You sure are a flame-thrower aren't you. LOL.
All I can say is that I believe your anger is misdirected, Angelina Jolie is responsible for the death of billions upon billions of sperm every day.
Well that is calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?
On a serious note. WE aint talking sperm here and we aint talking embryo's, we are talking heart beating, brain waves detected human children. Abortions have never been done before 6 weeks.
Exactly! Could also respond by saying - fine, how about we just redefine Iraqi civilians as not yet human? That way the deaths don't really count, just like the murders of the innocent preborn.
There is quite an obvious point of demarcation at conception.
The Lefties really like to blame the US for the civilian deaths caused by Iraqis and citizens from other neighboring Arab states who like to blow themselves up and take as many innocents with them as possible. Those numbers are hardly attributable to our efforts at establishing democracy.
Consider yourself added to my links at punctilious.blogspot.com
Dont you think the philosophies behind this post and the last contradict each other somewhat?
Regards, C
One difference between war casualties and abortion deaths — with abortion, every single life taken is totally innocent.
Oh, jeez... INCOMING!!!!!! *dives for cover*
Thank you, Punctilious, for your FACTS back there, and what you said is true. I don't know why we have to cry for Iraqi civilians anyway, what about our own troops that are being blown away by those insurgents?
Cernig, Not at all. Do you see it as such? If so, why?
This article does seem to point out that we are not doing a good enough job educating people about the avialability of contraception.
Sparkle,
Oh come on, why stop at a fertilized egg? Does not an egg equal half a life, conversely a sperm? Sing it with me!
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is: They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because...
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,...
...God get quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed...
...In your neighbourhood!
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine!
And mine!
And mine!
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
So why the hatred of gays from the right? We have, and cause, fewer abortions than anyone, but nothing makes you people happy.
I mean really, is it our fault if heterosexuals have no impulse control? I don't think so. If you guys could keep your clothes on you wouldn't have to kill nearly so many children. No one to blame but yourselves, I say.
Democrats cannot tell the truth about anything . All they have to say is our Clinton was a loser and a disgrace , that's is why we can't stand Bush because he is good and will never be the scumbag our Clinton was. So we will do our best and lie and whatever it takes to make him look bad , cause we're jealous and sore losers. Wasn't that easy , now try getting a Democrat to tell this truth. Go President Bush!!! They tried and failed miserably and they'll be lying to their grandchildren about this great President. How Pathetic. Democratic slogan : vote democrat....... free B J everytime you vote....LOL. Losers.
Wow Rob, miss your pills this morning?
1. I'm a "lefty".
2. I don't care if I have any moral credibility with you.
3. I don't identify with the Democratic party.
4. Taking the lives of unborn children is wrong.
5. Taking the lives of civilians in the Iraq war is wrong.
6. People's beliefs cut across the categories you've mentioned. They don't generalize so neatly into Right and Left as you constantly assume.
6. As usual, you've combined any number of issues into one smorgasbord post that unintentionally mocks the concepts of logic.
But if you wanna go the route of illogic, here it is comin' right back at you:
In a previous thread, I dealt with this same comparison, and you never answered this statement:
"I submit to you, that if you believed to the core that principle of 'life being sacred' that you repeat over and over on this blog, that even in the midst of 'supporting our troops', you would be giving at least equal time to demanding solutions that don't involve the hideous use of force, even if we can't immediately see what those solutions are."
And now, to twist it into your format:
Until the Republican party can stand up against the civilian deaths in Iraq, they have no moral credibility on the issue of death by abortion.
Yeah CC
The debate I see on much of the Right, including some of the commenters here, is not whether or not they are against in-needed death but whether they should care if it's only towelheads.
Iraq, Gitmo, Abortion, AIDS, poverty, medical advances - it's all the same to them. They only care if it's a Christian Murican. "Kill an ayrab and win a Cadillac!"
Thank the Gods there are still some sane Republicans left. One day they will turn around and bite the rabid bigots who yell for blood and circuses.
C'mon RWS, say something to convince these hate-mongers to find another forum. Let's start with "Democrats are not evil or traitors".
Regards, C
Hi RWS,
Yes, I think the underlying philosophies are contradictory.
The post below this one begins with the concept of "I have a right to speak my faith, you do not have a right to stop me".
This post begins with the concept of "You do not have a right to speak your ideas because my faith says they are wrong."
Now do you see?
Regards, C
The issue of Death?
Why would a political party seek moral credibity on the issue of death? Does the Repulican party have some moral credibility with you on the issue of death.
Life, death and religion all have no place in politics. Life, death and religion are views which are formed (hopefully) based on personal experiences and seeking out knowledge from others unitl we find the answers we are idividually seeking.
If you are using the laws of your country as your moral compas, any moral lapse you have will be punishable. Politicians should have no moral credibity with anyone, they are only in charge of the minimum standards of behaviour, not the moral standards.
oh, and rob. Well thought out. I see your point. I had failed to see how the political party one supported so clearly defined their entire essense, but thanks to your informative post I have now seen the light.
There are no problems with any of the other political parties in the world that I should know about before completely redefining myself as a human being are there?
Corpus,
Those deaths are not an apples to apples comparison. Get over it.
No, Mark, they aren't, because when post-born people with families and friends, jobs and responsibilities are killed, the loss is felt by many.
I'm not defending abortion, but I agree absolutely that the deaths of innocents in war is not an apples to apples comparison with the more private, but equally tragic, deaths that result from abortion.
Mark,
That's exactly one of my points.
You should be telling Sparkle to "get over it", since she set up the context for a discussion of moral equivalence in her post.
Yup, what CC said.
Regards, C
Maybe someday someone will explain how a Catholic can obey the Church on abortion, but belligerantly defy it on the war in Iraq and on the death penalty...yet still stand on a soapbox and preach about moral clarity. Or vice versa.
Maybe someday fat, overfed Christian tv preachers will explain why they go into diamond businesses with genocidal Liberian dictators (a la Pat Roberts), and why they advocate tax cuts for the wealthy when the world is full of suffering poor.
For that matter, maybe someday the Catholic Church will explain how they can condone banning the use of condoms in Africa when it results in spreading AIDS to the innocent wives and babies of promiscuous men.
Maybe even someday George Bush will explain why its wrong to use stem cells to search for cures to disease, but OK to dump them in the incinerator. For that matter, how does a Catholic even justify in vitro fertilization when all Church teachings lead inevitably to the conclusion that it is inherently an evil interference with God's natural plan.
There is no moral clarity in any religious absolutism. There is only a self justifying pretense to moral clarity . After all, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality in all his beautiful teachings. NOT ONCE. Yet in America his "followers" have made attacking them their battle cry.
No one has a leg to stand on in this discussion, not on a partisan blog like this one. And that includes myself. If anyone was trying to put the teachings of Jesus into action, they would not be using the foul apparatus of politics to do it. They would be out there clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, loving the unwanted... and never, ever casting any stones from their shiny glass houses. Jesus did say it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But I don't recall where he ever said you could get there by picking and choosing from a cafeteria of preferred Christian beliefs.
I got a leg to stand on. I got two.
Let me quote:
"So until the Democratic party can stand up against those deaths, they have no moral credibility with me on the issue of death."
There's this really cool site, I go there a lot. It's called "on the issues". It's a great resource, but a little tough to navigate. At least it is for me, but then I never claimed to be smart.
So what I do is google search whatever politician I'm curious about, plus "on the issues", and invariably the site I'm looking for is the top selection.
It's a great tool for not so intelligent folks like me.
So I quotes RWS for a reason. She says the Dems have no moral credibility because they don't stand up against abortion... Hmmm...
Well, and I can't be sure because as I've admitted, I'm a little slow, this would imply that Republicans do have moral credibility because they stand up against the deaths from abortion.
So in my laboriously slow manner, I did some research. Arnie Schwarzenegger's a Republican right? A pretty famous one if my dim wits recall. According to on the issues, he's pro choice. Wait, how could this be? Republicans have moral credibility, right?
Okay, maybe he's a fluke. Well, when you talk about names for 08, in my limited and small circles, I've often heard Rudy Giuliani's name. He's republican too right? Well, an OTI check shows that he doesn't just favor pro choice, but STRONGLY FAVORS pro choice.
Okay, okay, to be fair, RWS didn't actually write anything about Republicans. So let's go to Democrats.
If my very limited knowledge of government is correct, then one of the top Democrats in the federal government would be the Senate Minority leader. You might have heard of him, it was a vague reference for me, but I went with it. Check up OTI, and... you've got to be kidding me! He STRONGLY OPPOSES abortion. In fact, you might say that he stands up against the deaths of abortion.
But wait, there's more...
M
Evil Harry Reid is pro-life? Rudy Tooty Fruity is pro-choice? What are you trying to do, Mr. M? Make people's heads explode?
In the words of Obi Wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
That'd be the words of George Lucas.
A-1 Philostopher.
Let's talk about deaths. The way I see it, maybe legal clinical abortions actually save lives. Maybe, I don't know. It seems to me that inserting a foreign, metallic, object into an orifice that was never intended to take such a device (for instance, coathanger), just isn't safe without a doctor available.
So I wanted to know if this was really a concern I should have. Well, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 80,000 women die world wide PER YEAR due to botched "back alley" abortions.
So, I guess, my stance is that Republicans have no moral credibility until they are willing to stand against those deaths as well as the deaths of unborn children from legal abortions, as endorsed by such Republican figureheads as Arnie, and Rudy, AND when they stand against the civillian deaths of the Iraqi war.
Or I could be not so general and imposing with my moral credibility meter.
M
Shucks, I'm just stabbin' in the dark over here. It's not like I know what I'm talking about.
M
Idiocy
The terrorists in Iraq are killing civilians....you bunch of fools.
No doubt with your lack of a brain stem the Democrats will have at least a few votes next time.....yes I have hit my limit to deal with so many twits....get real.....funny the left goes so hard against Bush yet sits back and ignores the slaughter of the jihadists.....you people are sick.......see a shrink
liberalism is a mental illness, and their full faith in abortion will ultimately lead to their own demise.
I have no opinion on the abortion issue, but I believe we are fighting the right battle fighting the oppression of dictators that have been tolerated in the past such as Saddam, and having toppled his "4th" strongest army on the planet seems to scare the bejesus out of 2nd and 3rd place...are we evil, yes in some respects, but less so than those who criticize us with their opinion and no further evidence... I still want to see the picture of the militaries "super shitter" that can swallow a whole Koran...leave it to our military to actually have such a device that no doubt violates the Geneva convention, and I'm sure we have the technology, even if it's a one shot deal that drains Lake Superior, as that is what it would take to flush that turd.
Any complaints, contact CAIR, they'll listen...they even have an Italian hostage held in Iraq so that the Italians will give more to support those that are willing to kill innocents for personal gain...pretty liberal philosophy when you think about it.
Mr. M, in developing countries, the deaths attributable to abortions are due to generally poor health care, not "back-alley" abortions. That is a misrepresentation.
Poor health care will result in excessive deaths from other invasive procedures as well, like fixing hernias, or root canals.
Here's a sounce you'll no doubt accept
as unbiased to back me up.
What I'm reading is a lack of understanding of legality and morality. The Law is a SUBSET of morality...a vehicle by which The People (Western civilization) decide on the baseline values The Law will serve.
Life/Death is the province of The Law.
The problem comes when people substitute legality for morality, ie considering anything "legal" as "moral." That's when we observe the nihilistic, amoral phrase "who am I/we/you to judge?" of the "multiculturalist."
The death of one person at the hands of another is morally neutral. The instance, devoid of context, has no moral meaning. The Law recognizes that morality comes from context by how it is written for just this instance - from no charges (death due to self-defense) to first degree murder with special allegations.
Civilian deaths in Iraq are tragic, but in most instances, they are the moral responsibility of the "insurgents" who deliberately operate in civilian areas, using civilians as shields and pretending to be civilians. It is similar to, say, a bank robber held for murder for all the deaths that occur during the commission of a felony, even if it is the death of his/her accomplice at the hands of the police.
There are many immoral acts which are not illegal (nor should they be illegal) due to being outside the province of the law. They are left to the persuasiveness of society itself. IE adultery, fornication, out-of-wedlock births, abandonment of family, first trimester abortions, etc. We are not Euro statists who, contemptuous of the sovereignty of the individual, feel they must legislate down to the tiniest detail every aspect of a person's life. Nor are we the anti-personhood totalitarian theocracy of Islamism, eager to plunge the world back to the 4th century.
Americans have remained much more religious than Europeans, but of the Judaeo-Christian tradition where the individual is created in the image of God and the personal relationship with God is a central tenet. This allows for the uppermost consideration to be centered, not just what is legal or illegal but what is good or bad.
Let's see here, one by one.
For Jim and Anonymous: Wow. I mean really wow. You do understand the concept of debate? Of understanding that your ideas can be erroneous, and the idea behind debate is to provide a crucible that burns as much of the layers of falsehood away as possible so as to leave the participants and the audience with the closest ideal of the truth as possible? In other words, just because someone doesn't agree with you, it's no cause to go all crying in your pjs at night. I'd also like to add that if you had read the last sentence and understood it, you might have actually gotten the point of the post, which was not actually to further liberalism, but in all actuality an attempt to hone the debate into a form that was less generalized, and therefore held on more valid terms.
If you want, I can use smaller words.
Dave: Um, then take this to an Iraq war thread. Seems simple.
Dave in Texas: First, thank you for a measured, and reasoned response. And I do agree that the stat is a little tilted, however, the source you link actually kind of proves my point.
cont.
The "back alley" abortion situation is a combination of legality and conditions, which the article you link to pretty much sites as the reason why developing nations have higher mortality rates. The idea here is that making abortions illegal will not reduce the demand for them, but it will reduce the conditions under which they are carried out. To simplify, what you are doing is taking our citizens off of the scale of developed nations, and putting them now on the scale of developing nations. But you still have a valid point.
Darleen: Thank you as well for such a thought out response. I agree with a few things, and disagree with others. I do agree that morality and legality are totally different, though I don't think of legality as a subset of morality. In my way of thinking, legality is essentially a means of maintaining a society. The reach of legality is determined by the law makers, and the lengths to which they wish to maintain said society.
In other words. Murder is not illegal because it is morally wrong, but because if it were legal, it would be difficult to maintain a sustained society.
Legality is more of a socially external phenomenon. Morality is a socially internal phenomenon, though there are institutions that from an external position do impose morality.
cont.
uh, no. it doesn't prove your point at all. You claimed "back alley" i.e. "illegal" abortions. Those statistics are drawn from developing nations where abortion is legal.
In this case, the church. The church teaches what is and is not moral.
But this is all relative to actions, and choices. I mention this because the last thing you mentioned implies something that I really don't like. That in order to be moral, you have to have religion.
The fact of the matter is, making something illegal does not necessarily stop someone from doing something. If it did, our crime rate would be zero. Big old goose egg. Which begs the question, what does prevent someone from acting one way or another?
Legality is some of it. Fear of punishment goes a long way in some cases. Some of it is also morality. In this instance the belief since something is wrong, you shouldn't do that thing.
Shoot. I lost it, i'm drunk. forget it. I'll pick this up tomorrow.
M
Mr. M
Murder is not illegal because it is morally wrong, but because if it were legal, it would be difficult to maintain a sustained society.
I disagree. Western society finds outlaws murder because it based on our value system which invests sovereignty in each individual. That is morality. Rules for living based on an internal value system.
Certainly many societies have existed that ignore or encourage activities which we would consider murder. IE "honor" killings. So to look at the illegality of murder as a strictly pragmatic decision divorced from value/morality is wrong...and it makes me wonder why so many people shy away from debate about morality.
Mr M
Where did I say morality is exclusively religiously based???
I just pointed out the reality that American Law is crafted by American legislators who, coming from a religious population, draw their values from a Judaeo-Christian tradition.
No, it was implied, but then, I'm a little on the tipsy side, so I might have read a little too carefully between the lines.
I told yall I wasn't smart.
Darleen, it's wonderful to read a post that attempts to explain a complex point. If I am reading you correctly, you're saying that Law is the result of a society's moral values and seeks to codify them as an expression of those values. Is that it?
As opposed to the concept that Law is a pragmatic device to create an orderly society where each individual is free to pursue life, liberty and happiness as he sees fit, and to the extent he doesn't deprive another of these rights.
There are a lot of conclusions that flow differently from these two interpretations, so I'd like to see if I am understanding you right before I proceed.
If someone hides among innocents and shoots at me, my choice is surrender, get shot or shoot back even at risk to the innocents. This is why the terrorists are so vile, that they put innocents at risk.
The children that we did not have, their places are being taken by the children Mexico had. Karmic, Huh?
Cernig,
What has this post to do with faith? I believe in the right to life, I believe we are given that right in our constitution. It is just as much a secular issue as it can be a religous one. Even if I weren't Christian, I would still think killing unborn children wrong. And It isn't about silencing anyone. In fact I would LOVE a national debate on the issue. A REAL one with real facts.
Shamanic, uhhh.. who hates gays? I certainly don't. In fact I think I just said I loved one fellow blogger below (Beautiful Atrocities).
Once again. So much for sterotypes.
Mr. M,
Just so ya know I'm consistent. I don't like those Republicans either and they have no moral credibility to me either.
julia, you are so tiring.
Abortion is a grave moral sin. The Pope declared that the he was against the war, but it is NOT CHURCH TEACHING. Get the difference?
Invitro is wrong as well.
Paul made it very clear in Romans what was sexual sin. You can choose to believe or not. Up to you.
Once again you are implying that people like myself do not "feed the hungry ect...."
Wrong as usual.
Mr. M,
Alan Guttmacher Institute is a long arm of planned parenthood, so that statistic is bogus. Dr. Bernard Nathanson who spearheaded NARAL and was heavily involved in the Roe v. Wade case said that they made up numbers in the 10's of thousand about women dying in illegal abortion. He said the truth was the in 1971, 2 yrs before Wade, only 72 women died in illegal abortion.
4000 unborn babies die A DAY now in this country.
A law based on lies should be reviewed by the American people.
But that's just me.
RWS - A question for you.
You claim that a statistic provided by Guttmacher is bogus above, but in this post you rely on a Guttmacher statistic to make the point that abortions under Bush have decreased.
So, do you trust them or not? I can't tell.
Sparkle, do not lecture me on Catholicism. I am not a johnny come lately to the faith, and I am well aware of the distinction. John Paul was adamantly against this war and against the death penalty. It is a technical connivance to use the "it's not church teaching" as a way to press your political ideology.
You failed to address any of the legitimate contradictions mentioned in my post. Of course it is tiresome to one who lives in an echo chamber, in the Nation of Texas no less. The fact is we live in a world of great moral complexity, and a facile fixation on one's superior "core values" only exposes your inability to understand them.
Goodbye, sheltered white Texas lady. Buy some more toys with your tax cuts while Bush cuts veterans benefits again (please at least take note of their June 6 march on D.C., since the military is your great concern) and while he refuses to send promised aid to Darfur, because of "budgetary issues". And whatever you do, pat yourself on the back every day about what a magnificent Christian you are.
"only a sith deals in absolutes" one of the more ridiculous attempts at philosophy in that movie. Furthermore, it was contradicted earlier by Darth Sidius advocating moral relativism and then later Anakin spouting the same nonsense to which Obi-wan said he was then lost. So which is it Lucas? He hardly rates as even a highschool level philospher. Sorry, back to the regular programming.
when are we getting some of that sweet Halliburton oiiiiiiiil?
I've been very patient.
Andy,
Actually that was the graph they used to show that abortions Guttmacher had used to prove it had INCREASED. The article was trying to say that the graph really didn't say that. I wasn't trying to make the point that abortions had increased or decreased in that post that I recall.
Sure Julia, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
Maybe one day you will actually meet someone like me and see that we are truly nice people and your bigotry will end.
Hope so.
Hey, sheltered white Texas lady... still like all the new visitors? 
(scratching head)
Would that make me a "protected Rredheaded Illinois Anatidae" then?
(for reference, see http://www.nevadaaudubon.org/Bir...ites/
RHDuck.htm )
RWS -
Huh? The post you have up says:
This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased... The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary
That is, the Democrats in question were using an incomplete opinion piece and not the more thorough Guttmacher study (which showed a decrease).
Further, your post states:
Recently, some Democrats are falsely claiming that abortions have increased during President Bush's time in office. Not true. As this recent article from FactCheck.org points out, abortions have fallen under the Bush Administration.
While you may only be publishing something you received from GOP.com, they are claiming a decrease. Given that you put it up on your blog, without comment, one would think you endorse it (and thus agree with the decrease statement).
My point that you trust Guttmacher in one instance (the e-mail from GOP.com) and not in another (the comment above) stands.
Andy, you couldn't have made the obvious contradiction in Sparkle's posts any clearer. Sparkle's response to you is just bizarre in its befuddlement.
Example: She says that she "wasn't trying to make the point that abortions had increased or decreased." But here's the first line of the post: "Recently, some Democrats are falsely claiming that abortions have increased during President Bush's time in office. Not true." Then she quotes the Guttmacher study to assert that they have decreased. I.e., the main point of the post is to state that abortions have decreased. So it's tempting to call that "wasn't trying to make the point that abortions had increased or decreased" a lie. But to me, this added contradiction (on top of the Guttmacher contradiction) just looks like extremely sloppy thinking. Hell, it looks like someone who hardly has a grip at all on what they're thinking or saying.
A previous commenter, worrywart, was banned from this blog ostensibly for stating that RWS knowingly repeats lies picked up from other sites and news sources. RWS challenged her to prove that assertion by example, but apparently the example didn't meet RWS' standards for "a repeated lie".
For myself, I don't think it goes so far as "knowingly". Just like anyone else, Sparkle will quote other sources as a basis for her posts. I think all of us have had egg on our faces at least once or twice for quoting a source that turned out to be false. But as Andy's comment indicates, it's pretty obvious Sparkle just looks past the contradictions if some part of the source supports what she already believes.
Now in Sparkle's defense, I have to say that most of us don't phrase our objections to posts and comments in a way that makes it easy for the poster to gracefully admit they're wrong. I'm as guilty of that as anyone. But Andy's question was as close as anyone can get to simply calling for clarification.
Come on Sparks! Please admit for once when you want it both ways based on your bias.
'apparently the example didn't meet RWS' standards for "a repeated lie".'
Actually, I think it was because Wart didn't bother to show any examples at all.
*shrug* That's the way I read it, at least.
Andy, that wasn't my writing, that was an e-mail from the GOP. I was just reporting what it said.
Oops, that was me. I have no problem admitting I am wrong. But it seems to me that both pieces of information regarding the Guttmacher institute were WRONG. So how is that contradicting myself?
Just to make it clear. I don't trust the Guttmacher institute no matter what it says, even if it were on my side of statistics. I'll let people look at the e-mail from the GOP and decided for themselves what they believe.
As I have noted. I have been traveling around. Been rushing through these comments I am afraid. Sorry about that. I wasn't sure which post you were referring to. You made it seem it was something I had written myself. That what was I was referring to. I knew I had not written that.
Wonderduck,
I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all! I haven't enjoyed Julia cuz she was just spouting meaness, but the rest are fine. I just haven't had time to respond like I wished while traveling. Now that I am home, I hope I can. I just didn't want to lose the momentum. thanks for sticking by me!!!
Andy, that wasn't my writing, that was an e-mail from the GOP. I was just reporting what it said.
I know, um, that's what I said. My point is that if you post something from your own party without comment, the assumption is that you agree with it.
As far as trusting the Guttmacher Institute, you say they can judge from the GOP e-mail what to believe - BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE E-MAIL WAS BASED ON THE GUTTMACHER STUDY.
C'mon, really, this isn't that hard.
Your heart is in the right place, but your logic is atrocious.
1. It's not about legality. The wars you mentioned are not all wars. Korea was a police action, and Vietnam was never officially a war. In all situations, Congress either officially declared war or gave the executive branch powers to send troops abroad indefinitely.
2. Purposefulness is not an issue. You go to war or start a police action, you intend to kill people. Very simple.
3. You say nothing about abortion deaths exceeding civilian deaths in all of those conflicts,so you must be talking about all deaths in those conflicts.
So, Are you asking the Democratic party to stand up against ALL the deaths of people killed in those wars and abortion since 1973?
Most people thought World War II was a just war.
Rabble, I think you know exactly what I was asking the democratic party to stand up against.
You Rouser you....
Andy, ok, I went back and looked at the e-mail post and the link and I admit I read it wrong. I thought that it was saying that the site factcheck.org was claiming that The guttmacher study was wrong. It was actually saying that Hillary and Dean were wrong.
Sorry about that. I ADMIT I MADE A MISTAKE!!!
I also will add that I am appalled that the GOP would even use a site that called the guttmacher institute "respected." I guess I better read the links that GOP sends me more carefully.
Does anyone here get the sense that Factcheck.org has had an agenda different from it's previous agenda since about March?
IMHO, they used to tend a little left, and recently they tend more right. This is based on observations about the "facts" of the Social Security Crisis, and the "editorial choices" regarding who they should "Factcheck" and who they should just let slide.
I could be wrong, but after they called Cheney out when he said they would back him up, they got real quiet for a while, and now are back with a different emphasis. No?
Sorry about that. I ADMIT I MADE A MISTAKE!!!
See, doesn't that feel good?
Happens to the best of us.
I know, Sparkle, but the dim among the left suffer from pronoun confusion. Add a few words and it will be clearer, instead of logically baffling for the linear minded.
jandre, I am sure they have been mind melded by Rove.
Commenting by HaloScan
