The thing about the democrat party is that liberalism, with secular humanism as their basic tenet, is the democrat party's religion. There shall be no strange gods before it.
Abortion is their sacred sacrament.
Go figger.
Posted by:
Psycmeistr at October 1, 2006 08:53 PM
The DemocRATS have become America's DFCs:
Dirty
Frakkin'
Communists!
Posted by: Macker at October 1, 2006 09:06 PM
There are plenty of good reasons to be against parental notification. The most glaring being the amount of underage pregnancy caused by incest.
Posted by: andrew at October 1, 2006 09:23 PM
Posted by: Cyberactor at October 1, 2006 09:29 PM
Cyberactor,
Foley knew he did wrong and resigned. Now if we could just get rid of all the liberal Dimocrats!
And knowing the godless liberal anything-goes lifestyle, I'm sure there are many more liberals out there who have done and are doing far worse than Foley!
AAR
Posted by: AAR at October 1, 2006 10:35 PM
Posted by: Jesus was a leftie at October 1, 2006 10:45 PM
Some pretty harsh facts!
"In the 32 years since 1973, when Roe v Wade became the law of the land, more than 45.5 MILLION unborn children in AMERICA have been sacrificed to the gods of selfishness, hedonism and personal convenience. That comes out to well over 4,000 infanticides PER DAY, for three-plus decades.
Put in historical perspective, the abortion industry in America has slaughtered SEVEN TIMES as many helpless children as Adolf Hitler did Jews during his infamous Final Solution. What is the difference between Hitler and abortion? The world banned together and stopped Hitler."
..................................................
Can you imagine America of all places being as bad as Hitler?
So what are we waiting on??
LET'S BAN TOGETHER AND PUT A *STOP* TO ABORTION!!
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at October 2, 2006 12:27 AM
andrew,
And the precise number of pregnancies resultant from incest per year is?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 2, 2006 01:12 AM
The anti-abortion crusade is nothing more than an attempt to control women, to supress women, to keep them "barefoot and pregnant" as the saying goes.
Perhaps the Republicans, with there unquenchable desire for war, need a reliable source of bodies to fill uniforms.
Keep the women tied to pumping out babies that will become future soldiers......
Prental notification and a ban on partial birth abortions are nothing more than an attempt to chip away at womens' rights to thier own bodies.
The senators that are voting on these issues are all men. What do they know?
Wade
Posted by: Wade at October 2, 2006 01:40 AM
Wade,
No, its really all about how we cannot remain human if we agree to the killing of unborn children. Its no more, and no less, than that. Our view is that control of your own body is fine, but the unborn child belongs to itself, not to the mother...not in the sense that it is disposable at will.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 2, 2006 02:20 AM
Mark:
When does an unborn "child" become a human afforded the full rights of an American citizen? When? Three weeks, three months?
You cannot possible put the rights of a fully grown American female above that of a fetus that is less than three inches long.
It is incumbent upon you to prove when life begins and when a fertalized zygote attains the "right to life."
Besides, nature does a whole lot of aborting all on its own. Only about 30% of all fertilized eggs ever reach the point of implanting to the womb.
So when do the rights of an adult female become secondary to the rights of a 8, 16, or 32 cells?
Face it, Mark. You just don't know about life, consciousness and humanity yet you want to inflict your ignorant views on all females.
Wade
Posted by: Wade at October 2, 2006 02:50 AM
Wade, I hate to say this, but in times of war the birth rate goes up, not down. This happens no matter what decade we are in. While I would not personally have an abortion, I also will never tell another woman what to do. I have seen the results from all sides, and there are no easy answers. Forcing a woman to have a child is just as bad as forcing her not to. Until some one comes up with a way for a child to be gestated in an artificial womb, the decision must remain the womans. Hopefully, she will have others she can talk to, but it is HER decision.
Posted by: kjstrouble at October 2, 2006 04:26 AM
Wade, I hate to say this, but in times of war the birth rate goes up, not down. This happens no matter what decade we are in. While I would not personally have an abortion, I also will never tell another woman what to do. I have seen the results from all sides, and there are no easy answers. Forcing a woman to have a child is just as bad as forcing her not to. Until some one comes up with a way for a child to be gestated in an artificial womb, the decision must remain the womans. Hopefully, she will have others she can talk to, but it is HER decision.
Posted by: kjstrouble at October 2, 2006 04:26 AM
Wade, I hate to say this, but in times of war the birth rate goes up, not down. This happens no matter what decade we are in. While I would not personally have an abortion, I also will never tell another woman what to do. I have seen the results from all sides, and there are no easy answers. Forcing a woman to have a child is just as bad as forcing her not to. Until some one comes up with a way for a child to be gestated in an artificial womb, the decision must remain the womans. Hopefully, she will have others she can talk to, but it is HER decision.
Posted by: kjstrouble at October 2, 2006 04:26 AM
Her decision to kill the innocent life she conceived? Then she should be able to make the original decision to keep the man out of her pants instead of being a slut, just so she can get her enjoyment but later kill a living being. How narcisstic of you liberals, so content to feign compassion. Pretty pathetic to enjoin your allegiance to those who no longer even pretend to want to make abortion rare. It is not rare with those large numbers, and because it is not rare, has become a reason that liberal dems are becoming less and less demographically relevant. Only a few more lost generations and conservatism will enjoin the final battle to marginalize the remaining few with this putrid ideology.
Posted by: dickdee at October 2, 2006 05:19 AM
.".the abortion industry provides a very large amount of money for Democrats, and as they live and die by money, they are incapable of tossing over anyone who will write a check."
BINGO!
This isn't about principle...it's about who'll write the Democrats the biggest check.
The abortion industry...and that's what it is...an industry...is flush with cash to spend, and this cash cow is too sacred to be messed with. The Democrats tapped into this cash cow, and have delivered the goods to "Planned parenthood" and other abortion advocacy organizations in the form of grants, and special protections. Dems claim that the GOP does the bidding of 'big oil', but 'big abortion' is far greater a contributor to the Dems' 'Culture of Corruption'.
Posted by: Hermie at October 2, 2006 08:24 AM
kjstrouble… no one is forcing the woman to have a child. It is her CHOICE when she takes part in the actions that provide the possibility for conception to occur. It’s called being RESPOSIBLE for your ACTIONS. If you don’t want the child, don’t have sex – a simple solution, no “force” involved.
But what we should really be talking about here is not “what are the woman’s rights after the fact” but rather “what are the child’s rights now that s/he is conceived”. Neither the mother nor child’s rights supersede the other. Both are individual beings entitled to life. To suggest that the mother has the right to terminate that life before birth is no less barbaric than to terminate that same life after birth. Either way it’s still the life of a child.
I sometimes ask why people fail to see that but I think they chose not to see it for their convenience of not having to take responsibility for their actions. How tragic.
Posted by: DM at October 2, 2006 09:06 AM
If a child can be gestated in an artificial womb, will the pro-abortionists finally admit that the baby is not a part of the woman's body? If the baby is not a part of the woman's body, then she has no right to make the decision to take that life.
Posted by: CeCe at October 2, 2006 09:11 AM
CeCe… Good point. The fact that the child can be conceived outside the womb and implanted in many different potential women being used as a surrogate should already make it clear that this child is an independent soul with his/her own rights.
Posted by: DM at October 2, 2006 11:06 AM
Hermie,
I'm thinking our next book will be on that very subject.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 2, 2006 11:40 AM
Well, Foley is more of a strictly House issue with no connection to President Bush...as this is "Blogs for Bush", we didn't think that the issue had relevance to this blog.
Mark proclaims the above, but can he then explain how this discussion relates to bush any more than a discussion of the foley case would. seems more like it that he just does not want to discuss the foley follies
Posted by: OhioGolfer at October 2, 2006 12:40 PM
DM, as a rape survivor, I can tell you that had I gotten pregnant it would not have been by choice. As a child at the time (1 week shy of 13) I know that I would have had to live with the decision my parents would have made. As it is, I have seen how much giving a child up for adoption, keeping the child, getting married to give the child a "father", and having an abortion have torn up various friends and family.
There is currently no way to remove a fetus from an unwilling host, and keep it living. When there is, then we can talk about ending abortion. Until then, even though I would not do so for myself, even if raped again, I will not tell another woman what to do.
Posted by: kjstrouble at October 2, 2006 07:52 PM
Ohio,
President Bush has led the way on parental notification and the ban on late term abortions, and these issues were very important in his re-election effort in 2004 - so, yes, there is an easy connection between the issue and President Bush and thus it is appropriate for Blogs for Bush.
Meanwhile, what an obscure GOP backbencher does has no connection at all...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 2, 2006 08:31 PM
KJ,
It is a position to take, and I can easily see why you take it - but it is also the wrong position.
To kill a child because his father is a rapist? That is inhuman and un-Christian.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 2, 2006 08:32 PM
KJ,
In the case of rape, you are certainly NOT making the choice. But that situation only accounts for a very slim number of pregnancies. My general reference was for the vast majority of people who engage in casual sex like they eat lunch. Surely, these are made with a free CHOICE, and with that choice comes the responsibility of a potential child.
I would never suggest that if you became pregnant as a result of being raped that you wouldn’t have difficult decisions to make. I agree there are a few “what if” situations where prudent people need to assess difficult choices in considering the destruction of innocent human life. You mentioned rape as one. A more pressing situation would be when the life of the mother is at stake. The vast majority of abortions however are not the result of these conditions. If we agreed to eliminate the general “anytime for any reason” abortion then we could engage in serious discussions about how to best help those in the few other RARE situations mentioned above.
As Mark mentioned however, even in the case of rape, we’re talking about destroying an innocent child. As difficult as it would likely be to continue with the pregnancy and birth, such decisions should be weighted toward the life of the child.
Posted by: DM at October 3, 2006 09:27 AM
How dare you sit and judge women for choosing what they feel is right for them. How can you even compare abortion to the NAZI regime? You sit and claim that you are defending freedom and democracy, if I remember rightly that is one of the reasons for going into Iraq apart from those lies about WMD, yet surely freedom of choice is one of the tennants of democracy. I am by no means saying that abortion is the answer to the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, I know I couldn't go through with it but being so narrow minded as to try and ban women from having the option to do what they feel is right is - NAZILIKE. America I have always been taught is a country that respects individual rights however it appears to me that neocons are trying to destroy this. Oh and by the way not everyone is a christian, I do believe that trying to foist your beliefs on other people is what FUNDAMENTALISTS try to do and I am not just talking about Islamic ones here. It appears to me there are plenty in America to as well as Brtain, we are definetly not perfect.I just think that you should not condem women for what will be a very difficult and stressful time. What would you have them do with all the unwanted babies? Give them up for adoption? Where would you find the facilities to look after them? Would you pro-lifers take in a couple of unwanted babies and look after them?
Posted by: Fiona at October 5, 2006 11:43 AM
Fiona,
Yes, we will, if it is necessary to save their lives - and protect the mothers from being bamboozled in to make a horrible mistake.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 5, 2006 01:18 PM
It is obvious Donohue never read the guide. He is a hack for Rove, and the accusations he makes are false. The Alliance makes up many Catholic Organizations. Maybe Donohue is jealous as serious Catholics think him to be an embarressment to the faith. Much like the GOP party of death having Catholic Outreach.
Posted by: Serious Catholic at October 7, 2006 05:30 PM
The thing about the democrat party is that liberalism, with secular humanism as their basic tenet, is the democrat party's religion. There shall be no strange gods before it.
Abortion is their sacred sacrament.
Go figger.
The DemocRATS have become America's DFCs:
Dirty
Frakkin'
Communists!
There are plenty of good reasons to be against parental notification. The most glaring being the amount of underage pregnancy caused by incest.
Deleted - Off Topic
Cyberactor,
Foley knew he did wrong and resigned. Now if we could just get rid of all the liberal Dimocrats!
And knowing the godless liberal anything-goes lifestyle, I'm sure there are many more liberals out there who have done and are doing far worse than Foley!
AAR
Deleted - Off Topic
Some pretty harsh facts!
"In the 32 years since 1973, when Roe v Wade became the law of the land, more than 45.5 MILLION unborn children in AMERICA have been sacrificed to the gods of selfishness, hedonism and personal convenience. That comes out to well over 4,000 infanticides PER DAY, for three-plus decades.
Put in historical perspective, the abortion industry in America has slaughtered SEVEN TIMES as many helpless children as Adolf Hitler did Jews during his infamous Final Solution. What is the difference between Hitler and abortion? The world banned together and stopped Hitler."
..................................................
Can you imagine America of all places being as bad as Hitler?
So what are we waiting on??
LET'S BAN TOGETHER AND PUT A *STOP* TO ABORTION!!
Jeremiah
andrew,
And the precise number of pregnancies resultant from incest per year is?
The anti-abortion crusade is nothing more than an attempt to control women, to supress women, to keep them "barefoot and pregnant" as the saying goes.
Perhaps the Republicans, with there unquenchable desire for war, need a reliable source of bodies to fill uniforms.
Keep the women tied to pumping out babies that will become future soldiers......
Prental notification and a ban on partial birth abortions are nothing more than an attempt to chip away at womens' rights to thier own bodies.
The senators that are voting on these issues are all men. What do they know?
Wade
Wade,
No, its really all about how we cannot remain human if we agree to the killing of unborn children. Its no more, and no less, than that. Our view is that control of your own body is fine, but the unborn child belongs to itself, not to the mother...not in the sense that it is disposable at will.
Mark:
When does an unborn "child" become a human afforded the full rights of an American citizen? When? Three weeks, three months?
You cannot possible put the rights of a fully grown American female above that of a fetus that is less than three inches long.
It is incumbent upon you to prove when life begins and when a fertalized zygote attains the "right to life."
Besides, nature does a whole lot of aborting all on its own. Only about 30% of all fertilized eggs ever reach the point of implanting to the womb.
So when do the rights of an adult female become secondary to the rights of a 8, 16, or 32 cells?
Face it, Mark. You just don't know about life, consciousness and humanity yet you want to inflict your ignorant views on all females.
Wade
Wade, I hate to say this, but in times of war the birth rate goes up, not down. This happens no matter what decade we are in. While I would not personally have an abortion, I also will never tell another woman what to do. I have seen the results from all sides, and there are no easy answers. Forcing a woman to have a child is just as bad as forcing her not to. Until some one comes up with a way for a child to be gestated in an artificial womb, the decision must remain the womans. Hopefully, she will have others she can talk to, but it is HER decision.
Wade, I hate to say this, but in times of war the birth rate goes up, not down. This happens no matter what decade we are in. While I would not personally have an abortion, I also will never tell another woman what to do. I have seen the results from all sides, and there are no easy answers. Forcing a woman to have a child is just as bad as forcing her not to. Until some one comes up with a way for a child to be gestated in an artificial womb, the decision must remain the womans. Hopefully, she will have others she can talk to, but it is HER decision.
Wade, I hate to say this, but in times of war the birth rate goes up, not down. This happens no matter what decade we are in. While I would not personally have an abortion, I also will never tell another woman what to do. I have seen the results from all sides, and there are no easy answers. Forcing a woman to have a child is just as bad as forcing her not to. Until some one comes up with a way for a child to be gestated in an artificial womb, the decision must remain the womans. Hopefully, she will have others she can talk to, but it is HER decision.
Her decision to kill the innocent life she conceived? Then she should be able to make the original decision to keep the man out of her pants instead of being a slut, just so she can get her enjoyment but later kill a living being. How narcisstic of you liberals, so content to feign compassion. Pretty pathetic to enjoin your allegiance to those who no longer even pretend to want to make abortion rare. It is not rare with those large numbers, and because it is not rare, has become a reason that liberal dems are becoming less and less demographically relevant. Only a few more lost generations and conservatism will enjoin the final battle to marginalize the remaining few with this putrid ideology.
.".the abortion industry provides a very large amount of money for Democrats, and as they live and die by money, they are incapable of tossing over anyone who will write a check."
BINGO!
This isn't about principle...it's about who'll write the Democrats the biggest check.
The abortion industry...and that's what it is...an industry...is flush with cash to spend, and this cash cow is too sacred to be messed with. The Democrats tapped into this cash cow, and have delivered the goods to "Planned parenthood" and other abortion advocacy organizations in the form of grants, and special protections. Dems claim that the GOP does the bidding of 'big oil', but 'big abortion' is far greater a contributor to the Dems' 'Culture of Corruption'.
kjstrouble… no one is forcing the woman to have a child. It is her CHOICE when she takes part in the actions that provide the possibility for conception to occur. It’s called being RESPOSIBLE for your ACTIONS. If you don’t want the child, don’t have sex – a simple solution, no “force” involved.
But what we should really be talking about here is not “what are the woman’s rights after the fact” but rather “what are the child’s rights now that s/he is conceived”. Neither the mother nor child’s rights supersede the other. Both are individual beings entitled to life. To suggest that the mother has the right to terminate that life before birth is no less barbaric than to terminate that same life after birth. Either way it’s still the life of a child.
I sometimes ask why people fail to see that but I think they chose not to see it for their convenience of not having to take responsibility for their actions. How tragic.
If a child can be gestated in an artificial womb, will the pro-abortionists finally admit that the baby is not a part of the woman's body? If the baby is not a part of the woman's body, then she has no right to make the decision to take that life.
CeCe… Good point. The fact that the child can be conceived outside the womb and implanted in many different potential women being used as a surrogate should already make it clear that this child is an independent soul with his/her own rights.
Hermie,
I'm thinking our next book will be on that very subject.
Well, Foley is more of a strictly House issue with no connection to President Bush...as this is "Blogs for Bush", we didn't think that the issue had relevance to this blog.
Mark proclaims the above, but can he then explain how this discussion relates to bush any more than a discussion of the foley case would. seems more like it that he just does not want to discuss the foley follies
DM, as a rape survivor, I can tell you that had I gotten pregnant it would not have been by choice. As a child at the time (1 week shy of 13) I know that I would have had to live with the decision my parents would have made. As it is, I have seen how much giving a child up for adoption, keeping the child, getting married to give the child a "father", and having an abortion have torn up various friends and family.
There is currently no way to remove a fetus from an unwilling host, and keep it living. When there is, then we can talk about ending abortion. Until then, even though I would not do so for myself, even if raped again, I will not tell another woman what to do.
Ohio,
President Bush has led the way on parental notification and the ban on late term abortions, and these issues were very important in his re-election effort in 2004 - so, yes, there is an easy connection between the issue and President Bush and thus it is appropriate for Blogs for Bush.
Meanwhile, what an obscure GOP backbencher does has no connection at all...
KJ,
It is a position to take, and I can easily see why you take it - but it is also the wrong position.
To kill a child because his father is a rapist? That is inhuman and un-Christian.
KJ,
In the case of rape, you are certainly NOT making the choice. But that situation only accounts for a very slim number of pregnancies. My general reference was for the vast majority of people who engage in casual sex like they eat lunch. Surely, these are made with a free CHOICE, and with that choice comes the responsibility of a potential child.
I would never suggest that if you became pregnant as a result of being raped that you wouldn’t have difficult decisions to make. I agree there are a few “what if” situations where prudent people need to assess difficult choices in considering the destruction of innocent human life. You mentioned rape as one. A more pressing situation would be when the life of the mother is at stake. The vast majority of abortions however are not the result of these conditions. If we agreed to eliminate the general “anytime for any reason” abortion then we could engage in serious discussions about how to best help those in the few other RARE situations mentioned above.
As Mark mentioned however, even in the case of rape, we’re talking about destroying an innocent child. As difficult as it would likely be to continue with the pregnancy and birth, such decisions should be weighted toward the life of the child.
How dare you sit and judge women for choosing what they feel is right for them. How can you even compare abortion to the NAZI regime? You sit and claim that you are defending freedom and democracy, if I remember rightly that is one of the reasons for going into Iraq apart from those lies about WMD, yet surely freedom of choice is one of the tennants of democracy. I am by no means saying that abortion is the answer to the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, I know I couldn't go through with it but being so narrow minded as to try and ban women from having the option to do what they feel is right is - NAZILIKE. America I have always been taught is a country that respects individual rights however it appears to me that neocons are trying to destroy this. Oh and by the way not everyone is a christian, I do believe that trying to foist your beliefs on other people is what FUNDAMENTALISTS try to do and I am not just talking about Islamic ones here. It appears to me there are plenty in America to as well as Brtain, we are definetly not perfect.I just think that you should not condem women for what will be a very difficult and stressful time. What would you have them do with all the unwanted babies? Give them up for adoption? Where would you find the facilities to look after them? Would you pro-lifers take in a couple of unwanted babies and look after them?
Fiona,
Yes, we will, if it is necessary to save their lives - and protect the mothers from being bamboozled in to make a horrible mistake.
It is obvious Donohue never read the guide. He is a hack for Rove, and the accusations he makes are false. The Alliance makes up many Catholic Organizations. Maybe Donohue is jealous as serious Catholics think him to be an embarressment to the faith. Much like the GOP party of death having Catholic Outreach.