Well, I am SURE not going into Uptown Charlotte now… until the Godless Democrats leave town!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg[/youtube]
If there was any doubt as that anti-Christian and anti-Israel forces have taken over the Obama Democrat Party, there should be none after today.
America worships God and Our Creator, not Barack & Michelle.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Oh, Jesus.
They could have saved themselves a ton of aggravation by putting “Allah” on the platform.
Democrat Convention attendees support outlawing corporate profits.
wow, just wow. on two counts!
First, that there were more No’s than Yea’s and; on the second, that after trying three times the chair still ignored reality and decided what he wanted to anyway. (that is what Democrats do anyway)
Today the Democrat convention has become a NATIONAL embarrassment. What a joke this whole thing has become, first, downsize from the stadium due to weather (20% chance of isolated t-storms, pretty normal for Charlotte this time of year) and now it may be hard to fill the smaller inside venue. God and Jerusalem are out, oh, wait, there back in by a voice vote of 2/3’s, except it wasn’t even half but fuck democracy, lets force the vote if you like it or not. Happy days are here again! Can’t wait to hear B. Clinton and how he’s going to stab the big O in the back. BTW, where are those supposed heirs to the Democrat leadership? Hillary? Andrew Cuomo? Keeping a huge distance and I don’t blame them. Who would want to be associated with such a bunch of jerk offs. Seems to me like a real lack of future leadership or at least a real fear of being associated with Barry O. I can’t wait to see how else this convention is going to blow itself out of the water. Opps, I forgot, Debbie WS, claiming its all good, while Anderson Cooper wonders about alternative universes and Van Jones rubs his face and hides. Way to go Dems!
Is there anyone gullible enough to believe Democrats really don’t hate God and Israel?
I cannot believe that anyone who believes in G-d could be a member of that party.
LOL You’ve got atheists voting on “God” for the second time in less than four years. That’s how PC works, though: go out of your way not to offend the few, and hope the many don’t go off when they get a chance.
Well, the fanatical, militant atheists anyway. This has got to be the most leftist DNC convention ever, with all this God-debating and abortion talk… I don’t know what’ll scare people more, Obama or the people seen on TV that worship him.
I hate to say this but I am not horribly upset over removal of “God” language. I take the 1st Amendment very seriously. And theists do well to ask if they really want political platforms to acknowledge some generic God rather than a specific God. It was not just “God” who brought Israel out of Egypt but Yhwh. And to me God is not just “God” (fill in the details) but the Holy Trinity, one Being, three Persons, one of whom was incarnate and became man. Pretty specific.
I acknowledge that removing “God” language does raise concerns about human rights and where they come from. Thereby making the State the highest power on earth.
Oh, I just enjoy it because I picture Levi and the other Democrat Theophobes heads exploding like Harry Mudd’s robots as they try to process it.
“Taking God out was good because God is bad but putting God back in was bad because God is bad but cannot criticize because Obama is good but if Obama put God language back in then Obama is not good. How can Obama be good if Obama puts God in the platform, but Obama cannot be not good cannot be not God cannot be… cannot be… cannot be…” And then smoke starts billowing from his neck.
http://youtu.be/wlMegqgGORY
Is God going to save the economy or provide quality health care? He or She has nothing to do with it.
I disagree. If you believe in God, then you probably believe that He is more powerful than the government regardless of how powerful the government is. If you don’t believe in God, then you might acknowledge that the government is the highest power, but you might also acknowledge that that doesn’t mean that it has to be very powerful (because as much power as possible (in theory) is given to individuals). Or, you might acknowledge that something else, possibly something intangible (yet not God, or at least God in the religious sense), is the highest power.
That’s a pretty big deal.
American public life has done pretty well with a Judeo-Christian-Deist generic God for some 250+ years. I don’t know anyone who seriously wants to make it sectarian-warfare thing, now.
What’s shocking about this episode is:
1) for the Democrats, even the Judeo-Christian-Deist generic God has become controversial, and, at the same time:
2) the clear demonstration of what we already knew, that Democrats couldn’t care less about democracy.
V – funny how in the future, the sexless male android sports a great package. 🙂
The motion to amend the platform simultaneously, and oddly so (? maybe they decided to do everything in one fell swoop, rather than court controversy twice? or perhaps it was protocol), included adding both:
1) God
2) Jerusalem as capital of Israel
What followed can best be described as a 50/50 split three consecutive times between the “yay’s” and “nay’s.” Oddly, and as was pointed out by a previous commenter, the result wasn’t very democratic and a lie. There wasn’t “2/3’rds” of anything, but 100% disagreement. I’m not familiar with convention rules. Perhaps, after decades of these conventions meaning less and less, the assumption has been that everyone will play along. I liked that it happened in an otherwise predictable political cycle. It shows what a facade these events really are. And it’s nice to see something actually happen other than what is expected (in the case of the L.A. mayor, et al.)
However, for this discussion, one could ask, were the nays:
1) Opposing the use of the term “God” in the platform (aka “Godless” for GP purposes)
2) Opposing the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (aka “Anti-Israel” for GP purposes)
3) Or Both (aka “Godless” AND “Anti-Israel” for GP purposes)
No one on this thread has presented a convincing argument for #3 and these two trains of thought aren’t mutually inclusive of one another (or, for the purposes of GP, perhaps they are considered so; therefore reading on is unnecessary). So, how is one to assume #1 or #2? I certainly don’t know. But, my instincts tell me it was #2. Maybe it was because the image of the disgruntled woman sitting down with a pro-“Arab American” sign next to a man emphatically shouting “no” stuck with me. It was visually striking, and may have mislead my take on the situation. I’m open to that. Please feel to (politely) correct me.
But, I didn’t really get the sense that the “nays” were #1 or #3. I haven’t read any passionate essays on how offensive it was to reinsert “God” into the Democratic Platform. I do recall the media making a big stink about its absence, however.
If anything, it’s an example of Democrat’s tendency to weak knee-jerk pandering to the mainstream and their fear that they won’t be perceived as “pro-family,” “pro-values,” “pro-Israel,” the right have sold themselves on for decades. As if you have to have one generic (or not) mutually agreed upon spiritual entity to bind a civilization together. It wasn’t God whose responsible for the advances in technology (i.e. Western civilization) we’ve made over the last I don’t know how many decades. And, I haven’t had enough time to read up on reaffirming Jerusalem-as-capital, though it sounds like more pandering.
The Democrats need to grow a backbone. If they want to be more inclusive to atheists and arab Americans, they need to stake their ground and claim it. But, they’re too concerned with poll numbers and stifle the courage of their convictions, before embracing them. But, perhaps that’s the price one has to pay for also being a party that evolves (and includes marriage equality in their platform). And, this is why it’s the lesser of two evils.
Like this guy?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-christian-hate-speech-spews-from-the-palm-beach-democratic-chair/
Perhaps it’s what they have to do to sucker the people they hope are dumb enough to believe they’re not the liberal a-holes they really are. ANYTHING but campaign on what they stand for and what they intend to do.
Godless Democrats. aw, c’mon. give us the old classic Godless Communists. Imean, that’s what ya really want to say, right?
Personally, I’d be very thrilled if we moved into the 21st century like other western democracies and stop making religion an issue in any campaign or politics. When you say America worships God and Our Creator, you’ve immediately disenfranchised those who don’t have the same religious views that you do. Sounds neither American or Patriotic to me. Sad that personal religious belief has become such a litmus test of patriotism.
“But, perhaps that’s the price one has to pay for also being a party that evolves”
lol, you gotta laugh at the extreme stupidity…
I look forward to the next evolution of the democratic party (and leftists in general) when between conservative latinos and anti-gay muslims they will throw tools like you under the bus. The reason? because the above mentioned interest groups BREED at a very high rate, unlike gays. This is already on display in some countries in Europe where silencing the local christian church simply meant other more aggressive cultures/cults taking ground.
At the end it is all about votes and power for leftists, not principles.
Be careful what you wish for, ‘evolution’ might come back and bite you in the ass.
Between the afternoon fiasco and Chicago style tactics to overthrow the will of the leftie delegates and Debbie’s continued fibbing on the Klein controversy, the Dem convention is not going smoothly at all. So the GOP should eat popcorn and watch the theatrics.
I may be mistaken but isn’t the Jewish faith passed through the mother?
If so, isn’t the recent booing at the convention akin to a “war” on women?
Good morning, Susan,
Only a Muslims-Taking-Over-Europe-conspiracy-theorist can see and laugh at the “extreme stupidity.”
Did you enjoy your Labor Day weekend, m’lady?
… from being the party of slavery, to being the party of Big Government, to being the party of modern institutional racism combined with even more Big Government, that can’t do basic budgetary math, much less understand that the U.S. Constitution was instituted to limit the federal government.
Not really. Others can also see the comment’s stupidity, which was pretty extreme.
Oh and I left out the KKK / Jim Crow. (Another step in the Democrats’ “evolution”, it came just after their being the party of slavery.)
Any liberal would tell you that the Democratic Party does a terrible job of representing them. Like David Frum says; the Republican Party is scared of their base, the Democratic party hates theirs. Democrats are ignoring liberals… what else is new?
What this really means is that the Republican Party’s caricature of the Democratic Party as godless, radical extremists is even sillier now.
Democrats booing at the mention of God in the platform… refutes?… the notion that they are a party of godless radicals?
Okayfine.
Really, what more is there to say? But, of course, much more followed as the lefty commenters in this thread proceeded to attempt to intellectualize and quibble over where God actually “belongs” in the modern age of reason and logic and political correctness.
I am fine with the Democrats placing political party off limits to God. When you reach a certain level of certainty, understanding and confidence, who needs God anyway?
I am fine with the Democrats banishing God and His whole guilt and sin thing. Since morality is relative and ethics are situational, why depend on anything other than consensus morality and ethics in an intellectual and reasoned and politically correct manner?
“Oh, gosh.” just doesn’t get it. “Oh, Jesus.” is so much more direct and in your face and definitive. Take your Jesus, your God, your Buddha,
your Allah, your Virgin Mary, your Yahweh, your Jehovah, your Absolute Being, your All Knowing, your All Powerful, your Almighty, your Creator, your Divine Being, your Father, your Holy Spirit, your Infinite Spirit, your King of Kings, your Lord, your Maker, your deity, your divinity, your omnipotent power, your prime mover, your divine providence, your soul, your spirit, your universal life force, your world spirit, your Intelligent Designer and shove it.I get it. There is no room for God in the Platform, let Him bunk in the stable. And that goes for the Virgins he impregnates as well.
The Democrats are all about rendering unto Caesar and taking a census so the people can be properly (fair share) taxed. The Mystery Man and all the VooDoo stuff has no place in the REAL affairs of men. The Democrats don’t need no inferences of dependency on some stupid, ancient crutch.
We have Overcome, We are the Ones, We are the Light and the Way, We can see clearly now, We are the Beacon, Yes We Will, We are Perfection and Humility is Vanquished. We Bless Ourselves, no others need be cited.
Right on, Right on, Right on.
The Democrat Party of the Putz. To Breed or Not to Breed, that is the question.
I happened to have caught the whole kerfuffle live-in-cable, and the booing was at the blatant-thuggery of the DNC Chair overriding the “sense of the Convention” and offending thousands of Delegates on the voice-vote. the Convention’s own Rules require 2/3s to amend…and by a voice-vote THAT wasn’t even close to 2/3s. As the Chair, you might get away with “finesse’ing” a majority voice-vote, but a 2/3s voice-vote needs at-least a very-certain and obvious majority.
The DNC leadership royally-screwed up, twice. Actually three times… First for not more carefully-considering the Platform language, and who might get pissed. Two, offering the two amendments TOGETHER conflating the “Status of Jerusalem” with “God” in the hurried voice-vote. And finally Three, but not allowing a Roll-Call and public discussion to defuse tensions…which they knew and feared would be a PR disaster of sound-bites…and delay the Convention’s tightly-choreographed schedule by hours.
The DNC Chair rolled the Convention Delegates, and they knew it. Nobody likes to have been mugged…and then smiled-at as the final insult.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme” – Mark Twain.
In 1964 the Republican Party, horrified by the right wing takeover, washed its hands of Barry Goldwater. Johnson won by more than 20%.
Just sayin.
Not wanting to include god in the platform doesn’t mean you’re a godless radical. Again, my point is that the Democrats are not as in thrall to the left and liberalism as the conservative movement would have us believe.
I wonder if moments like this where half the Democrats shouted “No!” to God, plus many others such as Obama’s “evolution” (that wasn’t) on gay marriage, will depress enthusiasm/turnout from the socially-conservative black churches? We’ll see.
@Rattlesnake – Fair point. Of course a theist would regard God as higher than the State. But if the State doesn’t? That was my point.
But it *is* possible to believe in something higher and greater than us and over which we do not have control, without that necessarily being “God”. See Paul Woodruff, Reverence. The Democrats are anything but reverent. And that’s without getting into “God”.
“Only a Muslims-Taking-Over-Europe-conspiracy-theorist can see and laugh at the “extreme stupidity.”
The good thing of the concept is that you can replace muslims with the interest group of your choice. Although it will surely be muslims to put the nail in the coffin for gay tools like you.
Don’t like muslims? replace with other democratic groups infesting the plantation, they can all bring more votes than you.
See the bus tha’s coming? You will be thrown under in 3….2….1….
I second the thoughts by ILC on this.
The convention did NOT give a 2/3rds vote to include God in the platform (as ordered by the Obamessiah) and, in fact, the “NO’s” seemed to out shout the “YEA’s.”
Granted, the booing may very well have been at the rigging of the vote to agree with what was written on the TeleprompTer. But now we are back to arguing context.
God, according to the delegates voting does NOT belong in the platform. You heard it. I heard it. The chair heard it.
Did they boo the chair? Yes. Why? Because the chair subverted the vote? What was the vote about? God in or God out. Those who booed were booing because they voted for God in, but they wanted to keep God out if the vote went against their wishes? Huh? You think these in-the-bag clowns are that principled? A principled Democrat? Oxymoron anyone?
No matter how thick or thin you slice it, it is still baloney. The booing was about God and you can’t get God out of the booing.
These guys claim there’s no such thing as vote fraud, then they commit vote fraud on live television.
Susan >> What is your fascination with me getting run over by a bus? Have you had that stiff one, yet?
Shouldn’t Levi get back to his fantasies of killing people who make his life inconvenient?
I do love the way the child tries to spin their hatred of religion and their embracing of government as their Master as a good thing.
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
You might have mistaken me for someone else (and also hear voices in your head…). I mentioned ‘bus’ only once.
susan: Cinesnatch likes to project… and… Cinesnatch likes to call people crazy… You do the math 😉
Until seeing and hearing this portion of the convention, I was simply going to skip the upcoming election. The men running are 2 sides of the same dime. One, an outright communist, the other a functionary of the fascist oligarchy. Either way the election will be a win-win for the global/capital elite running the show. Then I came apon this HOSTILITY to the idea of faith. Pretty scary stuff. This has happened before in history. We’ve got to stand guard against it. No way, can we stand by and watch the Amish get their land confiscated, sent to internment camps & packed into ovens because they will not acquiesce to the belief system of those in power. No way, man! It is fairly certain that the REPUBLICANS would at the very least, send a force to protect the Amish minority, or any other for that matter, from mindless & senseless violence. Hostile Dems, by YOUR actions, have earned a vote for the other side. Give peace a chance.
Susan >> RE: 20 & 35
So, according to Susan’s logic, “1 + 1 = 1” AND Labor Day is not a federal holiday in the U.S. What’s next? Fox News is fair and balanced?
Emphasis made for those who don’t have reading glasses.
Or, are there two lower-case “susan’s” on GP? Better send Miss Marple on this case. Or maybe this gal. H/T to V the K, of course.
Just because you like to think there is a permanent, external, objective morality doesn’t mean there is one. If you don’t think your opposition to abortion, for example, is based on consensus morality, than I don’t know what to tell you. Unless God revealed himself to you and told you specifically that abortion was against his permanent, external, objective morality, how can you claim to know for sure? The religious opposition to abortion is based on interpretation of other religious tenets, what is that if not ‘consensus morality?’
Like abortion, there are many other moral dilemmas facing modern society that simply weren’t around when your religion was founded, and in each of these situations, we are all trying to arrive at a ‘consensus morality.’ Where does God and his permanent, external, objective morality fit into questions about the environment and healthcare and stem cell research? People invoke the Christian religion to answer each of these questions in completely different ways, but if you’re to be believed, there is only one right answer. How are we supposed to know? God thought it prudent to tell us when and how to sacrifice animals (nowadays recognized almost universally as immoral, by the way), but not how best to manage some of the problems of an industrialized, literate modern society. Since we can’t count on God to reveal the answers to these moral questions, where are we turning to? Could it be…. consensus morality?
But, the right doesn’t have any moral relativism going on in its camp. Everything has remained the same since Christ died on the cross.
/sarcasm
#46: “Unless God revealed himself to you and told you specifically that abortion was against his permanent, external, objective morality, how can you claim to know for sure?”
So says another devout adherent of the Party of Depraved Narcissistic Convenien…er…uh…Science.
Is this a joke?
What in the Sam Hell? LOL. Republicans protect “the Amish minority”? Is that the same as protecting a delusion? If that’s the case, then carry on.
A devout adherent of science… is that supposed to be an insult? Would you say you’re not a devout adherent of science?
#51: “A devout adherent of science… is that supposed to be an insult? Would you say you’re not a devout adherent of science?”
Levi, my point is that even without a stone tablet handed down by God, there are scientific, biological reasons to conclude abortion is objectively immoral and downright evil. But just as I’m typing this, I’m realizing that this is an irrelevant argument for me to make to you. I momentarily forgot that you’re already on the record freely admitting that you KNOW abortion entails ‘snuffing out’ a human life, you just don’t give a fu*k that it does or believe there’s anything morally objectionable about it. So, admittedly, the scientific argument I brought up has no application here. My bad. Forget I mentioned it.
I don’t think the state (in general) should be affiliated with a religion or religious body in the first place, so I consider this a moot point. Having said that, I do think that the “power” of each individual, in aggregate, supersedes that of the government.
Really? Are you making some sort of joke or are you that stooooopid?
Abortion is some sort of “modern” construct?
The issue, Levi, is not abortion, it is the killing a human life. It is about the “choice” whether to kill a human life or not. It is your crowd of science informed geniuses who do the consensus science on whether it is a human life or just a blob of meaningless cells.
You favor the right to kill the human life in the womb. But, for whatever reason, you will not step up and address your belief in those simple terms. Is that because you lack the courage of your convictions?
Societies have always engaged in whether to raise babies to be eaten, sold, loved, killed for being the wrong sex, enslaved, used for sex, tossed into the street, etc. Perhaps your totally science informed self has only to Google the clear, scientific answers to such societal confusions.
How are you on infanticide? Do you have some sort of scientific objection to killing a kid who is intruding on his mother’s freedom to roam and be spontaneous?
What is your science informed schedule for when killing human life is OK and not OK?
In other contexts, I’ve had lefties tell me that abortion has been around for thousands of years; that the poor witches burned at the stake in medieval Europe, were empowered proto-feminists who did abortions with natural herbs, etc.
So… Which is it?
Neither do Mitt’s tax returns.
Witches and medieval Europe thousands of years old? News to me.
Cinesnatch, yet another truly stupid comment from you. I could explain where your ‘logic’ went wrong, but why bother?
A feminist myth believed by a lot of lefties solely because “it fits the narrative.”
My son did a term paper on the Salem witch trials in high school. You know who initiated them? Teenage girls spreading gossip. You know who supported them? Other women in the village.
I know that Salem and Medieval Europe aren’t quite the same, but the idea that all of history before Gloria Steinem was men doing evil sh-t to women is complete felgercarb.
What do you think about the parties being involved in religion? Today’s Survey: Survey on Religion. http://tinyurl.com/d4596cx
You’re evading. You think abortion is killing a human life, I disagree, we’ve been through all this before. What I want to know is how you apply your one true morality to situations not explicitly described in the Bible, and why you think whatever your answer may be doesn’t amount to consensus morality.
Abortion has been around for thousands of years. It often took the form of self-harm or eaving an infant out in the woods somewhere. It would start happening again if conservatives had their way. Safe, medical abortion has only been around for a couple decades, and combined with contraception has eliminated those scenarios from occurring in the modern world.
The point remains that the Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion, and the pro-life position is therefore derived from interpretation of the Bilbe (which I must remind everyone has no credibility or authority anyway), and so it’s stupid for someone that believes this stuff to go around lambasting others for creating ‘consensus morality.’
Ah. So then, you should have spoken to heliotrope of “moral dilemmas facing modern society that simply *were* around when your religion was founded.”
So, thanks to abortion, children are never abandoned, neglected, or murdered by their parents. I didn’t know that.
Of course it would, Levi.
Because it would take unusual credulousness to believe that abortionists like yourself would suddenly decide to start taking responsibility for the children produced by your behavior when everything abortionists like you and your family have done up to this point is exactly the opposite.
It is not hard at all to see you and your fellow Obama Party members leaving a child to starve and die, Levi. You didn’t want it, you didn’t feel like taking the precautions to avoid producing it in the first place, and you certainly aren’t going to interrupt your lifestyle or spend your money to take care of it. In your self-centered universe, children are matters of convenience, and certainly not worthwhile human life.
That’s really all your argument is, Levi; you scream and cry and insist that conservatives pay for what is clearly your responsibility to deal with as a result of your choices, or you’ll murder a child. And we keep making that clearly and plainly obvious to everyone, which is why you scream and squirm and throw your childish tantrums to spin away for the fact that you would rather a child die than you be in the least inconvenienced socially, mentally, or financially.
And that brings us to this.
Yes, we have.
So were you lying then, or are you lying now?
One should always remember that liberals’ primary argument is that it is better for the baby to be killed, since they were going to neglect it and starve it anyway.
Or that women like Levi’s “girlfriend” will commit suicide if they can’t abort their babies.
Poison as food, poison as antidote. Liberals will never under any circumstances allow something as trivial as another person’s life to get in the way of their immediate self-gratification.
This is what conservatives don’t understand. We are repelled by the idea of killing for personal convenience, where we should realize that liberals like Levi truly WOULD leave a baby out on the mountain to starve. The advancement as Levi and the liberal left see it is that they can now charge women for the privilege of killing children and channel that money into Obama campaign contributions.
It’s a common, but nonetheless funny, occurrence to see Levi get *so* tripped up.
Umm… Is it just me, or did Levi himself just say that abortion is basically infanticide?
At the least, Levi just said that infanticide (or “leaving an infant out in the woods somewhere”) is a form of abortion.
What more is there to say?
Levi, apparently has some special scientific information that the fertilized egg in the woman’s womb can develop into something other than a human life. Like what?
Clearly, Levi and his consensus science buds will vote on when “it” becomes a human life. They are God, you know. And they need the cover for their moral relativism to work like they want it to.
Levi does not have the guts to support and promote killing a human life. Levi has to protect himself for the most basic biological truth in human reproduction.
Poor Levi, he mocks religion and then flunks biology in order to make his formula work. There is no fool like a determined fool showing the depth of his foolishness.
Thou Shalt not Kill comes to mind.
Before Levi goes off on an uneducated rant about swatting mosquitoes, this Commandment is directed at spilling the innocent blood of a human.
So, of course, Levi will declare that the cells in the womb are not human. I guess in a botched partial birth abortion, Levi can explain how the thing can be left unattended to die of intentional neglect, but that is either not killing or the thing forfeited being a human by dying. Or something.
It’s black population control, right?
1) Illegal abortions occur.
2) Abortions become legal.
3) Pro-Life!
4) Pro-Choice!
5) If we concentrated on pregnancy reduction, we’d reduce abortions.
6) Religion and Abstinence!
7) Education and Contraception!
8) Roe Vs. Wade hypothetically knocked down
9) Illegal abortions commence
Now, in this new world, are people supposed to either adhere to strict Judeo-Christian values or, if they don’t want to carry a baby, find someone on the black-market to do it?
In this new world, are we teaching children about protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies/disease by using contraception so they may figure themselves out sexually? Or, continue with the restrictive Judeo-Chrisitan vow of chastity until marriage or suffer whatever consequences?
I want live in a world where people can freely figure who the f*ck they are in every aspect before they commit a lifetime to one person, if that is their choice, before they do so. Is this idealism? It sounds like f*cking realism to me.
It seems one side is telling everyone to keep their paws off their private parts and the other side is telling them “live by these rules or suck lemons.”
Is there NO middle-ground in all of this?
Jesus H. Christ.
I don’t support abortion as if it’s some great hobby that people should participate in, I support a woman’s right to make decisions for herself.
And let’s consider the morality of the country we’d be living in if conservatives had their way and abortion was legalized. This is also the party that wants to cut social services and government assistance programs, which means you’d have a lot more babies in need and much fewer resources. That’s immoral if you ask me. Also, you’re fooling yourself if you think abortion just stops the day it’s criminalized. Congratulations, Republicans, you’ve just created an abortion black market, paving the way for unsavory types to get super rich off of performing abortions. That’s also immoral, if you ask me. And of course, how many dead girls will be showing up as a result of these unsafe abortions, how many women will have their reproductive organs destroyed, how many babies will be abandoned in dumpsters after birth, how many women will throw themselves down the stairs, how many women will kill themselves?
For conservatives, abortion morality means pretending like none of those things will happen and that the problem just disappears after all the abortion clinics are shuttered. Conservative abortion morality also means being opposed to policies like contraception coverage, universal healthcare, and comprehensive sex education – all policies that treat the root problem of unplanned pregnancies in the first place.
I’ll say again that I am all for reducing the number of abortions in this country, and I think the best way to do that is by solving the problems that create a demand for abortion. Conservatives say they oppose abortion, but I don’t see any consistence in the rest of their political philosophy that would indicate they’re really concerned for the unborn. I would expect conservatives to support big increases in welfare and Medicaid if they’re really concerned for these women and they’re children, but they don’t. I would expect conservatives to at least try to tackle the problem of unwanted pregnancies in some meaningful way, but they don’t. They just want abortion banned tomorrow and they don’t care about anything else.
Needless to say, it comes across as a little insincere. When it comes down to it, I think conservatives oppose abortion primarily because they like to accuse their political opponents of being murderers.
Vince and Levi,
When, pray tell, have I written in favor of ZERO abortions? “You people” on the left always frame the argument to make us on the right into evil Neanderthals. You need that edge to avoid dealing with truth.
I did NOT say murder. I said kill, which is an entirely neutral word and the only word available.
Now, why should my tax payer money go to killing an innocent life? If Planned Parenthood wants to build a killing clinic near the ghetto and put up billboards that seduce girls to come and get their “problem” fixed, let you liberals fund it. Not me. You. Are you telling me that all those brilliant, big dollar entertainment types can’t stroke a check to Planned Parenthood to kill babies that they don’t want in society?
Sandra Fluke talked at the convention about women being subjected to “invasive ultrasound”!!!!! Give me a break! She was referring to a law requiring the abortion candidate to look at what she was setting out to kill and then agreeing to go ahead and kill it. If that is “invasive</i” it is only invasive by ruffling the smooth patter and calm of the Planned Parenthood killing process.
Sandra Fluke is smart enough to get into Georgetown Law School and smart enough to know that it is a Catholic institution. But, she wants the benefactors of her education to change their religious objection to birth control and in order to provide her with pills. Why doesn’t Sandra Fluke get her priorities straight and go to a law school where that is not an issue?
She goes to Congress with her “sad” tale about what she most wants for her vagina. Hello!!! She is the anti-Mother Teresa of the loons on the left. She is the reverse Joan of Arc of the anti-religion crowd begging to be pilloried for demanding the fundamental corruption of principle by those with whom she voluntarily sought aid and succor.
“You people” certainly choose a strange way of demonstrating your logic.
First: abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. The mother was not invaded by the devil. Even in the case of rape and incest, the innocent human life remains the same.
Second: Pro-life favors the life over the abortion. The mother has the “choice” of killing the innocent life or not.
Third: Pro-Choice favors allowing the mother to kill the innocent life and most pro-choice people want as little interference with the process as possible so that the mother doesn’t have time to reconsider.
Fourth: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice conflict when either side clashes with the other over what the mother should “choose” to do. Pro-Life wants the mother to have time and information in making the decision.
Fifth: Within the Pro-Life sector, there are those who would permit abortion only when the physical life of the mother is a great risk. Others would broaden the exceptions.
Sixth: There is a lot of common ground between some Pro-Life and some Pro-Choice people for making abortion rare, but:
Seventh: The leftist crowd in the Pro-Choice movement will not permit any compromise up to an including partial birth abortion. Recreational abortion and raising and farming fetal stem cells is cool with some.
So, take your abortion crap to the leftists in the Code Pink wing of Pro-Choice and argue with them.
Good luck.
If they did that, they would be guilty of murder.
Who says they can’t? There is no law outlawing premarital sex, and contraceptives are widely available.
Making abortion rare is going to require a little bit more than banning partial-birth abortions. .17% of all abortions in the year 2000 according to wikipedia. Where are we after that? I’m not a support of partial-birth abortions myself, but you still haven’t done a single thing to address the root cause of the problem, unplanned pregnancies. I would gladly outlaw partial-birth abortions if conservatives agreed to expanding healthcare coverage and contraceptive access, but I already know how willing you are to compromise on those issues.
Really? How very clairvoyant of you.
Where have I ever written an objection to contraceptives?
Levi, little lad, your bigotry knows no bounds.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/03/05/contraception-kerfuffle-to-distract-us-from-higher-grocery-bills/#comment-666903
right here.
Well, at least now we know one of Levi’s aliases, eh “Numberslucent’?
Amusingly the comment you link does not back your statement. That comment talks about the risks of contraception, not saying it should be objected to.