Comments for Palin and Christian Right on Abortion Warpath »
Posted By ameliog 1 year, 1 month ago in ReligionAlthough the issue of abortion has not come up in either of the U.S. presidential or vice presidential debates, it is very much in play on the campaign trail, especially in a number of battleground states.
Read Full Story at ipsnews.net »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 67
-
71%
chevydog1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Though they cannot accurately be described as part of the "Christian Right", the Catholic Church and Catholic voters also have some concerns with Sen. Obama's position on abortion. There's an interesting article today (10/14) in the Newsweek section of msn.com concerning this. The author (not sure whether he's Catholic or not) basically asseses whether the justifications used by three high-profile Catholic lay people to support Sen. Obama are likely to pass muster theologically with Catholic bishops. His conclusion is no. I guess we'll see if that's really true and if so what actions spring from it.
Reply
It's no great secret that Sen. Obama's voting record on abortion is basically "on demand, no restrictions". For the campaign, he's made some statements that the campaign says will lead to a reduced number of abortions. The three prominent Catholic lay people from above obviously believe this; one has to wonder how many others will. One also has to wonder what the bishops who "cover" this area will say. I'm no theologian, but my guess is that they'll basically say that it's way too little and way too late. Either way, there's going to be a lot of soul searching among Catholic voters.-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
33%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I live by a Catholic Church, ever time the church bell rings, another Alter boy in america is sodimized by a sex starved priest.
Reply
Why would anyone take direction from priests, who are all a collection of repressed homosexuals and pedophiles. Delusional believers in jewish fairytales, who live for a nonexistant afterlife, wasting the one life they do have.
There is no evidence of any of the millions of versions of afterlife religious con men have invented in the hundreds of thousands of years con men have been grifting religious morons.
No heaven, no hell, no gods, no demi-god jesus, no purgatory, no angles, saints, its all a steaming cauldren of con man invented crap. Liquid crap slurped up by MORONS.-
56%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
take your hatred and stuff it, ABW.
Reply
Live up to your name and stop trying to propagate stereotypes.
Seriously, as a left-leaning free-thinker, one who refuses to believe in the Bible literally, one who questions and continues to question his own beliefs, your rants disgust me.-
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was thinking "priests, who are all a collection of repressed homosexuals and pedophiles" was hatred.
Reply
Obviously, you made the decision NOT to want to find fault with his statement. I didn't ask him to stop questioning, I asked him to stop propagating stereotypes, which he OBVIOUSLY was doing.
As for the part of his statement about there being no evidence of an afterlife, I completely agree... and if you bothered to read my last paragraph, you would likely have known that.
-
-
Neutral
vor1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You really believe the Bible is literal? I know that is the view of a large number of Americans but if you go back and look athow this document was assembled, where the bits and pieces came from and how they then picked over and chosen it would seem highly unlikely this would be the case. We are talking about people who lived under great fear and superstition and were attempting to explain their existence and why so many terrible things occurred to them. To rely on such a document (and it isn'tjust the Bible but all of this ancient dogma) in a modern world is one of the great failings of mankind. It was the subjugation and oppression of the church that kept these books alive. We have had only a few hundred years where anything else was optional in the Western world. Isn't it about time some of you broke free of that yoke? The persistent reliance on myth and rejection of reality has brought us little good.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
0%
mark-stevens1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Abortion is the most misunderstood topic ever. The actual act of getting an abortion, can cause a serious infection that could cause sterility, serious life threatening hemorrhaging.
Reply
There is a huge abortion clinic in Seattle name after the airport motel it's based out off.
The clients are treated like a Broadway play audition cattle call.
I have taken young women there, because they didn't want to cause a fight with their boyfriends over sex and the possibility of getting pregnant. It sounds like the boyfriends maybe more the problem than first reported-
67%
kritikit1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
Reply
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said 'I do' to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her
charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5?
What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative
qualities in another when there is a color difference.
You are The Boss... which team would you hire?
With America facing historic debt, 2 wars, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population,
mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc.
Educational Background:
Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna *** Laude
Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
versus
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899
Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism
Now, which team are you going to hire ?
PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter....-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I like the part about the Keating 5. If Obama were in place of McCain he would probably not have done what McCain did and get censored like three other Democrats. The two former military men did the right thing and walked out of that meeting and did nothing. John Glen and John McCain were found innocent of ANY wrongdoing. Obama does not have the ethics that the military grind into their officers at their schools.
Reply
-
-
100%
oneironaut4201 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The actual act of getting an abortion, can cause a serious infection that could cause sterility, serious life threatening hemorrhaging."
Reply
Indeed. And pregnancy can cause:
Embolisms
Life-threatening anemia
Broken bones
Hemorrhaging
Arrhythmia
Eclampsia
Permanent back injuries
Serious infection
Sterility
Hemorrhaging
Death
Your point? 8)
-
-
75%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Catholic Church may have some concerns with Obama's abortion stance but the majority of 'average' Catholics do not, as they understand that the Catholic Church is not a monolithic Church in that often times individual Catholics disagree with certain policies of the Church as a whole.
Reply
Considering that Obama has plans in place to reduce the number of abortions, and increase adoption / bringing pregnancies to term despite his abortion-rights stance for those who understand we don't live in a theocracy and McCain has no such plan other than being anti-abortion rights (which likely won't actually reduce the number of abortions -- just drive them underground resulting in more deaths across the board).. One could say that voting for Obama would more closely support the Church's stance on reducing abortions.-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
His stance as voted on 4 times in the legislature was to let abortionists allow babies that survived the abortion die by putting them in the garbage or on a shelf. Such compassion for the living. He wants to put in place a federal law that will make any type of abortion to be paid for and supported by the federal government. That includes the partial birth abortions where a breach birth is done and part of the head is left in the vagina and the brains are sucked out. Almost all of the baby is out of the mother but part of the head. Such compassion. This is what majority of 'average' Catholics believe is good. What alternate universe do you live in. A baby completely born and a baby almost all the way born. That is his voting record and philosophy. It disgusts me.
-
-
-
67%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On Tuesday, Matthew Dowd, the former Bush strategist who offered a famous apologia for helping get W. re-elected, offered a scorching assessment of Palin’s not being ready, saying that McCain “knows that in his gut. And when this race is over, that is something he will have to live with. ... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot, and he put the country at risk.”
Reply
Christopher Hitchens endorsed Barack Obama on Slate on Monday, calling Palin’s conduct “a national disgrace” and writing: “Given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party’s right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama’s position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.”
Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama on The Daily Beast, writing of McCain’s embrace of Palin: “What on earth can he have been thinking?” (The endorsement led to Buckley’s resigning from The National Review, founded by his father.)
On “The Colbert Report” on Monday, the conservative columnist Kathleen Parker stuck by her assertion, which she said caused the base to treat her like a traitor, that Palin should have bowed out. She said she’d gotten some secret e-mails from Republicans in the White House agreeing with her.
William Kristol, a Palin fan who thinks she has been horribly managed, wrote in The Times on Monday that McCain should fire his campaign for malpractice. David Brooks, speaking at an Atlantic Magazine event, called Palin “a fatal cancer to the Republican Party,” bemoaning the fact that she did not fit in with the late William Buckley’s desire to have a party that celebrated ideas and learning -
73%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anybody considering abortion as a reason to vote is what is wrong with this country.
Reply
The rich, which own lock and stock the republican party, are using that moronic issue to get the ignorant mal-educated mega-chruch racist inbred idiots to vote republican, and I promise you this, the rich don't give a flying fart about abortion, they can get their daughters one anytime they want, the rich are just using the unbelievibly stupid american gulible underclass to hand over their hard earned money by adopting an anti-abortion position based on religious ignorance.
The party of the rich bush/cheney war profiteers have destroyed human life faster than all the abortion doctors in the world put together, 500,000 Iraqis, which had nothing to do with 911, and 5000 us soldiers, all dead for a neocon lie.
And now, quietly, the Bush admninistration and Dobson and the murdering religious right have discontinued contreception distribution in Africa, guaranteeing millions of abortions, starvation of unwanted children, and the spread of aids, and disease for millions of women.
The republicans won't stop till american women wear veils, and have no rights, just like the repulican ideal, saudi Arabia, you know, the ones who actually bombed us. Bush arab buddies, they own all the wealth, the common man gets brainwashed by religious police. -
100%
Jayson1 year, 1 month ago
-
40%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And just think of all those sperm which don't find eggs when the priest they come sends them into an alterbpy.
Reply
Abortion is NOT a political issue, and was not a political issue until the Machivallian murdering Rovian a-holes of the party of the rich figured out they could brainwash you born again idiots into voting racism and religion, so they converted the southern Babtist white trash to republicans, getting them to vote abortion, not economic self intrest.
The current economic depression is a direct result in inbred morons voting to give the rich everyting there is, while they work a walmart and brainwash their inbred children at local mega church.-
67%
StevieGee1 year, 1 month ago
-
75%
HateKoolAid1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's the beauty of wedge politics that conservatives love. Candidate "A"'s economic polices will insure you will be working at the lowest possible wage until you retire but he's against abortion. Candidate "B" economic policy gives you a good chance to improve your life with a better job but he is pro-choice. Guess which candidate the loyal conservative is going to vote for???
Reply
-
-
-
-
25%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
78%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Shiiiit, Endo!
Reply
I totally missed that bill that Obama sponsored requiring all abortion doctors to put living babies in the trash. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
What was the link again???
The "lefties" don't wonder why you don't like his agenda, nor do we wonder why you make it up. We know. You're fundamentally, politically dishonest about your opponents, and will lie and distort to no end to exaggerate your own personal fears and try to make them felt by everyone.
You know what? I'm done with the night-light. It's time for you to get over your fear of the dark. -
86%
bubba21 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What Obama "wants" - and what most Americans want according to poll after poll after poll - is for women to have the RIGHT to CHOOSE.
Reply
How about I ask Congress to pass a national law that requires all MALES to wear condoms when they perform the act of intercourse? That will prevent abortions.
Or, how about I ask for a law that FORCES males to have vasectomies? Because if men get vasectomies, they can't fertilize any eggs and that will prevent abortions.
It is SO easy for people to tell OTHERS how to live until THEY are the ones being told.
The other blatant stupidity of some "conservatives" and "Christians" is that they think that PERSONAL issues like abortion and homosexuality are the MOST important issue. They are NOT.
The most important issues are the economy, jobs, crime, health care, education, war, ethics, corporatism, and energy ... just to name a FEW.-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
maybe it's just because I live in CT which, of course, is ridiculously liberal, but among MY acquaintances, my pro-choice friends are far more likely to be single issue (abortion rights) voters than those who are pro-life or, like me, on the fence.
Reply
-
-
75%
mark-stevens1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scare tactics work like saying smoking marijana will make you a killer. What are the chances of an abotion occuring after the first 90 days, little alone the last 90 days and than it going bad, in which the child lives and the doctor risking his licence throwing a living human into a container to die.
Reply
Let me guess you voted for Bush "BOTH" times. You represent " a lie is as good as the believer" -
-
-
-
100%
nikkibabe1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is OK for the state to ban abortions as long as it picks up ALL the cost of pregnancy, post pregnancy, child development, day care, school and college of the kids they save.
Reply
Is it possible?
If they want to leave all this cost to the victim of a rape or incest, then they have no case. Stay out of it.
What next? Legislate who can marry who?-
-
86%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? Supply some links.
Reply
Because everything I've seen Obama "supporting" on the issue is vaguely worded bills that are redundant given currently-existing laws on negligent homicide.
These bills would place ridiculous burdens on abortion clinics (like having 2 doctors present for each abortion, when it's a procedure that can be done by 1 - thus doubling the cost, and forcing the overseeing "doctor" to participate or observe a procedure that he is morally opposed to).
Maybe you'd like to volunteer at an abortion clinic as the back-up in case a baby is born alive? Just stand there and watch as foetus after foetus is successfully terminated, waiting for that one moment of redemption when you can play the hero and save the 1 in 10,000 that survives the attempt? No, doesn't strike your fancy?
Who do you think would want to do that? A second abortion doctor (cutting the number of available doctors in half)? Another doctor that thinks abortion is wrong (making them suffer through years of observation which goes against their beliefs)? Or do you hope that no doctors would be willing to do so, but since it's a legal requirement, no abortions could be performed?
The bill was crap. It was unrealistic and punitive. It would have made legal abortions extremely difficult to perform. There's a reason it was defeated, and Obama was NOT alone in voting against it.
-
-
-
-
100%
bubba21 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll drag out my "old saw" because too many in the "pro-life" crowd are not - they are only "anti-abortion" and they are hypocrites.
Reply
Anyone that claims to be pro-life had BETTER also be against WAR and against the death penalty. And, as noted above, they better be prepared and willing to HELP all of those babies and children when they need health care, education, food, clothing, and shelter.
No one can be "pro-life" if they approve of war and the death penalty. Those people are only "PRO-BIRTH".-
100%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree bubba.
Reply
I think Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty can live together unhypocritically. In the first case, the concern is for an innocent being, and is understandable. The second case is ALSO concern for the innocents (as the belief is that the Death Penalty will deter murderers and prevent re-offense).
However, I am in complete agreement that Pro-Life and Pro-War are in opposition. Advocating and encouraging war shows a complete disregard for the innocent lives that will inevitably be lost. War should be for Defense only - to protect America (and her treaty allies) from DIRECT threat of hostile invasion.-
100%
bubba21 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right on regarding war.
Reply
Regarding the death penalty --
You base your comments on the premise that all convictions that sentence the defendant to the death penalty are PERFECTLY correct. Unfortunately that is not the case and INNOCENT people have been executed for crimes they did not commit.
WHY does someone convicted of murder have to be executed? Spending the rest of their lives in jail is plenty of punishment.
Are you willing to pull the lever or push the button - or whatever - to execute someone?-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But it's a really expensive punishment. Why do we have to shoulder the burden of caring for these prisoners for the rest of their lives? If the system is about rehabilitation, then re-habilitate. If it's about punishment, then punish them according to their crime.
Reply
No, I don't base my comments on the premise of perfection, but rather on the premise that MORE INNOCENTS WILL BE SAVED. The idea that "if one innocent is executed, then it's too many" only holds if no innocents are saved. If you could save 1 innocent or 20 innocents, which would you choose? If you could save 1 or 5, does it change the outcome? If you could save 1 innocent (who you strongly suspect to be a murderer) or another, who isn't, which would you choose?
Finally, an innocent may die if the system fails. But that's why convictions are based on reasonable doubt - if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. But if it does, then there should be NO reasonable doubt that person convicted is guilty. INNOCENT people have died because murderers were released or let off. The checks and balances are supposed to be built into the judging, not the sentencing, of accused criminals.
That's my pro-death penalty argument. For the anti-argument, tune in next week. I'm not going to campaign for or against either, as I haven't studied the deterrent effects, and I haven't analyzed the repeat offense percentages.-
100%
amazed1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
with all the automatic appeals and what not built into the system (not necessarily a bad thing, bu the way) it costs far more to execute someone than to keep him alive.
Reply
Not only that, but if the saying "justice delayed is justice denied" has any merit at all, the death penalty -- at least in most state is useless. CT recently had it's first execution since the death penalty was made legal again -- of a guy convicted in 1980, for crying out loud!
The victim's family has this hanging over them for over twenty years -- had the guy been sentenced to life without parole, it would have been easier for them to move on. The convict had this hanging over him for over twenty years -- with several execution dates -- how is this not cruel and unusual? (well, at least cruel). Chances are good that this guy wasn't anything like the same guy who committed the crime -- 20+ years of prison may have made him a worse person or a better person -- but the fact that he was surely changed is another argument against the death penalty.
And last, but not least, is the very real possibility of false convictions. While you can never give someone back the years they've done, you REALLY can't go back and reverse an execution.-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, if you're going to sentence someone to death, kill them and get it over with!
Reply
If you're not, if you're going to give them appeal after appeal and drag the process on indefinitely, then scrap the death penalty. I don't care either way. If you want the death penalty, use it. If you don't want to use it, don't claim to have it, because it loses all deterrent power if it's not taken seriously.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20%
Hobe1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really Now, WHY would any Normal Woman want to KILL her Baby?
Reply
To the Baby Killer's thank Goodness Your Mother made the Right Choice.
Killing an innocent Baby for convinces is against all the Laws of Humanity....
It's NOT a choice, It's A BABY... Is that really hard to Understand? Don't Kill..... It's not Your Right...-
80%
bubba21 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You try to TWIST the right to choose into "killing her baby".
Reply
Being a man, it is obvious you have NO CLUE.
There are no women out that that have considered or gone through with an abortion that wanted to "kill their baby". Their circumstances - rape, poverty, illness, and more - mean that abortion may be their only choice to either survive themselves or to be able to continue taking care of family that they already have.
I say to you and to EVERYONE who favors war or the death penalty - killing people in war and killing 'prisoners' is "against all the Laws of Humanity", so "don't kill ... it's not your Right".
Do you agree??? If not, then you are NOT "pro-life" - only "pro-birth".-
75%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't forget eating meat or wearing leather.
Reply
That's killing an innocent life for your own personal gain. Okay, maybe that's harsh. Sport-hunting. Killing an innocent for fun.
Or do non-humans not count as lives. And THEREIN lies the rub. Is a foetus human before it takes that first breath of life. Does it have a soul before it is born? The answer to that question is far above my pay-grade.-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your above comment to bubba2 on the death penalty seemed you were for it if the accused was guilty.
Reply
Now you included the killing of animals also; are you saying that lions are murders?
They eat meat as we humans do also, yet one seems to be a murderer and one is following the laws of nature.-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think a lion has ever claimed to be pro-life. That's the entirety of the scope of my argument. Pro-Life shouldn't be discriminatory of what kind of life.
Reply
I'm neither for nor against the death penalty. I can certainly see valid arguments for it... if a murderer gives up some inalienable rights when he ends another life, I don't see how he hasn't also given up his right to life.
The killing of animals was an extreme interpretation of a "pro-life" stance. It is definitely NOT my own interpretation nor my own belief. (I quite enjoy a good steak, and believe that the food chain is entirely appropriate for regulating who eats whom -- and to be consistent, I wouldn't fault a grizzly for taking down a hunter in his territory. -
-
-
-
-
-
100%
cloud151 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally I think abortion should be a personal issue. I personally don't think its right under certain circumstances. If you were being irresponsible and it happened by accident and know you just don't want it, well then that's your fault now you should deal with the consequences. If you were raped, or the birth would endanger your health then by all means.
Reply
The biggest problem with outlawing abortion would be the explosion in back alley abortions which would lead to many deaths of the mother. In this case we would still have almost the same amount of abortions but we would have even more mothers dying.-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right, and my newspaper is either black or white. There is no kind of lighting that will change that.
Reply
The problem with moral absolutism is that it IGNORES MORALS to try to find a hard and fast solution.
Let's take the position that abortion is wrong (period):
Then let's look at an example, it's extreme, but possible:
A young woman is impregnated by her father or brother. Medical exams show that the child will likely be born alive, but the recessive genes have given it a defect such that it is unlikely to survive the first month. The pregnancy is also such that the mother's life is in great danger if she carries it to term.
Is abortion in this case wrong? Is it 'right' to carry the inbred child to term, with virtually no chance of it surviving, and a great chance that it will kill the mother?
I don't know many people that would say that abortion in this case is 'wrong.' So abortion is not absolutely wrong.
If not, then absolutism says abortion must be not wrong (period). I don't think this is an argument you can win.
Right and wrong are subjective. They are subjective based on culture and based on individual. In some countries, it is not wrong to discard a newborn. In at least one state, it is not wrong to abandon your child (of any age) at the local police department. In other cultures, it is wrong to eat pork, or cows, or smoke, or litter. Circumstances DO matter. -
100%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think I may have misunderstood you point, based on other posts, I think your position is that abortion is NOT wrong (ever).
Reply
I disagree with you. Abortions ARE wrong, for some people. Those people have moral objections to them, or they could cause physical complications as you mentioned above.
Are they ever absolutely wrong? No. At least not in a way that man can decide (if God exists, He may have a differing opinion). And maybe that's what you're getting at here. There's no way to legislate when they're right and when they're wrong. This is why I'm firmly pro-Choice, though I'm personally pro-life.-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree also with your statement but for different reasons.
Reply
As a man, I have a view which is pro-life but who am i to tell a woman what she is to do with her body, so yes pro-choice.
I believe that this is an issue that women should solve, legislate or what ever.
-
-
-
-
67%
kritikit1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
Reply
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said 'I do' to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her
charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5?
What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative
qualities in another when there is a color difference.
You are The Boss... which team would you hire?
With America facing historic debt, 2 wars, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population,
mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc.
Educational Background:
Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna *** Laude
Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
versus
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899
Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism
Now, which team are you going to hire ?
PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter.... -
100%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
George Bush got millions of votes based on the pro-life vote. Eight years later, we still have abortion.
Reply
When are Conservatives going to realize that abortion is a big bright shiny flashy issue pulled out during election years by the GOP to garner votes, only to be shelved once the election is over?
The supreme court has refused to hear any abortion cases. John McCain is not going to change that. Barack Obama is not going to change that either.
Abortion is a NONissue, except for people who want to debate the semantics of morality. It should stay in the morality debates, not in the political arena, as it is NOT going to change anytime soon.
I would think it would be better for one to concern themselves with issues relevant to them, such as the mortgage and banking crises, the War in Iraq that is costing 10 billion dollars a month, the ballooning national debt, the influx of illegal immigrants in this country, and the shipping of US jobs overseas.
I would think that these issues are a lot more important and pertinent, and deserve more consideration than whether or not a candidate personally wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, when any thinking person KNOWS that it WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Yeah, I know. I'm waiting for the "one justice away" comment. It still won't happen. Mark my words. And if on the off chance it does, you will see, as cloud15 said, a MASSIVE increase in back-alley abortions, as well as many people traveling outside of the US to have the procedure done. Because of this, you will see many teen mothers who feel like they have no other option experience death by coat hanger.
Yeah. It's crude, but it's the truth.
So let's stop letting ourselves be distracted from the REAL issues by this piddly little issue that neither candidate is going to address when they get in office.-
100%
most_reasonable1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They are not targeted for their brains or common sense. the fact that they saw the Bush Twins lying in filth on a bar floor, the product of their father's devote borne again values, and did not uprise says it all. THE SON-IN-LAW OF Palin, A Highschool dropout and a pregnant teenage daughter the "flower of borne again christianity", is no distraction for them.
Reply
The Kentucky theme park showing men and dinosaurs walking together ala the FLINTSTONES was not to attract the "faithful" but rather the GOP fund raisers who now are convinced that they could be sold ANYTHING.
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.