Democratic “change” on abortion: Nothing but spin

posted at 12:15 pm on August 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Judith Warner looked for the supposedly pro-life-friendly language in the new Democratic Party platform, and stopped at the first sentence.  In the New York Times, Warner explains that the new platform actually argues harder for abortion on demand than the earlier Clinton platforms did, and that their outreach to Catholics and evangelicals is built on falsehoods:

A lot of anti-abortion activists — including the leadership of the group Democrats for Life, which has long tried to get their party to soften its stand on reproductive rights – weren’t buying it. “It would be really tragic if some young evangelicals unaware of history of civics would vote for a candidate that will guarantee that we will have abortion on demand for another 30 years,” Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told Bloomberg News.

And they were right. There is nothing new in the Democratic position. The abortion plank’s first sentence, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right,” is, arguably, the most powerful statement in favor of abortion rights that the party has ever made. Some pro-choice activists find it less grating to the ear than the old Clintonian formulation, which promised in the 2004 party platform to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”

Proposing to aid women in becoming mothers by “ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs,” as the platform does, hardly amounts to a radical departure. Adoption was mentioned in 2004, and Democratic legislation aimed at abortion prevention and reduction — Hillary Clinton’s Prevention First Act and Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Tim Ryan’s Reducing the Need for Abortion Initiative — has long been circulating in Congress. Barack Obama himself has been talking about the dual approach for years.

In other words, like most of Barack Obama’s campaign, the New Politics position on abortion consists of more of the same old stuff.  Not only does the Democratic platform insist on abortion, it insists that taxpayers fund it, too.  That doesn’t move the party to the right at all; in fact, it makes it even more intransigent on life issues than ever.

Here’s the entire plank:

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

Here is 2004′s edition:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Not only do the Democrats reaffirm their support for taxpayer-funded abortions, they also propose more taxpayer-funded programs on top of them.  The only difference between the two positions is more government programs.

Yet, as Warner notes, the Democrats have trotted out progressives like Revs. Joel Hunter and Tony Campolo to spin this into some sort of real change that can allow pro-life voters to support Democrats.  It’s not even a cosmetic change to their previous, unadulterated support for abortion on demand.  The new platform does nothing — nothing — to address the values of life for Catholics and evangelicals.  It doesn’t even provide, as Warner suggests, enough change to offer a face-saving cover for supporting Democrats.

The Democrats remain the party of abortion on demand, and the party of abortion at taxpayer expense.  No amount of spin from apologists like Campolo or Hunter can whitewash the clear, uncompromising language of the Democratic platform.  And no amount of spin or lies can erase the fact that their presidential nominee voted to protect infanticide as a state legislator in Illinois when even his own party opposed it in Congress.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s not abortion, it is a woman’s healthcare.
/Howard Dean

carbon_footprint on August 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM

The Dems don’t want to aid women. They want to make sure they remain immature (Dem) by being allowed to opt out from learning what it means to be accountable for one’s behavior.

Connie on August 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM

The new platform does nothing — nothing — to address the values of life for Catholics and evangelicals.

They don’t have to. With McCain’s anti-evangelical positions and the Dems anti-religious tendency, evangelicals have no voice in this election. 2008 marks the year where America silenced faith in the public square. Come January 2009 either McCain or Obama will continue to attack faith through legislation and policy.

highhopes on August 15, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Vote Democrat: A “final solution” you can believe in.

CP on August 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Obama and the Democrats just plain suck! No more intellectual debate needed, they lie, they spin, they pander to the welfare state and HOPE race alone will CHANGE the reality of their true vision of America.

Time for an O-bortion

dmann on August 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Captain Infanticide.

kirkill on August 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Can someone point the Amendment to the Constitution that affirms infanticide? Must be missing in my copy.

The Messiah speaketh: I oppose BAIPA, because we Democrats support Gaia.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Time for an O-bortion

dmann on August 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Nice. Get that on a T-shirt…..NOW.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Democrats, the party of no personal responsibility.

kirkill on August 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Democrats, the party of no personal responsibility “punishment”.

kirkill on August 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM

FIFY.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Over the last forty-five years democrats have systematically disabled and dismantled the same behaviors and social institutions they now say “programs” are needed to address.

whitetop on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

The “pro-life” responsibility rhetoric is nonsense. Abortion is a responsible decision. A woman has a problem and she deals with it. Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload the responsibility on someone else.

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Democrats are pro-choice. ZOMG!11!!!11!one

Shocking.

lorien1973 on August 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Captain Infanticide.
kirkill on August 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Would make a cool poster logo for these people.

wise_man on August 15, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Time for an O-bortion
dmann on August 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Nice. Get that on a T-shirt…..NOW.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

See ‘poster logo’ above.

wise_man on August 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM

abortion offloads the problem onto someone else as well. The dead baby.
At least with adoption, the baby isn’t the one paying the price for your lack of responsibility. Also with adoption, a couple that wants a child, gets one.

MarkTheGreat on August 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM

The Demabortion Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay…

A woman has the right to a free abortion. Huh.

So do doctors have to become slaves of feminists, changed to walls in dungeons performing free abortions, or does this mean that some large entity should take money from me and pay doctors to abort the babies of poor knowcked-up women?

Akzed on August 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload the responsibility on someone else.

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

You are so very wrong. Placing a child with a family who has been hoping and praying for children, is not “offloading.” There are so many couples who long for children and would gladly accept that responsibility. When a birth mother gives her child to another family to raise, it is the most responsible thing she can do – not the other way around.

pullingmyhairout on August 15, 2008 at 12:45 PM

The “pro-life” responsibility rhetoric is nonsense. Abortion is a responsible decision. A woman has a problem and she deals with it. Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload the responsibility on someone else.

thujabortion on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

How black is the heart that would pretend to believe such a thing in the service of a political party?

Akzed on August 15, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Jeez……and they file an ethics complaint against Senator Coburn for delivering babies pro bono!!!!

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:47 PM

I wonder if rogue “Catholic” Doug Kmiec will tolerate and affirm this outrageous Democrat platform assault on the lives of millions of the unborn. That Kmiec actively attempts to lead other Christians to support Obama and his anti-life, infanticidal agenda is a great tragedy. What a laughable stooge, Obama tool, he has become. Very sad.

marybel on August 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM

regardless of ability to pay…

No shiite? Regardless of the ability to pay, why is that different from having surgery regardless of the ability to pay, shouldn’t I have to right to have that done when I…

Oh oh, I see where this is going.

Bishop on August 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Barack Hussein Obortion may not be a Muslim, but he sure ain’t no Christian either.

Akzed on August 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

How you handle your birth control is a “problem”, the child isn’t. The child is innocent– your inability to properly run your life is the problem.

Furthermore, what appears a “problem” today, for reasons having to do with $, marital status, age, etc., won’t likely appear like a problem tomorrow.

JiangxiDad on August 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM

The “pro-life” responsibility rhetoric is nonsense. Abortion is a responsible decision. A woman has a problem and she deals with it. Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload the responsibility on someone else.

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

It is not “nonsense”. Abortion at taxpayer expense is removal of personal responsibility from behavior. No cost, no “punishment” (what some call a baby).

By “offload” I assume you mean allow people who desperately wish to raise a child to do so?

You honestly believe it is more responsible to kill and dispose of an unwanted child (at taxpayer cost) than to not only allow the child to live but to see that the child gets a home and a family who want it?

RDuke on August 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM

The Democrat Party: We Love Death!

The Democrat Party: Death is our Middle Name!

The Democrat Party: It’s Not Euthenasia Physician Assisted Suicide. It’s Retroactive Abortion!

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload the responsibility on someone else.

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Hey I am one of those offloaded children, as is my brother, and things worked out pretty well for us and the ‘Rents.

RushBaby on August 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM

thuja: I am rather surprised. Even the most bloodthirsty abortionists pay lip service to the idea that adoption is better.

You have come out with a rather amazing position: killing babies is better than letting them live with someone else. Well, since you say it’s better to kill people than let them be adopted, will you come out to kill all the people in orphanges now? Those in foster homes? Come on, be consistent! Let’s hear your advocation of mass murder here!

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM

wise_man on August 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Disturbingly effective!

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Thanks, new wallpaper for the work puter!

dmann on August 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM

RushBaby: Sorry, according to Thuja, you should be dead. Now, be a good little lemming, and please do a “retroactive abortion” on yourself and your brother.

After all, that’s the “responsible” thing to do! According to thuja, who I suspect is only parroting what lots of liberals feel here.

Tis a shame–I like your comments as well. Alas, to the grave you must go under the new liberal version of responsibility! You aren’t going to complain are you? It’s your duty to be killed as part of the responsible state! Killing productive citizens–the next addition to the Dem party platform in 2012?

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Heh, I know this is probably too much, too soon, but RushBaby–if you want to live, go rape some kid. As I understand Democrat theology, rapists should go free while innocent babies and old people should be killed. So, if you are in danger of this, just go commit a heinous crime like rape and you’ll have leftists all over the map arguing you should be set free and vote for them.

That’s the best protected class of all: criminals.

Sickening, isn’t it?

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload the responsibility on someone else.

Last time I checked, adoptive parents aren’t forced to accept a child.

Bishop on August 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Abortion is a responsible decision.

Absolutely. A mother is responsible for the murder of her own child.

Jungliszt on August 15, 2008 at 1:08 PM

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Or change your name to “William Ayers” and hobnob with DFL power brokers.

Bishop on August 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Abortion is a responsible decision.

Too bad the woman didn’t have the responsibility to use birth control, though that might have been asking too much of her. I’m certain there’s a racist angle in there somewhere.

Bishop on August 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM

The “pro-life” responsibility rhetoric is nonsense. Abortion is a responsible decision. A woman has a problem and she deals with it. Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload the responsibility on someone else.

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

So killing your child is responsible, cause at least you’re not making anyone else take care of you or your baby (though you are making someone else do the dirty work); but allowing people who want a baby but can’t have one to raise your child and give it a chance at life is irresponsible because you didn’t kill your child yourself.

No, thuja, the responsible thing would be is the woman in question learned how to use the pill, make her guy use a condom, wear her own condom, take a depo shot, learn her own cycle and not have sex when she’s likely to get pregnant, get fixed like an animal if she can’t do any of the above, or simply abstain from having sex if any of the above is simply too complicated for her.

Hell, she can even take the morning after pill.

Killing the thing you created cause you were too irresponsible to do any of the above is not responsibility any more than saying it’s responsible for the father of that child to try to avoid paying for a child he didn’t want.

What’s with the double standard here? Men have no say when it comes to abortion and are told their choices ended the moment they chose not to wear a condom. But apparently women aren’t expected to even be able to handle that amount of responsibility.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM

I support abortions for liberals and Democrats.

Let them go extinct by their own doing. The world would be better off.

madmonkphotog on August 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Bishop on August 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Of course not. Women can’t be expected to handle that kind of responsibility.

I mean you have to take a pill EVERY DAY, except for that one week, and you’re also expected to take the pill at the same time of day to make it more effective.

Women obviously can’t be expected to be able to tell time and swallow a pill.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Birth control does fail–even the pill has about a 2% annual failure rate and other methods have an even higher annual failure rate.

I’ve seen some statistics that suggest that perhaps as many as half of the abortions come from situations where the birth control failed.

So someone can be ‘responsible’ and still be pregnant.

jim m on August 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM

The irony is that black babies are disproportionately more likely to be aborted than are white babies.

Change we can be repulsed by.

jeff_from_mpls on August 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM

jim m: There’s one absolute guarantee: if you don’t want a kid, don’t fool around.

There isn’t any way you can get pregnant if you don’t do the deed. You choose to have sex, you choose to take the risk of being pregnant. No sex, no pregnancy–I guarantee it.

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 1:23 PM

DON’T SHAKE THE BABY (unless it’s one that survived a you-know-what)
Your Democrat Party

whitetop on August 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Sorry. I just disagee with you Vanceone. I think it is perfectly appropriate to have an early abortion if your birth control failed. My church agrees.

FYI–from a pro-life clinic’s website:

Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.

Forty-six percent of women having abortions did not use a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% perceived themselves to be at low risk, 32% had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex and 1% were forced to have sex.

jim m on August 15, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Not only does the Democratic platform insist on abortion, it insists that taxpayers fund it, too.

Abortion supporters argue that pro-lifers should not impose their views on those who don’t argee with them. Yet, they will turn around and impose the costs of abortions on taxpayers, including those who don’t agree with abortion. The pregnant woman has the “right” to a “choice”, but apparently the taxpayers have none. Abortion is a “private” matter, yet should be paid for with public funds. What disgusting hypocrisy.

Bigfoot on August 15, 2008 at 1:29 PM

So someone can be ‘responsible’ and still be pregnant.

jim m on August 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM

It’s actually less than a 1% failing rate when it comes to perfect use which includes taking the pill at the same time everyday.

If you wait until the next morning to take a pill you were supposed to take at 7pm yesterday, then you’re iffy and should be careful. That info is all over the pill in the packs they come in, so women have no excuse.

Many women either don’t take it at the same time, or worse, forget to take it for a day or two and have unprotected sex anyone, idiotically believing they’re protected.

That’s not responsible. It’s the opposite.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM

I support abortions for liberals and Democrats.
Let them go extinct by their own doing. The world would be better off.
madmonkphotog on August 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Well, unfortunately they have been born already, for this plan to have worked.

wise_man on August 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Bigfoot on August 15, 2008 at 1:29 PM

In addition to that, they’re certainly not limiting their beliefs to themselves. The baby isn’t really given a say.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM

If rampant abortion was supposed to usher in an era of freedom and personal happiness, why, after 20 million more abortions, do people in the abortion culture feel as oppressed and unfulfilled — indeed even more rage filled — than ever?

Unless, of course, freedom was never really the purpose of abortion in the first place. But we’re not ready to think about that. Not yet, anyway.

jeff_from_mpls on August 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Jim m: No, it’s not responsible. Go back 100 years: what effective birth control was there? There were attempts, perhaps, but generally, if you had sex, you could get pregnant.

Birth control is just a way to try to have sex and avoid the consequences. I don’t think that’s responsible at all.

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM

How do you pronounce infanticide?

Is it in-Fan-ticide or infant-icide?

I’m sure Barack Hussein Obama, the harvard educated presidential candidate, would know how to pronounce the type of murder and genocide that he legislated and promotes..

SaintOlaf on August 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Birth control is just a way to try to have sex and avoid the consequences. I don’t think that’s responsible at all.

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM

That’s not necessarily irresponsible. Sex has more than just one purpose. If it’s only purpose was procreation, then the high sex drive of pregnant women would be unnatural as would sex after menopause.

And it would actually be moral for men to sleep around as much as possible, lest they waste their sperm on one woman who can’t possibly make children out of all of them.

There’s nothing wrong with people trying to prevent pregnancy.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM

There’s nothing wrong with people trying to prevent pregnancy.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM

There’s nothing wrong with wishing you didn’t have to work and pay bills either. But I am against government enabling people who have this wish, just as I am against government enabling people who wish to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood.

jeff_from_mpls on August 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM

jeff_from_mpls on August 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM

What in the world made you think I was advocating that government provide free condoms and birth control?

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:51 PM

What in the world made you think I was advocating that government provide free condoms and birth control?

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 1:51 PM

I don’t think you advocate it, but I suspect you don’t oppose it on anything other than financial grounds. I oppose it because it degrades people to help them avoid responsibility.

jeff_from_mpls on August 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Esthier: Sure, sex is to be fun. But it’s primary purpose is to procreate. I disagree that trying to prevent pregnancy is automatically okay, but that’s a religious reason on my part.

Perhaps it is because my wife and I are trying to have kids at the moment, but people who keep saying “No, no–sex is only for fun, and we must prevent children or kill the baby” are morally wrong.

Sometimes God sends kids because He knows best. They are a blessing in disguise most times. Even if you adopt it out to some needy couple instead. It blesses that other couple and the baby too.

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM

I bet we could significantly reduce the number of abortions performed in this country if “poor” women had to pay for the privilege. Abortions would still be provided to women who claim not to be able to afford them, but women receiving taxpayer-subsidized abortions would have to get on a payment schedule and make regular payments after the fact until the abortion was paid for. There are a lot of “poor” women today who have multiple abortions because they know they can — and they know it won’t cost them anything. But if it started to cost them — even just a few hundred dollars each time — I bet we’d see them get a lot more serious about using birth control.

AZCoyote on August 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM

I don’t think you advocate it, but I suspect you don’t oppose it on anything other than financial grounds. I oppose it because it degrades people to help them avoid responsibility.

jeff_from_mpls on August 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Take your assumptions elsewhere. It only makes you look like a donkey.

I oppose government welfare period.

But taking the pill isn’t a moral failing. Sex isn’t just some puritanical duty to populate the Earth. It’s also meant to bond a man and woman, specifically in marriage.

People who can’t afford children shouldn’t be having them (to do so would be irresponsible), but that doesn’t mean married couples who can’t afford children shouldn’t be having sex. As Paul said, we aren’t supposed to deny each other.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.

Forty-six percent of women having abortions did not use a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% perceived themselves to be at low risk, 32% had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex and 1% were forced to have sex.

Not meant to be combative, but that first paragraph says to me that ¾ of the women who used the pill during the month they became pregnant (meaning: not necessarily the day they did) having abortions used their method incorrectly (inconsistently – meaning perhaps skipping days, taking at the wrong time, etc.) and that half of the condom users used them inconsistently (A fellow could reasonably assume this means not using them every time). It also says to me that when asked, 13 and 14% reported having used their methods correctly. However since when used every single time condoms have only a 2-3% failure rate and the pill similar – somebody may be over-reporting their level of responsibility.
Of those who admit to not using contraceptives, I’m not sure how to take “had concerns about” contraceptive methods. Concerns about the various methods led them to conclude the best course of action was to dismiss contraception altogether? Or was it that they had religious concerns about the morality of using contraceptives at all? Those who perceived themselves as “low risk” means what? They figured pregnancy happens to “somebody else”? They only had sex when they felt like the risk of becoming pregnant was low?
Either way – 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users not using them correctly or consistently and those who claim to have done so not meshing even closely with the percentages – as well as nearly half using no contraception doesn’t really say “responsible” to me.

RDuke on August 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Perhaps it is because my wife and I are trying to have kids at the moment,

You’re just now trying? So before, when you had sex you didn’t want children?

So what, it’s OK for you to wait until you’re ready but not for others?

But it’s primary purpose is to procreate.

If that’s the case, then old people are morally wrong for having sex. Don’t they know that they should only do it for the kids? In fact, God must have really messed up then, cause we can have sex far longer than we’re able to procreate, well women anyway. So maybe it’s just women who aren’t meant to have sex for long.

Sometimes God sends kids because He knows best.

Look, I do believe that procreation is a miracle from God, but if you get pregnant (without trying to prevent a pregnancy), then it’s not necessarily God giving you a gift any more than it’s God killing the person who decides to jump off of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM

If I reported that 76% of the time I’m pretty sober when driving would that qualify me as a responsible motorist?

RDuke on August 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM

somebody may be over-reporting their level of responsibility.

Or even misunderstanding what “proper use” means.

Just cause you take the pill regularly, it doesn’t mean you’re taking it at the same time each day or that your other medications aren’t affecting it.

And with condoms, they have an expiration date for a reason, and they shouldn’t be left in wallets or hot climates.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM

The “pro-life” responsibility rhetoric is nonsense common sense. Abortion is a responsible selfish decision. A woman has a problem baby and she deals with it has it killed. Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload provide the responsibility on someone else who desperately wanted it.

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Fixed that set of defective thought you had there…

dominigan on August 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM

and they shouldn’t be left in wallets

If for no other reason than to avoid the telltale circular impression!

RDuke on August 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Let’s not couch it in nice terms. THIS is why the Infant Born Alive Act was written. This is Congressional testimony from Chirst Hopstial (Oak Lawn, IL) Labor & Deliver RN, Jill Stanek.

“It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital (Oak Lawn, IL) one of these babies lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Allison Baker described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. I testified about a staff worker who accidentally threw a live aborted baby in the garbage. The baby had been left on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. When my coworker realized what she had done, she started going through the trash to find the baby, and the baby fell out of the towel and onto the floor.”

dm60462 on August 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM

I support abortions for liberals and Democrats.

Let them go extinct by their own doing. The world would be better off.

madmonkphotog on August 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM

They already do, since they don’t care about responsibility, they support GLBT, which only the B can reproduce, and requires a marriage of 3 people, so the only way they can increase their base is by recruitment of normal kids (see NAMBLA), and illegal aliens.

kirkill on August 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Let’s not couch it in nice terms.

dm60462 on August 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM

.
Exactly. This is not about finance, nor convenience, nor responsibility for actions. It is a human rights issue.

Think_b4_speaking on August 15, 2008 at 2:42 PM

O’Reilly had Marc Lamont Hill on a couple of nights ago to have him explain Obama’s abortion position. He specifically asked him how Obama meshes his extremely liberal viewpoint on abortion with his Christianity. Dr. Hill stated that the Bible does not condemn abortion unless it is read in a “fundamentalist” way… which in his mind is wrong. So Bill asked him if Jesus would support abortion on demand to which Dr. Hill responded without hesitation that not only would Jesus support it, but he would be even MORE liberal about it! He also without hesitation stated the Obama believes the same. Unbelievable! Can someone get Barry O on record saying that? Please?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv8H8skMmVA

Warmongerer on August 15, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Look, I do believe that procreation is a miracle from God, but if you get pregnant (without trying to prevent a pregnancy), then it’s not necessarily God giving you a gift any more than it’s God killing the person who decides to jump off of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Since God is the sole giver of life, and life is a gift, I’d have to say that pregnancy is necessarily a gift from God.

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Democrats support the murder of babies. Got it! Par for the pagan course.

Tim Burton on August 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Since God is the sole giver of life, and life is a gift, I’d have to say that pregnancy is necessarily a gift from God.

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I think you’ve missed my point.

Sex without contraception of any kind, will produce a child among too healthy people.

That’s simply what happens with sex.

As I said, it’s no different than saying God took the life of the man who jumped off of the Brooklyn Bridge (even though surely the giver of life is also the taker).

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Since God is the sole giver of life, and life is a gift, I’d have to say that pregnancy is necessarily a gift from God.

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM

You’ve missed my point.

Sex without contraception of any kind, will produce a child among two healthy people.

That’s simply what happens with sex.

As I said, it’s no different than saying God took the life of the man who jumped off of the Brooklyn Bridge (even though surely the giver of life is also the taker).

Feel free to say God gave and took life in both instances, but neither required diving intervention as both were natural consequences of their actions.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Esthier: No, my wife and I did wait and no, we weren’t having sex. I’m recently married, and we were chaste before our wedding. That said, if we had been playing around, I’d have been running the risk of having a kid. That’s a choice.

I’m just saying that to have sex means you should be prepared to deal with having a baby. Trying to use birth control and when it fails saying,
“oh, I was responsible but this happened anyway–I’ll abort without a qualm” is just wrong.

If you have sex, you’d better be prepared to have the kid. Sex is also for bonding, I agree. And yeah, when you are incapable of having a child, you can still have sex–no problems there. Sex while pregnant is the same. But then, there’s no threat of an abortion either, is there, when you can’t get pregnant.

As for your equivalent of the guy killing himself, it’s not the same since a child will not be born without a soul (or live very long). The soul comes from God, not you.

I am of the opinion that many a miscarriage is what you are thinking of, where the baby miscarries simply because it’s not your time to have a child. That’s not true of all miscarriages, of course, but my belief (not doctrine) is that many are likely that.

Vanceone on August 15, 2008 at 3:11 PM

dm60462 on August 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Horrible.

SaintOlaf on August 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM

No, my wife and I did wait and no, we weren’t having sex. I’m recently married, and we were chaste before our wedding.

So on your wedding night, or whenever you consummated your marriage, you were then intending to get pregnant?

I wasn’t assuming you had sex before getting married. Not all married couples want kids right away. Most would rather get used to each other first.

“oh, I was responsible but this happened anyway–I’ll abort without a qualm” is just wrong.

I’ve agreed with that all along. I haven’t minced words on this topic, so I don’t see how you’d think I felt otherwise.

But then, there’s no threat of an abortion either, is there, when you can’t get pregnant.

So? There’s no threat of an abortion among many married couples who use birth control either. I am married and would gladly raise a child if I become pregnant, but I also know that I’m not yet ready and am doing everything short of denying my husband sex to keep that from happening.

As for your equivalent of the guy killing himself, it’s not the same since a child will not be born without a soul (or live very long). The soul comes from God, not you.

No, that wasn’t the point of my comment.

My point was that yes, God gives and takes life, but babies and suicide don’t “just happen.” It isn’t just this mystical thing where God gives us babies, unless you’re the Virgin Mary.

That’s not true of all miscarriages, of course, but my belief (not doctrine) is that many are likely that.

That’s not my belief. Miscarriages are very painful on women. Their own body kills their child. My sister had one before giving birth to her first child, and her only comfort afterwards was either through a dream or some kind of vision, where she heard God tell her that her baby was with Him and named him Adam.

God’s not sadistic. I do not believe He would give a woman a baby only to take it away.

Things happen because we live in a flawed world that has fallen since Adam and Eve betrayed God. Not every bad thing in the world can be attributed to God trying to teach us something.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Messiah’s View (learning his rhyme from J. Jackson): If it ain’t born, there’s no scorn.

/sarc

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM

What we have on these morality-type threads are two camps – one believes in structure from the top down and the other believes in structure from the center outwards.

If marriage first then family was not the proper way to do things, it would not be the cultural model it has been throughout all history around the world.

The feminazis wanted to promote sex as a primary life goal in our culture. Guess what? They succeeded.

But they are still wrong, both morally and practically.

platypus on August 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Time for an O-bortion

dmann on August 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Nice. Get that on a T-shirt…..NOW.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Get that on coffee mugs, yard signs, bumper stickers, buttons, pins everything!!! That is outstanding! I’ll buy!

sabbott on August 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Feel free to say God gave and took life in both instances, but neither required diving intervention as both were natural consequences of their actions.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM

They are consequences that don’t necessarily follow the action. Not all sex results in pregnancy, obviously, and not all suicides succeed. Sometimes God gives or takes the life, and sometimes not.

In the OT, there were several instances where God “opened” or “shut the womb” of women who wanted children. Do you think there was divine intervention in those instances?

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Do you think there was divine intervention in those instances?

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM

I believe the Bible if that’s what you’re asking.

Do you believe ever birth and death is the result of God giving and taking life? Do we have no free will of our own?

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM

“Kill infants, not Tookie!” – Dem slogan.

omnipotent on August 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM