« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Life. And The Will to Live

“… but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..”

I read this article in The Telegraph the other day about a 22 week old fetus, an unborn baby, who survived an abortion attempt and lived for two days; unattended to, abandoned and left to die. Alone.

After I stopped weeping and saying a prayer for that innocent life lost, a couple of other things struck me in the article.

A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said: “There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this nor anybody in the UK who would not support a massive reduction in the upper limit for abortion.”

Wrong. It happens here, too. And Pro-abortionists, including President Obama, aren’t horrified. In fact, they, and he, support late term abortion, as well as letting babies who have survived abortion attempts be left to die.

However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die. He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

Pro-abortion advocates disingenuously argue about viability. Firstly, alleged viability occurs earlier and earlier with advancements in medicine. Secondly, what about life itself? This baby was Life. With a heart and a soul, that included the spirit and the will to live, so strong even at the hands of those who tried to purposefully snuff that life out.

Italian police are investigating the case for “homicide” because infanticide is illegal in Italy. The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion.

But it is still totally okay if the baby does die via abortion? A baby, capable of living for nearly two days all on it’s own, fighting with the spirit of life itself. Breathing and struggling to survive. The article goes onto mention that Italy does allow such later term abortions be performed, in cases of disability, as was the case with this baby. Do you know what his disability was?

A cleft lip and palate.

To pro-abortionists, that’s a reason to kill the baby. In fact, they believe that life is expendable for any reason if it doesn’t fit into your personal plans. This includes life that is outside of the woman’s body and has survived an abortion attempt. Obama himself voted against Born Alive acts in Illinois and opposed legislation that would define those babies as persons. The legislation was brought about because, as testimony evidenced, babies being tossed aside and left to die happens in abortion clinics here. In some clinics, it happens in 20 percent of the abortions performed. Such heinous actions are not only condoned, but are vehemently supported by the President of the United States. Again, he voted against legislation protecting those lives.

Four times.

I suppose he doesn’t want his daughters punished by babies that refuse to die. Why did he oppose the legislation? Because, to him, protecting abortion and abortion doctors was more important than protecting the truly most vulnerable and keeping living newborns alive.

As a Senator in Illinois, debating a Born Alive bill, he said this:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..

Not coming out limp and dead. Pesky babies not cooperating and insisting on having the human will to live and the strong spirit to survive.

The original article referenced a boy in the UK who survived not one, but three abortion attempts. He is now 5 years old. Perhaps President Obama and his fellow pro-abortion travelers should meet him.

And ask him why he didn’t just “come out limp and dead.”

COMMENTS

  • janis

    everything he was cracked up to be about his stance on late-term abortion. She couldn’t believe that I was telling the truth. So I showed her articles that related his votes and the audio, I believe, that was his voice talking about this in the legislature. She was sickened, being a young mom with two children of her own.

    What sickened me even more was that to this day, she continues to admire and support him, even knowing what she does about him and not agreeing with that at all. For any who believe that this bunch is not evil, here’s Exhibit A.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Here’s the audio of the leader of the free world defending the indefensible. Obama will always be known to me as “the infanticide President.” This surely was a historic election, when the American people elected someone who was not just a “fetus” killer, but a live-baby killer as well.

    • AceInTX

      This surely was a historic election, when the American people elected someone who was not just a

      • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

        .

  • texasgalt

    Where I was watching my grandson play. Lots and lots of kids everywhere. It made me feel a little guilty, kinda like the end of that movie where Schindler says, “this ring, one more life…”

    We can never do enough for those without a voice. You would think that at some point people of good faith could summon the courage to rise up and insist that the Constitution and the Creator who inspired it give us all life and liberty at every stage of life.

    The price we pay in this life for abusing the unborn can not be measured. There will be he’ll to pay in the next life.

  • archer52

    The personality drawn to the causes that motivate Obama, Soros, Rahm and the rest are the same personalities that drove Nazi Germany. They actually believe that people not like them are “less than human.” How else to you explain the effort in the administration and now in New York to gather your organs against your will like you are a bag of spare parts?

    We are not exempt just because we live in America from suffering the same fate as historical Europe or China or Russia? You have to understand Marxism and Communism and Eugenics did not create followers, it simply afforded people who want to believe in those things a place to travel to and gather like minded people.

    This is my biggest fear as we are inevitably forced into a funnel by Obama’s agenda like being herded into a cattle car, sooner or later the administration will ramp up the situation until we are forced to resist. At gatewaypundit Jim shows the confrontation they wish they could have and some of the muscle they can deploy. At a site called patriotpost.us the author reveals a very uncomfortable event at Fort Knox, where a LT in the unit training for domestic unrest used “tea party Members and militia both is bombs” as potential adversaries.

    http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/04/29/army-preps-for-tea-party-terrorists/

    Don’t kid yourself, if they have no real feelings for you as equal humans, your injuries and deaths will mean nothing to them. Now is a LT in some unit somewhere being stupid a big deal? Yes. Because in his mind, with all the propaganda out there, you all were actually threats. Scary.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    equal to all the others, and…entitled to all fundamental rights, including the right to health and therefore to be given full support.

    Barack Obama, though, doesn’t even know when human rights begin. That quesiton is above his pay-grade.

    • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

      But at minimum, the answer should be “at birth.”

  • bobbymike

    I read the story and openly wept for the poor child who just wanted to live, to breathe to be loved and cared for.

    Were his little arms and hands seeking out his mother hoping she would come along to hold him close.

    How hard did he cry how much pain did he suffer. I feel sick, my soul is wounded.

  • Jon E. Schultz II

    …I was born with a cleft lip and palate.

    Now I’m married to a wonderful woman, father of 3 boys, I went to one of the top engineering schools in the country, and I own a company.

    But clearly I was defective and should have been aborted. Ugh.

    You hate to say some people should be taken out back and shot, but this baby’s parents…man…

    - Jon

    • c17wife

      club feet. I wonder if that defect would have made that woman abort. He had casts for 6 weeks and then grew and developed normally. He is an engineer by trade and has spent the last 20 years flying airplanes for the AF. Too bad he was defective, eh?

      Taken out and shot, naw….that would be too easy. More like drawn and quartered. That seems more appropriate.

  • Raven

    “In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a five-year-old schoolboy.”

    Who are the caregivers for this child? He’s not living with the people who tried to abort him 3 times, is he?

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Francis Scaeffer said that the acceptance of abortion by a society marked the boundary between civilization and barbarism. He was right. Western civilization has eroded to the point of open barbarism and savagery against the weakest in our society. Until abortion is rejected by our society we cannot restore our civilization. Mr. Obama and the Democrats are clearly not the people to lead that restoration. All they have planned is more barbarism.

  • Return to Revolution

    has Down Syndrome. While abortion was never a consideration for us, I can’t imagine life without her. Re the baby with the cleft lip, I believe his parents will come to regret their decision. I would.

    On the point regarding viability, I know several libertarians who are pro-choice but draw the line at viability (i.e., a baby that can survive on its own is off limits). I only bring it up because libertarians are often too “out there” for many to support. But in the case of abortion, the left has way surpassed even libertarians (at least the ones I know; I don’t know if there is an offical libertarian view). Lunatics like Peter Singer lead the way with ideas that children up to 2 yrs of age are still “fetuses” due to their level of development and would therefore be ok to “abort”. And the scariest part: that is merely a logical extension of their twisted philosophy.

  • c17wife

    in my mouth a little. Sick, sick, sick!
    When I was getting my Master’s in Early Childhood, I worked at the preschool on campus. At the time, we had a little girl named “E”. She was born….yes, BORN at 22 weeks. Her mother had unknowingly suffered from an incompetent cervix and didn’t know until it was too late “E” was somewhat of a miracle. Despite being terribly premature, she required no major surgery that most preemies require. She had a host of health issues that required her to stay in the NICU for 3+ months, but she eventually went home a healthy, yet small baby. At 2, when we had her at school, she was mildly delayed in development, but nothing shockingly abnormal. She had slight aphasia and was clumsier than the others, but oh, was she smart. Through the years, I heard about “E” from other colleagues. Like most developmentally delayed preschoolers, “E” caught up with her peers around age 6 and is now a healthy, 20 year old college student. And, she is quite intellegent.
    The will to live is a funny thing. Woe be it to those who seek to squelch it. There is a special place in h*ll reserved for them.

    • Justin_Case

      Good to see you back.

      A bit early to read these sad things. What a mess our society has become. I have to go out and work on my tiller…

  • penguin2

    like barbarians. And it is barbaric. There is nothing civilized about this, nothing. I wept when I read the article, and I weep now.

    I know this may not be right, but I hope the memories of what those doctors, nurses, and all other involved haunt them forever.

    May God hold the infant in His Arms, forever loved by Him.

    • http://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com/ Lori Ziganto

      nt

  • marcuscicero

    Sorry I don’t get it. Story seems false anyway, but assuming it’s true I’m still pro abortion. People who say they are pro life are of course only pro baby life. They couldn’t care less about all the farm animals that are slaughtered for food. (I don’t care either, meat is delicious, but how are full grown cows not life?). I just don’t believe an unborn baby has a soul. Isn’t that what you’re really talking about? Since you can’t be sure one way or the other I think it should be left to individual choice. That’s what libertarian is after all.

    C’mon. This medical procedure has nothing to do with libertarian thinking. Work to limit it if you feel so strongly, I suppose, but it makes no sense to me.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    However, this an instance I believe where the moderator correctly let the comment remain (with the poster banned) as a witness to all of what we are dealing with.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      I tend to white out troll comments. But a ban for stupidity? I’ll let that stand for all to see.

      • ceili_dancer

        He was definately trolling for the start of a flame war. he can giggle with glee in his mom’s basement or high five the other Kos kids in the dorm common.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Strikes me more as a particularly dumb breed of libertarian.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Some are very smart and reasonable and I can work with them.

            Some … are like marcuscicero above.

  • leftybehind

    The

    • leftybehind

      I don’t know anyone who is pro-choice who would honestly use the term pro-abortion to describe themselves, at least I hope not.

      I consider myself pro-choice (and am definitely prepared for the backlash I imagine I will get from other posters) but I support the born-alive act, and would consider any life that is able to support itself outside the womb and have a chance at surviving without its mother, a life that should be protected as a born citizen of the USA.
      I long ago relinquished any claim to controlling the outcome a pregnancy that will unavoidably (since I am male) grow in another persons body. That person I will never choose to limit to the choices they make about things that directly affect their body, though I will never believe that abortions after the first 8 weeks are humane regardless of circumstances, just tragedies.

      • JadedByPolitics

        but WE on the PRO-LIFE side would! The bottom line is babies otherwise known as human beings are being SUCKED out of the mother’s womb, there is NO denying that FACT! So whatever one chooses to call themselves is neither here nor there now is it? In the face of murder of a baby the appropriate name doesn’t really matter.

        • leftybehind

          I would have to say the appropriate name is everything when a name implies another meaning or another viewpoint. Pro-abortion implies the wish for abortions to occur, pro-choice implies the wish for someone to have a choice. A choice does not always end up ending a life, and when you label something so as to limit even your own understanding of another persons views, you are only limiting yourself.

          • JadedByPolitics

            when you say pro-choice you mean and don’t deny it that you want a woman to DECIDE whether to kill or not to kill the baby in her belly. I as a woman because you are too weak as a man to DECIDE for LIFE will tell you that when you lay down and you are given a child it is NOT a choice to KILL that baby, you made the CHOICE when you laid down! You might be surprised that I am for “choice” when a woman has been raped even knowing full well that is murder because that woman did NOT have a choice at conception however for the MURDER mills of Planned Parenthood they WANT, they NEED women to lay down and come in time after time after time to reach those BILLIONS of dollars each year they make.

            You btw with your EXCUSE of being a man is limiting yourself!

          • leftybehind

            I hardly consider it an excuse, its actually rather coincidental. I was born this way. Had I a choice in the matter, at that point it would be considered an excuse if I chose not to make choices about women and their bodies. If of course I was a woman, I am fairly certain I would still not make a choice about other’s bodies. The only person I can choose for is myself, and it would seem much of your anger froms from the inability to choose for everyone, though it could be siply due to your passion for the issue, I cannot come to a proper line of conversation with you.

            I’m not trying to antagonize you, so I will simply leave our conversation at that.

          • JadedByPolitics

            conversation with a wall because you are too weak to take a stand. It is the wishy-washy ways of the left that will be their downfall on this and other items because those of US on the other side are very determined to STOP abortion on demand and WE ARE WINNING. It is just the hardcore determination of PROVING that babies are being murdered that is winning the argument in state after state and if WE have to push those baby killers to coasts WE WILL!

            Btw it would take guts to antagonize me and when you excused yourself from the debate based on your “manhood” you showed you don’t have a spine and in such you are hardly MAN enough to antagonize me.

          • Leopard1996

            And this is coming from someone who tends to believe in the fact that this should have been a states rights issue in the first place. Playing the semantics game is infuriating to everyone involved, why do you think now that the media are describing pro-life people as anti-abortion, it is because being anti anything carries a negative connotation to it, especially if they feel a majority of people feel that the view is anti something that is perceived as a right.

            Again, I am a pro-choice person as far as it is thd choice of the individual states to determine if they want to allow this behavior or not, and then I have the choice to determine if I want to live in and spend my dollars in that said state.or beat feet to a state that conforms to my personal views on this. I like you will probably receive fire for this, but I am not going to be a hypocrite and state that if I want to give the woman the ability to seek an abortion that I am not pro-abortion.

      • mbecker908

        So, if a high percentage of minority adults are incapable of supporting themselves you think that minorities should be killed before birth.

        And that, by the way is precisely the position of Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood.

        • leftybehind

          I suppose anyone unable to grow their own food and make their own medicine would be “incapable of supporting themselves” if you wanted to take it completely out of context. Yet society does not actually require you or I to supply these things for ourselves. They allow us to gain a skill to give back to the society which in turn allows us currency to purchase the means to survive from those with the skills we do not have.

          In the case of a fetus I would consider breathing, feeding, and surviving under normal circumstances as far as normal could be considered for an infant “born” so early. If they can survive in the limited context of post-abortion, in a hospital, under doctors care similar to a wanted yet premature birth.

          • Achance

            a huge number of people who are “incapable of supporting themselves.” I have exactly the same incentive to kill the disabled and the ne’erdowell as a man does to encourage his wife/girlfriend to kill an unexpected baby; I don’t want to support them. I have exactly the same incentive to kill the disabled and the ne’erdowell as a woman has to kill her unexpected baby; they cost money, they’re a burden on me, they interfere with my plans for myself.

            Abortion is almost never about the “life of the mother,” and if it is, it is justifiable. It is about the convenience and self-fulfillment of the mother; she just doesn’t want to be bothered with carrying a baby to term or with raising a child, so she kills it. You can’t sugarcoat that simple fact, she is more concerned about her figure, about the pain of childbirth, or about her economic and social well-being, so she kills the baby to rid herself of the inconvenience.

          • Brian Hibbert

            I’m thinking I’ll need it in the local paper’s playground soon.

          • Achance

            My daughter with Wife v. 1.0 turns 39 in a couple of weeks. Her mother and I had one Helluva fight, a fight from which our marriage never really recovered, once she started gaining weight and having morning sickness and such. This was no accident but rather a willful decision to have a child or at least to stop taking the precautions against having a child. But, when she became pregnant, it didn’t suit, and, spoiled and self-indulgent person that she was, she didn’t want to do what she didn’t like doing, so she wanted to have an abortion, and I would have none of it. I’d probably be charged with all sorts of things today, but I hustled her back to rural Georgia, not quite a prisoner, but close, where her options were, shall we say limited and the social pressures were great.

          • mbecker908

            makes the word “choice” a word with no context. I used a moderately over-the-top example, but if you read Margaret Sanger and her contemporary ilk you’ll note that it’s not far off the mark.

            The one good thing this pathetic Administration has done is to unmask the “pro-life” people in the Democratic Party. Ramesh Ponnuru was – and is – 100% right when he branded Democrats as “The Party of Death“. Seventy years ago Bart Stupak, etal would have been willing workers in Treblinka.

      • aesthete

        As I see it, one has the choice to either a) believe that a fetus isn’t a child, and accordingly not feel concern about abortion except as it affects the mother and others around her, or to b) believe that a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, and therefore, establish legal safeguards for its natural right to not be unduly deprived of life. In that sense, I have more respect for monsters like Peter Sanger than for mealy-mouthed ditherers who don’t have the courage to intellectual fortitude to take their beliefs to their logical conclusions. If you believe in a woman’s “right to choose”, you are automatically assuming that a fetus isn’t a person, because you don’t believe that its right to not be deprived of life is a significant factor, so spare us the “safe, legal, and rare” spiel, if you don’t mind.

        • leftybehind

          I’m not quite familiar with your “safe, legal, rare” quote. Some explanation would be best if you expect a logical response.

          The logical conclusion for a mother that would die during birth, in a non pro-choice world would be that the baby is more a person than she, as we are only willing to protect its life until it is born. Then whether or not she wants the child, or whether it will get proper care is then ignored by the same people who would claim others to be lacking in intellectual fortitude… or lacking in some sort of mouthwash to remove mealyness,

          I think this will be the end of our particular conversation aesthete, I appreciate that you may still respond. Voltaire would applaud you.

          • penguin2

            the signing of Roe v Wade and sell it to the population.

            BTW, it is a fallacious argument today that a NON pro-choice environment ALLOWS or Forces a “mother to die” to save the baby. Modern medicine has long been able to deal with complicated deliveries that may occur. That does not fall under the abortion choice umbrella. When talking about saving the life of the mother, because her life is imminent catastrophic medical danger, that is an entirely different scenario.

          • leftybehind

            I was unfamiliar with the phrase, I still think I’m lacking full context for the quote, but I’ll run with it from here to round it out.

            There are always circumstances in which the choice made by the mother will protect her life. Must she be minutes if not seconds from death?

            It is either her life, or it is the fetus. If the fetus takes pecidence over the freedom and choice of the mother, the mother has lost her life until the child is born. What is life without freedom.

          • penguin2

            professions, an RN. Dealing with a catastrophic delivery is not in the category as abortion. It is just not. If there is a risk of imminent death of the baby or the mother, all efforts are made to save both. That is entirely different medical situation, and it is not defined as abortion. A baby delivered to protect the health of the mother, is given all life support necessary and medically/humanly possible.

            If it is the intent of the mother to abort her child,then we are not talking about a medical emergency or delivery gone wrong, we are then talking about outright abortion.

          • penguin2

            thinking of that is not at the last minute, but one in where a woman is told that continuing her pregnancy, due to her own health risks, ie a diagnosis of cancer, that chemo drugs would adversely affect the fetus. This does happen, but again this falls under a different medical diagnosis and situation. This was not the scenario that Roe v Wade was addressing. There have been medial intervention for serious catastrophic health situations for some time, that had nothing to do with “choice.”

            I also want to note, that many women who have faced such medical risks have continued on with their pregnancy, regardless. That is how much they want their baby.

            But the excuse that pro-abortion advocates use that women are at high risk who cannot obtain abortions freely, does not hold water. Medical intervention has happened and will happen when it has to do with imminent health risk to the mother. Killing an infant because the mother says she can’t cope or is depressed, is still killing another human being. An amazing thing about the human spirit is that one is challenged to cope or handle a situation, one does. It is when we don’t have to, or are given easy outs, then we lose our coping skills, because we never developed them in the first place.

            It dehumanizes us when we do not care for the least vulnerable among us, that includes the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. A society desensitized to valuing life for all, will disintegrate, especially when it comes to who is considered expendable.

            If you use a search engine to look up “safe, legal and rare,” you will find that the pro-choice, pro-abortionists and Democrats had made this their mantra for decades. I don’t think anyone believed that Roe v Wade would result in 51 million aborted babies 37 years later.

          • mbecker908

            used to justify continuation of the murder of 1.5MM unborn every year. It’s what they “wanted”. The fact is that the slogan is nothing more than another lie from the Party of Death. They want unfettered abortion and will do or say anything to make sure that is the law of the land.

          • Jack_Savage

            I ask them what they have done to keep abortions rare.

            Crickets.

          • mbecker908
          • leftybehind

            Were abortions limited in quantity per individual (lifetime) outside of the emergency context, I feel people would be more responsible with their choice to have sex. Yet a lack of sexual education and a merry go round of a legal system leaves us with what we currently have.

          • aesthete

            As mbeck says, the “safe, legal, and rare” quote is from a Clinton speech, and exemplifies the Democrat desire to have their cake and eat it, too: to, in effect, say “we don’t believe that a fetus is a human deserving of protection, and that’s why we favor destroying it for convenience’s sake, but we don’t want to lose votes from minority and union rubes, so we’ll say that we want to make them rare, despite the fact that destroying a fetus is such a non-tragedy in our eyes that it should be subject to elimination for any reason.”

            Your “quantity per individual” idea is a great example of this line of thought: why is it suddenly immoral to eliminate a fetus after some arbitrary and government imposed number? That is, quite possibly, one of the most oblivious responses to the moral problem of abortion that I have ever seen.

          • mbecker908

            And the number of abortions where the life (as in the physical life) of the mother is not threated should be zero.

            Don’t even try to pass off the crap that we murder a million and half children every year because of a lack of sexual education. That’s the biggest lie ever perpetrated. And if you have a problem with the legal system, talk to the perveyors of death on your side, they’re the ones who made up the current state of the law from whole cloth.

          • leftybehind

            what my side is? Besides me.

  • cactusjack

    in the discussion about what kind of libertarian marcusc is, and then it struck me…unborn baby has no soul, let someone or something else out there inthe world have unilateral control over if “it” is born. Hmmm, by logic then…those mentally ill, they’re really not producing anything or having quality of life and a drag on our resources, right? Eugenics – Abortion – Selection of Those Who May Live (Death Panels) – Lebensborn (State Sponsored Stud Farms for the studs the State likes and desires propagated – ). Oh, and lastly, kidnapping of blond children from Poland to be adopted into racially pure families. You guessed it, marcusc may not realize it but that line of reasoning gets us uncomfortably he’s knocking around in pseudo-biological territory explored by national socialism in Germany. It’s interesting how it is functionally just one block over in the neigborhood of that “strain” of libertarianism. The state, not as arbiter of life , but as humble protector of God given rights does have some interest in the life and rights of an unborn, but in fascism that duty is the first thing that goes and libertarianism would weaken that duty.

  • paulrph1

    I do not get it. The Democrats say they are for the people, yet they want to dispose of the people by any means possible. They make their heroes Mao, Lenin, Stalin and many other mass murderers. This does not include only babies, but children, adults, teenagers as well.
    Life begins at conception not just at birth. No abortion of any kind at anytime should be allowed. If you do not believe this read Luke 1:42-44. You do have a bible do you not? Well, read it.
    To equate animal life with human life is inane. Read you scriptures, again for more enlightenment. All life is too be considered sacred but there are some differences.

    • leftybehind

      “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

      • Brian Hibbert

        “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

        • leftybehind

          not a progressive, and a communist is not a peacock.

          I have never been familiar with the ties between the democrats and the russian revolution from nearly a century ago. I am sure that there are socialist overtones in some democratic ideals, but never would I expect to or have I met a democrat who would claim those listed as their heroes, in private or in public, because it is not true. Not being a democrat of course, I have never been privy to their secret heroes list.

          • Brian Hibbert

            rather than of purpose. Marxist, progressives, communists, nazis and fascist are all branches of the socialist ideology.

          • leftybehind

            I think somewhere a “progressive” may have muddied everyones definitions.

          • leftybehind

            that people on this website fit the definition of progressive.

            favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

            You advoate change in many arenas, and improvement as well. I think perhaps a word commonly associated with democrats has become weapon without a definition.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Using the dictionary definition of progressive to define the progressive movement is entirely wrong.

            Progressives are all about the use of the state to perfect man, and in particular the American. Progressives wanted and want a New Republic organized under new, centralized control (see Wilson, FDR, BHO) using abortion and now Obamacare (formerly eugenic sterilization) to shape our nation’s future in their view.

            Does anyone really think today’s progressives have a different view on American imbecility than the past? The only difference is that now it’s mass abortion instead of mass sterilization that is the reaction.

          • leftybehind

            then the definition is moot, but not everyone who considers themselves progressive would consider themselves a member of that party nor be familliar with their brand of politics.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            There were several Progressive Parties in our history, but what’s most important is that critical period of 1912-1920 in which radical progressives took over the Democrat party.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Of course the second one is the 1968-1974 period in which the party was shifted even further by the Alinsky generation of radicals.

          • lineholder

            What isn’t included in the definition that you posted is that most people who consider themselves to be progressives see the moral values of our fathers and grandfathers as being useless and archaic. They are more than willing to chunk that moral value system for the sake of progress, change, improvement, reform, etc. Conservatives are more inclined to appreciate and respect that moral value system.

          • leftybehind

            Thats because you are generalizing from a sampling of people who frustrate you, not necessarily able to speak for every person who is a, or considers themselves in someway, progressive.

            Progressive says nothing about morals, or should I say a change of morals. It is by the actions of a few who fit your definition that has caused you to believe there are lines inbetween the lines of the defnition.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            That’s enough working off of the dictionary definition of progressive to defend the progressive movement.

            You’re going to need more facts than that to continue in this vein.

            Mgmt.

          • leftybehind

            I will try to become more familiar with the progressive movement. I have not been familiar with their ilk before nor their origins. I always just considered it a word associated with left of center.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • leftybehind

            Progressive (adj)
            favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

            Communist (n)
            a member of the Communist party or movement.

            Marxist (n)
            an adherent of Karl Marx or his theories

            Socialism (n)
            a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

            I am sure people can be both socialist and progressive, but as a rule the two definitions are not interchangeable, nor would be any of the others.

          • Achance

            code for member of the CPUSA or known fellow traveller. They even used it to refer to themselves. Liberal had been so thoroughly demonized, and Americans, thanks to the National Extortion Association, are so thoroughly ignorant of History, they decided to try being progressives again. Some of us remember. Some of us actually read history from sources other than propaganda textbooks and leftwing professors’ reading lists.

            This is an area where I have a real quarrel with Beck in that he conflates late-ninteenth, early twentieth century statist progressives with the later incarnation.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            … but the movement was still there. FDR was a Wilsonite progressive who would have run for President sooner if his polio hadn’t slowed him up.

          • Achance

            The late 19th Century and early 20th Century “Progressives” were statists, something like GWB’s compassionate conservatives. They believed that the power of the state should be used to improve the common welfare. Even FDR was pretty much one of those except that lots of the people around him were something else altogether; outright communists.

            Like you, probably, I read Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” in high school. I also read a lot of Steinbeck, Service, London, and Hemmingway. The business of America isn’t all business. There were balances that needed to be made in industrializing America and the early Progressives sought that balance. I’m not altogether one of them, but I’m more one than not.

            The thing we’re dealing with now is a re-incarnation of the label “Progressive” to get away from the thoroughly demonized label, liberal. They’re just assuming that nobody knows their history well enough to know that by the ’30s, progressive and communist were synomyms.

          • Brian Hibbert

            I see the switch to Progressive as a means of revealing who they really are. I don’t think the lefty core ever really liked using “liberal” since the dictionary definition of THAT term really describes many of US better than it describes the people who’ve claimed that label recently. I think they’re finally becoming proud of being socialists or communists and are trying to dump all the references to liberty that “Liberal” implies.

            I’ve welcomed the switch.

            Progressive has always meant someone who intends to use the power of the state to better humanity. (And no Leftybehind, I don’t think your intent justifies the destruction caused by your efforts.)

            P.S. I hated Steinbeck. Most depressing books I’ve ever read.

          • hickorystick

            who started in the 1890′s was a Progressive. Did a damn fine job building sewers, bringing water in from the green river, building dams for electricity, and regrading the city. Ross had a hard time convincing him to create a municipal electric company, where the savings would go the the citizenry. he thought it was too close to being socialist. It worked really well, and we to this day have almost the cheapest rates in the country.
            Both Teddy Roosevelt and R H Thomson were populist progressives. Not the selfish kind that followed. They worked for the benefit of the common man. And the common man was seeing precious little of the benefit at the time. The difference between Roosevelt and those that followed, was that Roosevelt worked with the People. He would make an effort to persuade.

          • mbecker908

            Here at Redstate most of us are Progressives.

            We want progress, change and improvement of most every area of domestic governmental function. We want it shut completely down in DC and moved to the States to enact by their choice. We absolutely want reform, and that would include having a DoJ that will prosecute New Black Panthers who are harassing voters, government employees who leak top secret programs and the editors/publishers/reporters who print it.

          • lineholder

            I wish I had asked him if he had gotten his definitions from Wikipedia.

          • cwilson

            or is that truth just a little inconvenient for you?

  • nunleigh

    I give to the Smile Train every chance I get. I will pray for this small, lost life the next time I give. I hope anyone who reads this will consider checking out the website and giving if you feel the need is great. www.smiletrain.org “An international charity that provides cleft lip and cleft palate surgery to children in need, as well as providing cleft-related training to doctors.”

    • AKSteveB

      I have them as one of my monthly autopays. They do incredible work. Extremely good value for your charity dollar.

  • shelld

    http://web.mac.com/me.shell/Me_Shell_Graphics/Blog/Entries/2010/2/5_This_is_Shane.html

  • 912defender

    when, under the new health care laws, an unfortunate mother goes into labor prematurely, and gives birth to a much wanted child that will require extensive support and medical care to become a healthy infant, only to be told that it is too costly to provide this support and such support is withheld. What then?

    • leftybehind

      You will be an advocate for healthcare reform.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
        • leftybehind

          I would consider it tongue in cheek more than anything, as it is true that when a healthcare reform occurs, somewhere down the line, another will have to fix it, and so on.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        real reform. Obamacare will leave that child to die.

  • winsomlosesome

    we’ve been going down since Roe v.Wade. “Well, if it’s okay to abort a six-week fetus, then it must be okay to abort a full-term ‘fetus’. Then, as cactusjack says, comes euthanasia, as is already happening in the U.S.A.

    Sorry, Leftybehind and Kowalski, but when you stop a developing human cell or a human beating heart, no matter how miniscule, you’ve committed murder.

    Always choose life. You won’t regret it, but there are thousands of women who “chose ‘choice’ ” and will regret it to their dying day.

    • leftybehind

      A slippery slope.

      • leftybehind

        that was the term used in your title.

    • Joshua Persons

      I’m pretty sure he’s said nothing on this thread … I just don’t want him tarred with a position he hasn’t taken.

      • penguin2

        that became a description for forgetting something. I realized K. is back now, and good point that we can’t use it now. My apologies to Kowalski, and the thread. It was my error.

    • AKSteveB

      Ultrasound and neonatology in general are on the way to doing away with second trimester abortion. I’m still pro choice but hanging on it to by a thread. We’re becoming aware of earlier and earlier function and feeling.

      I still don’t see a secular answer to the question to very early abortion (note I’m Jewish, and the tradition shows some differences in how it is treated up to 40 days or so, though the overall take is definitely pro-life). Roe V. Wade needs to go, and the states need to come up with moral consensus for their population.

  • soljerblue

    it has been beyond dispute that Democrats have become the Party of Death. Ironic it is, in that the progressives and lefties who have taken over that party constantly condemn the “selfishness” of conservatives, and the free enterprise system we support. Yet, what is more selfish than the snuffing out of life for convenience’ sake? That kind of selfishness destroys the soul.

  • From ME to You

    that God will take care of that tiny soul and hold it close to His face that it may learn what love really is.

    I pray that those involved will be granted the wisdom to get on their knees and pray for forgiveness now because asking for it “on that day” because forgiveness will not be meted out, only judgement!

  • Pingback: Isaac Fegurgur

  • Pingback: Alexis Fyler

  • Pingback: Shandra Sago

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: καταστήματα φωτιστικών

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: กล้องวงจรปิด

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: wine-making

  • Pingback: stencil art

  • Pingback: vasche idromassaggio

  • Pingback: Upgrade

  • Pingback: You Can Try These Out

  • Pingback: Browse This Site

  • Pingback: Hop Over To These Guys

  • Pingback: Sneak A Peek At This Website

  • Pingback: breastactive cream

  • Pingback: Lamps for sale

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: online jobs uk

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Ronni Newbold

  • Pingback: Tequila Munkberg

  • Pingback: Minerva Stagnitto

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: http://loansandbadcredit.org

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Heide Lenoue

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: California outsourcing

  • Pingback: Scooters

  • Pingback: Obama ignores Gosnell horrors with media’s aid: Pesky babies didn’t ‘just come out limp and dead’ | Twitchy