The candidate walks into the jam-packed auditorium at Calvin Coolidge High School. The district he seeks to represent has elected both Republicans and Democrats. The residents are independent thinkers who are very serious about the social issues of the day. As the candidate strides up to the podium, he looks over the crowd and sees a number of pro-life and pro-choice signs. It seems evenly divided. Personally, the candidate believes abortion should be legal but has some concerns about its usage. He is truly in the middle somewhere. But the conventional wisdom says that the candidate should just put their lot into one of the camps and stick with that position. This candidate is different and tonight his goal is to defy that conventional wisdom by appealing to the activists on both sides:
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve been asked to give you my views on the abortion issue tonight. Generally it is not an assignment that the average candidate looks forward to but I guess I’m a little different. I’ve actually been excited about this prospect.
Let me start by saying that I respect those of you who are pro-life and those of you who are pro-choice. This is probably the most controversial issue of our time and I honestly believe that all of you are well- intentioned. Unfortunately, the media loves to focus on the negative, so they will cover the extremists on both sides. That is not fair because I firmly believe that the average activist comes from a good place, has deep- seeded convictions and is not shy about expressing them. Indeed, I applaud you all for standing up for what you believe.
Now, I’m gonna be straight with you. I’m not the typical politician who tries to have it both ways. You deserve to know where I stand.
I believe abortion must remain legal in this country. To me, it is a matter of a woman’s health. I am a great student of history and, as everyone knows, before abortion was legalized in this country, many women were dying from botched, unsafe back alley abortions or were being severely harmed. We can all quibble about how many women we’re talking about but, for me, the numbers don’t matter. Women will always seek out abortions and, if that is the case, then I prefer they be safe.
At the same time, however, I think the pro-choice folks need to fess up. Abortion is a form of killing. A woman sitting in the abortion clinic waiting room has something – and you can decide what you want to call that something – in her body. It is something that, if not aborted, will ultimately become a child. It is a living organism. Indeed, if it was a wanted pregnancy, we would be calling it a “baby” from day one. Then, when the woman leaves the clinic, that organism is no longer alive. To me, that is “killing.” It’s a sad process, one that no one wants to experience. It’s a very sad fact of life.
But here’s the good news. The number of abortions in this country is decreasing. It’s hard to say what is causing that trend, but I would like to give credit to both sides of the issue. For example, the pro-choice folks like to emphasize birth control education. The pro-lifers hope to “protect” women by pointing out how some women ultimately regret their abortions. Whatever the reason, the number is going down and that is a good thing.
Now, although I support abortion, I am very concerned that some women might be getting later terms abortions for less than compelling reasons. That’s why I would support banning third trimester abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered or if there was a possibility of her experiencing severe health consequences. I don’t think a woman should have an abortion at that stage for some less-than-serious reason.
I will add that I can support the work of so-called crisis pregnancy centers as long as they are totally candid up front about their opposition to abortion. If a woman clearly understands that she is basically going into a pro-life center andshe still wants to talk to them, then go for it. I have no problem with that. In addition, I will vigorously support the right of pro-life activists to protest in front of a clinic. That is the essence of the First Amendment.
Although I support legal abortion, I am torn about the use of taxpayer’s dollars for abortions. I understand how the pro-lifers don’t want their tax dollars used to fund something that they find morally objectionable and they have all the right in the world to try to pass laws restricting the use of those dollars. Indeed, in my earlier days I supported efforts to de-fund the Vietnam War. On the other hand, I am troubled by the thought of a woman on welfare with four children not being able to use her Medicaid card for an abortion because it means we all will be paying more money to help her raise yet another (unwanted) child. It’s a tough one for me and I would like to sit down with representatives on both sides of that issue.
Abortion is not a black and white issue to me. It is very, very complicated. In the meantime, however, if I am elected to Congress I will work hard to make it easier for couples to adopt, I will support using federal dollars for contraceptives. I will support any educational effort that has the same goal as we all do – to eliminate the need for abortion in this country. I ask you all to consider supporting me. I support legal abortion but I will work as hard as anybody to eliminate the need for it.
Thank you very much.



February 12, 2011 at 11:03 am
It’s honest, but it’s not a crossable bridge for the so-called “pro-lifers.”
You have got to place the responsibility for caring FOR wanted life on the people who say that they care ABOUT it. Othewise, they will continue to do, say and believe exactly what they always have.
LikeLike
February 12, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Would you insert a line regarding fetal indications for third trimester abortions?
If you were to re edit a new draft for the next speech?
LikeLike
February 12, 2011 at 12:22 pm
How about, “I will propose legislation outlawing the abortion of any fetus for whom there is a person who will step forward with the $240,000 needed to get it safely from that point all the way to graduation from high school.”
LikeLike
February 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Finally,
Someone says something that exists in reality!
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 4:21 pm
The candidate could say that but, of course, he would totally lose the pro-lifers, even though the statement was making a very legitimate point. Remember, this is a political speech designed to appeal to both sides.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 10:11 am
That wouldn’t really matter if the woman carrying that pregnancy does not want to continue it…NO amount of $$ in the world would change that!!
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 4:12 pm
that is another reason why legality would not eliminate abortions.
it would, however be a great way to reduce them.
i have found that helping to change the circumstances that make a woman or couples seek abortions is very effective at reducing them.
but as lorriepoo points out, there will always be some people for whom finances and life situations are not the reason they abort.
there is nothing that i, or anyone else can do to change that.
but god bless them anyway.
as a lifer who wants to stop abortions, i need to focus on those for whom i can offer help.
and the truth is that i should be offering what help i can to those people, not simply for the purpose of abortion, but because it is the right thing to do.
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Good point, Gregor. I would do that!
LikeLike
February 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Refreshing to read an attempt at the truth!
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Thanks, Leah. When I lobbied on the pro-choice side and talked to pro-lifers I would often take this approach. Of course, they never said they would vote for me but I always felt my totaly honestly had some effect on them….
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 4:15 pm
i don’t vote, but i would campaign for you.
we don’t agree on the topic of abortion, but i trust that you won’t try and BS me.
trust accounts for a lot with me.
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 9:44 am
I have issues with the comment**How about, “I will propose legislation outlawing the abortion of any fetus for whom there is a person who will step forward with the $240,000 needed to get it safely from that point all the way to graduation from high school**
First, I would argue that any prolifer who finds a woman who wants to adopt her kid, put that money is escrow for the kid. Seond, if the woman doesnt want to be pregnant, then there’s nothing more to be said.
Like too many folks who are prolife, they conveniently forget that there is a woman involved. I know one prolifer who has argued that the fetus is a separate entity and no longer is the property of the woman. Stupid biology mistake based on screwed up theology and his male brain, I guess.
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 11:56 am
Hey, tnsdh, there is NO so-called “pro-lifer” who would post a quarter of a million to save a fetus not his/her own, so what the candidate is basically doing here is saying, “Put up or shut up,” a sub-context message the s-cpl will understand if not acknowledge. So, it’s safe for the candidate to pretend that there is no pregnant woman connected to the fetus, because he/she is not going to get called on the challenge. You are absolutely right about the woman having primacy in the pregnancy, something I have long and deeply wished my mother had…..
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm
While I can’t speak to your desires for your mother, I can speak about my own desires for women to stand on their own two feet and believe in their innate goodness, despite the misogny, despite the pathetic claims about maternal instincts (like we are reduced to animalistic behavior), and, on a more global perspective, despite the realities that this world is over populated…. God gave us brains to think through things. And I’m pretty sure she (yes, God using the female pronomial reference) would be proud of our taking overpopulation, famine, disease and homelessness as serious initiatives to embrace.
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 6:20 pm
This is the perfect way to break down this inairmftoon.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 6:31 am
“I believe abortion must remain legal in this country.”
A prolifer accepting that, Pat, is like an abolitionist accepting this, “I believe slavery must remain legal in this country.”
Now do you know why, when you promised to write a speech acceptable to both sides in this war, I said, “It’ll never happen”?
What you say before and after that, and no one could have said it better, is meaningless.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 6:49 am
It is a war on the terrorism that pro life fanatics, like yourself, John have perpetuated for years. Otherwise there would be no War on pro life terrorism.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 6:46 am
Most people, John, that declare themselves to be pro life allow exceptions far greater than fanatics like you.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 6:55 am
If the Pro lifers are not fanatics in the crowd, many would listen and be open to the restrictions the candidate would suggest upon questioning.
People who are Pro Life vote for candidates that are pro choice.
By definition that reveals again that you are very wrong.
They may see a bigger picture than the fanatic fringe of ProLifers.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 7:05 am
I am pro life.
That was a nice speech.
Although, I disagree with much of what you said, I would to know more about you as a candidate. Then I would decide whether to vote for you or not.
I would want to know more about restrictions you were willing to place on Abortion.
What your position on preemptive wars, one in particular that has devastated this nation.
What social programs would you legislate to help the poor in our community and so on.
Most my pro life friends feel the same as I do.
I certainly would listen to your whole speech, and not freeze my ears after your first sentence.
The rest of your speech was Not meaningless.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 11:06 am
good questions, Ann….Other than some restrictions on the later abortions, I”m not sure what else I would propose. One thing might be clinic regulations. There are a lot of sleazeballs out there and, as long as the regulations were not designed to actually make it impossible to operate a clinic, I would support any good suggestions. but, again, to me the thing that stands out is that I would REALLY work to reduce and ultimately eliminate abortions. Pro-life candidates who say they will support legislation banning abortion are full of it – and they know it. The only way to “save” all of these “babies” is to try to make sure that every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 7:34 am
tnsdh, as long as you insist on arguing from the rights of women, YOU WILL LOSE the fight.
So-called “pro-lifers” don’t give a fig about reality; as I have said time and again, they are operating on an agenda to save themselves. Until such time as you realize that, you don’t even know how to start fighting.
You have to use their tools against them. One of the big ones is projection– their settling of all their fears, urges, shortcomings, etc. So, when you say that you believe all women have a right to control their destiny, they say, “See? She’s selfish and willing to murder to get what she wants!” And you have thereby allowed them to win.
You have got to learn to use their weapons against them. They want a fetal homicide law to cover pregnant women in a car crash? Fine; just tag onto it an amendment that calls for $1 billion in higher taxes to cover free prenatal care for all. They want to curtail abortion? Fine, just tack on an amendment calling for $500 million in AFDC payments. They want a candidate to take a stand on abortion? Fine; he asks them how many more children they are going to have, so he can raise their taxes to help them.
They have operated free of responsibility for human life for over three decades, and it’s largely because of the inflexibility of the “pro-choice ” approach that they have not been called out. If you con’t change your tactics, you will continue to fight a losing battle.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 4:28 pm
i think that selfishness is something that is within all of us.
i know that it is within me.
what does astound me is that so many lifers are against paying more in taxes to help with prenatal and pediatric care, reputable day care, education, housing, food and all of the other aspects that are conducive to effectively and properly raise a family.
it seems to me that doing such things are simply a matter of social justice.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 10:19 am
rogelio, their opposition to raising taxes to help care for chldren is further proof of their focus on their own needs, not those of human life. We are looking at a major psychological problem here!
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 7:41 am
Ann in #3:
What are your feelings about voting for the candidate who says this:
“I will do my utmost to protect the rights of the unborn innocent. I will close down every clinic that performs abortions in the country;I will hunt down, prosecute and jail abortionists; I will cut funding to hospitals that provide abortion. In addition, I promise to remove onerous regulations that cripple Wall Street, cut Social Security payments by half in order to save it; double our military investment in Afghanistan; eliminate wasteful spending on our public schools; slash college loan programs and make those lazy students work their way through school; and sell the management of our shipping ports to the Chinese.”
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 8:38 am
We seem to be attracting lots more quasi-prolifers here, and that’s not a bad thing: they’re driving Chuckles nuts!
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 8:49 am
quasi-prolifers like Rog
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 2:17 pm
chow chow chow
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 11:14 am
Is a quasi ProLifer a terrorist prolifer?
Like you and your convicted murderer friends?
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 2:18 pm
oh snap!
LikeLike
February 17, 2011 at 1:08 pm
“oh snap” — love it haven’t heard it for years!
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm
not all lifers have the desire to stalk clinic workers, muchless worship those who slaughter doctors in churches, as you do.
if that makes me a quasi lifer, then so be it.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 10:39 am
Boss, sure it’s your blog and you can do what you want with it, but I’m not going to respond if you don’t post. The next time I email something that doesn’t appear, I’m gone (What a threat!).
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 11:03 am
John. I honestly do not believe that the “Boss,” whoever that is, is deleting/censoring your comments. I gotta feeling it’s a technical glitch. Heck, you’re the one who keeps this page interesting!
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 11:16 am
We need terrorist proLifers to show the world what a danger to society prolifers are in general.
I hope John stays as it harms the proLife cause.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Let’s hope the boss thinks so too.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Dunkle harms the pro life cause, that is true.
I, personally, would love to see him leave.
He adds nothing to the conversation.
He is just a irritating distraction as I try and read the comments of intelligent people.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Katie, that man is not a “terrorist pro-lifer”: he is just more open about how he feels and more unrestrained in what he does: he shows far better than most so-called “pro-lifers” just how focused they are on abortion rather than on human life.
they are about “rescue,” which is easy; not about nurture. They are about “saving,” not helping children to develope. They are about crisis, not the mundane daily routines of feeding, clothing and sheltering. And they are about imposing their will on other people rather than flexing their own outlook and lifestyles to provide children what childhood demands.
People who consider themselves better than he don’t realize how many of his values they share but don’t show.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Common, I’s, gang up on this guy. Send him over the top.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 4:36 pm
i think that what makes this blog interesting is the diversity of the regular posters here.
all of us have our own life experiences and talents to share, and despite differences in opinion, many of those experiences and insights overlap.
for example, chuckles and i were both single dads who raised our children alone.
lorraine and i are both nurses.
despite my opinion of dunkle’s tactics, at least i can look at him and know that there but for the grace of god go i.
but i don’t think that any single one of us is responsible for making this blog interesting.
it takes each one that actually WANTS to gain wisdom and insight from others, and is willing to offer something of value to the others.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Rogelio,
The smartest anti abortionist on the site!
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 7:25 am
This is “a little” of the subject of abortion..{but not really}..what the HELL are the Repub.s trying to do by “re-defining” what the word “rape is”???? I guess they figure that if they go home and don’t leave any marks on their “woman” when they “throw her down & force her” to perform her “womanly duty”…it’s NOT rape it’s just “lett’en off a little steam” after stugglin… with tryin to get rid of that damn Obama care!! Oh! Wait! Maybe it was the woman he was courting… from “craigslist”…sorry I can’t keep it straight..but ya’ll catch what I am tryin to say..I hope!!
Now it could be those “darn boys” (of his) being a little “frisky” with those “sluts” they fool around with??..Surely it’s not because of something he decided to do after his daughter spent months in therapy..because she was afraid to leave her house in fear of her “ex” laying in wait..to force her to have sex with him again….after he ties her up..(just so she doesn’t “hurt” herself!!)
OK need I say more??? I am angry abt them even trying to put something on the books!! I realize that it didn’t fly…but just the thought of them trying..just infuriates me!!!
Why is it that the same “ones” that try to decide your “fate” on abortion are now trying to decide what to call (some) of the circumstances that (might) have brought you to the clinic???
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm
since when does “no” mean anything other than no?
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Loreraine, what you address is only one of the issues on which the Republicans betray the people who elected them. They campaign on the danger of illegal immigration, and in office they give your tax money to the rich. They campaign on family values, and in office they privatize Social Security. They campaign on personal responsibility, and in office they gut FEMA. You might as well be angry at the voters who believe them.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 9:12 am
I’m serious here, Pat, not making fun. Maybe a politician like this (not Lincoln) could have prevented the bloodiest of wars. You have me thinking; maybe I’ve been wrong.
“Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve been asked to give you my views on the slavery issue tonight. Generally it is not an assignment that the average candidate looks forward to but I guess I’m a little different. I’ve actually been excited about this prospect.
Let me start by saying that I respect those of you who are abolitionists and those of you who are pro–slavery. This is probably the most controversial issue of our time and I honestly believe that all of you are well-intentioned. Unfortunately, the media love to focus on the negative, so they will cover the extremists on both sides. That is not fair because I firmly believe that the average activist comes from a good place, has deep-seated convictions and is not shy about expressing them. Indeed, I applaud you all for standing up for what you believe.
Now, I’m gonna be straight with you. I’m not the typical politician who tries to have it both ways. You deserve to know where I stand.
I believe slavery must remain legal in this country. To me, it is a matter of the nation’s health. I am a great student of history and, as everyone knows, before slavery was legalized in this country, many citizens were suffering from dire poverty, some selling themselves into virtual slavery just to feed their families. We can all quibble about how many citizens we’re talking about but, for me, the numbers don’t matter. Land owners will always seek out slaves or virtual slaves and, if that is the case, then I prefer they be safe.
At the same time, however, I think the slave holders need to fess up. Slavery is a form of killing. A citizen who buys a slave knows that slave is something – and you can decide what you want to call that something. It is something that, if not enslaved, could be a citizen itself. It is a living organism. Indeed, if an abolitionist bought it, we would be calling it a “citizen” from day one. Then the slave owner would no longer have the power of life and death over it. To me, that kind of power is “killing.” It’s a sad process, one that no one wants to experience. It’s a very sad fact of life.
But here’s the good news. The number of slaves in this country is decreasing. It’s hard to say what is causing that trend, but I would like to give credit to both sides of the issue. For example, the slave owners like to emphasize birth control education. The abolitionists hope to “protect” the slave owners by pointing out how some of them ultimately regret their involvement in slavery. Whatever the reason, the number is going down and that is a good thing.
Now, although I support slavery, I am very concerned that some owners might be treating their slaves harshly for less than compelling reasons. That’s why I would support freeing third generation slaves unless the plantation would be in danger of going under or even if there were a possibility of its experiencing severe economic consequences. I don’t think a slave owner should own someone whose great grandfather was enslaved for some less-than-serious reason.
I will add that I can support the work of so-called “Help Centers” so long as they are totally candid up front about their opposition to slavery. If an owner clearly understands that his property is basically going into an anti-slavery center, and he still wants to allow that, then go for it. I have no problem with that. In addition, I will vigorously support the right of abolitionists to protest in front of a slave auction. That is the essence of the First Amendment.
Although I support legal slavery, I am torn about the use of taxpayer’s dollars to support it. I understand how the abolitionists don’t want their tax dollars used to fund something that they find morally objectionable and they have all the right in the world to try to pass laws restricting the use of those dollars. Indeed, in my earlier days I supported efforts to de-fund the French & Indian War. On the other hand, I am troubled by the thought of a slave owner with four children not being able to use his citizenship entitlements to buy a slave he could otherwise not afford because it means we all will be paying more money to help him support his endangered business. It’s a tough one for me and I would like to sit down with representatives on both sides of that issue.
Slavery is not a black and white issue with me. It is very, very complicated. In the meantime, however, if I am elected to Congress, I will work hard to make it easier for abolitionists to help slaves and I will support using federal dollars to aid needy slave owners. I will support any educational effort that has the same goal as we all do – to eliminate the need for slavery in this country. I ask you all to consider supporting me. I support legal slavery but I will work as hard as anybody to eliminate the need for it.
Thank you very much.”
(Don’t be too hard on me now. I’ll be in Buffalo (of all places) till Thursday morning.)
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 12:50 pm
That was a horrible stupid Analogy.
Basically worthless.
It has nothing to do with abortion.
And you do not discuss abortion.
The only similarity is that Lincoln was murdered by a terrorist like the Pro Life terrorists of today.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 4:16 pm
What’s so special about Buffalo, John? Are you visiting some pro life prisoners up there? Kate
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm
JAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Dunkle likes to visit murderers in prison. Who does that?
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Chow, chow, chow
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 9:25 pm
a son, daughter, and grandkids
LikeLike
April 10, 2011 at 10:06 am
Teaching grandkids to love murderers also?
You must be one ghastly grandparent.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 9:16 am
(Don’t be too hard on me now. I’ll be in Buffalo [of all places] till Thursday morning.)
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 9:40 am
John, that is very, very clever. But I’m gonna have to read it again to try to decipher what you’re really saying here. Charles???
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 12:53 pm
How can you call that clever?
It has nothing to do with the issue of Abortion.
The Analogy does not hold up to the mildest of scrutiny.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 10:12 am
That was the stupidest Abortion analogy I have ever read.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 11:55 am
Buffalo– where Slepian was killed, Ralph Reed got his start as a venal and felonious lobbyist and the Schenk brothers still pretend to be godly. He will probably come back giddy nfrom the fumes of sanctity.
The speech is absolutely fantastic! If he wrote it, he’s a lot smarter than he lets on, and I doff my hat to him. It is a masterful illustration of why any candidate trying to accommodate both sides isn’t going to make it happen– because one side is going to despise his attempt at “balance.”
Of course, equating the so-called “pro-life” movement with the abolition movement is unworkable at too many levels. For one, it’s a false equivalency– slaves were not proto-humans. But I’ll have to examine it at leisure later.
What we can learn from this is: it’s their way or the highway. Just as strongly as we condemn slavery, so do they condemn abortion. The significant difference is that their condemnation is based on personal needs rather than a sense of civic duty.
I look forward to the collapse of the attempted dialogue between Focus on the Family and Planned Parenthood on reducing abortion. God has a sense of humor….
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 12:58 pm
You are right.
Dunkle’s comparison on abortion is worthless.
There is no comparison in that speech that is worth discussing.
Additionally it appears the author of the speech knows for little about the accumulated historical knowledge of Lincoln.
Dunkle’s mind appears about ten books behind on Lincoln and The Civil War.
LikeLike
February 17, 2011 at 6:17 am
Here’s why Chuckles is the real abortion extremist: “It is a masterful illustration of why any candidate trying to accommodate both sides isn’t going to make it happen– because one side is going to despise his attempt at ‘balance’.”
I am trying to decide whether or not Pat’s politician is viable; indecision has no part in Chuck’s outlook. (And the thing is, his argument is more powerful.)
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I think was a nice speech. Whoever that person might be.
He made his point without attacking anybody or any side!
I also think that he has valid point to be taken under consideration of people who really think…
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Which speech are you praising here, Sonia, the one Pat wrote on abortion or the changes I made in it on slavery?
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Cathy, you could put your anger to work in a constructive fashion.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 10:00 am
These speeches would do nothing for me in my voting for a pro choice candidate.
The one about slavery is just plainly written from a morons perspective and has nothing to do with abortion.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 10:54 am
Cathy, “Abortion” and Sol~~ don’t get angry about the stupidity of the speech; instead, think about why they would try make a comparison between slavery and abortion: they need to win. Why do they need to win? After all, you don’t have to sell the public on anything if you wan to do something to improve the lot of a child; you will always find someone somewhere willing to let you work with their child. The public has nothing to do with it. So, why compare abortion to slavery, when it does nothing to help children? Because they, not the children, need to win. Why do they need to win? Where are they coming from? Why is there a chasm between what they say and what they do about caring for human life? Why such a narrow focus on the one segment of life they have absolutely no control over, no way to nurture it? Because they need to win. Win what?????
learn about aborticentrism, and tell the people here what you learned. And put that knowledge to use in dealing with them in the future.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Abortion is a Woman’s right to choose.
Any politician that does not have the simplest of decency to respect human liberty, including supporting abortion will not get my vote.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm
The problem is, as long as the candidate thinks so-called “pro-lifers” are reasonable people, he or she will give equal consideration to their point of view. Your job is not to convince him of your constitutional right so much as it is to show him their irrelevance. you can do this, you know.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 10:04 pm
to her point of view
LikeLike
February 17, 2011 at 5:58 am
Stupid! Chuckles is right: “their point of view.”
LikeLike
February 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Dunkle is very consistent at not being able to make any sense.
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 7:45 am
Fidning this post solves a problem for me. Thanks!
LikeLike