I admire persistence. Can’t say the same for your mistaken (unwittingly?) attempt to contrive the argument as a lack of ignorance on my part. Moreover, you persist in digressing when you claim that I didn’t “adequately resolve” Rob’s question.

For starters, his question was a ‘red herring.’
In addition, I am still waiting for a cogent, on point response to my query as per comment dated February 19, 2008 9:13pm and subsequent ones.

As tedious as it may be, it needs restating that the gist of the discussion that ensued between Rob and I has been completely evaded by him, Jim S and now you. Your focus should have been on ROB’S JANGLED BELIEFS. Instead, quite conveniently, time and again, it has been shifted to me, others and inapposite (to the discussion at hand) matters.

Couple that with Rob’s silence and your (collectively) straw men intervention and I am left wondering whether Rob is unable to back up his sentiments with cogency and clarity.

Whereas, my previous responses have allowed for a certain amount of departure from the subject, to reply some of your points, I find it pointless to continue addressing smoke-and-mirrors propositions.

While you are right this was not a discussion about terminology and propaganda, It was actually a discussion regarding how to treat ignorance to issues at hand. The thing is, there’s a certain level of ignorance when you knowingly frame language in a discussion to suite your needs. While I agree, when a child is wanted by a parent or parents, it is referred to as a baby from the start. However, when a pregnancy is unwanted or detrimental to the health of the mother, it is referred to as a pregnancy and the life is referred to as a fetus. These pregnancies and fetus are only then referred to as a baby by people like yourself that claim that every life has the right to life. Now, going back to the question posed by Rob in which I believe you very inadequately resolved. that is the life of innmates seem to not have this right to life. While I do agree that most prisoners are actually guilty, it has been shown time and time again that that is not always the case. How do resolve the execution of an innocent man, in order to placate the Rights obsession with the death penalty. Add to this that it generally costs more to execute a man or woman than it does to imprison them for life. I don’t think you can, and I believe that Rob is correct that there is an inherent conflict of opinion in this stance. Presumably you are chrisitian, shouldn’t you allow your God to punish both the prisoners and the people that get and give abortions.

No ob-gyn while talking to prospective parents EVER refers to their unborn as the ‘fetus.’ In fact, it’s always the BABY. It ‘becomes’ a “fetus” when people are considering or performing an abortion.

At any rate, this discussion was not about pro-life vs. pro-abortion positions. It revolves around Rob’s conflicting ideas.

Exhibits

A. He states, ‘he would never harm a *Child* IN the womb.’

That evinces, in his mind, this baby is not just a ‘fetus.’ **Note** Rob calls him a *child*

B. But, then he informs, ‘he votes pro-choice.’

His prerogative. HOWEVER, now b. clashes with a.
Ergo, to affirm that unborn are worth protecting and then champion the same line of thought that kills them is a bit problematic. In actuality, by voting pro-choice he elevates the “right” of a woman – to dispose of her unborn – over the right of that same baby to life and the pursuit of happiness.

C. He further blames ‘society and parents for the “failure of abortions.”’

That posturing would be passable if he hadn’t claimed to be pro-choice.

D. Lastly, he attempts to deflect with:
“There are some truths that I hold to be universal, but knowing the point at which conscious life begins is not one of them.”

He seems to be saying, ‘I am not sure when “conscious life begins.”’ That brings us back to a. “I could never take the life of *child* IN…the womb.”

Clearly, he’s going around in circles.

I believe you mean fetus, not baby. This Pro-Life habit of referring to a fetus as a baby is propaganda. It’s a fetus, it’s the scientific term for the life you are trying to save. The thing is your argument sounds less dramatic if you refer to it as a fetus.

I asked you: ***How do you reconcile your support of abortion with your condemnation of those that avail themselves of the same thing you condone?!***

Your reply:

“And I reconcile my stance by stating the obvious. I don’t know everything, nor am I arrogant enough to believe I do. There are some truths that I hold to be universal, but knowing the point at which conscious life begins is not one of them.”

You don’t have to know “everything.” Nobody else does. Even though, it’d be nice that you figure out how to integrate not wanting (personally) to abort a child and still be pro-choice. Otherwise, it seems like you are equivocating.

Still, this is what I asked:

How can YOU be pro-choice BUT despise those you believe are at fault for abortion, ’society and parents.’ That shows false concern.

You wrote:
“I VOTE PRO-CHOICE, but I think abortions are a failure on the part of the parents and our society. …I COULD NEVER TAKE THE LIFE OF A CHILD IN OR OUT OF THE WOMB.”

No dispute there. Right?

I commented:
“To believe abortion is wrong, and still support it, makes you part of the problem, as everyone else you denounce.”

At that point, you attempted to veer off what you said and put it on something/someone else with a non sequitur.

We could play that game, all day long, but I rather not. I was merely pointing out the clashing between what you claim to believe (abortion is wrong) and your actions (voting pro-choice). Actions, more often than not, are a barometer of what we really believe. That’s it. You can ponder it or ignore it, but please don’t spin the issue.

1. A mindless knee-jerk reaction, based on your own biases and wrong information. I don’t think this blog is big enough to contain your witlessness.

2. You always respond to my comments, talking in third person – as though that justifies your insults – from your soapbox.

Regarding people exculpated by the wonder of DNA… Aren’t appeals great? Don’t forget the trials…
Incidentally, the same DNA, you tout also shows that babies are valuable, unique humans even before they are born.

FYI, ideology has nothing to do with this. Many democrats are pro-lilfe and some republicans pro-choice. However, you are so busy spewing hogwash, you conveniently sidestap that info.
Further, it is an undisputable fact that an unborn is a *human being.* While, it is understood, that you opt to believe otherwise that doesn’t make you smarter. On the contrary…

Innocent people have been murdered for crimes they didn’t commit. Look it up if you don’t believe me. These people were innocent of their charges, defenseless (kinda tough to put up a fight when you’re strapped to a table) and executed.

But I’m sure that receiving due process was a comfort to them as they got a needle stuck in their arm for a crime they didn’t commit.

And I reconcile my stance by stating the obvious. I don’t know everything, nor am I arrogant enough to believe I do. There are some truths that I hold to be universal, but knowing the point at which conscious life begins is not one of them.

The gist is not what others believe on abortion or the death penalty. The focal point is your ambivalent position.

The issue was and remains:
“If you believe the unborn has rights and value too, you better do more than pay lip service.” It would be best to pick one side, than play them both. Can’t have it both ways.

Anyways, let me explain the obvious, in case you missed it.

~ Abortion is the *killing performed on an innocent, defenseless human being. *

~ Conversely, *the death penalty is the punishment administered to those that take another’s life. *

The incongruence lies in that we protect those who kill babies and bring the “other group” – you know the serial killers, the rapists, and etc. to trial.
To compare a pro-life stance with a pro-death penalty one borders absurdity.

It is dumbfounding that the same people that support the “right” of a woman to abort, cringe and whine at a murderer being sentenced to capital punishment. That, Rob, is more outlandish than the position of pro-lifers, who ‘may’ also support capital punishment. Although, ONLY for heinous crimes.

After all, the baby enjoys no due process before being aborted. On the contrary, a murderer is afforded a lawyer, a trial, and a jury of his peers. Not to mention, years of appeals.

***How do you reconcile your support of abortion with your condemnation of those that avail themselves of the same thing you condone?!***

Please, run it by me again?!

And the point I’m making about Obama Believers has nothing to do with positions or proposals. Anyone can have a position on an issue. It’s called an opinion. I’ve got plenty. What I’m talking about is EVIDENCE of ability. A track record, if you will. What has Obama accomplished that makes people believe that he can execute Presidential policy? He has no deep experience, so he’s in the enviable position of not having a history of successes OR failures.

And that’s the beauty of Obama. He’s an empty vessel. People can watch him and listen to him and place in him their own hopes and dreams for a brighter America. So, when you’re talking to Obama Believers, the question shouldn’t be “Do you know Obama’s position on key issues.” The question should be, “What has Obama accomplished that makes you trust him to be the President of the United States?” Emphasize the word “accomplish.” Would love to hear the answers you get.

There is not a single christian that can in good faith support the death penalty or even war if they want to take the high road on abortion. Yet many still do.

Also, nobody has EVER proved to me that Obama supporters don’t know his issues. This is a merely a meme being spread through the blogosphere and beyond. In fact, the supporters I know personally definitely know his platform. Just because they’re also inspired by the new direction for Washington D.C. he proposes doesn’t mean they’re ignorant.

In fact, if you take a group of supporters from each candidate, I bet you get the same level of detail from each about their candidate. So just because somebody can’t recite a litany of policy proposals that passes YOUR test doesn’t mean they should be compared to the people in this video. Not in the least.

The people in the video obviously don’t have any information to base their anti-Obama opinion on. But ask an Obama fan to articulate why Obama would make a great President and you normally get a litany of soft-skills like “motivating,” “eloquent,” “great speaker,” and so on. This, too, is deep ignorance, just of a different kind.

People fainting and crying at his speeches don’t qualify him as C.I.C.

Obama’s minister and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, honored Farrakhan at a gala, bestowing on him its Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award.

I don’t know about you, but my nice Catholic Church here in Dosville sure ain’t recognizing Louie for shit. We must all be stupid?

And just to back Alan up on this, for those of you who think these are inherently bad people, well, you may want to think about that a little while longer. Because what does it say about you when you’re just as quick to condemn?

To believe abortion is wrong, and still support it, makes you part of the problem, as everyone else you denounce.

It’s akin to remain neutral as your neighor gets killed, because you don’t want to “impose” your belief on the murderer.
That wouldn’t fly among people of good conscience. Neither does your indifference of abortion.

The sane ones ~

Ben-David:
These people are no more ignorant or opinionated than the rabid liberals who:
- embrace a partisan, PC reading of foreign policy…

- are childishly unable to make tough but necessary choices (like drilling for oil in a nature preserve)

- drape the mantle of pseudo-scientific authority around their pet ideologies, with little real rational analysis (”everybody knows” that global warming has been “proven” – as have the assertions that “all white people are racist” and “homosexuality is genetic”….. except for the actual researchers, who don’t believe any of these assertions).

- shout down other opinions while self-righteously claiming they are Speaking Truth to Power.

- heavy-handedly impose far more of their own ideology on other citizens than the religious Right ever has.

Alan Carl Stewart:

…I get the sense that a lot of you hate them more for their religion than for their mistaken beliefs on Obama.

As for them being worse than the radical muslims — please. THAT is willful ignorance. These people have no power and there is not a scintilla of evidence that they would ever resort to violence. The number of violent acts committed by radical American Christians are very few and are almost exclusively individual acts and not planned by religious leaders.