Third Party & Independents Archives

Santorum: No woman can ever have an abortion ... except my wife

Rick Santorum is one dangerously denial-ridden hypocrite. He’s best known for his inability to associate his professed compassion for life at the level of the zygote, with the physical realities of human sexuality. He said same-sex relationships lead *DIRECTLY* to bestiality. He said that abortion should be outlawed, INCLUDING when the pregnancy is the result of rape and/or incest. He is opposed to abortion under absolutely any circumstance. Well … almost.

In October, 1996, Rick Santorum’s wife Karen had a second-trimester abortion. But the Santorums don’t like to describe it that way. Instead, they call it “a necessary interruptive surgical procedure to save the mother’s life that resulted in the death of the fetus.” How that is anything other than the literal clinical definition of “abortion” is something that can only be found in the dementia of faux-Christian hypocrisy.

Newsflash: Calling it anything other than the word “abortion” doesn’t change the fact that it was, in fact, an abortion.

In this 2006 video, released by the Santorum campaign, Karen Santorum says, "I think it's really sad, I think it's tragic, that our opponent would use my family, go after my children, in the way he has, for political gain."

What's conveniently lost on Mrs. Santorum is how she and her husband are going after everybody else's families and children every day, for political gain.

But the devastating ordeal of losing their child was apparently not so heart-rending and "deeply, totally personal" that it stopped the Santorums from cashing in with a book about it. Yes, you can buy Letters to Gabriel from most religion-focused book stores for the bargain-basement price of only about 20 bucks. The Santorums define the book as ""a celebration of our son's life."

When posturing in South Carolina last week, Santorum said that "Neither rape, incest or a threat to the mother's health is an excuse to commit the crime of having an abortion." Asked what he would do if his own daughter approached him, begging for an abortion after having been raped, Santorum said he would counsel her to "accept this horribly created" baby, because it was still a gift from God, even if given in a "broken" way. Santorum said that any exception to a prohibition on abortion "would be taking a life" and he advocates that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.

Except ... of course ... for the doctor who performed Karen Santorum's abortion. In the ever-in-your-face Republican hypocritical manner, Santorum says that situation was "different."

Funny how in all that time, he never once mentioned how his views should have applied to his own wife, Karen, who:

had a live-in unmarried relationship with an abortion doctor who is 40 years older than she is;
left that man to begin her relationship with Santorum, whom she described at the time as "a fascinatingly open-minded and pro-choice man"; and
had a voluntary second-trimester abortion in her 19th week of pregnancy.

But whether or not Karen Santorum had an abortion or medically induced the birth of a non-viable fetus shouldn't matter in the eyes of someone with views as extreme as Santorum, as he is one of a disturbingly large group of politicians -- conveniently, all men -- who believe that women should not be allowed to abort under any circumstances. Santorum's even against abortion if there were no hope of the fetus surviving to full term, or even if the woman carrying the fetus risked death by doing so. Karen Santorum would have died if the fetus were not removed, and labor was induced and not halted knowing that the fetus would not survive. How is this not, in every sense of the word, an "abortion"? In Santorum's world, it would probably qualify as "justifiable infanticide."

The hairsplitting debate over whether or not the procedure Karen Santorum had been an abortion only serves to expose the ludicrousness of Rick Santorum's extremism. In his view, it's absolutely not okay for a woman to have doctors remove her life-threatening pregnancy for her, but it is okay for a woman to deliver a fetus long viability so that the child can die slowly, in open air, as "god" intended? Or is it just not okay for any woman to have an abortion if she doesn't happen to be Rick Santorum's wife?

According to Santorum, the U.S. federal government is too big. It's too big to get into our school classrooms. It's too big to get into our mortgages. It's too big to get into providing basic, common survival services for the most down-trodden of Americans. The federal government is just too gosh-darn big.

But there's plenty of room inside a woman's uterus for a huge chunk of the federal government to reside.

Through the tunnel-vision that is Rick Santorum's view of the world: Incest? Too bad. Rape? Too bad. Pregnant at 12 years old? Too bad. Woman dying because of the pregnancy? Too bad. Santorum said Sunday that women should never, under any circumstances, even consider abortion. Instead, they should "deal with it and move on to better times in their life."

Great advice, Rick. That way, every single time that woman looks at her child, she'll see the man who violated her in the most horrific, traumatic, emotionally devastating and vile manner possible. This must be yet another shining example of those "compassionate conservatives" we keep hearing about.

But hey, as long as you don't have to abide by the rules that you demand others have to live by, what's the harm? Right.

Posted by Gary St. Lawrence at January 25, 2012 12:32 PM
Comments
Comment #335081

Well Gary, you seem to hone in on Rick for lapses in truth telling…how about honing in on some of the lies and half-truths told last night by obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-2012-state-of-the-union-speech/2012/01/25/gIQAa5CTPQ_blog.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2012 2:46 PM
Comment #335082

Excellent post! Thanks for writing it, Gary.
And look at how fast those on the right already want to try to change the subject — that’s how you know you’ve really struck a nerve.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 25, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #335086

Adrienne, I did not find one link to the quotes Gary used and nothing to substantiate what Gary wrote…did you? Why should we respond to what he merely believes?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2012 3:42 PM
Comment #335088

Gary,
I am not a Santorum supporter and since I am really pro-choice I do support the pro-abortion idea of having choice.
‘Keep my wallet out of your vagina’ is usually where I get the hypocritical faux ‘pro-choice’ crowd ranting though.

I mention this because, seeing how I am actually pro-choice, I read your post and agreed that what you describe is pretty hypocritical.
But after doing some reading up on this, I am now confused. What I have found says:

“Gabriel Michael Santorum was born at 12:45 AM on Friday, October 11, 1996. He was a beautiful boy. He did not give a cry or open his tiny eyes. We baptized him, bundled him, and held him ever so close. We sang to him, held his little hands and kissed him. Gabriel lived for two hours.”

Is the doctor saying that they are lying?

Posted by: kctim at January 25, 2012 3:56 PM
Comment #335090

Since there were no links I did a quick search and found this article plus comments:

http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188#comments

Gary you might want to credit that writer.

Posted by: George at January 25, 2012 4:24 PM
Comment #335092

Here’s another article about Karen Santorum’s second trimester abortion

And yes, medically induced labor of a non-viable fetus is considered an abortion.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 25, 2012 4:39 PM
Comment #335094

Interesting stuff.
I was not aware that a baby dying during treatment of the mother was ‘called’ an abortion. Always figured the intentionally killing of the kid was what abortion was.
Learn something new everyday.

This probably adds millions of women to the ‘had an abortion’ list. Wow.

Posted by: kctim at January 25, 2012 4:56 PM
Comment #335096


Some on the left have a hard time believing in the concept of confession, acceptance and forgiveness.

Conservative Christians have a hard time believing that accepting a covenant with Jesus Christ is a one time deal and there are no second chances for backsliders.

Posted by: jlw at January 25, 2012 5:09 PM
Comment #335098

No second chances for backsliders??? What do you think confession and forgiveness is? It’s a second, third, fourth and so on chance for backsliders.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2012 5:17 PM
Comment #335100

Santorum is a real piece of work. He doesn’t receive much attention because he doesn’t deserve it. In 2006, he lost his bid for re-election to the Senate by the largest margin of any Republican incumbent in history, and 18 point spread. This loss was due in large part to Santorum’s role in the Terry Schiavo fiasco. As Ron Paul said in a debate, Santorum is a “big government conservative.” He wants to inject government into private lives, indeed, into the most personal and private moments of life such as birth and death. He’s a stupid man, a gross hypocrite, and a perfect representative of his supporters. Er, does he have any supporters? I’m not sure this guy is worth anybody’s time.

If you want to immediately change the suject, Royal Flush, you’ll need a better method. A more effective rhetorical technique would be to step back, pivot, then go forward in another direction. In other words, field the issue by first stepping back, acknowledging the issue with a short, mild defense, and rephrasing it. Then pivot by repackaging the subtly rephrased issue into a more desirable subject. Now, step forward in the new direction, armed with an advantageous and rephrased issue that goes where you want.

Otherwise it just looks bad.

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2012 5:28 PM
Comment #335101

In a few months Santorum will go back to private life. IMO his political career is over. His chances of being president are slim to none. Much like Bachmann’s chances were. I think concentrating on the front runners would be more advantages and dirt digging on them would serve you on the left more.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2012 5:43 PM
Comment #335102

kctim, as stated above, Santorum said:

“Neither rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s health is an excuse to commit the crime of having an abortion.”

In saying this, Santorum is calling his own wife a “criminal”. Because she would have died if they had not aborted that pregnancy. They had attempted an operation on the fetus in utero and after it went badly, infection was spewing into her uterus. He now says there was “no excuse” for saving his own wife’s life.
Santorum also thinks it’s a “crime” in cases of rape and incest. Which automatically means he thinks it’s okay for CHILDREN to try to carry a child to term and go through childbirth. Even though their bodies often can’t handle that at all — and they might also die without an abortion.
It’s total insanity.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 25, 2012 5:56 PM
Comment #335103

KAP:

I think concentrating on the front runners would be more advantages and dirt digging on them would serve you on the left more.

I disagree KAP. I think it’s extremely important to talk about the fact that Santorum actually still remains in the GOP Primary race, even AFTER spouting such insane comments.

All of this rabid anti-abortion stuff drips with hatred toward women and girls. Such unyielding adherence to authoritarian ideology that is so destructive toward our health and well-being should definitely be fully examined and discussed.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 25, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #335104

After Florida IMO he won’t be, Adrienne so all this talk is worthless.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2012 6:19 PM
Comment #335106

Again KAP, I must disagree. ALL of the Republicans are adamantly against abortion. These men have no right to try to deny American women life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 25, 2012 6:24 PM
Comment #335109

I have never heard such worthless bullshit as this post and the comments of the leftist. What does it matter what Santorum or his wife believe, he has no chance. This is just like the attack bullshit about Cain. Cain is gone, Santorum will never be the republican candidate, who cares??? The attacks on Cain are forgotten and any problems with Santorum will be forgotten.

But the main point is the pure hatred and glee that we find from thses sick SOB liberals. It is one thing to debate for a political reason, but entirely different when your sole purpose is to ridicule not just the candidate, but more specifically attack conservatives and christians in general. The liberal column has been taken over by sick people.

Posted by: Bill Murray at January 25, 2012 9:16 PM
Comment #335111

Bill,
Santorum will probably leave the stage soon, never to be heard from again except among lobbyists and their targets. That much is true.

As for attacking conservatives and Christians in general, I think you’re missing the point. In the case of Christians, it’s a particular group of Christians that I personally despise: the hypocrites. These are the people who say one thing and do another, the proverbial ‘holier than thou’ bunch we saw so much in evidence during the Terry Schiavo fiasco. Remember that? We see them in other issues such as abortion and marriage. Not only do they impose their beliefs; they intend to impose their beliefs upon others through the tool of government, and intervene in the most personal and private moments of others, even as they do the opposite in their private lives.

Hypocrisy invites ridicule. If Christians and conservatives turned against people like Santorum, and condemned him, then this wouldn’t happen, would it? Yet Santorum won the Iowa caucus, and continues to receive some support from the GOP. Meanwhile, on the state level, legislation continues to pass in some parts of the country, such as Florida, attacking the rights of women to make their own choices when it comes to the abortion issue.

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2012 9:38 PM
Comment #335113

Adrienne In the day and age we are in and the contraceptions that are avaliable I would think abortion would be all but eradicated. I am against the use of abortion to terminate a pregnancy just because two stupid people were dumb enough not to use the contraceptions avaliable. I am not democrat nor am I a republican but I am conservative. I am against the Catholic Churchs teaching against the use of contrception, but I am opposed to abortion on demand. As far as Santorum is concerned I don’t know what was going on but there are to many conflicting accounts of what happened to his wife’s pregnancy. It may be liberal BS trying to smear Santorum or it may not but that was 14+ years ago when all this took place.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2012 10:26 PM
Comment #335114

”..when your sole purpose is to ridicule not just the candidate, but more specifically attack conservatives and christians in general.”

Bill,

When conservatives actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk, then maybe there will be more respect for their leadership.

Posted by: Rich at January 25, 2012 10:56 PM
Comment #335117


“walk the walk and not just talk the talk” in so many ways.

Their double standards are mounting.

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc., condemned Clinton for his pardons of drug offenders and white collar criminals, while Huckabee and Barbour pardon people convicted of heinous murders and get a pass.

Posted by: jlw at January 26, 2012 12:36 AM
Comment #335121

“As for attacking conservatives and Christians in general, I think you’re missing the point. In the case of Christians, it’s a particular group of Christians that I personally despise: the hypocrites.”

phx8, I will ask you the same question that was asked of Adrienne just a few days ago; with no answer except her personal feelings: in your little world, who determines if a Christian is a hypocrite or not, and who places these condemned Christians in your “particular group”? Give me proof and not personal feelings. At least Adrienne had the backbone to say she hated ALL evangelical preachers who adhere to the Bible. And she said they were fools for believing in a myth book. Do you also feel the same?

Posted by: TomT at January 26, 2012 5:40 AM
Comment #335123

Adrienne
As I said, I disagree with his views on this and he is not somebody who I would ever vote for. But after tossing aside the personal opinions of others and reading about the actual story, I can’t say if he is a hypocrit one this subject or not.
Roe V Wade was about privacy and, while I’m not going to try and defend or condemn him on this, I am going to respect that here. It would do the pro-abortion crowd to do the same.

Phx8
“Not only do they impose their beliefs; they intend to impose their beliefs upon others through the tool of government, and intervene in the most personal and private moments of others, even as they do the opposite in their private lives.”

Careful there my friend. Before you know it, you will be connecting the dots and seeing how liberalism does the exact same thing. You will start seeing the hypocrisy of gore and his envio rhetoric, of millionaires who ‘say’ they are liberals and how the pro-abortion crowd has NOTHING to do with being pro-choice.

Posted by: kctim at January 26, 2012 9:35 AM
Comment #335125

kctim,
Comparing enviromentalism or other issues that use government as a tool in the common, shared grounds of the public interest, to the most personal, private questions about life and death, and what role government should play in those questions, if any, really isn’t a comparison that leads to connecting dots.

TomT,
‘Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.’ A hypocrite says one thing and does the opposite. A hypocrite sets one standard for you, and another standard for himself.

Do I detest all evangelical preachers? No. Do I detest hypocritical ones? Yes. Do I detest preachers who serve the money changers and worship wealth? Absolutely. You know the preachings of Jesus and his attitude towards the poorest among us.

Posted by: phx8 at January 26, 2012 11:08 AM
Comment #335127

Why not Phx8?
If the “public interest” is determined by The People, why is it ok to use government to trample the rights for one thing, but not for another? Would it not be easier, and more fair, if we all practiced what we preached across the board?
Is it really that hard to see that the most personal, private questions about life and death differ from person to person?

Beliefs are beliefs. Forcing them onto others in the name of God or government is the same thing. It is wrong.

“You know the preachings of Jesus and his attitude towards the poorest among us.”

Would that be to forcefully take from one and give to another in order to support what one does not believe in?

Posted by: kctim at January 26, 2012 11:48 AM
Comment #335128

For immediate release: December 8, 2008

FWC needs anglers’ help in Lake Griffin crappie study

Biologists with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s
(FWC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute will reward anglers as much as
$200 per returned tag from black crappie caught in Lake Griffin.

Hundreds of fish in the lake carry small, yellow tags marked with a value
of $5 or $200 as well as a printed telephone number and tag number.
Biologists placed the tags in the body of the fish just below the dorsal
fin. Some crappie may have more than one tag. If a fish contains two
tags, anglers will receive payment for both tags.

The tag project is an interactive way for the public to assist biologists
with the research necessary to manage the black crappie fishery. For this
project, anglers are encouraged to remove the tag and treat the fish as
they would normally.

Anglers should mail the tags to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission at 601 W. Woodward Ave., Eustis, FL, 32726. Anglers must
provide their name, address, phone number and signature. They’re also
requested to include specific details of their catch: the tag number,
catch date, name of the lake where the fish was caught, and whether the
fish was kept or released. An FWC employee will telephone the angler for a
Social Security number, required for processing the reward. For more
information, call 352-357-2951.

Crappie
Lake Griffin
1/25/2012
Fish Kept
13”, 1 ½ to 2#
513-907-4797

phx8, you differ from Adrienne in the fact she hates all bible preachers and you only hate certain ones. You give a definition of hypocrisy but as Adrienne, you still fail to tell us how these Christians of a “particular group” get on the hate list (those you hate). Who determines if these Christians and preachers are hypocrites? I mean, do you get your information on the from liberal blog sites. You do realize you can find all manner of hate material on the internet? Adrienne loves to link to these leftist hate sitesand calls them legitimate info. All you have to do is check out the links provided above by WB liberals. Except for GSL, who provides no links for his liberal hate diatribe. Adrienne goes so far as to say any preacher who preaches the words of Christ, is a hate monger and hypocrite; do you also agree?

Posted by: TomT at January 26, 2012 11:57 AM
Comment #335129

Sorry about the fish report in FL, got copied and pasted by mistake.

Posted by: TomT at January 26, 2012 12:12 PM
Comment #335131

KAP:

Adrienne In the day and age we are in and the contraceptions that are avaliable I would think abortion would be all but eradicated.

Abortion should be eradicated on the same day that rape and incest is eradicated, and when women are in no danger of dying when they are pregnant. In other words, there will always be a need for abortion.

I am against the use of abortion to terminate a pregnancy

Too bad. No man has any right whatsoever to deny a woman an abortion. It’s her body, and only she should make that decision.

just because two stupid people were dumb enough not to use the contraceptions avaliable.

Young people who have been subjected to “abstinence only sex education” end up being totally ignorant about contraceptives, and teens who have been kept from learning about sex and pregnancy prevention have “significantly higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates than states with more comprehensive sex education programs”.
Additionally, huge numbers of women get pregnant while using contraceptives, so this argument is without merit.

I am not democrat nor am I a republican but I am conservative. I am against the Catholic Churchs teaching against the use of contrception, but I am opposed to abortion on demand.

You’re free to hold any opinions you want, however those who are opposed to abortion should not be free to think they have a right to control what women do with their bodies, or deny any medically safe procedure to any woman.
Period.

As far as Santorum is concerned I don’t know what was going on but there are to many conflicting accounts of what happened to his wife’s pregnancy.

She had a second trimester abortion. From the moment her doctor gave Karen Santorum a strong dose of antibiotics in an attempt to save her life, they were writing off the life of the fetus in order to save the mother. They were chemically inducing labor and aborting the pregnancy.

It may be liberal BS trying to smear Santorum or it may not but that was 14+ years ago when all this took place

How long ago Karen Santorum’s life-saving abortion took place is immaterial. Rick Santorum is running for the presidency, and he is stating he intends to end the legality of all abortion because he considers every single instance of abortion a “crime.” He is stating he will deny to other women the same procedure that saved his own wife’s life, and he wants to force women and girls who have suffered rape or incest to give birth. This is a viciously cruel and completely insane stance he is taking.
No one’s religious stance should be allowed to trump the life or well-being of another American.
Everyone, regardless of their religious or political views should acknowledge this. And, if they cannot acknowledge this to be true, then what they are actually saying is that “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is no longer an “unalienable right” in America.

TomT:
I will ask you the same question that was asked of Adrienne just a few days ago; with no answer except her personal feelings: in your little world, who determines if a Christian is a hypocrite or not, and who places these condemned Christians in your “particular group”? Give me proof and not personal feelings.

Let’s be clear here. Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite (and so are the “family values” voters of South Carolina who just voted for him).
That Gingrich is a hypocrite is a fact that is not up for any debate. The proof of his hypocrisy is that this man was publicly preaching “family values” while at the same time he was trying to deny his own two sick ex-wives and his children enough money to live on. And, he was claiming to stand for “family values” while denouncing Clinton for adultery when at the same time he himself was having a long standing adulterous affair with a Congressional aide.

The reason that the “Christian family values” voters of South Carolina are hypocrites is because they acted incensed and outraged over Clinton’s affair, but all of Newt’s past bad behavior and total hypocrisy is now obviously getting a complete pass. This is also blatantly hypocritical and not up for debate.

At least Adrienne had the backbone to say she hated ALL evangelical preachers who adhere to the Bible.

Why are you lying about this? That is not at all what I said! What I hold contempt for is hypocritical, authoritarian so-called Christian Conservatives — like Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. People who love to preach to others, and act outraged about the actions of others, but whose own behavior and selective displays of morality turn all of their preaching and outrage into an absurd joke.

kctim:

As I said, I disagree with his views on this and he is not somebody who I would ever vote for. But after tossing aside the personal opinions of others and reading about the actual story, I can’t say if he is a hypocrit one this subject or not.

Santorum is definitely a hypocrite, because it is more than clear that his wife had an abortion that saved her life, and he now wants to deny that to every other woman in the nation.

Roe V Wade was about privacy and, while I’m not going to try and defend or condemn him on this,

Roe vs. Wade is about more than privacy — it’s also about a woman having autonomous rights over her own body. And if you will not condemn a man who wants to sentence American women to death (and further traumatize victims of rape and incest by being forced to give birth) because of his so-called religious views when a safe medical procedure that can save women’s lives (and mental health) exists, I really don’t know what to say…

No wait. Yes I do what to say — you clearly need to try to put yourself in another person’s shoes. Would you want to allow YOUR wife to die simply because some religious-zealot politician decides to make a law that turns a life-saving medical procedure into into a crime???
If the answer to this question is yes, please seek help.

I am going to respect that here.

The question is: WHY??? Why on earth would you respect such views? I’m not talking about the individual sense here — because people should automatically have the right to decide what they want for themselves and their bodies. If women think abortion is an abomination, they can choose not to have one. They can even die for holding that belief if they personally choose to. But why the hell would you respect someone who wants to make that choice for every woman in America?
Abortion has been a safe medical procedure for close to forty years now. I will never give an ounce of respect to those who through idiocy and cruelty and callousness want to outlaw it for every woman in America. I will never respect going back to making abortion a back alley affair that kills and/or permanently disables untold numbers of women.

It would do the pro-abortion crowd to do the same.

No, it wouldn’t. Women owe no respect to those who show no respect at all toward their health and well-being.

Before you know it, you will be connecting the dots and seeing how liberalism does the exact same thing.

Sorry, no. There isn’t anyone on the left trying to do something like make laws to stupidly outlaw saving a person’s life (or forcing them to give birth) on religious grounds.

You will start seeing the hypocrisy of gore and his envio rhetoric,

What hypocrisy? Saving our environment from destruction always means saving lives — it always has, and it always will. And Republicans once understood this fact — even if a huge number now act like they don’t care about the environment at all, or reject the idea of conservation simply because people on the left support it.

the pro-abortion crowd has NOTHING to do with being pro-choice.

Bullsh*t! It’s all about individual liberty, and the right to choose. The anti-abortion crowd, on behalf of their authoritarian religious beliefs, wants to take that choice away and impose their beliefs on every American — and what’s more, you know this!

Tim, you’ve always claimed to be a libertarian, so why are you suddenly attempting to defend what is clearly indefensible authoritarianism?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 26, 2012 1:26 PM
Comment #335133

TomT,
I do not hate. I do not even use the word ‘hate.’ This comment forces me to use the word. Occasionally the word will be integral to an issue, and it becomes unavoidable. But if you look at my comments in the past, you will find I do not use that word. Ever. Not in my personal life, not on the internet, not on WB. I think I successfully avoid the emotion in both word and deed.

Posted by: phx8 at January 26, 2012 1:44 PM
Comment #335134

Adriene, I never said I was against abortion in the case of rape or incest. I said I was against abortion on demand. You say no one should deny anyone their rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, but with those rights comes responsibilities. If you cannot practice safe sex then their are consiquences and with the many contraception devices on the market 2 concenting adults should NOT have to rely on abortion as a contraceptive. Like I said about Santorum he is NOT going to be the republican nominee so all your bad mouthing about him is irrelevant.

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2012 2:05 PM
Comment #335135


“Would that be to forcibly take from one and give to another in order to support what one does not believe.”

No it would not be, but Christians decided to do it anyway for the good of the nation and the advancement of the human race.

Christians ask for and supported a public school system. They support Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The supported the Progressive Era reforms and the New Deal. They supported a public welfare program.

Christians supported all of these programs with their vote and a many of them still do.

Jesus did not demand these things of the Jews, he told them they weren’t doing enough and should do better. He told them that they had strayed from God’s message and that their ideas of Jewish charity and their attitude towards the poor was a part of their distorted view of God’s will.

As many Christians often point out, this is a Christian nation with Christian values. As such, the Christians of this nation were determined to do a better job, be more responsive to God’s will and they decided to do it by infusing Christian ethics in respect to the poor working class into the secular government.

Perhaps the Christians of this nation were wrong in doing this, but they realized that the Jewish tradition of tithing and charitable giving that was carried over into Christianity wasn’t enough to provide for the need.

Many times, conservatives have reminded liberals that they give more to charity than liberals.

One of these conservatives said he would give even more if he could deduct it all from his taxes. Well, the concept of Jewish/Christian charity is the giving without receiving, expecting, demanding an earthly reward in return.

The first part of the Christian work ethic is a noble ethic. The second part is meant for the peasants, the surfs, the peons, the indentured servants, and the slaves.

Be a good worker, be obedient and faithful to your master.

Even though your life may be hard, your family may be wanting because your compensation is very low, bare the hardships and sorrows well and have faith in your God that you will have a better life after your mortal life comes to an end.

Jesus advocated for a more equitable society, not a society in which all are compensated equally.

Some people of all religions, all faiths, and some of no faiths, have strived to pursue God’s wish, as reflected in the teachings of Jesus.

Some people of faith or not, say this cannot be done, should not be attempted, because it is not the nature of man to do so. That despite all the things that man can do, all that man has achieved materialistically, the only thing that separates him from the animal kingdom from which he comes is that man has an immortal soul.

God did not command that we do these things?

It is impossible for Mankind to avoid it’s fate?

It is impossible to avoid Armageddon?

Posted by: jlw at January 26, 2012 3:03 PM
Comment #335136

KAP:

I never said I was against abortion in the case of rape or incest.

What you’re saying here is that YOU want the ability to decide when an abortion should be considered acceptable, and that a woman must become subject to what others deem is acceptable.

I said I was against abortion on demand.

And in saying that, what you are actually saying is that a woman doesn’t have the right to make this decision for herself. She has to allow others to decide what medical procedures are deemed morally acceptable for her, and what can happen to her own body. What they decide will then be the determining factor over whether or not American women have children. We will all be denied abortion, and be forced have children because our society is authoritarian. Which means that decisions over our bodies reproductive systems have been taken away from us, and it is the right of the dictatorial society to determine whether or not and by law, women will become mothers.

You say no one should deny anyone their rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, but with those rights comes responsibilities.

Correct. Every woman has a PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY to make such decisions for HERSELF. And only for herself. She cannot make that decision for other people, and other people should not be allowed to make that decision for her. If others are allowed to make that decision for her, and against her will, she is very clearly not endowed with the supposed “unalienable right” to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

If you cannot practice safe sex then their are consiquences and with the many contraception devices on the market 2 concenting adults should NOT have to rely on abortion as a contraceptive.

You are trying to claim that it is okay for the government to have an authoritarian say over the particular circumstances under which they should allow a woman to have an abortion. That is not at all acceptable, because it is a negation of freedom and personal autonomy.
As to your safe-sex argument, I’ll repeat: it has no merit. Accidents happen, and women can and do become pregnant all the time even when they are being careful and conscientious about using contraceptives.

Like I said about Santorum he is NOT going to be the republican nominee so all your bad mouthing about him is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. Because the fact of the matter is, if it isn’t Santorum it only will be another conservative authoritarian politician who will come forward in this fight to remove the right of American women to make the decisions over abortion for themselves. As it now stands, every single Republican really HAS to claim that they are staunchly anti-choice, and promise to press for laws that will take the legal right to a medically safe abortion away from every single one of us.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 26, 2012 3:08 PM
Comment #335137

Ah Ms. Adrienne, you really should not allow your emotions to get the best of you.

I said: “I can’t say if he is a hypocrite on this subject or not”

I was not there, but it is obvious they went there to save a life, not have an abortion. There were complications but she still gave birth knowing that her life was in danger and the childs life was not viable.
IMO, the child was born, not aborted. That doesn’t mean I support their position or that I don’t support a lady being able to choose differently.

“And if you will not condemn a man…”

I disagree with his positions on abortion, Adrienne. It is this one subject that I don’t believe he deserves to be raked over the coals for.
Maybe I should have said ‘this one event’ instead of ‘subject?’

I believe what you are so upset about is that I am willing to put myself in his shoes.

“Why on earth would you respect such views?”

Well, there you go again :)
I did not say I respected his views, I said I respected his right to privacy and could not defend or condemn him based on this very unclear and sad event.

“Sorry, no. There isn’t anyone on the left trying to do something like make laws to stupidly outlaw saving a person’s life (or forcing them to give birth) on religious grounds”

Sorry, but yes there is. If you did not narrow choice down to only what you believe in, it would be clear as day.

“What hypocrisy? Saving our environment from destruction always means saving lives”

Smartly, yes. But you know very well that gores enormous footprint and telling us to lower our standard of living while he enlarges his, is the hypocrisy I was talking about.

“Bullsh*t! It’s all about individual liberty, and the right to choose”

Really now? So they would have no problem with ALL people having the right to choose? To let ALL of us the right to choose to pay for their health care? Their birth control? Their welfare? Their retirement?
What would their response be if I told them: “I will keep government out of your uterus if YOU keep my wallet out of your uterus?”

“so why are you suddenly attempting to defend what is clearly indefensible authoritarianism?”

I’m not and I explained why. So I guess the question now is why do you defend it on some things but not others?

Posted by: kctim at January 26, 2012 3:45 PM
Comment #335139

The hypocrite issue is so mundane and ignorant.

Everybody that has posted on WB has at times been a hypocrite. Myself included.

So why are there some of you who are high and mighty and critical because you have defined a person as a hypocrite? Have you not been a hypocrite some time or another?

For Shame

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 26, 2012 4:04 PM
Comment #335140

As I stated Adrienne with all the contraception devices on the market Why do we need abortion on demand? To many women use abortion as a form of birth control if they can afford the cost of an abortion then they can afford the cost of birth control devices I am including the male partner in this he can share in the cost or pay the total cost for the device if he is that interrested in having sex.
LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY SANTORUM IS IRRELEVANT HE WILL NOT GET THE NOMINATION HIS BELIEFS ARE HIS BELIEFS HE IS NOT IN THE POSITION OF FORCEING ANYONE TO ADHERE TO THEM. SO YOUR BIT—ING IS IRRELEVANT.

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2012 4:08 PM
Comment #335141

As I stated Adrienne with all the contraception devices on the market Why do we need abortion on demand? To many women use abortion as a form of birth control if they can afford the cost of an abortion then they can afford the cost of birth control devices I am including the male partner in this he can share in the cost or pay the total cost for the device if he is that interrested in having sex.
LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY SANTORUM IS IRRELEVANT HE WILL NOT GET THE NOMINATION HIS BELIEFS ARE HIS BELIEFS HE IS NOT IN THE POSITION OF FORCEING ANYONE TO ADHERE TO THEM. SO YOUR BIT—ING IS IRRELEVANT.

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2012 4:13 PM
Comment #335142

Tom humes,
There are degrees of hypocrisy. When a person runs for President of the United States, declares women should never have an abortion under any circumstances, even if it threatens the woman’s life, and then that person’s wife had an abortion, well, that is an extreme degree of hypocrisy.

The general direction of the criticism made by TomT is that liberals object because they ‘hate.’ The idea is that their objections are irrational and emotional, very negatively so, and therefore have no validity. In your case, Tom humes, you’re resorting to the ‘everybody does it’ argument.

This all belongs to a larger argument made by conservative evangelicals: because they are not allowed to impose their beliefs on others, they are being subjected to anti-Christian bigotry. What makes it so obnoxious is the hypocrisy of those who make the argument. In Santorum’s case, the degree of hypocrisy is extreme.

Posted by: phx8 at January 26, 2012 4:15 PM
Comment #335146


this country has a reputation for hypocrisy and at this time, it is being overwhelmed by conservative hypocrisy and on so many issues.

Staunch anti-gay toe tappers. Demands that failed policies be continued because they are conservative policies.

‘Obama is destroying the country, driving us further into debt.’

We must drastically cut the size of government, drastically reduce social spending, and reduce our debt by giving more support to the military industrial complex, reinforcing our authoritarian patriot act, and by financing a Moon colony.


Now if the Christian right can oust that, it’s leftist, not Christian, Christian nuclear family out of the White House and put that true Christan skank in it, and give him a tea party Congress, the bigotry against them will cease and their Constitutional rights will be the law of the land.

You have been disappointed before. What if you are disappointed again? Will it then be time to call out the Red/White/Blue shirt brigades?

Posted by: jlw at January 26, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #335147

kctim:

I was not there, but it is obvious they went there to save a life, not have an abortion. There were complications but she still gave birth knowing that her life was in danger and the childs life was not viable.
IMO, the child was born, not aborted.

Sorry, but no. The Santorum’s have described what happened in their own words. In fact, they wrote a whole book about it, so we do know what took place. They have characterized what happened as “harrowing but necessary” even though they now want to deny the same type of live-saving abortion to entire country full of women who will undoubtedly die if they no longer have the option that THEY THEMSELVES CHOSE.

The Santorum’s were told early in that pregnancy that the fetus had little to no chance of survival, and Karen Santorum chose to receive a risky surgery on the fetus she was carrying in order to try to save the fetus. Two days later, after the surgery had been performed, she came down with an infection and a dangerously high fever, and her doctors told the Santorum’s that unless the source of the infection — which was the fetus itself — was removed, she was going to die and their existing children would be left motherless. The doctor also told the Santorum’s that the fetus at 20 weeks would never survive outside of the womb. According to Santorum himself, his wife went into labor as a result of the strong doses of antibiotics they were giving her, and because of a subsequent labor inducing drug (pitocin)they gave to her.
There are several different types of abortions that can be performed on women — and what took place with the Santorum’s, chemically induced abortion of a non-viable fetus, happens to be one of them.

Rick Santorum now unequivocally states: “Neither rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s health is an excuse to commit the crime of having an abortion.”

Yet his wife’s abortion was: “harrowing but NECESSARY.”

I said I respected his right to privacy and could not defend or condemn him based on this very unclear and sad event.

Yet there is no reason at all to respect his privacy in this matter, and American’s should rightfully condemn him because:
1. He’s a public figure who is trying to change the law and legislate away privacy, in favor of authoritarianism that will legally enforce NO woman having the right to privacy over their own body.
2. He and his wife wrote a book about their “harrowing but necessary” experience, and have given multiple interviews about it.

phx8, you have nailed it precisely.
Santorum’s degree of hypocrisy is extreme.

Sorry KAP, but your b*tching is irrelevant too, and your argument in favor of banning the abortions you personally consider wrong makes no sense if we want to claim that America is a free country.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 26, 2012 5:41 PM
Comment #335148


The Republicans want to end pork, but if the State Department isn’t going to pass our big pork project, the keystone pipe line, we will turn it into a Congressional pork bill.

At least the Christian right non public sector union members are get some legislative support from the Republicans. Only the public sector unions are the bad unions today, you private sector unions should start giving your members money to the Republican party. They will do you right to work.

Posted by: jlw at January 26, 2012 5:42 PM
Comment #335149

“TomT,
I do not hate. I do not even use the word ‘hate.’ This comment forces me to use the word. Occasionally the word will be integral to an issue, and it becomes unavoidable. But if you look at my comments in the past, you will find I do not use that word. Ever. Not in my personal life, not on the internet, not on WB. I think I successfully avoid the emotion in both word and deed.”

Posted by: phx8 at January 26, 2012 1:44 PM

No phx8, but you did say this word:

“Do I detest hypocritical ones? Yes. Do I detest preachers who serve the money changers and worship wealth? Absolutely.”

Posted by: phx8 at January 26, 2012 11:08 AM

Now let’s look at the definition of DETEST:

transitive verb
1: to feel intense and often violent antipathy toward : LOATHE

Now let’s look at the word LOATHE:

transitive verb
1: to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance: DETEST

So phx8, it appears you are being hypocritical by trying to make us believe you are above using the word “Hate”, when in reality, you do “detest”, “loath” and of course “hate”. Hate by any other word is still hate.

Posted by: TomT at January 26, 2012 9:46 PM
Comment #335150

Yes Adrienne when there are other ways to prevent a pregnancy and a person chooses to kill instead of prevent to me is dispicable. I can understand it in rape or incest but not as a contrceptive. I’ll even go to say maybe in the case of teen pregnancy and t5hat is a big maybe.

Posted by: KAP at January 26, 2012 10:18 PM
Comment #335151

Here we go again…Adrienne says so much stuff that she forgets what she has said.
I said:

“At least Adrienne had the backbone to say she hated ALL evangelical preachers who adhere to the Bible.”

In answer to my statement that Adrienne has said she hates all conservative Bible believing preachers this is Adrienne’s reply:

“Why are you lying about this? That is not at all what I said! What I hold contempt for is hypocritical, authoritarian so-called Christian Conservatives — like Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. People who love to preach to others, and act outraged about the actions of others, but whose own behavior and selective displays of morality turn all of their preaching and outrage into an absurd joke.”

Adrienne is now saying she didn’t mean real preachers, only conservative Christians like Newt and Rick, “people who love to preach to others”; but in her recent statement, this is what she really said:

Comment #334913

“Because for non-theists, our sense of ethics and morality grows out of rational thought, sincere human empathy, and an ability to discern what is positive and good, from what is negative and cruel and hateful. And, they can’t be reduced to lists of harsh, discriminatory rules and narrow-minded, strict behaviors mandated to us by archaic scriptures, or angry men ranting upon altars, or the fairytale imaginary godheads who these religious figures claim to get their marching orders from.”

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 1:46 AM

Let’s look at these words again; “And, they can’t be reduced to lists of harsh, discriminatory rules and narrow-minded, strict behaviors mandated to us by archaic scriptures, or angry men ranting upon altars, or the fairytale imaginary godheads who these religious figures claim to get their marching orders from.”

Who are the angry men ranting upon altars, teaching from archaic scriptures? Why, one would believe Adrienne is talking about the pastors of churches. Therefore it was not a lie that Adrienne admitted her hatred toward preachers.

Adrienne, don’t disappoint me now. Be bold, throw in some 4 letter words and let us really know how you feel about Christians. But I am sure we already know…

By the way; it is Adrienne’s judgment of what Christianity really means that determines if a person is a hypocrite or not. But how can Adrienne make that judgment since she is not a Christian, does not believe the Bible, and certainly doesn’t believe in God or the Son of God? Easy, she lives in the little make believe world of liberals; where everyone is ignorant except the all knowing liberal.

Posted by: TomT at January 26, 2012 10:30 PM
Comment #335152

KAP, I would have to consider adrienne’s views on abortion as racist since the percentage of blacks aborting babies is higher than any other race. So I must assume adrienne is part of the age old conspiracy to do away with blacks through attrition.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2012 10:36 PM
Comment #335153

TomT,
I stand by every single thing I wrote to you in the other thread, and I won’t be baited by the way you’re here trying to act superior and twist things to suit yourself. If anyone is interesting in reading the WHOLE of what I said and the context in which I said them, they go read our exchange in the thread entitled “Gingrich Leads Going Into South Carolina But There’s Room For a Romney Upset.”

Frank,
That’s nuts. There is nothing racist about my desire to defend every woman’s right to have complete autonomy over her own body.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 26, 2012 11:38 PM
Comment #335154
Yes Adrienne when there are other ways to prevent a pregnancy and a person chooses to kill instead of prevent to me is dispicable. I can understand it in rape or incest but not as a contrceptive. I’ll even go to say maybe in the case of teen pregnancy and t5hat is a big maybe.

Yeah KAP, that’s the thing about living in a free country. It means all of us have to learn to live and let live with a lot of things we might personally find despicable.
For instance, I think it’s totally despicable that people go out hunting to kill all kinds of animals simply for sport — yet I don’t think I have a right to press for laws that would completely outlaw that. I also find it despicable that the KKK gets to march down the street proudly advertising and promoting their hatred, yet if I wish to have my first amendment right to free speech, then I have to allow those idiots the right to the same.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 26, 2012 11:54 PM
Comment #335155

Why would you find killing an animal for sport dispicable Adrienne when you advocate killing an unborn human on the grounds of choice. So to you killing an animal is dispicable but killing an unborn child is OK.

Posted by: KAP at January 27, 2012 12:04 AM
Comment #335156

I don’t advocate for abortion, KAP. What I advocate for is the freedom and the right all women have to make the right choice for themselves.
I will say this though, I don’t personally consider a fetus a “baby” until it is developed enough that it can be delivered and actually survive outside the mother’s womb. There are a huge number of women who feel this way — and that probably has a lot to do with the fact that miscarriages are so common. Also, because a fetus isn’t even capable of feeling pain until sometime in the third trimester when the nerve connections in the brain develop fully there is no need for anyone to level guilt-trips on women over their aborted pregnancies — whether they are induced, or occur naturally.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 27, 2012 12:50 AM
Comment #335157

Oh, and to answer your question — yes, I think there is a hugely enormous difference between killing for sport, and killing in order to survive.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 27, 2012 12:57 AM
Comment #335159

ou still have not answered the question, Adrienne, With all the contraceptive devices on the market why still abortion as a CHOICE?

Posted by: KAP at January 27, 2012 10:26 AM
Comment #335160

Meanwhile … back in the world that doesn’t revolve around who can out-nitpick the other commenter …

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at January 27, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment #335161

Adrienne

There are plenty of studies to show that a baby feels pain way before the third tri-mester.

phx8

There is no degree of wrong. Being a hypocrite is just that; not a little one or big one; not a cheap one or expensive one; not one who is known in public vs. one who is not publicly known. This applies to all wrongs.

“Every one does it” argument is a straw man. It is true that from time to time we all are hypocrites. That is just a simple fact. Much like any wrong that is committed.

“This all belongs to a larger argument made by conservative evangelicals: because they are not allowed to impose their beliefs on others, they are being subjected to anti-Christian bigotry.”

Every body wants to convice that they have the answers to situations that are better than others. But using your rational it is ok for the left to impose their sexual legislation on those that oppose it whether we like it or not. Forcing my doctor to do things he does not believe in is dictortial. If he does not do as the powers that be say he should, even when it goes against his values and beliefs, he will then not be allowed to practice his specialty. When the Catholic Church opperates hospitals and adoption agencies that adhere to their faith and then the government says you gotta do it this way or else, well that can be argued that the church and state argument, that the left just loves to throw into every event, is to be applied here. Government interfering with the free practice of their faith. A disclaimer here is that I am not even close to being of the same religious practice of the Roman Catholic Church.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 27, 2012 11:47 AM
Comment #335162

“You still have not answered the question, Adrienne, With all the contraceptive devices on the market why still abortion as a CHOICE?”

Posted by: KAP at January 27, 2012 10:26 AM

KAP, I am still waiting on Adrienne to answer the question on what criteria determines if a Christian or Preacher for that matter is on Adrienne’s hypocritical list. Because when they are on the list, Adrienne is justified in hating them. What specifically makes them a hypocrite? She said she didn’t say she hated preachers and when I quoted her own words, which appear to make them hypocrites simply because they preach God’s Word from pulpits, she says she stands by her previous statements. Which said, “And, they can’t be reduced to lists of harsh, discriminatory rules and narrow-minded, strict behaviors mandated to us by archaic scriptures, or angry men ranting upon altars, or the fairytale imaginary godheads who these religious figures claim to get their marching orders from.”

So we must conclude that any preacher who quotes God’s Word (archaic scriptures), and talks of God (fairytale imaginary godheads) is automatically a hypocrite; which encompasses all born-again evangelical preachers. Adrienne is saying she “hates” all evangelical preachers and therefore must also hate all born-again Christians who listen to and support these pastors. She is trying to back pedal and say she didn’t say this, but the question is, is she lying? Her words betray her and say she is lying and in reality she hates all conservative Christians simply because they are followers of Christ. It’s the same old liberal game of “if you don’t believe like me, then you must be a hypocrite”.

Adrienne, I am not twisting your words; I am simply quoting them and you have twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to deny what you said. I simply say, go ahead and admit that you hate anyone who thinks differently from yourself; do the right thing and be proud of who you are…

I would also like to know what info Adrienne is privy to that says a baby does not feel pain. Is this from the same Adrienne Dictionary that determines what hypocrites should be hated by liberals?

Adrienne, you dug this hole…

Posted by: TomT at January 27, 2012 2:02 PM
Comment #335163

Tomt,
A synonym does not mean two different words are exactly the same. To illustrate: ‘hate crime’ is not the same as ‘crime of loathing.’ In “1984,” the Three Minutes Hate is not called the Three Minutes Loathing or the Three Minutes of Detesting. Why? Because the word ‘hate’ carries a lot of emotional freight, while words like ‘detest’ and ‘loathing’ contain elements of moral condemnation.

As Humpty Dumpty said, ‘when I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean.’ That’s a funny passage from “Through the Looking Glass.”

Impenetrable!

That’s a joke. You have to read the passage to get it. You might like that too, Gary.

Tom humes,
You’re arguing that since we are all hypocrites in one way or another, or because we have all been wrong at some point or another, that we can no longer make moral judgments; that there is no matter of degree; that the sin of gluttony, of eating just one more bite of food than necessary, is the equivalent of mass murder…

When it comes to values and the free practice of faith, the difference between liberals and social conservatives is that liberals want individuals to be free to make choices about issues like abortion, while conservatives not only want to be free to make that decision for themselves, they also want to make the decision for others, based upon religious beliefs.

And that is what makes Santorum such a hypocrite. While he defends a procedure for his own wife that some would consider abortion, he wants to deny it to others on a national scale. He wants to take that decision away from idividuals, and make the decision himself.

Posted by: phx8 at January 27, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment #335164

phx8, again, like the Clinton moment of “is-is” and your trying to make a difference between hate, detest, and loath; you next hypothesis is incorrect, “When it comes to values and the free practice of faith, the difference between liberals and social conservatives is that liberals want individuals to be free to make choices about issues like abortion, while conservatives not only want to be free to make that decision for themselves, they also want to make the decision for others, based upon religious beliefs.”

Liberals believe it is the governments place to dictate what people should think and conservatives believe that individuals have the right to think for themselves. Now I know you will argue this and since we are dealing with abortion, perhaps you could explain why the pro-abortionist do all they can to keep women from hearing of alternatives to abortion, or allowing women to see the long term physiological effects of abortion, or even allowing women to see ultra sounds of the child before it is aborted. Surely if you believe in the free access on information which would help a women to make that decision, you would also agree that the information should be readily available?

I am not even going to try to provide proof of what I say because the pro-abortionists have fought tooth and nail for many years to block women from having full knowledge of what they are about to do.

Posted by: TomT at January 27, 2012 2:42 PM
Comment #335165

phx8

I will conclude that if you read the fairy tale of the 3 little pigs you would report that it could have been the 3 bears but you are not sure.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 27, 2012 2:54 PM
Comment #335168

“Liberals believe it is the governments place to dictate what people should think and conservatives believe that individuals have the right to think for themselves.”

Except, of course, when it comes to abortion and a host of other social issues.

I propose the following compromise on this issue. A fair representation of all viewpoints on abortion and alternatives shall be made available to any woman seeking an abortion in the US. No woman, however, shall be forced to read, view or listen to any such information. Women shall have the freedom to “think for themselves” on the issue of abortion.

Posted by: Rich at January 27, 2012 5:57 PM
Comment #335169

Rich,
You mean Planned Parenthood?

Posted by: phx8 at January 27, 2012 6:01 PM
Comment #335171

KAP:

Adrienne, With all the contraceptive devices on the market why still abortion as a CHOICE?

Because rape and incest occurs, because accidents can happen, and because abortions are thankfully a legal, medically safe option for women who choose not to become mothers.

tom humes:

There are plenty of studies to show that a baby feels pain way before the third tri-mester.

I’m afraid you’re going to have to provide an enormous amount of proof in order to try to refute this since the link I put up earlier clearly states:

Their report, being published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks.

TomT:

Adrienne, I am not twisting your words; I am simply quoting them and you have twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to deny what you said.

I’ll repeat: I stand by every single thing I wrote to you in the other thread.

I simply say, go ahead and admit that you hate anyone who thinks differently from yourself

No, because that’s a lie. And for pity’s sake it is incredibly sad how everything always has to be viewed in black and white with so many of you far right Christian extremists!

I would also like to know what info Adrienne is privy to that says a baby does not feel pain.

It’s all right there in that New York Times article — the fact is, they’ve been researching this topic internationally for well over a decade. Here’s the latest findings from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in England: RCOG release: RCOG updates its guidance

Is this from the same Adrienne Dictionary that determines what hypocrites should be hated by liberals?

Are you implying that I have no right to post links to scientific findings, or state my own opinions about hypocrisy and people who are obviously hypocrites? If so, I’m afraid that’s just too bad.

Adrienne, you dug this hole…

Right. And due to a lack of debating skills you keep trying to fill up all these holes I dig for you with a whole lot of BS.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 27, 2012 6:21 PM
Comment #335173

phx8:

When it comes to values and the free practice of faith, the difference between liberals and social conservatives is that liberals want individuals to be free to make choices about issues like abortion, while conservatives not only want to be free to make that decision for themselves, they also want to make the decision for others, based upon religious beliefs.

Exactly. And then on top of it, social conservatives insist on declaring that they’re the only true upholders of freedom in America!

While he defends a procedure for his own wife that some would consider abortion, he wants to deny it to others on a national scale.

What happened to Karen Santorum is by medical definition, an abortion. Furthermore, it was not a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) — although that may well have eventually have been the case because the fetus had a serious abnormality. But the facts here really are clear: she gave the go ahead for an operation to be performed on the fetus she was carrying, and two days later when things were going seriously wrong and endangering her life, they induced her labor. Karen Santorum’s life was saved by having an abortion.
One would think the Santorum’s would have automatically done an about face on the topic of abortion following what happened to them. But instead, they’ve decided to act like what occurred was anything but an abortion, and refused to budge ideologically on the subject simply for political (and far-right religious) reasons. I consider this really beneath contempt.
American’s should definitely expect a lot more rational intelligence and basic human empathy out of our political legislators — and candidates for president.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 27, 2012 6:53 PM
Comment #335174

Adrienne,
It’s the hypocrisy that makes people like Santorum and Gingrich beneath contempt. On a personal level, I’m sorry the Santorums went through such an awful experience. It would probably be better if this were never discussed in public. But when this guy runs for President, and makes it a cornerstone of his platform that others will not be given the choice he made in an intensely personal matter, well, it’s outrageous.

This morning, an entire right wing article in the Oregonian made the case that Newt’s marriage record should not matter. Ok. Personally, I do not think highly of a person who does what he did, but fine. Let’s move on. But when this same guy leads an impeachment of the President of the United States, and puts him on the witness stand for doing the same thing Newt was doing while Speaker of the House, well, once again, that’s the kind of gross hypocrisy that is just totally unacceptable.

As many have already noted, Gingrich and Santorum will slink off the national stage soon enough.

Some clowns aren’t funny.

Posted by: phx8 at January 27, 2012 7:26 PM
Comment #335175

phx8, you guys just can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury. It was not about sex; it was about lying. Those pesky old laws will get you every time.

Posted by: Frank at January 27, 2012 7:36 PM
Comment #335176

Adrienne, I said I could see abortion in the case of rape or incest. But if you are sexually active there are many contraceptive devices on the market so abortion should be a last resort and planned parenthoods abortion department should be OUT OF BUSINESS. Life or death situations of the mother??????????? If it is truly life or death situation.

Posted by: KAP at January 27, 2012 7:46 PM
Comment #335178

Abortion has nothing to do with rape or incest; it has everything to do with killig babies. The abortion issue is a religion to the left, just as Global Warming is a religion. Just who in America does not have access to birth control???

Posted by: Kathy at January 27, 2012 7:59 PM
Comment #335180

Frank:

you guys just can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury. It was not about sex; it was about lying. Those pesky old laws will get you every time.

You guys just can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that Newt was loudly grandstanding on “Conservative Christian Family Values” the entire time he was heading up the Clinton impeachment. It was all about the “High Values of Conservatives” vs. the “Low Values of Liberals”, and at that moment when he was grandstanding on that topic this repulsive hypocrite was in the midst of a six year long adulterous affair with a Congressional aide. That pesky old “Conservative Christian Family Values” hypocritical grandstanding with get you every time.

KAP:

Adrienne, I said I could see abortion in the case of rape or incest.

And you believe that your opinion on abortion is all that really matters? What you have to ask yourself is: who died and left you the boss of women?

But if you are sexually active there are many contraceptive devices on the market so abortion should be a last resort

No woman enjoys having an abortion, KAP. People who want to deny the choice to women tend to talk like you do, and this always comes off as outrageously obnoxious.

and planned parenthoods abortion department should be OUT OF BUSINESS.

Just because you and other social conservatives say so, right? WRONG.

Life or death situations of the mother??????????? If it is truly life or death situation.

The “situation” with a woman’s reproductive organs is really none of your, or any other man’s (save for a doctor’s), personal business. What on earth gives you the right to somehow believe that it is???

Kathy:

Abortion has nothing to do with rape or incest; it has everything to do with killig babies. The abortion issue is a religion to the left, just as Global Warming is a religion. Just who in America does not have access to birth control???

This is flat-out crazy-talk and it falls right along the same lines as Santorum’s crazy-talk: Santorum to Rape Victims: Save ‘Horribly Made’ Gift
‘You have to make the best of a bad situation,’ and have the baby, he says

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 11:24 AM
Comment #335182

It’s my opinion Adrienne, just like yours. To many women use abortion as a contraceptive. Why do you think Planed Parenthood fights so much to keep their doors open because it is a lucrative business. It amazeing to me how you bad mouth the rich but are willing to make some abortion doctor rich in the name of choice.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 11:56 AM
Comment #335184

If it is a life or death situation with the mother, that is another argument. The times that it occurs is extremely rare.

Planned Parenthood should be out of business if for no other reason that they continually break the law. They do not report to authorities when a child has come to have an abortion. In almost every jurisdiction it is the law to report it. That means that a pedophile is still loose in society to repeat the offense.

You all should be glad your mothers did not abort you.

Adoption is the best alternative to an unwanted child.

I have two adopted into my family and they are doing great. One has already served in the military and the other one next monday is looking into it. Of course they are opposed to abortion. And I am glad they were available for my family to have them join my family totally.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 28, 2012 12:35 PM
Comment #335185
Too many women use abortion as a contraceptive
.

That’s probably true, but the solution is not to criminalize the medical procedure. The solution is making comprehensive sexual education much more widespread, which means an end to all those silly “abstinence only” programs. Also, it probably means making emergency contraception widely available over the counter (even for teenagers). It probably also means that pharmacists who refuse to sell contraception should probably get out of the pharmacy business.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2012 12:44 PM
Comment #335186

At $350-$550 for an abortion Adrienne I would think it is much cheaper to pay for a contraceptive device.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 12:45 PM
Comment #335187

I agree with you in part warped doctors and pharmacist and hospitals should be protected by a conscience clause especially with the amount of pharmacies and doctors avaliable. I wouldn’t expect a Christian Hospital to open their doors to abortions or in the case of Catholic Hospitals to hand out contrceptives.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 12:52 PM
Comment #335188
They do not report to authorities when a child has come to have an abortion
.

Do you have any evidence that such a child has ever received reproductive services from Planned Parenthood?

Occasionally, conservative activists attempt to launch “stings” against Planned Parenthood, but the Planned Parenthood employees often report the incident to the proper authorities as the law prescribes.

You all should be glad your mothers did not abort you.
If my mother had chosen to abort me, I am sure it would have only been done if she thought it was really necessary. She’s a smart woman who doesn’t need Uncle Sam to tell her what to do. The same also goes for my father’s masturbation habits on the day the embryo that would eventually become me was conceived. Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2012 1:13 PM
Comment #335189
They do not report to authorities when a child has come to have an abortion
.

Do you have any evidence that such a child has ever received reproductive services from Planned Parenthood?

Occasionally, conservative activists attempt to launch “stings” against Planned Parenthood, but the Planned Parenthood employees often report the incident to the proper authorities as the law prescribes.

You all should be glad your mothers did not abort you.
If my mother had chosen to abort me, I am sure it would have only been done if she thought it was really necessary. She’s a smart woman who doesn’t need Uncle Sam to tell her what to do. The same also goes for my father’s masturbation habits on the day the embryo that would eventually become me was conceived.
I wouldn’t expect a Christian Hospital to open their doors to abortions or in the case of Catholic Hospitals to hand out contrceptives.

I agree, but on the other hand, a bussiness that advertises itself as a pharmacy must provide all the services that a pharmacy provides. Otherwise, it’s false and misleading advertising for one to call oneself a pharmacy. The only way I could see a conscience clause working is if the people electing not to dispense contraceptives make that clear in their branding and advertising. These people should not refer to themselves as pharmacists as they fail to meet the definition as one.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2012 1:17 PM
Comment #335190
To many women use abortion as a contraceptive.

This is opinion, and no proof is provided.

If it is a life or death situation with the mother, that is another argument. The times that it occurs is extremely rare.

This is also opinion, and no proof is provided.

Proof doesn’t matter, and people who speak this way aren’t actually interested in any facts that might get in the way of their opinions. Because this is really all about passing judgement and controlling women’s lives so that authoritarian (and/or religious) views can become the law.

And when people disagree with that authoritarian position, and refuse to comply with it, Rightwing Conservatives are generally willing to take all kinds of extreme positions, such as:NC GOP lawmaker calls for public hangings, including for abortion providers

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 1:31 PM
Comment #335191

Warped, The catch is PHARMACIST not pharmacy if the PHARMACIST has a problem handing contraceptive devices out. Doctors as well as Pharmacist have religious beliefs and they don’t stop at the door of the Hospital or pharmacy that is why the conscience clause.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 1:44 PM
Comment #335192

Opinion:

Planed Parenthood fights so much to keep their doors open because it is a lucrative business.

Fact:
Less Than 15% Of Total Revenue Comes From Abortion Services

Contraception, STD Testing And Treatment, Cancer Screening Make Up Vast Majority Of Planned Parenthood Services. Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states: “For the three million patients our doctors and nurses saw, we provided contraception (36 percent of our total services), testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (31 percent), cancer screening and prevention (17 percent), and abortion services (three percent).” [Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2008-2009
Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 1:56 PM
Comment #335194

Adrienne

Most PP locations have no provisions for testing only for killing. Those percentages have been debated for validity. At any rate killing 50 million babies of a period of time exceeds by a large measure what Hitler did to the Jews.
Taking a conservative estimate that 25 million of those killed would now be in the work force and paying taxes that would have been in the interest of the economy for those to have been able to live.
“To many women use abortion as a contraceptive.
This is opinion, and no proof is provided.
If it is a life or death situation with the mother, that is another argument. The times that it occurs is extremely rare. This is also opinion, and no proof is provided.

Proof doesn’t matter, and people who speak this way aren’t actually interested in any facts that might get in the way of their opinions.”

This last part is opinion and no proof is provided. You have shown facts down get in your way.

If it is a life or death situation with the mother, that is another argument. The times that it occurs is extremely rare.


Warped
Instead of “abstinence only” then you are for indulgence only. It can only be one way. If abstinence is taught, then STD, pregnancies, etc. don’t happen as often. The facts are there.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 28, 2012 2:23 PM
Comment #335195
Doctors as well as Pharmacist have religious beliefs and they don’t stop at the door of the Hospital or pharmacy that is why the conscience clause.

This bullsh*t clause needs to be outlawed, because it endangers too many women’s lives. The fact of the matter is, if many women become pregnant, they could endanger their lives or even die.
To give just one example (of a huge number that could be given), I have a friend who had a heart operation where they replaced her heart valve with a pig valve. Which means she MUST have contraception because if she ever conceives she could die. A woman’s heart increases in size when pregnant and her replaced heart valve could never stand that kind of strain. Thus any pharmacist who would deny her contraception is actually saying he is willing to kill her.
This is clearly an area where can see the need for the separation of Church and State. Denying contraception to women is a thoroughly unprofessional stance for any pharmacist or pharmacy to take, because as a provider of health services it should illegal to state that they are unwilling to fulfill any individual’s legal medical needs, despite their own personal ethical stances.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 2:31 PM
Comment #335196

tom humes:

Most PP locations have no provisions for testing only for killing. Those percentages have been debated for validity.

Shameless, outrageous lies.
Provide PROOF.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 2:40 PM
Comment #335197

tom humes:

It can only be one way.

This sharply highlights what the real problem is.

If abstinence is taught, then STD, pregnancies, etc. don’t happen as often. The facts are there.

Again, you make a lot of comments but never provide a shred factual proof — and that’s because there is no proof to back up your comments. So why not just admit that what you’re saying is all just “faith based”?

But yes, the facts ARE out there.
And here they are:
Proof to the contrary regarding abstinence only education and pregnancy.
And:
Proof to the contrary regarding abstinence only education and STD’s.

Makes perfect sense — ignorance helps no one.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 3:05 PM
Comment #335198

Second link there should be:
Abstinence Programs Fail To Cut Risk Of HIV Infection

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 3:09 PM
Comment #335200

So Adrienne you advocate because a person holds to his religious beliefs, he or she should forgo those beliefs because 48+ million women worldwide, 1.2 million in the U.S. on the average and that is every site I googled say the same, have abortions. Less than 1/2 a percent of those abortions are for rape or incest and IMO the same percentage for life threating pregnancies. So you also want to dictate that a person should not be in the medical profession or pharmacist profession because of his religious beliefs that may prevent him or her from preforming abortions or dispencing of contraceptive devices. You don’t want Christians jaming their beliefs down your throat yet you want your beliefs jammed down theirs. NOW THAT IS PURE BULLS—T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 3:33 PM
Comment #335201
The catch is PHARMACIST not pharmacy if the PHARMACIST has a problem handing contraceptive devices out. Doctors as well as Pharmacist have religious beliefs and they don’t stop at the door of the Hospital or pharmacy that is why the conscience clause.

I’m not sure where you are going with this. Someone who refuses to dispense contraception should not be working at a pharmacy just as an observant Jew should not be working as a chef at a restaurant that serves cheeseburgers.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2012 3:47 PM
Comment #335203

Warped, Most pharmacies have more than one pharmacist on staff, at least in my area of this country, also within 10 minutes walking distance from my house there are 2 pharmacies which take numerous prescription insurance cards. Contraceptives are NOT a matter of life or death for the patient so waiting for the pharmacist that has no qualms of filling scripts for contraceptives or just going to the next pharmacy is an option. The jewish person is just cooking the meat he is NOT eating it. Bad example. Even in the one horse town that my daughter lives in in W.V. there are approximately 8 pharmacies within 20 minutes of her house.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 4:06 PM
Comment #335204

KAP:

So Adrienne you advocate because a person holds to his religious beliefs, he or she should forgo those beliefs because 48+ million women worldwide, 1.2 million in the U.S. on the average and that is every site I googled say the same, have abortions.

Who said anything about forcing people to forgo their beliefs? I certainly didn’t. What I’m saying is that women should be free to make that choice for themselves, and that those who want to force women to have children against their will need to learn to step off of women’s rights and mind their own business.

Less than 1/2 a percent of those abortions are for rape or incest and IMO the same percentage for life threating pregnancies.

You provide no links, and again you’re trying to use a personal opinion to bolster your argument against women having the right to make their own choice regarding what happens to their bodies.

So you also want to dictate that a person should not be in the medical profession or pharmacist profession because of his religious beliefs that may prevent him or her from preforming abortions or dispencing of contraceptive devices.

Correct. I don’t think a Catholic hospital or any other religious doctor or institution should be allowed to legally kill a woman (such as Karen Santorum) by denying her an abortion when she needs one. Nor should a pharmacist be allowed to withhold contraceptives because they are in fact, life-saving devices.

You don’t want Christians jaming their beliefs down your throat

Correct. Not my own, or any other American woman. This is what social conservatives have been trying to do, and they have no right to do so.

yet you want your beliefs jammed down theirs.

No — and this is a weak argument since my belief is in the freedom of every individual to choose what is best for themselves. If women are religious or not religious, I want no one forcing them to do anything. Instead all women should be free to make their own reproductive choices for themselves.

WR:

Someone who refuses to dispense contraception should not be working at a pharmacy just as an observant Jew should not be working as a chef at a restaurant that serves cheeseburgers.

Exactly. HIV and AIDS is bound to skyrocket sharply if pharmacists are allowed by law to refuse to dispense contraception.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 4:31 PM
Comment #335205

Wrong Adrienne a Catholic Hospital has to by LAW stabalize a person enough to transfer to a hospital or facility that will do abortions if it is needed. You all want religion out of government but you want government dictating to religion or ones sincerly held religious beliefs. Doctors are held to an oath to preserve life and if they believe that life starts at conception then they should have every righgt to that belief. By the way pharmacist do not have to dispence condums they are in plain sight for anyone to buy.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 5:01 PM
Comment #335206

Adrienne

What you said is fear mongering. I respect you for issuing your opion. But don’t tell me that my opinion is wrong when it does not match up with you.

KAP

The left just gets their “Matthews Syndrome” working when the misnomer of separation of church and state gets in motion. That is the position those who are against the conscious clause.

To All

How many babies were killed before R vs. W?
PP is an on going institution that was start to conduct genocide on the minorites in particular people with dark skin that for the most part had an African heritage.

Margaret Sanger started someting that even passed Hitler for achievement.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 28, 2012 5:12 PM
Comment #335207
The jewish person is just cooking the meat he is NOT eating it. Bad example.

Wrong, you have a profound ignorance of the Torah and Jewish law. We are prohibited from handling any forbidden food; even if we intend to serve it to gentiles. This has been the traditional Rabbinic interpretation for 3000 years. Read Deuteronomy 14 if you doubt me.

Most pharmacies have more than one pharmacist on staff, at least in my area of this country

Fine, but under your system both available pharmacists might want to claim the religious exception. Certain hurdles (lack of an automobile?) might prevent a woman from traveling to another pharmacy.

At the end of the day, the store is either a pharmacy or it isn’t. If it sells emergency contraception and other vital medications, it’s a pharmacy. If it doesn’t sell those vital medications, then it isn’t. If someone wants to sell some drugs and not others; that’s their right, but they aren’t operating a pharmacy and they have no right to call themselves a pharmacist.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #335208
Wrong Adrienne a Catholic Hospital has to by LAW stabalize a person enough to transfer to a hospital or facility that will do abortions if it is needed. You all want religion out of government but you want government dictating to religion or ones sincerly held religious beliefs. Doctors are held to an oath to preserve life and if they believe that life starts at conception then they should have every righgt to that belief.

I’m sorry, but you just don’t know what you’re talking about, since women have died because they were denied proper care for religious reasons. And, you also don’t realize how they are trying to change the law to allow women to legally die for other people’s religious beliefs.

By the way pharmacist do not have to dispence condums they are in plain sight for anyone to buy.

Again, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 5:54 PM
Comment #335209

KAP,

I believe that you are wrong on this issue. There are medical circumstances that do present a conflict between religious dictates and generally accepted medical ethical practice. The recent ex-communication of a nun and senior administrator of a Catholic hospital in Arizona for approving a life saving abortion for a woman clearly illustrates the conflict. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/abortion-debate-hospital-stripped-catholic-status/story?id=12455295

Posted by: Rich at January 28, 2012 7:29 PM
Comment #335210

Adrienne & Warped, A Catholic Hospital or any Christian Hospital is PRIVATELY OWNED and can dictate what procedures it will do and won’t do. Same with a Pharmacy if it is corporate owned such as CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aide or others then they do as corporate tells them but if privately owned by the pharmacist then he dictates what he will carry and what he won’t. Pharmacists may have sincerly held religious beliefs. Like you guys say seperation of Church and State. As far as Hospitals go no matter if private or public both have to at least get the person stable IT IS LAW, at least in Ohio, before transferring the patient to a facility that will do whatever procedure. Again Adrienne explain to me what contrceptive will prevent the spread of aids besides a condum. Warped, a cheeseburger is Beef and is NOT a forbidden meat pork is but not beef.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 7:44 PM
Comment #335211

Rich Read above. As I said they have a reequirement to stabalize the patient and transport to another public facility which will do the emergency abortion.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 7:49 PM
Comment #335212

KAP,

“Again Adrienne explain to me what contrceptive will prevent the spread of aids besides a condum.”

Condums fail sometimes just like the pill can fail, and an IUD can fail.
If an IUD fails it can be life threatening to both the fetus and the mother.

“Warped, a cheeseburger is Beef and is NOT a forbidden meat pork is but not beef.”

Putting beef and cheese together isn’t Kosher.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 28, 2012 7:49 PM
Comment #335213

Rocky the question was what contraceptive devices prevent aids besides the use of a condum? I know condums fail and birth control devices fail but there is also a risk in Abortions as in any surgical procedure. So all you said was that NOTHING is certain for the prevention of HIV, AIDS.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 8:15 PM
Comment #335214
A Catholic Hospital or any Christian Hospital is PRIVATELY OWNED and can dictate what procedures it will do and won’t do. Same with a Pharmacy

Fine, but one should not call oneself a pharmacy if one decides not to provide all the products and services that a pharmacy provides (including contraception). To call oneself a pharmacist in those circumstances is fraudulent.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2012 8:28 PM
Comment #335216

Warped, Again a privately owned pharmacy does NOT have to carry every drug known to man. If it goes with his/her sincerly held religious beliefs not to carry any form of contracetive it is his/her business. All other drugs may be avaliable. You just have to go elsewhere to get it. Like I said about my daughter she lives in a one horse town in W.V. but is within 20 minutes of at least 8 pharmacies.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 8:51 PM
Comment #335217
a privately owned pharmacy does NOT have to carry every drug known to man

But it should carry all commonly used ones and contraception is definitely used commonly. If that’s not the case, the business is not a pharmacy.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 28, 2012 9:00 PM
Comment #335218

Warped, Would you do something that you felt was wrong to do and would haunt your conscience? If not don’t expect someone else to do something they feel is wrong.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 9:12 PM
Comment #335219

The abortin of babies HAS become the religion of the left. Every baby that is aborted is another offering to their god (satan). Warped Reality is claiming he is Jewish and a follower of the law, but the Torah plainly says that Jews were not to make their children pass through fire. WR, I am sure you understand this to mean they were not to be offered up to pagan gods. But this is what the pro-abortionist do. There are several liberals on WB that love to pick and choose New Testament Scripture that they love to quote. Here’s one for you:

1Co 10:31 “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”

The next time you claim abortion is about a woman’s rights, just look u to the Heavens and say, “God, get glory out of this event, as the doctor cuts this helpless baby into small pieces and extracts it’s brains out of it’s little head, I know it was created in your image, but it’s not wanted by us, so we dispatch it with your blessing and for your glory”

I will tell you liberals something; you may not believe in God, that doesn’t change the fact that He exists, and God will surely hold every judge, politician, doctor, nurse, and every other person that supports abortion to account. Hell is too easy for anyone who would destroy the life of a child. And all of it doen in the name of rights…what a joke.

Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Posted by: Kathy at January 28, 2012 9:19 PM
Comment #335225

KAP:

As I said they have a reequirement to stabalize the patient and transport to another public facility which will do the emergency abortion.

That’s sounds nice, but here is the reality regardingAbortion Care at Catholic Hospitals

Quote from the link:

The authors of the paper interviewed doctors working at Catholic hospitals in different parts of the U.S. They observe that “Catholic-owned hospitals are the largest group of religiously owned nonprofit hospitals”, about 15% of those in the country, and in some regions they’re the only hospitals available. Many women go to them for convenience, or because they’re the nearest one in an emergency, without knowing in advance how this limits their options for both routine and emergency care.

In the Phoenix case, permission to perform a life-saving abortion on a critically ill woman was granted by the hospital’s ethics committee, including a Catholic nun, Margaret McBride (who was, naturally, excommunicated for her sin of valuing a woman’s life over a bishop’s dogma). But at other Catholic hospitals, the ethics committees aren’t always so rational and compassionate. In several cases detailed in the paper, as long as there was a fetal heartbeat, doctors were instructed to do nothing - even if a miscarriage was in process, even if the woman was hemorrhaging, even if she’d become septic. One doctor’s account in particular turned my stomach:

I’ll never forget this; it was awful — I had one of my partners accept this patient at 19 weeks. The pregnancy was in the vagina. It was over… And so he takes this patient and transferred her to [our] tertiary medical center, which I was just livid about, and, you know, “we’re going to save the pregnancy.” So of course, I’m on call when she gets septic, and she’s septic to the point that I’m pushing pressors on labor and delivery trying to keep her blood pressure up, and I have her on a cooling blanket because she’s 106 degrees. And I needed to get everything out. And so I put the ultrasound machine on and there was still a heartbeat, and [the ethics committee] wouldn’t let me because there was still a heartbeat. This woman is dying before our eyes. I went in to examine her, and I was able to find the umbilical cord through the membranes and just snapped the umbilical cord and so that I could put the ultrasound — “Oh look. No heartbeat. Let’s go.” She was so sick she was in the [intensive care unit] for about 10 days and very nearly died… Her bleeding was so bad that the sclera, the white of her eyes, were red, filled with blood… And I said, “I just can’t do this. I can’t put myself behind this. This is not worth it to me.” That’s why I left.

As you’d expect, most doctors suffer agonies of conscience when forbidden to save the life of a dying woman. This one ignored the hospital’s orders and covertly cut the umbilical cord, slightly speeding up an inevitable fetal death, so that he could get permission for an abortion while there was still time to save the woman’s life - and even so, she hovered on the brink of death for days afterward.

In another case where a woman was septic and hemorrhaging, the doctor was told by a colleague to put her in a bed and try to keep her alive with blood transfusions until the fetus died. Another doctor sent her critically ill patient to the nearest secular hospital, a 90-mile ambulance ride, because she judged that this long and hazardous journey would result in her getting a needed abortion more quickly than waiting for the ethics committee at her own hospital to give permission.

Does anyone really want to label these kinds of medical practices “Pro-Life”? Personally, I’d have to call it cruel and unusual Religious Torture, and callously playing Russian Roulette with women’s lives. Whether such things occur in a private or public hospital this should definitely be made illegal — most especially in emergency situations and/or when secular hospitals are too far away for women who need emergency care.
Women in America should not have to be put through this kind of torture or forfeit their lives on behalf of someone else’s BS religious beliefs and fetus fetizisation.

KAP:

Rocky the question was what contraceptive devices prevent aids besides the use of a condum?

None, but Condoms save enormous numbers of people from getting HIV/AIDS, and so they should automatically be carried in all pharmacies, along with all other types of birth control — since there are women who can die if they become pregnant. Such as women who have diabetes or heart conditions.

WR:

But it should carry all commonly used ones and contraception is definitely used commonly. If that’s not the case, the business is not a pharmacy.

I agree, and I also think that hospitals who allow their patients to suffer and/or die in emergency situations don’t deserve the title of ‘hospital’ either.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 10:02 PM
Comment #335230

Adrienne, We are talking about a PRIVATE HOSPITAL that has the right to refuse to do abortions on religious grounds. Most Catholic Hospitals are in larger cities and towns with more than 1 Hospital. I would even go so far as to say that Christian hospitals probably are not equiped to do abortions. So I’m asking you would you go to a Hospital knowing they are not equiped to handle the type procedure you require? The owners of that Hospital in Phoenix, The Catholic Church, had every right to fire and excommunicate the nun. It is their choice NOT to preform abortions as is your choice to have one. You preach choice but I guess it’s only for women who want abortions not the medical personnell who do NOT want to preform such proceedures they don’t have the luxuary of choice according to you. As far as the pharmacist, no different than the private hospital if he owns the business.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 10:45 PM
Comment #335231
Adrienne, We are talking about a PRIVATE HOSPITAL that has the right to refuse to do abortions on religious grounds.

Sorry KAP but no hospital whether public or private should be legally allowed to pick and choose when it comes to saving lives in emergency situations. NONE. This is not to say that individual doctors or nurses whose religious beliefs mandate selectivity about what constitutes the morally correct circumstance to save a pregnant woman’s life (or not save them) should be legally forced or required to do so. However, those hospitals should be legally required to have a doctor and nurses on hand who WILL BE WILLING to save those lives in ANY and ALL emergency circumstances.
In the case of pharmacies, (whether public or private) they should also be required to have someone there who will have no problem selling the contraceptives that women and men need in order not to endanger their own lives and/or those of their partner.

I would even go so far as to say that Christian hospitals probably are not equiped to do abortions.

This is nonsense.

So I’m asking you would you go to a Hospital knowing they are not equiped to handle the type procedure you require?

From what I’ve read about them, I think it would be wise for ALL pregnant women (whether religious or non-religious) to steer clear of Catholic Hospitals entirely. Because they obviously feel no obligation at all to save a woman’s life when there are dire, life-threatening complications. However, in an emergency situation women often won’t have any choice whatsoever. Because they are utterly vulnerable and trapped by their own physical pain and helplessness, there clearly needs to be legal medical requirements that can and will protect all pregnant women from the religious viewpoints of others in every American hospital.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2012 11:25 PM
Comment #335232

Now you are showing your true liberal credentials Adreinne, dictating what a private institution or busness should have to do. As I stated the private hospitals wheather secular or religious only have to stabalize by law and transfer to a hospital equiped to do what is required. Even EMS crews are trained to take patients to the hospitals equiped to handle the emergency, at least where I’m from. I went to an emergency room with 2nd degree burns to my arm, all they did was put a temp dressing on it and sent me to another hospital that was better equiped to handle the emergency.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2012 11:46 PM
Comment #335235


This discussion seems to be turning into a government doesn’t have a right to discriminate, but the private sector does issue.

Posted by: jlw at January 28, 2012 11:59 PM
Comment #335236

The rarity of a woman’s life to be in danger is just that; a rare event.

One can find an event to justify their opinion even when the event occurs only less than 1% of the time.

The simple fact is that abortion is genocide.

The next simple fact is that we all will have to some day acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. He is the final arbiter of all things righteous and evil.

Will pray for you all to acknowledge the calling of God.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 29, 2012 12:21 AM
Comment #335237
Now you are showing your true liberal credentials Adreinne,

No KAP, not liberal — my Secular Humanist credentials. And I’m very proud and happy that I have them. This world would be a veritable screaming, ecclesiastical hell-hole without an enormous number of rational, principled, ethical, empathetic Secular Humanists willing to strenuously fight against religious cruelty, intolerance and extremism.

dictating what a private institution or busness should have to do.

Absolutely. Hospitals whether public or private should be expected by law to save people’s lives in all emergencies. Period. Any hospital who refuses to save the lives and ease the pain of agonized women who stand at deaths door because the doomed fetuses inside of their bodies still happen to have a trace of a heartbeat, should be legally required to change their practices, and/or be held accountable as cold-blooded torturers and murderers.

As I stated the private hospitals wheather secular or religious only have to stabalize by law and transfer to a hospital equiped to do what is required.

And clearly there are a lot of Catholic hospitals in America that aren’t doing so in many such cases. Shall I assume because you’re a hard-line fetal fetishizer that this horrific fact is fine with you?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 29, 2012 12:28 AM
Comment #335280

Asrienne, If what you say is fact then those Hospitals should be closed down. My city has 3 Catholic Hospitals and 1 Luthren Hospital and I would go to any of them because their care is great. If it is one isolated insident or just a pissed off women who didn’t get what she wanted then correct the problem.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2012 9:40 AM
Comment #335297

KAP,

Would you do something that you felt was wrong to do and would haunt your conscience?

No, of course not.

If not don’t expect someone else to do something they feel is wrong.

No, of course not. As human beings we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The right not to do something that one objects to for religious reasons is one of those rights. However, I will say that a person who does not provide contraception is by no means a pharmacist and has no reason to advertise or brand his business as one.

Kathy,

The abortin of babies HAS become the religion of the left. Every baby that is aborted is another offering to their god.
You are dead wrong here. I just believe that our Creator has given us the right to think and make choices for ourselves. Abortion may very well be sinful (I do not know); however, it is up to each person to reconcile their sin with God. It is not the government’s job to prohibit sinful behavior.

Warped Reality is claiming he is Jewish and a follower of the law

My apologies if I gave the wrong impression, but I am not very good at following the Mosaic Laws. I am a very flawed person and I sin quite frequently (who doesn’t?). For instance, I even ate a cheeseburger last night.

Torah plainly says that Jews were not to make their children pass through fire. WR.

Yes, I am aware of that. No, I have never been personally involved in that procedure so I do not think I have broken that law. I also think it’s ludicrous to state that abortion has something to do with rituals from some defunct pagan religion from centuries ago. Saying these things is very hyperbolic and diminishes your credibility in my eyes, and I am sure in the eyes of other commenter here.

There are several liberals on WB that love to pick and choose New Testament Scripture that they love to quote. Here’s one for you:

And so you like to pick and choose your own quotations of Scripture?

The next time you claim abortion is about a woman’s rights, just look u to the Heavens and say, “God, get glory out of this event, as the doctor cuts this helpless baby into small pieces and extracts it’s brains out of it’s little head, I know it was created in your image, but it’s not wanted by us, so we dispatch it with your blessing and for your glory”

As far as I know, zero babies have ever been harmed in an abortion. Let me know if I am wrong. By the way, fetuses & embryos aren’t babies.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 29, 2012 4:22 PM
Comment #335298

Warped, As any private owner even a pharmacist has the right to not dispence what he feels is against his sincerly held religious beliefs. You can choose not to deal in that store that is your choice as is the pharmacist’s choice not to dispence contrceptives.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2012 5:41 PM
Comment #335300
As any private owner even a pharmacist has the right to not dispence what he feels is against his sincerly held religious beliefs.

Let me reiterate, if the store does not dispense contraception, then it is not a pharmacy. If a store owner does not want to dispense contraception, he may not call himself a pharmacist and he may not call his business a pharmacy; to do otherwise would be fraudulent.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 29, 2012 5:46 PM
Comment #335302

Let me reiterate Warped, SINCERLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, PATRONIZE THE PHARMACY DOWN THE STREET, Contraceptives are not the only prescription drug. I know doctors that will not prescribe certain pain meds does that make them less of a doctor?

Posted by: KAP` at January 29, 2012 5:56 PM
Comment #335303
SINCERLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, PATRONIZE THE PHARMACY DOWN THE STREET

I’m sorry to be the grammar police, but I think you mistyped something. This is a fragment and not a sentence, so I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Also, putting something in all caps doesn’t make it more convincing.

I know doctors that will not prescribe certain pain meds does that make them less of a doctor?

They do that for medical, not moral reasons.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 29, 2012 6:29 PM
Comment #335304

I guess you are saying Warped that a Pharmacist shouldn’t have morals when dispensing drugs. He should leave his religious beliefs at the door of the pharmacy? That is pure liberal Bulls—t thinking Warped.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2012 6:55 PM
Comment #335305
a Pharmacist shouldn’t have morals when dispensing drugs. He should leave his religious beliefs at the door of the pharmacy

Someone with those moral beliefs cannot honestly be a pharmacist. Just as an observant Jew cannot be cheeseburger chef.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 29, 2012 7:09 PM
Comment #335307

Warped So you are saying you want immoral pharmacist dispensing drugs. You said that you wouldn’t do something that you thought was wrong. But in your mindset it is OK or required for someone else to do something that to them is wrong. Kinda HYPOCRITICAL to me. Because a person has strong religious beliefs dosen’t mean he shouldn’t do certain jobs it is discriminatory on religious grounds. YOU DO NOT LEAVE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AT ANY DOOR. There are LAWS protecting that.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2012 7:36 PM
Comment #335309
it is OK or required for someone else to do something that to them is wrong.

I have never said that I want to compel someone else to do something that to them is wrong. If a person doesn’t want to sell contraception that person has the right to make the choice to choose a different occupation. Someone can even operate a store that sells medication; just don’t call that store a pharmacy.

Because a person has strong religious beliefs dosen’t mean he shouldn’t do certain jobs it is discriminatory on religious grounds.

The only person doing the discriminating is the religious person. If someone’s religious beliefs prohibit that person from being a pharmacist then why is there a fuss? Observant Jews don’t complain about not being able to be cheeseburger chefs, yet conservative Christians complain that their interpretation of the Bible precludes them from being pharmacists.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 29, 2012 8:40 PM
Comment #335312

Warped, Religious beliefs do not prohibit a person from being anything they want to be. Is a doctor less of a doctor because he will not do abortions on religious grounds? If a pharmacist has the certificate given to him by the state and has passed all the requirements he is still a pharmacist maybe not to you but you aren’t the state. He has the right under the “Persons with disabilities act” to refuse to dispence contraceptives if it goes against his sincerely held religious beliefs and the employer has to do everything possible to accomidate him especially if there are more then 1 pharmacist on duty. The same goes if the pharmacist owns the store it’s his perogative to dispence what he feels is right. He/she is not discriminating.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2012 9:02 PM
Comment #335313

By the way warped you have a right to your opinion but I think it’s BULLS—T and that’s just my opinion.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2012 9:03 PM
Comment #335316
Religious beliefs do not prohibit a person from being anything they want to be.

Uh. Yes they do. Judaism clearly says that being a cheeseburger chef is a no-no. Being a prostitute is also a no-no.

Is a doctor less of a doctor because he will not do abortions on religious grounds?

I’ve focused on pharmacists instead of doctors because doctors can have specializations that deal with different parts of the body. I would only say the ability to perform abortions is prerequisite in order to call oneself an OB/GYN.

If a pharmacist has the certificate given to him by the state and has passed all the requirements he is still a pharmacist maybe not to you but you aren’t the state.

Appealing to governmental power really shows that most conservatives are not supporters of “small government”, but I’ve digressed from our topic. In any case, consumers need to distinguish stores that sell contraceptives from stores that do not sell contraceptives. My idea was to limit the name “pharmacy” to stores that sell all commonly used medications (including contraceptives). I guess we could simply require the “pharmacy” in disclose the nonavailability of contraception in the fine print of any of their advertisements.

He has the right under the “Persons with disabilities act” to refuse to dispence contraceptives if it goes against his sincerely held religious beliefs and the employer has to do everything possible to accomidate him especially if there are more then 1 pharmacist on duty. The same goes if the pharmacist owns the store it’s his perogative to dispence what he feels is right. He/she is not discriminating.

There are laws to protect one’s religious beliefs, but the ADA isn’t one of them. Also, private employers still retain discretion regarding the operation of their private business. The owner of a cheeseburger joint should not be forced to accommodate an observant Jewish chef who won’t cook cheeseburgers. The owner of a brothel (legal in parts of Nevada) should not have to accommodate a woman who refuses to indulge in fornication.

you have a right to your opinion but I think it’s BULLS—T and that’s just my opinion.
Oh, I see. You have nothing left to argue so you call my ideas BS and call it a day. You also don’t forget to capitalize your profanity; I guess if you wrote in lowercase it would have meant you were wrong. At least you gave me the benefit of seeing an i replaced with a hyphen. Thank you for doing that. Posted by: Warped Reality at January 29, 2012 9:48 PM
Comment #335317

Warped I suggest you read the entire law because it is in there. I know I did goole it. Now I’m done!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2012 9:53 PM
Comment #336521

I realize I’m a little late commenting about the abortion issue, but I have a different viewpoint from those of you who have already discussed it.

I grew up without a MOTHER because she died while having an illegal abortion in the late sixties.

Roe vs. Wade allows women to live after an abortion. It creates a safe and sterile environment for DOCTORS to perform this type of procedure.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Roe Vs. Wade, women will always seek to end an unwanted pregnancy.
At least with Roe vs. Wade, they don’t have to die as a result of it.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at February 12, 2012 8:58 PM
Comment #381245

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 4:59 AM
Post a comment