What Fresh Hell Is This?

September 2, 2008


With all the talk of pregnancy and choices, let's not lose sight of this:

The Republican Party Platform in regard to abortion not only does not allow for exceptions in the cases of rape or incest, IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR AN EXCEPTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A WOMAN.

And, when it came to vetting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their vice presidential candidate, while presidential nominee John McCain was lackadaisical at best, she was vetted by the Council for National Policy, "an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy" whose members include extremists like Focus on the Family's James Dobson.


John K. said...

John K: This Palin's kid having a baby is a huge loser for the left. I told you to stay away from this issue. Evangelicals don't care and the backlash against the Daily.kos is becoming loud. The message sent out by the left is you can become anything in America, except if your daughter is pregnant. Liberals are ruining the Democrat Party. I told yah.

Sherry said...

i do not care whose child he is or if her daughter is pregnant. that's their family's private matter.

just as i had no care to know about bill clinton.

i DO care about roe v wade and i CERTAINLY CARE about the no exception for the life of the mother!

and when YOU can get pregnant then if YOU want to put your life on the line OR no not mind that the federal government is forcing you to do it, then good for you.

but not me. not my daughter, not my granddaughter, nor would i make any MAN have to bury his wife and in many cases his child too.

kimber45 said...

Kind of amusing that, suddenly, "Evangelicals don't care" about teenage pregnancy.

They want "abstinence only" sex-ed, because anything else may promote teen sex. So, really, it's a good thing that they don't care about teen pregnancy, because "abstinence only" leads to increasing rates of it.

Side note: Does this also mean that Evangelicals don't care about pre-marital sex, anymore, either?

Heir to the Throne said...

Of course there are no extremists on the other side.
The Democratic talking point of keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare" is BS
The democrat took the rare part out of their Party Platform.

John K. said...

John K: Evangalicals think this is a private matter to be resolved with the family and as long as the left makes an issue of it, they lose. The short version, Palin is becoming Mrs. Smith goes to Washington. Good work lefties. Keep making those Daily Kos posts. Open liberal door right into liberal nose. Ignore blood, they will wait for free medical care.

EdHeath said...

The point is simple. Sarah Palin has very little experience. She has been a crusader in Alaska against corruption, and in a sense she is supposed to be a moral leader. Except now that image is tarnished. She is clearly ambitious (she said yes to McCain knowing she had this baggage). Now the question is whether his judgment is seriously flawed, or whether her's is.

I don't think Obama has to or should say a thing. McCain now has to justify his choice to his party.

kimber45 said...

Let me see: Teen pregnancy is a private matter when it's somebody who is connected. But, it's a national scandal, and the product of loose liberal values, one more sign of the decline of Christian Family Values, when it's some high school kid from a poor family. Especially if they'll have to tap what little social safety net that remains.

Right. Got it.

Bob said...


John K. said...

John K: Face it left wing kooks. Look in the mirror. Palin represents a threat to all you feminists and you men in here that want to be feminists. She has done what you feminists say can't be done. She has done it better than you and without your help. She poses a threat and jealousy is your response. But don't listen to me. Keep on the dialykos mantra. Its really bringing people into the Palin camp. LMAO LMAO Palin has done what feminists only dream of doing. LOL You can't win.

Gewurztraminer said...

I've never seen anyone say it better than ERIC W.......

Eric W said...
So progressives will fight for an end to the death penalty (a fight I agree with), which promotes mercy and humane treatment for convicted criminals, but they won't fight for an end to the murder of innocent unborn children. What happened to support for society's most vulnerable members?

Forced birth? If after birth a child were left to die of neglect or actively murdered, we'd hold the parents accountable for their crime. Likewise, if a hospitalized child were removed from life support for any reason other than brain death or euthanasia, public outcry would demand justice. Yet if a child is killed in the womb or removed from it prematurely (for non-medical reasons), we call it a right. WTF?

We can debate the personhood of a first trimester baby and quibble over phrases like "lump of cells", but I fail to see how anyone can justify abortion well into the second or third trimester. Why must elective (as opposed to medically necessary) abortion be legally available for the full term of gestation?

I hope by now my fellow commenters know I'm no "Rethuglican", so I'd appreciate it if responders avoid that and similar ad hominem arguments.

Eric W said...
"Why is it that today’s ‘pro-life’ movement does not want an exclusion for rape, incest, or the life of the mother?"

All pro-lifers I know would make an exception for the life of the mother. In cases of rape and incest, the abuser is guilty of a heinous crime, not the baby. Why should the child be executed because of someone else's crime? Why respond to one destructive act with another?

Allow me to turn your question around: Why is it that today's 'pro-choice' movement insists on trotting out these three rare scenarios any time someone even hints at limiting access to 40 weeks of elective abortion? The vast majority of abortions are performed for reasons other than those. For all the talk of "safe, legal, and rare", I don't see much action on the "rare" front. Championing contraception doesn't count. It does nothing to promote healthy and responsible sexual attitudes. It only teaches people to avoid the primary consequence of sex, i.e., conception. Regardless of the merits of abstinence-only education (or lack thereof), so-called "comprehensive" sex education treats abstinence as a laughable proposition, if it considers it at all. You don't get safer sex than none at all, so why not teach at least restraint and moderation in sexual activity? Nanny-state advocates will go to great legislative lengths to fight one of gluttony's consequences, obesity, but efforts to curb lust are apparently beyond the pale. What gives?

At 4:15 PM, Eric W said...
"Birth control is not abortion"

Actually, some forms of chemical birth control are abortifacient. Arbitrarily redefining pregnancy to begin at implantation (rather than conception) was a legal/political decision, not a scientific one. Just because doctors can't pinpoint the time of conception (yet) doesn't mean a woman isn't pregnant from the time of conception. Yes, a lot of pre-implantation embryos are lost to miscarriage (aka spontaneous or natural abortion). That doesn't make intentional or tacitly approved interference with implantation is any less an abortion.

"The debate is really how can we go back to a time when men controlled women and ‘life was simpler’."

Can you smell what you're shoveling? Heaven forbid you give those with opposing viewpoints benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't complete asshats. None of the pro-lifers with whom I associate, and they are legion, are chauvinists or misogynists. They all sincerely and deeply care for the unborn. Please check out Feminists for Life before maligning all pro-lifers as sexist men longing for "the good old days".

Eric W: “In cases of rape and incest, the abuser is guilty of a heinous crime, not the baby. Why should the child be executed because of someone else's crime? Why respond to one destructive act with another?”
Yes Eric rape and incest are heinous crimes. Why would you make the victim be traumatized again by having the rapist’s baby? Would the rapist then have father’s rights over the victim’s baby? Seriously, do you have a wife, daughter, sister, or female friend that you would put through having the rapist’s baby?

Eric W: “Championing contraception doesn't count. It does nothing to promote healthy and responsible sexual attitudes. It only teaches people to avoid the primary consequence of sex, i.e., conception.”
My husband and I think the 4children we already have are enough for us to handle. Are we not supposed to enjoy our married life unless ‘possible conception’ is a part of every act of lovemaking?

Eric W: “Regardless of the merits of abstinence-only education (or lack thereof), so-called "comprehensive" sex education treats abstinence as a laughable proposition, if it considers it at all. You don't get safer sex than none at all, so why not teach at least restraint and moderation in sexual activity?”
So when we taught our daughters about adult moral choices, sex education, and birth control at home (because they no longer teach it in the schools) were we wrong? Was it wrong to arm them with values and information so they can decide when to have children?

killing of potentially viable premies.

At 7:28 PM, Eric W said...
"Anti-abortion proposed legislation and anti-abortion groups no longer make these exceptions – they haven’t for a long time."

I can't speak for politicians, but Catholic bioethicists justify medically necessary abortions as double effect. That is, the end of the pregnancy is not the intended end of the procedure, but an unavoidable consequence.

"Why would you make the victim be traumatized again by having the rapist’s baby?"

Why would you take an innocent life to provide psychological comfort to the mother? How is that a fair trade?

"Would the rapist then have father’s rights over the victim’s baby?"

No. The crime itself caused that right to be forfeited.

"Seriously, do you have a wife, daughter, sister, or female friend that you would put through having the rapist’s baby?"

Yes. The ends do not justify the means. Nobody ought to die just because living would cause someone else emotional trauma. Furthermore, I do not believe that any good is done for a woman to kill her child as a perverted act of "justice" n response to the evil way it was conceived. If a woman's husband were injured by someone and forced to live on life support for 9 months, would she be justified in pulling the plug on him to end the emotional trauma and economic hardship the guilty party brought into her life? I'm not talking about vegetative state. Just imagine severe injuries that require hospitalization and constant care. Does the husband deserve to die?

John K. said...

John K: What's this? Biden's son and brother have been indicted for hedge fund mismanagement. Missed the 24/7 talk on this. Did DeLano discuss it during the blog he had last week? Did any other lefty catch it. Story broke on Aug 24th. Get Delano or Olbermouth on this. LMAO LMAO LOL LOL I got yah!

Bram Reichbaum said...

1. John K: Story is here.


Lots of hotshots loose the farm in the hedge fund business; lot of times things get ugly at the end. I thought we all agreed families are off-limits?

2. After 20 minutes of savvy enough Google Research, the Center for American Policy doesn't strike me as the kind of place from whence I want any conceivable President to come from. They should fade into history and try again.

kimber45 said...

John k, you say: " She has done what you feminists say can't be done. She has done it better than you and without your help. "

Could you be more specific? What has she done?

jaywillie said...

Palin's extreme position on abortion, just like her party's, is certainly fair game.

The fact that the wingers are tyring to connect every criticism of Palin back to her family is ludicrous and a sign at just how desperate they are to defend a pick that is indefensible.

Frankly, I hear wingers like John talking about it more than anyone else.

And let's make one thing perfectly clear - had John McCain done his job and vetted his VP pick, we wouldn't be discussing any of this. The rumors about Palin originated from Alaska from Alsaka Republicans, many of whom do not like Sarah Palin.

It should also be noted that the news of Bristol Palin's pregnancy was leaked to the media by the McCain campaign.

They were foolish to think they could keep that quiet. There's just no chance of that happening.

But the real trouble with Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin.

As mayor of Wasillia, she made employees sign loyalty oaths, fired those who disagree with her, fought fiercely to get earmarks for the city and tried to ban books at the library.

As governor of Alaska, her entire 18 months has been spent pushing for approval for the TransCanada Pipeline project. She has requested $198 million in Federal Earmarks for next year and for fiscal year 2008, the state received $380 mil in earmarks, $100 mil more than any other state.

She was a member of an independent party calling for secession from the Union.

She ran Ted Steven's 527.

She supported Pat Buchanan in 2000.

She was for The Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

She did not back McCain, even after the primaries ended.

She hired lobbyist Steven Silver to help with earmarks. Silver is connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

She believes in teaching your kids someone else's religion by supporting the teaching of creationism in schools.

Reformer? Hardly.

Maverick? Not at all.

Sarah Palin was the perfect pick for John McCain because no other up-and-coming pol in the Republican universe better personifies the phony public persona masking the same-old corruption and politics that Americans now regard as synonymous with the Republican party.

Bravo, wingers!

P.S. John K., here are some more polls that you can ignore:

Obama 51
McCain 45

Gallup Daily
Obama 50
McCain 42

Obama 48
McCain 39

Obama 49
McCain 43

And to recap the two from yesterday:

Obama 48
McCain 40

USA Today/Gallup
Obama 50
McCain 43

jaywillie said...

The wingers can't defend the Palin pick on the issues or her experience, so they have to resort to fabricating controversies!

You're so classy, John K.

Honestly, wingers crying about rumors? About intruding into people's private lives?

Get real, you winger freaks.

cathcatz said...

a friend of mine put this discussion in a very clear light for me. "I don't much visit the DailyKos, so I am not aware of what happened there. My point is simply how Palin's abstinence only education has clearly failed, didn't even work with her own kid. That should (but it won't) hit close enough to home for ANY reasonable parent to rethink the merits of that program versus teaching a child that 'in case' they trip and fall and land on a penis, it is best said penis is covered with a condom."


John K. said...

John K: Kimber45....been a better person than any of you feminists. And Palin is pro life. LOL LOL LOL

Bob said...

Hussein JohnK wrote: "This Palin's kid having a baby blah blah blah blah Palin represents a threat blah blah blah blah LOL blah don't listen to me LMAO LMAO."

John K. said...

John K: Sp Dayvoe comes in here and like a Dailykos loon says 50% of the people are not in favor of Palin. To which I responded that well if 50% are not in favor then 50% must also be in favor. Dailykos people can't add. So, now this is the best part, Jaywillie calls me a liar, not the first time, by saying I was wrong that the 50% favorable rating from Rasmussen did not reflect the undecided. LMAO LMAO Well, jaywillie has once again proven that by only listening to the DailyKos you too can be stupid. Same Rasmussen says indeed over 50% of the people do view Palin favorable. Yo, dailykos clones, that is over 50% as in more than half. LOL LOL LOL LMAO. I love making liberal look stupid.

John K. said...

John K: So left wingers we do admit that Biden's son and brother were indicted. And oddly enough I heard no mention of it in here. In fact, the one and only Delano never mentioned it. Gee, why is that? Family of politicians are off limits? LMAO LMAO Thanks for once again proving my case for me LOL

John K. said...

John K: To the person who cited all those polls. Other than rasmussen, which has them at 49 - 44, they poll registered voters. Do you know who the registered voters are. Those are those drunks and mallrats that you sign up because they get a cool t-shirt or mug. Registered voters don't vote. LOL LOL Unless they are given something like free cheese.

John K. said...

John K: And finally, before I go, I am thinking of writing a book. How to live on $12 a year while your brother rakes in millions. Can we say George and Hussein Obama. I bet we can.

kimber45 said...

john k clearly doesn't understand how polls are conducted, if he or she thinks that pollsters hand out mugs at malls.

And, it looks very much like he had no idea what he meant, when he said that " She has done what you feminists say can't be done. She has done it better than you and without your help. " ("She's been a better person?" Does that answer make sense to you, john k?)

EdHeath said...

Some one other than registered voters votes?

And 50% against doesn't necessarily imply 50% for. There can be undecideds. Not saying there are, just saying the logic is off.

kimber45 said...

The important thing about the survey on Palin's approval rating was that it was the 2nd lowest recorded for a VP candidate. Only Dan Quayle rated lower than Gov. Palin. Funny, but, compared to her, he had bona fides up to his eyeballs.

jaywillie said...

OMG, John.

Not only are you a liar(and I have no shame about calling you that) but your also fucking stupid.

I saw that Rasmussen poll you referenced, dicksmack. Maybe you should have actually looked at it the first time so that you didn't look like such a fool now?

A candidate's favorability rating, John, is not the same as "who would you vote for?"

Ok? Do you comprehend that?

Because the numbers on Palin in that Rasmussen survey were 50-45.

Keep putting your head in the sand, John the Liar, and ignore the facts. It's what you do best.

Also, you should actually figure out how DailyKos works because you don't know what you're talking about.

Considering it's a site where anyone could make an account and write diaries and that the Palin rumors did not come from any of DailyKos' official writers or Markos, who runs it, how do we know it wasn't you, John, who wrote that diary? Or some other winger?

Maybe it was someone in the Romney or Pawlenty camps...I heard they both felt like McCain had used them.

But again, John, you don't really get to come on here and cry like a baby about rumors concerning Palin when you, personally, have engaged in spreading countless disproven rumors about Obama.

Not only are you a stupid liar, John, but your also a hypocrite.

Nice too that you have to trash all other women/feminists to build Palin up...I guess that's that famous conservative outreach to women that we're always hearing so much about!

And once again, you are wrong on the Rasmussen numbers you cite, John the Liar:

Rasmussen Daily:

When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 51%, McCain 45%. This is the highest level of support enjoyed by Obama at any point in Election 2008

Maybe you should come back when your not a stupid, hypocritical liar, John?

You might fare better against me someday, because, and I don't mind borrowing a phrase from you...