Texas Senator Filibusters for 13 Hours to Defeat Pro Life Bill

Texas Senator Filibusters for 13 Hours to Defeat Pro Life Bill June 26, 2013

I’m a pro life legislator, but I tip my hat to State Senator Wendy Davis of Texas for her dedication and incredible courage.

Senator Davis succeeded in blocking passage in the Texas legislature of what sounds like an important pro life bill by the exhausting tactic of standing on the Senate floor, mike in hand, and making a speech that lasted for 13 hours. Evidently, the Texas State Senate allows unlimited time for debate, which is necessary for this procedure to block a bill.

Why 13 hours?

Because the Texas legislature was in a special session that was set to adjourn at the end of those 13 hours.

Senator Davis succeeded in blocking passage of the legislation.

As I said, I don’t agree with her position on this issue, but I applaud her courage and sacrifice for what she believes. As one legislator to another, I know full well that what she did was exhausting and stressful to the point of being sacrificial.

All this points out one thing: There are pro choice people who believe absolutely that what they are doing is the right thing. I know this for sure because I was once one of them. That means that we need to pray for them with all our hearts, because they aren’t evil. They are just wrong.

That also means that those of us who are pro life need to continue in our efforts to save the babies by helping the mothers. I read an article a few days ago about the ways that pregnant women are discriminated against on the job. If you are pro life, then you have to be against that.

There is no place in the pro life philosophy for indifference to rape or violence against women. Likewise, we have to take forceful stands against the exploitation of women in pornography, prostitution and medical abuses such as paying women to undergo egg harvesting and surrogate pregnancies.

The pro choice movement tries to maintain their position by creating the entirely fallacious fiction that an unborn child is not a human being. Many of them also support the exploitation and degradation of women in pornography, prostitution, and the abuses of commercialized medicine such as paid egg harvesting and surrogacy.

I tip my hat to Senator Wendy Davis, one legislator to another. I don’t agree with her position on this issue, but I respect courage wherever I see it. My prayer is that she will one day see that her devotion to women’s rights can better be served by supporting the humanity of all people — born and unborn.

As for Pro life people, we are called to be all-in for the humanity of both the baby and the woman. I believe with all my heart that this is what God has called us to do.

http://youtu.be/OXemg76twXg

Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

122 responses to “Texas Senator Filibusters for 13 Hours to Defeat Pro Life Bill”

  1. I don’t want to sound like I’m putting down legislators, but what courage does it take to speak in a legislative setting, even if it’s for 13 hours? Courage? It’s not like she’s a police officer facing a man with a gun. Or a soldier on the front lines. Even if it’s political courage you’re referring to, I’m sure she comes from a district where her positions get her re-elected. I bet there was absolutely no personal downside to her filabuster.

  2. Like with gay marriage, I see abortion as such a fundamental attack on the procreation of the human species, that am no longer able to claim anything supporting it to be correct, right, courageous, or good.

    Only a betrayal of all that is right and good.

  3. What an absurdity, though, to see that the sacrifice she made is so that others lives may be sacrificed legally to the God of unlimited pleasure and convenience.

  4. I like what you wrote here about how people who are pro-choice are not evil. I read about the filibuster yesterday and agree that State Senator Wendy Davis is courageous.

  5. Really? You applaud her sacrifice? Sacrifice of whom? Thousands and thousands of babies, that is her ‘sacrifice.’ I pity her.

  6. This is a very generous note from you, Ms. Hamilton — I deplore the purposes to which it is put, but you have to admire Sen. Davis’s courage. I would add a couple of points:

    1. I think all those in public life have to admire the way she used the resources available to her (like the supportive media and social media infrastructures on this issue) to draw attention to this event and her.

    2. It takes a lot of courage to defy public opinion so dramatically: http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/20/uttt-poll-texans-favor-ban-late-term-abortions/.

    (With that said, I hope it works out as well for her as it did for Lisa Brown and Barb Byrum who were similar cause celebres in Michigan last year, and are now county clerks.)

  7. It takes a lot of guts to do what she did Manny. Pray for her. We need her on our team.

  8. Thousands and thousands of unwanted babies. Women have a right to terminated what is going on in their own bodies. I personally had no problem with the 20-week limit. It was the prohibitive costs for the unnecessary retrofitting of the clinics that was just a typical ploy by the pro-lifers to put them out of business to which I object.

  9. I am equally impressed by the transformation that you went through upon your conversion, Rebecca. I know that most of what I post has to be deleted because it goes against the purpose of your site. But just as you admire her courage, I admire yours. You were elected taking one stand and you switched thereby jeopardizing your chances for re-election. I still don’t buy your reasoning, but I admire your courage.

  10. Do you also congratulate the yelling mob that invaded the place to make its wishes known?

  11. With a howling mob at her back. Your notion of courage is as curious as your notion of better.

  12. Sorry, but you are extending your own experience unduly. You went against the zeitgeist and the powers that be in making your choices. This woman made her display while a howling mob was invading the assembly, and on the day when the Supremes’ assault on marriage and religious freedom was scheduled to come out. This was not courage. It was a smart career movie, bringing her national attention and allowing the media to talk her up as the abortionist heroine against the dark herds of Texas. Next stop, Washington DC.

  13. Careerism isn’t courage. Watch this woman’s progress. I predict a place in the national administration within a decade, or a run for the presidency.

  14. So being “unwanted” is the critierion for being killed. Right, Bill S, I do not want you

  15. Fabio, she was doing what she had a legal and apparently legislative right to do—–use the right of filibuster as per Texas rules. :-). I would expect she also had backers. Woman are not to be messed with when they put their minds to something.

  16. Hey, Fabio, maybe she WILL run for US President—we need a woman in the White House. We have had our first Black president–time for a woman–actually, over time for that.

  17. Shelia, are you planning to feed, clothe, and house all those “thousands and thousands of babies” that are unwanted and if they stay with the “mother” are abused and mistreated etc.? You might have a very full house.

  18. And what a success the first black president has been. When do you think you will finish paying your debt? Unless, of course “quantitative easing” does what inflation usually does and destroys the value of the currency, in which case the debt will shrink – along with the assets of every American.

  19. Yes, of course, but I want someone like Sarah Palin to be president. Would you vote for Sarah if she ran as the first woman? I voted for her to be first vice president. Did you? 😉

  20. I have no desire to expose people who are still alive. But I can tell you for a fact that being wanted is no guarantee against cruelty and abuse, and being unwanted is no guarantee about goodness and love. The best mother I ever met had not planned any of her two pregnancies, And I can say from an even closer prospective that being “wanted” and “planned” can be the premise to a complete disaster, because the parents rarely get what they “want”, and may well resent or even punish the child for not being what they had “wanted” and “planned”. And if you have lived so long and still not noticed this obvious fact, I have no hope that I will get through to you anyway, but I just thought I would set this on the record.

  21. You applaud her Courage?….and Sacrifice???…What about the Sacrifice of those babies lives that she is negating…..might as well applaud Hitler for his courage You JACKASS!! -Tony Siino

  22. Evil or wrong, I have no respect for pro infant murder folk. You have to be a philosophical Gomer Pyle to adopt the pro death position.

  23. So it’s okay for a clinic where abortions are performed to be less professional, sterile and hygienic than the clinic where I get a colonoscopy? Wow! I hope they don’t decide that it’s okay for my gastroenterologist to not clean up and sterilize before my procedure!

  24. I guess I’m in a philosophical mood today, since I’m letting this through.

    Lesseee now, I’m a jackass … excuse me, I’m a JACKASS!!, and a philosophical Gomer Pyle who has adopted the pro death position.

    Humph. Hard to get happy after that. 🙂

  25. I see no argument against the point made by me and several others, that the lady is courageous as the average politician on the make. Let us now add that she knew that the governor could and probably would call an extra session to vote the bill in, and her “heroic” filibuster emerges in its full colours: a brilliant display of careerist self-advertising, never intended to stop the bill at all, but only to gain international visibility.

  26. “They are saying this bill would likely close 37 of 42 abortion facilities statewide.”

    That’s exactly what Rick Perry wants. He will get his way next go around.

  27. There are plenty of regulations, which if enforced properly, assure that these clinics are professional, sterile and hygienic. Do you, for one second, think that is what this proposed law is all about? If you are honest, your answer will be no. This law will leave a handful of clinics operating in the second largest state in the country. That’s what Rick Perry and his good ole guys and gals are after. They will get it and then it will be shot down as unconstitutional.

  28. We could go there (I’m “pro-death,” you’re “anti-choice,” and all that), but that’s not the way to make much progress.
    I applaud Rebecca’s salute to someone else’s dedication, regardless of position. My complaint is that if someone is really anti-abortion, the focus should be placed on making abortion unnecessary. Let’s figure out why there are so many unwanted pregnancies and fix that problem. Then everyone’s happy. As it is, you’re swimming upstream.

  29. He’s the noble and dedicated protector of women and babies? OK–that’s one perspective. But apparently the “hundreds, if not thousands” of protesters had a different perspective.

  30. I’ve heard these claims but no evidence. I’d be curious to see an analysis of the cash flow. Planned Parenthood is always begging for donations, so I’d be surprised if this was especially lucrative. I don’t even know how much an abortion costs and how that compares with other medical procedures of similar complexity.

  31. Pleasure and convenience? I don’t remember that on the list of reasons women gave for having abortions. I would think not wanting to bring up a child in an unloving and unwelcoming environment would be a pretty good reason.

  32. Fair enough. You’re welcome to not have an abortion, not have a gay marriage, and to recommend that others follow your example. What surprises me is your wanting the government to impose your moral beliefs on everyone else in the country.
    I’d prefer that citizens be (in general) trusted to make the right decision and the government stay out of my business. But perhaps you have a different view of government’s role in society.

  33. Bob these are pretty tired arguments. In fact, they’re not arguments; they’re slogans.

    Abortion is killing a living human being. In the case of a 20-week abortion, it is killing a human being whose humanity no one can deny.

    How would you feel if I said that people should be able to kill bald-headed MIT graduates with impunity?

    Ok now, give me the tired analogies about oak trees and acorns; the arguments about sentience, and how no one has to carry you in their body. Then tell me how any of those arguments cancels out the simple fact abortion is killing a living human being with impunity.

    The argument, if you don’t want to kill other people, don’t do it is only appealing to those who want to kill.

  34. Sorry if I sound like I grouch Bob. It must be a terrible way for these babies to die and that affects me.

  35. If getting herself elected to the national legislature is doing the right thing, then yes, she is trying to do the right thing. Look, has the point I have been trying make not sunk in yet? This woman is a career politician. She knows that the Senate can be recalled by the Governor, and will, She knows that the bill will be passed. She knows that her stage show will delay it for a few weeks at most. But she also knows that most journalists are ignorant East Coast morons (what were we saying, Rebecca, only a few weeks ago, about East Coast journalists?) and that they will take her “stand” at face value, thus giving her national prominence. That was her goal. That is what she worked for – including the preliminary visits to the best clothes shop in town (I speak as an Italian from Milan when I say that she is the best dressed American politician I have ever seen), to her hair stylist, and to her beautician. That was what she got. The bill will be passed, but she will be remembered as the blonde heroine all in white. Because of course beauty and style in politics are only bad things if Sarah Palin has them.

  36. And some of us, alas, remain at that mental stage through all our stages of physical growth and decay.

  37. A crass rent-a-mob of a few thousand howling maniacs, mobilized by one of the most cash-rich organizations in America, hardly counts as representative of the electorate of one of the largest states of the Union. It does, however, count as very representative of the thuggishness and lawlessness of Planned Murderhood.

  38. First sensible thing you’ve said in a week. Of course, if I point out that this proves the bad faith and showmanship in Wendy Davies’ all-in-white act, you would be hunting up and down for sophistries in order to contradict the plain sense of what you just said.

  39. “PLanned Parenthood is always begging for donations.”
    And that disproves the fact that it is immensely rich?

  40. Yep, just like the Nazis. After all, you don’t HAVE to kill the Jews yourself, just keep silent while we send them to the gas chambers, right?

    Yes, I have a much different view of the government’s role in society- and the citizen’s role with respect to the government. You asking me to stand silently by when a genocide is going on, and asking me to tacitly and silently support your eugenics, is the problem.

  41. Hard to do the right thing while you’re doing the wrong thing.

    But now I know: Atheists believe in human sacrifice, no different than primitive cannibals.

  42. Now that’s the first thing you’ve said that I agree with.

    #1 reason for unwanted pregnancy- fathers who abandon the mothers of their children after having sex.

  43. In what sense is it not?

    I certainly see an acorn as an oak tree. It has the same DNA and cellular structure as an oak tree.

    Let me guess, you live in an urban area and have never bothered to plant an acorn, right?

  44. Oh, I am, I am. I have met enough corrupt, lying climbers in my life to know one when I see her.

  45. Just a personal note here—-nnmns, SO good to see you again! Have missed your comments. Like your comparison above. 🙂

  46. “Atheists believe in human sacrifice, no different than primitive cannibals”. So not true, Theodore.

  47. I totally agree, that “wanted/planned” doesn’t guarantee that the child will be treated with the love etc. that it deserves. Also unwanted/unplanned doesn’t mean mistreatment and are welcomed. LIfe is what it is, and your “revelations” are not news to me, Fabio.

  48. In 1993, in FL they could be obtained for $300. Who knows what that is now. That price was in a private doctor’s office, not a clinic. (at least that is what that doctor charged).

  49. No, someone like Sarah would not be my choice for president—and NO I most certainly didn’t vote for her as the first vice president–because I would have had to vote for McCain and I couldn’t do that either.

  50. His success or lack of it is in the eyes of the beholder. McCain would have done better or Romney? Not for me, thanks.

  51. Fabio, I don’t remember if you have said (or want to say) but do you live in the USA?

  52. OK then. Don’t go around lecturing Conservatives about not supporting women candidates. We voted for a woman for vice president. You didn’t.

  53. At which point I have to conclude that the person who signs herself “pagansister” and who said in so many words that ” “thousands and thousands of babies” that are unwanted and if they stay with the “mother” are abused and mistreated”, is your evil twin…

  54. To quote myself, a few lines upthread: “I speak as an Italian from Milan when I say that she is the best dressed American politician I have ever seen.” To be precise, I live in London. But I have had close contact with the USA since my childhood and I have been told by people who can judge that my understanding of US politics is better than most natives’. And at any rate, ask yourself whether someone from the land of Grillo and Berlusconi can claim to know fraudulent, on-the-make self-advertisers when he sees them.

  55. Perhaps they don’t. But the correspondence between atheist government, tyranny, and mass murder, is worryingly close. Hitler, according to the high authority of Alan Bullock,was an atheist and a science-worshipper who was convinced that planetaria and science museums would replace churches. Communism we know about. Ditto Plutarco Calles and his failed attempt to uproot the Catholic Church from Mexico. It just goes on. And one thing is even more worrying: that while what one might call commonplace tyrants, people like Franco and Pinochet, murder in comparatively small amounts – Franco killed a lot of people during the civil war, but very few after – these governments murder in the millions. I am not saying that there is anything good about tyranny backed by fear and murder, but I am saying that dogmatic atheism does seem to lead to an altogether lower level of Hell on Earth. And I am sorry, but whatever lies you may have been told about the Inquisition (a body that never even existed in the terms that modern fabulists describe it), it is simply not true that it was in any way comparable.

  56. Abortion is killing a living human being.

    Fair enough. I wouldn’t call it a person, though. There’s a big difference between a single cell at one end of the spectrum and a newborn at the other.

    How would you feel if I said that people should be able to kill bald-headed MIT graduates with impunity?

    I wouldn’t much care. If there were such a law, however, that would suck. But why ask the question? It seems off topic to me.

    Then tell me how any of those arguments cancels out the simple fact abortion is killing a living human being with impunity.

    I accept your claim. And I’m unimpressed. Sure, if we equate “human being” with “Homo sapiens,” then killing a fetus at any stage. Most of us see a vast difference between that single cell and the newborn. Dismissing this by noting that it’s a “human being” all along the spectrum doesn’t prove your point. You’re only turning your back on the problem—that spectrum is still there.

    What puzzles me about the pro-life side is that so many of those folks are small government, “keep the government off my back” kind of people. And yet for issues like abortion and gay marriage, they are so certain in the rightness of their position that they want it imposed on everyone else.

    I see the appeal; it just doesn’t seem consistent.

  57. No form at all. Where’s the murder to kill a single cell, even if it’s a human one?
    I hope you’re sitting down because I actually will kill, with pleasure, mosquitoes that have many thousands of cells in their brains alone! And I sleep like a baby. Call me a monster if you must–that’s just how I roll.

  58. $500 per abortion? Doesn’t sound especially lucrative to me. And with abortion fees accounting for little over 10% of their total income, the popular idea of evil bureaucrats within PP rubbing their greedy hands together at the thought of the money they raise from abortions doesn’t hold up.

  59. Is it immensely rich? What does that even mean? That their executives get lotsa cash?

    Charity Navigator gives the International Planned Parenthood Federation a 4 out of 4 rating. Fundraising and Admin costs are reasonable. Their IRS 990 form (ah–wouldn’t it be nice to see these from ministries?) shows about $300K for a regional director and less for other executives.
    Or maybe you were referring to some other meaning of “immensely rich.”

  60. Bob, I haven’t read the bill, so I may be wrong, but I’ve read in news reports that the legislation that the Senator was filibustering addressed 20-week abortions and clinic regulations. Your comments about a single cell are non sequitur simply because no abortion — or abortifacient, for that matter — affects a human being when they are a single cell. This particular phase of life is only a short period.

    The characterization makes good sturm und drang for combox polemics, but it isn’t truly applicable to much of anything.

    Despite your devout support for so many forms of killing, Bob, a human fetus (which has advanced far beyond the single-cell stage, btw) is, in fact, a human being. Their humanity is not and never has been in question in any arena other than the arena of propaganda.

  61. I believe that Planned Parenthood’s primary source of income is from government funding. As for your comments about making money doing abortions, I know a little more about it than you evidently do. However, I’m not expert enough to trace the trajectory of how the monies work at Planned Parenthood. I can say that $500 multiplied by the number of abortions performed each year is a big number. Also, it’s a quickie procedure for the doctor (I would guess that the docs are the major expense in an abortion clinic) and that which means that the doc is able to perform several abortions in a single hour. That does add up, Bob.

  62. Bill, you’re talking through your hat. Abortion clinics — along with infertility clinics — are referred to by at least some doctors as the “wild West” of medicine. There are very few regulations, largely because of the way that “pro choice” people fall over themselves to keep it that way.

  63. By your admission that there is a “spectrum” you make my point. These are human beings. When you start making laws that allow people to kill human beings — at any stage of their lives — with impunity and for any reason or no reason, then you place the entirety of humanity on the chopping block.

    Witness the move to allow euthanasia. When Roe first happened, and for at least 10 years afterwards, pro abortion proponents maintained that claims that Roe and its cheapening of life would NOT ever, never, lead to euthanasia. Now, of course, we’re all cruel and heartless if we don’t accede to this latest legal killing.

    The spectrum is, indeed something we must deal with. We must do it by saying flat-out that killing innocent people is wrong.

    As for your comment about conservatives, not only is that a deliberate red herring, it doesn’t apply to me. I ain’t one of ’em.

  64. I’ve moved away from the original topic (the filibuster) and on to abortion in general.

    no abortion — or abortifacient, for that matter — affects a human being when they are a single cell.

    Not Plan B?

    The characterization makes good sturm und drang for combox polemics, but it isn’t truly applicable to much of anything.

    I’m talking about the spectrum (of personhood, in my terminology, but suggest a different term if you’d like) going from single cell to newborn.

    Despite your devout support for so many forms of killing, Bob, a human fetus (which has advanced far beyond the single-cell stage, btw) is, in fact, a human being. Their humanity is not and never has been in question in any arena other than the arena of propaganda.

    Well, yeah. I’m an atheist. Everyone knows that atheists love death. Or something.

    But to your point, yes, I have already agreed (here) that the single cell is a human being. So what? At one end of the spectrum, it’s a single cell—not much of a person in my book. If you want to reject abortion for yourself, great. If you want to advocate that others follow you example, great. It’s when you impose your views on the rest of us that it’s not so great.

  65. OK, it adds up. What I’m objecting to is Ken’s claim “The abortion industry is incredibly lucrative.” I’d like him to clarify his point or (if he has none and this is just rhetoric) retract his statement.

  66. In that case, I have to surrender. The likelihood of your appreciating when two propositions contradict each other would appear to equal zero.

  67. The fiscal disaster is not a matter for argument, and you can’t tell me that McCain or even Romney (a careerist as fake as Ms.Davies herself, and one I detest for the same reasons) would have been responsible for anything so enormous. And if the US go bankrupt, as they technically already are, where do your cherished social policies end up?

  68. No, not Plan B. Plan B can, if it’s taken before ovulation, prevent ovulation from happening, which does not involve an abortion. Or, it can keep a developing embryo from implanting, which is an abortion. In either case, it does nothing to a human being at the single cell stage.

    I didn’t say that about your support of many forms of killing because you are an atheist. I don’t care as much about you being an atheist as you seem to think. I said it because of the positions you take on killing whole groups of people by either defining them as not human, or by defining their lives as not worthy of life.

    You keep going back to the single cell comment. Sounds strong, doesn’t it? Too bad it has no basis in the facts of abortion.

    The question becomes, when does a human being have enough of whatever Bob defines as “human” to be worthy of life as Bob deems it? Since you are making yourself the executioner of whole classes of people, that is the question at hand.

  69. Would you ever feel sad at a healthy oak tree being cut down?
    Would you ever feel sad at an acorn’s being run over and crushed?
    Do you go around planting all the acorns you can find?

    See, there’s a difference.

  70. If you want to close down all the abortion clinics you’re talking about embryos. Houston was an aberration and abortionists hated what he did I’m sure. But that kind of situation is what will happen more and more as early term abortions are denied and legal abortion is made unavailable.

    Abortion won’t go away but safe legal earlier term abortions may well. Will you feel better when a lot of women are dying for their abortions again?

  71. The only humans involved in an early or middle term abortion, Ted, are the woman, perhaps her family, and the doctor. These days the brave doctor, perhaps the heroic doctor. Embryos aren’t humans, early term fetuses aren’t either but they are getting closer. Making a person isn’t instantaneous magic, it’s a nine-month process.

  72. By your admission that there is a “spectrum” you make my point.

    ?!? If it makes your point then one of us doesn’t understand the spectrum argument!

    First, it’s not an admission but an insistence. Second, what I’m saying is that the personhood that we value doesn’t exist at the beginning of the spectrum.

    These are human beings.

    If they’re a human being at both ends of the spectrum, then obviously the spectrum can’t be labeled “human being” with index marks indicating 0% on one side and 100% on the other.

    What property does a newborn have that a single cell doesn’t? I’d say personhood. Perhaps you have a different word. Your continued use of “human being” ignores the elephant in the room, that a single cell is very, very, very different from a trillion-cell newborn.

    Call a single cell a Homo sapiens, a human being, or a eukaryote. I’m happy to accept all of these labels, but so what? What’s your point?

    The nice thing from your standpoint is that the term “human being” brings to mind the walking, talking kind of human, not the kind that you’ve defined, the one you can see only with a microscope. This confusion is to your advantage, but I think someone eager to speak clearly would avoid this sort of thing.

    When you start making laws that allow people to kill human beings — at any stage of their lives — with impunity and for any reason or no reason, then you place the entirety of humanity on the chopping block.

    Let me propose another axiom: “when you allow killing of any life form at all for any reason, you place every life form—including humanity—on the chopping block.” I suggest you use this one instead.

    But that’s laughable, of course. We kill pests and food animals with little hesitation. We see the spectrum.

    Remember the PETA slogan, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”? They wanted to collapse the spectrum, but I imagine you like me reject this idea. Uh, no—a rat is not a boy. There’s a big difference. Similarly, there’s a big difference between a single cell and a newborn. Let’s not pretend otherwise by picking a term that applies to both equally.

    When Roe first happened, and for at least 10 years afterwards, pro abortion proponents maintained that claims that Roe and its cheapening of life would NOT ever, never, lead to euthanasia.

    It’s a shame that you see equivocation, but don’t blame me. To me, euthanasia gives options. It allows (for some people) a more dignified exit.

    But I’d prefer we stick to the abortion discussion.

    We must do it by saying flat-out that killing innocent people is wrong.

    Works for me. A single cell is not a person.

  73. I said it because of the positions you take on killing whole groups of people by either defining them as not human, or by defining their lives as not worthy of life.

    I don’t advocate killing people.

    You keep going back to the single cell comment. Sounds strong, doesn’t it? Too bad it has no basis in the facts of abortion.

    That’s nice. Now, back to the topic: we have a spectrum of personhood from single cell (not a person) on one end to newborn on the other (a person). The closer to the not-a-person end of the spectrum the fetus is aborted, the better.

    The question becomes, when does a human being have enough of whatever Bob defines as “human” to be worthy of life as Bob deems it?

    We’ve already agreed that I’m happy to call the single cell a human. So what then are you talking about?

    Since you are making yourself the executioner of whole classes of people, that is the question at hand.

    Nope, not me. I don’t propose executing any people. Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else.

  74. Having read your blog for quite a while, I feel I can say that while you’re a Democrat, and don’t self-identify with (most of?) the political groups that identify themselves as “conservative,” you are nevertheless significantly more conservative than the typical RINO, who is only pro-life and pro-marriage for as long as the poll numbers support it.

    Down in here in Alabama, you’d be known as a Dixiecrat, actually.

  75. Yes Bob, you do advocate killing people. You get around this fact, at least to your own satisfaction, by redefining what the word “people” means in such a fashion that you can tell yourself that the ones you advocate killing fall outside your definition.

    You are indeed the executioner of whole classes of people when you advocate so vociferously for laws that give the right to kill them for without restriction or reason.

    You keep going back to single cell, which is not involved in abortion, probably because that feels more comfortable to you than the reality of what abortion is.

    Pull the blinders off Bob and look at what you are advocating. It’s not about semantics that allow you to fool yourself while allowing people to be killed at will. It’s about the reality that they are people, they are being killed, and your are advocating for this.

  76. My point is that they are human beings. Even if they are human beings on a “spectrum” on which they are heading toward a Bob-defined moment when their lives are worth living, they are still human beings. The admission that there is a spectrum acknowledges this.

    That this theoretical “spectrum” of the value of a human being’s life is used to engage in the sophistry that killing people is at some point perfectly ok because they are not at the proper place in this “spectrum” is the stuff of denial.

    It changes nothing of the simple fact that what you are advocating is a legal structure that defines whole classes of human beings as having lives that are forfeit to any whim.

  77. I don’t know exactly what a Dixiecrat believes, but I’ll bet that they wouldn’t be too happy with me. I have a real talent for making both liberals and conservatives mad at me. Liberals hate my thinking on life and family issues; conservatives aren’t too keen on my ideas about the endless cycle of war this country is in, the death penalty and the almighty corporation. If I worried about things like what the label-meisters think of me, I couldn’t do my job with any integrity.

  78. “Would you ever feel sad at a healthy oak tree being cut down?”

    Not a human being. I like them though- they make good firewood.

    “Would you ever feel sad at an acorn’s being run over and crushed? ”

    Yes, that’s one less bit of food for a squirrel, or in a different context, less firewood in the future for me.

    “Do you go around planting all the acorns you can find?”

    Yes. It’s the only way to get good firewood.

  79. “Houston was an aberration”

    No, similar incidents have now been reported in every state in the union and in a majority of clinics- usually by the nurses themselves.

    I’m sure though you discount all of those like you discount Abby Johnson though- just disgruntled employees, right?

  80. “Where’s the murder to kill a single cell, even if it’s a human one? ”

    When it is a unique HUMAN BEING with unique DNA, that is murder.

    It is comments like this one that prove to me that you are irrational.

  81. “The only humans involved in an early or middle term abortion, Ted, are the woman, perhaps her family, and the doctor. ”

    Yes. Her family includes the infant in her womb.

    “Embryos aren’t humans”

    I suppose to an idiot like you they’re unicorns.

  82. Bob, we’ve talked about this enough. Your comments are beginning to take up too much of the blog. Let’s pack it in.

  83. Originally the term wasn’t anything good, but in recent years it just
    means any generally conservative member of the Democrat party.

    Regardless, you’re Catholic first, everything else second, so naturally everyone hates you! 🙂 The world can’t stand filthy, backwards Catholics after all, he said tongue in cheek.

  84. Perhaps “thousands & thousands” is a stretch, but unfortunately the news doesn’t fail to mention the dead child at the hands of many of some of those “mothers”. or the live-in boyfriend/perhaps father of child. Or the mistreatment/d of a child that the system failed to take from the “parent” in time to save it. Also unfortunate is the foster children that are sometimes mistreated while in the system. My daughter-in-law was one of those children. Horror stories. IMO, it would have been better if some of those children were never created to begin with, but that is another topic. Being born only to die in some horrible manner at the hands of those that are supposed to “love & protect you” is just not right on ANY level. Sorry, off on a topic that disturbs me. Must be one reason that I support choice and that a woman uses her choice if she finds it necessary, during the first 12 weeks.

  85. “Being born only to die in some horrible manner at the hands of those that are supposed to “love & protect you” is just not right on ANY level. ”

    Never heard of St. Maria Goretti, apparently

  86. I don’t vote for a candidate based on their gender. However, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton if she has been a candidate—she, IMO was qualified—Sarah? No way qualified. As it turned out she didn’t even finish her job as Alaska’s governor.

  87. Palin was more qualified than Obama and I bet you voted for Obama. When push comes to shove, leftists beat conservatives over the head for supposedly being sexist, and yet when faced with a choice of a woman, all of a sudden the lefties don’t like the woman because she has diferent ideas. Maybe Conservatives don’t vote for the women you like because they don’t like their ideas, ideas such as this infanticide endorsing woman named Wendy Davis. Ha! Hypocrisy.

  88. So, because you are a prophetess and can see the future and know that in the future these children will CERTAINLY be abused and murdered, therefore they must be murdered before they can be murdered. You know, the layers of illogic and superstition in these statements are really beyond ravelling.

  89. Not that it makes any difference now, but do you seriously think Palin would have been able to handle the job as VP? Heaven help us if she had had to become president, because something happened to McCain. As I said above, she didn’t even finish her term as governor of Alaska—and she had higher ambitions? Yes, I certainly did vote for President Obama 2X…and don’t regret it.

  90. Theodore, every mistreated/murdered child will not live to be 11 before dying of stab wounds during a rape. Not every child will become a saint in the eyes of the Church—special always, but not a saint. Knowing about St. Maria Goretti doesn’t make me change my opinion above.

  91. Out of the four people running Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin, Palin was the only one you can trust. And I think history has born that out. McCain is a lose cannon who lurches from one moment to another and thinks every world fight is a justification for US involvement, Biden doesn’t seem to have any core convictions, and Obama is a pure liar. Palin unfortunately was too inexperienced to handle the media given her Conservative views. No one questions Obama’s radicalism or his associations to the most radical elements. But Palin came under an unprecedented scrutney. She came from a small media state and was unprepared. She quit the govenorship becuase of the pure harrassment she was getting. What she needs to do now is run for Senate. She needs to learn how to articulate nuiasanced positions. But I doubt she’ll ever be president now.