Aborted infants are delecasies in China? I wonder if Michael Phelps new what he was eating?

I've been to China.  (Hong Kong, anyway.)  I can answer both of your questions:

No, they aren't.

and...

No, he didn't!

   Did you have any dog? Does it taste like chicken? They use 'farm raised' dogs, don't they? I hope they are "free range" with no hormones added.

MMFA provides the title (and one-liner) of the day.

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/

 

Apparently this guy has a TRANSCRIPT of what Obama said. *shifty eyes*

This isn't about Barack Obama. This is about media sources giving too much credibility and airtime to this other discredited person.

Ignore his attempt to change the subject.

"This isn't about Barack Obama. This is about media sources giving too much credibility and airtime to this other discredited person."

 About what subject?

It's not my fault you're too dense to understand what the subject is or too partisan to admit that your post was 100% off topic.

Ignore the troll.

   So because mmfa SAYS she is discredited you naturally believe them? What proof did they bring other than their opinion that she is uncredible? You're a good minion. You follow orders very well. Are you going to vote for the infanticide supporter and plagairist for Pres/VP?

You find this woman credible?  Seriously?

Note that MMfA is supposed to provide "proof" regarding a subjective matter of credibility.  Obviously that's not how it works, it's all about how reasonable and well-supported an argument is, not whether "proof" is provided.  MMfA could provide a hundred examples of her behavior denounced by any number of moderate and objective sources, and it would still be an opinion.

Also bear in mind that we're dealing with someone who doesn't consider the fact that McCain got a marriage license while still married to be evidence of infidelity.  So there's really not much possibility of anything being "proven" to Philib against his will.

Tell me, Wussie...do you people have anyone speaking for your side who is neither a stone cold liar nor a certiable lunatic fringe nut job? Whatever position you take is invariably weakened by the laughable characters who spout right wing positions.

Last night, this stanek character also conveniently left out the fact that her original formal complaint about chasing new-born babies around the hospital and killing them had been DISMISSED by the investigating agency. No witnesses to her claims. 

Makes you wonder-- are these people show-horses for others? Are they set up as fronts to do this, by other agencies and political interests? Much like those so-called "alumni of liberal colleges" who then try to "expose" their alma maters in books and appearances? Hannity always has them on, too.

In the old days it used to CIA money that fronted these people-- what is it now? 

So in other words, each scam and scam artist is somehow related and connected to each other in some way?

 

(not trying to be critical, just trying to draw conclusions)

"Tell me, Wussie...do you people have anyone speaking for your side who is neither a stone cold liar nor a certiable lunatic fringe nut job? Whatever position you take is invariably weakened by the laughable characters who spout right wing positions."

 

Depends on the issue. If we were debating homosexuality, Johnnie Mac, or welfare, I would be citing sources from the "left wing". If we were debating illegal immigration, global warming or abortion (as we are now), I would be citing sources from the "right wing".

 

Just as long as they weren't ridiculous, outrageous, unfounded, assinine comments.

Why don't you just think for yourself, and make your argument based on reason, principals and logic?

(Putting aside, of course, that all four of those things tend to have a liberal bias.) ;)

The transcript actually disproves the article's premise.

Irony, don't you see the brilliance in trotting out progressively more bat-shlt spokespeople? You just made an Ad Hominem attack, which means you lose!

It's a trend I've been tracking, in the media and in comments at websites. The right has completely given up on making their case with logic and credibility, and have turned to parading out the most insane spokespeople they can find.

They can say anything they want without fear of damaging their reputation, as it's non-existent to begin with. When you point out that they're 100% verifiable loonies, you're accused of not addressing their argument.

Gotta admit, it's pretty slick.

Dawus what the F are you talking about?

Anti-abortion supporters can't win on the facts. They've proven that over the last 3 weeks here.

So they try to win with lies and distortions. That's what they're trying to do here, and part of that strategy is to give discredited partisans more credibility than they deserve. And that's why Media Matters is covering these stories - because it's a clear effort to give them more credibility than they deserve.

And everyone say it with me, when you give a conservative viewpoint more credibility than it deserves, what happens? You help further the conservative agenda by making them look better than they deserve to look.

You have a point, but then what else are you going to do?

Anti-abortion supporters can't win on the facts. They've proven that over the last 3 weeks here.

I haven't seen pro-abortion supporters provide any facts.

So they try to win with lies and distortions. That's what they're trying to do here, and part of that strategy is to give discredited partisans more credibility than they deserve. And that's why Media Matters is covering these stories - because it's a clear effort to give them more credibility than they deserve.

 

OK I can agree with that - just get a bunch of talking heads who agree with you to further you point, credible or not.

And everyone say it with me, when you give a conservative viewpoint more credibility than it deserves, what happens? You help further the conservative agenda by making them look better than they deserve to look.

 

I can agree with this as well, but couldn't the opposite side of the coin be true as well?

I haven't seen pro-abortion supporters provide any facts.

I haven't ever seen anyone who's pro-abortion. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice, and those people, myself included, have provided a ton of facts on the issue of abortion in general and information about the false allegations against Obama in particular. If you haven't seen those facts, that's a damning fact against your reading comprehension and says nothing good about you. But we already knew that there was nothing good to say about you.

I can agree with this(that there is clear evidence that there are people paid to further the conservative agenda in the media as well as those who do it without a partisan intent) as well, but couldn't the opposite side of the coin be true as well?

It could be true, if Democrats were hypocrites like Republicans are.

It could be true if liberals had policies, positions and philosophies that were as bereft of substance, morality and functionality as the rightie's have been demonstrated to be.

It could be true if there wasn't an inherent openness to alternative views on the part of liberals vs a abject fear of different ideas on the part of Republicans, who thrive on walking in lockstep and get booed by their own party when they try to be a maverick.

Since none of those things are in effect, then, no, there isn't 'another side of the coin.'

Stop acting like you're a simpleton. You'll never get paroled this way.

I haven't seen pro-abortion supporters provide any facts.

That's probably because there's no such thing as "pro-abortion."

So everyone's anti-abortion then? We're all on the same page that abortion needs to be outlawed and unborn babies have a right to life then? Got it.

I totally agree.

But, y'know what? I'm also against cancer. We should outlaw cancer! From now on, having cancer should be a criminal offence, and anyone who has or gets cancer should be punished for their offence.

Whaddya think? 

AUSSIEBOB, you have caused the Wuss to go on tilt. But this is a good sign..he must think and not immediatley throw out some well worn cliche of the righties. He can't argue your point so he will wuss away or come back with something concerning Obamas' birth certificate. This Wuss girl is a fraud, although entertaining and very welcome here. With her postings, you can be up-to-date with all the daily Con talking points in one thread.

Who needs to listen to Limbaugh or Swannie the Sissy..we get it here, commercial free. 

It is entertaining to see the imbeciles get owned, sort of like a kitten playing with a ball of yarn. The kitten always wins!

So everyone's anti-abortion then? We're all on the same page that abortion needs to be outlawed and unborn babies have a right to life then? Got it.

If you honestly think that all you need to do to stop all abortions is to make abortion illegal, Wuss, you're sadly mistaken.  Abortions were done before Roe V. Wade, and they would keep being done if Row v. wade were overturned.  The only difference is that rich people (such as the unwed daughters of Republicans) would be able to get abortions performed in expensive private facilities, and every other woman would have to resort to dangerous back-alley abortions.  And many more women would die in the process.

So much for your "right to life" position.....

Also, the mere fact that abortion rates have not risen since they were made legal. They were done illegally, and dangerously. Didn't anyone see Dirty Dancing? Jeesh!

Nobody puts baby in the SOILED utility room!!!

So everyone's anti-abortion then? We're all on the same page that abortion needs to be outlawed and unborn babies have a right to life then? Got it.

If YOU get to control my uterus the I get to control your d***!

Bet you won't like that!

Hahaha!! Great line...and no thank you. I get the point.

"Anti-abortion supporters can't win on the facts. They've proven that over the last 3 weeks here"........BottleSueBlondie

This has to rank right up there with one of the most asinine statements ever posted on this board, even for you Sue. What facts are you referring too? Abortion is a very personal and important issue to many people, on both sides - for you to arrogantly assert that those opposed to the procedure don't have their facts straight, or can't "win" on them, is nutty beyond belief.  

So because people feel strongly about a subject, that means they necessarily have factual arguments supporting their opinion?   Especially when talking about a moral issue with strong emotional elements involved?

I have no clue what you just said.

"Abortion is a very personal and important issue to many people, on both sides - for you to arrogantly assert that those opposed to the procedure don't have their facts straight, or can't "win" on them, is nutty beyond belief."

Why does someone have to have any facts at all to feel that abortion is "a very personal and important issue"?  What does one thing have to do with the other?

I have no idea what was unclear about my previous post. 

Perhaps you'd better read Sue's assertion again to which I specifically responded; which is that anti-abortion supporters don't have the "facts" on their side, so they can't win.  Do you agree with her?

My statement was that they don't have facts on their side, so they try to win with lies and distortions.

And that's undeniably true. There are facts related to the issue of abortion. Anti-abortion people don't use the facts - they abuse reality. Yet you mock my 100% accurate description.

What lies Sue? That they believe life begins at conception and they feel abortion is morally wrong. 

You mock yourself.

Lies about the facts.

There are lies and there are facts related to abortion. There are also moral and ethical issues related to abortion.

Why do you need this spelled out for you?

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php

There are lots of moral issues related to whether or not to have an abortion or support others having abortions.

That doesn't change the fact that there are facts related to that discussion too.

And the righties here have been distorting those facts or lying about the facts, trying to make their argument.

All you're doing is making yourself look foolish, but that's what you tend to do on Fridays, so don't let me stop you from continuing that tradition. Others can see what you're doing, and can see that you're trying to claim that there are not factual issues related to abortion, which is crazy talk. It's the credibility issues of this person that are at issue here, and those related to the way she hasn't been honest with the facts, for goodness sake! I don't understand how you think you can make a legitimate argument that there's no 'facts' in play in the abortion debate!

Sue, You're back. Distorting and lying to cover for a silly argument you can't make.  Where did I say there were no facts relevant to abortion? Read my other responses to you, and you may change your screenname, but not your stripes.  

Where did I say that there were no moral and ethical issues related to abortion is a much more relevant question!

Anti-abortion supporters can't win on the facts. They've proven that over the last 3 weeks here.

So they try to win with lies and distortions. That's what they're trying to do here, and part of that strategy is to give discredited partisans more credibility than they deserve.

That statement above in no way denies that there are moral or ethical issues! What lunacy on a Friday you're starting out with!

Because you asserted that a "win" or a "loss" over abortion rests on facts.  That is exactly what you said.  Now you try and worm around it, why don't you just admit you misspoke and save a shred of credibility.  Not that I care, but you should.

No, because it was your mistake, moron. I never said that.

I was accurately arguing that the righties here were arguing using lies and distortions!

Just like Media Matters said "without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility." There are facts related to abortion. Saying that there are facts related to it doesn't mean that there's no acknowledgement that there are also ethical and moral issues!

You're the one who dug yourself into a hole here! But it's Friday, so continue discrediting yourself with that effort! Wouldn't want you to break your pattern.

Sue, I have no interest in making you look anymore foolish, trying to parse your way out of a paper bag, defending such a ridiculous statement that jumpstarted this little exchange.  You said it and instead of owning it and admitting you made a mistake, you toss out words like "moron", I have seen it all from you for years, so it's not unexpected.

Careful, you may get banned again.  Have a nice Friday........ 

Sue, I have no interest in making you look anymore foolish, trying to parse your way out of a paper bag, defending such a ridiculous statement that jumpstarted this little exchange.  You said it and instead of owning it and admitting you made a mistake, you toss out words like "moron", I have seen it all from you for years, so it's not unexpected.

Careful, you may get banned again.  Have a nice Friday........ 

 

• - tommy / Friday August 22, 2008 1:31:07 PM EDT

1. I've never posted here under another name, so I can't get banned again.

2. I've done nothing to get banned for! I didn't toss out "moron". I described you as a moron because you couldn't or wouldn't figure out that me saying that some righties here haven't been using factual information to talk about abortion in the past 3 weeks doesn't mean that those same people might have non-fact based reasons for opposing abortions! It's not my fault you proved that you were being a moron on this issue.

3. I'm not the one who made a mistake. You are that person, and it's you who can't admit your error. My statement about facts doesn't deny that there are moral and ethical reasons to oppose abortion. It was your moronic thinking that assumed that if I mentioned factual reasons for opposing or supporting choice that I was somehow denying that there couldn't be moral or ethical ones. That was a really moronic thing for you to do, but you couldn't allow yourself to admit your error.

4. If you want to see a moron, look in the mirror. Anyone else reading this string sees that you were the one whose argument was totally demolished, and it was you who made the error, and it's you who won't admit your error! It's pretty damned moronic to have the evidence so publicly available and still deny that it's true and it's even more moronic to claim that because I call you a moron, after you behave in that moronic fashion, that I'll get banned!

Because you asserted that a "win" or a "loss" over abortion rests on facts.  That is exactly what you said.

Actually, no, I didn't say "exactly" that, or anything close to that in meaning.

I said that righties can't win the argument using facts. I also said that righties had filled this place with lies and distortions over the past 3 weeks. I didn't do what you claimed I did. It was your error and your knee-jerk reaction to my post that caused your downfall, and that's your problem.

The people who pay you to post here should evaluate your Friday posts to see how you crater as the week goes on. You need to move to a 4 day workweek perhaps!

BB is correct.

I don't need someone to tell me THEIR moral standing on abortion in order to decide if I want or need one.

If THEY THINK life begins a conception....goody for them.

I don't.

Until, god comes down and whispers in my ear that it is wrong....they can keep their god and their morals out of my body.

That folks is really what is all about.  It really has not one dang thing to do with facts.  Its all bout "god", "christians" and what THEY want to do with MY body. 

You missed it completely, read the exchange again if you want too and then come back and argue for Sue.  I have no interest in walking you through it.

Actually, if she re-reads it, she'll see that you were totally off base in claiming that my argument about the lack of factual evidence in the arguments of righties in the past 3 weeks said anything about the moral and ethical arguments against abortion. She won't see that your post had any reason or thought behind it.

And, just like with the subject of this thread, you should lose credibility with the readers here because of that false accusation you made.

Lor,

When do you believe that a baby in your body has the right to live?  Or do you not believe it has that right until it is out of your body? 

AA, how about moving the discussion a little bit closer to the topic at hand. Do you think Ms. Stanek a credit to the pro-life movement?

It's not a baby when it's inside the womb. Before it's viable, and can live outside the womb, it's not a baby even when it does leave the womb. It's a non-viable fetus that can not sustain life outside the womb.

I think it is my  body, and christians and the government alike, do not have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body.

Furthermore, abortion has been around since the beginning of time.

Women healers/shaman/add just plain women too, have LONG known about NOT carrying a baby to term if that was their feelings. 

In fact, mega doses of vitamin C will abort a fertilized womb by loosening the lining of the uterus.

Why would a person fight to have another person carry a fetus to term if that person did not wish to?  You tell me.   What possible reason could they have when they do not even know the women.  I would venture to say that it is THEIR BELIEF.  They would force their belief on everyone even a pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant.

It really has nothing to do with any "so-called facts".  It is purely an emotional response to their religious beliefs.

I believe when a child is born or when it can LIVE outside the womb, it has rights.  Certainly preemies have been kept alive so we know that it is viable at certain periods along the way - with medical help. 

(I don't see these same people screaming and disdainful of the people that don't believe in medicine of any kind...  to demand that they allow medical procedures for certain illnesses....so why just fetuses)

If THEY THINK life begins a conception....goody for them.

I don't.

Until, god comes down and whispers in my ear that it is wrong....they can keep their god and their morals out of my body.

Lorelei, AMEN and BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you think "win" means?

You can't make a persuasive argument regarding the legality of anything based on morals alone.  If you could, then pornography and adultery would be illegal.   You need facts to make the case that abortion should be illegal, not just morals, no matter how strongly you feel about them.

The point is The Supreme Court did not resolve the question of when life begins, they only addressed when the right to an abortion begins.  So the "facts" that Sue, and apparently you, believe are not on the pro-life side are still very much arguable, and emotional, and personal, and moral. 

If someone who is staunchly pro life argues that life begins at conception, you have no right to say their "facts" are wrong.  You can argue against their opinion and say for you life begins when a fetus is viable, but that is only your opinion.  I do not believe life begins at conception either but I am not arrogant, or misguided, enough to tell someone who disagrees with me that their "facts" are wrong.

Once again, it comes down to fact vs. opinion with you and your gross misunderstanding of the meaning of both, obviously.  Oh, and your eagerness to argue. 

Where did you get the premise that "facts" referred to "when life begins"?  Who said that?

So you made a baseless assumption in order to criticize Bottleblonde, but my "eagerness to argue" is a problem?

She didn't specify which fact, she made a blanket statement saying anti-abortion supporters can't win on "facts".  Well, considering this "fact" is not a "fact" at all, but rather an opinion, then to make the assertion that Sue did is wrong. A more accurate statement would be that anti-abortion supporters' opinion is in the minority among most Americans - to move it to a factual argument is without merit.

She didn't specify which fact, she made a blanket statement saying anti-abortion supporters can't win on "facts". Well, considering this "fact" is not a "fact" at all, but rather an opinion, then to make the assertion that Sue did is wrong. Tommy

You're a liar.

Here's what I actually said.

Anti-abortion supporters can't win on the facts. They've proven that over the last 3 weeks here.

I wasn't ever saying that 'opinions' are facts. That's your moronic leap, and that's your fault that you made that moronic leap! I didn't make any assertions that moral or ethical arguments can't carry weight.

There were arguments that were made here that relied upon lies and distortions of factual information. And the facts don't support an anti-abortion platform. There are certainly ethical and moral arguments, but there are no factual arguments that support being anti-abortion!

So let me get this straight.

Bottleblonde was talking about facts, she made a blanket statement about facts.

The point at which life begins is an opinion.

Both of the above are according to you.  So your conclusion is that Bottleblonde must have been talking about the point at which life begins when she was talking about facts, even though that's an opinion.

If you assume that she's talking about the point at which life begins and you also assume that she is conflating facts with opinions, then your argument makes sense.  Good luck showing how those assumptions are justified.

What was it you said yesterday?  "I didn't say that, so I guess you made it up" or words to that effect? 

So the "facts" that Sue, and apparently you, believe are not on the pro-life side are still very much arguable, and emotional, and personal, and moral.  Tommy

Totally wrong.

The 'facts' I talked about were 'facts' about what was in the criminal code, versus what was in the proposed law. Written words in Illinois' legal code are facts. The 'facts' I was talking about are the 'facts' about non-viable vs viable fetuses, and how criminal law already penalized medical professionals who might not provide adequate medical intervention to viable fetuses. I talked about the fact that women have the right to control their own bodies before viability, per the US Constitution's right to privacy in the 4th amendment. That's a fact.

Those facts are not debatable.

In fact, no 'facts' are debatable. I wasn't describing things that were debatable and confusing them with things that are debatable. The person who was confused was you, Tommy. I was talking about the debates that have gone on here in the last 3 weeks WRT abortion.

You apparently have a long-standing tradition of not understanding the difference between facts and opinion, and I've seen you mistakenly claim that no opinions are assailable because they're opinions, when the fact is that opinions that are based upon untruths certainly are assailable and should be criticized!

I'm sorry you felt so abused by the now-banned Sue that you spew your leftover venom at me, but it's misdirected. It's too bad your hatred of reality takes over so often in your posts.

And there are 'no facts' relevant to the abortion debate? Of course there are facts relevant to the abortion debate.

Facts like the existing law that criminalizes the demise by violence of a non-viable fetus in the womb specifically excludes any demise that comes as a result of abortion or any other medical procedure? That's a fact, and anti-abortion people tried to use the lie that the existing law called those non-viable fetuses unborn children in all cases. They're only unborn children when they aren't involved in a medical procedure, and only for the purposes of criminalizing some behaviors.

Facts like that allowing a baby (a viable fetus) to die is already a criminal offense, so the proposed law that Obama opposed didn't protect any babies. It only criminalized the omission of medical intervention for non-viable fetuses in an attempt to hinder abortion providers from providing abortions!

There are plenty of facts, and no one on the anti-abortion side has the facts on their side. There's been no evidence of any aborted viable fetus being allowed to die, and that's the point of the Media Matters issue with this anti-abortion person getting more credibility than she deserves.

I never said there were no facts relevant to the abortion debate, but you made the silly assertion that pro-lifers can't win because the facts don't support them, or some such nonsense.  They feel that life begins at conception and abortion is murder - that is their opinion based on their moral judgment, religious beliefs and other convictions, I don't agree with that either but it is not a fact that needs proving, it's a strongly held opinion that is as viable as yours or mine.

Get it, SUE? 

Anti-abortion supporters can't win on the facts. They've proven that over the last 3 weeks here.

So they try to win with lies and distortions. That's what they're trying to do here, and part of that strategy is to give discredited partisans more credibility than they deserve.

There have been lots of people on this site over the last 3 weeks arguing with lies and distortions about the known facts regarding abortion.

Media Matters here is arguing about the credibility of a virulent anti-abortion commentator based upon her abuse of the facts related to the issue of abortion.

I never said that there were no moral or ethical issues related to abortion. What I said is what I meant, and it's not my fault you tried but failed to twist what I said into something I didn't say or didn't mean! Go whine to someone else - you ain't got a leg to stand on in this argument.

So do we make laws now on strongly held opinions and beliefs?

Jill Stanek sounds like a sick woman. She might not be playing with a full deck, but her take on Barbara Bush sounds about right...

Jill Stanek sounds like a sick woman. She might not be playing with a full deck...

Why is it that so many of Sean Hannity's right wing guests fit that description?

Birds of a feather flock together...Wingnuts like to gather and foam up in a lather...

Nice.

Jill Stanek sounds like a sick woman.

That's because she IS a sick woman.....

This hater Jill Stanek is as credible as Hannity and Rush and all the other cons who want women to go to back alleys with close hangers.

Or clothes hangers even.

*grin*

I'm so sick of hearing about abortion. It's a stupid red herring to get the Christian wackos all riled up. No one wants MORE abortion...so if these anti-abortion people will just shut up about it, the issue would sink away and I wouldnt have to hear about EVERY F*CKING DAY...ABORTION ABORTION...shut up already!

The examples these liars trot out are 99% bullsh*t. One of Coulter's favorite examples of how public schools are bad is that they were teaching "fisting" (yes that's up your @ss) in elementary school. I read about it in here column and saw her reference it on C-Spann...the problem is that it wasn't even remotely true. If your examples are false then your conclusions can't possibly be right.

This lady should be made to prove these allegations about aborted babies living on...and if not she needs a big public flogging.

I'm so sick of hearing about abortion. It's a stupid red herring to get the Christian wackos all riled up. No one wants MORE abortion...so if these anti-abortion people will just shut up about it, the issue would sink away and I wouldnt have to hear about EVERY F*CKING DAY...ABORTION ABORTION...shut up already!

I wouldn't go that far, Timmee, but I think the debate should be honest, which it generally isn't.  One thing I would be quick to point out is that, for many women, the decision to have an abortion comes down to a matter of economics (i.e., can I afford to raise this child?).  It should not be forgotten that the abortion rate fell consistently during the Clinton presidency, and has flat-lined (at best) since.  I suspect that there will be fewer abortions under an Obama presidency, because the economy is so much likelier to improve.

The examples these liars trot out are 99% bullsh*t. One of Coulter's favorite examples of how public schools are bad is that they were teaching "fisting" (yes that's up your @ss) in elementary school. I read about it in here column and saw her reference it on C-Spann...the problem is that it wasn't even remotely true. If your examples are false then your conclusions can't possibly be right. (PLRR's emphasis)

Extremely well put.  The early church father Tertullian put it this way: "What sort of truth is that which they patronize, when they commend it to us with a lie?"

I would go that far. I'm sick of hearing about it. It was decided in Roe v Wade.

The cultist only respect supreme court decisions they approve of.

I heard Obama eats babies during Ramadan.

That's the same logic of many pro-aborts, both self-serving and lazy."

Wait, she may want to talk to Neil Boortz. He thinks people having as many babies as possible are self-serving and lazy.Is there any option a pregnant woman ( or broodmare) can choose that isn't self-serving and lazy?

I do really like her endorsement of the "real man" giving the litle lady a smackdown for having an abortion. I guess I'm kind of a sissy, I normally responded with flowers and a nice dinner. Sorry, I'm being a little flip with the abortion stuff. It's a very serious subject, but I've had it with the nuts talking about "pro-abortion" and "abortion fanatic". I can't respond any other way except by being just as ridiculous as they are  anymore.

Can someone explain to me why this hospital has a SOILED laundry room? I am willing to bet that you will find this descriptive word everytime the Stanek speaks. She has proven it on Seannies' show and in an interview on one of our local rickety right shows in Pittsburgh. 

SOILED laundry room, Ms. Stanek, could you find the SOILED laundry room in that hospital? Stanek, you better be careful or you will be declared a nut case. Remember Cindy Sheehan...what they did to her? And her son REALLY died.

Can someone explain to me why this hospital has a SOILED laundry room?

Actually, there are.  Soiled linens from patients are not washed in the same machines & areas as other items in the hospital such as tablecloths and clothing from nutrion services workers.  However, many hospitals now, actually out source the cleaning of soiled linens.

Science101, the use of SOILED in this instance is an apparent attempt to enhance her position. A laundry room is by nature is a place where laundry is done so one can draw their own conclusion that dirty laundry is there. Really, 101, have you ever heard any describe a laundry room as this woman has described this particular room? And on ever occasion she has to discuss her story.

When I hear her say that she went into the "air-conditioned studios" of Fox news on every speaking gig, then I will agree with her SOILED nonsense. Think about it.

Actually it's a room that holds soiled laundry. It's not a laundry room that has soiled items in it. See the difference?

It's a holding place for soiled laundry, sheets, dressing gowns, etc, that may have biohazards (bodily fluids) on them. A soiled-laundry room is different than a laundry room that has soiled laundry in it.

And do you know that after you've typed "soiled" more than 2 times, there's no way to convince yourself that you've spelled it right? It just looks like a misspelled word ever after! LOL

NOTE: Today in Stanek's blog, she calls it a "soiled utiilty room".

This answers the question of whether she meant soiled laundry....or soiled laundry room. Thtis makes it clear what she meant.

This phrase is repeated on Hannuti and Colms transcripts today, from the August 20th show.

In Stanek's blog today she "takes a bow" for getting herself in MMFA, and attention from others on the left.

Oops, apologies for the type-0s

Actually, I think I kind of like the Han-nutti type-o. It fits him well.

I heard Obama eats babies during Ramadan.

I got an e-mail that says he eats them with Ramen Noodles......

At the Ramada Inn.

In Ramallah

I thought you were supposed to fast during Ramadan.  But I guess a baby now and then wouldn't hurt (or maybe that's just the radical christian part of him).

We all ready went thru this whole thing when Obama ran for Senate four years ago.  73% of the voters didn't take this seriously in Illinois.  I think this Jill Stanek sounds a lot like the "nurse" that also saw Terry Schiavo smiling and carrying on conversations with her family.   The swift boat nurse?

So, I guess that Jill wasn't married to a real man, or she wasn't hit hard enough ...

 

Maybe she WAS hit too hard ... that's how she can, "in all honesty", support the right-wing arguments ... 

Maybe she WAS hit too hard ...

In her strange, bizarro right wing world there's no such thing as beating your woman too hard...  ;>)

She is from WND. Enough said.

All you need to know about Jill Stanek's credibility is that she writes for World Nut Daily.  Based on such stellar people as herself and Jerome Corsti, it appears that there ARE no credible people writing for World Nut Daily.

In Stanek's blog today she is bragging about the attention she has garnered from MMFA and others.  http://www.jillstanek.org/

Stanek: "....And now I must take a bow. *bow*

I have officially attracted the long knives of the Left, even garnering my very own post by the liberal Media Matters. I had to smile at fond memories of starting liberal hair on fire through the years when reading through some quotes of mine MM pulled............."

More from Stanek: "........... This allows me to remain focused on exposing Obama as pro-abortion on steroids to the point he supports letting little preemie babies die cold and alone in hospital soiled utility rooms because saving them would "burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion," as we have now have him saying on audiotape."

And WE have her very own web site to expose Jill Stanek for the nutcase that she is.

If she held this so called "baby" for 45 minutes what the hell did she do to try to "save" it, while it was "breathing".

Just wondering. 

" HLI describes itself as a "pro-life, pro-family, pro-woman organization" that claims as its mission to "fight the evils of abortion, contraception, sex education and family breakdown."

^^^This made me spit coffee on my keyboard.^^^ 

As for this nut Sanek her story is obviously fake, but that won't stop the MSM echo-chamber from repeating it.

HANNITY: Andrea, here's the point. Jill Stanek, who I interviewed, testified before his committee these babies are born alive. She found one in a soiled utility room in the hospital, a Down syndrome baby that was aborted. She cradled and rocked this baby for 45 minutes. He was unfazed, she says, by the testimony when she gave it to him before his committee. How could -- this is so -- this is infanticide.

Conservatives always say that they are driven by facts, and us liberals are driven by emotions.  Yet here, Sean Insanity is using a purely emotional argument.  Proof once again that the conservative positions taken by most neocons and the right-wing talking heads on Faux News are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

And if this was infanticide, then why wasn't anyone charged with the death fo said baby? Maybe because this woman made this entire incident up?

Everyone is pro-choice as it comes to the issue of abortion. Why do I say this? Well, my wife and I would be against her having an abortion. But, we don't profess to know what is best for each individual. So in essence, these jokers who keep talking about being pro-life (as long as it's a loose collection of cells barely adhered to the wall of a woman's uterus, but then forget about said "life" after it's born) are just pro-choicers. For them, it's the wrong thing to do. And if they are correct about their being a God, and that God will judge us after we die, then they should be all good to go right?

An abortion is a safe medical procdure. One, which, no woman would ever take casually, at least the women that I've known that have had one, it has affected them for years and years afterwards, and some never get over it.

Mags,

It is a false argument, not to mention untrue, to say pro lifers do not care about the baby after it is born.  Show me any pro-life group who implicitly  or explicitly makes that claim. 

It doesn't even make sense. If a pro-lifer doesn't care about the baby after it is born, surely the same reasoning says the person undergoing the abortion doesn't care about the baby either before or after they kill the child.  

Or are you trying to make the argument that one cares more for the welfare of the child by killing it before it is born? 

The attempt to side step the argument at hand is noted.  

SCHIP.

'Nuff said.

Naturaly, nuff said. It does not prove your contention so you can't say anything more. 

See response below.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything here. But the fact remains, you guys want government to leave you alone, and want government shrunk down to size. You know. Just so that it's small enough to fit into our bedrooms, and in the doctor's office with us. Funny, for a side (I don't know where you stand on this), who rails against universal health care, and keeping the government out of health care decisions, you sure do want the government to decide what a woman can, and can't do with her own body.

Mags,

If I say I am all for universal health care does that mean I win the argument? 

 

Not necessarily. Why you might ask? Mostly because being pro-choice, which we both are, means that you can choose one thing to do that's right for you, morally, and religiously if that's how you want to look at it, and I could do another thing that is right for me, morally, and religiously

(continuing from above) what is right for me. See, the thing is, abortion is an accepted and safe medical procedure. If someone decides that it is right for them, who am I to judge them to say that they can't? Who are you to suggest the same thing? Abortion is not a decision that anyone comes to easily.

Mags,

I say abortion kills an innocent human being. Are you in favor of killing innocent human beings simply because they are too little too little to defend themselves?  

If a woman wants to cut get tatoos or pierce her lip, I could care less. All those have to do with her body. An embryo/fetus/baby are all human beings in different stages of development. 

I don't doubt that having an abortion is gut wrenching (no pun intended) decision for some. Deciding to shoot someone could also be the same. Just because it is a big decision does not make it right.  

I say abortion kills an innocent human being.

Simple solution: don't have an abortion.

Not allowing a woman the choice to control her own body, to decide while the fetus is still not viable outside the womb, is the issue.

It's not that any of us are enamored with the idea of causing the demise of any fetus. It's that the woman has a right to decide if she's going to remain pregnant or not. It's her body, and her right to control her own body! The fetus is an "innocent bystander" which doesn't get to control her body.

If I say I am all for universal health care does that mean I win the argument?- anotheramerican

That's pretty funny, Barn. You're willing to lie to chalk up your first win ever? Desperate.

No. I'm not trying to make the argument that fetuses (not babies) when aborted, that the women who have this procedure carried out don't care about them, and I think that they care about them after they're born as well. The point being, it's a choice. You get to choose that you, or your wife, don't have an abortion. Some friends of mine have chosen to have one. The choice to have an abortion, I believe, is a lot harder than choosing to NOT have one.

Point being, you do what's right for you, and your loved ones, I will do the same, and I will leave it up to others (in the case of abortion) to make the choice that is right for them. As I said before, if there is a God, then God will judge us at our demise. I don't need you, or the republicans, or the democrats, judging me, or my friends for what they do in this case.

The whole point about right wingers not caring about the babies after they're born goes towards how you feel about social programs for poor folks, and the discussion that went around about welfare, and how you don't want to pay for someone else's babies, and kids, and things like that. You know what I meant when I wrote that before, to pretend otherwise, I think, is disingenuous at best.

Mags,

I find it funny that you think I am being disingenuous by calling you on it when you wrote something that is unsupportable and you know it. 

The key, I think is that if the newly conceived  human being is denied its humanity one can argue it is the woman's body.

However, science tells us that it is a completely different human being, starting at conception, with it's own specific genetic makeup. Therefore it is not a woman dealing with her own body, but dealing with another body.

At some point, you'll agree, that clump of cells developing in the mother's womb becomes a human being. However if you feel any mother can decide in those nine months when that baby is now a human and from that point on has rights, you are saying that the rights of the infant are based completely and arbitrarily on the mother.  If that is the case then what is the difference between a baby one minute before it is born and one minute after? Is that baby one minute from being out of the birth canal not a human being? Is it still only a clump of cells? Does it not deserve it's own right to live if given another minute?

 

In my opinion, until the baby is born, it has no rights inside of the womb. That might sound cold and callous, but that's how I view it. I also think that if someone decides that they want an abortion, when the baby could be considered viable shouldn't happen, unless there is a chance that the woman bearing the child could die as a result of carrying to term. The vast majorities of abortions being performed do not happen to viable fetuses.

However, science tells us that it is a completely different human being, starting at conception, with it's own specific genetic makeup. Therefore it is not a woman dealing with her own body, but dealing with another body. AA

It is the woman's body that is pregnant, so yes, it is about a woman dealing with her own body.

This argument has been shot down numerous times. Why do you bring it up again when it's been debunked already?

It's the woman's choice to remain pregnant or end the pregnancy until the fetus is viable and can sustain life outside the womb. Otherwise, you give that non-viable fetus more control over that woman's body than you give to that woman, and the US Constitution says that's not okay.

BB,

Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says anything about the rights yet-viable fetus or the rights of the mother.

You say that the baby only has rights when it is viable, correct? What is your definition of viability? Is it being able to survive outside the mother's womb?   

Are you agreeing that any abortion after viability is therefore wrong? (At least  maybe we can have some point of agreement.)  

It seems like every year viability is taken back closer to conception. I think it is now somewhere around four months, (please correct me if I am wrong.) When we get to a point that viability can be maintained from the moment of conception, will you then agree that all abortions from that point on will then be wrong? What happens to your argument then?

 

I think you are stretching the limits what viability literally means.  Perhaps definitions are needed to clarify.  Personally, I think a fetus should be able to breathe on its own to be considered truly viable.  Otherwise the only thing being done is taking an embryo/fetus from a natural uterus and putting it in an artificial one.  That is not such a great feat and doesn't really have anything to do with the actual developmental level of the embryo/fetus either.  It is like passing your swimming test in a boat. The parasitic relationship doesn't really change until a fetus can breathe on its own or with minimal help as far as I am concerned.