LIVE CHAT | INSTANT MESSENGER | BOOKMARK
 

Get this message on your website!

BLOGS   WRITE NEW BLOG   EDIT BLOGS  
 
RSS
Demoncrats With Morals Prefer Babies "Only Mostly Dead!"
Posted On 08/15/2008 08:43:31 by Sam_Pierce
Cross-posted at www.malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com

Billy Crystal, the libiot Hillary supporter would be so proud that one of his characters seems to have inspired the "conservative" faction of the Demoncratic Party to accept the new platform on abortion. Like Miracle Max and his assessment of Wesley (The Princess Bride,) "only mostly dead" appears to be good enough for the most moral of the Demoncrats when it comes to the fate of the most innocent.

The Trail, a Washington Post campaign blog has the distasteful details in the entry, "Conservative Dems Hail Party Platform's New Abortion Plank."


 New plank:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs. wrote:

That was so life-respecting and generous to add the little afterthought at the end to appease the pro-life portion of their party, or at least the members of their party that claim to be pro-life. Leave it "Big Brother" Barry and his ilk to be appeasers, I just never thought the most pro-baby death Senator in The Senate would agree to such a plank. The last sentence in the plank must be for Democrats whose daughters get "punished with a baby (pronounced baybuh in Barry's come and go accent.)"

More from supposed moral Demoncrats:


 On a conference call Tuesday, a half-dozen anti-abortion pro-Democratic thinkers and religious leaders claimed victory for the party's new abortion plank, which they said took a big step in their direction by more explicitly stating the party's support for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. By doing so, they said, the Democrats were moving closer to the middle ground where most Americans reside -- not wanting to criminalize abortions, but wanting to reduce the number performed.

There's a common ground possible here, said Rev. Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners, the country's largest network of liberal Christians. It's never been as explicitly stated that the Democratic Party supports a woman's decision to have their child, and offers her practical support to have her child. It's an historic step forward. He added, This plank makes room for people with moral convictions about abortion.... A lot of people are going to find their convictions represented here.\ wrote:

Translation: We prefer that babies not be killed, but it isn't really all that important to us. As long as we are shown a little respect and credited with a softening of the traditional (modern) Democratic Party motto of "An Abortion In Every Pot," we'll be satisfied and will be able to support the man that killed the "Born Alive Protection Act" in The Illinois Senate with a clear collective conscience!

I guess a pro-life Demoncrat could be compared to:

- A PETA supporting vegetarian that wears leather shoes

- An eco-conscious celebrity that jets across the globe and complains about carbon emissions

- A politician that calls for taxing "windfall" profits of oil companies, but not those of Hollywood entities

- A candidate that campaigns on poverty while living in a 28,000 square foot house

- A person that cries "keep your laws off my body" then expects government to take over healthcare, which would presumably involve the person's body

To borrow Barack Obama's most commonly uttered two words, "Ya know," I think the candidate that has no core principles is a perfect fit for the type of "pro-life" person that can so easily find abortion acceptable.

Tags: Abortion Obama Election



Bookmark:



Viewing 1 - 3 out of 3 Comments

From: RMStrong
08/16/2008 14:33:15
Sam,

Before I begin, let me say one thing I know you we can agree on: What a great country we live in that we can come together with differing opinions, have a public forum in which to voice those opinions openly, and have lively "discussions" without fear of reprisal.

There. Something (at least I hope) upon which we can stand in agreement.

Now, I will go through your "discussion points" one by one.

-------

RM,

I would never advocate blindly voting for a political party. I will probably vote for the unworthy Republican nominee only because the Marxist, Obama scares the Hell out of me. I believe that there are Repugnicans (RINOs like McCain, Ridge, Shwarzenegger, Snowe, Graham, Huckabee, Specter, etc) that are as bad as most Demoncrats (or would you prefer Demonrat, Libiot, or Libtard?)

-------

Listen to Levin and Savage much, do you?

First, I hope you are not teaching those precious little ones in your picture that it is okay to call people names. Must I remind you of the words of those great theologians, Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber: "Calling people names because they're different is wrong. Instead we need to look on them in love and sing this song..." (I'll spare everyone the song)?

Secondly, (to paraphrase the above-mentioned movie) I'm not scared of an Obama presidency... I'm a little concerned, but that's not the same thing. I am a very big fan of the Checks and Balances system, so I will vote for whoever most-closely matches my politics (which are about as far from Obama as one can get), and let the rest of the 20% of people in this country who decide who goes to Washington do their part, and let the chips fall where they may, knowing I did my part. Obama won't be able to do a damn thing if he can't get Congress to go along with it.

But, (and it's not nearly even remotely coming close to a reason to vote for him) on my extremely selfish, wifely side, an Obama presidency would be good for exactly one thing: Keeping my newly-sworn-in National Guardsman husband from being deployed.

But--and this is only my opinion as a Libertarian (hey don't knock it, at least I have a pony in this race about whom I can feel good)--voting for someone just because he's not the other guy IS, as you stated "blindly voting for a political party" and, as I stated, the entire reason we are in the political mess we are today. DON'T vote AGAINST, vote FOR, regardless of what letter is after their name.

-------

Whose rights are limited by an abortion ban? The baby's? The mother that chose to engage in sexual intercourse? The father that might want to have fun but avoid responsibility? The abortionist that earns a living by killing the most innocent?

-------

Most of the above. But you forgot one: The father who wanted the child, but was never consulted or given a choice on the decision.

A complete ban on abortion is a much trickier issue than one might suspect. Before your head explodes, blood shoots out of your eyes, etc., read the explanation:

I will never have an abortion. I cannot understand how people can just flippantly go in and "get rid of the thing". My husband and I had the discussion before we became pregnant with our first (and currently only), and he said that if, God forbid, it came down to me or the baby, he would choose me. I told him, still tell him, and will continue to tell him I will fight him tooth and nail for as long as I can (hopefully, it would buy the baby enough time to be viable).

I work with vulnerable middle and high school students through a church-run after-school ministry. I have spent years building relationships and they know they can come to me and I will not judge, but give loving advice. If one of "my" girls came to me with this problem, I would try to counsel her to pursue other options (thanks Hollywood, for the movie Juno!). I would let her know the risks, side-effects, and emotional and physical scars she would be subjecting herself to if that is what she decided. But ultimately the decision is hers.

The RIGHT to an abortion is discussed below, but the FREEDOM to get an abortion on demand was given, ultimately, by God. God gives us the FREEDOM to do good, to do bad, to make good decisions, to make poor decisions, to make outright horrible decisions--all with their own consequences. Some of our decisions and actions affect only us and some affect more than just us.

But who am I (who are any of us) to step into God's shoes and decide that someone else CANNOT do something just because I don't think it is the right thing? If God does not exercise His RIGHT to take away that freedom, why do we think we can? (Yes, I know it's hugely simplifying things, but we can get into theological discussions later.) But once again, if someone came to me seeking advice, I would not ever consider abortion an option.

-------

Where does this right to an abortion come from? Why is it a right? Is gay marriage a right? How about marriage between siblings or a man and a dog?

-------

FREEDOM comes from God. RIGHTS come from We The People. Abortion is a Right because we gave the power to the people who gave the power to the people who made the decision (which wasn’t necessarily the right thing). The reason we have such "spirited" debates here in the US is because nine men in black dresses decided that they would give this "gift" to the people.

If we were given the opportunity to put all these hot-button issues du jour on the ballot, there would be "spirited debate" for about three months, then it would be calm. There would be some states that would allow "IT"--whatever IT might be--others would not, some would in certain cases, and the issue would then be up to the elected leaders to figure out if the states that do not will recognize IT from the states that do. Then, it would be up to individual citizens to make the next step.

For example: If Idahoans approved abortion on demand or gay marriage (it would be an absolute-zero degree day in the middle of the sun before that happened), Nathan and I would have to decide if we were going to either 1) Stay in Idaho and make the best of things, 2) Leave Idaho for somewhere where more people agreed with our position or 3) Stay and try to do our best to—as I said earlier—counsel people we had relationship with to help them do the right thing.

I applaud South Dakotans for their attempt to get abortion on the ballot a few years back... anyone know what happened with that?

-------

Pro-life Demoncrats? I would say that I don't know any that would be willing to vote for the man that killed the "Born Alive Protection Act" in the Illinois Senate, for if they did they could not be considered reasonably pro-life.

-------

Yeah, so in other words, you don’t know any. Well, I know quite a few—am even related to some of them (which is why I’m Libertarian and not Republican, but that’s another story).

No political candidate is going to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. It's our job to find the candidates in whatever it might be—city, county, state, etc.—that MOST matches our beliefs, because no one is going to completely match absolutely everything you believe in, unless you are voting for yourself.

Besides, Obama’s actual vote in that whole schpiel was not "nay" but "present" and the lack of a "yea" does not constitute a "nay". If anything, we should be getting on him about being nothing more than a sniveling, cowardly fence-sitter.


From: Sam_Pierce
08/15/2008 20:06:45
RM,



I would never advocate blindly voting for a political party. I will probably vote for the unworthy Republican nominee only because the Marxist, Obama scares the Hell out of me. I believe that there are Repugnicans (RINOs like McCain, Ridge, Shwarzenegger, Snowe, Graham, Huckabee, Specter, etc) that are as bad as most Demoncrats (or would you prefer Demonrat, Libiot, or Libtard?)



Whose rights are limited by an abortion ban? The baby's? The mother that chose to engage in sexual intercourse? The father that might want to have fun but avoid responsibility? The abortionist that earns a living by killing the most innocent?



Where does this right to an abortion come from? Why is it a right? Is gay marriage a right? How about marriage between siblings or a man and a dog?



Pro-life Demoncrats? I would say that I don't know any that would be willing to vote for the man that killed the "Born Alive Protection Act" in the Illinois Senate, for if they did they could not be considered reasonably pro-life.



From: RMStrong
08/15/2008 11:46:12
I guess a pro-life Demoncrat could be compared to:

- A PETA supporting vegetarian that wears leather shoes

- An eco-conscious celebrity that jets across the globe and complains about carbon emissions

et. al.



Where is it written that one has to conform to every plank of their political party's platform? What about "Red Letter Christians" (those who adhere more to the social gospel of Jesus)? Where do they fit in? What about those of us who believe that abortion is wrong--and would try to talk family and friends out of one--but would never consider voting for a complete ban on the practice--limiting someone else's rights?



Just blindly voting down party lines (both D AND R) is what got us in this whole mess in the first place.



Of course, how many pro-life democrats do you know? Me, I know quite a few. And really, calling them "demoncrats"... that's just juvenile.



*** We vote Right ***
Powered by phpFoX Version 1.6