Pro-abortion groups freak out over license plates
posted at 9:32 am on March 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
One might think that a license plate that emphasized choice would please the people who style themselves as “pro-choice”. Not in Virginia, though, as Democratic Governer and DNC chair Tim Kaine has discovered. Kaine approved a new option for license plates that displays the phrase, “Choose Life”, and pro-abortion groups have hit the roof:
Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor and President Barack Obama’s hand-picked choice as the head of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated abortion-rights groups Monday by signing legislation that gives abortion foes a long-sought victory.
Kaine brushed off intense lobbying by abortion rights supporters in Richmond to sign a bill that allows Virginia motorists to advertise their anti-abortion views by sporting “Choose Life” specialty license plates. …
“It is surprising that Governor Kaine would do this, but it’s all the more surprising that he would do it as chair of the DNC,” said Paulette McElwain, the president of the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood.
McElwain exchanged numerous calls with the governor’s office over the license plates and organized a grass roots effort that logged more than 2,000 calls to the governor’s staff.
“We provided him with abundant information,” she said. “We’re terribly disappointed that he decided to sign it.”
In Washington, NARAL/Pro-Choice America channeled more than 17,000 emails and 200 calls to the DNC urging Kaine to veto the bill.
“It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women’s health,” NARAL/Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said in a statement.
The license plate doesn’t say, “Stop abortion” or “Make women sick”. It says “Choose Life”, and shows a simple drawing of the faces of two children. How is that a “divisive political ideology”? Successful gestation is an ideology?
More to the point, why is the phrase “Choose Life” such a threat to NARAL and Planned Parenthood? At least for the latter, convincing fewer women to have abortions cuts into their revenue stream. They’re going to lose money if women “choose life” and they’ll get to kill fewer fetuses.
And isn’t more than a little ironic that NARAL/Pro-Choice America has such a heated reaction to the phrase “choose life“?
Many states now have specialty license plate programs that allow various groups to promote their mission. Kaine noted when he signed off on the Choose Life plate that Planned Parenthood could come up with its own, but that he had little choice but to approve the request on his desk. All they need is 350 people to prepay a $25 fee for a plate that says, “Kill your fetus,” and they’re good to go.
Kaine himself is a moderately pro-life politician, alhough he promised not to actually act on it as Governor. The pro-abortion lobby feels betrayed by a license plate. Nothing proves their radical absolutism in pursuit of abortion better than this kerfuffle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I don’t know a lot about the size or scope of the pro-life black community, but these are a few things I do know:
Jesse Jackson used to be pro-life until it got in the way of politics (like Al Gore and Bill Clinton).
There are a number of black pro-life organizations. The home page takes you to links about Margaret Sanger.
This organization, Protecting Black Life, also has some information on genocide and Planned Parenthood.
Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is also a pro-life advocate.
INC on March 31, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Choose life means no to abortion. So a pro-choice plate would have to say Choose Choice. The “choose life” phraseology is a loaded term. No one advocates that every woman must have an abortion. They advocate only the choice and only for themselves, not for others. It is like the left who refer to themselves as anti-war just to paint conservatives as being “pro-war”. In other words, if we don’t agree with their pacifism, that makes us all war mongers. Same sophistry. There is nothing conservative about the anti-abortion movement. It is a personal, moral conviction and should have nothing to do with federal or state law.
keep the change on March 31, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Bernard Nathanson, who is now pro-life said this in an interview from several years ago about the whole “choice” meme:
INC on March 31, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Interesting scenario. I think only once has a POTUS ignored SCOTUS. If a state chose to ignore SCOTUS I don’t think the federal government would stand for it for a minute and would likely hold up federal money until the state complied.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 2:44 PM
As for values, there are a few others. The right to bear and keep arms. Protecting our national symbols. Ensuring equal treatment for all. Freedom of speech and the press. Maintaining the sanctity and dignity of human life. Safeguarding religious liberties. Preserving Americans’ property rights. Supporting Native American communities. Preserving traditional marriage.
For each and every one of these, you are well aware of the traditional Democratic counter-arguments. It goes beyond the right to life argument. Each party has their own view of the world and America’s role in it. The Republican party leans toward personal responsibility, the Judeo-Christian values of our founders and freedom. Choosing life over an abortion for convenience’ sake is the responsible and more humane choice in the majority of circumstances, and it is something that should be emphasized more in our culture.
It is a respectable and rational position for the Republican party and one more young voters are embracing with better ultrasound technology and the popularity of movies like Knocked Up and Juno.
chunderroad on March 31, 2009 at 2:44 PM
The criteria regarding abortion is an argument within itself, and I more closely associate this example with assisted suicide. Brain activity is a good choice of criteria, but is not definitive proof.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM
So all we need is 350 people to pay $25 in Virginia to have a plate that reads “Abort Planned Parenthood”? Sounds like a plan.
momof2 on March 31, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Quick question for NARAL — Why do you oppose free speech?
JannyMae on March 31, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Brain activity is a fallacious indicator of fetal life.
What most likely will happen with a newly-conceived embryo? It will develop brain activity at some point and be born.
What will most likely happen with a person who through disease or age has lost all brain activity? Almost never will that situation be reversed.
The whole fetal brains aren’t human until they have electrical activity is a charade.
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Say that enough and you might start to actually believe it. Obviously it is not “passe” or you wouldn’t have to argue it was. You are funny. Every abortion post and there you are saying “abortion is so accepted it is passe”.
Sort of like “lalalalalala. I’m trying to stop my conscience from hurting….”
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Weird. I could have sworn that,over the past 30 years, the American public has chosen to have pro-life Presidents in office for 20 of those years…including one who just completed 8 years in office two months ago.
Tell me this, AnninCA: when Obama loses the next election by a landslide to a pro-life Republican, will that mean that the American people have changed their minds about abortion?
rvastar on March 31, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Depends on whether abortion is a central issue during the campaign.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 3:37 PM
They should offer some “Choose Abortion” plates too, and then both sides can be represented.
phelps on March 31, 2009 at 3:40 PM
The question concerned what tangible event could we use to assign individual rights to the fetus. People offer conception, implantation, brain waves, viability and birth as some of the events.
You support your criticism of brain activity by asserting what the fetus will become. There is no debate about what the fetus will become, but rather at what point does it possess qualities that give it individual rights.
Many will say conception, but how can a court enforce those rights apart from the consent of the mother? Can the fetus be removed and supported by the state? At some point, maybe, but not within a few days of conception.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I voted for pro-life candidates for POTUS. I never believed for one moment that Reagan and Bush I and II were going to try to abolish abortion. They just went through the motions to get the votes.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Your concerns regarding how and whether the government can protect the rights of a fetus are immaterial to the question of whether it is right or wrong to kill it.
You seemed to be saying that if it doesn’t yet have electrical activity, it is not worthy of protection.
I say that if you don’t kill it, it will achieve electrical activity, and is therefore worthy of protection.
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Can we measure the brain waves of a fetus? I haven’t personally seen anything on it.
Do you think as technology advances our laws will as well? Meaning, if we’re able to support the child as early as the second week, would we be able to prevent the mother from terminating her pregnancy?
The “it’s my body” argument isn’t the only one used. I’ve known women who had an abortion and wouldn’t even consider adoption, because there would be this piece of her in the world she didn’t know anything about, and that bothered her.
Would we still accept that as a reason if we can take her body out of the equation?
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM
dedalus is very thoughtful and generally reasons as to the logical conclusions of each argument, including the legal ones.
It’s fairly irrelevant to discuss whether it’s moral or not when we’re discussing whether or not it should be illegal.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 4:02 PM
If the mother wanted the embryo removed or simply took measures to avoid implantation, in what manner would the state step in to provide for the young person’s welfare?
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 4:03 PM
No, we just prefer that you take personal responsibility for your actions. Not kill your baby because you were too ignorant to use birth control…(and if you can’t afford it, keep your legs closed). It is ok to say “no”.
And it’s not so much that we mind a single mom getting welfare. I too WIC for about a year after I had my premee (ex left me when I was pregnant) but I actually kept working and went to night school on line so I could better myself. Now I don’t need the TEMPORARY welfare.
And don’t give me any BS about how hard it is to pay for school, or how are you supposed to raise a child and go to school…they’re called Pell Grants, working days, maybe losing a little sleep (you’re up every two hours with a new born anyway) and SELF SACRIFICE…
Pulchritudinous Patriot on March 31, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I believe that fetal EEG’s are performed. Some of the activity can be inferred based on what scientists know about fetal development.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 4:11 PM
How about men keeping their pants zipped?
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Yes, that would change the nature of debate a great deal. Currently, the “right to life” also requires a compelling of the mother to carry. If the state had the ability to take the child at one month after conception, in the same way that it can take it one month after delivery, then some might think about abortion differently.
However, I don’t think it affects the way that SCOTUS arrived at Roe which is via privacy. Since they are saying that the state doesn’t recognize the individual rights of the fetus in the first trimester, then the mother has the right to control the reproductive process of her body.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 4:18 PM
The discussion as to whether abortion is murder during the early stages is pointless. Moral people can have differ as to whether a fetilized egg or even embryo is a person or not. Therefore, it is best to keep abortion legal during the early stages of pregnancy so that each person is free to exercise her own personal beliefs.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Well, that rings my bell for fatuous statement of the day.
In the same manner that any societally proscribe behavior is dealt with, should we, through our legislatures, proscribe it.
dedalus, you’re being slippery here. A bit ago, your bright line was fetal eeg. Now you’re suggesting it’s implantation.
Would you argue that because laws prohibiting homicide fail to protect homicide victims, that the laws should not stand?
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 4:22 PM
More moral relativism and “stay out of my bedroom,” hmmm?
Our government has a widely-recognized interest in protecting the innocent.
I’ve asked you above, with no answer, how does closing the door on immoral and illegal behavior justify it?
Domestic and child abuse is largely private, yet still rightly proscribed.
I disagree that moral people differ on whether abortion is murder.
I think if you support abortion, you are not moral.
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Would they prefer a dead, mutilated infant with “CHOOSE DEATH”?
These people are sick…and evil.
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 31, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I’m not making a case for either. Rather, thinking through the consequences of any of the bright lines.
Laws against homicide should stand, but the state usually doesn’t impose a burden to save someone in need of help.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 4:39 PM
There is no such thing as “pro-abortion”. Just like there is no such thing as a “partial birth abortion”. They are terms used by those that want the feds to be in charge of every uterus in America.
America is pro-choice, and that’s never changing. No one said you had to like it. The right wing crazy have a lot in common with the left wing crazy when it comes to believing that their values should be the law everyone has to obey.
A case can be made for limitations on abortion after a certain time late in the pregnancy, but otherwise it will never happen. All it would do is create a huge black market for abortions because you cannot ban the demand for abortions. At least this way females have access to professional, hygienic service and conditions.
Moesart on March 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Why just men?
Do you even realize that you’re talking about murder? So if I say that I don’t consider the handicapped people, am I then justified in killing one because of my personal beliefs?
Why? Since when has morality been the requirement for something to be illegal?
It’s immoral to have an affair, and yet, we don’t prosecute adultery. It’s immoral to eat junk and get fat, and yet, we allow fat people their freedom. It’s also immoral to call someone an idiot, and yet we have that as one of our most prominent Constitutional rights.
Besides, you’re missing the point. You’re arguing about what dedalus believes instead of looking towards a legal solution, which is what dedalus is doing.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Pulchritudinous Patriot on March 31, 2009 at 4:52 PM
What would call a procedure that partially births a fetus before sucking out its brains?
Considering pro-choicers think the decision to live or die can be made by someone other than the person who would live or die, your slander really doesn’t bother me.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Like slavery (another manner of making someone less than human for profitable purposes) was in vogue 150 years ago, and those pesky Republicans were for rights that would deny rights to others.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Note the text: “abortion rights” groups. Not “pro choice” groups.
Abortion is now a right it seems. No more word of actually deciding, of making a choice (and “pro choice” is only really about that, the right to CHOSE.) No. Abortion is the only way.
These people make me sick.
Penguin on March 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM
So, what do you call it when someone sticks a set of surgical shears into a fetus’s partially crowned head (assuring that the fetus will not be able to take a breath but is exposed for this part of the procedure), stirs them around a bunch, and then suctions out the brains?
You are welcome to your ThinkSpeak. I’ll stick with you being pro-abortion and pro partial-birth abortion. The words fit, and you deserve to wear them.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 4:59 PM
But only half of the aborted are female — the rest are male.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM
And I repeat that it is fatuous to suggest that legal solutions be divorced of morality.
The fact that we don’t prosecute all immoral behavior does not relieve us of the obligation to prosecute when we can and should, as determined by legislature.
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Actually, you’ve just — rather succinctly, I might add — summed up the argument against abortion!
In every other sphere, the mantra of the Left is ALWAYS “err on the side of caution!”…
Military action? “Let diplomacy work!”
Universal health care? “How can we let this continue?”
Criminal justice? “We have to consider the mitigating circumstances!”
Capital punishment? “There’s always the chance of human error!”
But when it comes to abortion; where you have as good as admitted that there is no definitive answer as to when “personhood” occurs; you pull a complete 180. No erring on the side of caution here!
rvastar on March 31, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Which would be the legal argument, not the moral one.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Now the state would be perfectly happy to take that embryo, grow it in some Matrix-like lab and harvest it for organs.
chunderroad on March 31, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Pro-Abortion is an accurate tag. If one were truly pro-choice, anything acknowledging the existence of a choice (ie “choose life”) would be fine.
AbaddonsReign on March 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM
There seems to be a majority of voters who think a couple should be able to donate a frozen embryo to research.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 5:53 PM
A lot of commenter’s on Hotair seem to support this viewpoint. That getting any type of abortion is equivalent to cold blooded murder. If abortion is murder, then it follows that the participants (mother and doctor)should be executed or imprisoned for life for their crimes.
Although I’m pro-life, I see a difference between a baby and an zygote, embryo, and fetus. Unless people want to advocate capital punishment for abortion, then they need to stop equivocating abortion with murder.
Ric on March 31, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Not all murder is punishable by death. In fact, most capital murder cases involve more than just death.
And some murder cases are reduced to negligent homicide or some other lesser term, not all of which even carry significant jail sentences.
Besides, murder is a legal word. Since abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Sounds more like you’re pro-life as long as you get to decide when life begins. In that debate, who speaks for the embryo?
You see a difference between zygote, embryo, fetus and baby.
That difference is merely a matter of a few short weeks/months. Unless you kill it, it will become a baby.
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Or – Now! : http://tortus.com/images/mce/lp.jpg
Dasher on March 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM
That’s the same argument used against birth control. It’s a death of potential, but what if the situation were reversed. Would you find it acceptable if the government imprisoned someone because they would probably, most likely, commit a crime? We cannot leave the concrete world of what is for the Pandora’s box of what might be.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 6:34 PM
A born child is recognize by all as a person. The
same is not true regarding a fertilized egg or embryo.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM
All premeditated murder, to my understanding Esthier, is punishable by death or life imprisonment depending on which state the crime took place at.
Murder is a legal and moral word. Just look at the ten commandments in the Bible. Besides, pro-life advocates want to make abortion illegal. And some pro-lifers throw around the term murder when it comes to abortion. So all I’m saying is that either their rhetoric of those that say abortion is murder needs to change, or they need to be intellectual honest and advocate death or life in prison for women and doctors who are involved in abortion.
Ric on March 31, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Do you realize that other people don’t see it as murder?
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 6:40 PM
You said it it will become. Therefore, before it becomes a baby it is not murder.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 6:42 PM
You simply muddy the waters.
Where is the moral equivalency between a potential crime and a potential, innocent life?
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Both involve “potential” not “actual”.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM
If I come visit you tonight and liberate your soul, with a .45, so that you can reside forever with the great sky god I wouldn’t consider it murder. I would be doing you a favor. Should I be allowed to carry out my plan just because I don’t consider it murder? You cannot fault someone for wishing to stop what a reasonable person would consider to be murder, and you haven’t proven our concerns about abortion to be unreasonable.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Ooooh, you really got me there!!
You deliberately took that out of the context of progression from zygote to embryo to fetus to baby.
These are generally-understood terms, to those not deliberately obtuse.
And it is only in the grip of such obtuseness that one cannot percieve that a fertilized egg will generally become a baby, and that intervening at any point takes life from that baby.
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 6:49 PM
You can’t really be that stupid, can you?
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 6:50 PM
The fact that choicers dislike the term “pro-abortion” tells the truth about millions of dead babies they prefer to regard as mere protoplasm. Plus its more clinical, cleaner, less guilt-producing to label it “choice.”
“Pro-abortion” sounds icky and mean to the useful idiots of the left. It offends their delicate sensibilities.
The term pro-choice simply means pro-choice-for-everyone-but-baby.
kooziegirl on March 31, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Could be the jurys still out but it appears the answer is a resounding yes. Either that or someone is running from guilt. If the latter is true, understand that there is no place to hide.
kooziegirl on March 31, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Is it just me, or do some Pro-Choicers seem like fascists?
What’s up with that?
I mean, what part of “choice” don’t they get? (Answer = the part that takes responsibility).
bluelightbrigade on March 31, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Says who? Obama refused a bill that would protect a born child even though he was presented evidence that they were being left to die in trash bins.
Which were written in Hebrew, not English.
I get what you’re saying. I’m just arguing that it’s not so black and white as you seem to believe it is.
Obviously, otherwise this wouldn’t be a discussion.
But in your comment, you were specifically talking about murder.
Not even that. The father has no choice either. The “choice” is all up to the woman, and the father must live with the choice he made when he decided to unzip his pants.
No consistency there either.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 7:00 PM
A just love the way “culture of life” advocate are so willing to kill anyone who disagrees with their political views. You guys are a bunch of frauds. You want to use government to impose your values on everybody else. You are statists just like the liberals.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Did you read the whole thing? I’m done with you. You’re just a troll, and not interested in a fair discussion.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 7:03 PM
You think that poster was being serious? Come on.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Yes, I did. It made no sense. And these discussions are pointless. For 30+ years the pro-life, sorry, the anti-choice movement has been screaming “murder, murder” what have they achieved? NOTHING. People don’t like abortion but they like the idea of the government agents rifling through people’s private medical records even less.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Who knows? Death threats are not uncommon from the anti-choice crowd. Have you heard of clinics being bombed?
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Actually they are uncommon.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Watch the linguistic gymnastics of the pro-choice pro-abortion crowd. Wow it is something to be hold.
The license plate does not say don’t have an abortion and believe it or not you don’t have to do everything a license plate says. We gave up already on that one: Live free or Die along time ago.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Your portraying abortion as a privacy issue, and painting pro-life supporters as violent vigilantes. Have you heard of journolist? Have you heard of coordinated efforts to infiltrate conservative blogs and sow dissent? I think you have. Hot Air is one of the biggest conservative blogs so it makes sense that we got a bunch running around, so have we discovered our first ringer?
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Go take your paranoia medication. Ask INC, jeanie and artist whether I am a troll. You are the one who wrote: If I come visit you tonight and liberate your soul, with a .45, so that you can reside forever with the great sky god I wouldn’t consider it murder. I would be doing you a favor. Now step up and take personal responsiblity for your actions.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:28 PM
In order to prosecute illegal abortions, you need to get a hold of people’s medical records. Yes, this issue involves privacy.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:30 PM
According to the NAF there has been one bombing of an abortion clinic since 2000 and about 15 arsons. There is no way to know who did most of these crimes. Even if they were those against abortion that is an average of about 2 a year throughout the entire USA.
IT IS NOT COMMON
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:31 PM
When it comes to investigations into murder the government always delves into areas that are considered private. You don’t think they are looking under every stone? They can get an order to go into your house . Why don’t you whine about that? We rarely would be able to convict anyone if the right to privacy was not limited.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:33 PM
According to the NAF there has not been an abortion related shooting since 1998.
How many unborn humans have died during that time period?
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Did I say it was common? No. In any case, it is simply unacceptable to suggest killing someone just because you disagree with them on a public policy issue. This is why all the hysterics by the anti-choice movement are so dangerous. Inflamatory language like “murdering babies”, suggesting that anyone who supports reproductive rights is a baby killer, is irresponsible.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM
So if they are not uncommon what are they?
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM
If you find “murdering babies” objectionable, then how about “ending a developing life in the womb”. Is that more PC for you?
kingsjester on March 31, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Not uncommon is a double negative. In other words Chekote you said they were common.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Why is this comparison even relevant? You need to get it through your head that the law and the majority of Americans do make a distinction between a fertilized egg and a born person. In Colorado, a ballot initiative that mirrored the HLA was soundly defeated 73%-27%. Does that mean that 73% of Coloradan voters are baby killers?
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:40 PM
I said that death threats are common, which they are. I just asked whether people heard of bombings. I didn’t day they were common.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:44 PM
There you go with the linquistics. You do realize that just because a law allows an evil it does not make it any less evil or less true.
73% of Coloradan voters are lost and do support the killing of babies. That is a fact(if the number you post is factual)
Interesting that you glossed over that fact that you were proven a fraud in your use of the word uncommon.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:44 PM
How about the correct term: abortion. We all know what it means.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:45 PM
You used a paragraph and you intentionally linked bombing and threats. You sure do dance. Please document these threats.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM
No. I did not.
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Fine. Then the correct term is pro-abortion. Thanks.
kingsjester on March 31, 2009 at 7:47 PM
As i proved bombings and shooting are almost unheard of please do prove that death threats are not “uncommon”.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Interesting list of violence by pro-abortionists
http://www.abortionviolence.com/INDEX.HTM
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:53 PM
It seems that violence is “not uncommon” against those that dare stand up to the pro-abortion crowd.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2000/aug/000810a.html
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Use your silly terminology all you want. It is only backfiring. What has the pro-life movement achieved thus far?
Chekote on March 31, 2009 at 7:55 PM
From http://www.abort73.com
Parental Notification and Parental Consent laws exist in many states as a means of limiting abortion among minors. Parental Notification laws require that a parent is notified before their minor daughter can receive an abortion, and Parental Consent laws require that the parent consent to their minor daughter’s abortion. Planned Parenthood reports that currently 35 states actively require Parental Notification or Consent. Nine states: Alaska, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire and New Jersey, have Parental Notification laws that are not being enforced, and six states, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington + Washington D.C., have no Parental Notification or Consent laws on the books. Utah is the only state that does not have a mechanism for judicially bypassing the parental requirements.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) has an entire section of their website devoted to state abortion law. While their agenda is deplorable, the information is helpful. They report that 46 states require hospitals, facilities and physicians providing abortions to submit regular reports to the state. Three states, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey + Washington D.C., collect voluntary abortion data. California currently does neither.
31 states have bans against “partial-birth” abortion: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Of these bans, only 13 are actually in effect, largely due to individual court orders that have blocked enforcement in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
29 states require that women receive counseling prior to their abortion. Of these, the following 23 states mandate that women wait a specified amount of time (usually 24 hours) between receiving counseling and obtaining an abortion. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Only five states require abortion counseling to be done in person: Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, and Wisconsin. The remaining states which require counseling but not a waiting period are: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, and Rhode Island.
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 8:11 PM
You said:
I replied:
I admit it may not be the best paragraph I have ever written but you’re the only one who seems to have gotten it wrong. Everyone else understood it, maybe they had to read it twice, but they understood it. Are you dumber than all of them or deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting what I said, and avoiding the point.
I wish it were paranoia, but the left really is playing that dirty, but I shouldn’t have said anything because the suspicion created by the thought of a plant is more damaging than an actual plant would be.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Jamson64 on March 31, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Well played.
Buy the way, Chekote, nothing about abortion is silly. It is tragic.
kingsjester on March 31, 2009 at 8:15 PM
DFCtomm,
Since Chekote invoked my name, let me tell you some things I know about her. This is not all she has publicly said on blogs about herself, but it’s enough so you can get the big picture.
I first debated her on abortion on another blog over a year and a half ago. We covered about 99% of every possible known aspect of abortion, fetal development, maternal health, parental consent, informed consent along with implications and consequences.
She will bob and weave and defy logic. She made many of the same arguments there that she makes here. I’ve also seen her say the same things over and over again on a third blog. That means her objections have been answered many times in many ways by many different posters on at least three blogs that I know of, including this one. She is absolutely adamant about abortion. You can answer her and answer her and she will come back on a new thread with the same statement.
She moved here from another country as a child and later became a US citizen. She lived for a while in NYC where she became a big fan of Giuliani, supporting him vehemently throughout the primaries until he dropped out. She then dropped out of sight herself for a while.
Her continuing theme about the Republican party is that social conservative issues are the main reason it loses. Believe me, she has heard many arguments and links regarding an opposing view to this. She does appear to want limited government, fiscal responsibility and a strong defense.
She will make very hostile statements regarding conservative Christians. She appears to have an apprehension that conservative Christians desire to set up a theocracy in the U.S. no matter what she has been told to the contrary. I personally think that she has never been able to understand the Judeo-Christian and British heritage of the U.S. She either does not comprehend or refuses to admit the link between our Judeo-Christian heritage and prosperity of a nation.
I’ve noticed here that she rarely shows up except in abortion threads and yes, she says the same thing over and over again.
I don’t think she is a moby, but her behavior regarding abortion is definitely trollish. If she has a set opinion, you will never change her mind with facts.
INC on March 31, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Thank you INC I appreciate the information.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 8:29 PM
You’re welcome. I was going to let her own way, but if she’s going to insult you and then call on me I thought you needed to know who she is.
INC on March 31, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Minor, in comparison to the numbers of babies killed in those places by the pro-abortion crowd.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 9:34 PM
It is a baby — and a child. We talk about “with child”, not “with fetus” or “with zygote” or “with embryo”.
The language we speak knows, regardless of how the advocates of childkilling spin it.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »