John Kerry and America are going to have to deal with the fact that Democrats are responsible for MURDERING MORE babies than any of the genocidal mass killers of the last 50 years: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot or Sadamn Hussein.

Posted by: leaddog2 at June 3, 2004 02:03 PM

Not only that leaddog2; their liberal judges continue to push to kill babies after they are partially born. A second heinous act that Pelosi and her wild eyed screeds support. Kerry will begin to hesitate and stutter on his stands once they flush him out of the weeds.

Note that the additional $25 billion needed for Iraq passed the Senate by a 95-0 vote!! Even Ted ‘hic’ Kennedy and Robert KKK Byrd voted for it so they could continue their political careers! I find that funny, and Kerry was no where in sight. I suppose he would have voted for it before he voted against it; if he could have voted at all!!! ha ha ha

Posted by: dickD at June 3, 2004 04:45 PM

I used to be in the silent anti-abortion group but since 5 months ago when my awesome son was born, I couldnt agree with the last 2 posts more. Its nothing else but MURDER. ESPECIALLY the late term infanticide. Anyone that thinks that babies in the womb in the third trimester dont feel pain as the doctors murder them, has the I.Q. of a houseplant.

Posted by: Jeffro at June 3, 2004 04:53 PM

has the I.Q. of a houseplant.

Jeffro, please mind our comment policy: civil and respectful.

Thanks.

Posted by: Alan at June 3, 2004 07:12 PM

Alan, read that sentence again. There is no disrespect if the truth is spoken. Maybe you should go check out Howard Stern making fun of the mentally retarded before you stick up for liberals. My ‘hiccup’ comment on Teddy Kennedy is more disrespectful than Jeffro guessing at the IQ of people who think that way. Just what is the end game for the lunatic fringe that they cannot be challenged.

Posted by: dickD at June 3, 2004 09:39 PM

As Joyce Elders said, America needs to get over its love affair with the fetus. There are far more pressing issues to deal with rather than some people’s selfish desire to legislate other’s morality.

Posted by: crazy at June 3, 2004 09:57 PM

I always find the outrage about abortion as murder crowd so curiously absent when shortly after these fetuses are born the same crowd is all to often eager to cut of funding for poor women with children shortly after these kids are born. Why is that?

Why is is more moral to wait until they are born before you seek to select against them? Is the definition of compassionate conservatism that few extra months we give them before we turn against them?

Here in Mississippi our new enlightened republican governor recently passed a budget that will decrease infant nutrition programs for the destitute by some 20% this year and some in his administration are lobbying for an another 30% cut next year.

While I appreciate their balancing the budget, it seems so hypocritical to me that they wage this crusade to save the unborn only to help starve them later so that they can afford a few extra million to buy the governor a new jet.

One can only suppose he believes it will get him closer to heaven.

Posted by: sgposs at June 3, 2004 10:13 PM

Sorry Alan, not trying to troll, but not all conservatives are anti-abortion.

Always amazes me that people who are anti abortion are almost always pro death penalty, personally i dont mind getting them comming and going.

A while back GWB sat at a table in congress surrounded by older, rich, very white and powerfull men of office, and sent a message to liberal women..from these white and political men(i recognized it as a PR nightmare). Trust me that message was recieved, i was watching closely as they got it, depending on the flip flopper kerry you might see thier reply comming up this election.

So anyone with ovaries have an opinion on this issue? or is it still just those with scrotums who know whats best for women? You know…women? wheres these ‘fetuses’ grow in. It also always amazes me how fast the anti-choice crowd latches onto the “late term abortion” defense, as if most abortions happened at the 9th month as apposed to the second month.

The day doctors can take a growing baby from a woman and transplant it into a man to grow to term, and do it on a outpatient basis, is the day this issue dies horribly. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Ronin at June 4, 2004 10:16 AM

Ronin,

“Not all conservatives are anti-abortion”

Just because someone calls his/herself a conservative, doesn’t make it so.

Abortion vs. Death Penalty - There have been about 1000 executions since 1973 and about 45 million abortions. It appears the death penalty is being used much more cautiously. I would not suggest an equivalent here.

It is interesting how many people protest the killing of someone guilty of evil deeds, yet find it acceptable to kill an innocent - without needing to do so to save the life of the mother.

It is interesting that you suggest only women should have a say in this issue and/or that the perception is only rich, white men have had a say. I don’t understand the reason for the distinction of either race or gender in your arguement, but you fail to recognize the great number of women who support the President’s view on abortion in general and partial birth abortion specifically.

I would also suggest, men have an important part in the process of creating babies, caring for the mothers of their children and raising babies. Men should by no means be silenced on this issue.

It is a partial birth abortion ban being repealed today. So, the focus on it is relevant. We are not discussing (at the moment) first trimester abortions. We are discussing the killing of a late term fetus, which is only a single breath of air away from being someone’s child. Partial birth abortions are performed in the vast majority at a time when the fetus could easily survive if fully delivered.

“…a growing baby from a woman and transplant it…”

I am sure many wish this was possible today - although it is mostly not necessary in partial birth abortion cases, since the fetus is usually old enough to survive outside the womb.

Killing that “growing baby” and finding “the fact it suffers pain irrevelevant ” and calling it a right is completely without logic - without needing to do so to save the life of the mother. Since when does anyone have the right to infringe upon the basic human rights of another, specifically the right to LIFE?

Try this for me:
Inhale - now exhale.

Legally, that is the only difference between a partial birth abortion and murder.

Posted by: Joel Gaines at June 4, 2004 11:03 AM

“Just because someone calls his/herself a conservative, doesn’t make it so.”

Oh i see, i dont agree with you so obviously i am democrat, wont X and the gang be thrilled.

“I would also suggest, men have an important part in the process of creating babies, caring for the mothers of their children and raising babies. Men should by no means be silenced on this issue.”

Which is hillarious considering how often men are silent when it comes to taking care of thier illegitimate children. But that is another debate, lets stick with partial birth abortion.

Not many sane people will argue for partial birth abortion as a regular birth control method, one of my son’s after all was born at 7 months, born screaming kicking and crawling right out of the womb(nearly killed himself at 1 minute crawling out of a scale, mah boy wanted to escape!). But that lovely bill that bush signed was a blanket statement wrapped up in propoganda, he knew it would never fly the way it was written, it made abstolutely no leeway for the rights of the mother to live if her life was at stake in the last trimester (speaking of rights).

Even the most die hard liberal feminazi choice supporter wouldnt support the rights for a 8th month pregnant woman to execute the future tyke simply because “shes not feeling up to the challenge of parenting suddenly”. But only the most machismo of the right is willing to look at a woman in the eyes who’s life is on the line with a failing pregnancy and tell her “sorry lady your screwed, but hey maybe the kid will live”, your not even giving her the dignity of a choice, whats next? you going to strap her to the hospital bed?

Posted by: Ronin at June 4, 2004 11:37 AM

Well put Joel, and Alan I’m sorry, Ill be more careful… I just get so frustrated with people that are so worried about saving a mass murderer to live on the taxpayers income, but want to kill the most innocent members of society. I also believe not only being responsible before and at birth but after. Just as one shouldnt “make the problem dissapear” through abortion, one must continue the responsibility for life. I don’t rely on the government and work full time to support my family. I go without things I want so my family won’t go without things we need. Just my 2 CENTS.

Posted by: Jeffro at June 4, 2004 11:59 AM

Actually re-reading your post I disagree Joel… Life of the mother is more important, I agree, but Im speaking of people that use abortion as birth control or convienience.

Posted by: Jeffro at June 4, 2004 12:09 PM

OK, Ronin snuck in and posted after joel. I agree with Joel. Though Ronins post was Joels, sorry Joel. LOL

Posted by: Jeffro at June 4, 2004 12:13 PM

I have NOT YET understood (and PROBABLY NEVER WILL) why so many in the black community support Democrats on the abortion issue.

When I was a Democratic delegate at National conventions, it was actually stated in several (whites only) meetings that abortion was a great way to reduce the numbers of the black population. That (among other things) made me sick, so I said to hell with them.

Abortion is still promoted by Democrats in the back rooms for that reason. Why do 90% of blacks accept such blatant racism? I will never understand that.

Posted by: leaddog2 at June 4, 2004 12:47 PM

Ronin,

There are conservative democrats. I wasn’t accusing YOU of anything. My point was more in line with looking past a label.

You state the Act made no provision for the life of the mother. That is a myth. The Act has a clear provision for life of the mother, what it does is clearly state it must be a matter of “life of the mother” rather than simply stating “health of the mother”. The left has spun this to sound like there is no provision which addresse saving women.

If it had simply said “health” then any quack out there who disagreed with the law could say, “well she’ll get headaches if she has this baby and that’s not healthy.”

Text from the act:

”..This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth
abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. “

Posted by: Joel Gaines at June 4, 2004 01:37 PM

What the ****? this site is ridiculous, so, would you rather have those those pre-human fetuses be born into babies and lead terrible, unwanted, and abused lives? you know the mother doesent want the damn child, I think that if shes willing to abort the process she wouldnt be a very good mother to begin with… that comment about democrats and Hitler has to be a joke right? I mean, its the craptastic site’s attempt at sarcasm…right? Cuz if not then you guys are REAAAALly dumb, dumber than I thought.. wow, nationalistic intolerant militants comparing democrats with Nazis, theres no limit to where you guys strecth out your bullshit huh?

Posted by: Frankfurt at June 4, 2004 02:29 PM

“Events” aren’t Forcing anything.

The Holy Mother Church is forcing the issue.

A whole bunch of RCs are ignoring it.

Posted by: Don at June 4, 2004 05:31 PM

I find the arguments of the pro-life side weak and judgemental. No one gives you the right, nor the priviledge, to pass judgement onto those who seek abortions. It is enough punishment for a woman, who learns that once she’s pregnant carries life - her child, who wishes to terminate her pregnancy for her own reasons. It is enough mental strain on a women to receive an abortion, but it is not society’s place to condemn and damn the women that seek abortions. Stop the hate, and stop the violence against women that do seek these procedures.

Posted by: Chloe at June 4, 2004 07:15 PM

The ovaries have spoken, let he without stones cast the first sin at her. Or do yall have a doctor to go shoot first?

Posted by: Ronin at June 4, 2004 08:43 PM

Ronin,

“Or do yall have a doctor to shoot first?”

I find your last remark quite uncalled for. We are talking about an important, very emotional for most, issue which - like it or not - impacts us all. But to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your opinion on the issue is somehow involved in violence really ruins the credibility of any valid comments you may have had.

I spent a dozen years of my life serving to protect the rights of Americans - some of that in not real pleasant places - and I resent your implication that because I oppose the idea of partial birth abortion that I would infringe upon someone elses right to act under the law.

Chloe,

I oppose partial birth abortion - unless it is a matter of saving the mother’s life. I oppose it because I feel that a baby with the ability to survice outside the womb has the same rights you do. The baby is a person and has the right to life. I might be simple minded in my approach, but that’s how I feel about partial birth abortion.

With this in mind, I will also fight for anyone’s ability to exercise their rights under the law and I would do anything to help someone who was being treated violently no matter the reason. Abortion is lawfull in America and that is a fact of life today - regardless of my personal belief on the matter. You don’t have to agree with me, but you should respect my right to have and express my opinion.

I don’t feel I have judged anyone. I have tried to approach a very emotional topic with what I thought was a pretty logical head. I have not called anyone a baby killer or evil or any other such nonsense. I am simply addressing a distinction of the law, which I find relevant in partial birth abortion.

So, to anyone who does not agree with me - invite me into civil discussion or don’t, but don’t attack me for my beliefs and don’t tell me I don’t have a right - I most certainly do.

Posted by: Joel Gaines at June 4, 2004 10:32 PM

chuckle Here’s the whole situation as I see it. The right-to-life issue under Roman Catholic canon law is not only paramount, but overrides all other considerations in the “advisory” to Catholic voters - time and time again, pronouncements that’re ex cathedra (from the seat - papal) have attested to this, while explicitly noting and elaborating on the death penalty “exception”.

I’m platonically pro-life, but mainly anti-partial-birth-abortion, I don’t like the “apathy” with which some mothers abort (I’ve heard of abortions for cleft palates and Down’s syndrome), but that’s about it.

Posted by: Edward Yee at June 4, 2004 11:45 PM

This talk about being consistent is funny.

Everybody is inconsistent. If you are totally consistent, you are likely a monster, eg. Stalin.

As an example of inconsistency, it is odd that some of the biggest advocates of abortion (Left wing liberals) are highly critical of Western culture (which allows abortion on demand) and defend other cultures (African, Arab) where abortion and other reproductive rights are denied to women. There have been three honor killings in Jordan this week. No outrage from the liberal media.

Another example: Men in Western cultures have absolutely no reproductive rights. Zero. Nada. Being married confers no extra rights or priviledges to a man in the reproductive field. Marriage only conveys extra burdens (Like being financially responsbile for another man’s child if your wife is unfaithful.) This is considered just by our society.

So, forget consistency in human affairs.

Posted by: joel at June 5, 2004 09:52 AM