Forum Thread

Wallace Lake Topics

(Wallace Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,631 messages

Updated 5/23/2024 1:10:37 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Wallace Lake Fishing

(Wallace Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Messiah's Health Care Agenda
Date:	7/16/2009 4:10:30 PM

Look at poor blacks and latinos, the handicapped and mentally challenged and large Catholic and Mormon families.......

From The Federalist Society

Now that Barack Hussein Obama has undermined free enterprise by nationalizing major financial and manufacturing sectors of our economy, he has set his sights on the health care sector, which comprises almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy.

This shouldn't surprise us. After all, he did promise a "fundamental transformation of the United States of America," and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, did cite the current economic crisis as the means for doing so. "Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," Emanuel said. "They are opportunities to do big things."

Of course, there is NO constitutional authority or precedent for this massive government intrusion into the private sector. But then, when do Leftists look to any authority higher than themselves?

Considering the prospect of Socialists in charge of dispensing health care from cradle to grave, I was reminded, by none other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that when one is in need of health care, one should not depend on folks who advocate a "culture of death."

In an interview last week, Ginsburg said that she thought "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

This comment was not some senile blunder from an aging jurist noted for nodding off during High Court deliberations.

In fact, Ginsburg's candid assessment of the Left's advocacy for abortion as a means for controlling propagation of undesirable ethnic groups is based upon the writings of atheist social activist and leftist icon Margaret Sanger.

Some 50 years before Roe v. Wade, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood, now the largest perpetrator of abortions in the U.S.

Sanger asserted that ministry to the poor, a fundamental tenet of Christianity, is responsible for excessive numbers of "unwanted" ethnic breeds. "Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the failure of philanthropy, but rather at its success. These dangers are inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste."

Ah, yes, "human waste."

Sanger characterized the poor as "human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

In "Woman and the New Race," Sanger insisted that women create an enormous "debt to society [by] creating slums, filling asylums with the insane, and institutions with other defectives. ... Poverty and the large family generally go hand in hand. ... The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Of blacks, Sanger wrote, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

She advocated policies that ensured "more children from the fit, less from the unfit" in order to "to create a race of thoroughbreds." (Remember this quote the next time a liberal tells you that Fascists and Socialists have nothing in common.)

Sanger was certainly the 20th century's most noted American proponent of racist eugenics. However when we remind our liberal friends of the origins of Planned Parenthood, they sputter on about Sanger's support for eugenics being an anomaly of another time and context.

But Sanger's advocacy for the extermination of the "unwanted" is the basis of today's culture of death. Indeed, one of the adherents of eugenics now directs BHO's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is the co-chair of Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

John Holdren may not be openly advocating racial selection, but he clearly advocates mass sterilization and abortion in order to control human impact on the environment. This is nothing but a contemporary interpretation of Sanger's eliminating "human weeds" and "reckless breeders."

Holdren's modern day eugenics program is outlined in a book he co-authored, "Ecoscience," in which he calls for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime [in order to] control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

One solution, writes Holdren, is "adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods" which would help weed out those "who contribute to social deterioration."

As for the constitutional authority, Holdren writes, "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children," insists Holdren, "if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility -- just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns -- providing they are not denied equal protection."

I suppose Holdren is Obama's "Czar of Compelling Needs."

As for global solutions, Holdren writes, "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

Holdren is of course careful about how his "Planetary Regime" might enforce these limits, but given the common bonds of Fascists and Socialists, a contemporary global solution with much more efficient ecological results than dismembering children in the womb would be to release a biological agent targeting mass populations in developing regions of Asia and Africa -- something like strains of Swine or Bird Influenza. After all, AlGorites consider climate change to be a crisis of global proportions, and such a crisis requires innovative solutions.

Holdren concludes, "This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world."

In 1931, futurist H.G. Wells wrote of Sanger's proposed regime, "The movement she started will grow to be, a hundred years from now, the most influential of all time. When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine."

Apparently, Obama's director of White House Office of Science and Tec

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	This article
Date:	7/16/2009 5:19:07 PM

reminds me of a sermon I heard a couple of years ago. The minister managed to bash working women, gays and abortion all in one morning. In an all-white congregation, he threw in a few digs about Blacks too.

To me, an article like this is just trash reading. It serves no useful purpose than to try to incite rage. There is no objectivity -- starts out about health care, but quickly launches into a rant against abortion. They are not one and the same.

I can't imagine what purpose you would think this would serve in being posted. Lamont accused Lady of "trolling" in her posting of the article about Cheney -- let's see if he thinks this is trolling too.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I completely disagree
Date:	7/16/2009 5:41:15 PM

Hound: You are so wrong about this post and this is not trolling in the least. This piece exposes the abortion industry for what it is and highlights the origins of the culture of death. It is devastating to that world view and it is very uncomfortable to those who have embraced that culture.

I defy you to find one inaccurate fact in the piece. These are all facts, true and inconvenient to those who do not like to have it pointed out to them that they have affiliated themselves with such a warped world view.

Doesn't it bother you to see the quotes from people that presumably will have an impact on your health care decisions in the future (and no I am not talking about Sanger)? I am surprised at your response to this although I suppose if I were in your shoes it would make me feel defensive.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Another thing
Date:	7/16/2009 5:48:58 PM

If you think you can separate the issue for abortion from the overall health care debate you are sadly mistaken. The very same philosophical belief system that justifies abortion will be used to justify denying medical care to those who are too old, no longer or never useful to society, etc. all in the name of saving costs or someone being an unwanted member of society. It is all wrapped up in the very same culture of death. I recommend you read Humane Vitae, an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI. He not only makes an impassioned argument for the sanctity of human life but also predicted with eerie accuracy the culture of death.

And I completely reject your analogy about the minister trashing blacks, gays, etc. That is a total non sequitur. The fact is abortion results in the death of an abnormally high percentage of black and hispanic babies. He is defending them and if anyone is trashed it is white, intellectual, elitist liberals who think they know better who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Point to ponder
Date:	7/16/2009 6:20:51 PM

If abortion is supposed to control the proliferation of the undesirables, why is it that the population (rate of growth) of whites is being reduced while the population of minorities, illegals, and other forms of "Democrats" is exploding.

Not pro-abortion by any sense, but it makes you wonder.

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Messiah's Health Care Agenda
Date:	7/16/2009 6:47:08 PM

MM ... I wonder if you read the Ginsburg article. Here is the complete quote from the question.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

So, doesn't that mean she came to NOT believe that abortion was creatd so slow the growth of "undesirable" populations?

The entire interview with Ginsburg was very interesting. See Link Below.

URL: Ginsburg Intervew - New York Times

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Point to ponder
Date:	7/16/2009 6:52:06 PM

Simple reason, contraception. An even bigger problem in Europe where many of the countries have negative population growth and are forced to import Muslims to provide labor and tax revenue to cover the cost of socialism.

Look at the statistics and the location of Planned Parenthood facilities. All documented to be disproportionately located in black and hispanic areas. And blacks and to a lesser degree hispanics account for a disproportinately high percentage of abortions.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Messiah's Health Care Agenda
Date:	7/16/2009 8:15:20 PM

Thanks for posting that interview. I think Ginsberg makes numerous excellent points. I'd say that her experiences in being a professional woman in a man's world is very similar to many women. These are the kinds of things that professional women talk about when they are together, but don't often share with their male colleagues.

And I agree that the government does not belong in a woman's reproductive decisions.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Messiah's Health Care Agenda
Date:	7/16/2009 9:31:00 PM

Maybe we should investigate further this notion of restricting the growth of liberals (Democrats).

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Point to ponder
Date:	7/16/2009 11:12:35 PM

MM, I am no expert, but I can agree that poor people need access to Planned Parenthood much more than middle and upper class wonen do. Ginsburg's point was that affluent women will never have a problem getting an abortion ... it is poor people who can't afford to travel that will have problems. And I must state this - I am against abortions. I want to minimize the number of abortions as much as possible. I am for morning after pills, I am for anonymously putting a child up for adoption, etc. I don't like abortions, but I can't bring myself to tell any woman what she has to do with her body. I am against all late-term abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, and I'm not even 100% clear on those. It is a very difficult problem.

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Messiah's Health Care Agenda
Date:	7/17/2009 12:46:41 AM

That's a good one Wix ... wait ... you were kidding weren't you? You weren't serious, were you? Oh my goodness ... wow.

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	Don't Bait Me Hound....
Date:	7/17/2009 8:34:14 AM

Abortion is one issue I just don't discuss because noone is going to cahange anybodies opinion on this issue. I will only say that my opinions on abortion are strictly Biblical. There is no gray area for me. There you have it. Peace.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Point to ponder
Date:	7/17/2009 8:51:29 AM

I understand the difficulty with abortion but you have to understand where I come from on this issue. I believe that life begins at conception and that there is a soul infused into that baby. I could no more accept abortion than I could killing a one week old baby, a 2 year old or a 90 year old. To me and the vast majority of pro life proponents there is no difference. We have to protect unborn children because they are totally defenseless and the vast, vast majority of abortions aren't done to save the mother's life. They are done out of convenience for the parents.

To me this is not about rich or poor, black or latino. It is about the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death. I again urge you to read Humane Vitae and you will see that Paul VI accurately predicted what would happen to society if we accepted the culture of death beginning with contraception and eventually ending with euthanasia for those deemed no longer acceptable to society. Another great source for the societal impact of contraception and abortion is Dr. Janet Smith. She examines the true cost of the culture of death on our society and it is staggering.

There is no disputing the origins of the abortion movement and that attitude that the poor need easier access to abortions is exactly in line with Sanger and her eugenic view that we need to control the population of "them". We have too many of "them". What she meant was blacks, the handicapped, the poor, etc. Who are we to decide how many poor is enough?

And give me a break about the poor not being able to travel to get their much needed abortion! Three fourths of the poor own a car and a third own two or more. There is also public transportation, friends with cars, etc. The simple truth is that abortion companies like Planned Parenthood target the poor as a steady stream of customers that are encouraged by our culture of death not to accept new life as a gift from God but to discard it because there are just too many of them. Obviously I could go on forever about this subject but you get the sense of my passion. I really encourage you to seek out Dr. Smith's material as she does a very good job describing the negative effects the culture of death has had on our world.

By the way, the morning after pill is an abortifacient, as is the pill itself. They prevent a fertilized embryo (a human life with a soul) from attaching to the uterus.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Not Baiting Anyone
Date:	7/17/2009 1:37:12 PM

If you don't believe in abortion, then it is an open and shut case for you. No one will force you (or the females in your family) to have one.

MM - since I know you are a Catholic, it doesn't suprise me that you feel that way. But I don't think it gives you or anyone else the right to make that decision for someone else.

You know, I followed Roe v. Wade very closely when it was introduced and passed. I do not recall any of this discussion about it being a way to "control" certain population groups. There was a lot of discussion in those years about "population control" but I've never heard this associated with the abortion issue. If you recall, Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to PRIVACY concerning her reproductive decisions.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Really
Date:	7/17/2009 3:48:44 PM

Then why can the government tell me I can't go out and kill someone that cuts me off in traffic? I can predict your answer that it is wrong because my actions impact another human being but abortion doesn't.

You see why I cannot accept your position? You don't consider an embryo or anything up to some arbitrary point a human being but I do because no other explanation makes any sense. People used to say it is OK up to the the third trimester because it is not "viable" but we now have preemies that survive at that stage routinely. Why do you think the rabid abortion crowd is so opposed to education of people seeking an abortion or go berserk when you suggest they watch an ultrasound before having the procedure? Because they convince women that it is just a bundle of tissue when in reality it is a baby with a soul and a heartbeat even before the woman knows she is pregnant.

If it is a human being it deserves the same protection that person in traffic has and it is not a woman and her body. It is a woman and her baby and she should not be allowed to kill it. Hound, I am not trying to convince you to change your view of abortion. That is between you and God. But I am telling you that the pro-life cause is just and reasonable and the government should not sanction murder but should protect the most innocent and defenseless among us.

I could go on and on and I am sure you are weary of it but I had to have my say.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Really
Date:	7/18/2009 9:40:18 AM

-Abortion is obviously a tough issue.
-I do not believe in abortion, except in rare cases.
-I won't use this forum to discuss all the reasons put forth for or against abortion.
-However, I would like to mention my biggest point of confusion: I don't understand why most of the pro-abortion movement does not want to provide the woman going through this process with all the information for or against this "procedure." In most medical procedures, consumer rights advocates clamor for doctors to provide all information about a procedure and it after effects and possible complications. Everyone is encouraged to get a second or third opinion. I don't understan why abortion clinics, don't perform like other clinics, and provide all this information before performing the abortion, which in my mind would include information on the state and viability of a fetus. The only answer to me is that there is a lot more going on here than a medical procedure. The agendas are many, ...as are the victims.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Really
Date:	7/18/2009 2:27:19 PM

Women are given complete information about the procedure.
Women are actually given pre-abortion counseling about this option and their other options and are given numerous opportunities to change their minds. At every step of the process, women are given a chance to ask questions and to change their mind. The last thing the Dr. does before performing the procedure is to ask if they are sure they want to proceed. They are also given additional information about birth control.

So exactly what information is it that you want to give them?

You seem to forget that abortion services are being provided to women whom, for whatever reason, do not chose to carry the pregnancy. Should they be subjected to pictures that the Right to Lifers want to shove in their faces? NO. The women are already making a difficult decision, why should they have to be confronted with gore? They already have to run a gauntlet of Right to Lifers outside the door, and worry about their safety.

So I don't know what "information" you want to give them. When you have been a woman and gone through the decision leading up to an abortion, then YOU can decide what "information" they need.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Really
Date:	7/18/2009 7:13:57 PM

Hound,
-I would like to believe your assessment of abortion clinics is true, but....
-Of course I generalize from personal experience, which of course has its strengths and weaknesses. I have worked through pre- and post-abortion counseling with 7 persons, 5 young women (from 18-22 years old) and 2 young men (both 22 years old). In three of the cases Planned Parenhood Clincs were involved. The only counseling provided in any of the cases was a question something like "are you sure you want this procedure?" After a "yes," no matter how strident or how soft, then the process began. All done in usually two visits the first visit to ask for theprocedure and the second for the procedure.
-No matter what the web pages say these clinics do, my, and others' experiences suggest that in many cases it's just CYA.
-Now you second point, your comment: "... When you have been a woman and gone through the decision leading up to an abortion, then YOU can decide what "information" they need." That comment wasn't up to your usual quality. Let's say that in the very least your reasoning here is...well ....flawed. To say I need to be a woman to know what information they need is like saying I need to be black to write Civil Rights laws; like saying I need to be gay to run AIDS clinics; like...well you get the idea.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Really
Date:	7/18/2009 9:11:55 PM

I have been involved with Planned Parenthood and in every case the way I have described it is the way it went down in those instances.

And the way you men toss around your opinions around this board about abortion, you would think you had personal experience. Well, until you are woman in those circumstances, you have no idea what they go through. No matter how much you think you understand, it's not your body, it will never be your body; you will never experience the emotions, nor will you ever deal with the aftermath on a personal basis.

And yes, I do think to some extent you have to be gay and be diagnosed with AIDS before you really understand what goes through someone's mind.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Really
Date:	7/19/2009 12:15:00 AM

Really? ..That's what you think? That you have to experience something in order to be able to cope with it? work with it? fix it?

-Stop, ...listen to yourself. Not very rational.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Outrageous perspective
Date:	7/19/2009 1:36:09 PM

Hound: I can't believe you have used the most intellectually dishonest, "Unless you are a woman you can't understand" argument. That is by far the most intellectually weak perspective and demeans you. If a man can't oppose abortion because he isn't a woman then likewise he is not qualified to be for abortion. And what about the millions of women that are pro-life?!?!? I suppose their views don't count for some other reason.

My points are devastating to your pro-abortion world view and so you resort to my not being able to have an opnion because of my gender. Talk about prejudice! I am not going to talk any more about this subject because I now know you have a vested interest in this topic. I will pray for you.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Outrageous perspective
Date:	7/19/2009 4:57:30 PM

MM you are welcome to your opinion and you are free to preach it to anyone you please all day long. You are NOT welcome to push the acceptance of your religious based opinion on the citizenry of the USA through force of law. Your anology of allowing someone to kill another who cuts you off in traffic is the real unintellegent remark. Surely anyone half as smart as you love to let us know you are, can see that comparing murder of a walking around human being is in no way comparable to abortion. As Hound pointed out you perhaps come upon your opinion on abortion honestly through your Catholic faith. What do you think of Pope Benedict's call for what sounded to me to be something akin to "socialism" in his Encyclical last week? For that matter what about the opinion on the Iraq war held by Benedict and John Paul II? I certainly wouldn't think you are a "cafeteria"
Catholic!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Outrageous perspective
Date:	7/19/2009 5:53:17 PM

Right to Life women have a right to their position and thankfully will never be made to have an abortion.

As a man, you will never become pregnant. So you will never be put into the position of carrying a child, whether you are married or single, have the means to care for a child or not, have the mental or emotional stability to raise a child. You will never be asked to put your health at risk to bear the child. You will likely never be raped, never be the victim of incest because some member of your family decides for force himself on you. It will never be suggested to you that you carry the unborn fetus for 9 months and then give it up to strangers, just because it's better that way.
And if you would do that, you would never have to wonder for the rest of your life what has become of the baby that you bore.
Men have the luxury of being able to walk away from the situation. Not all do, I'm not saying that, but men have that option. Women do not.

Not every unwanted child is given up for adoption. Sometimes the birth mother keeps them and they become physically or emotionally abused children. Sometimes they become the children of emotionally unstable women. Would you not only require that every child be born, but for unfit mothers, require that they be given up?

So, if that is a weak argument, well then, so be it. You have a right to your beliefs, to live your beliefs, but don't impose them on everyone else.

Name:	Lady -	Reply
Subject:	Insightful bumper sticker
Date:	7/19/2009 6:40:12 PM

"If you can't trust me to make a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Yes I am free to push
Date:	7/20/2009 1:00:28 PM

any view I want to push for any reason I want to push it. Just like you can do likewise if you were an atheist and wanted to shove your atheist agenda down the throats of religious people. If a majority of Americans vote for pro-life politicians and those pro-life politicians propose and confirm Supreme Court justices that are strict constructionists and recognize that Roe v Wade made up out of whole cloth a right in the Constitution that does not exist then it could be vacated. And then states would be free to ban abortion if they decided it was in the compelling interest of its citizens and there wouldn't be a thing you and the other purveyors of the culture of death can do about it. So don't lecture me about what I can and can't do simply because my beliefs are derived from my Christian world view because you are just wrong.

As for my analogy, the lack of intelligence is on your part because you apparently have a problem reading. What you don't seem to understand, and I am typing very slowly so you can get it, is that I don't see any difference between a two-week old baby in the womb, a ten year old, someone who is 30, 40, 50 or 100 years old. They all deserve to be protected from murder. If you believe it is a bundle of cells or a blob of tissue or whatever mental gyrations you take to justify your world view then you would logically come to a different conclusion, even if I think it is wrong. My goal is to convince enough people that can see the difference so we can end this awful thing called abortion.

As for my views on the Pope's recent encyclical I have not read it but I will at some point. But I can assure you that nowhere in that document does the Holy Father say that opposing socialism or government takeover of health care is a mortal sin like he has about abortion (as have the College of Cardinals and the Bishops). Although Pope John Paul II indicated that Catholics should oppose capital punishment nowhere did he say that agreeing with capital punishment is a mortal sin. I oppose capital punishment because his argument for doing so makes perfect sense. So your view of that encyclical and being a cafeteria Catholic is just plain wrong......nice try though.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	More Insightful bumper sticker
Date:	7/20/2009 1:05:34 PM

I prefer the more insightful bumper sticker. "Its not a choice, its a child". There is so much demand for adoption of babies that no woman who decides to have the baby has to be trusted with it if she doesn't trust herself to raise a baby. Cute, but not really very insightful......

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	More Insightful bumper sticker
Date:	7/20/2009 10:16:50 PM

So many extreme conservative seem to believe a child's life begins at conception and ends at birth, at least as far as the government's interaction with it.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Huh?
Date:	7/21/2009 2:25:51 PM

Archie: I am not sure I understand what you mean by this.

By the way, you seem intent on making this an ultra conservative issue when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. A great many fiscal liberals and consistent Democrat voters are pro-life and a good many fiscal conservatives are pro abortion. A great many African Americans and self identified Democrat voters are pro life and while they may overwhelmingly vote Democrat they do so in spite of the pro-abortion platform and not because of it.

The fact is the U.S. Catholic Bishops are a very fiscally liberal group and are adamantly opposed to abortion. There are a large number of black ministers that have probably never voted for a Republican in their lives that are pro-life activists. You seem so narrowly informed on this issue but that seems to be typical of the guilty white liberals that believe we need abortion so we don't have too many of the wrong people.....

Quick Links
Wallace Lake News
Wallace Lake Photos
Wallace Lake Videos