The law of the land
Since 1973, the left has sanctioned the extermination of more than 40 million unborn children through various forms of abortion. One of their taunts over the years has been, “The Supreme Court decided it, and that makes it the law of the land!”
Recently, the Supreme Court decided that the law banning partial-birth abortions was constitutional, and, while you can still get an abortion, you can’t get this kind during the last trimester, when the skull-stabbing, brain-sucking procedure is carried out.
Guess what, lefties — the Supreme Court decided it, and that makes it the law of the land!
Jim Kiel, Aurora
Political parties do not get abortions. People do.
Abortion is a complicated issue and cannot be divided so neatly into "left" and "right."
Political parties do not get abortions. People do.
Abortion is a complicated issue and cannot be divided so neatly into "left" and "right."
Political parties do not get abortions. People do.
Abortion is a complicated issue and cannot be divided so neatly into "left" and "right."
Political parties do not get abortions. People do.
Abortion is a complicated issue and cannot be divided so neatly into "left" and "right."
Political parties do not get abortions. People do.
Abortion is a complicated issue and cannot be divided so neatly into "left" and "right."
Gotta love morons who consider abortion to simply be a political issue, and not the intensely personal issue it truly is. Politics have nothing to do with one's decision as to have an abortion or not.
It's not black or white, it's not Dem or Rep, it's not left or right. Grow up.
Posted by glow on May 21, 2007 06:47 AMWow Jim, you sure told them!!! Do you feel better? I'm sure your god is very impressed. Now put your boxers back on, stop running through traffic, and go find other people so you can tell them how to live their miserable and pathetic lives.
Man, where we be without Jim Kiel?
Posted by shaupeen on May 21, 2007 07:59 AMWhat makes me laugh when I read this form of rhetoric and bombst, is the totally unconscious way in which the writer simply re-affirms the obvious, as if he were, somehow, refuting it.
Yes, Jim Kiel, the current Supreme Court decided that a rarely used procedure is no longer allowable; and the decision makes this "the law of the land."
But don't forget, the Supreme Court also decided, in Roe v. Wade, that ABORTION, AS SUCH, IS LEGAL; and that, too is equally the "law of the land".
Posted by Old Grouch on May 21, 2007 08:22 AMI love these arguments that use "unborn children" in an attempt to replace reason with emotion. Did you enjoy "unborn chickens" for breakfast this morning?
Posted by Docjay on May 21, 2007 08:25 AMOne can only marvel at the power of insincerity.
Call something an "unborn child" and let the emotions run wild.
The taunt is simple, easy, and emotionally gripping.
In comparison, the truth is complicated, filled with technical jargon, and difficult to package in a single two-word assertion.
How easy it is to “win” the debate with simplistic, dumbed-down, inaccurate, but such powerful emotional statements.
By now, those 40 million would be reproducing and we would have maybe 60-70- milllion people here + illegals. that would make 360 million or so more of us to fit into the country.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 21, 2007 10:50 AMAnd all it took was a court that holds the desires of the pope and George W. Bush above their oaths of office and the law of the land, including a chief justice who lied through his teeth during his confirmation hearings. You must be very proud of this level of moral superiority.
Posted by FYK on May 21, 2007 11:03 AMBango Skank,
I was looking for you last evening - before I found myself being "held for approval by the blog owner" in posting to Jonesy. Since that's now off the page; and presumably archived, what I had to say is moot. But, it was along the lines of your last sentence; since Jonsey's production surely was that.
I think someone is having fun at the Rocky. Let the kiddies loose; and see what happens sort of approach. But, that's part of the fun of having the forum on our side; so I guess it evens out.
At least this guy isn't trying to pose as an "expert in child development", without ever having opened a book on the subject.
Hi Sharon,
We also seem to have lost that "57 Million in the last 7 years" letter as well. That would be 19% of our current population, no less. But never mind. Big figures - such as the 40 million being tossed around here - really do serve to impress some people at that.
At the risk of being repititious, I'll once again observe that several of the current original letter writers - as well as their enthusiastic supporters - seem to mistake a mind full of fertilizer for having a "fertile mind".
The rest of the line seems to be dead, for some days now; so I'll head for lunch.
Nice seeing both of you. Take care. And maybe there will be something worth working with later on, if they put up the letters from email, or such.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 21, 2007 12:21 PMSharon, not to be picky but I don’t agree with your argument.
If we grant the writers figure of 40 million “children” then we would have to also grant that the great majority of them would still be in their graves, only now many would be along with their mothers who would have died with them. So the number is going to be far lower than you propose.
The assumption that Mr.Kiel is hiding in his emotional accusation, is that all of the 40 million were aborted for purely trivial and non-medical reasons and also that the mother was under no medical risk.
That is a very big stretch since we know for sure that there are many medical reasons for which abortion is justifiably carried out, and we reliably know of many scenarios in which failure to abort will result in the death of the mother and/or the embryo/fetus.
Therefore the onus is on Mr.Kiel or his defenders to come up with a breakdown of how many of their claim of 40 million were simply done by choice and had no medical reason.
Yeah, Kiel, what Bango said!
Posted by shaupeen on May 21, 2007 01:19 PMI'm extraordinarily well versed in the literature of the pro-choice movement, and I'm certain that no such organization has stated "“The Supreme Court decided it, and that makes it the law of the land!” as a basis for any of their arguments.
I challenge any of you pro-birthers to provide supporting evidence of the writer's thesis.
Until then-
Posted by Republicans are repugnant liars on May 21, 2007 02:45 PMp.s.
An argument that states "the SCOTUS found in Roe that a pregnant woman has a privacy right based in Griswold that protects her right to terminate her pregnancy." is not what Jim is talking about. Such an argument could lead to discussing if such a privacy right exists, etc. Jim's point is more along the line of "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah."
Posted by Republicans are repugnant liars on May 21, 2007 02:57 PMRarl,
He merely said, "the left" - that amorphous whatever out there to be blamed and castigated for anything and everything the "right" doesn't like. I don't think looking for a particular source is of much importance there.
Of course, it wasn't what he INTENDED to say. (And I perhaps should have indicated that the "taunt" was sort of "biting back".) But, it was one of thoe times when "Nyah. Nyah. Nyah" served to sort of "hoist on his own petard".
It really doesn't take anything to start all the rest of the foofaraw. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that the resident pundits of the "pro-life" crowd aren't already filling up the page. But, I guess they're all busy up the line, pronouncing on "Illegal Immigration" fight now.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 21, 2007 04:33 PM