s interesting that she’s being held incommunicado by the GOP. She will only be allowed to deliver scripted speeches for the foreseeable future. Part of it, no doubt, is that Sarah Palin is an ignorant person. Another part is that there is a lot of fear in the McCain camp of more damaging scandals coming to light.

Supposedly the McCain campaign is educating her on national and foreign policy. I’d be willing to bet she is not a well-read or particularly inquisitive person- it goes with the whole creationist/Global Warming denial thing- and the McCain campaign is finding itself trying to educate her from scratch. I mean, they are starting with ‘zero,’ and progress from there is probably slow.

I still think she will be gone soon.

She will withdraw due to ‘personal reasons.’ It will all be framed as the fault of the big bad media and those awful (sob) awful Democrats. But in truth, she’s tainted by scandal, and not up to the job, even by Republican standards- and that is a pretty damning indictment.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 1:29 AM
Comment #261999

Loyal Opposition,
Have you ever known a woman who has undergone an abortion?

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #262000
The Sarah Palin story does not check out. Something is wrong. I don’t know what is missing, but something is being left out.

Oh, give it up already. You don’t know what’s wrong but you’re sure something is? Maybe a Magic 8-Ball will tell you. It can’t hurt to ask!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 7, 2008 1:49 AM
Comment #262001

Loyal Opposition,
It won’t be a Magic 8-Ball that tells me, much as I like them. Enquiring minds want to know. Nuff said.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 1:58 AM
Comment #262002

Well for what it’s worth, I also feel there is something very strange about this whole thing. The campaign handlers are keeping her away from the press and have said it would be two weeks before she could face them.
The “troopergate” investigation has been pushed back by a couple of weeks, since subpoenas are having to be issued to those who had once agreed to testify and have now changed their minds.
Am I getting immune to her, or has there been fewer mentions of her today?
The campaign is definitely stalling and buying time…..but for what??

Posted by: janedoe at September 7, 2008 2:43 AM
Comment #262003

janedoe,
Sarah Palin has already demonstrated her comfort with telling lies. She lied without batting an eyelash at the GOP convention. She pretended she fought against corruption and pork, but in fact she was one of three directors on a Ted Stevens 527, and her handwriting is on the documents collecting some pork for her constituents. She mocked community service, obviously unaware of the role played by community organizers. That was truly ugly.

I strongly suspect she also lied to the McCain campaign during her vetting process. She would not be the first person to lie in order to achieve high office, and she will not be the last. Few will crash and burn and badly as her… And from what I have seen so far, few more richly deserve it-

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 3:02 AM
Comment #262008

janedoe,
Sorry for the delay, but had to go to work before I could answer you. However, I do not believe the Courts of America should be allowed to pass punishment on a person before they commit a crime. Nevertheless, I do believe that the Mission Statement of the Personal Defense Industry will cover your concern about stopping an attacker. For why pepper spary and other non lethal methods and weapons have come a long way, I do see the day when some young mind will discover a device that can stop even the strongest willed person died in their tracks and hold them until the Authorities arrive.

BTW, personally I believe that Every Female should be taught how to use the body pressure points as part as Self-Defense.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 7, 2008 7:48 AM
Comment #262009

Well, this should be an interesting week. The Enquirer plans to run with the affair story this coming week.

Perhaps that is why she is sequestered. That and the Stepford indoctrination.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 7, 2008 9:23 AM
Comment #262013

Perhaps she’ll suddenly decide to spend more time with her family.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 7, 2008 11:08 AM
Comment #262020

goog….we all know that keeping her sequestered is about the only way to keep her mouth under control.
I’ll agree that the Enquirer is a rag, but you’ve got to admit they have nailed a few well knowns before on their discretions. This (lady) is vicious and vindictive….two lethal traits….and probably more like Bush than McCain ever thought of being. The thought of her being anywhere in close proximity to that little red button sets off all kinds of alarms !
This will, indeed, be an interesting week.

Posted by: janedoe at September 7, 2008 12:52 PM
Comment #262022

submarine

However, if you decide to sin anyway, wouldn’t it be better if you had the legal right to do so?

You are using the word sin to castigate a person who may or may not have any particular religious leanings. That concept is fine for you since you are a member of a cult crowd. For you to use the word sin on me has no significance because I am not a supporter of your faith based organization. The result being that I am under no obligation to share an ideology that is not centered around fact. So by my reasoning the term sin, being based in cult belief, and assumed to be so by way of faith, exists only in your religious reality. For the rest it is not a valid reality.

Your approach to this issue falls apart because you are attempting to force a fundamental religious belief into decisions of state. I can’t speak for janedoe but I have a real problem with you folks trying to force your sanctimonious views and opinions down the throats of the rest of us. Those views are best left at church and should have no consideration in determining law. In order to keep faith based ideology out of the equation the idea of when life begins must be determine by scientific fact as opposed to religious ideology. The fact is that the process does not begin until egg and sperm come together.

Posted by: RickIL at September 7, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #262029

You’re speaking the same language, RickIl…keep it up!
Looked like time to insert a little comedy into the mix. If this is posted somewhere else, I apologize.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184111&title=john-mccains-big-acceptance

Posted by: janedoe at September 7, 2008 4:15 PM
Comment #262033

RickIL:

“However, if you decide to sin anyway, wouldn’t it be better if you had the legal right to do so?” I do not understand why you address me then quote someone else. These are not my words and are not my feelings on the issue.

“You are using the word sin to castigate a person who may or may not have any particular religious leanings. That concept is fine for you since you are a member of a cult crowd.” Given that I said,”I am sinning. When someone has an abortion they are, IMHO, committing no greater sin than me sitting down with some Octoberfest watching a football game. The key is that if I recognize that I am a sinner, I should focus on what I am doing, and therefore cannot judge anyone else for their transgressions. It is when one judges others sins that they are assuming the duties that only Jesus can fufill, which is of course another sin.”, I sir do not see any definition of castigate that fits my words.

“Your approach to this issue falls apart because you are attempting to force a fundamental religious belief into decisions of state. I can’t speak for janedoe but I have a real problem with you folks trying to force your sanctimonious views and opinions down the throats of the rest of us. Those views are best left at church and should have no consideration in determining law.” Again I said, “I would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, but to be frank it does not affect my beliefs one way or another. What I think is right or wrong is rarely tied to what is legal.”. How in this am I trying to force my views down anyones’ throat?

To break it down for you, I really do not care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned or not. It is my belief that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. It is also my belief that the sin in my life disqualifies me from judging anyone else, and in the end, I am answerable for my actions only. But I do have the right and responsibility to speak out on what is right and wrong. Everyone has to form their own beliefs and is responsible for those decisions.

For this view you claim that I am a cultist that is castigating and forcing my views on others. It really is good to discuss this issue with an opened minded liberal Democrat.

Googleumpuugus:

Senator Obama got an ammendment passed that made the Illinois bill mirror the federal lealislation that passed without opposition, then took the floor against the bill. this issue has been dealt with before on this blog, but we can rehash it if need be. The words I spoke are true, Senator took the position that a baby being born alive after a botched abortion has no right to medical care and therefore no right to life.

Posted by: submarinesforever at September 7, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #262034

janedoe

Thanks for the link. I rarely miss a Daily Show. The Friday night segment had to be among one of the funniest. Actually the whole week was hilarious. Not only was this particular segment hilarious but it was also very truthful and revealing. I generally call it a night and shut the lights off after The Daily Show. It’s always nice to hit the hay with a smile on my face. :)

Posted by: RickIL at September 7, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #262035

And as many times as you have cited that in here submarines….. it has been countered with the fact that as presented and altered would NEGATE Roe v Wade, because it inadvertenly nullifies the intent and act of the abortion.
Now you may not like, or agree with the abortion rights, but somebody tried to sneak through some ambiguity that would cancel what some of us have fought long to protect.

Posted by: janedoe at September 7, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #262044

submarine

My apologies in giving claim to words where they are not due and charges of castigation. Your writing style does not very clearly define where the context of the argument starts and the rebuttal begins. Not the first time I have to quickly jumped in, and probably not the last.

Never the less you base much of your ideology on religious belief. You imply that women who consider abortions are sinners and apply that label to them. You would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned because you view the abortion of a fetus as murder. Yet you really don’t care one way or the other. Are you telling me that you can justify placing sinners and murderers within the same context and not consider them one and the same? When your beliefs enter into the equation of what you believe law should be, they then become part of the reasoning process, whether they change or not. A reasoning process that is used to influence your views and direction in relation to how you believe others should live. The moment you bring it to light and apply it to an issue it becomes a part of your ideology making that ideology applicable to the issue at hand. I think you may be using your analogy of belief to mask an agenda that is based in faith.

Posted by: RickIL at September 7, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #262048

RickIL,

From a philosophical standpoint, just because one can’t self-identify the source of one’s view of reality, or one seeks to sterilize that source with some form of secularity (theres a book in these concepts) does not mean the belief structure itself is any less religious. The religious mind will look at the “truth” of the secular mind and seeflaws verging on superstition while the secular mind will look at the religious mind will look at the and see superstition.

The most ardent Catholic I know is a professional astronomer. She has an extremely keen grasp, not only of reality, but of aspects of how she knows that reality. That secular knowledge does not in any way relieve the mystery of the existential entity growing in her womb.

If that entity is not sacred to you, though it is unquestionably human, even if denying so is reserved to some specific period of time or age or development, you have reserved to yourself to deny that sacrednass to anyone else who “gets in your way”, as it were.

Today we confidently reject German atrocities against Jews, but in abotion we accept the cognitive mechanism by which they were able to did them. Jews, like fetuses, weren’t human.

If we can accept one the other is, eventually, inevitable.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 7, 2008 7:37 PM
Comment #262049

…by which they were able to DO them..

Gee whiz, All the way to the end of an impassioned speech, only to end it with a stupid gramatical error!!!

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 7, 2008 7:42 PM
Comment #262052

Lee

From a philosophical standpoint, just because one can’t self-identify the source of one’s view of reality, or one seeks to sterilize that source with some form of secularity (theres a book in these concepts) does not mean the belief structure itself is any less religious.

I am not attempting to validate one way or the other any particular belief structure. If people want to dabble in theology that is fine. I see on one side a belief structure that is based on teachings that require faith to validate them. On the other side I see a belief system that is validated by realities that exist in my dimension. I do not go around seeking to actively admonish those who worship a deity. I do think the church has many valuable attributes that are capable of being without the need to worship an idol. I do however draw a line when it comes to attempts to force those theologically faith based concepts into my life by way of law.

I am not so shallow or lacking of depth that I have no imagination or ability to marvel at the wonders of this universe which we as yet can not explain or understand. There is a lot that we do not understand and probably much more that we are not even aware of, that most likely will be understood as science and humanity evolve. I however refuse to stagnate in a belief system that decries all science that is adverse to its leanings.

Gee whiz, All the way to the end of an impassioned speech, only to end it with a stupid gramatical error!!!

Don’t you hate it when that happens. That is the problem with impassioned speeches. They tend to flow out of our minds faster than our fingers. :)

Posted by: RickIL at September 7, 2008 8:41 PM
Comment #262060

Submarinesforever,

Apparently, you can’t read either. I quoted Obama. A non viable fetus is not a baby and is in no need of medical assistance. But thanks for cramming your religious voodoo down our throats. That you cannot distinguish a lie from the truth is not surprising.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 7, 2008 9:57 PM
Comment #262079

All,

Thanks for your comments.

I am disappointed that none of the pro-lifers here have challenged the logic of my argument yet. I knew that my logic was unassailable but I expected a few weak assails at least.

Some have dismissed my argument as too inflammatory. It is provocative but they have not challenged its logic.

Others have attempted to change the narrative by asserting that Obama wants to kill live babies while conveniently ignoring that the reality is that he was actually having the political courage to stand up to an underhanded attempt to legally define a blastocyst as a human being when it is just tissue with no heart beat, no brain, no spinal column, and no respiration.

Others, have fallen back on the tired assertion that abortion is murder without providing any logical argument for why the fetus should have the right to compel its mother to provide the services of her body to keep it alive, when she, and they, are not obligated to provide the services of their bodies to keep me alive. What special human right does the fetus have that I do not have? No answer to that question = no challenge to my argument. No challenge to my argument = my argument stands. My argument stands = the arguments of the pro-life movement are defeated.


Posted by: Ray Guest at September 8, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #262081

Indeed.
Very well done, Ray.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 12:18 AM
Comment #262082

googlumpuugus,

“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

That was Obama’s stance. By changing the meaning of words, you participate in the smear of the pro-life liars who continue to try to find dishonest ways around Roe v. Wade.

Submarineforever did not repeat any lies. It is Obama who repeats lies when he says that he would have voted for the federal BAIPA when he voted against the law in Illinois 3 times, the final time as chairman of the committee killing the bill denying the full Senate the opportunity to vote on it.

Here is the text of the Bill Obama voted to kill in committee.

“(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, egulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

“(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.

“(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive’ as defined in this section.”.

- The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. Sens. Kennedy and Boxer spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL expressed neutrality.

- Obama actively opposed nearly identical legislation in Illinois, the only state senator to speak against Illinois’ Born Alive two years in a row.

- In 2003, Obama almost single-handedly stopped nearly identical legislation to the federal Born Alive Act from being introduced in the Illinois Senate as chairman of the Health and Human Services committee.

- The legislation finally passed in Illinois in 2005 – the year after Obama left the Illinois Senate.

Posted by: Kirk at September 8, 2008 12:30 AM
Comment #262083

janedoe,

I find it most interesting, submarinesforever, that you refer to a woman considering an abortion, for any reason…..a sinner!

It is very easy to call any of these women sinners because they most certainly are. Just as any woman who does not have an abortion is a sinner. All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. But that is beside the point.

Submarinesforever did not call anyone a sinner other than himself. His exact words were; “I have enough sin in my life that I cannot judge anyone else.” Far cry from calling someone a sinner.

Posted by: Kirk at September 8, 2008 12:37 AM
Comment #262086

Kirk,

“It is Obama who repeats lies….”

Yet you offer no proof….I wonder why? Could it be that you are lying?

Repeating the text of a subversive bill that pushes a religious agenda doesn’t exactly help your case.

Is your theory that if you repeat it loudly and long enough, it will become truth?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 8, 2008 1:02 AM
Comment #262087

janedoe,

And as many times as you have cited that in here submarines….. it has been countered with the fact that as presented and altered would NEGATE Roe v Wade, because it inadvertenly nullifies the intent and act of the abortion.

That is either a intellectually dishonest statement or you have not read the bill, which is it? I have posted the verbatim wording of the bill Obama killed in committee a few posts above. Please enlighten us by highlighting the exact words in the bill that would negate Roe v Wade!!!!

Oh by the way Obama’s campaign has now admitted that he did indeed vote against a bill identical to the federal BAIPA that he claims he would have voted for, even though he voted against the Illinois bill after the federal bill had already passed. Wonder when that little tidbit will be covered by the mainstream media?

Posted by: Kirk at September 8, 2008 1:02 AM
Comment #262088

Kirk,

In my religion you are specifically named as Satan. I’m sorry but my God say you should be annihilated.

So please don’t be offended when you are removed from earth.

BTW, my religion is right, but yours is wrong.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 8, 2008 1:07 AM
Comment #262089

Rick,

I do however draw a line when it comes to attempts to force those theologically faith based concepts into my life by way of law.

Do you not see that you are doing exactly what you say you will draw the line at? There is a rather large segment of the population that feel abortion is wrong and should not be allowed in this country. There is also a large segment of the population who take the exact opposite view on the subject. You claim that the “pro-life” group are trying to force their religious beliefs down your throat. Have you ever stopped to consider that you are forcing your atheistic, agnostic etc. views down their throats?

Their belief in the sanctity of life is every bit as strong as your belief in the woman’s right to choose how to deal with the pregnancy. Either way the decision is made on Roe v Wade, one group is going to have something shoved down their throat.

Posted by: Kirk at September 8, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #262090

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents’ criticism of Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations — or made the accusations themselves — that Obama’s opposition amounted to support for infanticide. In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

On the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama “believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion,” while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama “wants the doctors … chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed.” Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that “[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion,” and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama’s opposition was “enabling infanticide.” In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

It’s been said that, if it weren’t for lack of context, there would be no news.

You have to consider the source.

One source of these claims is Jerome Corsi, who has also written that McCain made his wealth through the Mafia and that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration.

Another source of these claims is Jill Stanek, who says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions. She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say “Faithful Condom Users” in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use. She claims that “aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies” in China to which she added, “I think this stuff is happening.”

Don’t extremist conservatives think it might hurt their cause to put out stuff that’s so easily debunked? or do they not think their audience would feel its intelligence is being insulted?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 8, 2008 1:22 AM
Comment #262097
Have you ever stopped to consider that you are forcing your atheistic, agnostic etc. views down their throats?

No. Because religious people are free to choose for themselves as far as we’re concerned. The problem is this same group of people don’t want the rest of us to be similarly free to choose for ourselves.

Their belief in the sanctity of life is every bit as strong as your belief in the woman’s right to choose how to deal with the pregnancy. Either way the decision is made on Roe v Wade, one group is going to have something shoved down their throat.

Wrong. If the religious believe so strongly in the “sanctity of life”, they don’t ever have to use birth control or have any abortions. It really is that simple — no matter how illogical those views may seem to so many of us.
I mean, I personally can’t help but follow this idea to it’s logical conclusion — that every time these folks fail to take advantage of an opportunity for fertilization through sexual intercourse, it’s akin to going against their God by denying a potential for life. Which is, the way they see it, equivalent to murder.
Anyway, no matter how illogical these beliefs may be, they should never have an impact on the rest of us when we don’t share them.
It’s called Freedom. A really basic concept that Americans are supposed to embrace: that all people have to do is stay out of each others very private and personal business.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 2:08 AM
Comment #262108

RickIL:

“Are you telling me that you can justify placing sinners and murderers within the same context and not consider them one and the same?” Just to simplify my beliefs:

1. Everyone is a sinner, with te exception of Jesus.
2. My responsibility is my actions. I will answer for my sins only.
3. As it applies to sins, all sins are equal(there is one exception that is in no way relevant to this discussion). Does that mean that if someone commits a murder it is no different than if I get drunk? In this context there is no difference. This does not mean that I think the criminal law should reflect that view? It should not.

Ray:

“I need to write several other articles asap, and I need to work on Obama’s campaign. So I will not be defending this article.” and “am disappointed that none of the pro-lifers here have challenged the logic of my argument yet. I knew that my logic was unassailable but I expected a few weak assails at least.” You authored a nice article and in it backed out of the discussion. Speaking for myself, I did not direct any rebuttal to you out of respect for you and your other work, not because of your unassailable logic.

Kirk:

Thank you for your kind words and efforts, you saved me a lot of research time and made the point better than I would have.

Posted by: submarinesforever at September 8, 2008 5:36 AM
Comment #262124

Ray,

No argument? That’s silly. You are talking about a form of eviction that is intended to cause death. It is the only area of law in America where so little due process goes into killing a human being.

I do not support forcing women to carry pregnancies caused by rape or incest to term, nor do I personally reject the use of drugs which prevent the implantation of an embryo in the uterus, such as RU 486. The one is tantamount to the issue at work in the Third Amendment and in the case of the other there was never a “home” created in the first place. In every other case you’re talking about a human who was allowed to make a home, eviction from which is INTENDED to cause death.

The principal issue, therefore, really is whether the fetus is human and posesses human rights.

That is a legitimate argument, Ray.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 8, 2008 9:57 AM
Comment #262125

googlumugus,

You wrote:

Yet you offer no proof….I wonder why? Could it be that you are lying?
The pro-life movement does spread lies and half truths but most proponents believe them. Please be careful not to violate the WB rules of participation. We need you here. I am not sure if you crossed the line here but you are close. Better to have said something like: Your message contains lies and willful distortions commonly repeated by pro-life proponents. I assume that you believe them. That keeps the focus on the message and not on the person
.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 8, 2008 10:07 AM
Comment #262127

Kirk,

You wrote:

That is either a intellectually dishonest statement or you have not read the bill, which is it?
You are close too - same warning I offered googlumpugus.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 8, 2008 10:11 AM
Comment #262128

submarinesforever,

You wrote:

Speaking for myself, I did not direct any rebuttal to you out of respect for you and your other work, not because of your unassailable logic.
You said the same early in the thread. I wrote this in a provocative tone and “threw it to wolves.” My intent was to indicate that it was subject to attack. By all means, take the gloves off and assail away… We are not writing to each other. I will not change your mind. you will not change mine. We are writing to an audience. They need to hear this fought out so they can decide for themselves.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 8, 2008 10:25 AM
Comment #262133

Kirk

I do however draw a line when it comes to attempts to force those theologically faith based concepts into my life by way of law.

Do you not see that you are doing exactly what you say you will draw the line at?

I am forcing nothing on you. If you want to get an abortion please feel free to do so. If you would prefer not to that is fine also. The difference here is that my reasoning has nothing to do with a concept that is based in a reality which relies on faith as opposed to fact in efforts to substantiate its views. We have had this conversation before and I really do not care to go over it all again. There is no middle ground for compromise here. The reality of my situation is very simple. I would prefer that cult beliefs not be applied to reasoning which affects law. It is up to the lawmakers of this nation to decide when life begins and how that affects the decisions a woman makes. Views based on religious belief should have no bearing on the situation. Personally I see no value in regression to the days in which a woman must assume a submissive posture with the man having the ultimate say in how she goes about her life. A policy which certain factions of modern day Christianity practice to this day. If you wish to attack the issue based on common sense and a legal description of when life begins that is fine. But please do not come in here throwing words like sinner and heathen around. They have no meaning to those of us who do not not aspire to the cult concept. They are better off left in the church where like minded people can get together and discuss the values of living in fear of a merciful god.

Posted by: RickIL at September 8, 2008 11:40 AM
Comment #262156

Ray,
Thanks for the guideline.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 8, 2008 1:26 PM
Post a comment