Bernie's anti-abortion candidate

The best reason white evangelicals and other religious conservatives had to vote for Donald Trump last year was that he would be better for the pro-life cause than Hillary Clinton.

But it was a lousy reason, given everything else they knew about Trump. Unfortunately, that single issue is all that matters for much of the Republican base these days.

Which brings us to the Democrats' current brouhaha over the Omaha mayor's race.

It seems that Heath Mello, the Democratic candidate, is seriously pro-life. In 2009 and 2010 he co-sponsored bills to tell women they could see an ultrasound before having an abortion and banning abortions after the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

When this came to light last week, pro-choice activists went ballistic.

"Abortion access is not a ‘single issue’ or a ‘social issue,’" said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue in a statement. "It is a proxy for women to have control over our lives, our family’s lives, our economic well-being, our dignity, and human rights."

Let's stop right there.

For many Americans, abortion is no such proxy. They support equal pay for equal work and raising the minimum wage and a human right to health care and doing away with the death penalty. They believe in climate change and want there to be a serious effort to combat it.

Mello, like a lot of his fellow Catholics, is one of them.

Nevertheless, after NARAL issued its condemnation, the liberal website Daily Kos withdrew its endorsement. The Democratic National Committee began waffling.

But Bernie Sanders, the Independent who is now the Democratic Party's biggest star, did not hesitate to show up at a rally for Mello in Omaha. And on Face the Nation yesterday, he stuck to his guns:

If you have a rally in which you have the labor movement and the environmentalists and Native Americans and the African-American community and the Latino community coming together, saying, we want this guy to become our next mayor, should I reject going there to Omaha? I don't think so.

I don't think so either.

After John Kerry narrowly lost the 2004 election, the new Democratic National Committee chair, Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean, decided over the objections of the D.C. Democratic establishment to pursue a 50-state strategy. That involved recruiting candidates who were, yes, pro-life.

In 2006, the Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress.

You can be seriously pro-choice and embrace that approach again. Or you can mirror the Republican base and sacrifice all your other values on the altar of abortion.


  1. This article is a great example of the duality of the democratic party. If the Dems and women are going to identify solely on the issue of abortion they will find themselves as a subset sooner than later.

    What was glaring was the so called “side benefits” that are associated with abortion to justify it, “It is a proxy for women to have control over our lives, our family’s
    lives, our economic well-being, our dignity, and human rights.” So terminating a life gives a woman control? Control they cannot achieve except by ending their pregnancy?

  2. I am pro-life and a Democrat because Republicans could care less about life after birth. Life is more than a fetus.

  3. It’s the difference between having values and worrying about them and just supporting people for a chance at power.

    Republicans pretty much refuted any pretensions of caring about conservative religious values when they threw in support of contract breaching, fraud promoting, serial adulterer and possible sexual assaulting Cheeto.

    “Control they cannot achieve except by ending their pregnancy?”

    Yup. Most of all, such choices are neither yours to make, nor subject to your approval.

  4. I wonder , what will happen 20 years from now? when most of people who owns a pet ( treat the pets as their own children) those people refused to have children…., and people who come to this country with their own intention to change this country by having as much children as they want, since they can raise their children with The Federal money ( WIC) ? the pets can not vote, and the children growing up and eligible to vote… If they will be raised with American value ( that will be OK), what will happen when they are NOT ?…Still thinking about about abortion ? Please it is not about me or is about the future of America.

  5. Of course I did. Given a choice between a lifelong Methodist who has endeavored to live according to her understanding of Christian principles and a conman, pedophile, serial sexual molester, and walking ego whose only religion is greed and only god is himself, I went with the Methodist.

  6. But — and this is the part you and I are powerless to stop, Spuddie — God can give opportunities for prepared and prayerful Christians to speak a cautious, caring word of life-affirming Scripture, and maybe a life-oriented website or phone number or baby-support group, affirming both mother & baby.

    In some cases it may be possible to briefly mention the deep and unseen costs of abortion as well. The stuff that the “choice” people never wanna tell the woman about.

    Anyway, Balloon’s right. Abortion doesn’t give a woman control over anything. All that “choice” talk doesn’t do squat when that angry, inhuman Roto-Rooter machine turns on, seeking its next victim.

  7. You say you are pro-life, but you voted for Hillary, knowing about Hillary’s unmitigated, 100 percent support and promotion of abortion-on-demand?

  8. I get the impression you had no values to sell out in the first place. That morals and ethics were for other people. So don’t worry. One can’t betray values they never had.

    At least conservatives Christians made their vacuous nature so explicit this time around. Now you don’t even have to pretend you represent moral values and beliefs anymore. Now they just come out and say its all about grabbing power to impose on others.

  9. You may want to re-read my post. Didn’t say anything about political power.

    On the other hand, since good ole Bernie Sanders says that pro-life politicians are A-okay, who am I to dispute him?

  10. Abortion is just one part of the Life issue, how do you stand on affordable healthcare, capital punishment, euthanasia, food assistance, refugees, etc.?:

    “I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.” – Sister Joan Chittister

    When life is viewed as precious from conception until natural death, I find Democrats more pro-life than mere anti-abortionists. And the Democratic Party, the only party of the two with a big enough tent, to contain the whole pro-life spectrum.

  11. Floydlee: as I recall Clinton said abortion must be legal but rare. It’s complicated. But there is a better way than the current anti-abortion politics. The frequency of abortions diminish as women have access to educational and job opportunities, and when birth control is readily and easily available, and when sex education happens early. All of these conditions are being undermined by the GOP. Why not diminish abortions by improving the quality of life for everyone? Go ahead, counsel your own children about your moral views, preach sermons to your congregation, but don’t use the legislatures to limit this necessary freedom. This single issue politics is destroying American democracy.

  12. ““It is a proxy for women to have control over our lives, our family’s lives, our economic well-being, our dignity, and human rights.” What if the baby is a female……what about her rights?

  13. There is a billboard on the highway outside of Chatham Ontario. It is a picture of a baby and a picture of a puppy. The puppy is asking the baby, “Don’t you have a Humane Society to protect you?”

  14. Your “life long Methodist” didn’t know enough about Christianity to know that we don’t change the Bible to suit society’s next whim……she is not the poster child for “Christian”.

  15. Not according to DNC chairman Tom Perez. He said it’s “Non-Negotiable” that you be pro-choice if you run for anything as a Democrat. They just don’t make those big tents like they used to.

    But the Angry Roto-Rooter doesn’t care about parties & labels & Obamacare debates. It demands one exact thing: to be fed. Every day, coast-to-coast. Live, juicy babies. Millions of aborted babies. Millions of aborted women. Hillary supports the Rooter, 100 percent.

  16. Yep. So disappointed. I guess losing a primary to Hillary Clinton made him more expedient minded. Oh well.

  17. Hillary used to say that abortion should be.”legal but rare.” You’re thinking of the old Hillary, the one who at least **partially** allowed her Methodist religion to inform her political positions.

    All of that thoughtfulness and nuance went out the window, in exchange for Obama’s royal endorsement.

    NOW, Hillary says unrestricted abortion-on-demand is a constitutional right. She has 100 percent dropped the previous pro-choice label of “rare.” And not just her; it’s the entire Democrat party. Is this YOUR position as well?

  18. Supporting an economic liberal who is anti-abortion is a far cry from voting for a boorish candidate who boasted of sexually harassing dozens of women, up and until he became President. Whatever Democrats have to do to take back Congress and stop Trump is nothing compared to the hypocrisy required to put the Tangerine President in office.

  19. Hmm, brown peril screed. How unoriginal.

    “by having as much children as they want, since they can raise their children with”

    That doesn’t happen when contraception and abortion are widely available regardless of social class. It seems you have a contradictory argument here. Fewer unwanted pregnancies mean fewer children on public assistance.

    But sub rosa racist panic screeds tend to lack even internal logic to them.

  20. What I find so lacking often is an ability to see common goals. So much of the debate is around being right, people be damned.

    I’ve never heard anyone desire more abortions. Access to, options to, etc. yes, but desiring a sheer increase in the number, no. But the all or nothing, need to be right (on both sides) leaves neither side gaining ground and ultimately both sides not having what they want.

  21. Correct to a certain extent. Remember, while Obama was being sworn in, leading Republicans met and agreed to obstruct everything Obama attempted. And they obstructed as much as they could.

    Since Trump took office, Democrats have attempted to work with Trump when he wasn’t working to destroy their principles. Democrats have treated Trump much better than Republicans treated Obama these past eight years.

  22. No one is “demanding” anything. That term is reprehensible. It implies it is reasonable for government to control women’s bodies. It isn’t. Abortion occurs at the same rate whether it’s legal or illegal. The side doing the ‘demanding” is the one which insists it has the right to tell others what to do. HRC’s position on the issue was admirable. Anyone who voted for Trump over this issue is a bully and enemy of freedom.

  23. That’s ridiculous. The Party cannot keep people with opposition to abortion out, but it can and should not spend cash for them. There are exceptions of course like Bob Casey and this fellow in Omaha. The party pulling out will conversely help him in this traditionally Republican area.

  24. It’s the law of the land. It’s not the government’s right to claim title over women’s bodies.

  25. That’s correct and is the law. It would not make sense to eliminate a standing legal right that is as important to women as to men. Women should not be made to endure medical hardships for political purposes. No one remembers the reason abortion was make legal in the first place. It’s because wealthy women were having illegal abortions and had the money to pay medical doctors. The argument was and still is, if women are going to have abortions anyway (there is no way to stop this, it’s a woman’s right as it is her own body), it should be legal for everyone, safe and protected as a human right. (The HUMAN right came later as we have become more enlightened on the subject by Hillary.) Put your religion where it should be – in your own pew. Leave others alone. Private and personal life decisions are not up to a vote of the courts. Prohibition, for instance, never had a chance.

  26. Life is more than a fetus? What does that mean? (It’s rhetorical.) I’m shocked that you profess to be a christian and seem not to care for the 55 million babies that have been killed since 1973 by legal abortion. Shame on you.

    Psalm 139 For You formed my inward parts;
    You wove me in my mother’s womb.
    14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Wonderful are Your works,
    And my soul knows it very well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from You,
    When I was made in secret,
    And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
    16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
    And in Your book were all written
    The days that were ordained for me,
    When as yet there was not one of them.
    17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
    How vast is the sum of them!
    18 If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.
    When I awake, I am still with You.

  27. Well said floydlee. The stronger your argument the louder their cacophony.

  28. The govt. tells us all the time what we can and can’t do with our bodies.

  29. You’re right. Not long ago a muslim cleric said that they will conquer Europe without firing a shot – b/c muslims will out have more children than Europeans will. Today in France the avg. muslim woman will have something like 8 children whereas the avg. french woman will have .8 children. (Huh, those actuaries sure are smrt.)

  30. … said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
    Scrooges’ sentiments fit right in with the proabort mindset.
    And while we’re at it lets drown some kittens too.

  31. There has not been a more pious politician than HRC since Jimmy Carter.

  32. There is nothing more phony than the party that believes if you’re white you’re all right but if you’re black stay back getting self-righteous over blastocysts.

  33. Santa Anna was said to have said the same thing about Texas. Nice appeal to racism and ethnocentrism here.

  34. What do we want! A mindless slogan!
    When do we want it? NOW!


  35. Ahhh…playing the race card, I see. That’s not nice K.

  36. The gummit says its against the law to stick a needle in your arm and inject heroine in your body.
    The gummit says its against the law to perform surgery on others without proper certification.
    The gummit says it is against the law to (fill in the blank)

  37. Ouch! Much pain turning yourself into a pretzel there?

  38. I for one am greatly concerned about all the life issues you have cited.
    1. Affordable healthcare is a hopeful dream, but not practically possible. I speak as one who struggles to meet all the medical expenses of myself and my wife, and as one who sees no way out of the present healthcare morass.
    2. I have gone from being a reluctant advocate of the Death penalty, to a thoughtful advocate of its cessation.
    3. I oppose Euthanasia in its entirety, with the caveat that, if life is being sustained solely by mechanical and artificial means, wherein the individual would expire naturally in the absence of such devices, it is in fact not euthanasia.
    4. Food assistance should be the normal and natural response within the ministries of the church, and to some degree by the government if it does not foster dependency.
    5. Refugees are fine, though reasonable vetting is not outside the pale.

  39. Hillary Clinton never made a move without thinking about expediency. It’s in her DNA.

  40. When fetus worshipers show any regard for those already born, I will give a crap about their alleged concerns for the sanctity of life. Haven’t seen it yet. Will never see it.

  41. 23% of democrats are pro-life, 44% oppose public funding of abortion. We are not one-issue voters and we care about life outside the womb as much as the life of the fetus. Rhetorically, what good is it to save the life of the fetus only to starve the child?

    There appears to be no room in the Republican Party for those who are Whole-Life, who are concerned with life from conception to natural death. But, despite the rhetoric of a few extremists, Whole-Lifers have found a place.

  42. You are not denying your post was racist. You are just saying you are annoyed at it being pointed out.

  43. I dare say, none of us are. But, all things being relative in this world, I would take her Methodism over the High Priest of Mammon we elected.

  44. 1. Of course it is. Plenty of places in the world do it .
    2. Fair enough
    3. As long as you respect the choices of others in this regard, fair enough.
    4. As long as poverty exists and starvation is a threat, people will depend on it. Unless one addresses the root causes of poverty, dependence on public assistance is an ancillary concern.
    5. Already done. The critics typically argue from a point of convenient ignorance.

  45. 23% of Democrats are pro-life, 44% of us oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. We are Whole-Life, concerned with life from conception to natural death, while the Republican concern for life appears to end with birth.

  46. And you’re not denying you’re playing the race card, Al Shar….uh K. You’re just annoyed it being pointed out .

  47. “Thou shalt not kill.” The 6th commandment. This is a moral imperative. Sorry to see you take it so lightly – but that’s not surprising.
    “…what good is it to save the life of the fetus only to starve the child?
    You’re assuming the child will starve if it isn’t killed. That’s called begging the question. It’s a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies can sometimes lead to horrible consequences. See how that works?

  48. “Playing the race card” means in non bigot speak, pointing out someone made a racist remark. So whatever Sparky.

    Recycling stupid bigoted arguments from the 19th century doesn’t make you sound intelligent. I can’t even pretend you have anything to say worth taking seriously.

  49. Your entire argument is an argumentum ad misericordiam and a misrepresentation of what I’ve said (Logical Strawman).

    Finally, your argument presents a false dilemma, an example of binary, black-and-white thinking. I do not advocate killing the fetus (these you should have done, without neglecting the others – Matt 23:23): I am saying that the life of the fetus, the child, the adult, the elderly, the condemned, indeed, all life is of value.

  50. So you’re basing your behavior on the behavior of others. Hmmmm…interesting approach to life.

  51. Nope. Try again. Just pointing out fetus worshipers are dishonest and hypocritical when it comes to their self righteous utterances.

  52. “Rhetorically, what good is it to save the life of the fetus only to starve the child?”
    Your words dude.
    “I do not advocate killing the fetus…” Thanks for the clarification – which would have been helpful to begin with.
    “we care about life outside the womb as much as the life of the fetus.”
    But to follow it up with “what good is it to save the life of the fetus…” was confusing.
    (on a side note: your latin is remarkable!)

  53. ” Nice appeal to racism and ethnocentrism here.” Your words.
    Poor Spuddie, you stepped in it and the only way out was through personal attack. Not surprising.

  54. Not my words. Check the name of the poster again. You are still a racist with a thin skin. Someone annoyed about it being pointed out. I was ridiculing your really silly cliche expression.

    I made fun of the hackneyed and unoriginal nature of your appeal.

    You know history bore out your argument when the nation was taken over by the Irish, Italian and Polish and we named the Pope the sovereign of our nation. 🙂

  55. “When fetus worshipers show any regard for those already born, I will give a crap about their alleged concerns for the sanctity of life.”
    (Your words.)

    What do we want? A mindless slogan!
    When do we want it? NOW

    As for Christian Charities:

    I’m sure they would appreciate a donation from such a charitable person as you.

  56. Christians can be hypocrites! What a surprise! Charity is not the same as respect for lives of people.

    In one day you have shown yourself to be a truly hateful and bigoted person. Of course you oppose the concept of treating women as people. You don’t care about the sanctity of life, you just want to impose on others. Like every fetus worshiper. So don’t bother pretending its about protecting anyone or anything.

  57. Dang, my bad…but you all “sound alike”

    Whew, and talk about thin skinned…You are so thin skinned I can hear the vitriol as it courses through the veins popping out in your head.

    I’m concerned you may stroke out.


  58. lol. Nice try spud, but no cigar.
    (Back out of the room slowly…don’t anyone make any sudden moves…spud is on a rant.)

    Spud, you really need to get help for your psychotic episodes.

  59. If your picture is what you all look like, well, I’d recommend a little blush and mascara. Maybe some lipstick, too. And highlights…don’t forget the highlights.

    Basically, all chickens sound alike. Walk into any chicken house and you’ll see. Same thing here. ;-P

  60. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…..thanks for the laugh this morning…blessings.

  61. Your cruelty and meanspiritedness is duly noted.

  62. That was the end of “Poetry Corner.” Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

  63. And yet the Bible gives instructions on how to perform an abortion in Numbers 5:11-13. The thing is you cannot kill that which hasn’t been born, except metaphorically as in killing time. So the maudlin assertion a fetus is a person is always just the same old crap piled higher and deeper.

  64. 1. Single Payer. e dicho.
    2. I am in favor of keeping the death penalty on the books but seldom employing it saving it for such as mass murderers or traitors like the disgraced former Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North.
    3. Euthanasia is the government or society requiring it. That is different from assisted self-termination by consenting patients.
    4. The dependency is in the receipt of inherited wealth, which has certainly made evil men like Charles and David Koch wards of the state.
    5. The Obama Administration has instituted adequate vetting of refugees. Trump fooled a lot of people into thinking more was needed, which they bought into due to their xenophobia.

  65. I may be wrong but I don’t think shooting up is what is illegal; it’s the possession of the horse which is.

    The government requires certain licensures, but, thanks to Religious Reich influence in Missouri you can claim a religious exemption to 24 hour child care programs and abuse other people’s kids all you want and tell ’em de lawd commands it.

    But as far as body use goes, as long as you do not harm others, you have a right to do what you want to do.

  66. Oh, and you claim to be different?

    Richard Nixon once lamented to his drinking buddy George Smathers how he felt bad about being hated and wished he’d have gone into politics as a liberal Democrat like the man who beat him in 1960. Of course he didn’t, but at that time conservatism was considered dead. Were HRC similarly inclined she’d have wished she’d have gone in as a reactionary fusspot. She didn’t because her principles exceed expidiency in that regard.

  67. Did you read it? The concept “life begins at conception” is not valid as far as personhood is concerned. It’s just an excuse for self-righteous men to tell women what to do.

  68. Typical Dittohead blather. It is you who played the race card. Twice.

  69. Yo Spuddie once I read a blog by some right-wing idiot street preacher antiabort terrorist enabler who said when he was protesting outside The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in 2012 that he was “afraid he was going to be physically assaulted by a 70-year-old man.” Sumbitch added ten years to my age to make his sorry ass sound good. He was so upset I told he he was the American version of the Taliban.

  70. Then why do doctors say a baby is dead in the womb?

  71. I’m not annoyed. I feel bad for you that that pithy effort is the best you’ve got.

  72. It is absolutely valid as a scientific construct. Naturally no one can tell at conception what the gender, health, gifts or skills, the individual in utero will be or have. That does not make them any less human at the immediate outset of their journey.

  73. Expediency plays very little part in my approach to life, I lead my life by precepts and principles, with occasional lapses, but then I haven’t endeavored to become the President of the United States. Hillary’s duplicities long predated that effort in her case.

  74. But cause said baby to die without the mothers consent and the law will say you killed the baby and you will be charged with murder if it were intentional and no amount of atheistic sophistry will keep your butt out of jail.

  75. The same spirit that guided SCOTUS in the Dred Scott case guides the proaborts today.
    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves”,[2][3] whether enslaved or free , [read fetus] could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery [read abortion] in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.

    A little change in the language and you have Roe v Wade. Even liberal jurists have admitted it was bad law.

    “Even many scholars sympathetic to the results of Roe have issued harsh criticisms of its legal reasoning. In the Yale Law Journal, eminent legal scholar John Hart Ely, a supporter of legal abortion, complained that Roe is “bad constitutional law, or rather … it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

  76. You are.
    Of course The HIV pandemic fueled by promiscuous homosexuals is not considered “harm” to others. CDC calls it a pandemic. You call it consensual. Hmmmm. Let’s just call it a “consensual pandemic”.
    Yeah, I get it.

    Pot kettle black –

  78. Pssst…SB just made a faulty comparison. Should you tell him or should I?

  79. lol….you go ahead………I appreciate you Harry. God bless you.

  80. Ohhhhh…K….I didn’t know you cared. All is forgiven.

  81. Well that was quite a non sequitur and an argument your faction lost during the 1980s. It seems your entire rationale is blame the victim unless it’s a televangelist or Milo Yiannopoulous. Naw, Son, the AIDS crisis was caused by the incompetent Reagan Administration’s inaction until Nancy Reagan’s consort Merv Griffin got it. Remember her? The First Lady who screamed at staff “I don’t give a damn about abortion!”

  82. Prosecutors asked for that tool to give them a bargaining chip in negotiations. Some, including me, opposed it because it would empower the fetus fetishists. It’s been used about one time. Not an argument, just a legislative anomaly from that terrible era of the 1980s.

  83. Roe was primarily a bad strategy but a sound ruling because government has no right to interfere with a woman’s decision. The reason it was bad as opposed to an incremental strategy is it inadvertently created a network of terrorists attacking doctors and clinic staff.

    Dred Scott presumed slaves were not afforded rights of citizens. That was corrected by kicking Dixie’s tuchis and the 15th Amendment.

    No one seriously believes fetii have legal rights, especially since those whining about them are politically allied with the forces of repression.

  84. According to the Faux News bubble, but not in reality. Your presumption to judge her is reprehensible.

  85. It’s not a person; there’s no “them” to it. The “journey” begins at birth and not before. Any rhetoric otherwise is just woman hatred.

  86. God believe they have intrinsic worth. And to kill a baby is a sin.
    Matt. 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

    On a cherrier note: have you called your mother and thanked her for not aborting you?

  87. Just because you hate babies doesn’t mean we have to.

    Hence The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.[1]
    The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

    You are rejected!

  88. No the AIDS crisis was caused by homosexual who violated God’s law. Let’s see: I guess the poor homosexuals were forced into doing the wild thing with each other by RR. You all need to learn about personal responsibility.
    Oh, by the way, back in the ’80’s I worked as an orderly in a hospital when the AIDS epidemic first hit. One of our patients – a heterosexual – acquired the HIV virus through a blood transfusion. A gay guest heard about it and wanted to talk to him. The hospital official said, “He doesn’t want to talk to you. So, no.”
    Thanks gay community for the AIDS epidemic here in America.

  89. What utter unscientific nonsense.

  90. No substantive reply need be made here.

  91. Bringing God into the debate, without knowing the nature of the Divine, is reckless. Who is going to truly admit that humans have power over God’s creation? I remember a woman debating this subject and realized, “I wonder what my 13th sibling is like?” She knew that God’s love extended to His entire creation. She did not have a 13th sibling, nor had anyone been aborted. According to First Genesis God’s children were already created – creation was finished in 6 days. Humans can’t touch God’s creation. Are we not the spiritual evolution of what already exists? Again, human existence is not absolute: war, capital punishment, courageous acts that are fatal, etc. We exist in a context we do not understand. Abortion should be legal but rare – yes. It doesn’t matter who said it – it’s correct. The problem with this debate is that it is useless. There are few women who really think they don’t have the control in this matter. It is God-given, a choice. If it were not, a choice could not be made. The angel Gabriel came to Mary to ask for her permission and cooperation. Mary responded yes. That’s a very big Biblical clue.

  92. There you go with that latin again.
    And are you K52, b/c that’s who I’m replying to.
    Get over yourself. It’s not all about you.

  93. Abortion is legal but it’s not rare. How about those 55 million or so aborted babies. Doesn’t strike a chord, does it.

    And I do know something of the Divine Nature –
    John 1:14-18: 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

    II Pet. 3:18 …but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

    TD, get a little closer to your Bible, OK.

  94. Defense of the environment (i.e. air safe to breathe, water safe to drink, land safe to cultivate, plants safe to graze), programs to improve the life of the poor, programs to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, all the missions Jesus taught us, are or ought to be “Liberal” causes. Then comes the issue of abortion.

    If allying with abortion opponents undoes all the above, then we have swapped the lives of some of the babies for a threat to the life of the planet and all its occupants. If we ally with anti-abortion neo-fascists we are helping a different evil.

    I choose to ally with ‘liberals’ in order to save the planet, because minimizing disease and poverty and pollution in fact is also pro-life, as would be a public program to ensure that no woman should ever have to worry that pregnancy is an educational or financial disaster.

  95. Ignoring the plight of the poor sets the stage for abortions. Ignoring the plight of the pregnant student sets the stage for abortion. Ignoring the plight of the planet sets the stage for the death of millions if not of the planet itself. We should address the motives for abortion, and not simply ban it at the expense of greater numbers of deaths albeit slow-motion.

  96. We’ve got a truck load of services for pregnant students – I’m in the public schools
    I think the planet is doing pretty well – its man’s nature that need attention.
    $ is the motive of abortion – its a multi billion dollar cash kitty for abortionists.
    Ask the babies awaiting their death if any of that other stuff matters to them.

  97. Look at the history of jurisprudence. You don’t celebrate your birthday three months after your birth. You can’t go down to 7-11 for a six pack at age 20 years and three months. For all legal requirements, birth determines status, not the moment the zygote which grew into you was formed. Nobody claims fetii as dependents on Form 1040 or 1040-A.

    As to the woman hated involved look at the restrictions sought by right-wing legislative majorities. 24 to 72 hour waiting periods. Forced ultrasounds. Required funerals for fetii. All informed by a desire to slut-shame and nothing else.

  98. We would gladly throw abortion providers under the bus in return for realistic sex education and free birth control. So far no takers.

    It’s funny how the Right loves the profit motive which leads the Koch Brothers to rape the planet, but sees it as obscene for medical providers to receive market-based remuneration for their services.

  99. rape the planet –
    How do you spell hyperbole?

  100. It’s one thing to be religious and another to be practical. I’m only repeating myself so will make this my last. Mind your own business. That’s in the Bible, too. John 21:21-22, really means, “It’s not your business.” Leave other people’s sins alone and you take care of yourself. Final word on this. We can’t legislate morality, we answer the call of the Supreme Being when it comes to us.

  101. Why are babies aborted? That’s a question which needs to be fully and accurately answered. And those answers need to be addressed in a Christian way. Is it poverty? Let us help both medically and financially until the need for help evaporates. Is it education interruption or risk of employment loss? Let us respond with free childcare.
    We must not force a mother to have a child that becomes a financial disaster, and the pro-life response is to ameliorate the disaster, so that mother need not fear motherhood.

  102. From which end do you think from: We legislate morality every day. Your kidding, right.
    And you just took John 21 out of context – typical of your ilk.
    Killing babies is the prog libs business and that’s why you want others to stay out of it because it interferes with their revenue stream.
    And your supreme being – is yourself.

  103. Oh I know – how dare they object to our aboratoriums. After all, they are so clean and comfy. Just right to kill babies in. I swan.

  104. As I read it, I don’t see any instruction to perform an abortion in that passage from verse 11 to 31 (not 13 as you stated)

    Numbers 5:11-31, describes an unusual procedure, known as the jealousy offering, a husband could use to determine if his wife had been unfaithful to him. Essentially, the husband and wife would come to the priest, the priest would then create a concoction of unpleasant ingredients, and then the wife would have to drink the concoction. If the wife was guilty of adultery, she would get sick and her belly would swell. If the wife was innocent, God would protect her from the effects of the concoction. There was nothing magical about the concoction. It was entirely a matter of God using the result to demonstrate whether a woman was innocent or guilty. So, in summary, Numbers 5:11-31 affirms the truth of Numbers 32:23, “Be sure your sin will find you out.”

    Some propose that Numbers 5:11-31 refers to God causing an abortion. The 2011 edition of the NIV mistakenly states that the drink will cause miscarriage in Numbers 5:21-22, 27. However, this is not what the passage is talking about. Pregnancy is nowhere mentioned, or even hinted at, in the text. The only thing that even sounds like pregnancy is the guilty wife’s stomach becoming bloated, but even in that instance, it has nothing to do with pregnancy. Further, the passage does not say that drinking the concoction would cause an abortion/miscarriage. While drinking a poisonous mixture of ingredients could very well cause a miscarriage, that is not what this text is speaking of.

    If a wife was found guilty, the punishment was death (Leviticus 20:10). If the wife was found innocent, she would be “cleared of guilt” and “able to have children” (Numbers 11:28). So, again, Numbers 5:11-31 does not refer to abortion in any sense. Rather, it is describing a method that God allowed to be used to determine if a wife had committed adultery against her husband.

  105. May GOD bless your ministries. _/I_

Leave a Comment