Pro-lifers lined the streets of Washington DC just two days after inauguration day. The annual "March for Life" event marks the anniversary of a decision that has led to the slaughtering of millions of unborn boys and girls. The emotionally charged issue began 36 years ago as a result of Roe v Wade and continues to be a hot button issue to this day.Ironically, as Obama begins his presidency by working toward equality, respect, and fairness for terrorists, he does quite the opposite for the unfortunate souls conceived by mothers who consider their existence to be a nuisance.
"We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," Obama said. "I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose."
Obama's viewpoint bodes well for women and men who want to engage in intercourse without regard for repercussions, but comes as a blow to pro-life advocates, as well as the unborn.
Under an Obama Administration, you'd likely rather be a terrorist than an unwanted, innocent baby in your mother's womb.
Nevertheless, tens of thousands of pro-lifers came out to show their distaste for the practice of abortion. The highest man in the land may have center stage; he may be prepared to loosen the laws of abortion, but this is a sign to him that the unborn has a voice and his support for abortion will be met with a great deal of resistance.
12 comments:
"Under an Obama Administration, you'd likely rather be a terrorist than an innocent baby in your mother's womb."
You're better than that comment. You can make a sound, reasonable argument opposing abortion without resorting to partisan rhetoric. Reading your blog, you would think Obama used to walk the streets of downtown Chicago punting pregnant women in the uterus. Just because one supports a woman's right to choose doesn't mean they are for abortions. Supporting the right to have a choice is different than supporting the actual choice.
I know you don't honestly believe the statement I quoted above because you are smarter than that. But statements like that are what drive us further apart on an issue where, like Obama said, we can find common ground. Of course we will never agree on whether abortion should be legal. But can't we agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is something that we can work towards?
Brandon has it right: "You're better than that comment. " And: "Just because one supports a woman's right to choose doesn't mean they are for abortions. Supporting the right to have a choice is different than supporting the actual choice."
And Brandon's closing comment: "But can't we agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is something that we can work towards?
"
I don't have anything else to add to the obviously emotional issue.
You are both better than your viewpoint. Click on my "abortion" link. Look at the pictures and then tell me you'd rather be an unborn child than a terrorist.
I will change it to "unwanted". You're picking, but you're right. Certainly "wanted" babies are safe (or are they now that terrorists are being treated with the respect they don't give?), but unwanted babies who will be easily aborted thanks to an Obama Admin...not so much.
I am as good as my words; no better, no worse.
If you don't oppose it, you support it.
Note: Changing my entry due to a comment is not something I will do often, but if I fail to communicate my thoughts effectively to whomever finds time to read it, I will correct it.
Sorry Brandon - Katie is more interested in controling than preventing, in being fearful rather than hopeful. You're eaither with her or against her - there is no gray area which is where most of us live our lives.
Fear is a natural emotion. You have it. I have it. If you don't have it...you aren't being honest. How could you not? You know darn well that terrorists want us (Americans) dead. If you do not fear, you're a freak of nature. I'm hopeful that we will achieve eventual peace, but I'm not foolish or niave.
If you feel no fear, you are both foolish and niave
.
Did you look at the dead baby pics? Do you feel sympathy?
I am emotionally charged when it comes to abortion. So are you.
My feelings are based in hard facts and visual reminders. Yours are based in an ideology where you hide behind a sign with the word "choice" on it.
You are too good of a person to get the hard facts about abortion and not have a nagging feeling in your gut that tells you that the practice is barbaric and should be outlawed.
Fear is indeed a natural emotion and like any other emotion, it has its time and place. It is instict just like a sex drive is instict. We as human, however, learn to manage our emotions.
You have no right to tell me I am being less than honest with myself if I say I do not fear terrorists. And even less to tell me I am niave or foolish.
I can honestly tell you that I have zero fear when it comes to terrorists. I will not live my life that way. You would be well served to better understand their ideology which is to promote feat. All it takes is a minute to look up the word "terror" and then take the deviation to terror-ist. When we are afraid of them they can say mission accomplished. They may wish us all dead as a side benefit but fear is their primary objective.
You are right - I would rather focus ALL my efforts on preventing the need for anyone to have to face a deeply personal decision on abortion. I do so by dealing with the problem, not the symptom. I don't hide behind anything. There is no nagging feeling in my gut.
I feel sympathy when I see an animal lying dead on the side of the road or a dead bird in the forest so don't talk to me about feeling sympathy.
This is what really breaks my heart...
"I feel sympathy when I see an animal lying dead on the side of the road or a dead bird in the forest."
What the hell do you feel for the babies killed at the will of their own mother and at the hands of a doctor (check the abortion link). Do you have any sympathy for them.
I know you love animals. How about human beings?
It seems like you have sympathy for suspected terrorists and dogs, but not aborted babies. Something is wrong with that picture.
I could be killed driving my car to the store this afternoon. Still, I do so with no fear and complete confidence in my safety. More people are killed every year in the US in auto accidents than killed around the world by terrorists.
On fear...
MARCUS AURELIUS:
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON:
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
MARIE CURIE:
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
MARILYN FERGUSON:
Ultimately we know deeply that the other side of every fear is a freedom.
RALPH WALDO EMERSON:
Don't waste life in doubts and fears; spend yourself on the work before you, well assured that the right performance of this hour's duties will be the best preparation for the hours and ages that will follow it.
ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON:
Keep your fears to yourself, but share your inspiration with others.
THOMAS HOBBES:
Fear of things invisible is the natural seed of that which everyone in himself calleth religion.
SWEDISH PROVERB:
Worry gives a small thing a big shadow.
SHEL SILVERSTEIN:
The hens they all cackle, the roosters all beg,
But I will not hatch, I will not hatch.
For I hear all the talk of pollution and war
As the people all shout and the airplane roar,
So I'm staying in here where it's safe and it's warm,
And I WILL NOT HATCH!
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
I steer my bark with hope in the head, leaving fear astern. My hopes indeed sometimes fail, but not oftener than the forebodings of the gloomy.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
DOROTHY THOMPSON:
Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live.
GERTRUDE STEIN:
Anything scares me, anything scares anyone but really after all considering how dangerous everything is nothing is really very frightening.
JAMES F. BYMES:
Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem to be more afraid of life than death
JAMES THURBER:
Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness.
And my favorite:
Anais Nin:
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in the bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
I wasn't aware of this fact, reported in USA TODAY:
"Abu Ghraib, which was a torture center under Saddam Hussein, has been closed since 2006."
"Iraq will reopen the notorious Abu Ghraib prison next month, but it's getting a facelift and a new name, a senior justice official said."
"Last year, the government said it would turn a section of the 280-acre prison into a museum documenting Saddam's crimes but not the abuses committed by U.S. guards."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-01-24-iraq-abu_N.htm
So let me get this right: it looks like our military, with the full support of Bush, Rumsfeld and company, used the same facility as did the dictator "we" toppled to continue the same behavior we supposedly toppled him over.
Isn't that ironic!! It seems the following quote from Pogo (Walt Kelly) is true:
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US"
Did you know about the “terrorist watch list”. The list has more than a million people on it — if more than a million Americans are terrorists, haven’t the terrorists already won? Or is it more likely that some of those people are on the list by mistake? You know, people like Senator Ted Kennedy, or US General Vernon Lewis, airline pilot Robert Campbell, Nelson Mandela, Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), the President of Bolivia, several one-year-olds, various nuns, and a whole bunch of dead people. But until now, there was no way to remove a name from the list, so the list just kept getting bigger and bigger.
I guess if we waited long enough, the list would have included everyone in the US, so on Tuesday the House passed a bill that will require the Homeland Security secretary to establish a process to remove erroneous names from the list. The bill received broad bipartisan support, passing 413 to 3. Which begs the following questions:
If this bill had so much support, what took them so long? What changed (other than Dubya no longer being president)?
Why was it acceptable until now to have a no-fly list that was practically useless? Not to mention causing extreme inconvenience to people on it (and lots of expense to the airlines).
Why did it take a bill to make this change? What has Homeland Security been doing with all the money we have been throwing at them?
And just who were the three congress-critters who voted against this bill? Are they nuts?
Even more disconcerting: if you are on the list could they pick you up and ship you off to Gitmo for torture?
Being subjected to total sensory deprivation or weeks of sleeplessness and beatings or stress positions until your joints fall apart: these were some of the techniques approved by George W. Bush to get reliable intelligence from sometimes randomly seized terror suspects. Do you think these people's memories hold up under this kind of battery? A new study of US soldiers subjected to less onerous abuse reveals that merely hours later, they cannot even remember the face of their abuser. Money quote:
"It can be said that we're on the brink of having a recipe for how we go about developing a false memory," Loftus told a packed lecture hall here at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences annual meeting on Saturday.
Remember that the communist and Nazi techniques adopted by Bush and Cheney were designed not for real intelligence but for false confessions. And false confessions allow Cheney to brag about "plots" "derailed" and offer justification for more torture. Pretty simple, closed loop, really. With no way to break out of it.
Post a Comment