The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on September 01, 2008, 11:08:29 AM
-
The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.
Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.
"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.
The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.
"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.
MCCAIN KNEW
Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09012008/news/nationalnews/palin_admits_her_17_year_old_daughter_is_127025.htm
-
OH NOES!!!!1111111111111111 THIS IS TOASTE! MCCAIN IS LEGS!1111111111111
-
Sad to be a mom so early, but at least BOTH the parents are doing the right thing.
-
Cue DU full-on panic mode in 3..2..
But seriously - its being handled correctly, IMO - no 'coverup' - no abortion - no lies. The Palin family is showing the moonbats what it means to 'man-up' and take responsibility. good for them.
-
Well, now we get to see how supportive (or hypocritical) the so-called evangelical vote really becomes.
-
They'll now start saying Sarah is a bad parent and therefore lacks the experience to be VP. :whatever:
I had GREAT parents that forbid me from drinking, smoking, having sex, smoking weed, and doing other things.
I DID, drink, smoke, smoke weed, have sex, and other things.
My parents did their best, but a parent can't put a tracking bracelet on their children or be with them 24/7.
-
This is really walking the walk....
I can't wait to see DU go into fits!!! :-)
-
This is really walking the walk....
I can't wait to see DU go into fits!!! :-)
it will be orgasmic!
-
McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" circulating on liberal blog sites.
According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in May to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin's child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother.
A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media.
"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,'" a senior aide said.
Way to go DU!!! :whatever: :rotf:
-
Okay, lemme get this straight--back in 1992, Clinton asked (read: told) the MSM to keep Chelsea out of the news. They did so. So does anyone here actually think that they'll give the same consideration for a 17-year old girl going through an incredibly stressful and life-altering period?
Nah, me either. Look for them to drag this poor girl through the mud. And it's going to backfire on them. BADLY.
At least the mafia wouldn't go after children--these ****ers don't even have that much scruples.
-
Bristol is a baby making machine. According to my rough calcs, she conceived this baby one month before she gave birth to Trig. ::)
God bless that young couple, I wish them the very best. To the DUmmies.... STFU, your preferred choice of sucking the unborn down a sink is really not yours to make in this case, is it?
-
ST. PAUL (Reuters) - The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.
Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.
"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.
The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.
"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.
MCCAIN KNEW
Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way.
In the short period since she was announced last Friday, Palin has helped to energize the Republican Party's conservative base, giving the McCain camp fresh energy going into the campaign for the November 4 election against Democrat Barack Obama.
McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" circulating on liberal blog sites.
According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in May to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin's child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother.
A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media.
"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,'" a senior aide said.
(Editing by Howard Goller)
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2944356420080901?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
-
Bristol is a baby making machine. According to my rough calcs, she conceived this baby one month before she gave birth to Trig. ::)
God bless that young couple, I wish them the very best. To the DUmmies.... STFU, your preferred choice of sucking the unborn down a sink is really not yours to make in this case, is it?
I noted that in another thread. While she made a mistake and some will criticize her (or worse) for it, she's at least acknowledging her mistake and BOTH parents are owning up to their responsibilities.
Put it this way--if she's the first child of a politician to have premarital sex or have a child out of wedlock, well, color me shocked.
-
First, this crushes the smear dead in its tracks.
Second, this makes Obama's "I wouldn't want my daughters saddled with an unplanned pregnancy" elitist, out of touch with the common American family and absolutely reprehensible.
MOST IMPORTANTLY...
Third, it shows pro-lifers are just that. The palin family has placed their committment to life and each other over EVERY other concern, even the presidency (although I suspect they have all along trusted the common sensibilities of the American voter).
They're walking the talk.
Bravo Palin family, bravo.
-
Bristol is a baby making machine. According to my rough calcs, she conceived this baby one month before she gave birth to Trig. ::)
God bless that young couple, I wish them the very best. To the DUmmies.... STFU, your preferred choice of sucking the unborn down a sink is really not yours to make in this case, is it?
I noted that in another thread. While she made a mistake and some will criticize her (or worse) for it, she's at least acknowledging her mistake and BOTH parents are owning up to their responsibilities.
Put it this way--if she's the first child of a politician to have premarital sex or have a child out of wedlock, well, color me shocked.
Great minds sparky! I saw that and then I thought maybe you would think I was pulling a Biden-rama-dama-ding-dong. :thatsright:
-
First, this crushes the smear dead in its tracks.
Second, this makes Obama's "I wouldn't want my daughters saddled with an unplanned pregnancy" elitist, out of touch with the common American family and absolutely reprehensible.
MOST IMPORTANTLY...
Third, it shows pro-lifers are just that. The palin family has placed their committment to life and each other over EVERY other concern, even the presidency (although I suspect they have all along trusted the common sensibilities of the American voter).
They're walking the talk.
Bravo Palin family, bravo.
:clap:
This is perfect...
-
^EXCELLENT POINT Snugs!!!
Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown reports that it followed “Obama's earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education but, rather, comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.â€
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
:fuelfire:
-
^H5, SB--you show that conservatives aren't perfect, but take responsibility for their own actions and deal with the situation they created. Obama's comments show utter disregard for life and personal responsibility. Sitting here, clinging to my gun and Bible while I make out my Wal-Mart shopping list and budget my money so I can pay my mortage and other bills ON TIME, I see that while there isn't a reward per se for doing the right thing, but there sure as hell are consequences for NOT doing the right thing. Too bad the libs will never figure that out.
-
Religious philosophical question of the day.... do you suppose babygate and all its associated spinoffs are part of God's Divine Plan to highlight the whole abortion holocaust issue in this election? I see a theme emerging. :popcorn:
-
Ow--yeah, make a big case out of this one, libs--you're in a lose/lose situation with that one.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
-
But don't you think it's irresponsible of Mr and Mrs Palin to "burden their daughter with a child"? :whatever:
Yeah, me neither.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't know that they should start this battle, but if the Obamites start it, McCain/Palin should DEFINITELY finish it.
I have an idea for an attack ad that would start with Obama's/surrogate's attack comment, then show his "punished with a baby" comment, then give his floor comments where he voted to kill babies that survived abortions. Game, set, match.
-
Religious philosophical question of the day.... do you suppose babygate and all its associated spinoffs are part of God's Divine Plan to highlight the whole abortion holocaust issue in this election? I see a theme emerging. :popcorn:
I hope so, because there has to be a reason for the nastiness Bristol has been forced to endure over the past couple of days. The Obamaites need to be very careful with this story, the Palins are going through something which many families across America go through and so far seem to be a model worth copying. Not only the youngsters doing the right thing and taking responsibility, but also the unhesitating love and support that has been shown by the parents.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't know that they should start this battle, but if the Obamites start it, McCain/Palin should DEFINITELY finish it.
I have an idea for an attack ad that would start with Obama's/surrogate's attack comment, then show his "punished with a baby" comment, then give his floor comments where he voted to kill babies that survived abortions. Game, set, match.
No I totally agree. They DO NOT need to bring it up. Someone will though and that will be the opportunity for a witty reply. McCain's camp has thrown out some really brilliant retorts. I'm anticipating more of the same. It pleases me. There's a golden opportunity to play shrewd politics. I think the McCain camp will do it well.
-
Religious philosophical question of the day.... do you suppose babygate and all its associated spinoffs are part of God's Divine Plan to highlight the whole abortion holocaust issue in this election? I see a theme emerging. :popcorn:
I hope so, because there has to be a reason for the nastiness Bristol has been forced to endure over the past couple of days. The Obamaites need to be very careful with this story, the Palins are going through something which many families across America go through and so far seem to be a model worth copying. Not only the youngsters doing the right thing and taking responsibility, but also the unhesitating love and support that has been shown by the parents.
Let's put it this way--were anything to happen to this child (God forbid) as a result of the extra stress or problems created by the scrutiny, you'd see a backfiring against the libs the from the likes of which they may never recover.
Not that said backfiring would upset me, mind you...but I'd never forgive someone who hurt a teenage girl or an unborn child for the sake of political power, and neither would a lot of other folks.
-
Religious philosophical question of the day.... do you suppose babygate and all its associated spinoffs are part of God's Divine Plan to highlight the whole abortion holocaust issue in this election? I see a theme emerging. :popcorn:
I hope so, because there has to be a reason for the nastiness Bristol has been forced to endure over the past couple of days. The Obamaites need to be very careful with this story, the Palins are going through something which many families across America go through and so far seem to be a model worth copying. Not only the youngsters doing the right thing and taking responsibility, but also the unhesitating love and support that has been shown by the parents.
They are traversing a minefield... I think the mines will win. :popcorn:
-
Religious philosophical question of the day.... do you suppose babygate and all its associated spinoffs are part of God's Divine Plan to highlight the whole abortion holocaust issue in this election? I see a theme emerging. :popcorn:
It does seem Providential; but I'm inclined to assume the Almighty would be above such trivialities as partisan politicks.
Although--as noted by myself and others--the "don't want them punished with a baby" remark by Obama about his daughters is going to glare in stark contrast against Bristol's circumstances...circumstances coincidentally lived out thousands of times a day with families all across the US. It is Obama and his elitist lib legions that have no frame of reference with middle America.
I expect the debate will now become "those damned Christian fundies prevented their daughter from having access to comprehensive birth control!"
They will also call social conservatives hypocrites for not damning Bristol to the eternal flames of hell for being an underaged, out-of-wedlock mother. Granted, the entire fiasco within their cerebellums is based on their own deliberate misreading of Christian doctrine, albeit muddled by the worst of loud-mouthed (presumably) Christian orators.
But the reason why the worst stereotypes of the unforgiving Christian zealot are prominent is because those are the stereotypes ibs seek-out to justify their own reprehensible behaviors. It's easier to call Preacher X a foul soul ergo they are allowed every debauchery than it is to seek out a genuine man of God and correct their own shortcomings.
Providence? Perhaps. This is definitely going to make us examine issues about what life really means and from that humanity's purpose (if any) and how that purpose is to be realized and what we do when we fall tragically short. I suspect I myself am on the greased flagpole to Hell but my faith in the simple (and I do not mean simplistic) Christian--and their God--is reafirmed.
-
H5 again snuggles. I think your assessment is dead on.
-
Bristol is a baby making machine. According to my rough calcs, she conceived this baby one month before she gave birth to Trig. ::)
God bless that young couple, I wish them the very best. To the DUmmies.... STFU, your preferred choice of sucking the unborn down a sink is really not yours to make in this case, is it?
I noted that in another thread. While she made a mistake and some will criticize her (or worse) for it, she's at least acknowledging her mistake and BOTH parents are owning up to their responsibilities.
Put it this way--if she's the first child of a politician to have premarital sex or have a child out of wedlock, well, color me shocked.
Well I can almost bet that the Kennedys alone make this story a moot point.
-
Unplanned pregnancy doesn't just happen to teenagers.
My daughter told me on her 26th birthday that she was pregnant. This was my child who was on the pill...and practiced safe sex.
While she wasn't sure if she wanted to marry the father....she never considered abortion. She married her husband a month before my grandson was born after she was sure they were marrying each other because they loved each other....not because they were having a baby. The two of them went alone to the courthouse, got married and told everyone afterwards.
On their first anniversary....they had a formal wedding with family and friends.
She has never looked back on her decisions....though if she had her druthers...she would have been married before she got married.
It certainly wasn't my choice ....or her father's....what she should do. I told her from the time she was a freshman in high school....that if she got pregnant without being married....she would be the one who had to make choices for herself and her child...no one else.
Pregnancy happens in good families....in bad. In poor families and well-off. In intact family units and divorced families.
Once our children reach a certain age.....we cannot spend every minute with them 24/7 or wrap them in cotton batting. Believe me when I say...that if I could I would have.
All we as parents can do....is our best work for our children...and when they make mistakes...stand by with support and love. They didn't come with a book of instructions when born.
I hope the media will exercise restraint in their vicious quest for tidbits of what amounts to gossip in this case.
Sarah Palin seems to be a mother who tries to juggle life, career and children ....just like most of the women in this country. Sometimes there's a touchdown, sometimes there's a field goal, and sometimes you just have to punt and hope for the best.
She's just like me, and Sue down the street, and Jane at work, and Jennie, the clerk at Kroger's. She's real, she's human.....she's a woman, a mom, an American.
She has my vote.
-
Yeah libs, go ahead and pull out the "bastard" card...I'm beggin ya...
TIME MAG LINK (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-3,00.html)
<excerpt>
On Feb. 2, 1961, several months after they met, Obama's parents got married in Maui, according to divorce records. It was a Thursday. At that point, Ann was three months pregnant with Barack Obama II. Friends did not learn of the wedding until afterward. "Nobody was invited," says Abercrombie. The motivations behind the marriage remain a mystery, even to Obama. "I never probed my mother about the details. Did they decide to get married because she was already pregnant? Or did he propose to her in the traditional, formal way?" Obama wonders. "I suppose, had she not passed away, I would have asked more."
Even by the standards of 1961, she was young to be married. At 18, she dropped out of college after one semester, according to University of Hawaii records. When her friends back in Washington heard the news, "we were very shocked," says Box, her high school friend.
-
^good find. I had forgotten about that. I guess it's good his mom decided having a baby wasn't "punishment". Even before Roe, a woman with means could find access to an abortion.
-
Not much difference in age either between Palin's daughter and Barrack's mother.
The Obama camp is going to have to be very, very careful what they say....or it will come back and bite them in the ass.
-
Religious philosophical question of the day.... do you suppose babygate and all its associated spinoffs are part of God's Divine Plan to highlight the whole abortion holocaust issue in this election? I see a theme emerging. :popcorn:
I hope so, because there has to be a reason for the nastiness Bristol has been forced to endure over the past couple of days. The Obamaites need to be very careful with this story, the Palins are going through something which many families across America go through and so far seem to be a model worth copying. Not only the youngsters doing the right thing and taking responsibility, but also the unhesitating love and support that has been shown by the parents.
I totally agree with you. This is a family matter and should go no farther. One thing I would do differently is not to insist on marriage for a 17 yo. The family could raise the baby which is what i would do and later, if the kids still wanted to get married...say after college, then they they will be better able to raise the child themselves.
-
I haven't seen this point, but the thread is long, so if I am being redundant, sorry.
The Palins have asked that the media (and my extension the 527s and the hussein campaign) respect their children's privacy as is traditionally done for Candidates' children.
Someone at DUmmy Island (or KOS or Huffington, etc.) will then say "but they didn't leave chelsea alone during mrs. clinton's campaign!!
Of course, it is apples and oranges. When chelsea started campaigning for her mother, she inserted herself into the political milieu. I always loved how she answered the question "is you mom a liar or just stupid? (phrased as "what do you think of your dad's philandering?") she then threw the "off limits flag."
To be a hypocrite is the worst possible thing in the libtard spectrum. Yet this very subject will show them to be the hypocrites they are.
-
Sarah Palin seems to be a mother who tries to juggle life, career and children ....just like most of the women in this country. Sometimes there's a touchdown, sometimes there's a field goal, and sometimes you just have to punt and hope for the best.
She's just like me, and Sue down the street, and Jane at work, and Jennie, the clerk at Kroger's. She's real, she's human.....she's a woman, a mom, an American.
She has my vote.
:clap: High 5
-
Big deal. Bristol obviously made a mistake. It happens, even to children of conservatives. What matters is what she does as a result.
-
What is the age of consent in Alaska? I know it varies state by state. Speaking of that, many years ago, it was common for people to be get married as early as 11 and been pregnant by 13. That was due to shorter life spans and different mores. Also, birth rates were higher than today. At least she is honest about it. When did honesty become a crime? Her daughter being pregnant should not affect her VP. Bristol and Sarah Palin are two separate people.
-
This really seems like a non-issue as far as I see, however... what it says about the Republican and Bush's abstinence only philosophy :uhsure:
Abstinence is 100 percent effective and works when it's practiced.
-
Well, now we get to see how supportive (or hypocritical) the so-called evangelical vote really becomes.
James Dobson, an influential Christian evangelical conservative, said his Focus on the Family group has always counseled young mothers to see their pregnancies through, "even though there will be of course challenges along the way."
"That is what the Palins are doing, and they should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances," he said in a statement.
LINK (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2944356420080901?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)
I doubt this will cost the votes of any true evangelicals. Everyone makes mistakes, and the Palins have handled theirs well. The more I learn of the family, the more I respect them all.
-
Religious philosophical question of the day.... do you suppose babygate and all its associated spinoffs are part of God's Divine Plan to highlight the whole abortion holocaust issue in this election? I see a theme emerging. :popcorn:
I hope so, because there has to be a reason for the nastiness Bristol has been forced to endure over the past couple of days. The Obamaites need to be very careful with this story, the Palins are going through something which many families across America go through and so far seem to be a model worth copying. Not only the youngsters doing the right thing and taking responsibility, but also the unhesitating love and support that has been shown by the parents.
Yeah, they need to tread very carefully since a number of people in their camp have gone through the same thing with children. I know they are out there, but I can't think of one family I know where aborting the child was an option so if they attack this CHOICE and this family they could very well be attacking quite a few American families on both side of the aisle.
-
This really seems like a non-issue as far as I see, however... what it says about the Republican and Bush's abstinence only philosophy :uhsure:
Abstinence is 100 percent effective and works when it's practiced.
Which by the admission of the majority of our very own quite conservative membership... isn't or wasn't...
I was wearing the glove of love when my 1st was concieved.
There's more to sex than fluid exchange. BC-centered sex ed gives a false reality of the ramifications of sex.
Of course your point is meaningless. Do DUI convictions invalidate anti-drunk driving messages?
-
This really seems like a non-issue as far as I see, however... what it says about the Republican and Bush's abstinence only philosophy :uhsure:
Abstinence is 100 percent effective and works when it's practiced.
Which by the admission of the majority of our very own quite conservative membership... isn't or wasn't...
But the fact that it isn't 100% practiced does not invalidate that it is 100% effective when practiced. What about the people who use the other methods of BC and end up getting pregnant, do we throw those methods out as well?
-
This really seems like a non-issue as far as I see, however... what it says about the Republican and Bush's abstinence only philosophy :uhsure:
Abstinence is 100 percent effective and works when it's practiced.
Which by the admission of the majority of our very own quite conservative membership... isn't or wasn't...
Majority? I don't see 171 admissions.
-
Of course your point is meaningless. Do DUI convictions invalidate anti-drunk driving messages?
Actually... it validates my position :cheersmate:
With alcohol, we merely ask for a safe, proper, and accountable handling of it... not abstinence or prohibition!
With sex, gasp, no, no, no, no abstinence only till marriage!
Oh?
"No one said you couldn't drink, just do it at the proper time and place.
"No one said you couldn't have sex, just do it in the proper time and place.
"And no, we aren't going to give you little goodies to help you be a safer drunk driver because it encourages a behavior we think is better confined to its proper setting."
Thanks for playing.
-
This really seems like a non-issue as far as I see, however... what it says about the Republican and Bush's abstinence only philosophy :uhsure:
Abstinence is 100 percent effective and works when it's practiced.
Which by the admission of the majority of our very own quite conservative membership... isn't or wasn't...
Oh, you weren't bulletproof like me when you were a teen? :-)
-
I liked Chef's advice better:
"Children, there's a time and place for everything. It's called 'College'".
Seriously, parents need to drill abstinence into their kids' heads. Kids will, however, do whatever they want to. It's just the way it is, but hopefully, most will heed their parents' advice.
-
"No one said you couldn't drink, just do it at the proper time and place.
"No one said you couldn't have sex, just do it in the proper time and place.
"And no, we aren't going to give you little goodies to help you be a safer drunk driver because it encourages a behavior we think is better confined to its proper setting."
Thanks for playing.
Yes, but you're advocating that at a given age you're free to drink. While even consenting adults, aren't capable of making a decision to have sex, outside of the sanctity of a marriage which may be of a custom or belief system they don't correspond too.
I just don't see how they're comparable.
The tools to be a responsible drunk, aren't car keys, but the knowledge to know of when and how to call for a cab, plan for your safe ride home, etc... I don't see how that knowledge or tool set, encourage drunk driving?
At a given age, kids are free to drink, just as long as they don't drive, aren't publicly drunk, and don't break any other laws using drunkeness as an excuse.
After marriage, kids are free to have sex as much and as often as they choose. So long as they stick to their spouses, they will never suffer from STDs and their after effects. In truth, once married, there are far fewer prohibitions on sex than on drinking.
-
So, no taking a woman for a test drive before marriage, Mrs. Smith? :evillaugh: :bolt:
Seriously though, my ex-wife told me that's what she did to me before we were married. Guess I passed the test. .....but apparently she wasn't done with her test-driving days. :whatever:
-
So, no taking a woman for a test drive before marriage, Mrs. Smith? :evillaugh: :bolt:
Seriously though, my ex-wife told me that's what she did to me before we were married. Guess I passed the test. .....but apparently she wasn't done with her test-driving days. :whatever:
We all know we aren't supposed to...but we also know that many don't follow that rule. I do believe that God's plan is perfect on this subject...if neither partner has other experience, it's probably much easier to be totally thrilled with your spouse. Just as in other areas, no person is perfect...but 2 virgins have no comparison and are therefore likely to be both happier with each other, and more secure in their spouse's regard.
-
Of course your point is meaningless. Do DUI convictions invalidate anti-drunk driving messages?
Actually... it validates my position :cheersmate:
With alcohol, we merely ask for a safe, proper, and accountable handling of it... not abstinence or prohibition!
With sex, gasp, no, no, no, no abstinence only till marriage!
Oh?
"No one said you couldn't drink, just do it at the proper time and place.
"No one said you couldn't have sex, just do it in the proper time and place.
"And no, we aren't going to give you little goodies to help you be a safer drunk driver because it encourages a behavior we think is better confined to its proper setting."
Thanks for playing.
Hi5!
And SLAM DUNK!
-
I saw that. So, she's seventeen... I was 19 when I had my first kid. Besides, she's marrying the father anyway.
-
I saw that. So, she's seventeen... I was 19 when I had my first kid. Besides, she's marrying the father anyway.
It could be worse. I had 16-year-old girls in my 5th grade class that were pregnant with their second and third children.
-
I saw that. So, she's seventeen... I was 19 when I had my first kid. Besides, she's marrying the father anyway.
It could be worse. I had 16-year-old girls in my 5th grade class that were pregnant with their second and third children.
I bet you lived in a blue state with oodles of comprehensive sex education.
-
I am going to merge this thread with the one in breaking news.
-
I saw that. So, she's seventeen... I was 19 when I had my first kid. Besides, she's marrying the father anyway.
It could be worse. I had 16-year-old girls in my 5th grade class that were pregnant with their second and third children.
16 year olds in 5th grade?? Were they held back that much?
-
I saw that. So, she's seventeen... I was 19 when I had my first kid. Besides, she's marrying the father anyway.
It could be worse. I had 16-year-old girls in my 5th grade class that were pregnant with their second and third children.
I bet you lived in a blue state with oodles of comprehensive sex education.
Politically, Nashville is a blue turd in the middle of a red state. I went to an inner-city school that was between two public housing projects. Got bussed half a hour to get there.
-
This really seems like a non-issue as far as I see, however... what it says about the Republican and Bush's abstinence only philosophy :uhsure:
Abstinence is 100 percent effective and works when it's practiced.
Which by the admission of the majority of our very own quite conservative membership... isn't or wasn't...
I will admit to having sex before marriage...
BACK WHEN I WAS A GODLESS LIBERAL DOUCHEBAG.
-
Vonne - I wasn't born yesterday, I may look like I was, but alas no. I just gotta love it when someone rolls their eyes and says, yep abstinence doesn't work. How do we know Bristol and her boyfriend weren't using an inferior method of BC like a condom? Do we know that?
I'm honestly not trying to argue, I really am open to understanding the abstinence as a policy notion. I agree abstinence works, but as a national policy issue? I fail to see how it does... I'm being honest, I really don't see how it works as a national policy.
As for Bristol and her boyfriend, as I mentioned I do feel young-adults should be taught that other forms of birth control are not always effective, and if you choose to have sex; accidents can happen. But they're still taught, how to minimize the risk...
Sorry... I wasn't completely done with my thought and I dumped my OP after I posted it, but not after you quoted it. I was all spun up because of some leftie at another site saying essentially the same thing as you and ready to abandon the whole concept of abstinence.
I hear what you're saying, but I guess I really don't want the government to decide the national policy on birth control for my children in any case. I truly believe it is my responsiblity and right as a parent to impart all the morality and facts surrounding sex education and birth control to my kids. I certainly don't want them to pass out condoms or BC pills to my kids because they think I haven't done my job to their satisfaction.
-
But the fact that it isn't 100% practiced does not invalidate that it is 100% effective when practiced. What about the people who use the other methods of BC and end up getting pregnant, do we throw those methods out as well?
That argument, at least I perceive is a scarecrow. Again, at least I perceive it as as an argument for an unachievable goal (on a national scale), one that we (in general) never could reach... but how dare anyone else not reach it! Let's pretend the 60's/70's, college, and our younger years were saintly
Everyone agrees that abstinence, is 100% effective when practiced. Yet, we all have to admit, it's never going to be practiced in our society at a mass scale before marriage. Of course, [YOU] is different... :-)
I'm not advocating that twelve year olds be handed condoms from their parents, a case of Rolling Rock, some massage oil, and a few porno's. I very much believe, irrelevant of our Christian values, that parents should preach abstinence.
From a policy stand point, utilizing abstinence as a pivotal pillar is ludicrous to me. It's a foundational aspect, which we know will fail; and with the tumbling rubble leading to numerous misery, disease, and children born to well... children... At least I perceive, the policy makers advocating it, as doing so primarily just to pander to voters. Pandering to voters at the cost of willingly accepting the casualties mentioned above. That to me, I find sickening.
Granted, the opposition to it, I also tend to find just as sickening... as the issue so often births into a conservative/liberal tirade, an anti-christian outrage, femi'nazi's, etc. I do feel it's ashamed, that so often sex ed curriculums are hijacked by the before mentioned groups to spread their causes.
I tend to look at it like this. Most parents tell their children the dangers of alcohol, parties, drunk driving, etc. We preach that they abstain, but acknowledge, that eventually they will take a drink or be around it; before the legal age. So we plead to them, not to get in a car with some one drinking, to always call for a cab, or even to call their parents and regardless of the hour... we'd rather be called out into the night, than risk them driving home drunk.
Just as we mitigate the dangers of alcohol, I feel it's sinister to not mitigate the dangers of pre-marital sex. While we implore that abstinence is be strived for, young-adults should be informed of the limits of protection, the side effects, etc. of birth control, pregnancy, etc. as a fail safe. I do find it disheartening, that we have some of the harshest policies on soft drugs and sexual education; yet have some of the most prolific statistical failures on both accounts...
AIDS in Africa: Abstinence Works
Interview With Expert Matthew Hanley
By Carrie Gress
BALTIMORE, Maryland, FEB. 27, 2008 (Zenit.org).- In the fight against AIDS, abstinence-based programs that focus on changing behaviors rather than handing out condoms simply work better, says an AIDS expert.
Matthew Hanley has been a HIV/AIDS technical adviser at Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for the last seven years and is the author of the forthcoming book "Avoiding Risk, Affirming Life: Science, Love, and AIDS."
>>>snip
I guess our own kids are just dumber than Africans?
Or maybe not... (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf)
The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years...
The article cites both abstinence training and birth control. If we're going to teach our kids now not to drink, why on earth would we skimp on teaching them what else to not do, especially something that has no limitations after marriage.
-
Vonne - I wasn't born yesterday, I may look like I was, but alas no. I just gotta love it when someone rolls their eyes and says, yep abstinence doesn't work. How do we know Bristol and her boyfriend weren't using an inferior method of BC like a condom? Do we know that?
I'm honestly not trying to argue, I really am open to understanding the abstinence as a policy notion. I agree abstinence works, but as a national policy issue? I fail to see how it does... I'm being honest, I really don't see how it works as a national policy.
As for Bristol and her boyfriend, as I mentioned I do feel young-adults should be taught that other forms of birth control are not always effective, and if you choose to have sex; accidents can happen. But they're still taught, how to minimize the risk...
Sorry... I wasn't completely done with my thought and I dumped my OP after I posted it, but not after you quoted it. I was all spun up because of some leftie at another site saying essentially the same thing as you and ready to abandon the whole concept of abstinence.
I hear what you're saying, but I guess I really don't want the government to decide the national policy on birth control for my children in any case. I truly believe it is my responsiblity and right as a parent to impart all the morality and facts surrounding sex education and birth control to my kids. I certainly don't want them to pass out condoms or BC pills to my kids because they think I haven't done my job to their satisfaction.
Amen sister! It's the last part you said that most conservatives believe. It's MY job to teach my kid. Not the state's or the teachers or the community. I am more opposed to that than I am anything else. It's all in the control and flow of information. I can teach my kid in MY way, instilling MY values. Not some watered down school board version.
-
I saw that. So, she's seventeen... I was 19 when I had my first kid. Besides, she's marrying the father anyway.
I think its a doomed marriage.
Two young kids, baby and now in the spotlight of every rancid liberal/leftist blog/MSM yellow dog. I doubt Bristol could stay sane under such an onslaught and she is at least marginally used to media attention but I don't the young man will endure for very long.
And that will give the shitbags across the aisle something else to crow about, "ZOMFGWTFBBQ! A FAILED CONSERVATIVE MARRIAGE!!!!"
-
PALIN ADMITS HER 17-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT
Well, really, what were the choices? These things have a way of becoming rather self-evident as the months go by.
-
Many people, mainly the Libtards, seem to think this is something "new". Facts are that since the beginnings of this country, people were having sex (OMFG!!!), getting pregnant, and THEN getting married. There were many marriages in the 1600s that within five months of that marriage were followed by a birth. Puleeeze, people need to give this a break. (Weren't we MORE "moral" in the 1600s?? Apparently not.)
-
Can somebody please remind the Dems that Obama's momma got pregnant with him BEFORE she married the Daddy AND she was not Daddy's only wifey...
-
how about that old liberal standard of " Bill Clinton's private life is private - none of our business who he sleeps with!!"
??
I think James Dobson said it best over the weekend: "People think Christians are perfect and we are far from it. We ask for forgiveness and go forward.. its rather simple really."
-
Okay, so what to make of this BS thing about Palin and her water breaking bit? Can anyone help me out with this?
-
Many people, mainly the Libtards, seem to think this is something "new". Facts are that since the beginnings of this country, people were having sex (OMFG!!!), getting pregnant, and THEN getting married. There were many marriages in the 1600s that within five months of that marriage were followed by a birth. Puleeeze, people need to give this a break. (Weren't we MORE "moral" in the 1600s?? Apparently not.)
Bravo thor. Not only that, but I've been told by older women when speaking of women even older of them that when women had 12 and 13 kids, it was not uncommon that a couple of them were not fathered by the husband. Apparently people also had affairs then or at the very least traded one service for another if there was a dire need and in a time without birth control, that was a very risky proposition, but in a time without dna evidence one could never prove anything without a doubt. People were often looked at chattel years ago so that would not surprise me. I'm not saying that justifies anything--there is still a reason people did not openly admit to such things since it was unacceptable in society and many time one's place in society as a woman depended on her position and other's perception of her moral character.
-
Okay, so what to make of this BS thing about Palin and her water breaking bit? Can anyone help me out with this?
i read a few articles about that and i think its a non issue really.. she boarded a plane and her contractions were just 1-2 per hour and she wanted to get home to her family and give birth in Alaska.. I have no idea when her water broke. by the time a woman is on her fifth pregnancy, she knows what she is capable of.
-
Okay, so what to make of this BS thing about Palin and her water breaking bit? Can anyone help me out with this?
The hysterical, liberal misstatement (is that too redundant?) is that flying is unhealthy for babies.
As with all things liberal: IT'S HORSESHIT. Flying in a plane is not harmful to a child. Airliners prefer that you do not do it because if you go into labor they fear the civil liabilities incurred from any potential complications. This is America where lawyers (like one former liberal democratic contender) would sue for failing to have a fully staffed and equipped OBGYN ward on each Boeing 727.
It should be noted that in Alaska planes are cars. It's too hard to get anywhere without them and driving would be a far greater risk if anything of an urgent nature were to arise.
Also, this was Palin's 5th pregnancy. After so many successful pregnancies any healthcare worker will tell you that you should defer to the mother's judgement as to whether she is ready to deliver.
It's weird that this is the first time libs have shown any concern for prenatal human beings cvonsidering they cheer their candidate for opposing the right of these same human being to receive medical care should the survive an abortionists first effort.
-
Alternate version: "Sarah Palin's water broke while on official state business. She abruptly left the meeting to check herself into a hospital and took an emergency leave of absence."
DU says: Palin isn't fit to lead!!!! She's too busy having babies!!!! OH NOES!111!!!!!
*eyeroll*
-
Okay, so what to make of this BS thing about Palin and her water breaking bit? Can anyone help me out with this?
I believe the article I saw regarding it said: she started "leaking amniotic fluid"....which is a big difference from "her water breaking".
My second child literally poked a hole in the placenta...when he moved one way...I leaked a bit. When he moved another way...his little body blocked the leak.
I went to the hospital over 24 hours later....after the doctor checked me out and determined what the fluid was, I was admitted and given drugs to induce labor. I had him about 4 hours later.
The "leak" was a whole lot different from when my water broke with my first one.
-
Okay, so what to make of this BS thing about Palin and her water breaking bit? Can anyone help me out with this?
Kind of...when I had my fifth, I had a somewhat similar experience in that my water broke, but I wasn't in hard labor by any means. I worked that next day, and was called back in to work that evening. By about 11 PM, which would be more than 24 hours after the waters broke, I could tell that I was actually going into labor. It took me a couple hours to find someone to cover call for the weekend, and to find my oldest kid for a ride to the hospital. We got there about 1 AM or so. I didn't go into heavy labor until about 12:30, so we were in good time. The baby was born about 3 or 3:30 AM.
Now, I am NOT a runner, never played any sports, have asthma, and am probably 20 pounds heavier than when I was in college, so NOT in as good a shape as Palin seems to be. If I had no problems for more than a day after my water breaking, I see no reason to believe that she lied, tried to loose the baby, or any other crap.
If she was in labor, she'd have known it. Remember, Trig was born a whole month early, so she had good reason to think she had plenty of time to get back home. Also, she had her husband with her. Given that they've had 5, and are intelligent, rural folks, no doubt he'd have been able to deliver Trig without any problem if needed. The vast majority of births are nothing more than "catch-the-baby" work, anyway.
I'd love to hear the DUmp's opinion of a Dim having a home birth. :evillaugh: They'd probably think it was wonderful.
-
WASILLA, Alaska - The boyfriend of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's unwed, pregnant daughter will join the family of the Republican vice presidential candidate at the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.
ADVERTISEMENT
Levi Johnston's mother said her 18-year-old son left Alaska on Tuesday morning to join the Palin family at the convention where Sen. John McCain will officially receive the Republican nomination for president. The boy's mother, Sherry Johnston, said there had been no pressure put on her son to marry 17-year-old Bristol Palin and the two teens had made plans to wed before it was known she was pregnant.
"This is just a bonus," Johnston said.
:clap:
Bravo! Well played...and welcome to the family.
-
the more the story unfolds, the less this looks like a real issue for the family.
hopefully the media idiots will back off after tonight..
kudos to the Johnston's and Palins!
-
Not hiding...
http://www.cnn.com/video/savp/evp/?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2008/09/03/von.rnc.mccain.arrival.cnn
-
^Awesome video. I like the part where McCain embraces Palin's kids (esp. the daughter and future son in law) it looks like he's giving them some fatherly advice/encouragement.
-
^Awesome video. I like the part where McCain embraces Palin's kids (esp. the daughter and future son in law) it looks like he's giving them some fatherly advice/encouragement.
i heard today that McCain has seven kids. i didnt know that... four adopted kids and three biological.
-
^yes, it's seven but I think it's the other way around - 3 adopted and 4 bio. Either way, that's a big family! You never hear about the oldest two sons and daughter from the first marriage and of course little about the two sons with Cindy who are in the military. His younger daughters have been on trail though.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
-
Did you not hear his speech? Those aren't my words. He said that. Don't try to sell us nuance.
It's okay, he showed his true colors. I expect nothing less from a man who supports abortion.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
Considering that many liberals consider pregnancy a disease and BrObama His Divine Self proclaimed that pregnancy would be a punishment upon His Most Divine daughters, aren't you risking a lightning bolt from On High for such heresy? Or maybe just a charge or "racism" by DU for questioning His Divine Holiness the Lord God Obama? Which, I guess the charge of "racism" is the strongest lightning bolt BrObama can hurl at the unclean, which is pretty wimpy as far as living gods go.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
I think Obama and the mainstream feminists do indeed look at children as punishment and obstacles to self-fulfillment. And then you have Sarah come along, a woman who in spite of life's challenges, appears to live a rich and joy-filled life. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but I have seen it time and time again, the left is nothing if not miserable.
-
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment.
Well then Lanie what WAS he saying when he said:
But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3827.html
I thought you were never coming back here?
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
-
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment.
Well then Lanie what WAS he saying when he said:
But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3827.html
I thought you were never coming back here?
Well, somebody here is a pain in the ass.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
I honestly think he said what he said. Just as he said that deciding when a human obtains a right to life is "above his pay grade." He is so pro-abortion that he would rather risk infanticide than have an attempted abortion end with a living child. You do realize how these failed abortions are handled? The breathing infant in question is wrapped in a blanket and placed in the "dirty utility room" and left alone to die...for as long as it takes. If an abortion fails on a Downs Syndrome baby, how long do you think it will take that infant to die? Evidently, Obama doesn't care. It isn't possible to say anything worse about a person than that.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
I honestly think he said what he said. Just as he said that deciding when a human obtains a right to life is "above his pay grade." He is so pro-abortion that he would rather risk infanticide than have an attempted abortion end with a living child. You do realize how these failed abortions are handled? The breathing infant in question is wrapped in a blanket and placed in the "dirty utility room" and left alone to die...for as long as it takes. If an abortion fails on a Downs Syndrome baby, how long do you think it will take that infant to die? Evidently, Obama doesn't care. It isn't possible to say anything worse about a person than that.
That's why I'm only for allowing third trimester when there's a life endangerment. Disabilities is not a good enough reason to do it IMO. It's still a tragedy though IMO (referring back to the other response).
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
Um, that's just it, Lanie... it WOULD be a person if IT WAS BORN! And Obama voted against it.... yet you still support him for it. What the **** is wrong with you?
-
Well, somebody here is a pain in the ass.
You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
Um, that's just it, Lanie... it WOULD be a person if IT WAS BORN! And Obama voted against it.... yet you still support him for it. What the **** is wrong with you?
Ummm, she says, "With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him." I'm not sure she is "supporting" him anymore. I sincerely hope not, anyway.
-
we have turned a relevant BN thread into a fight club thread. I don't want to transport it, but couldn't we
all have our manifest, manifold disagreements with lanie in the FC?
I don't want to stifle the debate, but BN ahould be about BN.
jus' sayin' . . . .
-
we have turned a relevant BN thread into a fight club thread. I don't want to transport it, but couldn't we
all have our manifest, manifold disagreements with lanie in the FC?
I don't want to stifle the debate, but BN ahould be about BN.
jus' sayin' . . . .
Yes sir.
on edit: Just reread what WE said. I misunderstood him at first, so I probably didn't make sense last night. I was just saying I'd stop my role. Sorry.
-
we have turned a relevant BN thread into a fight club thread. I don't want to transport it, but couldn't we
all have our manifest, manifold disagreements with lanie in the FC?
I don't want to stifle the debate, but BN ahould be about BN.
jus' sayin' . . . .
Yes sir.
...and just think. If we had just let the more intelligent liberals run everything, the kid would have put a condom on a bananna and there wouldn't have been anything to discuss.
But then, there is the problem of finding bananna's in Alaska that time of year.
-
If When McCain-Palin win....those reporters who have been evilly ugly toward Bristol and her boyfriend and their baby....will be falling all over themselves and offering obscene amounts of money to photograph the three of them.
People aren't remembering that Alaska is the "last frontier". I'm sure there are a lot of girls up there who chose to have children when they are young. This is not the worst thing in the world. The girl got pregnant....she didn't commit a felony.
-
By the way, when is the wedding? Isn't that just a tad overdue?
Be a cool wedding, with a bunch of guys carrying Uzis in attendance.
I hope the due date isn't Jan 20.
Anyway, enough snarkiness. I hope it works out for them. For 99% of girls in her position it would be disaster. And for her mom, it sure isn't a positive. But I like Palin a lot for her policy stuff, and I was a big Thompson supporter way back when, and his family problems as a dad were a lot worse than what Palin has to put up with.
And what Biden has on his plate, Bristol is not a problem at all after they get churched decent.
-
By the way, when is the wedding? Isn't that just a tad overdue?
Be a cool wedding, with a bunch of guys carrying Uzis in attendance.
I hope the due date isn't Jan 20.
Anyway, enough snarkiness. I hope it works out for them. For 99% of girls in her position it would be disaster. And for her mom, it sure isn't a positive. But I like Palin a lot for her policy stuff, and I was a big Thompson supporter way back when, and his family problems as a dad were a lot worse than what Palin has to put up with.
And what Biden has on his plate, Bristol is not a problem at all after they get churched decent.
Whatever. A huge number of women have had babies as teens, and gone on to perfectly fine lives. Many of us even got an education and pursued a career. A baby is never a disaster. (Now, a 2 year old may qualify, but not a newborn.)
-
I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them. She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on. And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before. But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now. She can probably still do school. But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made. It is a lot harder now.
Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster. The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.
-
I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them. She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on. And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before. But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now. She can probably still do school. But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made. It is a lot harder now.
Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster. The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.
Fair enough. Life will be harder. Her life does not need to be any kind of disaster...at least, once the media back off and let her have one.
-
I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them. She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on. And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before. But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now. She can probably still do school. But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made. It is a lot harder now.
Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster. The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.
Fair enough. Life will be harder. Her life does not need to be any kind of disaster...at least, once the media back off and let her have one.
The media won't back off of her for possibly four to six years. :(
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
-
I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them. She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on. And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before. But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now. She can probably still do school. But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made. It is a lot harder now.
Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster. The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.
Why is it the girl is always the "bad" one who has sex before marriage?
She obviously didn't have it by herself as she wouldn't be pregnant if she had.
They either didn't use birth control...or it didn't work correctly. It doesn't make either one a bad person.
The fact that they are dealing with the pregnancy and continuing on with life with baby is what's important.
Drive by any high school these days and you will see pregnant girls attending high school, pregnant girls also attend college and continuing education. Mine was pregnant while finishing up her Radiology Tech degree. She not only graduated with honors, she passed her licensing exam .....all while pregnant. Oh, and she wasn't married either.
She got married a month before my grandson was born.
Pregnancy does not stop a woman from doing anything she wants to achieve these days.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
-
I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them. She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on. And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before. But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now. She can probably still do school. But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made. It is a lot harder now.
Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster. The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.
Fair enough. Life will be harder. Her life does not need to be any kind of disaster...at least, once the media back off and let her have one.
The media won't back off of her for possibly four to six years. :(
Well, if Levi and Bristol have any sense, as soon as she gets her diploma, they'll load up a snowmobile and head out where the media can't find them. In Alaska, that shouldn't be too hard. :-)
-
I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them. She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on. And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before. But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now. She can probably still do school. But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made. It is a lot harder now.
Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster. The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.
Why is it the girl is always the "bad" one who has sex before marriage?
She obviously didn't have it by herself as she wouldn't be pregnant if she had.
They either didn't use birth control...or it didn't work correctly. It doesn't make either one a bad person.
The fact that they are dealing with the pregnancy and continuing on with life with baby is what's important.
Drive by any high school these days and you will see pregnant girls attending high school, pregnant girls also attend college and continuing education. Mine was pregnant while finishing up her Radiology Tech degree. She not only graduated with honors, she passed her licensing exam .....all while pregnant. Oh, and she wasn't married either.
She got married a month before my grandson was born.
Pregnancy does not stop a woman from doing anything she wants to achieve these days.
The reality here is the girl is occupied for nine months. We can't change biology. Which is what the left wants to do.
I think one of the things that makes the scary fire in Obama is the fact that dad vanished. Which dads can still do. So the girls still have to be careful.
Lets not forget that kids are a huge responsibility. Full time in themselves. School is full time too. A job is full time as well. How many people can handle one job? Two? Three is killer. Bristol has a supportive mom and the full weight of the Alaska State Police to make sure things work out ok. Most kids in her situation are not anywhere near as lucky. People do what they need to do, but it is never easy when you do it the right way. Doing it the hard way..... She should have thought it over.
-
I think Obama and the mainstream feminists do indeed look at children as punishment and obstacles to self-fulfillment. And then you have Sarah come along, a woman who in spite of life's challenges, appears to live a rich and joy-filled life. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but I have seen it time and time again, the left is nothing if not miserable.
In a word, no.
Why They Hate Her (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/534rlysq.asp?pg=1)
Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left.
by Jeffrey Bell
Though earlier versions of feminism tended to embrace children and elevate motherhood, the more adversarial feminism that gained a mass base in virtually every affluent democracy beginning in the 1970s preached that children and childbearing were the central instrumentality of men's subjugation of women.
The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was--before anything else about her was known--enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left. How galling it will be to Sarah Palin's many new enemies if she survives this assault and prevails. If she does, her success may be an important moment in the struggle to shape not just America's politics but its culture.
-
I think Obama and the mainstream feminists do indeed look at children as punishment and obstacles to self-fulfillment. And then you have Sarah come along, a woman who in spite of life's challenges, appears to live a rich and joy-filled life. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but I have seen it time and time again, the left is nothing if not miserable.
In a word, no.
Why They Hate Her (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/534rlysq.asp?pg=1)
Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left.
by Jeffrey Bell
Though earlier versions of feminism tended to embrace children and elevate motherhood, the more adversarial feminism that gained a mass base in virtually every affluent democracy beginning in the 1970s preached that children and childbearing were the central instrumentality of men's subjugation of women.
The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was--before anything else about her was known--enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left. How galling it will be to Sarah Palin's many new enemies if she survives this assault and prevails. If she does, her success may be an important moment in the struggle to shape not just America's politics but its culture.
I swear, I did not Joebidenize. :evillaugh: But that really sums it up, doesn't it.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
Um, I hate to tell ya, but if you're going on brain activity in a person to qualify AS a person, then by your standard, abortions should be outlawed after 40 days.
-
Yeah, a "sentinent human being" is a rather high bar.
This is seeing the Roe Effect in action - if either Sarah or her daughter were "pro-choice", abortion +2.
If When McCain-Palin win....those reporters who have been evilly ugly toward Bristol and her boyfriend and their baby....will be falling all over themselves and offering obscene amounts of money to photograph the three of them.
People aren't remembering that Alaska is the "last frontier". I'm sure there are a lot of girls up there who chose to have children when they are young. This is not the worst thing in the world. The girl got pregnant....she didn't commit a felony.
I agree, but it is funny to see the left get so moralistic over this - you'd think it was 1938 or something, even though the kids are "doing the right thing" and getting married. And they call us prudes. ::)
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
Um, I hate to tell ya, but if you're going on brain activity in a person to qualify AS a person, then by your standard, abortions should be outlawed after 40 days.
Yeah, but you still don't have that awareness thing going on. The person who is simply asleep actually can hear stuff going on in the room. If you touch them, they can feel it in their sleep (might work it into the dream). But a second trimester or end of first trimester, there really isn't that type of brain activity going on.
-
If you touch them, they can feel it in their sleep
I tickled the feet of both of my kids before they were born. Trust me.. they could feel it, they would move their foot away.
Have you ever given birth? To a human baby that is?
-
Yeah, but you still don't have that awareness thing going on. The person who is simply asleep actually can hear stuff going on in the room. If you touch them, they can feel it in their sleep (might work it into the dream). But a second trimester or end of first trimester, there really isn't that type of brain activity going on.
When does the fetus's brain begin to work?
Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it.
Brain Development (http://www.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ)
Another interesting point...
Frequently Asked Questions
The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life (just three weeks after conception), but in many ways, brain development is a lifelong project. That is because the same events that shape the brain during development are also responsible for storing information—new skills and memories—throughout life.
You're nearing 30, aren't you, Bridget/Lanie? Maybe you should work on that development...it gets harder as you age. You've been consistently wrong on almost every aspect of fetal development all along, and you aren't getting any better.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?
If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
Um, I hate to tell ya, but if you're going on brain activity in a person to qualify AS a person, then by your standard, abortions should be outlawed after 40 days.
point well spoken
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?
If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.
Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?
If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.
Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.
I don't like the pill, but I would be willing to compromise on that point if it meant reducing the ridiculous number of unborn children who are aborted each year. When was the last time abortion rights groups ever made a compromise when it came to limiting the number of abortions? I know of none offhand.
-
I am a full supporter of birth control... Be it condom, BC pill, diaphram etc...
I think abstinence works best when used...
But I am a realist about it.
-
Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.
I'm sure you are aware that many, many pro-life people do not use the pill for exactly this reason. However, it is also true that most would compromise on this issue...at least it isn't a deliberate murder of an implanted and growing human infant.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?
If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.
Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.
Um, in that stage, I guess you could say "it's not a human" yet since it'd be stopping implantation. A sperm is not a human, an egg is not a human. Once fertilization begins, in my book, yeah, a human has started.
Didn't we go on and on about this with ya over at Gator's board many a many times???? Or has it not sunk in yet?
-
Um, in that stage, I guess you could say "it's not a human" yet since it'd be stopping implantation. A sperm is not a human, an egg is not a human. Once fertilization begins, in my book, yeah, a human has started.
Didn't we go on and on about this with ya over at Gator's board many a many times???? Or has it not sunk in yet?
Implantation happens after conception, when the developing child implants in the uterus. It is true that hormonal birth control can stop the implantation, if it fails to stop the egg from dropping initially. It makes the uterus a hostile environment. That is not a good thing, of course, but there really is no way to know if an egg was released or fertilized, so most of us would compromise on that. At least that is not a deliberate act to end the life of a child that is known to be growing and developing.
-
I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.
I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
His words. His own words. Babies and STD's are punishments. Go listen to him yourself. This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."
I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.
I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.
That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.
Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.
It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? :whatever:
Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?
I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.
And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.
I see you skipped over what I said. MOST, if not all, 'life endangerment' situations are remedied by the birth of the child. The child does not need to be deceased to accomplish this so please tell me again why the deliberate extermination of a final trimester baby is allowed when delivering that baby alive accomplishes the same end? A mother still needs to go through either a c-section or labor to deliver a baby either way so I ask you, why kill the baby to accomplish the same end?
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
-
^I totally agree with you guys.
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
Death-merchants like Lanie don't care. It is about ME ME ME and if I have to kill a baby to make ME happy, then that is what I will do. And if I can use a fig leaf that is something other than a baby, then I certainly shall.
Tough to reconcile being a slut and the results thereof.
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
And the partial birth procedure was introduced because too many of these babies were surviving late term abortions.
Also, third-trimester abortions are performed on "healthy" babies by "doctors" who are willing to perform them. Usually on women who for whatever reason don't realize they are pregnant or otherwise delay the decision to abort - usually lesser educated women.
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
And the partial birth procedure was introduced because too many of these babies were surviving late term abortions.
Also, third-trimester abortions are performed on "healthy" babies by "doctors" who are willing to perform them. Usually on women who for whatever reason don't realize they are pregnant or otherwise delay the decision to abort - usually lesser educated women.
Have you ever read Tiller's site? They kill the babies by inserting a needle into the heart and pumping in Digoxin. As I understand it, the heart literally beats so hard it explodes.
This is allowed in a country that fines slaughterhouses for failing to properly stun pigs and cattle before they're shot...in the head.
-
I just can't fathom what goes through a mother's head up to and during such a vile act. I really, really can't. I've known friends who got pregnant at what was considered the absolute wrong time in their lives. I know having a baby isn't always a joyous event for some women. But Dear God! Aborting a late term pregnancy or a partial birth abortion?!??! As a mother, I just can't fathom. I really, really can't.
-
I just can't fathom what goes through a mother's head up to and during such a vile act. I really, really can't. I've known friends who got pregnant at what was considered the absolute wrong time in their lives. I know having a baby isn't always a joyous event for some women. But Dear God! Aborting a late term pregnancy or a partial birth abortion?!??! As a mother, I just can't fathom. I really, really can't.
It's pure evil... and the doctors who perform these are monsters.
-
I agree. Once I felt those first flutters in the womb, I was a goner. NO ONE was going to hurt me or my unborn baby. I would have moved mountains to bring him into this world. The bond was unbreakable and I've heard the same thing from friends who carried babies to term they hadn't planned on or outright regretted in the beginning stages of the pregnancy. To knowingly and willingingly murder that baby? I'm speechless.....
-
I just can't fathom what goes through a mother's head up to and during such a vile act. I really, really can't. I've known friends who got pregnant at what was considered the absolute wrong time in their lives. I know having a baby isn't always a joyous event for some women. But Dear God! Aborting a late term pregnancy or a partial birth abortion?!??! As a mother, I just can't fathom. I really, really can't.
It's pure evil... and the doctors who perform these are monsters.
As are the people who support both.
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
And the partial birth procedure was introduced because too many of these babies were surviving late term abortions.
Also, third-trimester abortions are performed on "healthy" babies by "doctors" who are willing to perform them. Usually on women who for whatever reason don't realize they are pregnant or otherwise delay the decision to abort - usually lesser educated women.
Have you ever read Tiller's site? They kill the babies by inserting a needle into the heart and pumping in Digoxin. As I understand it, the heart literally beats so hard it explodes.
This is allowed in a country that fines slaughterhouses for failing to properly stun pigs and cattle before they're shot...in the head.
It's sickening Mrs. Smith.
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
And the partial birth procedure was introduced because too many of these babies were surviving late term abortions.
Also, third-trimester abortions are performed on "healthy" babies by "doctors" who are willing to perform them. Usually on women who for whatever reason don't realize they are pregnant or otherwise delay the decision to abort - usually lesser educated women.
Have you ever read Tiller's site? They kill the babies by inserting a needle into the heart and pumping in Digoxin. As I understand it, the heart literally beats so hard it explodes.
This is allowed in a country that fines slaughterhouses for failing to properly stun pigs and cattle before they're shot...in the head.
It's sickening Mrs. Smith.
Yes, it is.
I'm sure we've all seen pictures of Trig Palin. My step-daughter was gushing over "how cute he is" today. With a different mother, this could well have been his fate.
With genetic testing coming right along, how long can it be before the choice can be for something even more sickening than an imperfection like Downs?
-
I agree. Once I felt those first flutters in the womb, I was a goner. NO ONE was going to hurt me or my unborn baby. I would have moved mountains to bring him into this world. The bond was unbreakable and I've heard the same thing from friends who carried babies to term they hadn't planned on or outright regretted in the beginning stages of the pregnancy. To knowingly and willingingly murder that baby? I'm speechless.....
When I saw the first ultrasound of my "teething princess" (she's getting a top tooth!), the first thing I thought of was, "How in Heaven could anyone kill thir child in the womb?" Yeah, I'm not my wife, so I wasn't having the changes happen to me, but she felt--and feels--the same way.
-
I agree. Once I felt those first flutters in the womb, I was a goner. NO ONE was going to hurt me or my unborn baby. I would have moved mountains to bring him into this world. The bond was unbreakable and I've heard the same thing from friends who carried babies to term they hadn't planned on or outright regretted in the beginning stages of the pregnancy. To knowingly and willingingly murder that baby? I'm speechless.....
When I saw the first ultrasound of my "teething princess" (she's getting a top tooth!), the first thing I thought of was, "How in Heaven could anyone kill thir child in the womb?" Yeah, I'm not my wife, so I wasn't having the changes happen to me, but she felt--and feels--the same way.
I don't think even hormonal changes will make a human woman kill her baby. She might kill you, but not her baby.
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
And the partial birth procedure was introduced because too many of these babies were surviving late term abortions.
Also, third-trimester abortions are performed on "healthy" babies by "doctors" who are willing to perform them. Usually on women who for whatever reason don't realize they are pregnant or otherwise delay the decision to abort - usually lesser educated women.
Have you ever read Tiller's site? They kill the babies by inserting a needle into the heart and pumping in Digoxin. As I understand it, the heart literally beats so hard it explodes.
This is allowed in a country that fines slaughterhouses for failing to properly stun pigs and cattle before they're shot...in the head.
On the first day of the process, an injection of a medication is made into the baby to assure that it will be stillborn and will not experience any discomfort during the procedure. After the delivery, all patients receive a D&C and are usually able to travel the next morning.
:o Holy shit! he actually has the balls to use the term baby! Pretty much admitting he is committing murder! What a sick twisted sonofabitch!
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
And the partial birth procedure was introduced because too many of these babies were surviving late term abortions.
Also, third-trimester abortions are performed on "healthy" babies by "doctors" who are willing to perform them. Usually on women who for whatever reason don't realize they are pregnant or otherwise delay the decision to abort - usually lesser educated women.
Have you ever read Tiller's site? They kill the babies by inserting a needle into the heart and pumping in Digoxin. As I understand it, the heart literally beats so hard it explodes.
This is allowed in a country that fines slaughterhouses for failing to properly stun pigs and cattle before they're shot...in the head.
On the first day of the process, an injection of a medication is made into the baby to assure that it will be stillborn and will not experience any discomfort during the procedure. After the delivery, all patients receive a D&C and are usually able to travel the next morning.
:o Holy shit! he actually has the balls to use the term baby! Pretty much admitting he is committing murder! What a sick twisted sonofabitch!
That site is hard to read, huh. :( But of course he uses the term "baby." His patients know :censored: well that "it's" a baby. :(
-
Just want to mention, most third-trimester abortions are to kill an imperfect child. With the dodge of "the mother's mental health," a third-trimester child can be killed for anything...Down Syndrome, heart problems, anything. The point to them is to legally kill the child...if they waited until after the birth, that would be murder. But if they kill the child even minutes before he or she actually emerges, it's legal.
And the partial birth procedure was introduced because too many of these babies were surviving late term abortions.
Also, third-trimester abortions are performed on "healthy" babies by "doctors" who are willing to perform them. Usually on women who for whatever reason don't realize they are pregnant or otherwise delay the decision to abort - usually lesser educated women.
Have you ever read Tiller's site? They kill the babies by inserting a needle into the heart and pumping in Digoxin. As I understand it, the heart literally beats so hard it explodes.
This is allowed in a country that fines slaughterhouses for failing to properly stun pigs and cattle before they're shot...in the head.
On the first day of the process, an injection of a medication is made into the baby to assure that it will be stillborn and will not experience any discomfort during the procedure. After the delivery, all patients receive a D&C and are usually able to travel the next morning.
:o Holy shit! he actually has the balls to use the term baby! Pretty much admitting he is committing murder! What a sick twisted sonofabitch!
That site is hard to read, huh. :( But of course he uses the term "baby." His patients know :censored: well that "it's" a baby. :(
It made me sick that human beings{Iuse the term very loosely with him} Can be that divorced from common sense and decency. He is no better than a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer only what he's doing is legal! :o
-
What is being done with tiller is infanticide, pure and simple. I've known a number of women , who underwent abortions . These women are all old before their time. One had at least two abortions and became a bitter, mean old woman in her 40's. There IS a psylogical effect that damages the woman when there's an abortion after the process is well along....