Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Save lives, end abortion

March 10, 2013

Dorothy Steffen, Minot Sometime ago I was driving behind a man who was wearing a huge cowboy hat. On the cowboy’s bumper sticker were the words “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have the....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(55)

subman

Mar-10-13 7:14 AM

Amen sister

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Mar-10-13 9:10 AM

Even Norma McCorvey has had a change of heart and is against abortion. It was for her (the Roe in Roe v Wade) that the case was fought. Well, not quite. She was used in the case to push the agenda of abortions through the legal system. She has since laid claim to causing the playgrounds across the country to be empty.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-10-13 12:23 PM

NoTea, speaking of stroke of genius, what a comparison! That oughta shut those wingers up, right?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Mar-10-13 3:44 PM

You brought up the gun/abortion comparison. You did that. So you must be 'one of those on the right." ;-) There is the little thing called the Constitution where life as well as the possession of guns are to be protected for everyone. There is that huge constraint.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Mar-10-13 5:09 PM

Many of us despise abortion but the majority are in favor of it. Hukabee is wrong. Neither he nor the president can stop it. Iraq was unnecessary killing too; pushed by the anti-abortion people. Our leaders are supposed to represent us--not themselves. The public wanted healthcare reform; then medicines big money started twisted ad campains to change our minds. It was right for the president to explain the truths of healthcare reform because the public wanted it.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-10-13 5:30 PM

"...worship, idolization, and emotional attachment..."

To guns? Uh, not this gun owner.

Now if you want to talk about the "worship, idolization, and emotional attachment" that some have to a woman's right to an abortion, well, then we might have to rethink the use of the phrase.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Mar-10-13 5:33 PM

Huckabee don't know Jack.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Mar-10-13 8:08 PM

Aborted fetuses provide neonatal tissue for stem cell research. That research has yielded flavor enhancers that is used in the food industry.

Google 'embryonic kidney cells from aborted baby used to create tastier junk foods'.

Just so you are informed.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-10-13 9:16 PM

Talk about a stroke of genius, this is brilliance!

We don't need to ban the act of abortion to protect the unborn. We'll just ban the devices used in abortion. We'll call it "forceps control". But it will be more comprehensive than that, we'll ban all of those nasty little instruments of death.

The best part is, it's a proven tactic. SCOTUS can't touch it, and Roe vs. Wayde (intended spelling) didn't focused on the issue of privacy, not instrumentality. There isn't even an amendment covering these devices. Hey folks, once in a while we can learn a few things from these loopy libs.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-10-13 9:19 PM

Err. that was supposed to be "focused on the issue of" as opposed to "didn't focused on...."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-10-13 9:44 PM

"Locomotive did it again. Brought abortion into the debate, as a means of diverting attention from the real issue. Congrats!"

I figured since others had already done it, that the subject was free game.

So is abortion a sacred cow somehow?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-11-13 12:12 AM

"It's funny how right wingers always talk about less laws and less government, but then push for more laws and more government when it comes to getting into people's personal and private lives."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure southern Democrat slave owners were thinking the exact same thing in the years preceding the civil war.

Your point is simply invalid. Were you to suggest the same in regard to other topics like gay marriage, prostitution and the war on drugs, your point might actually carry some validity. But to suggest that people who oppose abortion are doing so simply to get into the private lives of women who choose to have abortions is flat out false, deliberately misleading and inflammatory.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-11-13 12:29 AM

Abortion is an overt act to terminate the life of a human being. Human life begins at conception. This is how we see it.

I understand that you disagree with this, and I fully understand that the law is currently on your side - not ours.

But when you attempt to sidetrack the debate, I will call you out on that fraud every time.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-11-13 12:34 AM

Leftwing. Nope. Some things are bigger than elections. We're not going away. Get over that.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Mar-11-13 9:06 AM

Maybe we should just stop modern medicine practices and go back 100 years when it was the greatest gift on Earth to have a live baby. Time changes people.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-11-13 4:11 PM

"Many women have SEVERAL abortions that's the sad part. I can see a young girl messing up and getting an abortion but when the same women gets 6 or 7 of them its a method of birth control for her. Just not right!!!!"

That's one aspect of "abortion rights" that doesn't get talked about very much, billdoesnt. I'd welcome any pro-abortion person to cite some statistics to prove that the "repeat abortions as birth control" aren't happening.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-14-13 7:57 AM

"...those "Democrat slave owners" were right wing conservatives who are now all Republicans because they didn't like the Civil Rights Act..."

A little history from PBS...

"The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-14-13 7:58 AM

cont...

"Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights. The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "***** dominated," even though whites were in control."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-14-13 8:00 AM

cont...

"Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state. "The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-14-13 8:01 AM

cont...

"One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death."

-- Richard Wormser, PBS, WNET, Jim Crow Stories

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-14-13 8:06 AM

Also in this article...

"Then & Now"

"After the Civil War, the Democratic Party in the South was the party of white supremacy. Now, African Americans form the party's most loyal base of support."

Now back to NoTea's statement: "...those "Democrat slave owners" were right wing conservatives who are now all Republicans..."

A very general, broad accusation, that. Can you prove it, NoTea? When you assume or suppose, it doesn't count.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

obertc

Mar-14-13 10:01 AM

Good post locomotive. Interesting information.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Fisher

Mar-14-13 1:29 PM

Getting to the point of this letter: making abortion a crime, is not going to "stop" abortion. It will prevent poor women from getting them performed, yes. Women with money were always able to get the procedure done, by either traveling to a state where it was legal, traveling to Canada where it was legal, or paying off a doctor to secretly perform it. The legality of abortion is poor of a public health matter. Poor women getting abortions from unqualified people with coat hangers is not something we need to revert back to . If you're against abortion, then I suggest you don't have one, and you have every right to convince others of the same, but don't for one minute say when it comes down to it that a woman doesn't have the right to make the choice for herself, and not a decision to be made by a stranger

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-15-13 2:50 AM

Wow,it seems I've sparked a debate on racism. Not my intention, although I stand by my comparison between abortion and slavery (whomever you decide to blame for it).

Fisher, homicide (broadly defined) is already a crime. The laws we have on the books in various jurisdictions protect individual members of society from those among us who might otherwise deprive us of life for their own selfish gain. Yet the Supreme Court, through Roe vs Wade, has ruled that these protections cannot apply to a specific sub-class of human life because the mother's right to privacy is valued above that of the life exterminated. In order to facilitate this travesty, the court further dehumanized the "fetus" by arbitrarily defining the end of the first trimester as the demarcation point where human life begins, despite all the scientific evidence that life begins at conception.

No, reversing Roe v Wade, will not end abortion. But that is an impossible standard to meet.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Mar-15-13 2:52 AM

BillGarr, remind me to have that Kris Crawford discussion with you sometime under a different topic. I'm very interested in getting the full BillGarr take on that, but I don't want to be responsible for taking us off topic again.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 55 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web