| USA Today | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Jen Rubin | 0 | |
| Fox News | Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Flyswatter in Chief:
"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him during the interview...he swatted his hand and he said ‘I got the sucker’...it was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment."- The NYT's John Harwood, describing Obama's killing of a fly - 6/16/09
From pro-abortion to pro-life: My thoughts on the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade
First, I’d like to say that I hate that the anniversary of this decison, which gave women the ‘right’ to terminate their pregnancy(ies), is on my birthday.
Second, abortion is an issue I find hard to talk about – not because I’m afraid to talk about it (I got over that long ago) but because it is an incredibly painful issue for me to discuss. Not that I’m alone in that; I’m sure it’s tough for a lot of people, mainly male and female pro-lifers, to discuss because of the moral issues, the visual images we’ve all seen of aborted babies, and the deep emotional commitment pro-lifers have towards saving the lives of the unborn. The pain for me is that, but also the knowledge that as a young woman finding my way in life, I once advocated the ‘continued right’ for pregnant women to abort their unborn babies. There are fiercely strong elements of both guilt and shame inside me over my old beliefs about abortion, so strong that I can’t write or talk about the issue without being overcome with emotion. I simply cannot forgive myself that I, in my own small way, contributed to the culture of death at one point in my life. It is something I continue to have to work through, not just as a Christian, but as a human being, because you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is morally reprehensible.
On the other hand, having been on the ‘other side’ of the issue at one time helps me, I think, in being able to give a more understandable and (hopefully) believable insight into the mind of someone who is (in my case once was) pro-abortion, but before I get started, I’d like to acknowledge that I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but the people I most often debate the issue with are those who are militant and unreasonable, and who make easily debunkable arguments, which I’ll explain in depth below.
The word “abortion” alone speaks volumes about the procedure, and you can best believe that over the years pro-abortion forces in groups such as NARAL and NOW have sought to reframe the debate by preferring to use 
the term “pro-choice” more and more rather than “pro-abortion” (Example 1 and Example 2). There is a reason for this, which is evident when you analyze the word “abortion” itself. The word “abort” means to “stop” or “terminate” something and in the case of “abortion” what exactly are we “stopping” or ‘terminating”? Pro-abortionists don’t want you to consider this aspect of the argument because they’d have to admit that you were “stopping” or “terminating” the very maturation of a little life – a human life – where we all began. Thus the attempt at reframing the debate by claiming they are ‘pro-choice’ (or ‘pro reproductive freedom’) rather than ‘pro-abortion.’ They want you to believe it’s not about a ‘aborting a life’ but instead ‘making a choice.’ Right.
The attempt at reshaping the debate by using less inflammatory words is a common tactic of the pro-abortion crowd. Oftentimes when debating abortion I’ll come across a staunch abortion advocate who will insist that it’s not a baby in a pregnant woman’s womb but a “blob of tissue” or “parasite” or “leech.” I wrote this last October regarding the changing of terms we use when discussing unborn babies or humans in a PVS, and I think it’s worth repeating today:
Viewing unborn children as a parasites is very similar to viewing patients in a persistent vegetative state as a vegetables. It’s a way to take the human aspect of the issue out of the equation. When you don’t view something as a human, it’s easier to justify your support of taking its life. Dr. Yacov Tabak, who helped provide the best care for his wife Marsi, who was diagnosed as being in a PVS in 1997, explains:
Dr. Tabak couldn’t bear the term “vegetable” when it was first presented to him, and since the Terri Schiavo ruling, says that some in the medical community have shown an ulterior, ugly side regarding this appellation. “There is a medical agenda with this term” Dr. Tabak contends. “It’s very difficult to get emotionally involved with a vegetable. To have a relationship with a carrot goes against human nature.
And to have a relationship with a ‘parasite’ goes against human nature, too. Viewing an unborn child as a mere pesky parasite makes it sound, to pro-abortionists, so much more ‘justifiable’ to terminate.
There are conflicting studies out there which show on one hand that ‘most’ women who have abortions are not emotionally scarred by it and feel relieved once it’s done, while others show that having an abortion scars a woman for life, some more so than others. The truth is somewhere in between, but make no mistake about it, the decision to have an abortion is not one that most women make in a snap. They think about it and agonize over it, and there’s a reason they agonize over it: because deep inside, they know it’s wrong. Last October, I blogged about a hospital in the UK that was discovered to have thrown aborted babies into the same incinerator they used to get rid of trash, which outraged not only pro-life groups, but some of the women who had abortions there, who thought it was a horrible way for their baby to be dispensed with, which tells you about how torn women who have abortions are between doing what’s right (keeping the child) versus doing what is convenient (aborting them) and the guilt which eats at them later. Women are reassured prior to the abortion that their unborn child will be buried or dispensed of ‘with dignity’ but why worry about the dignity of the child when you didn’t want it to begin with? If you’ve made the choice to abort your child, you have little room to complain when you find out how it’s been disposed of, but all the same the thought that women could be horrified to find out something like that happened to their unborn baby after they aborted it shows that they know deep down that what they did was wrong to begin with.
The hypocrisy involved in pro-abortion arguments is so obvious that it amazes me that pro-abortionists can make them with a straight face, but make them they do and they’ve gotten away with it for years. For example, you frequently hear and read pro-abortionists exclaim “the government has no business in my sex life” yet these same people advocate that the government does get involved in your sex life, especially if you’re poor and don’t have the money to get an abortion. Then they’re ok with the government getting involved in your sex life – specifically involved in your choosing to terminate the result of your irresponsible sexual behavior via a state-funded abortion. Never ever let a pro-abortionist convince you that they don’t want the government involved in your sex life – they most certainly do. If they didn’t want government involved in your sex life, then they wouldn’t support continued state-funded abortions, and they wouldn’t advocate government-approved sex education in the public school system. When pro-abortionists say they don’t want the government involved in your sex life, what they’re really saying is they don’t want the government telling you that if you choose to be sexually irresponsible with your body, that there can be serious consequences for your behavior. What they want the government to do is to essentially condone your behavior by paying for your abortion, or paying for your child to be able to eat and have a roof over his head.
Another hypocritical position pro-abortionists take is the one where they claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ which would be laughable if the issue itself wasn’t so serious. How on earth can you claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ when you encourage women to feel free to engage in sex with whoever whenever? Whether they are protected from disease and pregnancy or not, it is not – I repeat – not responsible to routinely 
engage in casual sex, whether you are a man or a woman. Respect for your body comes not in seeing how many people you can share it with, but saving it for the person with whom you intend to share your life. That is the real way to engage in ‘responsible sexual behavior’, not giving in to your every sexual urge with everyone you’re attracted to. Not only that, but with each new partner, you increase your chances of getting an STD, and/or either getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, and as a result may have to rely on the government to either pay for your abortion, your child, and/or your healthcare. How is that ‘responsible’? You simply do not promote sexual responsibility by giving the green light to engage in frequent casual sex. Taking disease and pregnancy out of the equation does not make frequent casual sex any more responsible. Furthermore, pro-abortionists in feminist groups like NARAL and NOW betray their ‘responsiblity’ argument by routinely blaming the man for everything that happened. Check out some of these bumper stickers on the NOW website:
Against Abortion? Wear a Condom, Dude! $2.00
[...]
Against Abortion? Have a Vasectomy! $2.00
[...]
Not Every Sperm Needs a Name $2.00
These hypocrites also have the nerve to claim that they are pro-family! I don’t think I have to explain the absurdity of such an argument.
Also, you’ll find that most staunch pro-abortionists are the same people who will chain themselves to a tree in order to protect it or launch a campaign to ’save the whales’ – it’s bizarre that they put more importance on life that is not human than life which is.
Probably the biggest logical fallacy involved in pro-abortion arguments is that the baby growing inside a woman’s body is supposedly not yet human because it couldn’t sustain life outside of the womb. I find it beyond comprehension that one pregnant woman’s 2 week old child is another woman’s 2 week old ‘blob of tissue.’ I find it even more incomprehensible that women who have had children can remain ‘pro-choice’, considering they’re not ignorant about when their son or daugther’s life started. It’s either a child or it’s not. In actuality, we really don’t get to decide: once that child is conceived that’s what it is: a child. Why there is a debate about this is beyond me, because every single one of us, whether on the pro-life side or pro-abortion side, started off as a ‘blob of tissue.’ Thank goodness that our mothers didn’t view at us the way pro-abortionists look at pregnancy today, eh? A question pro-abortionists are reluctant to answer is: “In retrospect, would you have been in favor of your mother aborting you or your brother or sister when you or they were just ‘blobs of tissue’ if she had wanted to?” It’s easy for them to be pro-abortion when they don’t have to consider the possibility that they or one of their beloved family members could have been aborted at their mother’s ‘choosing.’
President Reagan once famously said: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Timely then, and timely now.
My hope is that anyone who reads this and who considers themselves pro-abortion will revisit and reconsider why they believe in the ‘right’ to abort a child. I know people can change their views on abortion: I certainly did, and I don’t regret it for a minute. There is a lot of hypocrisy and senselessness involved in pro-abortion arguments. I know, because I used to make them.
More: Let’s take a look at a typical method of abortion, known as the D&E abortion, as described by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. This is what they describe as the ’safest’ method of abortion and they perform them on unborn babies up to 18.6 weeks gestation (emphasis added):
You return to clinic on the day of your procedure. Before the procedure is started, a needle will be inserted in your vein and will stay there during the time you are in the clinic. Once the needle is in place, all the medications that you need will be given through it. These medications may include drugs to help you relax and reduce discomfort.
If used, the gauze and dilators will be removed. The doctor will give you a local anesthetic (numbing medicine) in your cervix, which will make the procedure more comfortable. The opening of the uterus may need to be stretched more, which will be done gradually with a series of narrow instruments called dilators, each a little larger than the one before. When the cervix is open wide enough, a plastic tube will be inserted into the uterus and is connected to a suction machine. The content of the uterus will then be removed by a combination of suction and instruments, usually taking 5-15 minutes. During and after the procedure, you may feel cramping as the uterus shrinks down to its normal size. The doctor then may do a final check with a spoon shaped instrument called a curette. Later, the doctor will examine the pregnancy tissue to check whether it has been removed completely.
Isn’t it sick the way they describe what’s in the uterus as the “contents” of the uterus or “pregnancy tissue”, rather than a fetus? This is what a fetus at 18 weeks gestation looks like (more here). Some “blob of tissue”!
Others blogging about this: La Shawn Barber, FRC VP of communications Charmaine Yoest, E.M. Zanotti, Mary Katharine Ham, Texas Rainmaker, Greg Tinti, Right Voices, Macranger
Tue AM Update: Michelle Malkin blogs about the way the media portrayed yesterday’s pro-life demonstrators versus pro-abortion demonstrators.
Prior/Related:
- Church of England backs doctors letting severely disabled babies die after birth
- UK: Doctors urge ‘active euthanasia’ for disabled babies
- Doesn’t this make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
- “Many” US couples seek embryo screening to select the sex of their child
- Slippery slope watch: Eliminating a medical condition – by eliminating its sufferers
- Study: Abortions at home are “safe” (!)
- 50 babies a year are alive after abortion
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
43 Responses to “From pro-abortion to pro-life: My thoughts on the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Rebecca wrote, “And I was so angry, really angry, the day I showed up for my pap smear and had an angry, middle aged white man snarl insults at me as I walked across the parking lot.
I don’t blame you. Mean people are in every organization. People without perspective also. There are kind and warm (just misguided) leftists and kind and warm conservatives.
I have a neighbor who is a knee jerk mean redneck conservatives who give conservatives a bad name. I have a nieghbor who is an NPR listening mean uncaring leftist. I treat each of my neighbors as kind as I can though because good neighbors are a higher priority of mine than controlling them. You have to accept what is is with neighbors sometimes.
As far as pacifism and Christianity – you should read works or listen to Dennis Prager. I have formed beliefs very similar to his.
Pacificism is more dangerous than vegetarianism. Because with pacificism and the belief in non-violence (in all cases – otherwise it isn’t pacificsm it is just the belief in trying not to do violence), evil go unchecked to do as much harm as they can. There used to be a poster here named Steve – I posed an actual hypothetical to him.
An Islamic fundamentalist (in the news story) had gone and killed each one of his kids one by one with the woman crying and pleading with the man to stop. I put Steve there – his only answer was that he would do the SAME as the woman – plead for the man to stop. With this story it was easy to show how his belief ended up in more death whereas someone who would’ve been a man and didn’t think SO BIG of himself that he could simply talk the man out of his actions but through the kindness of his heart actually physically STOPPED the man by whatever means necessary (as cops do all the time) when trying to “control” a situation.
Additionally, leaders and observers of crimes against humanity are NOT required to turn the cheek of the victim(s). Just the opposite. They are required to act, to protect, to bring force to evil. A husband would never be required to turn the wive’s cheek to her rapist. He would be required to show love and bring evil to a halt and he would not be guilty for murder if it ended badly for the criminal. A president would not be required to offer another building of people but to set boundaries and expectations with the terrorists including the fact that their actions will not be tolerated and we cannot simply wait for more attacks on our soil anymore. Negotiation with mad evil people is not an option.
Vegetarians only affect themselves unless they impose their health illiteracy on their children (as children need all sorts of protiens and acids). The last half of life can be accomplished without meat but vegetarians don’t allow evil to thrive they just simply do not eat meat.
Therefore Pacificsm is by far more negative and should be taught against.
However, it is true that war and force should be a last resort. That is a different question from the question “do we pull our troops out now” because that would result in lots of death and a worsening humanitarian crisis until evil people in the Middle East prevail and create their power structure that is unopposed (as happened with the hundreds of thousands of humans who perished when we left Vietnam).
I would definitely kill that man killing his kids, if I had the means. I guess that means I am not a pacifist.
I think the circumstances of this war are a little different. But I am not so sure that I know everything about what is going on over there to be completely sure about it either way. I do think we are literally inspiring more and more terrorists each and every day that the whole mess goes on.
I think Rebecca – if the American public knew 1/10th of what they should know about the millions of Islamofacists that have been raised with such hate that they can’t possibly be cured – they’d want harsher and tougher action to protect themselves from these people.
I submit to you that the question about what we do about the 10% of people who follow Islam who want to “kill the infidel” is complex.
We definitely should be as compassionate as we can be – but what has been going on and what is being planned for attacks on this nation needs people with stomach and due diligence – not lazy accusations.
I respectfully submit that it is a lazy accusation that we are creating more terrorists by bringing democracy to a nation and removing a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his people. It might be that you’ve been reading too much “mainstream” drive-by legacy press (who has no interest in helping this nation to victory) and need to change your sources of information.
At least do research and think for yourself.
I was a liberal once. I converted to conservatism in 1991 after visiting the library 4 times a week for a full year. I’ve been reading and learning ever since on a variety of topics. And see what I’m doing on a Friday night?
I actually have read quite a bit about this, I just know enough to know there is so much more to know. It isn’t a lazy acuastion, but terrifying one, and all too true. I doubt there is even one small thing we are doing in Iraq that will make the world safer from terrorism….
I’m sure you do know much more than I if you read than much, but I still think, based on what I HAVE read, that there is something very dangerous about the Iraq war for us. The president convinced the country to go in there on false pretenses. There was much at stake if we were to fail. He was too stupid to realize the civil war which was inevitably going to follow…but the terrorists weren’t. They have been milking that ever since, and I don’t think there is a way to win that war, to make the area stable. We would have been MUCH better off leaving the whole thing alone. The devil you know being better than the devil you don’t….Incidentally, I read the New Yorker cover to cover each week, which takes more time than I actually ahve…then my poor ultra conservative father sends me articles from “The Economist” to read…I actually don’t think the two mags contradict each other much…the ultimate meaning is too scary and too clear. I try to pepper in articles from online too….
Who are we going to invade next? Iran? Pakistan? Any number of African countries? Saudi Arabia? The whole world? Maybe Britain, since the last big foiled plot (the one we know about) involved people from there….Maybe we should turn our own coutnry into a police state since our famous civil liberties allow terrorists so much freedom here….But they are EVERYWHERE and taking control of any one country (which even that is obviously not what has happened in Iraq) is not going to help. We need to think about what is. I think the words peace, love and generousity figure into what could help somewhere….
Rebecca wrote, “It isn’t a lazy acuastion, but terrifying one, and all too true
What I was trying to say unsuccessfully is there a LOT of writers out there who have made the lazy accusation and there are a lot of writers on the other side (not paid any attention to by the legacy drive-by media) who have debunked those accusation with common sense.
How?
They have identified and counted the ranks of Al Qaeda and how many have been killed or captured. There actually is data on this and NOBODY needs to speculate. We’ll see these types of accusations in print over and over but seeing them in print doesn’t make them true. The lazy ones are the ones who wrote it in the first place – not you.
Rebecca wrote, “I doubt there is even one small thing we are doing in Iraq that will make the world safer from terrorism….”
The pessimism is unfortunate. People could’ve had that perspective when we spent 7 years rebuilding Japan and 10 in Germany but they didn’t because the media has changed. From day 1 the legacy drive-by media has given aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldened them, challenged them to step up to the plate and fight us basically, giving them the impression that they could drive us out and we are this close “” to leaving.
Iraq is such a ’small’ problem compared to what we fought in WW2. We lost more men in the battle for a VERY small island named Iwo Jima and in a much smaller timeframe than Iraq.
Given an Iraq that is free of Saddam and a representative republic, prosperity and education would be Quadrupled every decade as Japan and Germany has seen. It would be hard for a ‘Saddam’ to come in and take the prosperity away from them once they’ve tasted it.
Rebecca wrote, “The president convinced the country to go in there on false pretenses.”
You REALLY do need to change your sources of information. The President was saying the same things as many others including Democrats like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Albright, Edwards, etc. Additionally, they were saying these things as far back as 1998 before Bush took office in 2001. Additionally – the intelligence that the U.S. had, the British intelligence, French Intelligence, German and Russian intelligence all thought that Saddam had ’stockpiles’ of weapons of mass destruction. So what Bush “sold” to the people was what the world believed and what Democrats said. It is highly convenient for Democrats and the drive-by legacy press to put ALL of the words back on Bush and then call him a liar or someone who “manipulated intelligence” when Bush did nothing of the sort.
I know how being duped is – as I was pre 1991. I do not judge you Rebecca for being duped. I hope you don’t take offense to me saying you are duped. But really – it simply isn’t true that Bush has a bad heart and wanted to do the things that he has been accused of. I personally disagree with over 50% of Bush’s policies as Bush is actually too far left – that is for another conversation – and the result of leftist policies is a weaker American and more poor people and more people in misery.
Rebecca wrote, “I don’t think there is a way to win that war,”
No. You wouldn’t given the sources of info you read. But let me put it to you this way. It is imperative that we strive for victory here. The 3 million Cambodians that died when we left Vietnam will be similar to what happens when we leave Iraq. ADDITIONALLY, however there is the terrorist’s obectives. The Vietnamese didn’t want to then follow us over here and take over America. The radical Islamists (see what that word means from Daniel Pipes) want to first establish an Islamic Caliphate in the middle East and then move to the EU and the U.S. and either you will have to submit or die. Submit can mean peace for the pacifists of the bunch but it will mean you will be wearing the burka. For me – I don’t submit to anyone but my woman.
and the IRS, and the local authorities, and my children, and my boss 
Rebecca wrote, “We would have been MUCH better off leaving the whole thing alone.”
That is 1 opinion. I think we would’ve been much better off without the drive-by legacy media creating so much disunity and giving the terrorists this constant feeling that we are this close “” to pulling out. Resolve goes a long way to de-spiriting the enemy. We would’ve been done a year ago. I also disagree with your opinion because of the oil for weapons (food) program where UN officials were receiving bribes and giving Saddam money instead of food for his people. It HAS been written by the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam was interested in re-establishing with his money the weapons programs and DID have weapons that could threaten Israel in violation of the 1991 agreement and UN resolutions. So, given those facts – it doesn’t seem like doing nothing would’ve been good (as we learned on 9/11 we can’t stick our heads in the sand) as time was on Saddam’s side.
I do not understand your last paragraph. We are waging this GWOT (Global War on Terror) on many fronts (not just militarily) and all around the world. Countries like Britain are helping by trying to find and capture the terrorists within their own country before they can strike again. It is a matter of perspective here that we cannot simply give up because the job seems too big. I personally don’t think we are doing a good enough job in this GWOT either but I think we need to be more aggressive – taking down propagandist radio and TV and replacing it with messages of love not hate. Palestinian children learn from day 1 to hate the Jews and want to kill a jew. Sesame street type programs aimed at children brain wash children to want to strap bombs on them and kill. Time is not on our side – we need to try to make this world a better place and we can’t do that if we don’t take these information sources out. All of the environmental and abortion debate is irrelevant (yes we are off topic ST – sorry) if we can’t protect ourselves and change the minds of the people who are interested in killing millions of us and wiping us off the face of the planet.
I agree that it would be great to have a freer, richer, happier country there where Iraq is, sort of like the one that existed before Saddam…I just think the ones to pull that off would have had to have been Iraqis. A local revolution, where the people could fight behind a leader, overthrow their corrupt government, and the people in charge would understand all the local problems.
But of course that was not going to happen.
I actually stumbled upon this thread looking to see if anyone else felt the way I do in Connecticut about the pro life major hypocrisy that happened during the last election. Whatever key words I typed in led me here and I got interested….But what do you think of this? Here I am, living in Connecticut, a former pro lifer, now pretty consertaive pro choicer, until very recently catholic, who has been told all her life that to vote for a pro choice candidate is EVIL. You were going to HELL in a handbasket if you did that…no matter what other issues you felt were important, and what not. My dear old dad was big on that too, once. Now he suddenly had amnesia, along with most of the republicans and pro lifers here, and voted for Joe L., the biggest baby killing supporter on the planet! What happened to all those sermons I sat through, telling me I should not take communion if I voted for any pro choice candidate? All those guilt trips? I cannot believe it! Because I’ll tell you what, the liberal pro choicers, for the most part, were behind Lamont here. All of them. It was the moderate dems and the pro life republicans who got us ole Joe again. Their moral high ground went down the toilet in my book. I’m tempted to spout some less than congenial words about supposing killing Iraqis is more important than saving the unborn to the pro life people in CT…but I won’t because even though it makes me mad, I know killing Iraqis is not what it is all about over there (the terrorists are killing many more of them than we are….) But obviously, this kind of moral dictate can be disregarded when the “other issue” besides abortion is important to the pro life side, and not anyone else. Incredibly hypocritical in my opinion.
Incidentally, Sir Baklava, you are the nicest, most congenial conservative I have ever “chatted” with. You remind me of one of my favorite students (I teach college….I know, the typos are embarrassing, but I find it hard to take the time to proofread when posting to dicussion boards…) who liked to wear a tshirt that said “Liberals are not stupid, they just believe a lot of things that aren’t so.” He was a sweet kid, however much I disagreed with most things he said….
Rebecca wrote, “A local revolution, where the people could fight behind a leader, overthrow their corrupt government,”
The nature of Saddam as a dictator was to kill thousands of people if he sensed an uprising in a city. You, Rebecca should accept what is is. And that is the fact that the people were not able to rise up against him. And post 9/11 we needed to stop the breeding ground for terrorists and there WAS collaboration going on with Saddam and Al Qaeda and he also gave thousands of dollars to families of Palenstinian suicide murderers. In IRAQ Rebecca we have killed and captured quite a few Al Qaeda leaders and it is only lies by the left to suggest that Al Qaeda only came to Iraq after we removed Saddam. It’s just not true.
Your second to the last paragraph is interesting but you have to weigh your choices. Given a post 9/11 world most people think in terms of will we have a republic that we can debate the issues or not. We can belly ache about civil liberties, abortion, environment, race, etc – but if we can’t be strong on national security first then what’s the point. And Joe L. got that. He may differ on everything else but as leftism seems to me to be perpetuating a disease as of late of “lack of perspective” you get the Ned Lamont’s of the world who DON’T get it. Islamofascism is a serious threat and we need to continue a GWOT waged on many fronts not just militarily. Democrats in general have fought against this administration on every tool and none of them have been illegal as has been alleged. And alleged during a time of war even.
Thank you for your last paragraph. Though misguided, You have not done what EVERY liberal here has done which is call names – though you do go on with the accusations as most liberals do. It’s about what you believe I understand.
Here is something to consider. You do a lot of worrying about what other people think. Just develop what you believe based on history and research and facts. Hypocrasy? Don’t worry about it. What other pro-lifer’s screamed? Don’t worry about it. Those that you consider not nice people are part of EVERY group. You’ll find not-nice people working for GM, Ford, the Catholic Church, Lutherans, the police, librarians, Democrats, Republicans.
Personally, I consider myself pro-life. Does that mean I condone every position that every pro-life person takes. No? Does it mean that I won’t vote fot a candidate that is not pro-life? No. All of that is nonsense is Barbara Streisand. We have to weigh a lot of factors when voting. I tend to look at the candidates OVERALL perspective. I tend to think that Democrats have a sorely lacking overall perspective on economics and national security which filters down to their lack of perspective on a whole host of issues. You Rebecca may disagree with me on those points but that is fine. Maybe you can realize that this country provides the most opportunity and prosperity to more people than ever. Our people below our poverty line have a better standard of living than the AVERAGE European. I’ll find those statistics for you one day if you are interested. You’d have to stick around. I have to get back to my tiling job or I’ll never finish this three day weekend and I plan to finish.
Yes that’s a BIG flaw, considering too much what other people think. you think I’m bad now, you should have “known” me when I was younger. Hey, we are all works in progress…..
Jesus would of killed Sadamn Hussein without a trial. He is the King of Glory and Sadamn would not be able to stand he was to decieved not to believe that he was greater than Jesus. Much like Harrod was killed where he stood by God when he rejected the Gospel that was given to him by Paul and started to accept the adoration that belonged Jesus, and the worms ate him where he laid. Jesus would of raised the 500,000 people that Sadamn killed and threw in mass graves from those mass graves to be used a witness against him after he was struck down.
You see Rebecca I too wonder what Jesus would think. But know that Jesus doesn’t see this life to be the end all be all. He knows that there is life after death, after all he conquered it. His concern isn’t this life, as much as it is the next. So evil needs to be aware of their deeds, and dealt with by good men – Lorica
You might need this Rebecca.
Ah Michelle Malkin…she is a regular contributor to the newspaper I am so fortunate to get delivered….
Actually, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the troops…I wish there was more I could do for them than send care packages…like bring them home (yes, I DID read the article and still feel that way) (I guess for your intentions there is no hope for me). Also, just to show that none of us can be pigeonholed, my family and I got so excited about care packages, we sent out five of them. It was a wonderful feeling, especially because dear friends of ours lost their son in Iraq in Aug 04. They are totally against the war now. So are many veterans of this war and other wars we have fought. My only point is that anectdotal evidence can be gathered on both sides. I won’t torment you will rebuttal articles.
Lorica, I am glad to say I believe that in God’s world, we all get the equivilent of a trial, a much better one than we’d get here. And I would never presume to know how any single one of us would be judged….even an apparent gimmee like Sadamm. I can only speak for myself and how I live my own life.
Hope your tile is going well, Baklava. And incidentally, about something else you posted, my point about the RTLifers voting in Joe, is that the “outside issue” can only (for them) matter if it matters to THEM. Yes I admit it, I find that irritating. But I think removal from the rhetoric will help with that. It is only recently we migrated to another church.
I think you did help me to understand it a little though, why someone who believed certain things would think staying in Iraq trumped RTL. I feel as strongly about my own issues which unfortunately trump RTL at times.