-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 3 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Tiger Woods Sinks Lower
May 12, 2013 | 20 comments
-
I Ask Anurima Bhargava for a Date
May 10, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The establishment media half-wits are now having a predictably crazy, breathless collective seizure about Rick Santorum’s 2010 speech blasting JFK’sfamous “absolute separation” of church and state speech. Well, I actually wrote about Santorum’s speech when he gave it. Read my take on it here, and Kathryn Lopez’ equally timely report on it here. Alas, the link I had to the speech no longer works; if ANYbody can find a link either to a transcript or to a video of it, please send it to me at Qhillyer@Gmail.com.
Note that even then, one of the examples Santorum used about government interference against faith was this one: • The ACLU is currently pushing HHS to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions under the emergency care mandate of Obamacare.
He was ahead of the game on this issue.
Here was my key paragraph on the subject:
After JFK’s bit of political jujitsu, the moronic cognoscenti taught as established doctrine that faith should be completely segregated from the public square. To which Santorum answers: “Our founders’ vision, unlike the French, was to give every belief and every believer and non-believer a place at the table in the public square. Madison referred to this ‘equal and complete liberty’ as the ‘true remedy.’” Repeat: The idea was not to divorce all faiths from the public square, but to welcome all faiths into it.
That said, there was something JFK said that Barack Obama should learn: “I believe in an America…where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all….It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.”
To date, the Catholic church along with Baptist and numerous Evangelical or Pentecostal institutions has fought back against the Obamacare abortifacient mandate, but the “mainline” Protestant churches have been silent. Shame on them. Religious liberty is being infringed, and they stand silent. How pathetic.
Rick Santorum is right: The separation of church and state is not meant to be absolute. What IS meant to be absolute is that the state should be completely forbidden from infringing on the free exercise of religion. That’s what the Constitution says. That’s what it means. It is a right worth fighting for.
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/27/santorums-anti-jfk-speech
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Drek| 2.27.12 @ 12:32PM
You have to recall the proper context for the speech. JFK delivered that speech in the heart of the Bible Belt, and the speech was intended to blunt residual prejudices about a "papist" in the White House.
Judged in that narrow regard, the speech succeeded, because JFK "won" the election, {with the help of course of all manner of illegality in Cook County, Illinois}.
But judging the speech from the perspective of Catholic social teaching, it didn't come close to doing justice to those teachings.
John Courtney Murray came much closer.
But again, JFK was trying to win an election, not go down in history as etching in granite the proper role for Roman Catholics in America.
Ricky "Church Lady" Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 2:32PM
God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our precious bodily fluids. God bless you all.
Indy| 2.27.12 @ 1:07PM
Video and link to transcript can be found at LI
H/T Prof Jacobson - great site if you are not familiar
"Here's part of his post The speech was not, as Santorum protrayed, anti-religious, but a powerful statement in favor of religious freedom, as this excerpt indicates (emphasis mine):
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist."
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/not-vomitous/
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 1:08PM
It is to prevent an established faith. The ACLU has taken it WAY too far.
Vern Crisler| 2.27.12 @ 1:26PM
There was a reason Americans were fearful of JFK's pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism, and why the separation of church and state must continue to be absolute. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)
Separation of church and state, however, does not mean a separation of morality and the state. Jefferson himself would have rejected such a view.
Vern Crisler| 2.27.12 @ 1:45PM
See the entry for heresy. The Wikipedia article states: "Catholicism had long allowed nations to tolerate other religions, but the Church believes that the Catholic Faith must be favored, to the exclusion of other religions, when possible."
Dmac | 2.27.12 @ 3:47PM
Wikipedia allows anyone to post anything. I certainly wouldn't use it as reference and I doubt many colleges would allow to be used as the authors are not required to use footnotes or even state their names.
And by the way, the seperation of church and state, something that is not anywhere in oour constitution was brought up by the forefathers because of event in Europe, mainly one Henry the VIII who in his zeal to get a divorce told millions of his subjects by surprise that they were no longer Catholic but now belonged to the church of England.
The forefathers spoke of freedom "of " religion, not freedom "from" religion.
Vern Crisler| 2.27.12 @ 4:00PM
It's true that Wikipedia is not sancrosanct, and often shows bias on political or creationist topics. However, I don't see any particular bias in this article. Up until Vatican 2 the Catholic church regarded Protestants as heretics and wanted Catholicism to be the favored institution to the exclusion of other churches. Opposition to JFK was not entirely based on bigotry, though no doubt, there was still a lot of that going around.
JFK gave a terrific speech BTW. Besides warning against Communism, he also said he should be judged on "my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican." Kennedy was definitely guilty of the heresy of "Americanism."
The phrase "separation of church and state" may not be in the First Amendment, but the concept is certainly there. Note: this separation is only with respect to the Federal government. Some of the States still had their own state churches up until the 1830s, when they disestablished.
Seek| 2.27.12 @ 6:44PM
They spoke of both. I have every right to say "no" to a particular religion as I do to say "yes." Freedom of religion and freedom from religion -- flip sides of the same coin.
Seek| 2.27.12 @ 6:42PM
And what sort of morality would you have the State prescribe for us? And if all morality springs from religion, then which religion would serve as a mandatory guidepost? Religions have had a funny way over the centuries of going to war over this sort of thing -- which is an eminently sensible reason to keep the affairs of civil governance and religious piety separate.
Vern Crisler | 2.27.12 @ 9:01PM
Natural law is what Locke and the framers believed in.
Floyd Looney | 2.27.12 @ 2:18PM
It's not just faith at stake, its freedom of association and freedom of expression et al.
All for the cause of political warfare, which we have been ceding to the radical left for far too long.
thomas mc| 2.27.12 @ 2:59PM
I'm so sick of Santorum trying to shove his pedophile religion down the throats of our youth!
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 3:02PM
Guess Who?
voted for
1. Raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Bridge to nowhere
voted against
1. "Right-to-Work" law
Ans: Ricky "Keystone big-government pro-union RINO" Santorum
Dmac | 2.27.12 @ 3:48PM
So Bill,
its obvious you don't want people to vote for Santorum. Then who is your choice, who do you suggest people vote for? It wouldn't be the creator of Obamacare Mr. Romney would it?
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 4:34PM
Newt Gingrich
QuoVadisAnima| 2.29.12 @ 6:56PM
With Gingrich's unfavorable numbers, he makes Romney look electable...
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 3:15PM
'....John F. Kennedy
Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
delivered 12 September 1960 at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Tx
Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only 90 miles from the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it -- its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him¹ as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty, that we did not believe in liberty, or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened -- I quote -- "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches -- when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself. And instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed Church-State separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you?
But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland, and the independence of such statesmen as De Gaulle and Adenauer.
But let me stress again that these are my views.
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.
But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God....'
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 3:36PM
I beg everyone here to please read [and re-read] Brandon Crocker's outstanding editorial here at TAS today regarding the TARP's ORIGINAL bailout of the banks, versus the SUBSEQUENT bailout of the auto manufacturers [and to contemplate Santorum's incorrect political position versus Romney's correct one. This is one of many reasons why Santorum is, as a previous labor union supporter and political contribution recipient in Pennsylvania, is not financially/politically qualified to become president. Santorum, like Obama, is simply in the pocket politically of these unions, and as such would be nothing more than MORE OF THE SAME. Please read Crocker's explanative piece to understand why the bailout by Obama of the car companies was a huge and costly mistake for taxpayers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 4:41PM
Santorum voted against the "Right-to-Work" law, and those labor unions will spend millons of dollars destroying him if he gets the GOP nod. Unlike Gingrich, Santorum never mentions his stance on big labor unions because Santorum cannot offend his beloved labor union bosses.
martin j smith| 2.27.12 @ 4:43PM
There are many un-educated out there about this issue. And I would advise any Republican on this or any similar issue--say what you actually mean and mean what you say and be able to stand for what you said. No back peddling and know what you are talking about before you speak.
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 4:58PM
'.... Santorum a Good Man in Wrong Century
Monday, February 27, 2012 09:57 AM
By: Kathleen Parker
Let me be blunt: If Republicans nominate Rick Santorum, they will lose.
The prospect of four more years of Barack Obama holds some appeal for many Americans, but probably not for most Republicans. It may give doubters among them some comfort, however, to know that Obama and Santorum share the same prayer: that Santorum be the Republican nominee.
It gives me no pleasure to rap Santorum, a man I know and respect even if I disagree with him on some issues. Not that he minds. He's a scrapper who loves a fight — and he forgives. Bottom line: Santorum is a good man. He's just a good man in the wrong century.
This doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about everything, but he's so far out of step with the majority of Americans that he can't hope to win the votes of moderates and independents so crucial to victory in November. The Republican Party's insistence on conservative purity, meanwhile, will result in the cold comfort of defeat with honor and, in the longer term, potential extinction.
Increasingly, the party is growing grayer and whiter. Nine out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic white and about half are highly religious, according to Gallup. This isn't news, but when this demographic is suddenly associated with renewed debate about whether women should have access to contraception — never mind abortion — suddenly they begin to look like the Republican Brotherhood.
Add to that perception the abhorrent, pre-abortion ultrasound legislation proposed in Virginia, and you can kiss the Pope's ring and voters' retreating backsides.
The proposed law, temporarily tabled, called for women seeking an abortion to be forced to submit to a vaginal ultrasound. Aldous Huxley's "The Devils of Loudon" comes to mind, but he was writing about exorcisms in a convent of 17th-century France. When did Republicans, who supposedly believe in less government intervention, begin thinking that invading a person's body against her will was remotely acceptable?
Saner minds have prevailed, at least for now, but the fact that the bill was ever conceived and taken seriously by at least some number of legislators gives freedom-loving voters every reason to run the other way.
Informed consent is, in my view, a reasonable goal. Surely removal of a human fetus deserves the same level of awareness we would insist upon in removing, say, a gall bladder. If some women change their minds after viewing the contents of their womb, then they obviously needed more information than they had going in. Still, any procedure should be voluntary, and inserting a probe into a woman against her will is rape by any other name.
Obviously, this is no place for the state.
The Virginia bill and the broader (bogus) message often repeated on left-leaning talk shows that Republicans are campaigning against birth control have created a perfect storm for defeat. The math is clear: Sixty-seven percent of women are either Democrats (41 percent) or independents (26 percent); more women than men vote; 55 percent of women ages 18-22 voted in the 2008 presidential election.
Republicans are caught in a nearly impossible situation, none more than the more temperate-minded Mitt Romney. It is important to remember, however, why contraception came up in the first place. Republicans were forced to man their battlements by the Obama administration's new healthcare rule mandating that Catholic organizations pay for contraception in violation of conscience.
From there, things spiraled out of the realm of religious liberty, where this debate belongs, and into the fray of moral differences.
Santorum's original surge was based not on social issues but on his authenticity and his ability to identify with middle-class struggles. He was the un-Romney. But now this appealing profile has been occluded by social positions that make him an outlier to mainstream Americans.
Republicans may sleep better if they nominate The most conservative person in the world, but they won't be seeing the executive branch anytime soon. It's too bad this election season got lost in the weeds of religious conviction. It wouldn't have happened if the Obama administration had simply taken one of several other routes available for providing birth control to women who want it.
Instead, Obama aimed right at the heart of the Republican Party and, one can only assume, got exactly what he wanted: a culture war in which Rick Santorum would be the natural point man and, in the broader public's perception, the voice of the GOP......'
Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 12:55AM
Since we are cutting and pating today here is another article about the subject from LifeNews.com
The Virginia state legislature has introduced a bill requiring women get a sonogram before they get an abortion. It must be given by an MD at least two hours before the procedure — not one of the “nurses” employed by the abortion clinic — and the woman must be given the opportunity to see the ultrasound image and hear the heartbeat.
She is not required to do either, but the option must be made available to her. Pro-abortion advocates immediately flew into attack mode, because heaven forbid anything be done to ensure women get the correct medical information before having an abortion! Hysterics over any attempt to curtail abortions are nothing new, and this time they’ve come up with a rather… interesting argument. Ultrasounds equal rape!
Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick writes that most women will be forced into a transvaginal ultrasound, which of course, equals rape.
Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.
The ultrasound = rape meme is spreading like wildfire around pro-abortion blogs, from RH Reality Check and Feministing, to Feministe and Pandagon. They’re all parroting the same absurd claim: that somehow, requiring a pre-abortion ultrasound equals rape.
Of course, the Virginia state law does not require a transvaginal ultrasound, and transabdominal ultrasounds are commonly performed in the first trimester as well. The state legislature leaves the decision of what kind of ultrasound is performed up to the discretion of the doctor who performs it. Never mentioned is the fact that abortion is entirely voluntary. No woman is going to be forcibly tied down, made to have a transvaginal ultrasound, and then forced into an abortion.
Also never mentioned? That most abortions involve vaginal probing, including vacuum aspiration, which takes place in the first trimester. Apparently the abortion isn’t rape, but the ultrasound is. The abortion advocates are selectively hysterical in their outrage over women being “penetrated”.
The real outrage, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with women supposedly being raped. This is entirely about the simple fact that pro-aborts know that for many women, seeing an ultrasound or hearing the heartbeat will be a game-changer. Abortion is a lucrative business, after all, and anything that threatens that business must be stopped.
And while they will often claim that these laws are not needed because women already are informed enough, the truth of the matter is that our investigations have uncovered that women routinely receive false and inaccurate medical information from abortion clinics. Pre-abortion ultrasounds don’t give abortion clinics the opportunity to lie about medical facts or manipulate women into believing that all they have in their uterus is a blob of unfeeling, meaningless flesh. Hearing a heartbeat, and seeing a baby move and wiggle and kick, can have a huge emotional impact on a woman, which is precisely why pro-abortion advocates are so ardently against it. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting women, and everything to do with protecting their lucrative, bloody business.
Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 1:20AM
Here are a few things that I find more abhorent than requiring a female to have an untrasound before having her democratic sacrament of abortion.
Courts and legislators overuling the rights of parents over their children to acquire abortions and a host of contraceptives and post pregnancy abortive pills.
Tax funded agencies that have been churning out millions of abortions per year despite the fact that 51 percent of the US believe it immoral, murder, and should not be legalized.
Abortions performed in late terms. One must remember when the idea was sold to the public in 1973, it was sold under the guise that it would only occur in the first three months and would be encouraged as only a last resort. It was not intended as a contraceptive practice.
Legislation being passed by democrats to allow for abortions to be carried out by a second doctor when the first botches it.
Abortion made legal by pulling the baby part way and leaving the body within, the head out and sucking its brains out.
Females being lied to about the practice and procedure of abortion and the life they have within them.
58 million abortion murders and counting!
A government that is now so brazen it will by force of law and punishment require religious institutions to pay for, sponsor, and provide contraceptives and a host of abortion related "medicines."
The continual belief that this must be free and financed by the rest of the tax paying citizens and without question lest they be seen as hating women and sexist.
The biggest one of all....the idea that human life is so cheap, that we will kill it in the womb, it has no protection, no rights, and no say.
Oldefarte| 2.28.12 @ 12:53PM
Touche, ST! Fair and balanced. Again may I suggest a sullplemental reading of Ross K's article of today on foor stamps? Granted abortion is immoral, but the sad/true fact is that most abortions are not of the variety of a financially viable couple wishing to limit their family's increase, but rather an indigent single female on governmental welfare with no means of financial earnings potential. Without abortion [or in her case birth control of last resort], this indigent female will bring forth into the world a child already addicted to the illegal drugs contained within the mother's body and which will thereafter suffer the inhumane physical/psychological abuse throughout its lifetime; will probably become incarcerated in the penal system by age fifteen [if not sooner]; and will be mentally deranged from same throughout its lifetime. Before incarceration, this child will probably maime, injure or murder other human beings which may have the unfortionate circumstance to come into casual contact with same. Additionally, the probability of an adoption of this child by one of these super caring conservative [and married] persons campaigning against abortion politically is slim and none at best. The question then becomes which is more humane and charitable, abortion of this infant before being fully developed inside its mother's womb or a lifetime of misery, pain, abuse, torture, cruelty and criminality? The answer is ABOVE MY PAY GRADE so I'll leave the solution to this problem to the experts!!!!!
Oldefarte| 2.28.12 @ 1:46PM
PS, ST: '....The total number of children (under age 18 years) worldwide is approximately 2.2 billion. Out of that 2.2 billion children, 16 million children are estimated to be orphans. That was sixteen million orphaned children. How do you even wrap your brain around that many parent-less children?Out of those 16 million orphans, 7.7 million, almost half, are in Africa, and sixty percent of those 7.7 million have been orphaned by AIDS. Sort of gives you a real idea of how big of a crisis the AIDS crisis really is, doesn’t it? There are an additional 7.9 million orphans in Asia, and many there have also bee orphaned by AIDS.The total number of children adopted worldwide each year, out of those 16 million orphans, is a mere 250,000. About 85% of those 250,000 worldwide adoptions are domestic, meaning parents adopting children in the same country that they live in. That means only 15% of all adoptions are international, which is far from the overwhelming phenomenon international adoption is often made out to be.An estimated 125,000 of the 250,000 annual worldwide adoptions are completed by United States citizens, with only an estimated 20,000 of those 125,000 adoptions by Americans being international adoptions.The bottom line is that out of the 16 million orphans worldwide, each year only 1.5% of them get adopted. On the flip side, that means 98.5% of all orphans do not get adopted.....'
aware| 2.27.12 @ 6:09PM
Quin, dude. There is a whole world happening outside of Scamtorum. This is getting rather unseemly, man. If you post something about creases in pant legs or tingles you'll know you need help.
Scott Ryan| 2.28.12 @ 12:08AM
Newt wants YOU to vote Santorum in Michigan (opinion)
http://www.TableOfWisdom.com
Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 2:04AM
Please do not talk to me about life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in the same breath of some female that wants to kill her child with my taxes and thinks she has a right to my money, approval, and cooperation.
Nancy in NC| 2.28.12 @ 7:13AM
Am I the only one that sees a correlation between the rise of the number of abortions and the fall of our culture? When life of any form is not dear to us we are only tiny steps above barbarians.
The irony is those who value abortion so much generally oppose water boarding and the death penalty. In other words, the worth of the most vile far exceeds the most innocent.