One thing is strikingly clear: The pro-abortion lobby still wields veto power over the Democratic presidential nomination process.
I have never seen such a panoply of panderers as when I watched, with horror, the six Democratic presidential candidates groveling before the gods of National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League in a unanimous display of homage at a pro-abortion fund-raising dinner Tuesday. (Watch the tape; it was disgraceful.)
"The fact that this is the first major gathering of the announced presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side demonstrates the importance and power of this issue," said Kate Michelman, the president of NARAL. No, Kate, actually, it shows the stranglehold you feminists have on an entire political party.
This stranglehold is ironic given recent evidence suggesting that this glorified anti-life movement is losing favor among the American people. So much so, in fact, that NARAL just changed its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a frantic effort to rescue its faltering image. "Through our name change we are underscoring that our country is pro-choice, said Michelman. "It's the right name for this moment in history." Oh?
A brand-new Wirthlin Worldwide poll shows that 68 percent of American adults favor restoring legal protection for unborn children." Nearly the same percentage – 66 percent – said they favored Supreme Court nominees "who would uphold laws that restore legal protection to unborn children."
Pro-abortionists can spin these numbers any way they want, or complain that the polling questions were loaded, but if the pollsters wanted to fudge their findings, they could have asked whether people have any problems with abortion, or some other nebulous question. But they didn't. They asked about legal protection and judges who would offer it. That's pretty hard to explain away.
Sure, the poll doesn't provide specifics as to what type of legal protection or to what stages of the baby's development it should apply. But the mere support for legal protection at all speaks volumes about the public's awareness that we are dealing with live human beings, not impersonal, unviable tissue masses or lifeless zygotes. As Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action, a pro-life and traditional values organization, said, "The bottom line is, 30 years of chanting 'choice' cannot overshadow what it is that's being chosen."
And the more we advance scientifically, the more acute our awareness will be. Research by the National Institute of Family Health and Life Advocacy indicates that up to 90 percent of women who see their unborn child using new "3-D" ultrasound technology, which shows the unborn child's body and facial features in detail, choose to carry the baby to term.
These developments, pardon the pun, have the abortionists quite concerned. So do many of the other leading indicators on the health of the abortion movement. They can't be pleased, for example, that the number of U.S. abortion providers has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years, nor that 35 states are seeing a downward trend in abortion rates.
But what worries them most is Republican control of the presidency and Congress with no signs of relief on the horizon. (Human Events reported that NARAL went 1-for-20 in its congressional election picks in November. That is, all but one of the 20 House and Senate candidates it chose to support and endorse – all Democrats – lost.)
The abortionists say they are going to have to shift their focus to politics because they can no longer rely on their obstructionist powers to control the court with judges receptive to vague penumbras and phantom constitutional privacy rights. But with their declining electoral clout it's inevitable they will oppose President Bush's judicial nominations even more fiercely, if that's possible.
But all their noise won't conceal that the abortion movement is experiencing hard times. The abortionists' fundamental problem is that they don't have truth on their side. They aren't even honest about their real agenda, which is why they are forever playing semantic games and changing their name.
If they were truly pro-choice and not pro-abortion, how do you explain the nearly 700,000 surgical and chemical abortions Planned Parenthood admitted to performing in 2001 alone? Or that they hide information from pregnant women contemplating an abortion, such as the objectively identified medical and psychological risks involved? Or that they don't encourage them to get a 3-D ultrasound?
I'm not saying the abortion movement is dead. Far from it. But it's ailing. Please don't tell the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
I think this past week was a pretty distasteful display on both sides of this issue. The strident remarks and loaded language did nothing to shed light on issue because neither side wants to. They each have thier own side, and that's it.
"68 percent of American adults favor restoring legal protection for unborn children."
ERIE, Pa. -- A judge has upheld murder charges against a woman accused of killing the fetus of a romantic rival, rejecting defense arguments that Pennsylvania's fetal homicide law conflicts with abortion rights.
Corinne Wilcott had argued that she couldn't be charged with murder if the state didn't consider the fetus to be a person.
Good point, if the fetus is not a person, but only a mass of cells, a zygote, etc., how can a person be charged with murder? If this girl can be charged with murder, why can't a doctor who performs an abortion be charged with murder as well?
You can believe that if you choose, but that's not what it says. It's so open-ended it can be interpreted just about any way you want.
Please explain? I thought that it was pretty straight forward. I am not asking you to agree, just explain.
Is it strange to you that Gore would speak at Bob Jones University?
What some have described as a rightwing school? Yes. If it was such an extremist place, why would they invite him and why would he accept?
Do you think abortion should be illegal in all instances, Dan?
Most cases, definitely. Some cases, I am not sure. When you talk about the life of the mother, it is like asking should we save the mother or the child from a burning building? Someone will probably die, but which is the better choice?
I have a sister-in-law who was told she would die if she had another child (something about a thin liner in the womb). She became pregnant and decided to ignore the doctor's advice. Everything went perfecctly and she is healthy and now has a beautiful 6 year old daughter. The doctor's are not always right.
Given the current environment of confrontation and anger can you see either side giving in to anything?
I have seen many who post here state that there is some cases when an abortion should be considered but take offense to abortion for convenience. Yes, I do see a chance for a middle ground for most of us involved in the debate.
"What some have described as a rightwing school? Yes. If it was such an extremist place, why would they invite him and why would he accept?"
Maybe they are more accepting of differing opinions than we know. Maybe more than many people WE know. Maybe Gore's not afraid of differing opinons, either.
As for 2753, I don't know. I guess they used intent as a critieria. Hell, I don't know from this abortion issue. The whole debate sounds nuts much of the time.\03I'm a guy.
"When you talk about the life of the mother, it is like asking should we save the mother or the child from a burning building? "
Isn't the mother nothing more than the building if you frame the debate like that? That's pretty objectifying, Dan. Women are just a vessel for carrying children and if worse comes to worst, you have to decide it's the child and not her?
There's always the possibility of more children. You can't say the same thing for the woman.
Maybe they are more accepting of differing opinions than we know.
This was my point to begin with. This school has been blasted as being extremist in their views. I have never been there and only know the little that I have picked up on the net. Granted, they are not exactly P.C., but if they are good enough for Al Gore, then maybe they are not as totally out of line as many have portrayed them to be.
As for 2753, I don't know. I guess they used intent as a critieria. Hell, I don't know from this abortion issue. The whole debate sounds nuts much of the time.\03I'm a guy.
I am sure that intent was involved and I am glad to see that this person was found guilty, no arguement from me there. However, if this is a non-person for the purpose of an abortion, what magically turns it into a person with certain rights for the purpose of a murder trial? The law needs to be more coherant than that.
Women are just a vessel for carrying children and if worse comes to worst, you have to decide it's the child and not her?
Twisting the meaning of my words there. I was comparing the situation to another where you would need to make a decision involving the 2 lives involved. It would be difficult to decide in the situation I posted. In the case of a burning building and being forced to save only one, I think that I would have to help the child in the hope that the mother could make it out without my help.
I think that's when the anti-abortion movement would move things up a notch or two....or more.
True, then the pro-abortion extremist would retaliate to even the score. It all comes down to the extremist on both sides.
I think this past week was a pretty distasteful display on both sides of this issue. The strident remarks and loaded language did nothing to shed light on issue because neither side wants to. The issue is clear there is no more "light" to be shed on it.
Thirty years ago last week, the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, transforming abortion from a crime into a constitutional right. Thirty years later, it's a good time to reflect on what we were promised by abortion rights advocates and what we have gained.
you wrote: that's what it's all about, the desperate desire to prevent anything other than a traditional family to take root....driven by the Church.
my response was: It is about conscience, crabs, something I doubt you know anything about.
Now do you see why it has nothing to do with your conscience? Do you also see why your conscience, or more accurately your lack of one, that is irrelevant?
I don't think attempting to prevent the dismemberment of unborn children as forcing conscience anyone. I don't think anyone can change the way proabortionists feel about the act. I just want to see it illegal, then I would like to see those punished that choose to do the act.
No one is making it theirs. Making abortion illegal would simply change the community standard. For those contemplating an abortion it will only be a matter of deciding to obey the law or violate it
One day the decision to end a pregnancy on a whim will be a crime
you give women so very little credit that you assume to know why they make a decision that you can't even understand because you will (in fact can) never have to make such a decision yourself.
women should make neutering men who want to legislate their reproductive abaility mandatory, that would cut way down on abortions.
One day the decision to end a pregnancy on a whim will be a crime
you fuckers keep at it and one day we will be nothing but a nation of criminals and uptight, self-rightous jailers...which I have no doubt you would enjoy a great deal. We already have pretty much the highest rate of imprisionment in the world. You assholes won't be happy until everyone who disagrees with you is in jail.
I'm not for seatbelt laws either...and murder involves itself with another, separate person's rights.
Isn't that really what is at the heart of the matter? You just like the slave owner of the 19th century don't believe that what is at issue is human. But it is. And that person should have the right to life. That isn't so much to ask, is it? It certainly was for the slave owner, I guess.
again, you want to dictate what some others should do about their sexuality
you just enjoy denying reality, don't you?
they are not separate things.
so, you are saying that if a siamese twin what's to be separate from it's other half, and the other half dies in the separation, that they are guilty of manslaghter or murder or something?
again, you want to dictate what some others should do about their sexuality I don't care about their sexuality. If you weren't so thick-headed you would know that. The problem is a fundamental difference between people like you and people like me. You want to believe the unborn child is nothing. I believe that it is a person and the right to life should be protected. One is based on circumstantial evidence and reason. Your view is based on selfishness and expediency.
so, you are saying that if a siamese twin what's to be separate from it's other half, and the other half dies in the separation, that they are guilty of manslaghter or murder or something? I would say that both lives ned to be considered. In your example I don't think the operation should be performed unless both agree.
South Carolina Lawmaker Proposes 'Choose Death' License Plates
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76524,00.html
Some 'choice' problems
Posted: January 24, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Exerpts from David Limbaugh's recent article:
One thing is strikingly clear: The pro-abortion lobby still wields veto power over the Democratic presidential nomination process.
I have never seen such a panoply of panderers as when I watched, with horror, the six Democratic presidential candidates groveling before the gods of National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League in a unanimous display of homage at a pro-abortion fund-raising dinner Tuesday. (Watch the tape; it was disgraceful.)
"The fact that this is the first major gathering of the announced presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side demonstrates the importance and power of this issue," said Kate Michelman, the president of NARAL. No, Kate, actually, it shows the stranglehold you feminists have on an entire political party.
This stranglehold is ironic given recent evidence suggesting that this glorified anti-life movement is losing favor among the American people. So much so, in fact, that NARAL just changed its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a frantic effort to rescue its faltering image. "Through our name change we are underscoring that our country is pro-choice, said Michelman. "It's the right name for this moment in history." Oh?
A brand-new Wirthlin Worldwide poll shows that 68 percent of American adults favor restoring legal protection for unborn children." Nearly the same percentage – 66 percent – said they favored Supreme Court nominees "who would uphold laws that restore legal protection to unborn children."
Pro-abortionists can spin these numbers any way they want, or complain that the polling questions were loaded, but if the pollsters wanted to fudge their findings, they could have asked whether people have any problems with abortion, or some other nebulous question. But they didn't. They asked about legal protection and judges who would offer it. That's pretty hard to explain away.
Sure, the poll doesn't provide specifics as to what type of legal protection or to what stages of the baby's development it should apply. But the mere support for legal protection at all speaks volumes about the public's awareness that we are dealing with live human beings, not impersonal, unviable tissue masses or lifeless zygotes. As Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action, a pro-life and traditional values organization, said, "The bottom line is, 30 years of chanting 'choice' cannot overshadow what it is that's being chosen."
And the more we advance scientifically, the more acute our awareness will be. Research by the National Institute of Family Health and Life Advocacy indicates that up to 90 percent of women who see their unborn child using new "3-D" ultrasound technology, which shows the unborn child's body and facial features in detail, choose to carry the baby to term.
These developments, pardon the pun, have the abortionists quite concerned. So do many of the other leading indicators on the health of the abortion movement. They can't be pleased, for example, that the number of U.S. abortion providers has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years, nor that 35 states are seeing a downward trend in abortion rates.
But what worries them most is Republican control of the presidency and Congress with no signs of relief on the horizon. (Human Events reported that NARAL went 1-for-20 in its congressional election picks in November. That is, all but one of the 20 House and Senate candidates it chose to support and endorse – all Democrats – lost.)
The abortionists say they are going to have to shift their focus to politics because they can no longer rely on their obstructionist powers to control the court with judges receptive to vague penumbras and phantom constitutional privacy rights. But with their declining electoral clout it's inevitable they will oppose President Bush's judicial nominations even more fiercely, if that's possible.
But all their noise won't conceal that the abortion movement is experiencing hard times. The abortionists' fundamental problem is that they don't have truth on their side. They aren't even honest about their real agenda, which is why they are forever playing semantic games and changing their name.
If they were truly pro-choice and not pro-abortion, how do you explain the nearly 700,000 surgical and chemical abortions Planned Parenthood admitted to performing in 2001 alone? Or that they hide information from pregnant women contemplating an abortion, such as the objectively identified medical and psychological risks involved? Or that they don't encourage them to get a 3-D ultrasound?
I'm not saying the abortion movement is dead. Far from it. But it's ailing. Please don't tell the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
David Limbaugh, an attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Mo., is the author of the pull-no-punches exposé of corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department, "Absolute Power." Personally signed copies are now available in WorldNetDaily's online store.
I think this past week was a pretty distasteful display on both sides of this issue. The strident remarks and loaded language did nothing to shed light on issue because neither side wants to. They each have thier own side, and that's it.
"68 percent of American adults favor restoring legal protection for unborn children."
What in the world does that mean?
...Bob Jones University, a conservative Christian school in South Carolina
Then why did Al Gore speak there in 1990?
What in the world does that mean?
It means that they believe unborn children should have the same right to life as born children.
Pa. Law Protecting Fetuses Upheld
By Associated Press
January 26, 2003, 8:34 AM EST
ERIE, Pa. -- A judge has upheld murder charges against a woman accused of killing the fetus of a romantic rival, rejecting defense arguments that Pennsylvania's fetal homicide law conflicts with abortion rights.
Corinne Wilcott had argued that she couldn't be charged with murder if the state didn't consider the fetus to be a person.
Good point, if the fetus is not a person, but only a mass of cells, a zygote, etc., how can a person be charged with murder? If this girl can be charged with murder, why can't a doctor who performs an abortion be charged with murder as well?
"It means that they believe unborn children should have the same right to life as born children. "
You can believe that if you choose, but that's not what it says. It's so open-ended it can be interpreted just about any way you want.
Is it strange to you that Gore would speak at Bob Jones University?
Do you think abortion should be illegal in all instances, Dan?
Given the current environment of confrontation and anger can you see either side giving in to anything?
You can believe that if you choose, but that's not what it says. It's so open-ended it can be interpreted just about any way you want.
Please explain? I thought that it was pretty straight forward. I am not asking you to agree, just explain.
Is it strange to you that Gore would speak at Bob Jones University?
What some have described as a rightwing school? Yes. If it was such an extremist place, why would they invite him and why would he accept?
Do you think abortion should be illegal in all instances, Dan?
Most cases, definitely. Some cases, I am not sure. When you talk about the life of the mother, it is like asking should we save the mother or the child from a burning building? Someone will probably die, but which is the better choice?
I have a sister-in-law who was told she would die if she had another child (something about a thin liner in the womb). She became pregnant and decided to ignore the doctor's advice. Everything went perfecctly and she is healthy and now has a beautiful 6 year old daughter. The doctor's are not always right.
Given the current environment of confrontation and anger can you see either side giving in to anything?
I have seen many who post here state that there is some cases when an abortion should be considered but take offense to abortion for convenience. Yes, I do see a chance for a middle ground for most of us involved in the debate.
Rick, what about my post 2753? What is your oppinion?
"What some have described as a rightwing school? Yes. If it was such an extremist place, why would they invite him and why would he accept?"
Maybe they are more accepting of differing opinions than we know. Maybe more than many people WE know. Maybe Gore's not afraid of differing opinons, either.
As for 2753, I don't know. I guess they used intent as a critieria. Hell, I don't know from this abortion issue. The whole debate sounds nuts much of the time.\03I'm a guy.
"When you talk about the life of the mother, it is like asking should we save the mother or the child from a burning building? "
Isn't the mother nothing more than the building if you frame the debate like that? That's pretty objectifying, Dan. Women are just a vessel for carrying children and if worse comes to worst, you have to decide it's the child and not her?
There's always the possibility of more children. You can't say the same thing for the woman.
"Yes, I do see a chance for a middle ground for most of us involved in the debate."
The closer you would get to compromise the more the extremes on each end would dig in.
I think that's when the anti-abortion movement would move things up a notch or two....or more.
Maybe they are more accepting of differing opinions than we know.
This was my point to begin with. This school has been blasted as being extremist in their views. I have never been there and only know the little that I have picked up on the net. Granted, they are not exactly P.C., but if they are good enough for Al Gore, then maybe they are not as totally out of line as many have portrayed them to be.
As for 2753, I don't know. I guess they used intent as a critieria. Hell, I don't know from this abortion issue. The whole debate sounds nuts much of the time.\03I'm a guy.
I am sure that intent was involved and I am glad to see that this person was found guilty, no arguement from me there. However, if this is a non-person for the purpose of an abortion, what magically turns it into a person with certain rights for the purpose of a murder trial? The law needs to be more coherant than that.
Women are just a vessel for carrying children and if worse comes to worst, you have to decide it's the child and not her?
Twisting the meaning of my words there. I was comparing the situation to another where you would need to make a decision involving the 2 lives involved. It would be difficult to decide in the situation I posted. In the case of a burning building and being forced to save only one, I think that I would have to help the child in the hope that the mother could make it out without my help.
I think that's when the anti-abortion movement would move things up a notch or two....or more.
True, then the pro-abortion extremist would retaliate to even the score. It all comes down to the extremist on both sides.
I think this past week was a pretty distasteful display on both sides of this issue. The strident remarks and loaded language did nothing to shed light on issue because neither side wants to. The issue is clear there is no more "light" to be shed on it.
Thirty years ago last week, the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, transforming abortion from a crime into a constitutional right. Thirty years later, it's a good time to reflect on what we were promised by abortion rights advocates and what we have gained.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20030127.shtml
because society cannot get it together to find workable alternatives to the traditional family, this is what is happening.
that's what it's all about, the desperate desire to prevent anything other than a traditional family to take root....driven by the Church.
It is about conscience, crabs, something I doubt you know anything about.
keep your rules out of my conscience
I have no use for your conscience and you have no business dictating mine.
your conscience allows for killing people who are born and walking around.
I have no use for it.
No one is dictating your conscience, crabs.
first...
then...
what the fuck ever
you must have attention deficit disorder, crabs.
you wrote: that's what it's all about, the desperate desire to prevent anything other than a traditional family to take root....driven by the Church.
my response was: It is about conscience, crabs, something I doubt you know anything about.
Now do you see why it has nothing to do with your conscience? Do you also see why your conscience, or more accurately your lack of one, that is irrelevant?
uh huh
I have a fine conscience.
crabs: I have a fine conscience.
I am sure you do. It must be in pristine condition due to lack of use!
well, I don't try to force it on others, if that's what you mean
I don't think attempting to prevent the dismemberment of unborn children as forcing conscience anyone. I don't think anyone can change the way proabortionists feel about the act. I just want to see it illegal, then I would like to see those punished that choose to do the act.
the decision to end a pregnancy is not yours.
when you make it yours, you do indeed force your conscience upon a woman.
no such thing as a "pro-abortionist"
to force your conscience into the medical decisions of someone else.
No one is making it theirs. Making abortion illegal would simply change the community standard. For those contemplating an abortion it will only be a matter of deciding to obey the law or violate it
forcing the conscience of one part of society on the others
swell.
nope...since I can't have one, it's not mine to decide. I don't think anyone WANTS an abortion, but I'm not about to make a law saying they can't.
I'm not for amputation either...nor am I for outlawing it.
you give women so very little credit that you assume to know why they make a decision that you can't even understand because you will (in fact can) never have to make such a decision yourself.
women should make neutering men who want to legislate their reproductive abaility mandatory, that would cut way down on abortions.
you fuckers keep at it and one day we will be nothing but a nation of criminals and uptight, self-rightous jailers...which I have no doubt you would enjoy a great deal. We already have pretty much the highest rate of imprisionment in the world. You assholes won't be happy until everyone who disagrees with you is in jail.
fuck that.
I suppose the reason there are so many abortions each year is becasuse no one wants them.
I'm not for seatbelt laws either...and murder involves itself with another, separate person's rights.
there are marked similarities, any moron could see that.
Maybe they could just say no. It is a lot easier than your suggestion.
I'm not for seatbelt laws either...and murder involves itself with another, separate person's rights.
Isn't that really what is at the heart of the matter? You just like the slave owner of the 19th century don't believe that what is at issue is human. But it is. And that person should have the right to life. That isn't so much to ask, is it? It certainly was for the slave owner, I guess.
there are marked similarities, any moron could see that.
Any moron can see that it is a lie to keep the abortion mills running.
I do too believe a woman and herfetus is a human
I also believe that since it's a part of her, she has a right to do with it what she wants or needs.
I'm surprised these people aren't advocating supplying fetuses with guns to protect themselves from their mean old moms
I do too believe a woman and her fetus is a human
the usual language used to deflect attention from what really happens during an abortion. Orwellian isn't it.
they are attached...they are one thing.
oh yes...the standard Church response of denying one's sexuality
that leads to so manywell adjusted people, doesn't it?
they are attached...they are one thing.
No. Siamese twins are attached but they are two people. unborn children have their seperate form and therfore a seperate identity.
count them, one.
all done.
One thing with two of some parts and one of some other parts.
I suppose that if I had a twin completely inside my body it would want to use my credit too.
oh yes...the standard Church response of denying one's sexuality No it is the idea of one being responsible.
that leads to so many well adjusted people, doesn't it? as well adjusted as any other group of people.
count them, one.
you just enjoy denying reality, don't you?
again, you want to dictate what some others should do about their sexuality
they are not separate things.
so, you are saying that if a siamese twin what's to be separate from it's other half, and the other half dies in the separation, that they are guilty of manslaghter or murder or something?
again, you want to dictate what some others should do about their sexuality I don't care about their sexuality. If you weren't so thick-headed you would know that. The problem is a fundamental difference between people like you and people like me. You want to believe the unborn child is nothing. I believe that it is a person and the right to life should be protected. One is based on circumstantial evidence and reason. Your view is based on selfishness and expediency.
so, you are saying that if a siamese twin what's to be separate from it's other half, and the other half dies in the separation, that they are guilty of manslaghter or murder or something? I would say that both lives ned to be considered. In your example I don't think the operation should be performed unless both agree.
just tell them not to have any.
and if one is not able to agree the other is forced to have it as a part of it's onw body?
it's called a fetus
at least I know it's proper name.