Comments on: Obama’s Abortion Position

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:30:30 +0000

That website is great Dave!

I’m not sure why conservatives must say things such as “It is the height of arrogance to believe you are qualified to decide who deserves a chance at life.”

It is, in fact, the height of arrogance to believe you are qualified to decide what another human being does with their own body.

You don’t necessarily have to support abortion or think that it is the “right thing” (this is in quotes because of the simple fact that no one can actually determine absolute right) to understand that others think that it is OK.

A fetus is a part of a woman’s body, as much as any other part of her body. What she does with that is entirely up to her self and no one else. Whether this is moral or not should not be the question.

What you must ask yourselves is why you find it necessary to cram what you believe to be moral down others throats. Leave it be; live your lives. Let the sinners burn in hell and relax with your knowledge that you will live on, peacefully, for eternity in heaven.

By: Headless Unicorn Guy

Headless Unicorn Guy — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:10:27 +0000

Obama’s Abortion Position:

“HOPE! CHANGE! HOPE! CHANGE! HOPECHANGE!”
“O Come Let All Adore Me,
O Come Let All Adore Me,
O Come Let All Adore MEEEEEE…”

Radical leftists like Obama embrace eugenics and a life inconvenienced by unplanned children.

While the Mullahs decree that each and every harem breeder produce at least five new Jihadis.

One population has only one child per couple and shrinks by half each generation. The other has five per couple (pro-rated to allow for the harem system) and grows 2 1/2 times each generation. The two populations are in direct zero-sum competition.

Apply your Darwin: Which of the two WILL become extinct?

By: Cassy Fiano » Nicholas Provenzo responds: I’m just arguing for CHOICE!; UPDATE: And he’s back again.

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:01:43 +0000

[...] been condemning him over this asshattery, or am I just special? I’m certainly not the only one who’s posted about [...]

By: Trish

Trish — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:02:29 +0000

I’m quite certain that if abortion had been legal in 1953 I wouldn’t be here at all. My mother married late in life, and lived with her parents until she married my father. Her mother, my grandmother, had her absolutely terrified of motherhood. For some reason my grandmother, who had borne three babies(from two pregnancies–she had a set of twins), was convinced that bearing children caused irrevocable damage to a woman’s body. She also somehow made my mother believe that she, my mother, was completely incapable of taking care of a child. Of her reaction to my birth, I recall my father saying wistfully, “I thought she’d be happy. . .” My grandmother bullied my mother into leaving him for a time, and tried to throw him out of his own home.
Enough of this sordid family saga. Suffice it to say, I believe that if abortion had been legal when my mother became pregnant, she would not have been able to resist her very forceful mother. And no matter what problems I have, and have had, I am glad to be alive.

My cousin’s son is severely retarded, but the problem was not correctly diagnosed until he was three(it isn’t Down Syndrome). He is a valued and very much loved member of the family. Should he have been aborted retroactively for being “nonproductive”? It is the epitome of arrogance for anyone to say that another’s life is not worth living.

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would not have fallen under the category of “moral” abortions. Were they better than Trig Palin? I hardly think so.

By: Naqamel

Naqamel — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:55:58 +0000

Wow, Dave, there’s so many problems with that website I’m surprised you expect anyone to take it seriously. It’s almost laughable how badly that website distorts conservative positions.

On the Poor: Compassion is you giving your money to the poor. Liberalism is you giving my money to the poor. See the difference?

On the meek: Uh, the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry were not made up. Kerry, and it is provable, lied when he said he was in Cambodian waters.

On forgiveness: Individual persons should forgive, governments are not held to this standard.

Actions have consequences. You steal my wallet – and I’ll forgive you. The Local Authorities will catch you and proscribe a punishment.

See, when you cherry pick scripture, you only hurt your argument.

On namecalling: Liberals are blameless? OK, that’s hysterical. There is nothing more intolerant than a far left San Fransisco Liberal. Just look at how these “tolerant” liberals are reacting to Sarah Palin.

Turning the other cheek: Applies to individuals, not to states. States are warned elsewhere in scripture against saber rattling.

Again, cherry picking scripture is not helping your arguments any more than the linked website that grossly distorts conservative positions.

Store not your treasures on Earth: More of a point to how short are live are and making serving God the priority.

Here’s the best one: Matthew 25:40 Inasmuch as you have done unto the least of these, you did it unto me

Which side, conservative or liberal, supports crushing babies skulls and sucking out their brains which a vacuum hose? Who is least among Jesus’s brothers? THE UNBORN.

On Children: Completely missed the point on that verse. Swing and a miss. More Cherry picking.

John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone

Do a Lexis-Nexis search for articles on Bristol Palin and let me know how many stones you count, mmmkay?

“(10 would mean aligned with the Christ and his Teachings,
-10 would be aligned with the AntiChrist/Devil, if there is such a person)”

If there is such a person? That right there says it all.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:33:49 +0000

Are Obama/McCain true Christians?
Do they really believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ? Can Obama/McCain pass the Jesus Test?

Take the Jesus Test to find out if you are a true Christian at http://www.sentforlife.com/jesus.html

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:06:37 +0000

I should have said apply, not extend. I want to clarify, if there is any confusion about what I was saying, that I wasn’t suggesting it should be applied to someone with Down’s at all.

By: Naqamel

Naqamel — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:46:15 +0000

It is the height of arrogance to believe you are qualified to decide who deserves a chance at life.

What value does a parent put on the smile of their child?

I have a healthy, happy 2 year old daughter. There’s nothing in the world that could replace ONE SMILE from her.

Does a child born with Downs present challenges for a parent? Absolutely.

I bet the parent of the Downs child values those smiles as much as I value my child’s smile.

It’s exceptionally callous to wave your hand and say this person “doesn’t contribute to society in a positive way”. How the hell do you know? Maybe the child smiles at the parent, the parent is in a better mood, and from there, who knows? It’s the butterfly effect, and to claim understanding of such a complex system is illogical, arrogant, and galling.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:37:25 +0000

I read the story about the immorality of having a Down”s Syndrome baby. The assertion put forth by the author, at least as near as I could discern, was that a “marginally, or totally unproductive” being, and one that would cost and be a burden to others, was essentially obligated to not exist. Now, if this author were to extend that application to all the truly worthless pieces of shit that game the system, and prey on the innocent or weak, and that pack our prison system, then they might have some kind of point. But to isolate a mentally retarded child is simply nonsense. Besides, the criteria the author puts forth would actually require the birth and eventual assessment of the individuals ability to contribute. Think about that. And another thing, if you stop to consider that there are a majority of Americans living (and dying) in debt, you would have to conclude that they are not “contributing”, and are in fact a liability themselves, and therefore deserving of extermination, according to the author’s rationale.