|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 6, 2009 21:58:39 GMT -5
Cepha
I feel I need to ask this question.
Is it your stand that as long as someone that intends to do great evil and tell the voting public about his intentions then he can be supported because of his/her honesty? The intended evil that is known to happen far outweighs the imagined evil because someone else "might" be telling a falsehood.
You seem to keep returning to the "honesty" of intentions. Yet then will say that those intentions are 100% wrong. As someone trained in Reality Therapy I believe that reasoning is flawed.
The reality is that many well meaning people voted for "change" without ever finding out what that change was. Others voted against someone else for reasons that are personal to them and God.
Some voted for the right to "choose" yet they will say that they would never make the choice they are voting to keep legal. When asked why they would not "choose" most will say because they feel it is immoral or murder. The logic of this does not compute as my son would say.
Some just voted to make history. They felt it was time for a minority to be elected to POTUS. Instead of waiting for the best person for this they took the one offered no matter how they felt about the issues. So we have BHO as POTUS.
With God's grace we will survive. But the illogical thinking of many of my fellow Catholics still saddens me. I pray for us all and for the future generation that will never be born. May God Have Mercy on us and the whole world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 6, 2009 22:00:56 GMT -5
Cepha, just a few questions: 1) The Catholic Church doesn't condemn homosexuality?  ? That's a good question. They condemn sin, but I've never heard them "condemn" homosexuality specifically. Of course they don't agree with it, but I've never heard them come out like the Religious Nutjobs here do making big scenes. I can't answer that question...I don't know if they have or do. 2) "The fact is that these men were chosen by Republicans to lead them...it shows a weak constitution in the moral base of Republicans." Does this mean that Jesus was weak when he chose 11 men that failed him and one that turned on him. It didn't take ESP when all they had to do was to research their chosen candidates' pasts. If they knew that George Bush was accused of rape and that the woman who accused him of rape was mysteriously murdered right before she was supposed to testify against him, would they still have voted for him? Anyway, he left Texas in shambles and they STILL voted for him even though he was a failed Governor who couldn't even speak proper English. As for all the perverts they elected, of course one can't expect them to have know that...but what does it say when The Republican Party attracts so many perverts? That it's a perverted Party. As for the Catholic Church's issues, it was barely .05% of the entire American Priesthood! Point Oh Five Percent! Way less than common society's. Teachers have a much higher rate...do we "not" send our kids to school now? And The Church didn't "elect" Priests...these men came to The Church and volunteered. Big difference and a poor example to use to try to prove your pointless point.  3) "It's not a "small" number of incidents either." To the contrary...The Perversion in The Republican Party is too large to just brush off as a few rotten apples. -They hate the poor. -They want to give our money to the rich. -They love to fight unjust wars. -They don't want to redistribute the collective wealth equally among the people. -They use disgusting tactics to win races (like calling John McCain's Indian daughter the offspring of an illicit affair with a black woman knowing full well that Cyndi McCain adopted her). -They have the most corrupt Presidential Cabinet in history. It literally is what they are called: "The Culture of Corruption" 4) "They tend to be more corrupt, more homosexual and more pedophile than the average politician." None of that explains away their unnatural & obscene sexual behaviors though. Not to mention their racism. It goes beyond just political corruption. It goes to their "nature". ABSOLUTELY! Not only that, they were notorious for their circular firing squads attaching each other and their disunity! And they were weak against Republican attacks! But President Obama brought them together and didn't allow the Republican Attack Machines tactics of division to work this time. But believe you me, I'm also the first one to complain about their immoral and their stupid hairbrain schemes...as your buddy Jimmy B. He'll tell you. 5) Now to answer YOUR questions: Where were you Anti-Obamians when Bush had the Congress and The Senate all to himself for over half a decade? That wasn't the point of the question...where were you to attack Bush for his "not" addressing abortion? Now, all of a sudden, you're up in arms? Why weren't you up in arms back then? Why did Obama have to win for you guys to become so righteously indignated? Why didn't you push him to stop abortion? Yeah, such a good job that abortion is now illegal.  Just like your "gray" judgements about McCain's Pro-Lifeness, so is your judgement of Bush's lack of work to abolishing abortion. Listen, the reason we have abortion today is because Republicans legalized it. The reason it's protected today is because the Supreme Court (which is made up of mostly Republican chosen judges) protects this right. The reason it wasn't addressed during Bush's time is because Bush didn't care enough about the unborn child to attack abortion! If The Pope was President, which would he have put all his efforts into? The Iraqi Occupation? Or would he had made his own war on abortion? If The Pope would've not gone into an unjust war and gone after abortion, why couldn't Bush? It doesn't take Divine appointment to do away with abortion when you have The Congress and Senate and a Republican appointed Supreme Court...it only takes conviction (not just words). Are you guilty with your silence? Pro-Lifers have always spoken up against John McCain's Pro-Choice stances? Against the Republican controlled Presidency/Senate/Congress/Supreme Court government that didn't abort abortion? I've never heard Pro-Lifers talk against Republicans. They place their party before their convictions. The Republicans had all the power to stop abortion. They had full control of every governmental institution they needed to stop abortion...but they didn't. What does that tell you about them? It reminds me of this parable (The Republican Party is the 2nd son): Matthew 21:28-32
The Parable of the Two Sons 28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 6, 2009 22:18:14 GMT -5
Listen you guys, when a group goes out and boasts and brags about how morally righteous they are and how wicked others are, they usually are more wicked than the same folks they are condemning.
This is what Jesus pointed out in the Pharisees.
You've never seen Democrats judge others as Republicans do.
So it shouldn't be any surprise that like The Pharisees, they are a party of perverts and hypocrites.
Democrats are made up of sinners of all walks of life.
And that's who Christ came for...those that needed him.
To listen to a Republican judge others while so much corruption resides within their own ranks, not to mention their failure at stopping abortion when they had the majorities in all branches of government, Jesus would surely had come here and pointed them out as the proud and boastful while their victims (the sinners) would've been vindicated for being judged.
Jesus surely wouldn't have went with the Democratic Party on matters of abortion or gay marriage, but both of those things are "personal" matters to be dictated by religious leaders, not political leaders.
And Jesus wouldn't have been down with the take from the working class to disproportionately give to the wealthy either.
Jesus would've found His sheep among the goats in "both" parties and told them to not mix their faith with their politics. This doesn't mean that we can't use our religion as a guide for our choices politically, but that we weren't supposed to corrupt our faith with politics!
Protect your faith brothers and sisters...protest, disagree, criticize the wrongs in the Democratic camp, but don't turn a blind eye to your camps unChristianlike behavior (unjust war, disproportionate wealth distribution, tactics of division, racism, etc...).
Who would Jesus prefer?
The Self-Righteous Republicans?
The Unrepentant Sinning Democrats?
I say neither.
He would've chosen to be with those with a heart that sought mercy and that practiced compassion...and those persons exist in both parties.
I'm telling you folks, if Obama fails, there will be a 3rd Party in the next election comprised of good, decent, moral Christians, Muslims, Atheists and others who will be tired of all the hypocrisy of The Republicans and all of the (sorry, but there is no nicer way of saying this...) B.S. of the Democratic Extremists Nutjobs and hopefully, this 3rd Party will place things like Pro-Choice issues on the front burner while ignoring the ridiculous culture wars of gay marriage! It's stupid! They make up less (to some, far less) than 10% of the population and we're wasting time on talking about who they sleep with?
Let's stop casting stones and let's take those stones to build up a foundation where truly moral persons can actually create a party that will be TRULY Pro-Life and free of nutjobs that want to cram teir lifestyles down our throats.
But don't any of you think for one second that I will ever align myself with anything that is against my Church.
God will judge you as liers for saying that against me.
If you accuse me of supporting abortion because I support Obama even though I don't support abortion, the you too are guilty by association of the sins of your particular candidate...and that's why I started this thread.
Not to point out Republicans sins and/or faults, but to directly, by your own standards, force you to judge yourselves the way you judge others!
God bless you all.
Matthew 7
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 6, 2009 22:30:23 GMT -5
Cepha I feel I need to ask this question. Is it your stand that as long as someone that intends to do great evil and tell the voting public about his intentions then he can be supported because of his/her honesty? No. In Obama's case, he said (and is proving that) he is going to work to lessen the numbers of abortions. Since we know that it won't be made illegal (especially since and all Republican Senate/Congress/President/majority chosen Supreme Court couldn't do it), then who's going to do what it takes to lessen this evil? McCain didn't offer one plan on lessening abortion. He never addressed it. He never provided a solution to lessening it. Obama has and is doing so today (with his work in making birthcontrol readily available to anyone who'd want it). I disagree with you. Obama was vetted for 2 years. He saturated the media with his plans. He made his stances known public. And the Obama voter was on average a much higher educated individual than the typical McCain voter. Or...Obama was the best person period even if you disagree with it because he doesn't meet your personal requirements. How many people would you say voted for Obama based on their desire to make history and how did you come to this number? Some would call you illogical. Who's right? You or them? And why? Because you say so? You can't mix logic with faith. You have to choose one or the other. I voted with my faith and followed the teachings put forth by The Church to me according to the letter of the entire teaching (not just parsing out what I "wanted" to believe while ignoring the entirety of the statement). America was an evil country before President Obama was even born...she's not a Catholic country. It is what it is. But we live here and have to deal with it. Catholics are truly living "in" Babylone 2000's. President Barack Hussein Obama was chosen in by this country and by a Catholic Judge at that. Like Jesus said, obey those who are placed in authority over you. We don't have to agree with them, but we have to be good citizens (until the point where our citizenship duties conflict with our duties to The Church). |
|
|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 6, 2009 23:39:12 GMT -5
How will making abortion more widely available, tax-payer funded, and legal up to and including just after birthing make abortion rare?
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 7, 2009 0:02:20 GMT -5
that made me sick just reading the post kathleen..  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 7, 2009 7:00:30 GMT -5
How will making abortion more widely available, tax-payer funded, and legal up to and including just after birthing make abortion rare? That's a loaded question. You provide the answer "in" the question itself. First of all, any "reasonable" person could see right through "how" you phrased the question Kathleen. What you suggested has nothing to do with lessening abortion, so the question as you asked it cannot be answered. What you should've asked is "How is making birthcontrol more widely available going to help bring down the numbers of abortion?" That was what I was pointing out in my response to you. No one ever suggested that "making abortion more widely available, tax-payer funded, and legal up to and including just after birthing" would bring down abortion. And for you to even suggest such a thing is disingenous. Now, if you want to know how President Obama plans on lessening the need for abortion, that I can answer. As I said, he is setting up funding for birthcontrol to be made more available for free to persons who want to engage in sexual activity, but who "don't" want to have children and who want to lessen the chance of their catching STD's. I can answer a part of your question, but there is no way that I can answer your question with the specific conditions that you provided and that no intelligent person believes. You'd have to get up a lot earlier in the morning and you still wouldn't be able to set me up. I can't even say it was a "nice try", because it wasn't. But, you did give me the opportunity to tell you how President Hussein plans to lessen the need for abortion. By the way, partial birth abortion...I've heard you guys rant and rave about that and I've always asked for evidence about that belief that President Hussein believes in that when he specifically said that he doesn't, yet not one RWE has submitted any evidence...will you be different from your comrades? Will you provide the evidence that President Hussein believes in partial birth abortion with your next post? Here's a quote from President Hussein on partial birth abortion (a sentiment that Senator John McCain also believes in...): "On an issue like partial birth abortion,
I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions.
I have said so repeatedly.
All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008 So, he's for restricting it, unless the health of the mother is involved. Obama stated in the third presidential debate: “With respect topartial-birth abortion,
I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions,
partial-birth or otherwise,
as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life,
and this did not contain that exception.”So, to just say that President Hussein supports partial ban abortion without saying what he said, that it's only in the case where the mother's health is in concern, is a misrepresentation of his position drummed up to try to make him look like he actually supports it. That is literally slandering him. That is literally bearing false witness against him. There's nothing wrong with saying tha he's for partial birth abortion in cases where the mother's health is concerned, but to just tell 1/2 of his stance and to leave out the entire truth of his stated position is deceptful and that is not "of God", but "of Satan" who is the author of lies. Well done fellow "holier than thou" Catholics. |
|
|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 7, 2009 10:50:57 GMT -5
How will making abortion more widely available, tax-payer funded, and legal up to and including just after birthing make abortion rare? That's a loaded question. You provide the answer "in" the question itself. First of all, any "reasonable" person could see right through "how" you phrased the question Kathleen. What you suggested has nothing to do with lessening abortion, so the question as you asked it cannot be answered. What you should've asked is "How is making birthcontrol more widely available going to help bring down the numbers of abortion?" Well when birthcontrol (not licit for Practicing Catholics) is used the fact is that abortions go up. The youth that are targeted with the "necessity" of ABC are notoriously famous for "forgetting" and having 'sex" anyway. This leads to more "unintended and unexpected" pregnancies. This leads to more abortions. The stats have shown that ther corolation and causation of many abortions is parallel to the use of birthcontrol in every cohort population group.That was what I was pointing out in my response to you. No one ever suggested that "making abortion more widely available, tax-payer funded, and legal up to and including just after birthing" would bring down abortion. And for you to even suggest such a thing is disingenous. Now, if you want to know how President Obama plans on lessening the need for abortion, that I can answer. As I said, he is setting up funding for birthcontrol to be made more available for free to persons who want to engage in sexual activity, but who "don't" want to have children and who want to lessen the chance of their catching STD's. Birthcontrol does not lesson the chance of STD's. Infact it actually has led from the 3 (that were cureable) to now over 300 many of which are not cureable.I can answer a part of your question, but there is no way that I can answer your question with the specific conditions that you provided and that no intelligent person believes. There is the rub. There are some that do believe what he did will lead to fewer abortions. You'd have to get up a lot earlier in the morning and you still wouldn't be able to set me up. I can't even say it was a "nice try", because it wasn't. Well then if you think it was a set up. Let me ask another question. How many more babies do you think will die due to the passed in the last few weeks?But, you did give me the opportunity to tell you how President Hussein plans to lessen the need for abortion. Please give the POTUS the curtisy of calling him by the name he goes by. I am not fond of the man but he does deserve the respect of being called by the name he chose if you are going to use one of his many names.By the way, partial birth abortion...I've heard you guys rant and rave about that and I've always asked for evidence about that belief that President Hussein believes in that when he specifically said that he doesn't, yet not one RWE has submitted any evidence...will you be different from your comrades? Don't have comrades. But oh well.
Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007 Will you provide the evidence that President OBAMA believes in partial birth abortion with your next post? Here's a quote from President Hussein on partial birth abortion (a sentiment that Senator John McCain also believes in...): "On an issue like partial birth abortion,
I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions.
Yet when he had the chance to do so he refused to vote. See my above quote.
I have said so repeatedly.
All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008 So, he's for restricting it, unless the health of the mother is involved. Obama stated in the third presidential debate: “With respect topartial-birth abortion,
I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions,
partial-birth or otherwise,
as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life,
and this did not contain that exception.”So, to just say that President Hussein supports partial birthban abortion without saying what he said, that it's only in the case where the mother's health is in concern, is a misrepresentation of his position drummed up to try to make him look like he actually supports it. That is literally slandering him. That is literally bearing false witness against him. There's nothing wrong with saying tha he's for partial birth abortion in cases where the mother's health is concerned, but to just tell 1/2 of his stance and to leave out the entire truth of his stated position is deceptful and that is not "of God", but "of Satan" who is the author of lies. Well done fellow "holier than thou" Catholics. |
|
|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 7, 2009 10:53:06 GMT -5
Aren't "third trimester" abortions rare? At what stage in pregnancy do partial-birth abortions occur? Are these babies "viable"?
It appears that the substantial majority of partial-birth abortions are performed late in the second trimester -- that is, before the 27-week mark -- but usually after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months). There is compelling evidence that the overwhelming majority of these pre-week-27 partial-birth abortions are performed for purely "social" reasons.
In an attempt to "filter out" this documentation, many opponents of the bill attempt to narrow the debate to only third-trimester partial-birth abortions procedures -- that is, to abortions performed beginning in the 27th week [seventh month] of pregnancy. Some journalists and commentators have readily adopted this "filter." However, there is really no non-ideological justification for adopting this "third trimester" demarcation. It has no basis in the text of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833), which bans partial-birth abortion at any point in pregnancy. Nor, contrary to some popular misconceptions, is there any basis in current Supreme Court constitutional doctrine or in neo-natal medical practice for adopting a "third trimester" demarcation.
Under the Supreme Court's doctrine, "viability" is regarded as the constitutionally significant demarcation. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court explicitly disavowed the "trimester framework" of Roe v. Wade (1973), and reaffirmed that "viability" is (in the Court's view) the constitutionally significant demarcation. "Viability" is the point at which a baby born prematurely can be sustained by good medical assistance. Currently, many babies are "viable" a full three weeks before the "third trimester." Therefore, most partial-birth abortions kill babies who are already "viable," or who are at most a few days or weeks short of viability.
(Even at 20 weeks, the baby is seven inches long on average. And, as discussed below, at a March 21 congressional hearing leading medical authorities testified that the baby by this point is very sensitive to painful stimuli.)
At least one partial-birth abortion specialist, the late Dr. James McMahon, regularly performed the procedure even after 26 weeks-- even into the ninth month. In 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that explicitly showed that he aborted healthy ("not flawed") babies even in the third trimester (after 26 weeks of pregnancy). Dr. McMahon's own graph showed, for example, that at 29 or 30 weeks, one-fourth of the aborted babies had no "flaw" however slight. Underneath the graph, Dr. McMahon offered this explanation:
After 26 weeks, those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications. [chart and caption reproduced in June 15 hearing record, page 109]
In an interview with Constitution Subcommittee Counsel Keri Harrison, Dr. McMahon explained that "pediatric indication" referred to underage mothers, not to any medical condition of the mother or the baby.
|
|
|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 7, 2009 10:55:27 GMT -5
For what reasons are late-term abortions usually performed?
There is no evidence that the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by the partial-birth abortion method are any different, in general, than the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by other methods -- and it is well established that the great majority of late-term abortions do not involve any illness of the mother or the baby. They are purely "elective" procedures-- that is, they are performed for purely "social" reasons.
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]
Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics:
There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." [emphasis added]
Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, "very young teenagers...who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late," and by "women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers."
In her article about late-term abortions, based in part on extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice (Los Angeles Times Magazine, January 7, 1990), reporter Karen Tumulty concluded:
If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can.
According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas:
About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]
next question|back to first page
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 7, 2009 13:05:29 GMT -5
Well when birthcontrol (not licit for Practicing Catholics) is used the fact is that abortions go up. The youth that are targeted with the "necessity" of ABC are notoriously famous for "forgetting" and having 'sex" anyway. This leads to more "unintended and unexpected" pregnancies. This leads to more abortions. The stats have shown that ther corolation and causation of many abortions is parallel to the use of birthcontrol in every cohort population group.Completely irrelevant to the conversation here (not ilicit for Practicing Catholics). Show me statistics that whenever birthcontrol has been made readily available, unwanted pregnancies actually went up? What you're saying is that the use of birth control actually creates more unwanted babies? Show me the "stats". When condom use was introduced to Africa, it drastically reduced unwanted pregnancies and AIDS transmissions. Birthcontrol does not lesson the chance of STD's. Infact it actually has led from the 3 (that were cureable) to now over 300 many of which are not cureable.Condoms (the most common form of birthcontrol) lessen the chances dramatically of contracting and STD. Condoms led to that? How's about some sources for your odd claims? There is the rub. There are some that do believe what he did will lead to fewer abortions. No, that's the documented proof...  Well then if you think it was a set up. Let me ask another question. How many more babies do you think will die due to the passed in the last few weeks?I have no idea. How many? And who's fault would that be? President Obama's? Or the women and doctors who actually do the abortions? Remember, read my signature...when it comes to sin, we are each personally responsible for it. No woman and doctor will be able to say that they killed babies because The Republican Party made it legal 30 years ago (I think President Obama was only 17 then). Please give the POTUS the curtisy of calling him by the name he goes by. I am not fond of the man but he does deserve the respect of being called by the name he chose if you are going to use one of his many names.Ohhhh! You use and acromym to refer to him and you call "me" out on calling him what you guys were beating into the American public during the campaign! How "respectful" is calling him BHO? LOL! Another trait of the Anti-Obamian...hypocrisy! LOL! I've never heard President Hussein call himself President BHO! LOL! But, I did hear him refer to himself as "Hussein" when he swore in! You just can't stand to hear it now, can ya? LOL! Presdient Hussein! President Hussein! President Hussein! Get used to it! LOL! Don't have comrades. But oh well.
Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. Yeah, because it didn't have a provision for the woman's health (something McCain believes in too). And, don't forget...he was just one Senator...meanwhile, you guys voted in a President, a Senate, a Congress and the majority of the Supreme Court Judges and you STILL didn't abolish abortion...and you're going to criticize a Senate who was under a Republican controlled Presidency and Supreme Court? Yet when he had the chance to do so he refused to vote. See my above quote.Again, because of what he stated in his quote...the health of the woman had to be taken into consideration. When Bush with a Republican Senate and Congress and Supreme Court had the chance to abolish abortion, did he do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 7, 2009 14:13:08 GMT -5
For what reasons are late-term abortions usually performed? There is no evidence that the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by the partial-birth abortion method are any different, in general, than the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by other methods -- and it is well established that the great majority of late-term abortions do not involve any illness of the mother or the baby. They are purely "elective" procedures-- that is, they are performed for purely "social" reasons. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics: There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." [emphasis added] Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, "very young teenagers...who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late," and by "women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers." In her article about late-term abortions, based in part on extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice (Los Angeles Times Magazine, January 7, 1990), reporter Karen Tumulty concluded: If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can. According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas: About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star] next question|back to first page And to think, the Presidential Candidate the Republicans chose believes in this! Ugggh! The Party that legalized abortion and protected it while they had the majority of power are "not" the Family Values Party! |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 7, 2009 15:02:05 GMT -5
Ok, I'm trying to figure out this thread. So obviously, kathleenelsie, you are anti-"Hussein" (oy vey)
But please tell me you weren't wanting McCain to win? (he also supported abortion for "the health of the mother", and embryonic stem-cell research)
I didn't vote for Obama, or McCain, but the cold hard truth is that Obama IS president whether you like it or not.
My advice is to save your "Hussein-bashing" energy for something more productive, like working for the pro-life cause.
Just bashing the president isn't likely to do much good, but I admire your passion.
(by the way, "Hussein" is an Arabic name. There are Arab Christians with the name "Hussein". I'm pretty sure there are lots of Arab Catholics with the name "Hussein". Who are you trying to insult? My 3 Catholic daughters all have beautiful Arabic names. )
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 7, 2009 15:07:49 GMT -5
It's already been done, Cepha! The Constitution Party.
|
|
?
