The Democratic Party claim their candidates lost the last two elections due to sharp practice, the hanging chad election in the state of Florida swinging the vote the Republicans' way in 2000 and the mystery of the missing ballot boxes in Ohio deciding the outcome in 2004.
In both cases the Democratic Party's complaints seem to have some substance but here in the U.K. I accept that we are not always given the full picture.
What leading Democrats play down is their own role in engineering those defeats, complacency in 2000 and the selection of a candidate in 2004, the most memorable thing about whom was the size of his chin.
The latest Democrat debacle has left me gobsmacked at the sheer political ineptitude of the organisation however. So far I have been unimpressed by the lacklustre performance of candidates and taken little interest in the selection process, looking only at the results. A couple of weeks ago however an article appeared in the British press; its American writer who is known for her liberal political views pointed to how the 2008 election had been handed to the republicans long before the Primary season began.
My understanding of the American system is that each party holds a series of contests to select its strongest candidate and they then go head to head. You don't have to be a mastermind to understand this, it is hardly Byzantine in its complexity, so basic is it in fact that one would expect a retarded earthworm to get it.
So why don't the effing democrats?
What has been happening you see is the Democrats in many states have been letting Republican supporters help choose who will be the Democratic candidate. DEMOCRATS, WHAT THE EFF ARE YOU THINKING OF, these people hate you, they hate your liberal policies, they hate your internationalist approach to foreign affairs, they hate you collectivist take on social affairs, they will do anything to stop a Democrat getting in the White House, THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO VOTE FOR YOUR STRONGEST CANDIDATE.
Can anyone with even the smallest trace of political nous see the British Labour or Conservative parties allowing their opponents to contribute to choosing their leaders? Would Germany's Social Democrats and Christian Democrats open their leadership contests to supporters of their rivals? Do France's Gaullists consult the socialists on who should be Presidential candidate - the socialists in France can hardly bring themselves to wish a Gaullist good morning let alone seek an opinion on who should fight an election.
See how it works? Know your enemy.
America's Democratic party it seems are so concerned with being seen to be inclusive and politically correct they have lost sight of the fact that their opponents, no matter what we think of their policies, are a formidable political machine. The potential of tactical voting will not have escaped them.
"We don't want those poor republican to feel exculded," they bleat.
Meanwhile the Republican party managers are saying:
"Hey guys, this is great, we don't have to fight their best guy, we get to pick who we want to fight. Mobilise the troops to take part in the Democrats primary and vote for the dickhead. Then the big one will be like shooting fish in a barrel.
The press article I mentioned above noted how a big majority of Republicans and Independents voting in Democratic primaries have supported Barak Obama. The writer also pointed out that the Republican media have treated Obama very gently so far.
Do you see a pattern beginning to unfold here?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 253
I don't mind being able to vote for either party. In my primary I usually vote Democrat but since Clinton was the only real candidate on the ballot, I went over and voted for McCain. It wasn't a "tactical" vote as I've liked McCain since the 2000 primaries and I'm glad I had the chance to vote for him instead of being forced to either stay home or vote for a candidate I despise. I mean, this is the land of the free, right?
Anyway, sometimes I think countries like Canada are better off with their multitude of parties instead of having to just choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
It is my experience of the nature of conservatism that on election day they will crawl out of the woodwork and vote for the rosette no matter who is wearing it.
If I had a vote it would go to Jello Biafra.
but you are right in saying that we should vote for candidates we like. I have never voted in an election where my choice is only between bad and badder.
This new crowd of Republican operatives makes Richard Nixon's crowd look like Girl Scouts.
It is frustrating to think that someone would play with the process in such a way, but it seems you are making the point that Obama is winning only because Republicans are going out and voting for him in the primary because they know he will never win. I think you are grossly underestimating the American people. If the Republicans had a strong candidate, then I might agree with you, but NO ONE I know, even casually (and in the investment business there are a lot of Republicans) is going to vote for McCain because of his insane war policies. They know that continuing these crazy endless wars in the Middle East is going to mean the economic downfall of the US and they want things changed, even if solely based on their own individual greed.
Barack Obama is winning because he is an intelligent, honest, inspiring man and people love him. The Democrats do not need Republican votes to win.
Nothing wrong with the crackpot candidates, I have been know to vote fot The Monster Raving Looney Party.
The article I referred to (and I have to say the writer was heartbroken at the way she sees things going) did point out the opening of the contest has not happened everywhere. She also pointed out most of Obama's support has come from young professionals in high tech industries, people whose sentiments may be liberal but whose instincts are very right wing.
These people vote from self interest not principle.
Oh you republicans, you're such fun. The Deomcrats will beat themselves.
The so called d- - - Democrats as crassly pointed out really don't need to do too much...just sit back and enjoy the crappy ride bush has taken us on!
Where'd my reply go? Now what was it I said? Oh yeah, since when had you thought a hypocrite who says he is for progress and then on his days off preaches a creationist message in an extremist, fundamentalist church that if you analyse its creed, supports black seperatism.
That does not sound like an honest, inspiring man to me, it sounds like a divisive, partisan political operator. And I have not mentioned the "R" word yet. There seems to be a lot of dirt waiting to come out of that scandal.
All politics is about winning. It is not how you do it, it is that you do it.
The Democrats seem to have lost sight of that.
As I said, we don't always get shown the full picture in Britain. But then you don't always see the full picture in the States either. Like the business of a certain Mr. Obama managing to piss off India by crediting one of Gandhi's big ideas to MLK. Gandhi is revered in India.
So that is China, Russian and India he has pissed off now, and he isn't even candidate yet.
If I were a Republican trying to sabotage the Democratic candidacy, I wouldn't know which one to push...Clinton or Obama. I don't think anyone knows which one will have a greater chance of beating McCain in November. The latest LA Times poll shows McCain with a narrow lead over either Dem, but slightly larger over Clinton.
"Mobilise the troops to take part in the Democrats primary and vote for the dickhead. Then the big one will be like shooting fish in a barrel."
Even from 3000 miles away, you understand our idiocy. I've been trying to get his stupid policy rescinded for 20 years..............but no one seems to care.
It reminds me of an old saying :
"I'm not a member of any organized political party..............I'm a Democrat"
- Will Rogers, 1931
This election is ours to lose............and we will. Mainly because Left Wing candidates don't do well with the general population - even in a political climate like this one.
I'm getting my info from very left wing British publications, far too left to be published in the U.S.A. Now the post was not an attack on Obama (though he deserves it) but on the abject failure of the Democrats to find a candidate.
Why does Obama need to be attacked and why does the world distrust him so much? Try this: The palestinians will have to use the passive resistance tactics devised by Martin Luther King."
WTF? Luther King? Martin Luther King was not even born when Mohandas K. Gandhi launched his first peaceful revolution against British rule, relying on his concept of PASSIVE RESISTANCE to avoid bloodshed.
An object lesson in how to piss off a nation and irritate the free world in just one sentence. So far apart from India, Obama has managed to piss off the Chinese, Russians and Germans with his ignorance of their history and culture. Don't know abou the French, they're always pissed off.
A great guy to follow in the footsteps of Bush then?
I was born red and I'll be red till I die, but no wonder you guys have so much trouble electing a competent president when something as simple as colours confuses you.
All together now, to the tune O Tannenbaum
THE RED FLAG
The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyr'd dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.
Then raise the scarlet standard high,
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
Look round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,
The sturdy German chants its praise,
In Moscow's vaults its hymns are sung,
Chicago swells the surging throng.
It waved above our infant might
When all ahead seemed dark as night;
It witnessed many a deed and vow,
We must not change its colour now.
It well recalls the triumphs past;
It gives the hope of peace at last:
The banner bright, the symbol plain,
Of human right and human gain.
It suits today the meek and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place,
To cringe before the rich man's frown
And haul the sacred emblem down.
With heads uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall.
Come dungeon dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.
The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyr'd dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.
Now is anyone still in any doubt? :-)
The Democrats should walk into the White House. Unfortunately they seem to be trying to trip themseles up at every step.
One more thing that has been noted in the British media is the Obama cdamp's whining about the super delegates when they though he was assured of a majority of elected delegates.
Of course the party managers, senators and congressmen should play an influential role in a close race. They need to know the party has a leader it can unite behind and who is capable of doing well in the dirty business of day to day government.
" I dunno, Bret. I don't think the Dems have lost it yet. There is plenty of time to expose McCain for what he is...a Dubya clone, only a little smarter...and that isn't saying much."
Expose McCain?
The guy is out front and center. What DON'T we know about this guy?
With Hillary's amazing wins last night in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, I see us being at each others throats right up until the convention. Meanwhile, McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination last night. Now all he needs to do is secure party money, talk up party unity, then attack us all Summer long. This is not good.
These days in the UK, does red = communist?
Or does red = American Republican?
Here, there is a huge difference.
American Republicans are about half the population. Communists are about 3% of the population and hunted like wild dingoes....lol.
We know that he wants to be President so badly that he changed his positions on campaign finance reform and women's choice, and that he is courting the Religious Right like mad. Unfortunately for him, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and their ilk see right through his hypocrisy and have said they won't support him. But I think he is counting on them to come around once the Democratic candidate is selected...and they probably will.
The only things I am sure about with McCain is that he wants to be President very badly...maybe even more than Hillary and Obama.
And that he wants to escalate the Iraq War and he is virulently anti-choice..
But that's all I need to know.
McCain changed his positions on Campaign Finance Reform and Abortion because he got SPANKED on both of them!
His Arizona constituency absolutely revolted in protest over his positions. And since he's a servant of the people (as their Senator) he bowed to their will................which is what he should do.
As a Conservative, I chuckle when I see the ads on Chicago TV touting McCain as a Conservative. But hey, at least he's trying.........
The Democratic party candidates are absolutely bowing and scraping to the Extreme Left, so that's pretty hilarious to watch too. Pandering to the Left...........why? Where will Leftist voters go if you alienate them? Ralph Nader? LMAO!
What we really need in the Democratic party is some pandering to the much larger Moderate vote. That's where all the votes are.
Anybody who likes killing unborn babies is a ghoul, not a President. If McCain is the only one who is against this demented practice, then he gets a gold star.
So killing babies is OK with you?
Fascism, Bert? Nicely played card..........even if Abortion is on its way out. The now-Conservative Supreme Court is getting closer and closer to a good trial case on this issue. And when it does, you and your ilk will be washed away. All that it will take is for ancient Justices Stevens (age 88) or Ginsburg (age 75) to drop dead.
When McCain wins, you're done.
Your 30 year killing experiment will be over.
Red, all around the world, except America which never gets it, is the colour of socialism. Communism in its purest form is related to socialism but the Stalinism of the Soviet Union and Maoist China was much closer to Hitler's Germany or Bush's America. oth Clinton and Obama would be considered right wing in Europe.
What's this with killing babies? Until it is viable, i.e. can survive alone, the foetus is not a baby but a parasite, albeit a welcome one in most cases. Nature has always been profligate in aborting embryos, most fertilised human eggs are aborted within a few days of conception, very few make it to birth, so what's the big deal about doctors doing it later?
I'm against killing unborn babies. And I think the sentiment here in the US is that abortion, as a public policy, has been a horrible failure. Things are changing here, for the better..........thankfully.
You may have noticed that Communism is on its way out. Very few people practice it, and those that are still under it, want to get rid of it. The last few practitioners of it are living in horrible little countries. No one wants that. Freedom is the wave of the future.
Moderated Capitalism is on the rise, and so is representative government. That will continue, probably over the dead bodies of idealistic, but outdated Communists.
Moderated capitalism has failed. Do the words sub prime crisis mean anything to you I wonder. That is a result of capitalism writing up the notional value of assets to unsustainable levels in order to use personal indebtedness to fuel the constant growth it needs to disguise the fact it is a sham. Sub-prime crisis = dotcom bubble = South Sea Bubble. The pattern just repeats.
If you think Russia and China are in any way capitalist, all I can say is don't believe a word those neocons tell you.
Democratic socialism works as demonstrated by Sweden, the most wonderful country in which to live, (but Britain ain't bad, free healthcare etc. anf great beer.)
Abortion, silver ring thing and all tat b.s. has been a horrible failure in the U.S.
Unwanted tenage pregnancies in America are around 80 per 1000 head, in Britain with legal abortion including the morning after pill, the figure is 40. In Germany, Sweden and Holland the figure is around four. This is thanks to their enlightened policies on birth control and abortion.
So their are less teenagers getting pregnant in a year in Germany etc. than are getting illegally (therefore dangerously) aborted in a week under America's wonderful system.
Did you miss out on a lot of your education or something?
On the choice issue...I am against unwanted babies being born. But most of all, I am against you or anybody else telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. It quite simply is none of your business.
I simply don't want to pay for your "right" to kill babies. I think you don't have that "right". I see nothing in the Constitution that gives you that right.............do you?
If I'm "The Religious Right" then the true Religious Right has something to fear.....lol. I'm not a church-goer. In fact, I'm about as Moderate as it gets on most social issues. However, killing babies as a public policy is monstrous and ghastly.
Just watch the continuing Conservative shift in the Supreme Court, and you'll see that your views are becoming less and less predominant. All it takes for Roe v. Wade to die, is for Ginsberg or Stevens to die. Its inevitable, Bert.
A woman who has an unwanted baby, Bert?
Are you aware that the line to adopt babies is about 20 miles long? LOL
Why do you think couples are willing to go to China or Romania to get one?
As a taxpayer I don't want to pay for any "unwanted" babies..............but I will rather than kill them. Thankfully there are no "unwanted" babies. Not with our adoption backlog.
"Moderated capitalism has failed."
I heard that same thing back in the 80's. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Its just fashionable to say at dinner parties among Limousine Liberals here...............maybe there in the UK too.
"Do the words sub prime crisis mean anything to you I wonder."
Sure, so did the S&L crisis 20+ years ago. Taxpayers bailed that crisis out, and they'll end up bailing this one out too. Its funny..........the rich have no stake in this latest crisis, and yet they'll end up paying almost all the costs...........considering that the richest 10% of taxpayers paid 70% of all taxes paid last year. The people who are getting dinged by this latest sub-prime crisis are generally poorer folks who probably shouldn't have purchased homes in the first place.
"If you think Russia and China are in any way capitalist, all I can say is don't believe a word those neocons tell you."
Russia - not so much. China............surely you're joking, Ian. The Chinese are Communists in name only. They are the greatest Capitalists ever to roam the earth. My company deals with companies and people in both countries. The Chinese employ no Communist tactics in their business dealings..............its pure Capitalism all the way. No NeoCon has to tell me about details I see with my own eyes, Ian.
"Democratic socialism works as demonstrated by Sweden, the most wonderful country in which to live, (but Britain ain't bad, free healthcare etc. anf great beer.)"
True, the beer is good in Europe...........however, unless you like sending a ton of your earnings to Stockholm each year, no one can honestly say that Socialized industry is a good thing. The EU's unemployment is abysmal. Its consistently MUCH higher than ours is here in the US. Growth is only fair. Taxes are exorbitant. Bang for your buck............not as good as the US. That's why every country invests their money here.
I realize I am wasting my time trying to educate you on this subject, so I'll leave it at that.
As you think the richest 10% pay 70% of taxes there is no point my trying to educate you in economics. As a management consultant I worked with some of the world's biggest companies in finance, oil and chemicals, pharmaceuticals, technology and energy as well as a number of Government agencies.
So don't think you can EVER put any of the lies of capitalism past me.
How highly taxed are the rich? Two words, Cayman fucking Islands.
I remember sending time deposits to the Cayman Islands for the First National Bank of Chicago during the 1970s and 1980s when I worked there. The investors not only received a good return on those time deposits, but they also weren't subject to the laws of America since the Caymans are not part of the US.
China not communist. Now I know you are really stupid. Direction of labour, forced relocation, the one child rule (including abortion.
And don't try that emotive fundie nonsense on us level headed people. Abortion does not kill babies. Being an unwanted, unloved child kills infants.
As for EU unemployment, we are humane, we recognise that the stupid, greedy capitalists exported all the real jobs to the far east and there is no point making people take phoney jobs on minimum wage just so the employment figues look good.
Our neocon government tried that scam in the 1980s, we didn't fall for it and threw them out.
As usual you show America's rabid right have a rather tenuous grip on reality.
Britain has its offshore island tax havens too, and of course we share Bermuda.
Bret only shows his lack of understanding of the tax regime when he pulls silly figures out of thin air.
More significan are the corporate tax avoidance schemes. Tesco, a predatory retail giant just opening up in the US under the name Fresh and Easy, makes around two billion a year in Britain alone. Yet though corporate tax is set at 24% Tesco paid just £30,000 last year.
Billionaire Rupert Murdoch is now an American national despite being born in Australia and living in Britain. He became American solely so he could own American media companies (ssh, Bret probably thought Fox was 100% American) but due to the way his lawyers have arranged his affairs he pays around £5000 tax on earnings of £ millions in Britain and not much more in America.
Tax is largely voluantary for the rich, as I guess you know.
Bret generates so much hot air we should hook him up to a power station and use the income from electricity to pay for a free brth control programme for everybody.
"Is a cell a person, Bret? Two cells? When is a bunch of cells a person?
I realize I am wasting my time trying to educate you on this subject, so I'll leave it at that."
Is a seed a plant, Bert?
Nope, not until its fertilized. Only then is it classified as a plant.
"Let's make a deal, Bret. You can stop paying for my abortions when everyone else stops paying for your war."
Sandy, that's a deal that any Conservative would make. If a larger "God-deal" could be made linking the fates of Abortion and the Iraq War, I'd be for immediate withdrawal in Iraq.............but only if publicly funded abortions would also stop immediately.
"As you think the richest 10% pay 70% of taxes there is no point my trying to educate you in economics."
Read 'em and weep...........but only if you're poor. The empirical evidence is damning for those believing the "Big Lie" of the John Edwards-types :
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20070430/ai_n19163017
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22516.html
Sorry Ian, the facts are what they are. The top 10% of US taxpayers pay 70% of the tax money brought in by the US government. See the National Taxpayers Union chart for the empirical evidence.
The bottom 50% pay only a pathetic 3% of the tax money brought in by the US government.
In other words, the rich pay. The poor don't.
"How highly taxed are the rich? Two words, Cayman fucking Islands."
I don't recall this New Math being used on me when I lived in London.............however, over here in the US, "Cayman fucking Islands" looks like 3 words to me. LOL
In your reply to Bert I think you proved his point.
My example was quite easy to understand.
Life starts when it starts. Not when we define it.
Do you believe God created the woirld in seven days just because it says so on a conservative website.
Lesson in counting and English:
Cayman Fucking Islands. Two words, one exclamatory interjection. Check out Bill Hicks work - a true American idf ever there was one.
If the bottom 50% income group only pay 3% of all taxes raised that means America is by its own definition, a Third World Country. Nice one Bret, I have been waiting for a conservative to admit that for months.
I recommend you look at figures compiled by the U.S. government financial department or the Fedral Reserve. I checked out the site you gave me and found the botton 50% of taxpayers paid 3% but the top 50% paid 349%
Now what were you saying about Math?
However, even though the figures quoted are obviously fraudulent, I'm not sure how you do things in THIRD WORLD NATIONS like the USA but in first world countries like Britain, Canada, France etc. the rich are the top ten percent.
The problem with statistics expressed in percentages is: percent of what. Just think it through, how do the rich get rich? By keeping the money they get? Its not rocket science (well maybe it is to a Conservative)
A cell is alive...but is it a human being? That is a legitimate question whether you like it or not, Bret. Now, here's the bottom line: It's not a question that you can answer or I can answer with anything but our personal opinions. Or sure, you can quote this Catholic priest or that evangelical, but I can match you quote-for-quote with the opposite view. It is a matter of opinion. We can both have opinions. I don't really care what your opinion is...and I am not going to tell you that your wife or girlfriend MUST have an abortion.
All I ask from you is that accord me the same respect. But that doesn't satisfy you. You (and a lot of others like you) want to IMPOSE your views on everyone.
What I love about you guys is you are punch drunk. You don't know when people are toying with you.
Your example of the seed; when does it become a plant is ridiculous. Some seeds. Buddlea, mustard are microscopic, just the raw seed. Others, such as beans and pulses or grains of cereal are actually a tiny, pollenated embryo surrounded by a ball of nutrients. Take away those nutrients and the seed could not grow into a plant, its like a foetus in a womb, it cannot survive without the host.
So you see, life only begins when it is viable, when the seedling has a root and leaves, when the fortus has brain and organ function and can take food by mouth, not at the moment of pollenation or insemination.
Are you going to quit now or do I have to vaporise you?
BTW watch out for my next main post on the history of birth control, dealing with abortion and contraception among stone age tribes - and lear how abortion played a very important role in our rise to be dominant species. You'll love it.
Life starts with the first spark of conception. If it didn't, the woman's body rejects it as a foreign mass. Nature itself knows when life starts, so why don't you pro-abortionists?
Why kill it for convenience sake?
Why not just let it live? There's plenty of childless parents who'd love to see all those aborted babies born.
"If the bottom 50% income group only pay 3% of all taxes raised that means America is by its own definition, a Third World Country. Nice one Bret, I have been waiting for a conservative to admit that for months."
No idea how you came to that conclusion, Ian.
If the top 10% pays 70% of US taxes, then the rich are picking up the tab for a VERY Progressive society. I would have thought you Lefties would have loved that idea. You just hate acknowledging the obvious empirical data. Still, it remains.
"Now what were you saying about Math?"
Hmmmm, let's review the statement in question, and we can then talk about math :
"How highly taxed are the rich? Two words, Cayman fucking Islands."
YOUR words, Ian..........I just thought they were funny in the most obvious of ways.....LOL
"The problem with statistics expressed in percentages is: percent of what. Just think it through, how do the rich get rich? By keeping the money they get? Its not rocket science (well maybe it is to a Conservative)"
Ian, did you not understand the extremely basic table of percentages at the National Taxpayers Union link I provided? That really tells the story. You Liberals have no leg to stand on, taxpayer-wise, after you read that. The other sites just back it up. The Congressional Budget Office also has similar un-biased, and non-politically charged data..............if you care to read it.
Here ya go, take another look. The data is obvious. And simple to understand.
You've been talkin' too long with your male drinkin' buddies at the bar, Bret. Most women I know, who actually have to HAVE the babies, think quite differently, unless they are so steeped in evangelico-religious-theocratic-male-dominated crap.
I heard a very interesting discussion on Bill Moyer's Journal last week with a Hispanic evangelical. He was well-educated and articulate. When Bill asked him about the abortion question, he said that abortion is not the right cause. LIFE is the cause.....and he cannot understand people (like YOU, Bret) who get their panties all in a bunch over a few cells in the womb, but don't give a good shit about the children once they pop out of there. What about the REAL christian agenda, he asked? Why do these people obsess about a group of unborn cells, and not about hunger, unemployment, education, healthcare, abuse of women and children, etc. etc. etc.
You are so out-spoken in defence of that fuckin' group of cells, Bret, but diametrically opposed to helping people out once they pass out of the birth canal. Screw em all then, right? You're a hypocrite - a phony - of the worst kind.
Shut your mouth until you are the one that has to carry a baby for nine months then be the primary care taker and have support responsibility for it the rest of its life. Why don't you use all that energy to get out there if you care SO much about life and women and start yelling FOR birth control and REAL sex education.
Not only that, but the top 5%, 10%, and 25% also paid more in taxes since 2000. Meanwhile, the lowest 50% has consistently paid less and less of the country's taxes. Check it out - the data is undeniable.
"Shut your mouth until you are the one that has to carry a baby for nine months then be the primary care taker and have support responsibility for it the rest of its life. Why don't you use all that energy to get out there if you care SO much about life and women and start yelling FOR birth control and REAL sex education."
If I didn't know better, I'd say that sounds kinda SEXIST. Oh wait, I do know better.........it IS sexist. How do you Libs get away with that all the time without being challenged?
Rather than using Federal Funds to kill babies, let's let them live - and be adopted into homes that actually want them. These children don't need to live in homes without love, or food, or any other necessity. Let's pay the Mom to give up her baby............with Federal Funds formerly earmarked for abortion funds.
Much better use of our money.
Again, Shut UP until you can actually get pregnant, deliver a child and find it a good adopted home.
What is the number one most ghoulish act in all of humanity?
Wouldn't just about everyone say its killing a defenseless baby? Of course they would - because its ghastly and reprehensible. How have we Americans morally justified it? Through lousy laws, that's how.
It isn't a male or female thing. Last time I checked biology, you need BOTH for conception.
I adopted my youngest boy from a teenage mother back in '88. She told us he would have been aborted had we not stepped in. Please don't plaster your ignorance all over me. I've walked the walk.
My son lives because I'm advocating that people do what me and my wife did.
And, no, Bret. A fetus, as Ian so kindly pointed out, is not a viable human being. And, last I checked aborting a viable human being IS against the law. And, since you asked, I find many things abhorrent......the death penalty, war, abuse against the defenseless, hunger and poverty and malnutrition in the wealthiest country on earth, people who support going into another country and bombing the shit out of it, killing and maiming innocent civilians, including children, not providing education or the means to lift oneself out of destitution like living-wage jobs, etc, etc.
Since you asked, there's a whole huge list of things that would come before abortion in my book. But, then again, I care about LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS.
Actually, I think it has been quite a success. It keeps the population down, creates a larger ratio of children who were actually wanted in the world, has lowered the crime rate and has decreased the amount of money the government spends on crime and social programs.
It is quite sad that the same people who are so concerned about bringing a child into the world then turn their backs on the same child when it needs health care.
Lats look at that extremely simple set of figure and see if yoou can spot how the extremely simple minded zero taxers got it wrong.
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% Threshold $364,657 Percentage of tax paid 39.38
Top 5% $145,283 59.67
Top 10% $103,912 70.30
Top 25% $62,068 85.99
Top 50% $30,881 96.93
Bottom 50% <$30,881 3.07
Now apart from the figures being tabulated they are just presented arse first.
But if you look at the figure quoted for the top 1% you will see the amount of tax these people are said to have paid is more than their combined gross earnings. And if that was the case they would not be rich, they would be bankrupt. You said you worked in London, tell me were you in investment banking. Given the fuck up the capitalists of high finance have made I would be willing to beieve you were.
"Sexist? No, Bret. As you pointed out earlier, "god" made the woman that way - you know, to breed. NOT the man. So, going along with your nature-logic, then I say again, "Shut up" until god gives you that ability and you that choice."
I'm not arguing how God made us, Sheryl. I'm arguing your "If you're not a woman, you have nothing to say" interpretation. Like I said above, the last time I checked, Man was 50% of the conception equation. So your argument holds no water - especially with those of us who've already acted responsibly to end this ghastly practice of abortion.
Ever seen a baby ripped to pieces by an abortionists blade?
Don't tell me it isn't ghoulish...........it is.
I wouldn't bet against Bret getting pregnant if I were you. He seem to have a hell of a case of PMT at the moment.
Actually man is about 0.01% of the conception, but 50% of the genes. You should shut up before they realise what a great deal we get and stasrt castrating us all.
And his grasp of statistics is no better than his grasp of bilology.
You are in high finance? And you don't understand a simple percentage chart? How is this possible?
For the tax year 2007, it goes like this, Ian :
the Top 1% paid 39.38% of ALL the taxes paid in the US.
the Top 5% paid 59.67% of ALL the taxes paid in the US.
the Top 10% paid 70.3% of ALL the taxes paid in the US.
the Top 25% paid 85.99% of ALL the taxes paid in the US.
the Top 50% paid 96.93% of ALL the taxes paid in the US.
the bottom 50% paid 3.07% of ALL the taxes paid in the US.
Now add the Top 50% (96.93%) to the Bottom 50% (3.07%) and you get a total of what?
Yea, that's how you do it.
So no, I've never seen one happen. But I've seen the dead bodies afterwards. Its worse than what I saw in the Gulf War. Truly.
And it is truly telling that Bret can IMAGINE this to be so much "worse" than real live human beings being slaughtered in war. Tells you alot about Bret's mindset. Give me a 2-yr-old blown to utter bits in the street over a blood spot on a woman's sanitary napkin anyday, people! And I KNOW, I was in the Gulf War!
Bret, you have convinced me that you are truly insane and probably should not have been allowed to actually adopt and raise a child.
First . . . it should be 'what my wife and I did.
Second. Nah Unnhhh! Your son doesn't live because of what you're advocating. If what you say is true, it's because you adopted him . . . perhaps but living by the premise of that which you advocate.
I AM curious, though. Why do you draw the line at conception? Both egg and seed are alive and having a thin rubber barrier dooms them to death when they MAY have been the next Einstein . . . right? After fertilization but before the first cell split . . . is THAT a baby? After the first cell split . . . are those TWO cells a baby? Isn't this a case of YOU deciding for others? How is it different??
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Read above. Nature knows when life starts. Let's not argue the rules God set up. That's when we get into trouble.
Let's just live with it, and play the hand we were dealt.
I'm against killing babies and I get grilled over it. Not that it matters, or that it will influence me in any way, but it is interesting.
Those who love abortion.................your time is coming to an end. Roe v. Wade is on its way out. We Conservatives have re-aligned the Supreme Court to defeat that horrible law. When you hear the eventual news that Justice John Paul Stevens or Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died, think of this article.
We Conservatives have slowly and methodically set up the goal of defeating this law, and only now are we starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Only one more Conservative Justice is needed.
Remember that when you hear the Breaking News that one of those ancient Liberal Justices has died.
"Unfortunately, Bret has NO personal experience from which to base his comments. Yes, Ian, most abortions are chemical or are as non-invasive small vacume cleaner if done mechanically. And it is a group of non-viable cells."
Thank God I don't have any experience killing babies.
I'll leave that dubious "honor" to you on the Left.
We Conservatives will continue causing death and suffering and mutilation with our continuous wars and military actions! Even if many of the killed are pregnant women!
We Conservatives will die for the right of a few cells in a woman's womb to be kept from harm, but will die for the right for us to starve, ignore, not educate, not pay for the healthcare of all those little babies the second they pop out!
We Conservatives, We Conservatives, We insane conservatives. And your god is looking down on your right now, if there is one, saying what the hell? Look how many real people you are killing, look how many real people you are making suffer, and look how many unborn babies you are killing in your wars and your deprivations and embargoes? You filthy, vile, hypocrites. You will burn in hell....all of you.
I almost hope that your dreams of Armegeddon are actually true....I know that people like yourself will be the first cast into hell, Bret.
Well . . . not always. You have to sort out the ones hit in the front of the head from the ones hit in the back of the head . . .
Hey Bret . . . nature whisper that to you did she? An egg is life. YOU decided when life starts from that egg . . . you. Don't blame Mother Nature who also decided we have the power to end pregnancies.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Dream on, baby....McCain has NO chance next year, and even if he gets in, he won't do anything for you. He is and always has been pro-choice, no matter how he tries to appease you masogynistic dimwits for your vote. And if a Dem gets in, well, they'll make sure that women's rights are protected.
I'll tell you what, Bret, you stay out of my womb, and I'll stay out of yours. And if by some crazy chance in hell, the conservatives ever do overturn Roe vs. Wade, then you are going to have the biggest revolt of your lives on your hands. And a population explosion that will make the illegal immigrant problem seem like a walk in the park to you morons. I just hope that I, not my female ancestors, will ever have to be subjected to the theocratic insanity or the fallout from it.
" We Conservatives will put women back into back alleys and, goddammit, cause THEM to suffer and die!"
No need to do that, Sheryl. I already gave you a very viable alternative to that, above. Let's pay these women to have their babies. Let's use the money that we formerly used for public abortion money. Then the babies can be adopted by loving families who want them. Problem solved, and no babies have to die!
"I almost hope that your dreams of Armegeddon are actually true....I know that people like yourself will be the first cast into hell, Bret."
I'm advocating LIFE, Sheryl.
You want to continue killing babies.
Who do you think God is rooting for? LOL
"It's interesting to me that the people who claim to believe in the Christian God and a heaven are the ones most likely to think they get to determine who lives and dies, and when and how the must do it, and least likely to believe the spirit lives without the body. That defies every definition of faith."
I don't even claim to be a church-goer.
I only claim to love little innocent babies, and want them to live. I'll let you Lefties continue to quibble over how and why we should kill them. I'll be quietly making your wishes nearly impossible, from behind the scenes.
But be sure to watch the news. The Supreme Court is OUR friend.
"I'll tell you what, Bret, you stay out of my womb, and I'll stay out of yours."
Only if you promise to stay away from public funding that pays for abortions. How about if you stay out of my wallet for your abortions? Feel free to have them on your own dime, though.
Bret, I don't think you answered this question. Have you seen this? In person, not on a picture or film that was falsely created to give that impression? Have you ever witnessed an abortion? Have you seen the pathology specimen? A pathology report of the products of conception? Do you even know the correct medical terminology for the procedure you describe?
"No, Bret, you're advocating putting women bare-foot and pregnant back into the home with having to push out a baby every year and die an early age."
I defy you to show where I've said anything remotely like that on this thread or any other. I like it when women are out in the work world, adding needed GDP to the economy. I would never trade that for anything in the world.
I'm pro-woman. I'm anti-killing babies. Big difference.
That question was answered above. Re-read.
Do I really need to know the correct terminology of the procedure that cut a baby up, to know that its dead?
If knowing that terminology will bring the baby back to life, I'll gladly learn it. Otherwise.............
To qualify the biology a bit here:
"Is a seed a plant? Nope, not until its fertilized. Only then is it classified as a plant."
1. We DON"T want to start comparing plant reproduction to human reproduction. Plant reproduction confuses even botanists, not to mention lay people. For instance, many plants are capable of cloning themselves. Others fertilize their own eggs, and yet others need a plant of the opposite gender to do this.
2. Concerning human abortion-- we need to treat humans and other animals not based on what species they are, or whether or not they are viable outside the womb. We need to look at THEIR CAPACITY TO FEEL PAIN.
"Ever seen a baby ripped to pieces by an abortionists blade?"
I'm no doctor, but I do know that the human fetus's nervous sytem developes during the first three months of pregnancy. After that, it is possible for the fetus to feel pain.
As I understand it, anesthesia for the fetus is available for abortions. But a much better option is to carry out the abortion before the nervous system develops. That means easy access to abortion and plenty of education about this topic for women of child-bearing age.
In my opinion, abortion is preferable to an unwanted birth. After birth, powerful hormones come into play, and it becomes extremely difficult for a woman to give up her baby, even if she doesn't have the means to care for it, and a good adoptive home is waiting.
Living and working in a poor neighborhood, I saw unwanted children everwhere, mostly treated like dogs. As far as the parents were concerned , the kids were an unfortunate outcome resulting from having sex. Due to lack of a nurturing enviroment, many grew up to become criminals or drug addicts. I think an abortion is a better option than condemning a child to a miserable, unloved life.
"We DON"T want to start comparing plant reproduction to human reproduction. Plant reproduction confuses even botanists, not to mention lay people. For instance, many plants are capable of cloning themselves. Others fertilize their own eggs, and yet others need a plant of the opposite gender to do this."
Thanks for the clarification, and you're right - a baby is not a plant. But I think everyone understood my analogy.
"In my opinion, abortion is preferable to an unwanted birth. After birth, powerful hormones come into play, and it becomes extremely difficult for a woman to give up her baby, even if she doesn't have the means to care for it, and a good adoptive home is waiting."
Abortions aren't needed here, Ann. Do you have any idea how huge the backlog is to adopt ANY child in this country? It's enormous. The demand FAR exceeds the supply. If you don't believe me, try adopting. Its TOUGH here.
Hilarious!
I understand about the shortage of babies for adoption.
My point is this-- once the baby is born, there's a good chance that a mother will change her mind about the adoption, regardless of her ability to care for the baby. Then, the baby won't be in the nice adoptive home that was waiting for it. The baby becomes an unwanted child, not a wanted child.
AND, he still keeps refusing to answer my questions regarding his views everywhere else on Gather that are so anti-life. He even states that he has never see anything in war that would come close to the horror he IMAGINES abortion to be.
Oh, Bret...you DO so want to be pregnant, don't you? So sad to see a grown man yearn so. You should see a professional counselor....no, a psychiatrist who can actually prescribe some drugs for your psychosis. Poor, poor woman....stuck in a man's body. Hating real life....loving the imagined kind.
There are plenty of children out in our society right now that YEARN to be adopted, but aren't because they are deemed "too old" and "not cute enough" or "damaged". If Bret's preposterous theory was actually workable, then they would have ALL been adopted by now and out of the horrendous hellish system in which they are forced to live.
This is a truly perverse outcome of the right-wing rhetoric against abortion itself...they have spread lies and falsehoods and have created a culture of baby fanatics.....who really do not care about real life, or real children for that matter. Only about the cute, cuddly little baby, depicted in Mary's and/or Jesus' arms as a Jesus prototype over and over again.
How sad.....how very tragic for the living, older children who grow up unloved, unwanted and will eventually earn the entire disdain and hatred of these people by becoming criminals, drug addicts, unemployed, homeless, or just patheticly unAmerican in their lack of monetary success.
If abortion is something that insures eternal damnation let God decide. People are going to get abortions whether or not there are laws against it. The last two thousand plus years of history in Western Europe provide pretty strong evidence of that. The real choice is abortion under sterile conditions or not? Abortion performed by trained surgeons or people with a coat hanger and a spare room?
There's plenty of time for punishment in Eternity if God disapproves of abortion.
We ought to be pragmatic.
"My point is this-- once the baby is born, there's a good chance that a mother will change her mind about the adoption, regardless of her ability to care for the baby. Then, the baby won't be in the nice adoptive home that was waiting for it. The baby becomes an unwanted child, not a wanted child."
Well, I'm against any baby being unwanted. However, at that point, there is no real public policy I can advocate. With the abortion issue, there is.
The sad, unfortunate fact is that there are unloved children in the country. I feel badly about it.
I can answer that. My total : ONE.
We tried for a second one, but the backlog was enormous. Like I said before, it isn't about the lack of loving homes - its about the shortage of babies being born. It seems its just so much easier to kill them instead of bearing them. And THAT is truly sad.
"Bret's got the answer sheet, guys, that he keeps referring to in answer to every sensible comment here. Except, it's factually erroneous, including Bret paying for women's abortions."
You look bad here because you're on the wrong side of the argument.
Before I could condemn anyone who wants an abortion, I would have to live at least two other lives first:
1. The life of a poor teenager with an unwanted pregnancy.
2. The life of someone whose parents didn't love or want them, one who had to turn to addictive substances to replace the missing love.
Nobody condemns a pregnant woman in a tough position. We should all help her make the right decision - something that won't scar her for the rest of her life. Something that will offer her baby a chance in this harsh, cruel world.
The baby should live.
If she keeps it, that's great. If she gives it up for adoption, that's great too. The only time damage is done to either side is when the baby is killed. How could any woman overcome that stigma? I don't wish that stain on anyone.
Sheryl, I had to stand up and cheer for your first comment. There are so many good comments on this thread and several not so good.
Bret, as someone I put in the latter category, let me start by saying I respect the fact that you walked the walk in that you (and presumably your spouse) adopted a child. I do have more respect for those who oppose abortion if they are being part of the solution.
However, I think you are vastly mistaken if you think the dearth of "healthy white babies" = no unwanted children in America. Check out the local foster programs and get a look at children, products of unprotected sex, crack babies, children from broken and abusive homes. They don't all have a place to go and, I personally think, that we shouldn't be requiring other unwanted births until ALL children have loving homes. You let me know when the Republicans pull that off. I won't be holding my breath.
Secondly, if one is to enforce/require children be born, there is a moral obligation to ensure those children are cared for until they reach majority. That may sound like an even trade for you (I've seen your math), but the cost of an abortion is miniscule compared even with the initial cost of a birth - let alone the 18 years of care, feeding, support that follow. If the government mandates the births of these children, they must be willing to take responsibility for them. And, last I recall, the government (Republicans, as I recall in the Senate and WH) refused to assure even health insurance for children.
When my daughter wants a new kitten, I look at how well she's provided for the cats she has. If I have to remind her about the litterbox and feeding the kitty, she doesn't get one. If we want to mandate the live births (and some of these mothers are babies themselves - what kind of monster forces a 12 year old to put her body through that?), have we, as a nation, proven that we take care of our wanted and unwanted children appropriately?
Sorry, Bret, no kitten for you.
Oh! So it's NOT about the "babies" . . . it's about the MONEY. Maybe you could stay out of MY wallet while you're bombing brown people overseas, ok? Got it.
You want to call 4 cells a baby . . . which is misleading, untrue and inaccurate. You want to restrict others to living with YOUR views. THAT, my friend, is UnAmerican. Icidentally, Roe v. Wade doesn't mean States couldn't still allow abortion . . . only that they could stop it. So wealthy people will go to California and get them while the poor get poorer.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"However, I think you are vastly mistaken if you think the dearth of "healthy white babies" = no unwanted children in America."
I never said anything about healthy white babies. My son isn't white, and wasn't healthy when we got him. Thankfully, he is healthy now. Huge and healthy....lol.
Apparently, you haven't tried to adopt lately. The demand is gigantic. Quite a few courageous couples even ask for handicapped babies, because they're tired of waiting decades for a healthy one. I know two couples here in Chicago that did exactly that, and they have no regrets. They're truly angels on earth for doing that.
There are not enough babies period. Try finding one.
No need to kill more of them.
Meanwhile, we have a kitten-killing mill right here in town - chopping up kittens by the hundreds. Seems kinda stupid, huh?
As for your kitten rebuttal - two things: if we're short adoptable children here but they're plentiful elsewhere - yay! Or is it better to let foreign children starve to death than kill a noncognizant set of American cells? I mean, do morals have borders?
Secondly, I do fostering for my local shelter. When kittens come in, they do their very best to save them. Often, even the best shelters can't save them if they're not weaned unless they have fosters to take care of them (I'm a foster, I know) and have saved several litters of kittens. Pregnant cat mothers get spayed automatically and given a chance to have homes. Even no kill shelters. The point is, those kittens that are born get the first priority, over moms. Moms come second. Unborn babies, only if they're desperately lucky.
Doyle has made a number of posts that have held Bret's views up for close examination. Doyle was very polite, and didn't attack or ridicule Bret at all. I commend you, Doyle. You have more self-restraint than I do. I notice that Bret has been careful not to respond to you.
Bret's problem is that he is not only intellectually outgunned by all of you...he is also profoundly compromised morally. He has no answers for the questions about women's rights, the sad plight of unwanted children, or...one that hasn't been raised...the overpopulation of the earth. Is it MORAL to bring more children into this world than the earth can support? At six billion and growing, we are already in "overshoot," beyond what the earth can support on a sustainable basis. So, is it MORAL to bring unwanted children into such a world?
But the really sad part, is Bret doesn't even understand any of that!
Hey, guys! This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Go easy on the poor Bret. He can't really help himself...he's been brainwashed.
"Was he a baby, Bret? There are children who aren't babies needing homes, too. I have friends who work foster care. There are still plenty of needy children."
Yes, he was a baby, and we took complete care of his mother for 5 months before she had him.............she lived with us for the last two months. We set her up in a house afterwards and paid her a rather hefty sum. In my opinion, this is exactly how an adoption should go. That way no babies go unloved. He has seen his Mom a few times over the years, but he considers us his family. He's seen the world, and gotten a superior education............things his mother could never have provided. Overall, everybody came out a winner. And he didn't have to die, just to prove somebody could exercise their "rights".
"As for your kitten rebuttal - two things: if we're short adoptable children here but they're plentiful elsewhere - yay! Or is it better to let foreign children starve to death than kill a noncognizant set of American cells? I mean, do morals have borders?"
Can't answer that one for you.
My morals don't have borders, but that's me. A little orphan boy from southern Iraq befriended my unit when I was stationed there. I started to ask questions about adoption, but my CO said it would probably cause an international incident, so I backed down. Now I wish I hadn't.
I think Americans should take care of our own first. If we do that, and there are no other Americans to take care of, maybe we should venture away from the United States then. Just my thinking, although I'm not locked in to it. I have a soft spot for kids.
Stephanie, as your last paragraph stated, even kittens get better treatment in American than an unborn fetus. We have no-kill kitten shelters. Why don't we have no-kill pre-natal wards?
Answer : because of one shitty Supreme Court ruling.
"Feel free to have them on your own dime, though."
Oh! So it's NOT about the "babies" . . . it's about the MONEY. Maybe you could stay out of MY wallet while you're bombing brown people overseas, ok? Got it."
I'd rather a pregnant mother not go through with an abortion, but if she does, there really isn't anything I, as a taxpayer, can do about it................except attempt to cut those public funds. And I am.
If she decides to go do the "back-alley" thing, there isn't any way I can stop her..........is there?
It's "only about the Money", or so you say, when I can do something about the money...........tax money, earmarked for abortions. I wish to do something better with that money than kill innocent babies with it.
"You want to call 4 cells a baby . . . which is misleading, untrue and inaccurate. You want to restrict others to living with YOUR views."
Nope, I just don't want to pay for it. Our government should never be a baby-killing mill. We definitely shouldn't pay the costs. You say its a woman's choice - I say its a woman's cost as well.
Personally I oppose her doing that, but once she decides she wants to do it, the only "control" I, as a citizen, can do is pull the funding. It will happen.
"Icidentally, Roe v. Wade doesn't mean States couldn't still allow abortion . . . only that they could stop it. So wealthy people will go to California and get them while the poor get poorer."
True enough. And I'm sure San Francisco could become known as an abortion mill. Just about then, it would fall into the ocean...........LOL
As I stated above : I'm for LIFE. I talk the talk, and I walk the walk. I just wish more people would do the same.
You however, are FOR killing babies.
::shaking head:: Simply ghoulish, Bert.
The message doesn't change. This whole thing seems boring to you, doesn't it? Sorry I can't "sexy it up" to keep your attention.
The key point is that you're going to lose this battle. We're persistent - you guys on the Left sway with the breeze.
When you eventually lose in court, I expect your ilk will protest, wail, and gnash your teeth. But in a few months you'll get over it, and not a lot will change for you.
You'll find a new cause and start marching for that.
::shaking head:: Simply sad. Bret.
If you would like to try something really different and expose your brain to some fresh thoughts, read this.
Lefties dig in when they hear any kinds of eternal rules being tossed at them. They're much softer and squishier when you just beat them to death with logic.
But, enough of this. I am not going to change your mind, and you certainly are not about to change mine...or any other thinking person's.
So...I'm outta here, and you can claim victory as the lone remaining poster here. All the others left long ago, as bored with you as I am.
You don't have the power to convince me that an embryo without a complete brain, that cannot survive outside the womb, is the same and has the same rights as a child that is already born and currently neglected by the same organizations that want to dictate the right to life of these incomplete cells - with the woman alone often held responsible, carrying the burden. I couldn't believe in the kind of God that would let a soul, if it could inhabit such a construct (which I personally don't believe) would not give that soul a second chance, somewhere where the baby could be appreciated. I can imagine - though I will never appreciate - the frustration a responsible loving couple would have that cannot conceive of their own to see others thoughtlessly throwing away these potential children. I can understand where you're coming from, I really can.
I feel for you.
But I feel for the children, lost and alone, facing grown-up decisions for actions they were ill-equipped to understand and didn't do alone. I feel for children born unwanted (my grandmother had a miserable youth in and out of orphanages even though she had been "bought" on the black market by a desperate couple - they had their own child later - it's not all good and not every potential parent is like you). I feel for the children trapped in families where they are ignored and neglected, or worse, blamed for all that went wrong because they appeared (and I've known a few). I feel for the children whose parents are killing themselves to provide for them and still failing because they just weren't ready for children - who watch the children suffer through no fault of their own. I feel for children born all over the world who face untold hardships for no fault other than being born unwanted.
Would I like to see abortion disappear? That's the sad thing. I don't think anyone likes abortion, is "pro baby-killing". But we haven't solved the problems for the children we've already brought into this world. We haven't kept children from having sex responsibly (or adults either) and we haven't taken proper care of the children we've already born. Until we have, I don't think we have the right to dictate anything - and even if we do, there will always be a person who will have to carry the child, put her body and emotions through a turbulent time to salve the consciences of others. Are her rights nothing?
I understand your frustration with others that could throw away the gift of life. I just don't think you can dictate right and wrong for people who face their own frustrations and own hurdles.
"I don't think of myself as imaginary."
I was talking to Bert. He wrote a little article where his imaginary friend Al discussed abortion with him.
"Nor do I equate abortion with killing babies. Since your logic hinges on that image, whether it is truth or no, it doesn't affect those who disagree with you."
Stpehanie, I'm only objecting to the killing of babies here. If you have another definition of abortion, I'm listening.
"You don't have the power to convince me.............."
True enough. I can only lay out the obvious argument. If you believe that its a good governmental policy to kill babies en masse, then there is little I can do to dissuade you.
However, my main focus is public policy, since that IS something I can act on...............and I don't even need to be a woman to do so.
"I can imagine - though I will never appreciate - the frustration a responsible loving couple would have that cannot conceive of their own to see others thoughtlessly throwing away these potential children. I can understand where you're coming from, I really can.
I feel for you."
Its not that we can't have children, Stephanie. Its just that we've chosen to adopt one that wasn't ours. We've tried to adopt again, but the line is just too damn long. For couples like us, abortion seems like such a stupid waste. For the Berts of the world, its just policy. Fortunately, that policy is on the verge of changing. There are plenty of people out there just like me who will make absolutely sure that it does...........quietly.
"I feel for children born all over the world who face untold hardships for no fault other than being born unwanted."
Personally, so do I. But I think that's another discussion unto itself.
"Would I like to see abortion disappear? That's the sad thing. I don't think anyone likes abortion, is "pro baby-killing"."
You haven't met some of the doctors I've met. They think they're performing a 'service to humanity' by performing what we like to call "puppy mill abortions". Those are the ones I'd like to see the government target for shutdown. So far, just the sleazy nature of such people is usually enough to eventually run them out of town...............well, most towns anyway.
"Are her rights nothing? "
Her rights