Obama and Basic Human Rights

| 45 Comments


"Sen. Obama, why did you vote against protecting infants that survive late-term abortions, not once but four times?" - Ad by Committee for Truth, HT: Jill Stanek

45 Comments

this video is not factural..ill already has laws for this why create a new one

Obama is a sick man. He has openly contemplated aborting his own grandbaby. Something that the video doesn't tell you, but is available on trascript of the IL legislative debate, is his sick belief in the constitutional right to a dead baby.

If a baby survives an abortion, it is a "burden" to require the doctor to save the baby's life. Not only that, but Obama argued that it was unconstitutional. The mother has a right to a dead baby.

He is a sick man.

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE A GRANDBABY... why can't you just read and get your facts? Illinois law already protected any baby born by requiring it have its life saved. Doctors agreed and Obama voted out the new bill because it did nothing, but was a stickey mess to try getting rid of R v W.

I'd love to see some intelligent reading going on here and not just the usual smear of something you find incomprehensible. You don't have to like Obama, but please get your facts straight. He has not tried to abort a grandbaby, doesn't happen to have a child over 10....you can add, I hope.

Curious

The 1975 Illionis law was weak as called by prosecutors because it only affected certain viable babies. That's why the Legislature tried to pass a new law. Obama voted agaisnt the law 3 times at least even one time when it has a neutrality clause in it. The neutrality clause was neutral on Roe v. Wade, yet he still voted against it. These are facts. Not to mention you ignore Obama's other pro-radical abortion positions.

You're wrong on the votes. And, just what is a "pro-radical abortion issue"? One that doesn't agree with you?
Theologians who've studied the issue of when does life begin, far more than any of us, can't agree on when life begins.
What Obama (and most women) want is safe abortions if they must be at all. Not back alley bleeder, infection types. He wants education to prevent unwanted pregnancies/abortions.
Abortion will take place without R v W, just not safe. If you want to get rid of abortions: Castrate all men! Men are the big cause, like sneezing spreads colds, men, like you, who rarely marry as virgins, leave behind pregnant women who seek abortions.
Sex will go on, and no one wants abortions, but they will happen, did happen when Christ was on earth, he didn't say anything, the Bible didn't find it important enough to mention, and women have a right to privacy and if they must have an abortion, to safety.
When I see men start carrying to term and delivery, then I will listen to them, until then, I think women have rights too. We aren't for killing either as Bush does in his wars, or in a late abortion....so quit breeding!

a woman's view

Funny is how you haven't refuted a time I've mentioned. What I when of pro-radical on abortion is not someone that disagrees with me on that issue. That's silly. It's that Barack Obama supports FOCA (which NARAL says will virtually ban all abortion restrictions in this nation), the forcing of taxpayers to fund abortion in America, the forcing of taxpayers to fund abortions internationally, the elimination of the partial birth abortion ban, etc. That's extreme regardless of what you mention.

Theologians have debated this issue. Yet, science proves that at conception a zygote forms. This entity grows and is neither a sperm or an egg. I wonder of what it is? It is the begins of human life. Many mainstream scientists have outlined that human life begins at conception because of it growing, having DNA, it has 46 chromosomes typically, etc. Obama and their ilk want abortion nearly on demand. There is no such thing as safe abortion as all abortions have risk factors including depression, organ damage, death, etc. No one in their right ring rejects education about sexuality. People from across the political spectrum believe in sexual education. We just don't want it forced upon children neither falsehoods promoted.


The rest of your comments mention things that have nothing to do with the argument. Roe was based on a lie, suppported by lying judges, and Roe admitted she made an error. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Roe went too far on the question of abortion. Plenty of people want abortions and lust after them. I know plenty like Bill Maher. Sex is 2 way street. Jesus Christ didn't do anything about rape, pedophilia, etc. since that wasn't his job in his first coming. His job was to establish the New Covenant and give people hope for salvation. Jesus allowed the government to handle moral issues of murder, rape, etc.

The Bible doesn't mention pedophilia, child abuse, pornography, and other evils. That doesn't mean they should be omitted form our vocabulary. You know that. Killing an innocent unborn human being in womb isn't privacy. It's murder period. It's funny you mention Bush since your pal Obama supports the killing fields of Afghanistan. Also, Obama wants strikes against our ally Pakistan (who just elected a more moderate leader than Mususaraff). Women do have rights. I don't believe violating the right to life of the unborn is one of them. Also, male bashing is just as wrong as women bashing. Therefore, I don't get into that deal. Isn't abortion a form of killing? I think it is.

I guess I should answer "Timothy" although my comment wasn't to anyone specific.
Problem is, are you under the influence? Your sentences don't compute and your words don't fit, please take the time to recheck your writing so people will know what you're talking about. Who knows you could have a good idea that gets missed.
Yes, I spoke to the subject...cause and effect. The cause is sex, male and female, the effect is pregnancy, the problem is abortion, privacy, health, when is a baby a baby and when a foetus a foetus.
You want to bash Obama, but your "facts" are wrong and anyone can fact check them.
As to "killing" Bush has killed hundreds of thousands and that can also be checked. Bush started the war in Afghanistan, going after AlQuaeda and Bin Laden and a few other things.
As to your erroneous comment about Obama and Pakistan: Don't you read? Bush has been sending drones with bombs into Pakistan killing innocent people trying for the guilty of course. Pakistan has been all over the news going after our military and telling us to stay out. So, blame the perpetrator, Bush. Obama isn't President yet.
So what if you get 47 chromosomes? Also, remember the 10 Commandments...Christ didn't leave it all to government.
No male bashing, just honesty, who do all these non-virgin grooms sleep with? Where do pregnancies come from? Did your slaying of grammar come from a conscience upset? No male bashing, sex causes pregnancy. Obama wants real sex education, not Bush's tax funded abstinence only education that left many kids defenseless.
Please, get your facts and NARAL is wrong, Obama doesn't want unlimited abortion...don't you understand he's trying to prevent UNWANTED PREGNANCIES? When a pregnancy is planned, and wanted children are born, abortion isn't used. What part of 1 plus 1 equals 2 is so incomprehensible?
a woman's view again

I'm not under the influence of anything. I think that you're under the influence of using silly arguments to try to justify abortion. Sorry, but abortion is not perserving true privacy. It destroys life and that's something you don't get. You don't get that the fetus is human life and you don't understand that abortion isn't having a cold. Also, your words have many run ons. Grammar isn't the real issue in a blog. The real issue is sticking to the facts.

I don't bash Obama. I'm listing the facts about him. Also, expressing dissent about Obama with evidence isn't bashing at all. Not to mention that the facts I show can be documented by many avenues. So, you can't bring that nonesense about me not backing myself up. Once again, you've listed no facts on refuting my fundamental points. My facts aren't wrong. Even Fact Check.org confirmed that Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive bill when he was an Illinois state legislature even when it had a neutrality clause in it (when it dealt with Roe v. Wade). As for Afghanistan, I perfectly realize that the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan. Don't try to put words into my words. I don't agree with that full scale war in Afghanistan, because Afghanistan never caused 9/11 among other reasons (not to mention that al-Qaeda is a global network. It's not solely in one nation at all). My comments about Pakistan aren't erroneous. I also know that Bush sent probes into Pakistan to do battle as well. That's wrong. I understand that, so don't put that one on me as well. Barack Obama has said that we wants to bomb in Pakistan if he acquires "intelligence" that al Qaeda are in Pakistan (even without Pakistan's permission. If he does it without their permission, that's against their sovereignity). Pakistan has been in the news as well. Obama has been supportive of the Patriot Act, the war on terror (that is causing war and death. Funny how hypocrites condemn pro-lifers when tons of pro lifers are anti-war), and the FISA Law (when this law is against the Fourth Amendment. It has been condemned by people from across the political spectrum). Bush is responsible for his own errors, but he isn't the only one responsible for the problems in the world.


47 chromosomes, the development of DNA, and other characteristics of human life means something to me. It appears to mean nothing to you. Jesus Christ did indeed promote the 10 commandments to his believers and that's true. That doesn't mean that the government has no role in protecting certain moral values.


Honesty? The reality is that sex (which results in a child) for the most part is done by 2 people. If a child is created, the man and the woman are responsible for taking care of it. I perfectly understand that a pregnancy is caused by a man and woman. A man isn't totally at fault for all of these situations. Additionally, my grammar is fine for the most part. Instead of worry about grammar, you need to worry how Obama supports numerous radical pro-abortion positions (from forcing taxpayers to fund abortions along with other policies that are documented). As for sexual education, fundamentally it's up to the parents to decide for their children which type of sexual education they desire (from abstinence or non-abstinence). Kids are not left defenseless by abistance per se. Kids are readily exploited by false Kinsey-like sexual education, child abuse, and other ills (which is much more damaging than simple abstinence). I've got my facts straight. NARAL is right on this issue and you haven't refuted it. Obama does want almost unlimited abortion. Obama even wants the Hyde Amendment gone. Barack Obama has expressed that a woman has a right to choice. Although, a doctor tearing an unborn child limb from limb is antithetical to the concept of choice completely. Abortion eliminates the choices the unborn has in life completely. You talk about Unwarranted pregnancies? A child may be unwarranted by one mother. Yet, no child is truly unwarranted. All children have purpose in life. There are plenty of adoptive parents willing to take care of a child. The present Roe system has never radically decreased unwarranted pregnancies at all. If Roe was working, why would Obama want to enact radically more pro-abortion policies? Why would Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Roe v. Wade went too far. The reason is that Roe never fully worked. It was only when pro-life laws were created from the 1980's onward when you witnessed a drop in abortions during the Clinton and somewhat in the Bush administration. So, you can't tell me that Obama isn't radical on abortion at all. He even opposes the Mexico City policy. Obama voted against an amendment to expand the SCHIP program to include pregnant women and their unborn children.


Since when is the truth a "silly argument"? Since when did Obama become a "legislature". When did Obama say "we want to bomb"?

Why don't you try the truth?

Let's start with Ginsberg in her dissent on yet another attempt to overturn R v W: She said it "signaled an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a womans ... decisions between doctor and patient...." said it "will embolden states to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose", and her fear is that "the Supreme Court Justices will look to other opportunities to erode r v w....which is a matter of equal rights for women". Sounds like a pro Roe v Wade statement to me!

Obama on SCHIP: he was for it and made a speech about how sad it was that Bush vetoed it...you can find the speech yourself...little long to quote all of this.

Prevention first, 07...supports abstinence and safe sex and contraception and education.

Obama on late and partial birth: "with respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise as long as there is an exception for the mother's health and life." Also, he dives into the idea that the mother's health or life must be a real problem......

So you wanted facts, you got....but if you don't get the idea that sex leads to pregnancy and the idea of whether a foetus is a protected life or not, is still a debated issue...there is just no way to get through to you....as my friend says: knock, knock, anybody in there?

But just for fun on the fact thing: do you realize you haven't given one verifiable "fact" except for chromosomes and Zygots, kind of basic science. If a cat conceives kittens, she too, has these things, does that make her kittens "human"?

You're also way off on a lot of other things you tie Obama to, but I do have a life and will break away here for a few hours.

I can only wonder, if Jesus came back would he recognize the "religions" made in well only kind of His image.......the robes, chalice, big churches, TV healing, money collecting, lack of emphases on what He thought important...you know the bit about healing the sick (anyone for Obama's health care....whoops that's too positive for anti everyting folks ), caring for the poor...Mother Theresa's probably chafing at the bit trying to come back to help because the poor are being left behind (But, Obama is trying to help that as well). Of course, he wants us out of Iraq, wants some pressure on getting Afghanistan cleared up......

Wouldn't it be nice if you would try for the good things people do instead of the bad. Obama has good ideas for an economy sending folks to bed hungry and homeless at night (assuming they can find a bed), has plans to get a health care system working, for fixing our bridges and roads, for bringing our kids home safely from the Middle East, for talking to, not threatening our so called enemies, maybe you could focus on that for a while.

Could keep you busy for a few days anyway.

And just so you'll know. I've never had an abortion, do have a loved child, do have a husband and we wanted our baby, don't believe I'd want to have an abortion, but can't predict the future and what could happen. Do know people who have had to have them.

As to children all being wanted and they can be adopted. Well, some are and can some aren't and can't. Our cities have unwanted children living under bridges begging for food...yes in the good old USA. Adoptions for older kids is hard and no they don't all get homes, far from it. There is a lot of abuse in foster care also. So, yess there are unwanted kids.

I assume you have adopted some.

A woman's view and a mother's view an an adopted child's view.

Obama fantasized about killing a future grandbaby, the "problem" child.

He said that expecting a doc to save the life of an abortion survivor was unconstitutional. Don't take my word for it, read the transcript youself.

Obama is a sick man. He believes it should be legal to dismember a baby, to disembowel a baby, to decapitate a baby, and to suck a baby's brains out. None of that is unusual among liberals, it is part of their belief system. Where Obama has gone is even sicker, to the point of murdering abortion survivors. He is a sick man.

Obama isn't sick. He DID NOT fantisize about killing anyone, but apparently you have. Seems you have a "problem child" you want to get rid of.

There is a name in psychiatry for what you're doing, transferrence. You say the other guy is doing what you are really doing....so sad!

As to what is and isn't "usual among liberals", you must know a lot of people to KNOW THEM ALL AND WHAT THEY ALL THINK.

You give God a bad name by using Him to trash everyone, telling lies about everyone and then voting for Bush who attacked Iraq illegally and killed hundreds of thousands of people there and in Afghanistan. Do you think the bombs we dropped discriminated between those who were pregnant and those who were not? Between old and young, men and women?

What about the 2 million or so who are refugees now because of Bush? And think back to Viet Nam, we killed a couple million people there. Think any were pregnant? How about the land mines we sell and all the children whose limbs and heads are torn off from them?

In the Congo some 3.5 million have died...where are we?

God kills my friend (to borrow McCain's phrase). Yes he is the biggest abortionist of all because there are so many spontaneous abortions all the time...or weren't you aware?

Having abortions legal doesn't cause abortions. Abortions have been around since people have been around....there was always a way. The difference is that with them legal, people who would have them anyway, will have them in relative safety is all. Obama wants education to help prevent (got it, prevent) unwanted pregnancies to reduce the number of abortions--what's wrong with that?

Instead of bleating forth your brand of hate, why don't you put your energy into health care for all, so those pregnant might be able to keep their baby, child care, so they could work and keep their baby, strengthening the economy (that Bush has messed up so badly), so mothers can afford to feed their babies, providing homes for the homeless so those babies aren't living on the streets in the cold or in cars.

A child is precious, but millions die of starvation world wide every year--are you feeding them? So many die due to lack of clean water--how many wells have you drilled for them? Many are so mistreated and abused here and elsewhere--do you intervene? What about your own children? Where are they?

Try the constructive approach, it might work.

You're hysterical.

Here is our sicko president-elect.

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

How does a liberal solve the "punishment" of a baby? They shred them, disembowel them, decapitate them, dismember them or suck their brains out.

The number of children on Death Roe has increased dramatically with Obama's election. He has vowed to end the Republican Hyde amendment that prevented liberals from paying American women to kill their children. And he'll certainly end the Republican Mexico City policy that prevented liberals from paying foreign women to kill their children. If you're a poor brown or black unborn child, your chances of living till birth have just decreased.

He's not a sicko, he's just a super-liberal, determined to offer every mother on the planet money to kill her unborn baby.

lou
why don't you quit trying to spread your lies. A super liberal is what this country needs to fix the mess that guys like you have made of our democracy. We hope that you will support President Obama and make this country a better place to live. Cheer up Lou things could have been worst with McCain/Palin.
Goodbye Lou

Reply to Lou: First, you have a problem, writing in the wee hours?

Why do you lie? No one has or is paying anyone to have an abortion! It is so sad you understand neither the Hyde Amendment nor the Mexico City policy. How do you just come out and lie like that?

No one has answered the questions I see that I put out there. What are you doing to help prospective mothers, Lou, in this country or in others?

Where did your quote come from? Name it, give a reference.

The Henry Hyde of Ill., amendment which came out in 76, denied funding for low income women on Medicaid, for abortions. No money was ever paid TO them. Between 73 and 76, abortions were paid for along with other health care. At first no exception was made for Rape, Incest, or the Health of the mother.

Seventeen states, however, pick up the tab. The very people who need the most help and counseling, people like you go after...must be proud of yourself.

The Mexico City Policy, also called the Global Gag Rule, applies to non-governmental agencies in other countries. If they counseled for or performed abortions, their aid was cut. Again, no women were ever paid to do anything.

The result of this was also a restricted access to Condoms and Birth Control information and this meant an increased risk for the transmission of AIDS. It also INCREASED abortions, by not preventing unwanted pregnancies.

So, Lou, in effect YOU ARE PROMOTING ABORTIONS, by going along with a refusal to help fund agencies that can help people prevent AIDS and unwanted pregnancies.

Are you proud of yourself for your hand in killing babies?

Your two paragraphs don't make sense, your quote said he wouldn't punish HIS daughters. You then lept away from reality into the "punishment of a baby". Sort of got lost on the way to the forum there did you?

You keep harping on liberals. Don't you read? There are lots of pro-choice conservative, Republican groups on line on the web. Maybe you could read some of them instead of just spewing hate and inaccuracies...might be a learning experience.

First, do your homework, then write, then re-read, then ask yourself are you helping or hurting your "cause" by what you say.

What you fail to understand is that many liberals as well as conservatives, don't like abortion, would probably never have one, value life, and help others keep life, but believe in a woman's rights.

The Mexico City Policy will probably go out again: started with Reagan in 84 (the guy who was responsible for So. American deaths), went off in 93, then on again with Bush in 01 (he preferred to kill kids after they were of military age in one of his illegal wars).

So, Lou, quit breeding, go adopt a baby, drill a well, feed the hungry, give the homeless a place to live....be a little constructive.

a woman's view

Kudos to Marylinn on her response to LOU's comment..Lou please be positive about the majority of americans trying to prevent abortions and educate the public on the issues of sex education in school.Your method in trying to reduce abortion will not work because it is based on HATE and negativism brought on by your neocon mentality.
So Lou please do more research and start praying for help in being a nice person and quit hating liberals.
adios LOU

..

Kudos to you Lou

Instead of splitting babies, you're splitting hairs.

Of course payment doesn't go directly to mothers who have their babies killed. Instead it goes to the killers themselves. Abortion is free. It is an economic plus for both the mother and the killer. Black and brown children suffer the most casualities as liberals pay to have them killed.

50 million dead since Death Roe and liberals haven't had their thirst quenched. Will you be satisfied when we get to 75 million? 100 million? I'll take a wild guess and say that there is no number so large that it will satisfy you.

Lou, you are so sick and full of hate, it is pointless dealing with you....you are no Christian that's for sure and I doubt you care about the unborn.

You have answered no questions, and even though I've said over and over I'm not for abortion, you apparently can't read or don't get it, or the hate in your mind has just taken you over.

Why would you ask "when will you be satisfied"? I'm not trying to kill anyone, born or unborn and I don't hate people who really are Christian, unlike you, and try to save the children, born or unborn.

You won't speak to the issue of death in this world and what's happening to millions of babies around this world who die in their mother's arms of starvation and disease. There are many good people out there trying their best to help.

They don't have time to hate as you do, they're too busy putting their money, time and energy where only your mouth is. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Go sit down with a good pastor and have a nice long talk, maybe he can help you, I don't think anyone else can.

a human's view

Let me put it another way then. What number of dead children is so large that you will find that further killing should be banned? If you are like most liberals there is no number large enough. 50 million is apparently too small.

Lou,, you need help, I suggest you get it, or are you in prison, notice you aren't working with the time of your comments unless you are stealing time from your employer.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies? Or did you just learn so many letters in the alphabet and you can only arrange them so many ways?

Maybe you are one of those no child left behind kids who got left behind....what's wrong with you anyway, you just keep babbling the same thing over and over and over and cannot answer any question put out there.

Maybe you are the one with the abortion problem, did you get someone pregnant? Is that it? Having a little problem with it now....when someone is as hung up on killing as you are, there is a serious problem there.

The latest figure from a Catholic site was 44, not 50, and how many abortions were there before Roe v Wade? Do you have a clue?

You wouldn't know a liberal from a conservative if they were carrying signs, so quit running down one group. You're no conservative, nor any Christian, just a screamer who knows no facts, has no idea what he's talking about and will yell anything at anyone.

Please get some help!

These ad hominem attacks are typical of you.

50 million or 44 million? Why quibble? It's not like an extra six million dead babies will make a liberal say they've had enough. They haven't.

For others:
There are two groups that keep track of abortions in the US. One is the the Center for Disease Control (CDC). It relies on self reporting by the states, but since some states don't report, like slaughterland California, it's numbers are significantly low.

The other is the abortion company, Planned Parenthood. It's research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, gets body counts from abortuaries and other institutions where babies are killed. The Guttmacher Institute's numbers are considered the most reliable.

Here is how the Guttmacher Institute reports abortions from Death Roe through 2003. Using a murder rate of about 1.2 million annually, which might be low, puts us right about 50 million.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf

Then again, why quibble? If 44 million dead won't move you, 50 million is just a number.

Lou &Timothy
Quit your stupid arguments and do something productive for your cause. Instead of blaming the liberals for the abortions, blame yourself for spreading hate and fear to promote disunity among those who want to work to solve the causes of abortion. I don't see that you are doing anything but bashing the liberals even conservatives have abortions and also are pro-choice.Look up gopchoice.org. Some of your best friends are pro-choice. The idea is that decent americans are tolerant and respect the right of others to make what they believe is their business concerning what they do with their body. Unlike you guys, you depend on somebody else to make your vital decisions which are oftentimes based on bigoted and factless data.Try being more tolerant and intelligent when dealing with issues . Like the saying goes: " the truth will set you free"
Hope you guys will take time to study the facts and not believe all the crap put out by the haters of liberals.
Goodbye you all......a liberal

I will respond to joe's ad hominem attacks and deception soon.

Jose makes the case that chopping up unborn children is about mothers doing something to "their body." And then accuses me of making a stupid argument.

Just a refresher course in what liberals believe:
- It is a constitutional right to dismember an unborn baby.
- It is a constitutional right to diemboewel an unborn baby.
- It is a constitutional right to decapitate an unborn baby.
- It is a constitutional right to stab a baby in the head and suck her brains out an unborn baby.
- And if you're like Obama, it is a constitutional right to have a dead baby. If a child accidentally survives abortion, it is unconstitutional to demand that the medical staff try to save her. He's a sick man.

The truth is, there is nothing so mean, nasty and vicious done to an unborn child that liberals have not found it something they want legal.

Lou
why don't you get your facts right..check factcheck.org ....Factcheck discovered that you guys are just distorting the facts and your comments on Obama are false..really untrue just smear tactics from prolife morons..you have a sick mind to think that Obama thinks the way you neocons say about him. Wake up and don't show your stupidity every time you comment on this issue. I suppose Timothy will have the same BS as you so my comments also go to him in advance
Have a nice day if you can stand it and hope you will learn something from my comments.
Goodbye LOU

a liberal thinker

Lou, You are a hypocrite and use disrespect as means to communicate to pro-life people. You claim to be a thinker yet calling pro-lifers morons is the essence of your character.

Lou, here is my response to you,

My pro-life arguments are not stupid and you have not cited a single reason why my arguments are stupid. This is one out of many ad hominems you show under guise of you claiming to be truly "tolerant." The reality is that the arguments that abortion have dangerous side effects, that unborn life has human value, that Roe v. Wade expanded the federal government's role in abortion, and that partial birth abortion has been condemned by Dr. Knopf (and other doctors) as not requiring an exception since of its grosteque nature are great arguments in fact. Pro-Lifers exist in many backgrounds. Listing reasons why I disagree with abortion is hardly non-productive for my cause at all. Also, I don't blame all liberals for all abortions existing in the Earth. That's false. You can't cite a single word that I've said of me blaming liberals for all abortions in the world. Abortions can be blamed on many people and organizations. This blame ought not to be placed upon a single political philosophy collectively at all. Also, I don't spread hate of people individuals. I do hate evil, I hate oppression, I hate racism, I hate terrorism, and I do hate abortion. If you want to accuse me of hating those things, then I'm guilty as charged. Yet, I don't hate human beings at all. Also, I don't spread fear.

I fear nothing but God alone. I don't promote disunity. I promote dissent with an archaic procedure that rips the organs out of unborn babies causing death. You ignore the murderous nature of abortion. That's the essence of your words. I don't bash liberals. I just don't agree with liberals on every issue just like I don't agree with George W. Bush on every issue. Bush isn't even a real conservative as his record has proven. I realize that many Republicans are pro-abortion, but I don't follow the dictates of a single party. I'm politically independent. Not to mention that many Democrats are pro-life. I respect the right for people to disagree on an issue. So, to assume that I don't is false on your part Jose. You know this. I will never believe in the lie that ripping babies apart in the womb is a true representation of choice or human rights. I do depend on somebody to make my decisions. You're right on that. That person is God including moral absolutes. Also, the stats we bring aren't factless at all nor bigoted. I don't hate anyone. If you continue to say this, you are liar. So, in the future, don't try to slander pro-life people as bigots just because we strongly show our opinions. We're not cowards who cower and are afraid of debate. We welcome it. I'm very intelligent, so your accusation of me possessing less intelligence is false. Sorry, I've been studying the pro-life truth for years. I'm not going to promote abortion. Us pro-lifers have been active in society from writing on the Net, promoting crisis centers, and funding organizations that help the people the world over. I don't blame liberals for everything under the sun despite your accusations. I just don't believe in all of the tenets of liberalism.

My larger comments to Jose is this. I don't blame liberals for everything under the sun. I don't agree with all of their views. I don't hate people. I hate evil, abortion, and oppression. Exposing the dangerous side effects of abortion, the doctors like Dr. Knopf condemning partial birth abortion as not requiring exception, and other arguments are hardly stupid. I follow tolerance of ideas, but abortion is never about choice or human rights. It's an archaic act that causes death upon unborn human beings. We prolifers have been productive by going on the Net, funding organizations that help people, and other forms of assistance for years. Expressing dissent legitimately is never outlining hatred. I don't blame liberals collectively for all abortions, so that's another false accusation you made.

I realize that many republicans are pro-abortion. Likewise, many Democrats are pro-life and not ashamed of it. You falsely assume we make stupid arguments, and you've called pro-lifers morons jose. That outlines who you are by your own words. I don't bash liberals as I'm politically independent. You shouldn't make up lies and ad hominem attacks about me and others Jose. I'm very intelligent, so you made another false. You deny the murderous nature of abortion. That's the essence your words. I do have tolerance for dissent over an issue. I just disagree with a murderous procedure. Here's a different point of view about the Fact Check issue:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/09/factcheckorg_fa.html


I don't have a sick mentality Jose. Barack Obama has said what he wants. Obama supports the Patriot Act, supports the FISA law, he agrees with the Wall Street bailout law (it isn't working completely, so that is why Obama wants more stimulus money sent to Americans), wants to expand military troops in Afghanistan, and agrees with NAFTA (that violates our sovereignity contributed to shipping millions of manufacturing jobs overseas). If that's the CHANGE you want, then you have a right to support it. Frankily, this isn't bashing. That's a simple explanation of his personal policy agenda. Obama's abortion views are more radical than even Hillary Clinton. This is evident on his support of FOCA (even NARAL says that FOCA will potentially end hundreds of abortion restrictions that you see in American society).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act


http://www.aul.org/FOCA


Barack Obama is right to try to shut down Guantanamo Bay, so I give you that Jose.

Could it be that Timothy and Lou are one and the same? Noticed how "Timothy" answered what was directed at Lou.

With Lou only able to keep yammering about the "liberals", does he think that conservatives don't have an abortion also?

It is unfortunate that NONE of my questions to this time have been answered. All I get is the yelling about how many abortions and how many will be enough for you even though I've stated my personal position on abortion.

I've noticed no answers on the following:
1. How many wells have you dug for children who die from bad water?
2. How many starving children, who die by the millions, have you fed.
3. How many children have you adopted?
4. How many homeless kids in the US have you taken in?
5. How many day cares have you funded?
6. How many interventions when kids are mistreated and/or abused?

You can yell forever about abortion and Lou loves, dearly loves the graphics of their deaths as he describes them all the time, but answer this:
7. How many abortions were performed annually in the US before Roe v Wade?

Most abortions are to be performed in the first trimester when the foetus is about the size of your thumb....no pulling apart and all that. It is usually when God does His abortions, "spontaneous" abortions.

When Jill Stanek described the abortions to O'Reiley, she was talking about abortions taking place at about five and a half months, when the baby arrived in one piece and allowed to die.

My personal belief is that if a woman feels the real need (and yes, a lot of it is crap) to have an aportion, she needs to have it done in the first trimester. The description of holding a baby until it expires is stupid and worries me about what the mother is thinking.

I don't give free choice to women to just have an abortion whenever they want one, but I do believe we need to do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This is something Obama wants to do because he recognizes the high number of teen pregnancies and the numbers of abortions.

You should check ALL the statistics: Bush's abstinence only has not worked. If you have good education on what can happen after a romp in the hay, it helps. If you teach women they can, really can say no, and if you teach boys they are responsible (how many step up to the plate), and then provide prevention for those who just don't get it, you can help prevent pregnancies.

Will you ever stop all unwanted pregnancies? I doubt it. Will you stop abortions, even if you get rid of R vW? I doubt it because I know of abortions performed for people I knew before R v W came along in 73 (lol in tennis shoes here).

Point is people like LOU screaming that we all want abortions and calling us all Liberals is crazy and does nothing for the idea of stopping unwanted pregnancies....and we aren't all liberals!

Let's let the sicko speak for himself. Here are Obama's remarks regarding the unconstitutionality of Born Alive Infant protection.

Born alive infant protection "...essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child...And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child...then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

He believes it is against the law to require a doctor to keep alive a fully born baby that survived abortion.

Liberals like to distort Obama's objection to Born Alive Infant Protection by suggesting that his oppositon was only because it was a redundant law. But Obama argues that the law is unconstitutional. He's a terribly sick man.

Drilling wells, etc. have nothing to do with the justification of abortion or not. Frankily, I will do some of things in the future. Also, I'm not Lou as I as a different writing style and a list of other reasons. The size of an unborn baby is no pure reason to end its life on demand period. Also, not all people who adopt are abusers. The legal system should enacted to prevent abuse. You know this. The truth is that anti-murder laws can't prevent all murders. If that's the case, why is it extremist to at least ban Roe, have full accurate sexual education, and help women in crisis situations. I prefer that than having Roe that hasn't radically reduced abortions at all. Also, ironically Roe permitted abortion almost on demand throughout the women's pregnancy, which is beyond the 1st trimester. Jill talked about babies leaving to die and the need for a new law to protect them further(since the old 1975 law according to prosecutors worked only half way. I trust them than you).

There were about 500,000 abortions in the USA pre-Death Roe. In a few years it skyrocketed to over 1,600,000.

Abortions in the USA have dropped since GWB became president.

A child "about the size of your thumb," has a face, arms, legs, and a beating heart. They suck their thumbs. The most common method of killing these young children is shredding them with suction. Imagine being sucked into the jet engine of a Boeing 747.

Liberal and athiest Nat Hentoff has estimated that the Hyde (R-IL) amendment has save one million people. The children in the same situation today will be murdered if Obama has his way.

First to Lou: Your quote, what page as I know the minutes go on and on and on....so give a page # so we can get the whole quote out and in context.

Since 75 Ill. law has required an aborted but living baby to have a 2nd md in attendance and to save the baby.....how many times do you just rewrite the same law?

By the way, belief in our Constitution does NOT make one "sick", so get over that, but give me the page #. Obama has stated his opposition to partial birth and late term abortions, why don't you quote that?

FOR TIMOTHY Yes, drilling wells, providing food and all the rest have a lot to do with abortion. Put yourself in the place of a woman who has lost her husband, is in poverty and already has 2 children and can barely feed them. Will she have the 3rd they conceived just before the rebels shot her husband, or will she abort in an effort to save her two other children? Believe me, I wouldn't want to be in that position, but unless you can put yourself there, you cannot just say no one should have an abortion.

And, that is why wells, food, and safety from attack are important. There are 100,000 trapped in the Congo as we speak and I'm sure some are pregnant. What I do know is that food relief isn't getting through, mothers and fathers are being shot in their houses. What do these pregnant women do to protect their already born kids? You tell me, then go out and preach all you want about the "Mexico City policy".

Please re-read my other entries: I never said people who ADOPT are abusers...let's be accurate. And the legal system does NOT PREVENT ABUSE. All the legal system can do is prosecute after the fact, or at least arrest after the fact.

Roe WASN'T DESIGNED TO REDUCE ABORTIONS. You want to turn back the clock, eliminate it, and go for education.

But we did that. Pre 73, that's what we had and beyond education, we had less TV, no internet, closer knit towns, perhaps a higher percentage of church attending folks.....i.e. all the things you'd think would lead to no abortions being required. But, we still had them.

The issue is NOT OBAMA, NOT ROE V WADE, BUT PEOPLE. The problem was here when Christ was here and before, so how do we slow it down?

Laws don't change people's minds and we know you cannot legislate morality...it just doesn't work. Clinton was playing games in the White House, the best known "preachers" were found with others than their wives, so where is the answer?

We all have ideas on how we might slow abortions: Obama thinks it lies in better sex education in the schools while still giving equality and choice to women through the existence of R vW. Other people want just abstinence, which would be fine if everyone would play the game, but they don't. Some think if everyone is religious enough, that will work, but we've seen the professed religious leaders fall off the wagon.

My concern is that women are treated fairly and that men, half responsible are made to carry half the load, but look at the problems with wives even being able to collect child support from men who have fathered those kids. Mom is there raising them, trying to feed them, educate them, and without help. Another thing anti abortionists could do is hit the courts and help get the child support for these women.

When we go to war for little or no reason and kill and kill and kill, how does that teach our young people the value of every life? Elections are important and we goofed with Bush who supports torture and war and lack of human rights. Will Obama be better? I hope so.

I think people have to learn to be involved, but not with the yelling and calling a president-elect a "sicko". Not by screaming that "all liberals want abortions", not by describing how an unborn may be aborted. I could describe the way Bush has caused our young kids to be killed, I won't. Or the way he caused the Iraq residents to die, or their kids left to fend for themselves. Enough to say he has as much blood on his hands as any abortionist.

People have to work for something, not against it. Work for life, not against abortion (you're too late if she's already pregnant remember). Work for education to prevent pregnancies. To condemn just liberals (whatever that is) turns everyone off.

A life is a life. One starving in the arms of a Congo mother is as prescious as a 7 month aborted baby. Save what you can, but don't condemn women in general by forcing them to back alley's because your baby dies there too remember that.

a woman's view

Here's my response in a real fashion,

Drilling wells, providing foods, may be related to abortion, but it doesn't deal with the justification of abortion at all. For example, I can starve now, yet my starvation doesn't have anything to do with the justification of rape at all. That's my point. Also, Maryiln, you typical use hypothetical in the outline of your argument. Yet, these hypothetical basically ignores the evil act of aborting an innocent human being. In your statements about Congo, you use basic emotion. If a woman are suffering with an unborn child, she should be encouraged to protect it. Also, many great leaders were birth in the environment of choas. Never forget that. Just because you have choas, doesn't mean that the unborn child should automatically die (since there is the possibility of that unborn child being a great contributor of society. We've missed out on almost possibly 50 million leaders that could solve our problems). Roe actually turns the clock on human life by promoting the destruction of unborn baby body parts.

Yet, in your prescribe situations, abortion still isn't the first answer at all to solve these problems. The solution immediately should be reform, assistance, and other means of immediate development. Also, you can never intimidate me in not preaching against ills in society. I will do it regardless of what you say. I take your clarification about adoption at your word. Your admission about Roe wasn't designed abortions is shocking to me. If it wasn't meant to reduce abortions, certainly eliminating it and replacing it with alternatives wouldn't help would it. There are still great religious leaders. Developing culture is a great way of solving problem. We have seen that a break down of culture caused societal dysfunction.

Eliminating Roe isn't turning back the clock. Roe is a federal restriction of human life and the murder of unborn human life. I propose more than just education, but crisis pregnancy centers, real sexual education, and other solutions. The issue is bigger than Obama though. The issue is if we want a society that harbors intolerance toward life or promotes a culture of life. You dead wrong in your assumption that we can't legislate morality. The Consitution and tons of laws in America legislate morality all of the time. They legislate rules against murder, rape, pedophilia, lying under oath, etc. They can't prevent all of these evils.

Yet, they act as a deterrent against such evils. Roe isn't about equality or choice for women. Roe eliminates the unborn's right to life, their rights to have choices, and destroys true equality for the unborn. I don't agree with the Iraq, so you can place that argument toward someone else. Many prolife citizens are against the Iraq War, are helping the Third World, and are being active in the world. You need to comprehend that truth. Never did I diminish the life of a Congo mother. A Congo mother's life is worth the same as an unborn baby in the womb developing with its DNA intacted. I do believe as you say in getting into the court system to help get child support for women who are taken advantaged of.

Timothy: I wish I could understand all you wrote, please read before sending...you know what you're thinking, but if it doesn't get down in the king's english, not everyone else does.

You said I use "emotion" assumably about the mother in the Congo. No, just a situation that does exist. Then you say in that situation if she is pregnant, she should be encouraged to protect it. Encouraged by whom? People starving like her and her kids? Rebels shooting at her?

It is nice to live in fantasy land as we do in the states, but there is a real world out there and it isn't always cut and dried as to what's right and wrong. Sometimes it is survival and what's necessary for it. Unless you're a mother, you won't know what lengths one will go to to protect an already here child.

Let's try an example here. I have a son and if anyone ever tried to harm him, what would I do? If someone were coming at him and his life was in danger, I'd aim for that persons biggest part and pull a trigger. Do I believe killing is ok? Not at all, it is called self defense, or the defense of someone else.

To relate it to what I said before, that woman I spoke of with 2 children and being pregnant and her and the kids starving, she is going to preserve the life of those kids over the unborn.

Take another situation, and the percentage in the US is high, a mother here with 3 kids say, has a husband who abuses her and the kids. Obviously not the kind of husband who politely asks for sex, she's pregnant and he doesn't know it. Want to bet she will get an abortion if she can so as not to put another child into that mess?

Oh yes, she can call the police....think she will get help? Don't bet on it, not in the real world. Abused women and kids are everywhere. Life isn't always sweet and women seek abortion for lots of reasons and they don't all agree with you that the unborn is human life at a certain point. You may think so, but that doesn't mean they do.

What anti abortionists believe is that human life begins at conception. Fine if they do. But, don't assume everyone BELIEVES that way. If they don't believe that way, then don't call them killers, because they may not think they are "killing a human".

You have to grapple with that before you claim all liberals or whatever are killers. Suppose, just suppose you are wrong and human life doesn't take place until the "quickening" as the belief was for so long? What then?

To deny abortions to those who don't believe as you do is to deny to THEM something they think is ok to do. You deal with it as though everyone believes the same, but they don't

I'm not sure what you mean by "developing culture". Explain please.

No, you cannot legislate morality that's why our prisons are full because we try to legislate vs. teaching.

We have to understand first, we don't all believe the same and try living in a world with differences of opinion, faiths, beliefs, interestes, where things rate in importance...all of it. I'd suggest you watch the wife swap program on TV....if you haven't seen it, it isn't a moral problem, but takes two people and switches them for 2 weeks into each other's homes. The variations on how we live and think and believe is amazing!

As to the "great leaders" being aborted....look at it this way, we could have aborted millions of Hitlers and Stalins as well or criminals of all types. We won't know, but then we won't know if John and Mary don't get married to each other, but to someone else, who they would have produced. Life is the big question. And how many abortions were there over the years before Roe v Wade? We will never know because no one kept count.

What would you do with the women trying for abortion? Make them have a baby? If so, will you make the guy take care of it and be there for the 2am feeding, changing the diapers (and buying them), play with him or her, take the child to the park and zoo and all? Will he be there to educate and care for that child until say 21? What if he has other kids, a wife.....You round up all the fathers and maybe you'll slow the abortions down a bit. So far it seems only the women are getting the hit here.

Marylin - I'm only going to respond to one aspect of your comment (note that this is "Tim" - I'm not "Timothy"). You said, "What anti abortionists believe is that human life begins at conception. Fine if they do. But, don't assume everyone BELIEVES that way. If they don't believe that way, then don't call them killers, because they may not think they are "killing a human"."

This is indeed close to the fundamental disagreement between you and those who are pro-life. I don't think anyone assumes everyone believes in the sanctity of human life. However, we do make the assumption that ultimate truth is absolute. As a result, the value of humans is either intrinsic (i.e., the result of being in the class of humans) or not intrinsic.

Truth does not vary based upon what individuals believe and is independent of sincerity. Human value is either intrinsic or not - it cannot be both.

If reality dictates that human value is intrinsic, then the proof that one should value life from conception is straight forward since there is no debate that an embryo is a separate human organism from the very beginning (and is in the class of humans). Consequently, ending the life of any human is rightly called "killing".

If the value of humans is determined by others (i.e., value is not intrinsic), then any number of situations can be generated to motivate the ethical position you espouse (at times but not always) and the definition of "killing" takes on a somewhat arbitrary meaning.

So, I suppose this is a good point to ask you and those following this thread the fundamental question, "Why is your life of value?"

Marylin, I'm only going to do so much work for someone who has been so personally nasty. You're going to have to find the quote in the pdf file yourself. Just do a search on the words I've quoted and you'll find it.

Anyone who can find the right to chop up a baby in our Constitution is sick, Barak is just sicker than others as he's found a constitutional right to negligent infanticide of abortion survivors.

Free speech advocates point to the 1st Amendment. They can quote it. Gun ownership advocates point to the 2nd Amendment. They can quote it. Abortion rights advocates point to the, uh, where is it anyway? It isn't there and can't be quoted.

"Obama has stated his opposition to partial birth and late term abortions..." That isn't what he said after the Supreme Court Decision. At that time, he very much wanted stabbing babies in the head and sucking their brains out to be legal. He said that "I strongly disagree," with the Supreme Court's decision that permits states to ban it. He went on to say, "I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

"all liberals want abortions" If you're going to use quotes in reference to what I've written, at least quote me accurately.

Tim: we will work bottom up. To answer your question of why is my life of value? It is not!

You see, I don't believe in the "supremacy" of humans over say animals when it comes to your idea of "value".

And what you say that value is intrinsic...check your dictionary. Not!

You are trying to equate biology with theology assuming that to be homo sapiens confers right along with it, a sanctity from conception. Otherwise, you would have to "value" all life the same: cats, dogs, rabbits, cows and horses. Therefore, it would be "killing" to kill them as well.

But we don't play it that way as many of these we "kill" and eat. We might assume as intrinsic something lives from a certain time, but what an anti-abortionist sees is not "life" per se, but a specific type of life something very different than a mouse for instance.

Now in theology the soul gets into the act and that is what separates man from general animals for the religious. The problem there is how does the soul (and when) get into the human. If at conception, then bingo anti abortionists are home free, if not then whenever it does get there and makes man somehow different from other animals, is when "human" life begins.

Theologians have been debating this idea for years. But, they still don't agree. At a point when man is not human, is it ok to kill? Well, we seem to have no qualms about killing other animals and even the Bible has a problem here. There are places where pregnant women if harmed .. twas a bad deal, but only if the woman was harmed...seemed not concerned if the baby within was harmed.

So, were the Biblical writers confused? I'd say so. Where does that leave us?

You have to believe the way you want and I'll agree with one thing, absolute truth is not up for grabs. But, who knows what that is. Your words don't take us there, I could use the same and take us down yet another path.

"Reality" cannot dictate you see because we can't tell what "reality" is....we might believe that because something is growing inside it is a "protected" human, but what of those started in the petri dish, of the clones of animals (and maybe by now of humans)? Is the clone from a human also a human and protected?

I remember 60 years ago reading science fiction stories about cloning humans to harvest body parts and here it is in spades.

To assume the inherent being of a being in the beginning is sacred to the point that removing it is "killing" doesn't compute unless you can first absolutely define "human". When you do, you can answer whether the tree falls if I don't hear it I guess.

You can't reason to "reality" by assuming something is "intrinsic" unless you can prove the reality. Yes, a puppy is a dog, and it came from a mother dog, but is it different from the cat based on value. Value always carries the "value to whom" idea.

Sorry, truth is only truth if you can prove it. If you had been right, it would solve a lot of problems. But this much is true: if their is a sacredness to the foetus that destroying it equates with killing, no belief otherwise can change it. But be prepared: if it is not, believing it is won't change it either.

Simply put, if I'm driving toward a tree and I DON'T believe it exists, I'll hit it anyway if it does exist. But, if I'm headed down that road and I BELIEVE there IS a tree there, and there isn't, I won't hit it (because it doesn't exist). So, belief has nothing to do with reality....or does it? I think, therefore I am?????????

You've redefined my argument in an effort to secure a position against it. At this point, I'm in line with George and Lee

One is a human person by being a living member of the human community, a member of the human species. It is true that many people cannot immediately exercise the rational capacities characteristic of members of the species—such as the elderly person with dementia whose rational powers are gone forever, or the comatose person whose rational powers may or may not return, or infants, fetuses, and embryos whose rational powers are still developing. But such individuals are still morally valuable persons, at least to those who value all human beings equally. They are still members of the human community. Being a person is not a result of acquired accidental attributes; rather, it is being a certain type of individual, an individual with a rational nature. And human beings are individuals with a rational nature at every stage of their existence. We come into being as individuals with a rational nature, and we do not cease being such individuals until we cease to be (by dying). We did not acquire a rational nature by achieving sentience or the immediately exercisable capacity for rational inquiry and deliberation. We were individuals with a rational nature even during the early childhood, infant, fetal, and embryonic stages of our lives. If we are persons now, we were persons then. We were never “human nonpersons.”

So?

If man was always able to perceive and to practice his form of logic......but he wasn't and that is the point.

You can define human anyway you want...want a curve, plug Hitler into your spectrum and you will see your words fail. Rational Nature...don't think so.

Point is though, you can't say that from the beginning those splitting cells are the same as one who is thinking.....

And no one has answered the cloning idea, what then?

I don't even buy the idea of a rational nature as describing man....at certain points he can think logically, but not all through development and I think that may be why theologians differ on when "life" begins.

Actually, I'd go for cats having a rational nature, and they go astray less often than man, and watching them, they do think logically.

If, you mean that a foetus at a certain point will always become "man"....probably except during evolution when it might have become "ape".

We can all reason our way into and out of what constitutes man, and because he is still "man" even with alzheimers, is that because of what he is, or what he was? Is the "essence" "soul", the brain, or something else?

I think you are assuming that since man doesn't produce say mice, but always men, and that you personally assume the nature of man is to be able to think and reason, you want and I think the word here is want, to assume he is always the same. Personally, I don't care. The question when is a piece of man....a cell, an egg, a sperm.....not something that is as important as the human carrying it? That's all.




button02b.gif

Categories

Archives

Pro-Life Articles

add your site
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 24, 2017, 4:35 am
A Follower of Francis Sep 24, 2017, 1:08 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 24, 2017, 1:35 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 24, 2017, 12:47 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:42 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 10:16 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 7:54 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 23, 2017, 11:16 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 23, 2017, 8:00 pm
SUNLIT UPLANDS Sep 23, 2017, 9:35 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:22 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 4:54 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:22 pm
Happy Catholic Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:35 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:26 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:24 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:31 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:38 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:07 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:13 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:11 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:15 pm
cultureshift Sep 23, 2017, 3:43 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Catholic Church Conservation Sep 23, 2017, 3:15 pm
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:13 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 1:09 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:13 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Christian Musician...Pro Life! Sep 18, 2017, 12:02 pm
A Catholic Life Sep 23, 2017, 11:44 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:02 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 4:29 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:55 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Sep 23, 2017, 4:20 am
DEACON FOR LIFE Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
DEACON FOR LIFE Sep 23, 2017, 3:15 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 9:11 pm
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 11:00 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 10:39 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 10:27 pm
Pro-Life Unity Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 9:27 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 9:50 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 10:03 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 9:22 pm
Rebelution Sep 22, 2017, 8:49 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:17 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 8:51 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 8:31 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:29 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 8:32 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 7:35 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 10:39 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 10:38 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:56 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:45 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:33 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 6:00 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 6:05 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 7:14 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 6:32 pm
NoisyRoom.net Sep 22, 2017, 7:13 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:15 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 5:32 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 5:57 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 6:56 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:06 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:21 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:43 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:54 pm
Happy Catholic Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:00 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 4:22 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 3:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 2:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 9:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 3:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 9:15 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 11:00 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 11:00 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 5:59 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 6:24 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 4:33 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 3:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 3:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 5:10 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 4:10 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 7:51 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 5:49 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 8:01 pm
Students for Life of Illinois Sep 18, 2017, 4:00 pm
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 3:12 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:29 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 4:50 pm
Leaven for the Loaf Sep 22, 2017, 4:54 pm
March For Life Sep 22, 2017, 3:51 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 3:31 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 3:34 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 5:49 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:38 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 3:01 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 2:19 pm
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 22, 2017, 2:35 pm
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 1:07 pm
open book Jan 1, 1970, 4:00 am
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 2:07 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 2:07 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:00 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:20 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 12:57 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 12:44 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:13 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:05 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:08 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:04 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:12 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 12:57 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 1:26 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 4:10 pm
The Common Room Sep 22, 2017, 12:34 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 12:59 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 11:34 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 10:19 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 11:43 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 11:20 am
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 11:45 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 9:47 am
Les Femmes - The Truth Sep 22, 2017, 10:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Sep 22, 2017, 10:20 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Fundamentally Reformed Sep 22, 2017, 2:35 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 8:43 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 8:18 am
Catholic Church Conservation Sep 22, 2017, 9:15 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 am
Catholic Fire Sep 22, 2017, 5:26 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:47 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:16 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 1:52 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:14 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 3:18 am
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 21, 2017, 11:51 pm