More and more the GOP shows they really stand for nothing and are not interested
in having a truly democratic republic as the founding fathers intended. Shame on
the GOP and their supporter for this dog and pony show. Hopefully the GOP will
take a beating in the 2014 elections.
"Dog and pony show"? This is about trying to save the lives of innocent
unborn children. It seems that in certain secular sectors of this
mixed-up world, dogs and ponies have felony-level laws protecting them, yet
gruesomely dismembered human babies are daily being swept off your floors and
into the garbage, . . . and you find that acceptable?
I wonder if President Obama would agree with Nancy Pelosi on this topic? His
biological father had pressured his mother to get an abortion. Had his mother
done so, Barak would only be a memory of a traumatic event in an abortion
clinic. Likely, a memory of an event that she would regret having done for the
rest of her life.Pelosi, says “All the people who voted for
the bill were men. Disrespectful.” Since there are several women that
cosponsored the bill, I suspect that her statement is not accurate.Pelosi holds the rights of the woman's control of her body more sacred
than the life in the womb? Wonder what the Pope's view is on that, being a
practicing Catholic and all.
“All the people who voted for the bill were men. Disrespectful.”That is a lie. If there were one or two women who voted in favor, I
would say she was inaccurate but there are 18 (if I didn't miss any) women
who voted in favor of the bill.Martha Roby, AlabamaSusan
Brooks, IndianaJackie Walorski, IndianaIleana Ros-Lehtinen,
FloridaLynn Jenkins, KansasCandice Miller, MichiganMichele
Bachmann, MinnesotaVicky Hartzler, MissouriAnn Wagner, MissouriVirginia Foxx, North CarolinaKristi Noem, South DakotaDiane Black,
TennesseeMarsha Blackburn, TennesseeKay Granger, TexasJaime
Herrera Beutler, WashingtonCathy McMorris Rodgers, WashingtonShelley
Capito, West VirginiaCynthia Lummis, Wyoming
Nancy Pelosi says this bill is "disrespectful to the rights of
women>" this is a circular argument, since it assumes, without saying
so, that a woman's rights include the right to do this to her unborn child.
And, need i point out that roughly half the unborn children aborted on any
given day would have grown up to be women?
How dare those evil Republicans have sanctity for life. How dare we let them put
forth regulations that bans the killing of the most innocent people imaginable.
These Democrats are right; these unborn children should not be given more rights
than mere farm animals! It's selfish of Republicans to think of unborn
children as human beings, even though they have human hearts, brains, lungs,
hands, feet, etc. They don't have a right to live.What we
should do is not only legalize this practice of keeping these so-called
"humans"; from being born, we should take measures to promote and fund
it. Who's with me?Disclaimer: I do not actually believe what I
wrote; it's called sarcasm.
It seems to me - but not just to me - that those who are never born are the
lucky ones:Ecclesiastes 4 (NET Bible translation)1 So I
again considered all the oppression that continually occurs on earth. This is
what I saw:The oppressed were in tears, but no one was comforting
them; no one delivers them from the power of their oppressors.2 So I
considered those who are dead and gone more fortunate than those who are still
alive.3 But better than both is the one who has not been born and
has not seen the evil things that are done on earth.
@riverton cougar Not sure how may last comment violated the DN rules
but lets try it this way.riverton cougar, your argument would be
very compelling if we all agreed with your definition of when life begins, that
however is not the case. Hopefully that was not to harsh, if so I
Scoundrel,"I'm still waiting for the day when the GOP will
praise and advocate the efforts at making birth control available to any and all
women who want and/or need it."The thing is that the GOP has
their sights set higher than preventing unwanted pregnancies. We should do what
we can to discourage immoral behavior (I'm assuming these high school
students are not yet married-- a wild assumption, I know). We should teach that
there are methods of birth control, but abstinence has proven to be the best way
to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Have you found a better method than that?
From a biological perspective, abortion is a form of child abuse or worse.
People who are “pro-choice” do not address the fact that
biologically, a zygote is still a human being, it has 46 human chromosomes (23
from the father and 23 from the mother) and carries human DNA. If it isn't
a human being, what is it? The developing child is dependent on the mother for
survival and biologically and psychologically, the mother is forming a strong
mother/child bond from the moment of conception. Women who miscarry often feel a
sense of loss and become depressed. For women who have abortions, the
psychological and emotional trauma is far more severe. With the exception of
threat to the mother's life or health, if a human female takes the life of
her own offspring, no matter what the stage of development, why is that not
So we see from riverton, that it's really about punishing the wicked more
than prevention. Right now I'm teaching my dog and cat abstinence,
I'm sure it will work great!This bill will go nowhere except in
the campaign speeches of republicans who need to say they did something about
abortion, again, even if it really is just politicians starting to campaign
already.To bad the Dnews didn't print the Michael Burgess R- TX
had to say.
"So we see from riverton, that it's really about punishing the wicked
more than prevention."Teaching abstinence is punishing the
wicked? You liberals have a very funny sense of logic.Unless, you
mean that banning late-term abortion punishes the wicked who were immoral and
get pregnant. In that case, there are two options: 1) punish the
"wicked" girl who got pregnant "with a baby", according to
Obama, and having her go through the painful experiences of pregnancy and
labor/delivery, or 2) punish the unborn child by denying him/her life and the
right to live, or in other words, murder.So yes, somebody is getting
"punished" by these bans. However, it is better to have a woman go
through pregnancy than to have a baby murdered as a result. You seem more
concerned about the "rights" of the mother than the rights of the
baby.Thanks to JSB, I don't have to answer spring street's
comment. JSB sufficiently explains that human life begins before birth.
It seems that most who have posted here have lost all sense of reason.
Let's think this one through. A woman gets pregant. What ever the situation
is of the woman, she has a number of options that come to her immediately.
Within the first month (4-weeks), the woman has a great deal of time to decide
how she wants to move forward. Why does it take anyone 4 months to figure this
out. It seems to me that she should have been thinking about this before she
became pregnant. I know, this bothers everyone that I would suggest that someone
think about their actions before doing something that has consequences. There
are times when abortion makes sense. There are many and real situations that
support this. But when Nancy Pelosi gets up and says this is against a
woman's rights, by her statement alone, she has stepped in deep mud with
her reference to only men voting for this. Life is not a free-for-all where
anything goes. There are consequences that need to be thought out before acting.
Simply think this through before you act on your impulses.
Nancy Pelosi is telling a flat out lie. There were at least 14 women who voted
for the bill.
Pelosi didn't lie. When she said that only men voted for the bill, she was
referring to its passage on June 12 in the Judiciary Committee. She made the
statement on June 13. The House of Representatives didn't pass the bill
till June 18.
Re. Spring Street. If the zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, child,
adolescent, young adult, adult, geezer, is metabolizing, it is alive. Why do
some people have such a hard time grasping such a simple biological fact? If you
don't agree, at what point in human development is the result of the union
of the sperm and egg, not alive?
@jsb and rivertonActually the "fact" s science makes no
claim as to when life begins, the fact is that it is purely a pyhisophical and
What is the difference between a baby after it comes out of the womb and shortly
before?Let's compare this with birthdays. Let's say a
child is 4 years old, going on 5. His birthday is tomorrow. Now we all know that
5-year-old kids have much better muscle and cognitive control than 4-year-old
kids, but it would be silly to assume that tomorrow he will suddenly acquire
these characteristics in one day merely by going from being a 4-year-old to a
5-year-old.Likewise there is little difference in a newborn and a
not-yet-born child when it comes to their status as a living being. Actually,
babies are alive in the womb shortly after conception. There are differences,
but the fact that the baby is alive remains. We might as well kill the child
when it comes out of the womb; as far as the act of killing goes, there is no
difference.The Deuce says it very well: late-term abortions are
unnecessary, since the mother had plenty of time to think. The exception should
be mother's life at risk (only about 1% of all abortions, by the way).
@Happy Valley Heretic*Right now I'm teaching my dog and cat
abstinence, , I'm sure it will work great!* Your comments seem to be
against teaching abstinence, as if it would do no good.I submit we
are not dogs and cats. In the worldly vernacular, we are at the top of the food
chain. In a religious sense, we are free to act on our consciences. Our moral
agency separates us from canines and felines.What is the
constitution but a great document championing moral agency. Music, laws, arts,
sciences, ethics, philosophy, healing arts, etc. separate us from animals. We
should all be capable of understanding abstinence. Understanding that it works.
Unless you really do not believe in God nor moral agency. If that
is the case, then I guess I can understand your comparison to animals. But I
believe we have a more going for us than pure animal instinct. That somehow we
are capable of making moral decisions as no non-human *animal* can.