Reader comments
Readers' forum: LDS, Demos alike on abortion
164 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 11:58 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008
The Roe v Wade issue is one that Republicans feast on. And they come out of the
woodwork each election for purely political reasons.
I don't think anyone can honestly dispute this.
I don't think anyone can honestly dispute this.
From their neocon guru | 12:04 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Rush Limbaugh recalled fondly the "early days of this program" when he
first used the term "feminazis" to describe abortion rights activists
and leaders of pro-choice groups, who, he claimed, "got mad when an
abortion didn't happen" and who believed that "every abortion
that can happen, that doesn't happen, is a setback for the cause."
You can now see where the local wacked-out neocons get their material from.
You can now see where the local wacked-out neocons get their material from.
Comments continue below
Obama Republican | 12:05 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
I submit that everyone hates abortion! What some hate more is poverty, hunger,
child abuse, crime, abandonment, sex slavery, child labor.
All the above happen when little children are brought into the world un-wanted. You people act like there would be enough homes to adopt all the un wanted children.
Teach Women how to avoid pregnancy, teach them in school, teach them in home, teach them.
I for one am more concerned about the living, all you republicans care so much for the unborn but what about the BORN. What about the children in this country who go hungry, who have no health care, who end up on the streets?
You all moan about taxes, about welfare, about Social programs, lets take care of the living!
All the above happen when little children are brought into the world un-wanted. You people act like there would be enough homes to adopt all the un wanted children.
Teach Women how to avoid pregnancy, teach them in school, teach them in home, teach them.
I for one am more concerned about the living, all you republicans care so much for the unborn but what about the BORN. What about the children in this country who go hungry, who have no health care, who end up on the streets?
You all moan about taxes, about welfare, about Social programs, lets take care of the living!
Thomas | 12:28 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Anon, your thesis is that Roe v. Wade is only a major issue around election
seasons, as pro-lifers are not genuinely committed to their cause, but rather
only make noise about the issue for "purely political reasons."
Wouldn't it conclusively refute your argument if it could be shown that there is extensive anti-abortion advocacy at times other than election seasons?
Back to logic school, junior.
Wouldn't it conclusively refute your argument if it could be shown that there is extensive anti-abortion advocacy at times other than election seasons?
Back to logic school, junior.
Anonymous | 12:42 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
The more he posts, the more I believe Thomas is that freaked out neocon- Rush
Limbaugh.
Thomas | 1:03 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Thanks for the compliment, Anon.
Still waiting for an argument from you that has more than a sneer. It's been what, a year now?
Still waiting for an argument from you that has more than a sneer. It's been what, a year now?
Anonymous | 1:03 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
It is common knowledge that Republicans like to accuse Democrats of wanting
their daughters to have abortions.
Such is the foul demeanor of the Republican agenda.
Ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?
Such is the foul demeanor of the Republican agenda.
Ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?
Anonymous | 1:10 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Rush Limbaugh boosted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's pro-life position and
mocked Barack Obama on his radio show yesterday with a make-believe riff in
which Obama asked Palin "When you found out your baby would be born with
Down syndrome, did you consider killing it before or after the due date?"
Such is the nasty form of today's GOP.
(this is "humor" to them)
Such is the nasty form of today's GOP.
(this is "humor" to them)
Anonymous | 1:17 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Given the National Organization for Women�s membership and
proclivities, it�s no wonder that people now view the NOW
gang as being obsessed with only two issues: abortion rights and lesbian rights.
Rush Limbaugh, in The Way Things Ought To Be, 1992
And this is the foul way Limbaugh thinks and this is why Thomas is one of his loyal subjects.
Rush Limbaugh, in The Way Things Ought To Be, 1992
And this is the foul way Limbaugh thinks and this is why Thomas is one of his loyal subjects.
Thomas | 1:20 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
"It is common knowledge that Republicans like to accuse Democrats of
wanting their daughters to have abortions."
"But if [my daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- Barack Obama
Sounds like those Republicans are telling the truth.
"But if [my daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- Barack Obama
Sounds like those Republicans are telling the truth.
re: Liberal Larry | 2:49 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Umm... Liberal Larry you seem to be confused. Abstinence does work when it is
practiced. In fact in works 100% of the time. The problem is people with no
self control or moral compass choosing not to abstain. For your information if
you are not having sex you can not get pregnant. Sounds like pretty solid birth
control to me.
all talk - political spin | 2:53 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
What percentage of neoconservatives has ever picketed an abortion clinic?
Approximately the same percentage of fundamentalists who have marched in an
anti-Iraq War demonstration.
Neocons are not interested in saving babies. Fundamentalists are not interested in stopping Middle East wars in progress.
Neocons are not interested in saving babies. Fundamentalists are not interested in stopping Middle East wars in progress.
Anonymous | 3:09 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Thomas tell us "Republicans are telling the truth."
Is that "truth" the same as:
It was the Iraqis, not the Saudis that were responsible for 9/11?
or ...
There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
LOL!
Is that "truth" the same as:
It was the Iraqis, not the Saudis that were responsible for 9/11?
or ...
There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
LOL!
Anonymous | 3:36 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
At the GOP convention when they won't talk about the unpopular Iraq war,
the failing economy, the people losing their jobs, their homes, the future for
our young people ...
they pull out the same tired old attacks on Roe vs. Wade.
How pathetic!
they pull out the same tired old attacks on Roe vs. Wade.
How pathetic!
Mike Richards | 4:41 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
The Deseret News has lost all credibility. Look at the posts after Thomas
posted at 1:20. Every-single-one has been unsigned, liberal fluff. Not one
valid point has been made. This thread is "LDS, Demos alike on
abortion" and all we're seeing is pro-abortion propaganda from posters
either using pseudonyms or posting as "anonymous".
Are we to surmise that only liberals posts after 1:20 each afternoon? All that is left is to see the personal attack machine start.
The data makes interesting study. I've been tracking the tone of controversial threads for several weeks. It's easy to see exactly when the tone changes, when the forum rules are abandoned, under whose watchful eye the personal attacks start and when the liberal voice is the only voice singing in Utah.
Way to go, Deseret News! It looks like a staff meeting is just over the horizon, once the data is examined by those who care about the content being published by the Deseret News.
Are we to surmise that only liberals posts after 1:20 each afternoon? All that is left is to see the personal attack machine start.
The data makes interesting study. I've been tracking the tone of controversial threads for several weeks. It's easy to see exactly when the tone changes, when the forum rules are abandoned, under whose watchful eye the personal attacks start and when the liberal voice is the only voice singing in Utah.
Way to go, Deseret News! It looks like a staff meeting is just over the horizon, once the data is examined by those who care about the content being published by the Deseret News.
Roe, Roe, Roe your Wade | 5:41 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
The author needs to check back in with the LDS religion.
The LDS Church website officially declares:
"The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."
This means the Church's stance on abortion is its own and is neither supportive of nor contrary to any partisan proposal or legislative initiative regarding abortion. You can be LDS and still be a Democrat, a Republican, a member of AAA, NOW, or the Girl Scouts and it doesn't matter.
So long as you don't personally "submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for" an "elective abortion for personal or social convenience" you can be a member in good standing.
You may have an abortion if the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or a competent physician determines that your life or health is in serious jeopardy, or that the fetus has severe, life-threatening defects, so long as you consult with your local church leader and feel through personal prayer that your decision is correct.
The Church avoids controversy over when life begins. Instead, it focuses controversy on defining �elective�, �encourage� or �arrange�, �personal or social convenience�, �competent physician�, �feel through prayer� and �correct�.
Now THAT clarifies everything!
The LDS Church website officially declares:
"The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."
This means the Church's stance on abortion is its own and is neither supportive of nor contrary to any partisan proposal or legislative initiative regarding abortion. You can be LDS and still be a Democrat, a Republican, a member of AAA, NOW, or the Girl Scouts and it doesn't matter.
So long as you don't personally "submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for" an "elective abortion for personal or social convenience" you can be a member in good standing.
You may have an abortion if the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or a competent physician determines that your life or health is in serious jeopardy, or that the fetus has severe, life-threatening defects, so long as you consult with your local church leader and feel through personal prayer that your decision is correct.
The Church avoids controversy over when life begins. Instead, it focuses controversy on defining �elective�, �encourage� or �arrange�, �personal or social convenience�, �competent physician�, �feel through prayer� and �correct�.
Now THAT clarifies everything!
typical warlike mentality | 6:03 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Sour grapes Mike Richards whines about "not one valid point has been
made" (HIS judgement)
about this particular subject and whines about "personal attacks" from ... you guessed it, liberals.
Then without skipping a beat, attacks the entire Deseret News staff (Limbaugh would call them "the drive-by media" suggesting heads should roll.
LOL!
This is typical war-like mentality from the modern American conservative movement.
about this particular subject and whines about "personal attacks" from ... you guessed it, liberals.
Then without skipping a beat, attacks the entire Deseret News staff (Limbaugh would call them "the drive-by media" suggesting heads should roll.
LOL!
This is typical war-like mentality from the modern American conservative movement.
never a letter published | 6:15 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
What I find totally amusing is that I have never read one single letter to the
editor from anybody named "Mike Richards."
Lots and lots of "get them liberals" comments on this blog, but not one single letter to the editor.
This blogger who incessantly whines about other posters "being anonymous" has no credibilty whatsoever.
LOL!
Lots and lots of "get them liberals" comments on this blog, but not one single letter to the editor.
This blogger who incessantly whines about other posters "being anonymous" has no credibilty whatsoever.
LOL!
KJB | 6:22 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Mike: Just because you think "liberal" is a dirty word doesn't
mean people aren't allowed to debate you. I see plenty of "valid
points" listed on this board. If you want to live in theocracy,
that's your business, but expecting the Deseret News to quiet anyone who
you don't agree with is beyond the pale.
I sincerely compliment your wife for being such a brave and selfless woman, but you're missing the point: she made the CHOICE to keep the baby. Would you deny other women the same right that she had? Apparently so. I know that this is an incomprehensible concept to you, but plenty of pro-choice people hate abortion and do everything they can so that fewer abortions take place. We also realize that there are sadly times when abortion is the necessary option, and that's what we defend.
Obama Republican made an excellent point: Many Republicans fight to protect the unborn, but once they're in the world, conservatives can't wait to cut off any kind of help and assistance that would give children who need it a better quality of life. They'll fight for you when you're in the womb, but afterwards you're on your own.
Well?
I sincerely compliment your wife for being such a brave and selfless woman, but you're missing the point: she made the CHOICE to keep the baby. Would you deny other women the same right that she had? Apparently so. I know that this is an incomprehensible concept to you, but plenty of pro-choice people hate abortion and do everything they can so that fewer abortions take place. We also realize that there are sadly times when abortion is the necessary option, and that's what we defend.
Obama Republican made an excellent point: Many Republicans fight to protect the unborn, but once they're in the world, conservatives can't wait to cut off any kind of help and assistance that would give children who need it a better quality of life. They'll fight for you when you're in the womb, but afterwards you're on your own.
Well?
Mike Richards | 6:50 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
Sometimes its best to ask the editor directly about what is published and why.
It's his business, not yours and not mine.
A fair editor does his best to publish everything that meets the criteria for the thread. Unlike the paper edition, there is no column inches limitation on an electronic blog, only the limitation imposed by those who decide what to publish. A fair editor does not publish anything abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words in length or containing URLS. We can all read the specs.
Just for the record, I'm not attacking the "entire" Deseret News Staff. The "entire" Deseret News Staff does not handle electronic blogs. The "entire" Deseret News Staff does not decide what is allowed and what is rejected. The "entire" Deseret News Staff has no interest in what happens in the Opinion Section, except that those views published reflect on the Deseret News.
I can just imagine the results if everyone on staff was asked to write an opinion piece about the opinion's expressed in this section, about the comments that were published and the comments that were not published. That would be colorful reading. Reporters are not timid people.
A fair editor does his best to publish everything that meets the criteria for the thread. Unlike the paper edition, there is no column inches limitation on an electronic blog, only the limitation imposed by those who decide what to publish. A fair editor does not publish anything abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words in length or containing URLS. We can all read the specs.
Just for the record, I'm not attacking the "entire" Deseret News Staff. The "entire" Deseret News Staff does not handle electronic blogs. The "entire" Deseret News Staff does not decide what is allowed and what is rejected. The "entire" Deseret News Staff has no interest in what happens in the Opinion Section, except that those views published reflect on the Deseret News.
I can just imagine the results if everyone on staff was asked to write an opinion piece about the opinion's expressed in this section, about the comments that were published and the comments that were not published. That would be colorful reading. Reporters are not timid people.
Mike Richards | 7:15 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
KJB,
Yes, of course you can debate me or anyone else. It's strange though, how many times someone has asked me a direct question, and my response was never published. I'll be surprised if this response is published.
You've expanded my statement to include the entire "board". I limited my remarks to those posts made after Thomas's post at 1:20 and before my post at 4:41. Read those posts and show me the rebuttals that were allowed to any one of those posts during that time period. I'd be happy to send you directly copies of posts that were not published. Granted, many posts are fluff, including mine, but do you believe that those were the only posts submitted? Since this is an active thread, that possibility doesn't seem likely.
I sincerely appreciate your compliment to my wife, but have I ever written in any of my posts my intention to deny anyone his or her use of agency? Have I ever written that I would take away someone's right to choose? You may have inferred that, but I believe that agency is the most important principle in life and that responsibility for use of agency will be required.
Yes, of course you can debate me or anyone else. It's strange though, how many times someone has asked me a direct question, and my response was never published. I'll be surprised if this response is published.
You've expanded my statement to include the entire "board". I limited my remarks to those posts made after Thomas's post at 1:20 and before my post at 4:41. Read those posts and show me the rebuttals that were allowed to any one of those posts during that time period. I'd be happy to send you directly copies of posts that were not published. Granted, many posts are fluff, including mine, but do you believe that those were the only posts submitted? Since this is an active thread, that possibility doesn't seem likely.
I sincerely appreciate your compliment to my wife, but have I ever written in any of my posts my intention to deny anyone his or her use of agency? Have I ever written that I would take away someone's right to choose? You may have inferred that, but I believe that agency is the most important principle in life and that responsibility for use of agency will be required.
Ah, the irony | 8:23 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
I grew up hearing the term free agency ad nauseam. But it seems to be embraced
only in theory, not in practice in the LDS church, especially by the members.
"You can't be a democrat and be a good Mormon." "If you
don't fit this mold, you're not a good Mormon." "If you
don't fit that mold, you're not a good Mormon." "If you
don't walk the line perfectly, you're not a good Mormon."
"You're just claiming to be Mormon, but no good Mormon would really
post something like that."
STOP YOUR INCESSANT JUDGING!
It's members like many represented on this board that make church, which should be a haven for worship, unbearable. No one likes to sit and feel judged by those not in authority to do the judging. Call me critical and offended, because I am. But until I can be loved and treated like I belong, regardless of my weaknesses or being a Democrat or whatever you think is wrong with me, I will worship God in the sanctity of my own home, and skip Sundays with the Pharisees.
STOP YOUR INCESSANT JUDGING!
It's members like many represented on this board that make church, which should be a haven for worship, unbearable. No one likes to sit and feel judged by those not in authority to do the judging. Call me critical and offended, because I am. But until I can be loved and treated like I belong, regardless of my weaknesses or being a Democrat or whatever you think is wrong with me, I will worship God in the sanctity of my own home, and skip Sundays with the Pharisees.
CVHH | 10:30 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
In the Democratic party, abortion on demand is NOT RARE.
Mike Richards | 10:40 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
8:23,
It is ironic, isn't it to write a post on judgment that ends with, "I will worship God in the sanctity of my own home, and skip Sundays with the Pharisees"?
That is your use of agency. You are free to choose for yourself how you will live your life. You are free to choose to judge others, if that is your desire.
We give doctors the right to "practice" medicine. Before they can "practice", they have to be trained for years and years. Then they can "practice".
The same goes for lawyers. They train for years and years before being allowed to "practice" law.
However, we expect every member of every church to walk perfectly in God's footsteps from day-one. We don't allow anyone to "practice" religion. They have to be perfect or we call them hypocrites. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we gave Christians the same right to years and years of training before they are expected to "practice" living like Christ?
Nothing of worth in life comes easily, especially tolerance for the foibles of everyone but ourselves.
It is ironic, isn't it to write a post on judgment that ends with, "I will worship God in the sanctity of my own home, and skip Sundays with the Pharisees"?
That is your use of agency. You are free to choose for yourself how you will live your life. You are free to choose to judge others, if that is your desire.
We give doctors the right to "practice" medicine. Before they can "practice", they have to be trained for years and years. Then they can "practice".
The same goes for lawyers. They train for years and years before being allowed to "practice" law.
However, we expect every member of every church to walk perfectly in God's footsteps from day-one. We don't allow anyone to "practice" religion. They have to be perfect or we call them hypocrites. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we gave Christians the same right to years and years of training before they are expected to "practice" living like Christ?
Nothing of worth in life comes easily, especially tolerance for the foibles of everyone but ourselves.
confused w/ Demo/Repubs.... | 11:34 p.m. Sept. 3, 2008
I do not vote either party regardless of the candidate. I lean more towards the
Republican principles but feel that the I have very little in common with the
far right.
My view on Abortion rights is 100% in-favor of. That is I believe that all women should have the "right" to govern their lives as they decide.
However, my voting will never be 100% in-favor of any politician that considers abortion an acceptable form of birth-control.
My solution to the problem: Let a person decide as they will but I say that the government consider making abortion an EXTREMELY COSTLY (ie: $20,000 -- $15,000 restitution to the paternal owner of 1/2 that fetus and a $5,000 mandatory contribution for sex education in public schools). Just a thought.
My view on Abortion rights is 100% in-favor of. That is I believe that all women should have the "right" to govern their lives as they decide.
However, my voting will never be 100% in-favor of any politician that considers abortion an acceptable form of birth-control.
My solution to the problem: Let a person decide as they will but I say that the government consider making abortion an EXTREMELY COSTLY (ie: $20,000 -- $15,000 restitution to the paternal owner of 1/2 that fetus and a $5,000 mandatory contribution for sex education in public schools). Just a thought.
To Mike Richards | 5:24 a.m. Sept. 4, 2008
After reading numerous posts on this board, may I suggest that you start
"practicing"? You desperately need some practice time.
culture of persecution | 6:04 a.m. Sept. 4, 2008
Mike Richards sadly sounds like a glutton for punishment.
This fits in extremely well with the culture he was raised in. A very heavy persecution complex is what some thrive on.
It seems when some from that culture are whining about being persecuted in one form or another, they are busy creating offensive ways to plead for it.
This fits in extremely well with the culture he was raised in. A very heavy persecution complex is what some thrive on.
It seems when some from that culture are whining about being persecuted in one form or another, they are busy creating offensive ways to plead for it.
Mike Richards | 6:10 a.m. Sept. 4, 2008
What if everyone decided to bring this Presidential election down to one issue
and one issue only - abortion?
As a State Senator, Mr. Obama clearly showed that he stands for abortion. In his speeches, Mr. Obama has told us that he wouldn't want his daughters burdened with a baby. His running mate, Joe Biden, has a mixed record on abortion. At least he is against having Federal money fund abortions and at least he is against partial birth abortions.
Mr. McCain is against abortion except in cases of rape or incest. His running mate, Sarah Palin is 100% pro-life, and has proved it within her own family.
America has a clear choice without the need to debate Roe v. Wade for one more instant. Voters can decide whether they want Democrats who support abortion or whether they want Republicans who support life.
Although, I am certainly not a one-issue voter, I NEVER vote for candidates who are pro-abortion (except for rape, incest and proven imminent death to the mother if the pregnancy continues). So, for me, at this time, it is to either vote for the Republicans or to write-in someone else, with a Republican vote most likely.
As a State Senator, Mr. Obama clearly showed that he stands for abortion. In his speeches, Mr. Obama has told us that he wouldn't want his daughters burdened with a baby. His running mate, Joe Biden, has a mixed record on abortion. At least he is against having Federal money fund abortions and at least he is against partial birth abortions.
Mr. McCain is against abortion except in cases of rape or incest. His running mate, Sarah Palin is 100% pro-life, and has proved it within her own family.
America has a clear choice without the need to debate Roe v. Wade for one more instant. Voters can decide whether they want Democrats who support abortion or whether they want Republicans who support life.
Although, I am certainly not a one-issue voter, I NEVER vote for candidates who are pro-abortion (except for rape, incest and proven imminent death to the mother if the pregnancy continues). So, for me, at this time, it is to either vote for the Republicans or to write-in someone else, with a Republican vote most likely.
Both parties have a place for us | 9:45 a.m. Sept. 4, 2008
It's just with the recent nausating pick of the token mommie, I have to
switch parties. there's good and bad in both parties. I just have to find
the middle ground and stick to it.
Voting for MCain | 9:54 a.m. Sept. 4, 2008
WILL NOT change the existing laws on abortion. We have ou free agency to
choose. Teach us correct principals, and let us govern ourselves.
If hoisting ms. Plain up on a pedalstal and telling me she's so flippin wonderful for not having an abortion, and yet, 3 days after giving birth to her SPECIAL NEEDS kid, she's back to work... then I think we need to realign our views on this issue. If you don't have the time (her husand has a good job) then don't be the mom.
This conseravtive LDS woman does not want laws passed to restrict free agency.
If hoisting ms. Plain up on a pedalstal and telling me she's so flippin wonderful for not having an abortion, and yet, 3 days after giving birth to her SPECIAL NEEDS kid, she's back to work... then I think we need to realign our views on this issue. If you don't have the time (her husand has a good job) then don't be the mom.
This conseravtive LDS woman does not want laws passed to restrict free agency.
To: Obama Rebuplican | 11:10 a.m. Sept. 4, 2008
What's so compassionate about the slavery of government programs?
already been decided | 11:28 a.m. Sept. 4, 2008
What decade does the GOP live in?
The matter of Roe vs. Wade has long since been debated and settled.
America does not want big government stepping in and controlling the private lives of its women as the GOP is insisting on. (of course, this being an election year has nothing to do with it). LOL!
The matter of Roe vs. Wade has long since been debated and settled.
America does not want big government stepping in and controlling the private lives of its women as the GOP is insisting on. (of course, this being an election year has nothing to do with it). LOL!
Mike Richardds | 1:36 p.m. Sept. 4, 2008
Voting your conscience on Roe v. Wade by voting Republican if you're
against Roe v. Wade or by voting Democrat if you're for Roe v. Wade goes so
much further than trying to overturn that Supreme Court decision. If it were a
vote of conscience, then the true will of the people would be made manifest and
the political pandering could stop.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the vote would go either Republican or Democrat, but it would reflect the true will of the people. There is something very noble about a nation having the will to be definite in matters of life and death. The action of abortion is definite; either the baby lives or the baby dies. The voice of the people should be just as definite with no fence sitting allowed.
I hope that this election reflects the solemn views of each voter; then, the future, whatever it is, would be the future desired by this nation, because if you want something badly enough, you'll find a way to get it. If nearly 3 million people stand for something, that something will become reality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the vote would go either Republican or Democrat, but it would reflect the true will of the people. There is something very noble about a nation having the will to be definite in matters of life and death. The action of abortion is definite; either the baby lives or the baby dies. The voice of the people should be just as definite with no fence sitting allowed.
I hope that this election reflects the solemn views of each voter; then, the future, whatever it is, would be the future desired by this nation, because if you want something badly enough, you'll find a way to get it. If nearly 3 million people stand for something, that something will become reality.
Mike Richards | 1:50 p.m. Sept. 4, 2008
Not that is really matters, but there is a typo in my 1:36 post. I meant to
write "nearly 300 million people", not "3 million
people".
Anonymous | 1:57 p.m. Sept. 4, 2008
As the nation continues to experience runaway inflation, record-number of people
losing their jobs, homes and health insurance, the preemptive war dragging on
and on, General Motors building plants in China, the GOP wants to focus on Roe
vs. Wade - an issue that has been decided and ruled upon years ago.
Pure political diversion and business as usual for the GOP.
Pure political diversion and business as usual for the GOP.
Obama Republican | 3:01 p.m. Sept. 4, 2008
"Government Slavery Programs" like Roads, education, Social Security,
Medicare, Defense, Housing, Energy, Security, Employment, etc... Which one do
you not directly benefit from? I submit someone in every american family
benfits from all these service in one way or another.
I am so tired of republicans using all the government programs but not wanting to pay for them.
Come on Republicans take the challange which should we cut?
I am so tired of republicans using all the government programs but not wanting to pay for them.
Come on Republicans take the challange which should we cut?
Mike RIchards | 3:32 p.m. Sept. 4, 2008
Do Republicans not pay taxes? Do only Democrats pay for roads, education,
Social Security, etc.? The last time I looked, nothing on any of the myriad tax
forms that I fill out each year as a business owner exempts me from any of those
"programs".
Because the law says that abortion is legal, I concede the point that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. So, let's talk directly about abortion.
The Democrats state that the right to abortion on demand is part of their platform. To me, that dictates how the Democrats view everything. If life, even the life of an unborn baby, is expendable, then what is NOT expendable?
If 48,000,000 abortions have taken place in America with the tacit approval of the Government, do the Democrats have any intention, ever, of making an unborn baby's life in item of importance?
If life, in its most basic form is not worth protecting, then what is worth protecting?
These questions are not meant to be argumentative, but honest queries to know where a Democrat draws the line between important and not important, between valued and not valued.
Because the law says that abortion is legal, I concede the point that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. So, let's talk directly about abortion.
The Democrats state that the right to abortion on demand is part of their platform. To me, that dictates how the Democrats view everything. If life, even the life of an unborn baby, is expendable, then what is NOT expendable?
If 48,000,000 abortions have taken place in America with the tacit approval of the Government, do the Democrats have any intention, ever, of making an unborn baby's life in item of importance?
If life, in its most basic form is not worth protecting, then what is worth protecting?
These questions are not meant to be argumentative, but honest queries to know where a Democrat draws the line between important and not important, between valued and not valued.
great impressionists | 4:09 p.m. Sept. 4, 2008
"All" Utahns huh? Fascinating gereralization.
Funny | 9:03 p.m. Sept. 4, 2008
Palin is pro-life and that means she has high family values. BUT as governor she
slashed funding for single mothers and this makes her fiscally
responsible...typically hypocritical Republican baloney. Not taking care of the
children that are born is a crime, and I'll say on my book, a sin. The LDS
I know who are Democrat realize that the part is not a one-topic party. They
also realize that except for this one issue, their beliefs are very close to the
Democratic party.
Mike Richards | 7:11 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
Funny,
Do you expect me to take care of your children? Do you want me to pay for their food, their clothing, their toys? A man and a woman are required to conceive a child. A man and a woman are eternally responsible for that child. No one else is responsible. The neighborhood is not responsible. The county is not responsible. The state is not responsible. The parents are responsible. They are the ones who will answer to God for the way they treated one of His children.
I totally agree with your statement that "Not taking care of the children that are born is a crime, and I'll say on my book, a sin." We only differ on who the "parents" are of that child, the state, or the mother and father that brought that child into the world.
When a mother and father can't handle the entire responsibility, then the extended family steps in. When the extended family can't handle the responsibility then outsiders step in. As a LAST resort, the Government steps in. Too many people look to the Government first. Too many people push their own irresponsibility onto society.
Do you expect me to take care of your children? Do you want me to pay for their food, their clothing, their toys? A man and a woman are required to conceive a child. A man and a woman are eternally responsible for that child. No one else is responsible. The neighborhood is not responsible. The county is not responsible. The state is not responsible. The parents are responsible. They are the ones who will answer to God for the way they treated one of His children.
I totally agree with your statement that "Not taking care of the children that are born is a crime, and I'll say on my book, a sin." We only differ on who the "parents" are of that child, the state, or the mother and father that brought that child into the world.
When a mother and father can't handle the entire responsibility, then the extended family steps in. When the extended family can't handle the responsibility then outsiders step in. As a LAST resort, the Government steps in. Too many people look to the Government first. Too many people push their own irresponsibility onto society.
Faith no more? | 8:29 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
Silly religious zelots? How you forget your own teachings. Free Agency anyone???
Forcing your beliefs on people dosn't sound like free agency.
Anonymous | 9:04 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
Since Republicans have nothing to brag about and the current candidates are
setting themselves apart from the monstrous administration we liberals tried to
warn them about - they now must dig up the old Roe vs. Wade nonsense.
These people have clearly lost it.
These people have clearly lost it.
Ridiculous! | 9:22 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
By the time a court of law would determine whether or not a womans life was in
danger or whether she has any rights because she's been raped had incest
etc. it would be too late!
A woman and her doctor can only determine this. And since it is a women's body it is her right to use her doctor, her rights and anybody she wishes to consult to make this decision.
There is a difference between this and other politics as usual.
A woman and her doctor can only determine this. And since it is a women's body it is her right to use her doctor, her rights and anybody she wishes to consult to make this decision.
There is a difference between this and other politics as usual.
Mike Richards | 9:31 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
@ 8:29,
How do you define "force"? We're discussing ideas and beliefs, not holding a gun to someones head.
How do you define "force"? We're discussing ideas and beliefs, not holding a gun to someones head.
Anonymous | 10:21 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
The GOP has dropped so low (especially the neocon variety) that they are trying
to politicize the Roe v Wade issue. - Again.
They'll fail at that as they have failed in everything else.
They'll fail at that as they have failed in everything else.
Mike Richards | 10:53 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
@ 10:21,
I guess we'll see what Americans think about abortion in November. Abortion is the ONE point that keeps most conservatives from voting for ANY Democrat. If there is a litmus test in politics, it is abortion. The voters will decide. You can wail all you want about Roe v. Wade. Even without Roe v. Wade, if the Democrats promoted abortion or even the idea of abortion, the results would be the same.
Some of us just can't stomach the idea that anyone could make the "choice" to end the life of an unborn child, when that unborn baby had no "choice" and no voice in that decision.
I guess we'll see what Americans think about abortion in November. Abortion is the ONE point that keeps most conservatives from voting for ANY Democrat. If there is a litmus test in politics, it is abortion. The voters will decide. You can wail all you want about Roe v. Wade. Even without Roe v. Wade, if the Democrats promoted abortion or even the idea of abortion, the results would be the same.
Some of us just can't stomach the idea that anyone could make the "choice" to end the life of an unborn child, when that unborn baby had no "choice" and no voice in that decision.
GOP sinking like a stone | 11:09 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
Mike Richards must have a selective memory on any attempts to overthrow the Roe
v Wade law.
This issue has already been decided, his representatives, Cannon, Hatch, Bennett, et al, have NEVER introduced a bill on this on privacy grounds, yet neocons insist big government step in and take control of private citizens's lives.
This is purely a poltical game because the GOP is sinking like a stone.
This issue has already been decided, his representatives, Cannon, Hatch, Bennett, et al, have NEVER introduced a bill on this on privacy grounds, yet neocons insist big government step in and take control of private citizens's lives.
This is purely a poltical game because the GOP is sinking like a stone.
Country | 11:12 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
I have been reading the comments posted, and I cannot believe all the bashing of
fellow members. The terms "good" mormon and "bad" mormon.
I think the best any of us can do is make an informed vote, don't vote
based on only one stand a politician has, or what party they belong to, look at
all the issues and remember that it is not the President alone who will make the
changes in our country. And after we have all made our CHOICES and voted let us
get on our knees and pray the leaders we elect will make the choices that will
make this and keep this a county were we still have our free agency.
Mike Richards | 11:39 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008
@ 11:09,
Have I ever brought up a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade? I keep copies of most of my posts in one large file on my computer and a cursory glance with a search tool hasn't highlighted any post where I have suggested that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
The liberals keep bringing up the possibility that Roe v. Wade might someday, somehow be overturned. They fear that possibility. They live in fear that someone might someday decide that 48,000,000 abortions should be sufficient for any one nation and that their personal right to end the life of an unborn baby might be taken away.
To us conservatives, Roe v. Wade is not an issue. We don't want abortions. We don't NEED Roe v. Wade to allow us to live our lives exactly the way that we WANT to live our lives. We don't NEED Roe v. Wade to allow a baby to be born. We don't NEED Roe v. Wade for any reason. Only those who believe in abortion at any time for any reason NEED Roe v. Wade.
Have I ever brought up a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade? I keep copies of most of my posts in one large file on my computer and a cursory glance with a search tool hasn't highlighted any post where I have suggested that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
The liberals keep bringing up the possibility that Roe v. Wade might someday, somehow be overturned. They fear that possibility. They live in fear that someone might someday decide that 48,000,000 abortions should be sufficient for any one nation and that their personal right to end the life of an unborn baby might be taken away.
To us conservatives, Roe v. Wade is not an issue. We don't want abortions. We don't NEED Roe v. Wade to allow us to live our lives exactly the way that we WANT to live our lives. We don't NEED Roe v. Wade to allow a baby to be born. We don't NEED Roe v. Wade for any reason. Only those who believe in abortion at any time for any reason NEED Roe v. Wade.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- George lost in rivalry hatefest 1:33 a.m.
- Paul returns after being out 1:04 a.m.
- Nets finally win 1:04 a.m.
- Olympus downs Box Elder 1:03 a.m.
- Saint Mary's next for Aggies 1:03 a.m.
- Cougars look to bounce back 1:03 a.m.
- Battle goes to PG's Hamson 1:03 a.m.
- Snow hopes to snap bowl game skid 1:03 a.m.
- U.S. gets favorable World Cup draw 1:03 a.m.
- Utah's Wynn healing up 1:03 a.m.
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- 5A high school football All-State
- Miller predicted Tiger's rough road
- Utah Jazz going green with unis
- 4A high school football: All-State
- Harpring's NBA career is over
- Nutty Putty Cave to be sealed today
- MVPs wrap up stellar prep careers
- Jazz: Miles, Kirilenko to play Friday
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
410 - Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?294
- BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS237
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry184
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage118
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan104
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
and they are correct. Good grief.
In the wake of a great, competitive game all people can talk about is Max...
For those who keep saying there are other places where you can go "to...
Boozer is just doing and showing what he has always had, Talent! As long as...
Condolences to the LeBaron family! He was the mission Pres in South Africa...
I've enjoyed reading Dick Harmon's articles through the years. An enduring...
I think we have found our stride. But we need to bring in one more player to...
to make a move until nearer the deadline. You can't get the best player until...
"If this team had an interior Defense for 48 minutes they would contend. "...
What have you done for me lately, Boozer? Well, lately Boozer has been...
Advertisements
"Republicans hate it when a woman has an abortion.
Democrats love it when a woman has an abortion."
Sure, that's an overgeneralization (one made by you, I might add, and not typically by actual Republicans).
But isn't that paragraph more true than the opposite? That is, is it *not* true that Democrats are less likely to be morally troubled by abortion than Republicans?
The abortion-rights absolutists (virtually all of which are on the Democratic side) expressly declare that there is *nothing* to object about abortion at all. To radical feminists (again, virtually all Democrats), abortion is virtually a sacrament -- a declaration of independence against the patriarchy and the old "burden" of childbearing.
So -- not *all* Democrats (and probably not even most) "love" abortion -- but the people who *do* love abortion are virtually all Democrats.
I don't think anyone can honestly dispute this.