John McCain Solidifies His Pro-Life Credentials
June 24th, 2008 at 09:19am Mark Noonan
There are many crucial differences between Senator McCain and Obama - from the war (Obama for defeat, McCain for victory) to energy (McCain for energy, Obama for taxes) to health care (Obama for empowering government, McCain for empowering people) to the issue of life - and McCain’s courageous adherence to the Culture of Life stands in stark contrast to Obama’s cowardly “can I have it both ways, please” march through the morass of the Culture of Death:
After a meeting with Catholic leaders in Philadelphia last week, Sen. John McCain’s pro-life credentials are being questioned some pro-lifers who wonder if he would veto the Freedom of Choice Act, which if passed, would invalidate many of the laws that regulate abortion. Leaders who were present at the meeting informed CNA that they believe McCain would undoubtedly veto the bill.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was most recently introduced on introduced April 19, 2007 — one day after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003.
According to the American Center for Law and Justice the impact of FOCA being passed, would be to “create an absolute right to abortion that would override any federal, state or local law that simply ‘interfered with’ that right, no matter how compelling the justification for the law.”
The Republican National Coalition for Life also was of the same opinion, saying, “The heart of the (FOCA) bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortions.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who introduced the bill, saw the legislation differently, describing it as being about “the absolute right to choose” prior to fetal “viability.” However, the Republican Coalition for Life pointed out that FOCA goes even further. “The no-restriction policy would also apply after “viability” to any abortion sought on the grounds of “health.”
During his meeting with Catholic leaders last Friday, Sen. McCain reminded Philadelphia Catholics of his pro-life voting record and emphasized that he would “maintain that commitment” if elected president.
Deal Hudson, one of the leaders present at the meeting, informed CNA that when it came to McCain vetoing FOCA, “Nobody asked him that question. My view is that, of course, he would veto it.”
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life agreed with Hudson, saying, “I have no doubt that he would veto it.”
“Moreover, it’s so extreme, I really don’t think it would ever reach his desk, even if the Democrats increased their numbers in Congress,” Fr. Pavone said.
Barack Obama has made his position on FOCA clear by promising at a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that signing it into law would be his first act as president.
It is amazing how some things work out - it is good to keep in mind that when a 13th Amendment was first proposed, it was part of a compromise effort which would have enshrined slavery permanently in the United States constitution…the people who back FOCA are hoping that a President Obama will enshrine abortion in American law, rather than have it tenously exist at the sufferance of a transient Supreme Court majority…but what may very well happen is that the extremism exhibited by FOCA will provide one of many rallying points to defeat Obama, elect McCain and start the process of unravelling Roe, and eventually ending legal abortion in the United States. Just as the gay marriage advocates shot themselves in the foot by pushing too hard and too fast so, too, is the Culture of Death pushing too hard and too fast, and they might have stepped over the line.
It is true that abortion, as an individual issue, will play only a small role in 2008 - but the culmulative effect of Obama’s kowtowing to each and every extremist liberal position is how we can - and must - defeat him in November. We won’t beat him by demonstrating he’s inexperienced. We won’t beat him by demonstrating that he’s a leftist extremist. We won’t beat him by demonstrating he’s ignorant of the basics of foreign and military realities. Any one of those things would be given a pass - but if we can demosntrat that he’s an inexperienced leftwing extremist who doesn’t know jack about the world, then we can beat him.
On the other hand, McCain is demonstrating again and again that outside of CFR and his now-defunct immigration reform, he’s entirely in tune with the basic thrust of Reaganite consevatism and, also, has the foresight and courage to complete the War on Terror effort set afoot by President Bush and now reaping such tremendous results. We have a clear choice in November, and we conservatives must rally ’round the man, John McCain, who will do the things we really care about.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Life Issues, Republicans
78 Comments Add your own
1. Right Wing News&hellip | June 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
My Favorite 40 Blogs For 2008 (Version 2.0) - Right Wing News …
It’s time for me to rank my favorite blogs for the 2nd quarter of 2008. Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have, of course, moved up and others have dropped, based on how often…
2. HarkeysBar | June 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
OT, but it needs to be addressed.
Charlie Black, the lobbyist who now serves as the McCain campaign’s top strategist, told Fortune magazine with “startling candor” that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the election would help give his candidate a boost. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to McCain,” Black said.
It was an odd thing to say. Black wasn’t literally hoping for a terrorist attack, but his concession was nevertheless inappropriate. When asked if a terrorist attack would benefit one candidate over another, the tasteful response is to say electoral considerations pale in comparison to the seriousness of terrorism. Instead, McCain’s chief campaign strategist effectively said, “Yep, terrorism would be good for us.” It’s a politically-tone deaf remark. And not dissimilar to one McCain made regarding Benazir Bhutto on the day of her assassination. Ironically, Charlie Black was Bhutto’s lobbyist in Washington during the final year of her life.
At a press conference this afternoon, John McCain quickly moved in the other direction.
Just imagine if it was an Obama advisor who said that.
McSame and the wingnuts would be shouting from the top of the mountain.
3. '08ama | June 24th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Mark:
Hate to point this out to you but, in order for us to stay in Iraq for 100 years under McCain’s victory plan, SOMEBODY’s gonna have to pay some taxes somewhere along the line.
4. js | June 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
when are they going to clue in that a womans right to chose is before she gets pregant…last i checked…less than 1% of those who are pregnant…ended up that way without thier consent…that leaves over 99% of them who made the choice to have sex….and get pregnant….ignorance that sex gets women pregnant just does not work anymore….
FOCA is a right to kill act…guaranteeing the right for a mother to kill a living human being that she created within her body….without that human being having any representation in the issue….
its like a court system that doesnt allow any defense…and only gives out death sentences…literally….
5. OhioOrrin | June 24th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
the abortion debate has devolved into a wedge issue (w unintended consequences) intended to enflame passions & therefore raise money & activism to wit:
1) Medical licensing is a states’ rights issue. Roe v Wade is therefore bad FEDERAL law.
2) Those who advocate overturning Roe v Wade had better accept the unintended loss of privacy to corporations & the Fed govt such as medical records & gun ownership.
3) Overturning Roe v Wade would simply return the issue to the states (where it belongs) - some will, some won’t.
4) You’re kidding yourself if you don’t believe unlicensed, unregulated abortions will occurr.
5) No public policy consistency between abortion, capital punishment, & suicide not involving mental health issues.
6. The New Conservative | June 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Even Roe Vs Wade ruling left open for the states to place restictions on Abortions. The problem is cases after that ruling ignored that part of the ruling. Roe V Wade should be overturned it’s a States Rights issue the 10th Amendment was put there for a reason.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
7. Jeremiah | June 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I believe John McCain would do good for strengthening the real choice here, and advancing it for the little voice that has no choice. John McCain would be our only hope for succeeding in a strong pro-life Supreme Court.
Obama, OTOH, would advance his pro-murder stance to radical extremes, and in this there can be no question that he is putting on a great act of calling himself a “Christian” - The only question that I would like to asked Obama is this one thing, “What is your personal relationship with Jesus Christ?” And then he has to either side with the Christians or with the Muslims, there’s no middle ground.
Obama said something it was either today or yesterday about, something to the effect, “What if we put out all the non-Christians with just Christians left what would we teach?” What he’s essentially saying is,
“We have a right to believe what we believe but not a right to fight for what we believe in” In essence, he wants to silence the Christian people.
Is America undeserving? LOL! I don’t know, I just know one thing…
Shame on America if they vote for Barack Obama.
8. Andrew | June 24th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Can Mark or js answer a question for me? This is it: If, as js posits, for a woman to have an abortion is “to kill a living human being that she created within her body,” and if a law or constitutional amendment were ever passed to that effect, what do we do about miscarriages? What I’m saying is, if there is no fundamental difference between the living human being in the womb, and the living human being outside of the womb, with each deserving, as js put it, “representation on the issue,” what is the difference between one dying and the other dying? If a mother of a one month old came out of the house one day and said, “my one month old baby is dead,” there would most likely be an investigation into the cause of the baby’s death. What happens, in your ideal (abortion is illegal) scenario if a pregnant woman claims to have had a miscarriage? Should the circumstances of the unborn child’s death be investigated, and, let’s say, if the woman drank alcohol or had caffeine during her pregnancy (which doctors advise against), would she be subject to arrest? Would there be any fundamental difference between the pregnant woman having a glass of wine, and a mother pouring wine down the throat of a one month old? What is she exercised too much, and she miscarried?
In other words, would or should the cops investigate every miscarriage? And if you say no, then how do you justify them investigating the deaths of living children, when there’s no difference, in your mind, between the born and the unborn? Parents are thrown in jail when their living kids die due to their neglect. Shouldn’t you see if neglect, in one form or another, was a contributing cause to the unborn child’s death?
9. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“..what do we do about miscarriages?” - Andrew
That’s a natural cause. Just like natural caused deaths are not ruled homicides.
However, miscarriages should be investigated first by an obstetrician to determine if there is a pre-condition that may be harmful to the woman, but also to see if her possible neglect was any cause to the miscarriage. If the doctor determined further investigation, then police should be involved.
I am glad you asked that question. That’s how we learn.
Any other questions?
peace, neocon
10. Mateo Giovanni | June 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I found it truly amazing you knew what the first 13th amendment was about. The Civil War was a war over unfare taxation of Southerner’s. Which I am from Texas. The funny thing is studying Lincoln he turned a tax issue into a slavery issue, and bam…a war! Why not in just buy the Slaves Freedom? It would’ve been Cheaper. I don’t care for either political candidate, or the system as it stands now. I remember from my Grand Pappy, from his Grand Pappy that the South was under Military/Marshal Rule for some 20 years after the war. I got to tell you McCain has a more ghosts in his closet than Obama does. There is the fact that McCain started the fire on The USS Liberty. His fellow Guests hated him so much at the luxury Hotel Hilton that there are Veteran Groups today solely for the purpose of reminding McCain for his Treason. After he was shot down, and interragated the bombing of North Vietnam stopped. Why? The casualty rate of US aircraft went up 60%. According to his fellow guests it was McCain that gave the information that killed so many other American Veterens!! Let us not forget the McCain Five. Everyone was charged, and sentenced except for him. I am voting for Barack; because I simply think he is the lessor of two evils!!
11. 42 | June 24th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“but also to see if her possible neglect was any cause to the miscarriage. If the doctor determined further investigation, then police should be involved.”
seems we’ve been here before, NEGLECT would have to include not having a pregnancy test within hours of intercourse…if a woman becomes pregnant but does not know she is pregnant, but then does anything which causes harm to the ‘child’, she then must be brought up on charges of at least criminal neglect.
12. Mateo Giovanni | June 24th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Follow up On Lincoln. He was a character. He actually while practicing law returned a woman, and her five children to the slave master. He did this for money…… He didn’t help the woman to freedom, but instead shackled her, and her children back into slavery!
Peace and Freedom
13. Andrew | June 24th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
So, Neocon and 42, all miscarriages should be investigated by at least an obstetrician? What questions should be asked? “Did you drink coffee at any time?” “Did you have any alcohol?” “Did you have a cigarette?”
And 42, if a woman doesn’t have a pregnancy test immediately after intercourse, and doesn’t find out she’s pregnant until a month later, is she liable for criminal neglect if, within that month, she did something that could have been harmful to her unborn child?
42, what if her husband is the type that wants intercourse every night. I’m sure you would argue that she should not deny him that wish. Should she get a pregnancy test every morning? And what if this same husband, in that one month period between his wife getting pregnant and her finding out she’s pregnant, smokes around her? Or he gives her alcohol? Is he as responsible as she is for the potential miscarriage of the unborn child?
There are many practical issues that are never discussed when Neocon and 42 and others with similar sensibilities propose a blanket prohibition on abortions. I’ve simply raised a few of them.
Any questions?
14. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
42,
You do have comprehension problem don’t you. It’s alright, most “collective” minded people do.
Neglect is easily defined, as it is with prisoner treatment, in-care patients etc. It’s really not that hard of a concept to put some qualifiers to, which may alleviate the anguish of “concerned” liberals.
Like you. Because we all know how much you care.
Thanks for caring
peace, neocon
15. Tractatus | June 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Neglect is easily defined
And yet you can’t seem to do it. Need some help?
16. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
um….Andrew,
42 is one of your “collective” minds. Your challenging the wrong person. He is a bona fide member of your group think.
And see my post #14. Neglect is not a difficult concept to legislate. However, I only wish you would support more stringent questioning abortion proceedure is performed.
Would you object to the woman being subjected to this line of questioning before she received the abortion? And if not, why not?
“There are many practical issues that are never discussed when Neocon and 42 and others with similar sensibilities propose a blanket prohibition on abortions.” - Andrew
First of all, I have never proposed a blanket prohibition. Please, improve your reading comprehension skills. Secondly, there are many practical issues that are never discussed when Andrew and others with with similar sensibilities propose abortion on demand, right?
peace, neocon
17. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I will leave definition of legal matters to our elected representatives.
You may choose activist judges.
See how that works?
peace, neocon
18. js | June 24th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
is a miscarraige a result of a human act andrew? if it is a legitimate miscarraige, then its an act of nature, not murder….medical records would show a D&C, not an abortion…
dont even try to claim that i am giving a fetus more status than it deserves…every medical doctor will tell you that from the moment of conception, a fetus is a living human…period…while our government raises five kinds of hell over the morality of stem cell research….they allow the wholesale destruction of the same living beings “on demand” in abortion clinics…..
step back further…what did on demand abortions do to our society…besides proliferate irresponsible sexual behavior….which is also a great way to spread STD’s and other illness….human sexuality holds too high a place in some peoples lives…it becomes a crutch for the mentally ill….an addictive behavior for many others….and a bad example for the generations of children that grew up exposed to it…the older teenagers in todays generation are only getting a glimpse of what sexual responsibility is compared to before Roe VS Wade passed and opened the door to the unrestricted cure all of the drunken whore…abortion….kill the fetus….instead of taking responsibility for your own actions….then you can continue on in your irresponsible behavior patterns that destroys both the mind and the body….dont worry…you will regret it later…but not today…because today….liberals are gooing to let the kids be whores and thats all that matters to the kids….it helps them to generate hatred towards the Church….that teaches kids abstanance…no….the scent of murder rises from the abortion clinics all the way to heaven…God knows all about it…you cant hide the truth…and you cant hide from it either…. it wont last forever….and neither will America because we have lost the path that we were on….our courts do not recognize the truth about abortion…nor can the dispense justice with out the truth….how can the world look up to Americans that have allowed thier children to slaughter 50 million of thier brothers and sisters….its wrong….as we sowed this crop….so shall it be reaped….
19. Andrew | June 24th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Neocon:
I have no idea what you meant in your last post. So, to take you up on your invitation to ask more questions, here goes:
1. What, in your mind, would constitute “neglect” by a pregnant woman, where a miscarriage has resulted, meriting the prosecution of the woman for criminal negligence? If she smoked, if she drank? What about if she was a working woman? Maybe you would argue that working outside the home puts too much stress on a pregnant woman, and they belong at home, baking their babies, so to speak.
2. Who is to determine whether the unborn child’s miscarriage was from “natural causes,” as you put it, or from a criminal act? Why should the doctor decide that? Why shouldn’t the police decide it, just as they would in the case of the death of a living child?
3. Do you believe that women who become pregnant from a rape or from an incestuous act, should be forced to give birth to the child? If so, why shouldn’t the father have the same rights as other fathers, or, looking at it in reverse, why shouldn’t the child be entitled to have the father raising him or her alongside the mother?
20. 42 | June 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
neocon, then explain for all how my post, #11, is incorrect…enlighten us all please…
don’t go on a tangent, don’t change the subject, include all the self-indulgent name calling you want, but stay on topic for this one.
21. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Mateo,
Clearly your a “collective” minded pitchforker, and like most of them, have very little to say.
I will keep an eye on your posts and if anything of substance falls out of that empty head of yours, I’ll be sure to comment.
But just an aside, I heard that Lincoln planned on having 58 bases in Iraq long before Bush did.
Just saying
Have a nice day
peace, neocon
22. Andrew | June 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
js, how do you know, until you investigate, whether the miscarriage would be the result of a natural act, or the result of an abusive act by the mother? How would you know if the woman maybe drank too much, or strained herself too much, so that she miscarried? And if she drank too much, shouldn’t she be prosecuted, just as the woman should be who gives alcohol to her child.
The point is, you don’t know until you investigate. And therefore, do you agree that if we have our utopia and all abortions are illegal, all miscarriages should be investigated to see if a criminal act, either intentional or arising from neglect, occurred?
23. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Your post #11 is premised those actions constituting criminal neglect absent any legislation on the issue.
Any more questions?
And do all of you expect insults? I know that’s the standard du jour at the pitchfork, but I prefer to keep things civil.
Sorry.
peace, neocon
24. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Andrew,
Try and pay attention this time.
Questions #1 & 2, Our elected representatives are responsible for defining language in the laws and that would be the responsible body to put meaning into the vague term “neglect”.
You know, the usual manner in which laws are enacted.
Question #3, I think a woman should be able to opt for an abortion under those circimstances.
Any more stupid questions?
peace, neocon
25. FmrMarine | June 24th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
mateo;
>>>For YOU MO’ FO’ Christians, and other religious fanatics, here is Sir George telling you the truth!!!!!>>>
HMMMMM your post looks SUSPICIOUSLY like another groups who USED to post here…………HMMMMM
Do you think? NAAA cant be!
26. 42 | June 24th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Your post #11 is premised those actions constituting criminal neglect absent any legislation on the issue.”
absent any legislation? there is no legislation against murder? Or are you saying the criminally neglectful death of an child isn’t murder?
try again:
explain for all how my post, #11, is incorrect
27. Andrew | June 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Neocon:
What’s your background? How come you’re so condescending? Does your background or training merit it? I deal with all sorts of smart people all the time, as I’m sure you do. Captains of industry, professionals, academics and the like. If any of them were to talk to me, to my face, like you do, I’d just laugh and walk away.
Are you somehow different, and deserving of my attention?
28. 42 | June 24th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Andrew,
to answer your question, neocon is simply a troll
29. Jeremiah | June 24th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
The funny thing is studying Lincoln he turned a tax issue into a slavery issue, and bam…a war!–Mateo
Really? Nope! Lincoln wanted to keep the union.
As far as your other assumptions go…Oh, you could probably enslave women to an ideology of murdering their innocent unborn children, which is exactly what Obama wants to do. Mandatory abortions would be a heinous, treasonous crime, and would probably lead America down a dark road, just like 1800.
30. 42 | June 24th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“Lincoln he turned a tax issue into a slavery issue”
“Nope! Lincoln wanted to keep the union.”
that makes no sense, if you don’t know, don’t comment
Jeremiah= troll
31. Jeremiah | June 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
that makes no sense, if you don’t know, don’t comment–42
I was just countering a false assumption by Mateo as for the reason for the civil war. Some wanted to secede from the union, some wanted to stay in the union. Lincoln then fought to save and restore the union from disentigration. Most history books won’t show you the truth about it, because as some like Mateo like to revise and turn history on its head in order to suit their agenda.
One more thing:
What makes me a troll?
I just comment here. Calling people “trolls” should be against the rules, dude.
32. Some Assembly Required | June 24th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Andrew, I have to say sir, excellent questions. I’ve often thought of the practical application of enforcing abortion through special crime units and the like. Never have I thought to define neglect via miscarraige. Upon reading the posts I have thought of another possible delima. What about children who are born with defects such as down syndrome, MS, or Autism. Would there be an investigation into their diseases. Would that be considered some form of biological or chemical attack on a child? If so, could the mother then be considered a terrorist because she drank alchol which lead to her childs deformity? If such a law passed I think you’d see vasectamy’s go through the roof. Artificial incemination would eventually be the new way. From there I guess it all kind of reads like ‘Brave New World’ without the peace and everyone F&cking everyone of course.
I think this is truly where the back of the ‘pro-life’ crowd will break. Legislation against abortion would effectively give the government control of your social and sex lifes. If you think Obama’s gonna take your guns, get McCain to appoint people to overturn Roe vs Wade and watch your sex lives go by by. That includes sex with your wife. Then again, somehow I don’t think that will effect the likes of js, jeremiah or neocon… just a hunch.
33. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Andrew,
Laugh and walk away, really doesn’t matter. I am typically condescending because the current mindset of the average liberal deserves nothing more.
For example: 42.
42, As there are different ramifications for the crime of murder; ie: First or second degreee to manslaughter, etc, so the level of the crime of criminal neglect as it pertained to the death of the unborn, would still have to be determined.
I am not the one to do that. Just saying.
peace, neocon
34. neocon | June 24th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
SAR,
I have read your posts for quite some time now and I have to say that post #32 has shown me a new level of paranoia out of you.
I am impressed. Are you part of the “collective” mindset? Because if not, they could use your talents over at the pitchfork.
peace, neocon
35. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
why are you blowing smoke up our duffs andrew
we can see right though your charade
its not complicated
and its about as advanced as a mental midget can achieve
is this the best you have
the grey in your argument isnt even grey
its about as legitimate an argument as chicken little running about crying the sky is falling
nothing original in what you are posting
just a rehash of useless BS
any mental midget can do what you are trying to do
obviously…..the shoe fits…no!!
36. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
42= the atomic weight of poop on a stick
37. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
so tell us andrew
why do you have so much passion
for killing unborn children
did your mom drop you on your head?
did your dad molest you?
did they both sit back and laugh as the dog ate your cookies?
tell us…the world should know what makes someone want to defend the murder of innocent lives…go for it gumby
38. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
he SAR….i see you get your jollies over andrews questions….but you didnt answer them….
why is that? you must know…you have asked basically the same BS before….is that all you are about? did that bad doggie eat your cookies too? got a flat spot on your head….its obvious….so i wont ask about yur mom….but….your dad? YOU TOO?
wow…a trend….how amazing it is when you get down to the truth of things…..common links in mental midgets…i would have never known!!!
39. Mateo Giovanni | June 24th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Ahhh!!! I don’t know about any associations That I have; since I have none. As for all of you I find you all in need of some serious help………It is alright to come out of the closet. Ya know former President Jimmy Carter that cleaned up over a decade of Republican crap, and then set Reagan up has an I.Q. around 175. Now I’ll bet you guys have on average half of that. That would be around the high 80’s. Ya beat riding on the little bus, but just by a hair……….I am going to remind you Men of a thing called “The Bill of Rights” They are Inalienable Rights. You call yourselves conservative; yet the people that you support openly break almost the entire 10. Does this mean that ya’ll do fall into little bus category, or that ya’ll are true fascists waiting to dawn your black uniforms with knee high boots??? You guys are funny!!!
Peace is just for that and Freedom is well just for that; to call me anything is just plane stupid!
40. Jeremiah | June 24th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
to call me anything is just plane stupid!
Plane? Hmmmm…
Stupid? Hmmmm…
41. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
wow…i never seen anyone piss in thier own shoe like that gio….enough to overflow on the constitution and civil rights of living human beings…i guess you agree too…its ok to kill a fetus with a beating heart…but you should put someone in jail for doing it to someone who has already been born….the bill of rights doesnt give ANYONE the right to take the life of their unborn child…just because the supreme court can not figure out what life is does not change the medical facts that a fetus is human life….
must have been pretty f’d up in your family for you to interpet the constitution that way…what a pity
42. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
lol…carters legacy of failure will outlive liberal hatred and malice for bush…guaranteed….
“Top-ranking Democrats have also disavowed Carter’s work. Both Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi issued statements on Carter’s book, distancing themselves and the Democratic Party from his divisive rhetoric. Meanwhile, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., an African American, condemned Carter’s inappropriate use of the term “apartheid” in his title, labeling it “offensive.” ”
even the good ole boys in the DNC dont want thier names in the same sentence as carter…what a whackjob…both of ya!!
43. Fredrick Schwartz | June 24th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
41. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Who croaked and made you omniscient? Say two guys break into your house take your wife and daughters and release them ten weeks later and they are both pregnant. What then sherlock? Oh now of course since this is hypothetical and all you are going to say they would have the babies and give them out for adoption. yeah right. You’d get two abortions stat and call your divorce lawyer. done and done. when they made the mold for idiots like you they made sure there was a plastic liner in it so none of that hypocrisy would ruin the metal.
Solidifies his Pro life credentials, meh. I’m sure that will make all the people sufering with the lowest consumer confidence in decades feel all warm and fuzzy. I’m sorry I’m just more concerned for the 225 MM live births since Roe and all those people running around on Terra than a weepy emotional fundraising issue.
44. js | June 24th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
you just dont get it freddy
ill teach you something, ok?
abortion entails killing unborn human beings..there is no other medical description that gives a more realistic view of what abortion is….
thats the truth…alll the lip flapping you put in your post…doesnt contain the truth…it comes from a bad tree…that makes you a bad tree…and bad tree’s dont give good fruit…they only give off rotten oders and skank….neither of which is appealing to most conservatives…or anyone else that pays attention for that matter….its reserved for mental midgets and pollywogs…you know liberal stooges and whotnot….so understand this when I tell you, and take it quite seriously…your lips flapping in the wind are a waste of time to anyone on this forum…you are a poster child for the crush the ant club…and the club has lots and lots of members….
45. Jeremiah | June 24th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I’m sorry I’m just more concerned for the 225 MM live births since Roe and all those people running around on Terra than a weepy emotional fundraising issue.
I’m horrifically sorry…I’m concerned for the souls of the more than 50,000,000 mothers who aborted their babies, and the extra 60,000,000+ people who told them that murdering their baby was “acceptable.”
46. ViralNexus | June 25th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Unfortunately for you JS, that club has far more members than your club does. And I garuntee that scares the piss out of you. Don’t you people ever get tired of talking about this one issue? Abortion is bad, abortion sucks, no one should ever abort their unborn children. It is murder (DUH!) and it shouldn’t happen. With that being said it really doesn’t change the fact that will happen from now till the end of time.
The problem I have with the conservative view point on abortion is that they are more than willing to tell someone they can’t have an abortion but are not willing to claim responsibility for an illigitimate child whose parent(s) can’t take care of it. You are prolife once the child is born but could care less if that child is taken care of afterwards. You are against any form of social assistance including food stamps, WIC, and medicare/medicaid which without 1000s of children would go hungry and wouldn’t receive proper medical treatment. You are all about forcing a woman to bear a child she neither wants nor can support and then punishing her for not taking care of that child. Well there is always adoption right? WRONG! If adoption were the answer then we wouldn’t have the horrendously over capacity foster care system we currently have in the US. So what’s the answer to the obvious conclusion of NO ABORTIONS? Let’s get past the rhetoric and look for solutions.
47. Jeremiah | June 25th, 2008 at 12:58 am
You are prolife once the child is born but could care less if that child is taken care of–ViralNexus
Is that true?
Is that justification for murder?
Is there any justification for murder?
Why murder little babies thinking “no one” will take care of them?
‘God see, God hears, and God knows.’
48. Jeremiah | June 25th, 2008 at 1:02 am
You know, Viral, I find that to be a rather new accusation coming from Liberals these days.
“No one cares for the newborns.”
Well, sure, liberals don’t, they want to murder little babies in pursuit of the lusts of their bodies.
Sheesh! That’s not even thinking logically.
49. Mark Noonan | June 25th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Fredrick,
Because you are morally depraved it doesn’t give you any logical basis for assuming that we are, too. While you might murder your grand-child because his father was a criminal, some of us would not feel justified in visiting the sins of the father upon the son, nor would we feel that our wife’s kidnapping and rape just grounds for an annulment (the only actual way to end a marriage - and it means not that the marriage is over, but that it never happened to begin with as it was invalid from the start…nothing in there about how a crime against your wife invalidates your marital vows).
As was said by Pope Paul VI, if you want peace, work for justice…what you propose is to meet injustice with more injustice….and the war to the knife you’ll get by such an attitude.
50. Some Assembly Required | June 25th, 2008 at 8:28 am
38. js | June 24th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Funny thing js, neither do you. You see, My answer to his questions would be let Roe vs Wade stand. If it is overturned then his questions become relevant and lead us into a very very dangerous area.
js, say your wife gets pregnant (assuming your a man and actually have a wife), but you don’t find out about it until 2 months after conception occured. Now in those two months she regularly ate fast food, had a few drinks on occasion, had many deadlines at work she had to meet, etc.. A miscarriage results and an investigation begins into the death of the fetus. It is determined that though the death was unintended your wife is responsible because of those 2 months (manslaughter). You, the husband are an accessory because you did not stop her from normally living her life. Long story short, you two find yourself in jail from a reduced sentence of 3 - 5 years for a miscarriage due to neglect. My question to you is this, would you still advocate for Roe vs Wade to be overturned now that it threatens your future?
Before you deflect and say this is not relevant or start with personal insults, the only way in which Roe vs Wade can be overturned is to make abortions outlawed. You can leave it up to the state, but then the only way for the state to prevent abortions is to make them illegal. As such, these questions and scenarios stand where they will become tough policy decisions if such an event occurs.
Neo, I am not a writer from the Pitchfork, though I am honored you think I am of the same caliber.
51. js | June 25th, 2008 at 8:51 am
look at the nutjobs playing “whatif”
whatif godzilla actually existed…would you move out of new york?
whatif aliens impregnated your wife…would you sell the child to the circus?
whatif iran really wants peace…would you stop inspections just because they said too?
whatif northkorea said they dont have nukes…would japan trash its anti missle system?
whatif nike were giving away free shoes
whatif obama wasnt a liar
whatif the truth didnt matter
and
whatif less than 1% of the women who get pregnant get that way because they are raped….does it promote genocide of 50 million children….or should they be allowed to have an abortion
your BS what ifs really dont add up to squat…99.2 % of abortions are done to women who were not raped..who did not get abducted…and out of that remaining .8 percent of the population that are subjected to rape…there is statistical probability that the rape occured with a relative…and the law is normally involved to put slimeballs in jail..but…should we victimize the living human being who is the flesh and blood of the woman too, and kill it?
murder it!! get the pitchforks out…march on washington and demand the right to murder the innocent!! thats what your whatifs are about…
killing unborn, living human beings
you dont really have a defense…why? because you dont credit the right to life to the innocent and defenseless…rights? we already know what happened to the human rights of 50 million babies because of the .8 percent of the population that you want pity for…
sukonthatbadman nowgoawayanddieinpeacenik
52. js | June 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am
ya know…for thousands of years people didnt know that smoking while pregnant resulted in low birth rate…and drinking while pregnant really doesnt end pregnancies…spontaneous abortion is natures way of saying something is really wrong inside…and life is not feasible…yet…women who subject thier babies to “fast foot, a few drinks, and stress” really dont cause spontaneous abortions…nature made the little one a lot tougher than that….this is not more than a cheap excuse to make up lies and that does nothing but show the ignorance of those who try to spread it….
so SAR….just like i told you before…you can join the mental midgets….stooges…all 3 of ya…which brings us right back to where you were before you started….
nothings changed.
53. Some Assembly Required | June 25th, 2008 at 9:00 am
whatif God doesn’t exist? Would your life be meaningless?
js, what you fail to understand is that these ‘whatif’s’ with regard to abortion would become real questions in which policy would have to revolve around if Roe vs Wade was overturned. You can play it off as a hypothetical all you want until you get what you want. Then it’s no longer hypothetical and you and your wife would still be in jail. I fear then you’ll be sitting in your cell thinking ‘If only’ Roe vs Wade still stood… but then I’ll have no sympathy for you because you make the bed in which you lay.
54. js | June 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
when was the last time the police did an investigation for spontaneous abortion? really?
never.
you children should not play on adult message boards….
55. js | June 25th, 2008 at 9:03 am
i guess you missed it….i will quote it for you
“your BS what ifs really dont add up to squat”
now go play in the street, you would get more attention there instead of proving how big of a fool you are here…
56. Some Assembly Required | June 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am
“when was the last time the police did an investigation for spontaneous abortion?”
Why would they, right now abortion is legal….
You know the answer to the questions above, the problem your having with answering them is you lose your foot hold in debating abortion. So, what do you do instead, call me a stooge and that I’m writing BS. If your goal is to try and persuade me into thinking abortion is murder and that we should in fact over turn Roe vs Wade you are the child. Heres a hint, ‘because I said so’ or ‘because it is’ or even ‘because God says so’ is not an argument once you graduate the 2nd grade.
57. Sarah Bloch | June 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am
54. js | June 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
When was the last time they arrested someone for perfoming an abortion?
58. Andrew | June 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
OK JS, I guess you’re saying that all miscarriages are acts of nature, and therefore in a society where abortion was illegal, there would be no need for an investigation were a mother to miscarry (which you would term “a spontaneous abortion”).
Now suppose the mother was a black woman, and a crack user. She doesn’t know she’s pregnant in the first month, and she continues to use crack cocaine. She miscarries a month later. She tells the doctor that she used crack cocaine in that one month period when she did not know she was pregnant.
Should the doctor tell the authorities?
Now change the facts slightly. Assume the woman is wealthy and white. She also doesn’t know she’s pregnant, and so in that one month period she does cocaine (not crack, like black people use). She miscarries, and then tells her doctor that she had used cocaine. Should the doctor tell the authorities, or should he assume that this was just “a spontaneous abortion” caused by nature?
And what is your basis for your point that consumption of alcohol and cigarettes don’t cause women to miscarry.
Oh, and to answer your question about why I’m interested in the questioning I started. My stepmother, a God-fearing Christian and Republican, continued to drink and smoke during her pregnancy. Her child was born severely retarded. The diagnosis, or what the doctors concluded as to the cause, was fetal alcohol syndrome. I think everyone wishes she had had an abortion. Perhaps under the “no abortion” society we may one day end up living in, she would, or should, have been prosecuted. (an interesting aside to that issue would be the fact that the alcohol and tobacco industries would probably place major pressure on the Republican party to prevent these types of laws from passing, as those industries - - who the Republicans listen to - - would not want anything, including pregnancy, to dissuade people from drinking or smoking, their label warnings notwithstanding.
59. Tractatus | June 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Is there any justification for murder?
According to you there is. If the victim is gay, for example.
60. Andrew | June 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Sorry Mark, but I just don’t get your point. If someone raped my daughter, and she had the chance to abort the fetus and not have to carry it for nine months, and then give birth to it, I would do what I could to get her the abortion.
Fundamentally, don’t most of your readers, as well as yourself, think that it is morally depraved for a mother to abandon her child? If you do, then shouldn’t the raped woman who may be forced to give birth (if abortions are not allowed) be required to raise her child, instead of abandoning it? I suppose you could say that giving it up for adoption is an acceptable alternative, but what if you were to know that the child wouldn’t be adopted? If that is a risk - - and I’m certain it is, as potential adoptive parents should be entitled to ask what the circumstances were of the mother becoming pregnant - - then shouldn’t we also force raped mothers to keep their children?
Carrying it one step further, don’t we all agree (the followers of this blog) that a child should be raised in a two parent family? If so, isn’t it wrong to deprive the child the love and stewardship of his or her raping father? Yes, it was wrong for the father to rape the mother, and it may be traumatic for the mother to have her own personal rapist in her life, but in your view, why visit the mother’s trauma and the father’s crime on the child? Doesn’t the child’s well being - - brought about by being raised by the two natural parents, as opposed to a single parent or adoptive parents - - trump the mother’s pain?
Kind of a slippery slope, don’t you think, this anti-abortion stance….?
61. Fredrick Schwartz | June 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
51. js | June 25th, 2008 at 8:51 am
The fact that you can’t answer the hypothetical because it might make you look like a bad guy control freak because that’s what you guys really are is proof enough for me that no one like you should ever even be dog catcher.
Would you make your daughter have a child that was the product of rape? Would you counsel your sister to do the same? Your wife? These sorts of thing happen to “Christian” people every day why not stand up for what you believe. But you believe my good gentlemen friends in rules for others that do not apply to you.
You see this is your fatal flaw. You stand on this issue that a woman has to give birth to any child that in conceived in her womb like the Southern baptists stood on their right to keep and hold maen and women against their will. They like you saw that allowing a black man an education and the freedom to live within the law as a white man equally as a form of muder and their power over this issue their moral RIGHT came from Scripture.
Abortion is muder but it is also a personal private choice between a woman, her physician and her own conscience. Not you Mark Noonan not Benedict 16 not the USCCB not Opus Dei not George W Bush, Dr James Dobson, William Donohue Concerned Women for America or anyone elese including the Supreme Court for that matter. It is a private medical choice. Period.
62. kmg | June 25th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” John McCain - 1999
Was he lying then or is he lying now?
63. DM | June 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
” Abortion is muder but it is also a personal private choice between a woman, her physician and her own conscience.” - FS
It’s interesting that you would recognize abortion as murder. If that is so, essentially what you’re saying that abortion is killing a living human being, a unique individual. But then in a reversing direction you say it’s a private choice. Does the child have any rights, anyone to stand up for him/her? At what point does the woman’s “choice” over this individual in relation to life and death cease to exists if ever? Anytime up to when the baby is born? After the umbilical cord is cut or the after birth? When the child reaches a certain age?
Why does it matter what side of the womb the baby, this unique living individual resides to determine its rights?
The way I see it you’re assigning the child in the womb the status of an individual by claiming it would be murder and then in the same paragraph claim the individual has NO rights of protection. Sure seems like a conflicting stance.
64. Andrew | June 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
JS, Neocon and Mark:
How about this?:
What if a woman is condemned to execution for murder, and she’s exhausted all of her remedies, so that there would be no reason to delay her execution.
But then it’s discovered she’s two weeks pregnant.
Do you execute her anyway?
65. js | June 27th, 2008 at 12:22 am
hey andrew
how about this:
what if your mom had an abortion and you were not here to display your stupid what ifs?
it would make us happy, sorta….but what about you? would you go out an party because you were jerked out of your mothers womb and dismembered so she could go out an party and have irresponsible, unrestricted sex life?
you cant stop breathing for the rest of your life because you might inhale asbestos someday….its just doesnt make sense…like your whatifs
66. js | June 27th, 2008 at 12:29 am
“At what point does the woman’s “choice” over this individual in relation to life and death cease to exist”
“choice” to take a life? I dont really think there is a legal right to do that…so in effect…the answer is the same across the board…if a human has a heart beat….then he/she is alive…..that makes life, at the very latest…from conception…to be no more than 5 weeks….yet…not one medical professional will testify that life does not begin at conception…
67. js | June 27th, 2008 at 12:37 am
61. Fredrick Schwartz
actually freddy boy, your stupid if you believe what you wrote…just like i already figured out….work on it…you should….really….your absolutisms and .001 percenters that may, or may not, happen…should not open the door for the other 99.9% of the population to commit the murder of 50 million defenseless human beings…without any restrictions in society….
the only thing you are defending is some dream of a sexual revolution and the glimmer of hope that the irresponsible behavior it encouraged should continue so that another 50 million defenseless human beings can be slaughtered…
do you think the term slaughtered is too vauge? you really should read up on exactly what goes on during most abortions…do you think they dont feel pain and struggle to get away from the inevitable? if you do…you really are the mental midget that i take you for….
wake up little boy…life is passing you by and you have no clue when to jump on board…
68. juego interactivo web&hellip | July 8th, 2008 at 8:29 am
video poker for free
Respectfully juego interactivo web free online craps draw poker juegos instantaneos paginas internet tragaperra portal internet
69. no deposit bonus poker&hellip | July 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
poker americano
Mucho gambling portal poker americano giochi internet trucos ganar casino poquer gratis
70. craps online&hellip | July 11th, 2008 at 2:47 am
how to play poker
At strategia poker free nokia ringtones cartas poker live poker game download verizon ringtones
71. free real ringtones&hellip | July 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
polyphonic ringtones
Each one of celcom caller ringtones casino tropez gratuites poker stars net 100 virgin mobile ringtones 50 cent ringtones
72. gluck spiel&hellip | July 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
jugar omaha poker
An gioco poker online gratis jack black spiel siti poker online jugar omaha poker juegos de poker online
73. poker 770 gratuites&hellip | July 15th, 2008 at 7:18 am
casino online vergleich
Das kasinos im internet gioco poker texas strip poker download gratis internet gewinnspiel besten casino online
74. casino on net com&hellip | July 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
slot maschinen
Inoltre tavoli da gioco poker fruit slots www casino spiele de sites de poker en ligne internet gewinnspiel
75. free christian ringtones&hellip | July 16th, 2008 at 6:12 am
casino en ligne com
Prendre online backgammon casino guide go phone ringtones blackjack card game jeu casino en ligne
76. free poker money&hellip | July 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
pai gow poker portal internet
However ringtones verizon wireless free ringtones 3gforfree how to win video poker download free nokia ringtones arabic download free ringtones
77. Pee Public Pee Public Pis&hellip | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Pee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
78. is john mccain pro life&hellip | August 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 am
[…] cowardly ???can I have it both ways, please??? march through the morass of the Culture of Death:http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/06/24/john-mccain-solidifies-his-pro-life-credentials/CNN Transcript - Special Event: Sen. John McCain Attacks Pat …SEN. john mccain R, PRESIDENTIAL […]
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed