Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire my bitch (no pun) to the republican party...

Wait for me T, I've had enough of this nonsense too!

First of all, Clinton was NOT "the abortion president who gave us legalized infanticide." The Supreme Court decision in Roe vs Wade has been the law of the land since 1973, long before Clinton came on the scene. Moreover, Clinton happened to be correct when he said that he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." That is why the abortion rates went DOWN during the Clinton years. However, those rates of abortion have been on the upswing again since Bush has been in office. (And you're dreaming if you believe Ronald Reagan would have ended abortion had he had a willing Congress.)

Conservatives seem to have a single knee-jerk response to just about every question: It's Clintons' fault. Frankly, that tired mantra is getting just a little old.

I remember when we were expecting our first. It was always my dream, my hope to have a family and be a good father. When I saw the ultrasound, I was in awe. There are really are no words to describe it.

The tech started focusing on areas around little mac's brain. I never took notice because all I saw was my little baby. My wife saw what was happening. She asked the tech if there was a problem and the tech just kinda shrugged her off. She was moving the mouse around and measuring spots on his brain.

Well a few minutes later the ultrasound was done and the doc comes in to see us. She says the test showed cysts developing. Specifically they were coroid plexus cysts. Doc said she wanted to do the amnio to determine if our baby had Downs. She explained that the test itself is risky and could do harm to the baby. Doc further explained that the presence of the cysts does not necessarily mean our child had Downs but she wanted to check to give us options.

My wife asked what I thought and I told the doc it didn't matter what any test showed, that child was ours and was a blessing no matter what. We didn't have any option other than loving and raising our child. Doc looked at my wife because being the father, I had no say in the matter, and the wonderful missus said no tests. We were on the same page to begin with but it was a stressful situation.

To make a long story short, little mac came out just fine as did the other 3. Nothing on this earth could have made me abort or give up one of my children. I guess that about sums up how I fell about abortion.

I know I'm off topic about which party is crap. Frankly, they all are. I'm not for anarchy either. I believe in the Constitution and I fell if we actually took it to heart, this country would be much better off.




Mac

MAC 84

That about says it all. God bless you and your Family

I fall with the majority here: abortion has all the hallmarks of a classic evil: a) It is done primarily for selfish reasons, b) it can seem like a good idea at the time c) you can rationalize your way into it, and d) if you go that route you will get outspoken and shrill support from those who perpetrate it (misery loves company).

Abortion is an abomination and my #1 issue at voting time.

The real reason I'm jumping in here though is just to highlight a common misconception posted here and left unchallenged. 280don writes...


Quite beyond the issue (as others pointed out) of basing morality on percuniary grounds, in actual fact the majority of women getting abortions are a) White and b) educated.

We have lost close to 50 million Americans through abortion in the last thirty years. Never before has such mass infanticide had such a profound effect on the demographics and politics of a nation.

Unless were talking China, or Russia...

In Russia, abortions outnumber births, with corresponding catastrophic effects on the demographics and economy of that country.

One of the major threats to continuing world stability is the emerging gender gap in China, a huge surplus of young men with no prospect of marriage due to the selective abortion of female infants. History does show that men in the absence of women are always violent, never in history has there been a whole nation without enough women.

No surprise really that an inherently evil act should have such unfortunate outcomes.

Birdwatcher

Rooselk,

How much more wrong can you be???

In 1993 or 4, I came home from my law enforcement job and repaired to my channel surfing room where, in repose on my sporting apparatus, I commenced to physical activity, surfing the TV. I passed by CNN where they were explaining an arcane procedure of medicine. After a few seconds into a show that caught my masculine attention, I thought about the second of material I caught on CNN. Something compelled me to go back.

The CNN show was graphically explaining a newly legalized abortion technique recently made available by Das Fuhrer Clinton. At first, I thought it was nothing short of premeditated first degree murder with special circumstances placing the criminals involved in jeopardy of the death penalty. Here's how the procedure works.

A full-term baby, that is a baby that could easily survive if born, is manipulated within its mother's womb so that a breech birth is induced. I recalled at the time first aid training I received that indicated a breech birth poses significant imminent life threatening risks to both mother and child; therefore, this procedure actually places the mother in harm's way and negating the allegation it is done to preserve the life of the mother.

Once the full-term baby is breech, the performing "physician" reaches up the birth canal and yanks the little baby out until only its head is still within the birth canal. With the baby desperately fighting for its life, the perpetrating criminals, including the physician, prepare it for execution. A needle that is attached to a suction device in jammed into the base of its skull. Once the needle reaches its mark, the suction device is activated and sucks out the baby's brain!

Clinton legalized partial-birth abortion; in contrast, no legal scholar has ever been able to prove Hitler authorized the Final Solution. The fact of the matter is that Clinton is every bit as bad as Hitler. What in God's name he could have promised anyone in exchange for his/her vote is beyond me, but those that did vote for him are every bit as culpable as Germans living under the Nazi regime.

After Clinton created death camps where little, innocent babies had their brains sucked out of them in accordance to Clinton's law, Senator Bill Frist, a physician (cardiologist) and who will be elected president of the United States in 2008, said in a TV interview that there is absolutely no known medical justification for partial-birth abortion; therefore, it is legal infanticide! Thankfully, one of the very first things Predident Geroge W. Bush did when he took office was to outlaw partial-birth abortion!

Rooselk, I do know Roe v. Wade was a 1973 case. I also know that many legal scholars know it to be bad law as was discussed last night on TV duing the Roberts nomination. However, Bill Clinton campaigned on abortion, promising to keep it legal. But he also knew it to be immoral which makes him a truly terrible leader on par with the first fuhrer. A true leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan will prevent us from falling into an abyss of immorality. There are consequences of our building a society based upon the intentional killing of innocent babies. One such consequence is the destruction of the greatest civilization Earth has ever known. Are you willing to pay that price just so women will not be inconvenienced by having to fulfill the miracle of granting life?

Hillary is running in 2008. What could she promise voters so that they'll be willing accomplices in infanticide?


Good luck,

Leon

Birdwatcher,

The fact that we cannot repopulate our nation is one of the causes of our acquiescing to illegal immigration, along with the fact that politicians recognize the necessity of propping up Social Security lest they have to find a real job!

The irony here is that in our having to turn to immigrants because we can't repopulate our nation will result in a population boom of those coming from Third World nations. Hence, the laborers we're importing will repopulate America for us! You might want to do a 'net seach of Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D and read her analyses of the illegal immigration issue. It might just shock the hell out of you. Her articles will certainly dispell myths you might have about the topic!


Good luck,

Leon

Leon, I don't think it is really accurate to say that Bill Clinton "legalized' partial birth abortion. What he did was twice veto bans that had passed both houses of Congress.

More accurate to say that he prevented it from being outlawed, as demanded by his NOW allies in return for their support during his Monica problems.

Steve NO,

On what planet are you? And what is in it for you to deny Clinton's legalization of partial-birth abortion? Are you so damn naive to think this was a Republican agenda item? Just do even a cursory 'net search and see what you find.

Now, what is motivating you to lie for Das Fuhrern Clinton? Were you party to his legalizing infanticide?

Sport, I distinctly remember Clinton legalizing partial-birth abortion. And I distinctly remember his defending it. And now I remember you trying to cover for him. This was Clinton's gig all the way, m'man!


Wise up,

Leon

Steve NO,

BTW, partial birth abortion came way before Monica.


Good luck,

Leon

Abortion is costing you a lot more than raising the kids.

The "cost savings" of killing American kids has helped create the current economic advantage and future necessity of immigration inflow, to offset the age demographic problem of workers. It is and will cost all of us a whole lot more for the immigrants than the homegrown method.

Concerning entitlement programs--they exist to support the sponsoring political parties hold on voting power from election to election, and have precious little to do with the individual citizen apart from gaining the vote. The longer they are successfully in place, the less money is available to the competing party to put their programs in place.

BTW, try adopting a kid sometime--it is easier to kill them under the guise of women rights--that is twisted.

OK, Leon, if that's how you want it. I was trying not to highlight your apparent ignorance, but you just wouldn't listen or can't read. Try this, real slow, OK:

1)Leon, presidents don't make laws. Congress does. Bill Clinton couldn't pass laws if he wanted to.

2)Bill Clinton didn't "legalize" partial birth abortion. If you "remember" otherwise, you misremember. He vetoed the Congressional attempts to outlaw it. Read you own freaking link---that's what it says.

3)If you remember that I supported Clinton, you're delusional. In the first place I wasn't on this board while Clinton was president, and neither were you. D'uh.

If you'd read many of my posts, you would never, ever suspect me of being a Clinton supporter or an abortion advocate.

Tom, buddy.

I'm not FOR abortion! Every moral fiber of my being
is against abortion! Yes, it is infanticide! The intent of
my posts were not to condone abortion, but to seek a
solution OTHER than me footing the bill for these "unwanted children". It was the holier-than-thou pharisees that put
my comments into a pro-abortion camp!

I am against being taxed to support these UNPLANNED children. My stance has been against people who keep
having children without a means of support, and usualy for the purpose of increasing the dole.

My arguement, is that people call REPRODUCING a RIGHT.
It is, but not at my expense! How about sterilizing these
immoral sluts who have all these "unwanted" children? How
about making GELDINGS out of deadbeat dads? I'm
not pro abortion....I'm pro-prevention! Jeez. that's a subject
that doesn't get much discussion, right?

That's been my point of view all along.....but everytime
someone wants to ask a question on this forum, it irritates
someone else and the flaming begins before any real, calm intellegent discussion can begin!

I don't want to hold these innocent babes responsible! It's
their immoral parents I want to address. The members of this
forum are far too quick to judge and rant for my tastes.

Except for 4-5 guys on here I find most to be arrogant,
opinionated [bleep]. Many are part of the political system
I detest, ie. cops, lawyers,etc. Others are so far the
religious right republicans they make me want to puke.
Self righteous pharisees of the highest order!

On the other hand, I'd rather be dead and gone than live in
a country filled with liberals and liberal thinking!

I just find myself, like Noah, in a sea of ignorant, immoral
people. I can't wait until the rain begins! For this reason,
I've asked Rick Bin to remove me from the forum membership. It's quite evident to me I don't belong here,
and neither do I want to belong here.

P.S. Tom, My lovely grand daughter is adopted. I
avoided the post covering this in the religious section
on purpose. My son is jewish, my daughter-in-law
is protestant and the child came from a catholic
orphanage!

You'll need a different arguement to discredit me!

Rabbi Donald K. Slater

Steve, Leon,

From what the two of you have written it appears to me that you both are on the same sheet of music...just a little off timing from each other.

Step back for just a moment. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

GB

http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david1.htm

Ain't no sense in complainin about Repub's being anti baby killin........

Cuz they ain't.

Grandma Bush- pro baby killer
George Senior- pro baby killer
Current Mrs B- pro baby killer
Condoleeeeeza - pro baby killing
Arlen Spectre- pro-baby killing

On and on we could go.

SteveNO,

I know quite thoroughly how the three branches of government work, thank you very much! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Your:



is factually incorrect. Executive orders give the executive branch de facto legislative authority. Affirmative action was the result of an LBJ executive order. See how that works, now???

I know that Clinton refused to sign legislation outlawing partial birt abortion. The genesis of the legislation was question over its legality; in short, it was uncertain whether the "procedure" was legal. It was originally believed that abortion was limited to the first trimester of pregnancy, a quite arbitrary limitation! Hence his not signing legislation outlawing PBA in fact made infanticide legal. I am not sure of why you would resort to parsing words, though.



The fact of the matter is your blatant attempt to mitigate Clinton's culpability in making infanticide legal is tacit support of him. Remember, Steve, his signature would have made it illegal and removed all doubt of its status! The fact that he chose not to sign off on legislation preventing infanticide was his de facto making it legal! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />



Really? Where can I read your condemnation of Clinton's preserving the status of partial birth abortion?

As my previous link exposes, Clinton was the abortion president! He left no doubt about the legality of partial birth abortion by refusing to sign legislation outlawing it!


Good luck,

Leon

No argument here.

The only thing I have found is that in this part of the country Rep., for the most part realize that their voting record on Infantiside can determine the outcome of a tight race.

The old adage "The sweaky wheel gets the oil."

I am not so nieave to think that in more liberal states that Rep. would respond in like manner.

As for me, the aboriton issue is the first of my NON NEGOTIONAL issues. I will not vote for any one who does not consistantly vote PRO LIFE reguardless of what he calls himself.

GB

Rabbi,

Your excuse for denying life to unplanned children of dirtbags is nothing less than one of the arguments used by Nazis to exterminate millions who had become what the Nazis termed a financial drain on the Third Reich! Remember, it is your opinion that taxpayers should not support children of dirtbags, and it was Hitler's opinion that Nazis should not have had the obligation to support what he considered to be what your opinion is of innocent children of dirtbags! What your posts boils down to is nothing more than rationalizing bad behavior!

Further your:




is proof of the lack of logic in your argument. Unless you would deny funding for stem cell research, aid to foreign nations, and a host of other programs, your choice to single out unborn babies is nothing but your opinion. For you see there, good Rabbi, your tax dollars are used to fund zillions of programs. Which ones do you favor? As for me, there is nothing more important than sustaining life. Finally, the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney for murderers like Charles Manson and others is supported by tax dollars collected from you. To me, it is far more important to keep an innocent kid alive that to defend killers. Where do you stand on this issue?

Let me ask you something. Some time ago I watched a religious debate on TV about the avbortion issue. On camera were reglious leaders from various beliefs. The Rabbi was nothing short of alarming, saying his faith denies an unborn baby human being status therefore allowing for its destruction without God's condemnation! If we accept this as true, then what is the intellecutal basis for denying Hitler's claim the Jews were of the same categotry therefore not worthy of human rights? The fact of the matter is that the Rabbi was using Hitler's logic to kill even more innocent victims than were the victims of the Holocaust!

I just can't figure out why many of the Jewish faith defend abortion using essentially the same arguments used by Hitler to kill Jews and many millions of others. How can they in good conscience revile Hitler while on the other hand do Hitler's dirty work to the unborn.

I am all eyes, please educate me!


Thanks,

Leon

Leon---Clinton did not issue executive orders on PBA, so that part of your "argument" is irrelevant. You also obviously don't understand the scope of executive orders and I don't have the time or inclination to teach you. Suffice to say, PBA is not an issue that could have been subject to an executive order other than a directive to government run hospitals.

Clinton didn't legalize anything, his veto preserved the status quo, whatever that was. If you don't understand the difference, there's not much point in discussing it.

You won't find a post on it from me because, d'uh, it happened a long time before I was on this board, and thus a very long time before you were.

Believing that Clinton is a slime doesn't require twisting the record---his real record is bad enough.

Wow. And I thought people (myself included) got riled up in the thread on the Kelo decision. Oh well, against my better judgment, I am going to pop in here. First, I do not intend to express any opinion on the legality, morality, or practical implications of abortion one way or the other. My purpose here is to make an observation about something I have kind of wondered about for a while.

If I recall correctly, the line that was drawn in Roe v. Wade and its progeny for when a fetus essentially goes from being a "clump of cells" (a term that was used to describe an embryo in a college level philosophy class I once took) and becomes a "life" for purposes of protection under the Constitution was "viability." That is to say, if the fetus was capable of "living" outside the womb, then it was "alive," otherwise it was not. Again, these are not my beliefs, just what I recall of the reasoning adopted in Roe v. Wade. In Roe the court basically adopted a "bright line" test for viability at the first trimester, i.e. a fetus is not viable until after the first trimester, and may therefore be aborted within that time. Again, I am going on my hazy memory of Roe and the cases that followed it from my law school days, which are getting to be farther and farther behind me. If anything I have related is incorrect, please don't anyone be bashful about jumping in to correct me.

Anyway, I always found viability to be a somewhat shaky foundation for determining the existence of "life." I mean, just how "viable" is a new born baby or even a two year old? If you abandoned a two year old, how long do you think it would survive on its own? Just how "viable" is a two year old? Aren't there laws against abandoning two year olds for the very reason that they are not equipped to care for themselves at that age? Just how "viable" is a two year old, really?

I guess I just don't see that "viability" provides a meaningful distinction, at least from a practical point of view, and it seems like an awfully shaky foundation upon which to determine something as important as when life begins.

As to whether abortion should be legal, what role the government should have in telling me or anyone else what I can or can't do, how I vote, what actions I take to express my views or to convert others to my way of thinking, etc., sorry, the prior posts indicate that it would be more or less pointless. People have their opinions on this issue, as they are certainly entitled, and I would not presume to think that mine is more valid than anyone elses or that anything I have to say would change anyone elses considered opinion. I just wanted to throw something out that had kind of been nagging at me for awhile that had not already been raised.

JP out.