The Porters and Abortion

May 25, 2010 15:18 pm

by Ron Daniels · 105 comments

When Dubose Porter let slip that he was pro-life this past weekend, many of us expected his wife – Carol who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor – to have a different stance. While some might have predicted Mrs. Porter to lean to the left, her response to the AJC was more nuanced than a simple “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice.”

In her response to the AJC, Porter sent a lengthy email:

The question politicians really need to be asked is not, “Are you pro-life or pro-choice,” but instead, “will you work to reduce abortions?” My answer is yes, but if you have to give me a label you will have to call me pro-Georgian.

She went on to quip:

In Georgia, the label “pro-life” has become among politicians a label used not to decrease abortions, but to increase votes. Take for instance this past session: the elected Republican leadership let a “pro-life” bill, SB 529, pass the Senate but only with a backroom agreement it would not make it to the floor of the House for a vote.

The AJC has the full response. If Porter continues to stay away from the far left, she may have a reasonable shot at dethroning Cagle.

Wiley May 25, 2010 at 3:22 pm

“If Porter continues to stay away from the far left, she may have a reasonable shot at dethroning Cagle.”

A woman with no experience now has a “reasonable” shot at beating an incumbent because she can’t take a simple policy stance?

iamnotasocialist May 25, 2010 at 3:27 pm

I refer you to Mr. Cagle’s theme song, entitled “Pants on the Ground.”

galiberal May 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Hey Hey!

I call dibbs on POTG since someone from my blog made it!

:)

galiberal May 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Sorry, dibbs on the video*

Ronald Daniels May 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Will you start posting “Hey Porter” videos with Johnny Cash singing with Dubose Porter posts? That might help him in the polls too.

Mayonnaise May 25, 2010 at 3:22 pm

What a coward.

edmund May 25, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Reasonable shot at dethroning Cagle?! Is this the kind of bizarre analysis we can expect in the future from Peach Pundit’s newest front page poster?

Ryan May 25, 2010 at 10:54 pm

Frankly I believe that give the nature of the Ga legislature and its problems with ethics, I think that any candidate who can at least on the surface appear to be a uniting figure with minimum ethics questions stands a reasonable shot. Porter’s answer to the AJC question shows that regardless of political experience, she obviously has some sense in answering questions without really answering the question.

edmund May 26, 2010 at 10:01 am

I agree, her answer was spoken like a true politician trying to have it both ways.

macho May 25, 2010 at 3:45 pm

It’s interesting to watch both of them flub through this question as if it were never anticipated. As far as Duboise, I don’t think he has a chance either way, but may have actually increased his primary percentage by being Pro-Life. I’m just going to take a wild guess and say 10-15% of GA Democrats are Pro-Life. Before the comment, Duboise might have gotten 5% of the vote, now that he’s identified as Pro-Life, he might capture more of the Pro-Life Democrats and get 10% or more of the Democrat vote.

Mad Dog May 26, 2010 at 10:15 am

I think some people are freaken mad that Porter spoke truth to power. The power being the Red as in Red State.

In the 37 years since Roe v. Wade, the GOP has collected power and votes with the “Pro-Life” mantra. Mantras make ya feel good but the GOP leaders did freaken nothing to actually change Roe v. Wade.

Some of the Pro-Lifers tell me how many years did the GOP control the White House since Roe? How many years the Senate or the House? How many years the Senate, the House, and the Presidency?

So where is the signature legislation from the GOP national caucus on stopping abortion?

Pro-Life sounds … so … soo … 70’s

ByteMe May 26, 2010 at 10:18 am

Ssshhhh…. there are still true believers out here who think that if they can just get one more person into power who claims to believe like they do that they’ll finally be able to realize their dream of a land where all babies are wanted… or all recreational sex is not wanted… one of the two.

Reality-challenged puppets.

Doug Grammer May 26, 2010 at 10:26 am

That sounds like a job for the SCOTUS. It depends on who is a member of the SCOTUS to get the rulings one may want.

Mad Dog May 26, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Doug,

Got your horse’s ass behind the cart?

SCOTUS can’t write legislation or amendments to the Constitution.

Even though the radical and angry GOP says so.

Doug Grammer May 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm

No they can’t, but they can interpret the constitution. Any other easy civics questions I can answer for you?

Mad Dog May 26, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Doug,

The SCOTUS can’t interpret the Constitution until an issue comes before it.

Would you like to try Double Jeopardy?

Doug Grammer May 26, 2010 at 4:20 pm

That is true and cases are turned down all the time. Double Jeopardy is either a game on TV or it means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. It has nothing to do with if the SCOTUS wants to hear a similar case to Roe v. Wade and focus on different issues, such as does the baby have a right to life before it is born, i.e. third trimester abortions.

Ronald Daniels May 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Double Jeopardy is a segment on the popular game show, Jeopardy – not a show in and of itself.

But SCOTUS can certainly hear another case in regard to abortion and rule as they see fit. I don’t know what Mad Dog is going on about really. Other than that the GOP has turned this issue into a vote grabber, rather than a moral issue. And that it’d be easier to legislate it away than to rely on SCOTUS.

iamnotasocialist May 26, 2010 at 4:40 pm

Ronald is correct. We all expect an apology from you, Doug. You’re just being ignorant.

Doug Grammer May 26, 2010 at 8:15 pm

Read my post again. “Double Jeopardy is either a game on TV or it means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.” It’s an either or statement, not both. I just watched the last half of the show, so I watched double jeopardy.

Ignorant was mad dog using the phrase double jeopardy to imply that SCOTUS could not hear another case with abortion issues.

I disagree that it would be easier to legislate it away. You won’t find the will from congress and the President to stick their necks out that far, especially this congress and President. I think it’s better for the SOCTUS to rule. It’s harder to pass a law or an amendment to overturn their decisions.

Ronald Daniels May 26, 2010 at 8:51 pm

You don’t have a Court make-up that will do what you want. So long as that is true, it will be easier to legislate away.

And Double Jeopardy is part of a game. Not a game. Don’t confuse parts with wholes. I don’t think you are ignorant though, maybe a bit biased sometimes – but I think that comes with your position.

Doug Grammer May 27, 2010 at 9:58 am

I know double jeopardy is part of the game and not the whole game, but I was talking about the legal meaning and how it was misused.

The court make up right now is not favorable. However, you think THIS congress is more favorable? I look at the big picture. 2012 presidential race followed by SCOTUS appointments. Going through SCOTUS is more of a permanent solution, unless there is a amendment push, which I don’t see happening. I haven’t looked very closely at Kagan yet, but so far, I like her less than the last appointment.

Maybe being biased helped get me my position?

Mad Dog May 27, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Doug,

LOL!

Would you like to try Double Jeopardy is a Bruce Willis line in Die Hard. LOL!

Life isn’t an ‘either or’ proposition you ignorant lout…

MD

Mad Dog May 27, 2010 at 12:28 pm

Ronald,

The ‘abortion issue’ hasn’t been ‘fixed’ by the GOP and it won’t be ‘fixed’ by the GOP.

When the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House, and the Court make up more favorable than now, no legislation was passed. No amendments to the Constitution proposed. The issue remained resolved in Roe v. Wade.

Just like Carol Porter says, “In Georgia, the label ‘pro-life’ has become among politicians a label used not to decrease abortions, but to increase votes.”

The GOP is all talk on Roe v. Wade, biased or not.

Doug Grammer May 27, 2010 at 12:43 pm

MD,

You are mistaken. There are many “either or” propositions in life. You can post on PP or not.

I can choose to be a nerd and memorize every Bruce Willis line or not. Laugh your nerdiness off.

Ignorant is not really applicable because I’ve watched the Die hard movies. Forgetful would be a better term. Lout, as in brutish and awkward? Maybe. So what? It still doesn’t keep you from being wrong.

Mad Dog May 27, 2010 at 3:08 pm

Doug,

I could post on PP under several different names. Nothing is as black and white as your ignorant mind.

Ignorant minds insist upon trying to force perceptions into a form of reality.

For example, telling someone, “You’re still wrong,” when making a non-responsive reply.

You’re ignorant and happy about it. You’re remain so as long as you insist that every answer is ‘either or,’ or ‘Yes or No.’

I do applaud your ignorance. Nothing words as well as ignorance to win a debate. Not even lying.

MD

Ronald Daniels May 27, 2010 at 3:51 pm

I don’t think you are ignorant, for what that is worth.

But what’s wrong with nerds?

Doug Grammer May 28, 2010 at 1:13 am

MD,

It doesn’t matter if you post under several names or not. You can post or decide not to; it’s an either or. You can walk out of your house and turn left or right; it’s an either or.

Apparently you don’t know the meaning of the word ignorant. Ignorant means not knowing. I’ve watched die hard so I’m not ignorant of whatever may have been said in that movie. I may have forgotten it, but I’m not stupid enough to think that everyone will remember a line from a movie.

I haven’t lied and I haven’t said EVERY answer is yes or no, black or white. If you can get your stupid mind to develop some reading comprehension, you will see that I said MANY, not EVERY, but MANY situations are either or. Apparently, you are the one who is not accurate with the truth.

There is no PP law that says I must prove you wrong. I can call you wrong at any time. You’re still wrong and you are too stupid to know the meaning of the word ignorant.

@ Ronald, I have no real problem with nerds, but I have a problem with one when he’s quoting a line that’s not very memorable and thinks that everyone will get it just because he liked it.

Mad Dog May 28, 2010 at 10:13 am

Doug,

Here’s another example of your choices to be ignorant and proud of your ignorance.

“It doesn’t matter if you post under several names or not. You can post or decide not to; it’s an either or. You can walk out of your house and turn left or right; it’s an either or.”

When I walk out of my house, I don’t have to go just right or left. I could continue going straight. Or even reverse and go back in the house.

Ignorance also covers not being educated. a general lack of knowledge, specific lack of knowledge, and not having intelligence.

Again, not an ‘either or’ …

MD

Doug Grammer May 28, 2010 at 11:10 pm

MD,

I don’t think you are trying to have meaningful dialog with me, so I think I’ll stop responding to you to help other readers of our posts to decide who is more productive with their time. Never argue with a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. I hope I haven’t annoyed you too much.

Can you walk in and out of your house at the same time? Can you go both left and right, forward and back at the same time? Life has choices, and I choose to end this on a parting comment: I think you are either ignorant of the meaning of ignorant or you choose to distort facts.

Have a great day!

benevolus May 29, 2010 at 5:58 pm

Quantum mechanics would indicate that turning right AND left both exist equally until observed or measured.
ref: Schrodingers Cat

Mad Dog June 1, 2010 at 5:35 pm

Ben,

That’s deep. Can Doug also fall in a hole while turning right, coming out of his house with his head up his ass?

And if he dies falling in the hole, will he go up to Heaven or down into Hell?

He reminds me of the joke about, “What’s the first thing you do when you fall in a lake?”

Get wet.

Another proof that nothing everything is ‘an either / or’ scenario.

MD

Doug Grammer June 1, 2010 at 6:25 pm

MD,

Decorum. EITHER state something worth responding to, OR please refrain.

Mad Dog June 2, 2010 at 11:25 am

Dougie,

Feeling childish, are you?

First you say you’re taking your ball and going home. “I choose to end this …”

Then you demostrat a lack of self control and return to demand I present you with content that you like.

Enjoy yourself. Nobody else can.

MD

Ronald Daniels May 27, 2010 at 3:49 pm

I don’t think any branch of govrnment is favorable, but as a Professor often reminded me this past semester – we deal with facts.

Conservatives are a rare breed amongst legal scholars, and a lot of the feeder court/lower federal courts are ripe with liberals. To get the SCOTUS to rule favorably for ProLife positions, we’d need a Republican President with enough Republicans in the Senate to prevent filibuster . . AND for Liberal Justices to retire. I’m guessing Sotomayer won’t retire for awhile. So that leaves you with few options. Ruthy is the best shot. Get her and Kennedy out with a strong conservative willing to rule against Stare Decisis and you’ve got what you want. But whats the chances they will wind up being Borked in confirmation?

SCOTUS isn’t elected. Our control over it’s members is always limited. Whereas we pick the President, Senate, and House. They may not have the tummy to swallow the bitter pill to get something done – but that doesn’t mean it’s not easier for them to do it.

And don’t take biased comment as an insult, I meant it in a positive light.

RuralDem May 27, 2010 at 4:24 pm

“Conservatives are a rare breed amongst legal scholars, and a lot of the feeder court/lower federal courts are ripe with liberals.”

Can you back this statement up with any statistics whatsoever?

I doubt it’s 50/50 but the way you make it sound there are few if any conservatives on the courts. Kind of far fetched.

Ronald Daniels May 27, 2010 at 4:36 pm

I can – but I didn’t mean to make it seem as if there were only liberal Judges in the lower courts. There are conversatives, they just do not represent a majority – much like in academia. I don’t mean liberal/conservative in the way of politics either, I mean in interpretation. Less Scalias and Alitos and more Bryers and Stevens. I can’t speak to their political affiliation, other than who would have appointed them – and that’s not always the best indicator.

I’ll have to dig up one of my books from Judicial Politics this weekend to get you some numbers.

Mad Dog May 28, 2010 at 10:18 am

Ron,

I’d love to check your sources on “how to judge liberal or conservative bias among the judiciary.”

No doubt some people think I make Lenin look like a Conservative.

Just a reminder that we might judge the world in black and white, seeing everything as an ‘either or,’ but the world doesn’t have to conform to our judgments or labels.

MD

jenny May 27, 2010 at 10:11 am

Amen, Mrs. Porter! The pro-life label is used as a power ploy, to increase votes, to increase power, and to manipulate christian evangelicals. Thanks to GRTL’s worthless pro-life label sold for the mere pittance of a properly completed questionaire, it is impossible to actually pass legislation that would protect women and children from abortionists through a GRTL Pro-life majority in the House, Senate and Governor’s office.

You know, I’ve always liked the Porters. At the end of the day, we don’t agree on this issue since I think that prenatal murder is just that and abortionists should be arrested immediately by county Sheriff’s, stand trial by a jury of their peers (so people who know them and have the power of jury nullification–yes, I did say that), and then let justice take its course.

The pro-life vote has cost America dearly in putting in office Messianic Statists. And as C.S. Lewis said best:

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Doug Grammer May 27, 2010 at 10:28 am

Jenny,

I’ve missed your posts.

Lady Thinker May 27, 2010 at 11:59 am

Do you believe in abortion for any reason?

Romegaguy May 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm

I just want to know if Jenny thinks Ray McBerry is a kid toucher or not

jenny May 27, 2010 at 10:36 am

Aw, thanks, Doug.

It’s nice to be back.

jenny May 27, 2010 at 12:08 pm

@Lady Thinker-

You talkin’ to me? I’m going to assume that you mean to ask, “are there any instances in which you would find abortion to be acceptable in a society that upholds the natural right to individual life and liberty?”

Absolutely. I think that we should abort domestic enemies who infringe upon the natural right of individual Life, Liberty and Property, meaning they should stand on public trial by a jury of their peers who will decide if they should be aborted.

Pre-natal murder is a violent act of aggression.

ByteMe May 27, 2010 at 12:50 pm

And yet you quoted:

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

That’d be you he’s talking about.

dj May 27, 2010 at 1:32 pm

+10

analogkid May 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Seriously. Thankfully she hasn’t obtained omnipotence yet though.

dj May 29, 2010 at 10:06 pm

Jenny also quoted the following:

“Every invasion of individual rights happens with the eager support of people acting in the sincere and thoroughly mistaken confidence that what they permit the state to do to others will never be done to them.”
William Norman Grigg

HLA won’t work…because the issue is not Black or White…

Lady Thinker May 27, 2010 at 9:08 pm

I am asking if you think there are any instances where abortions should be allowed, like the incestual rape of a ten or eleven year old by a father or grand-father, brother, uncle, cousin, etc

I agree with abortions under these conditions as well as in life of the mother cases.

You don’t need to write a book, just if you see circumstances where abortions can be justified.

dj May 27, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Jen…tell us how you really feel…

So…if your daughter was raped at age 14 by a man with mental illness and HIV positive, you would not want that option available to your daughter???

jenny May 27, 2010 at 12:53 pm

If I really hate the guy in front of me who’s driving like an idiot and jeopardizing my family’s safety, I wouldn’t want killing him to be an available option?

I would want the rapist prosecuted and aborted.

I would love and nurture my daughter through her pregnancy, not in any way discount the spiritual connection a mother and child have, and do all I could to empower my daughter to be a good mother to her baby. I also wouldn’t apologize or explain to all the self-righteous Christians around me raising their eyebrows in judgement as if I have to validate my pregnant teenager by explaining her “uncomfortable” situation as rape.

I have a friend who’s a “product” of rape. Her mother gave birth and raised her. She’s a missionary to abused and demeaned women all over the world now. How beautifully ironic.

My six children, including my two daughters, know that I am proud of them and love them no matter what, and that innocent life is to always be protected, loved and nurtured.

The most unfair thing in the world is to be conceived. You never know what you’re gonna get for parents.

dj May 27, 2010 at 1:01 pm

You realize that if your stance on “prenatal murder” was embraced by law any man could force any woman to have his child…I would see burkas in that vision as well…

Just curious, was abortion legal when your friend was conceived?

jenny May 27, 2010 at 1:46 pm

DJ- ah, yes, abortion was legal. So she’s a womb survivor.

There are women all over the planet who get pregnant because they are pressured and/or forced to get pregnant. Abortion has nothing to do with eliminating or prolonging the fact that the heart of man is desperately wicked. Who can know it?

Empowering women is a good start. Tell me, is a child the product of choice and if so, why should a man ever have to pay child support?

dj May 27, 2010 at 2:20 pm

Jen,
“Empowering women is a good start.” Again, any man could force any woman to have his child under your stance…I would not call that empowering, in fact, it’s a step back.

I don’t understand your question re a child being the product of choice and if so, why should a man ever have to pay child support. That makes no sense…it happens when it happens.

Moving on…your definition below…

Republican, n. a confused self-righteous ignoramous, who claims liberty, demands entitlements (social security, medicaid) and denounces beaners who want welfare, all while teaching Sunday School, demanding In God We Trust on godless debt based currency, strongly supporting perpetual war to keep peace, and denouncing prenatal murder while putting their women and children on “abortifacient birth control pills”

You defined a hypocrite…you want to empower women, yet take away the right to a legal abortion in ANY instance which will result in back alley abortions…you can’t be serious? I don’t know which is more cruel, the act of rape, or forcing a 13 or 14 year old child to give birth?

dj May 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Jen,
On second thought…to engage in the sexual act can be a choice, sometimes it is forced…whether or not this results in a pregancy clearly is not a choice, just ask any couple undergoing fertility treatment…

jenny May 27, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Post- abortive women undergo extreme trauma throughout their life times, and often times they grieve silently since their pregnancy was a secret, or their usual support groups (friends, family) just don’t get it, or they were coerced to abort by friends or family. I’ve received numerous calls from women years after their first abortion who are completely traumatized by viewing the sonogram for wanted babies. You cannot divorce the mother child spiritual relationship. When you rip out the baby, you have killed the mother’s spirit on some level. She will never be the same woman.

Does the abuse we endure validate extending that abuse to someone else? The baby certainly was not to blame and is in fact another victim in the scenario. Even forcing mother and baby apart after live birth through adoption is highly traumatic in most instances. The horrific abuse of unwed mothers during the 50’s and 60’s who were treated like criminals, had their babies taken from them immediately following birth, were forced to sign adoption papers and then were told to get over it and get on with their lives, these women are hurting on deep and intense levels few understand, and their families and other children often pay the price.

Also, the physical trauma of a first trimester abortion is immense. Because abortion is political and safeguarded by false definitions of freedom, does Not make it safe. The vacuum aspiration abortion machine, that which is used predominantly in first trimester abortions has never been tested on animals, can cause sterility, and other lesser complications. Furthermore, having a first trimester vacuum aspiration abortion increases your likelihood of breast cancer 4.8 times (more if you are a teenager) and increases your likelihood of preterm birth or extreme preterm birth by 3 and 4 times in subsequent pregnancies.

The care women get at Atlanta abortion facilities is not good by any means. Some clinics have a full flight of steep stairs leading to the clinic rooms, and following surgery (a very invasive surgery) these girls don’t have access to an elevator as required by regulations from DHR concerning ambulatory surgical facilities.

The value of fertility of women has been completely eroded and demeaned. Now our fertile daughters are a problem, and by age 12, 13 or 14 we’ve got them on birth control pills- pills which are abortifacient (81% of women continue to ovulate on low dose modern style pills), and radically increasing their risk of breast cancer–increased risk 10x!

Are men abusive to women in our society? Absolutely, and since the validation of pre-natal murder through the Roe v. Wade opinion, that abuse has sky rocketed. The number of women forced by boyfriends, lovers, and husbands to abort is appalling.

There is the other side as well. The father begging for the life of his child on abortion clinic lawns. Although more rare–in most instances they sullenly follow the mother of their child into the clinic–a few laudibly fight, but they have no “rights.”

My point with child support is that reducing prenatal murder to a “choice” is to say that all of us who make it out of the womb are the product of “choice.” It is dehumanizing.

Furthermore, aborted baby parts sell for high prices. Emory requires med students to do abortions, and late term aborted babies are dissected. Immunizations like the chicken pox vaccine are created using aborted fetal tissue cell lines, which thus introduce foreign human DNA into a small child triggering autoimmune disorders.

On and on and on. There’s a lot of money to be made off the dehumanizing process of human butchery. And there are a lot of devastated women in the wake.

dj May 29, 2010 at 2:25 am

Jen,
You have “gone dark” on us…what happened? Doug too…but more so you…

dj May 27, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Thank you for the thoughtful reply; however, I find it presumptious of you to feel that you can make what is a very difficult, private and personal decision on behalf of all American women. Fortunately, you can’t…That you would presume to do so is dehumanizing…

dj May 27, 2010 at 6:46 pm

Jen,
In light of your comment…

“Now our fertile daughters are a problem, and by age 12, 13 or 14 we’ve got them on birth control pills- pills which are abortifacient (81% of women continue to ovulate on low dose modern style pills), and radically increasing their risk of breast cancer–increased risk 10x!”

I suppose that you would not be in support of an IUD as alternative birth control measures as opposed to the birth control pill in that the IUD causes spontaneous abortion…

So…to “empower women” you want to eliminate access to legal abortions and, I would presume, narrow birth control measures as well…

dj May 27, 2010 at 7:30 pm

Jen,

One more…

“The care women get at Atlanta abortion facilities is not good by any means. Some clinics have a full flight of steep stairs leading to the clinic rooms, and following surgery (a very invasive surgery) these girls don’t have access to an elevator as required by regulations from DHR concerning ambulatory surgical facilities.”

It’s in no small part due to people like you…

dj May 27, 2010 at 8:45 pm

Doug Grammer,

Any comments? Just asking?

Doug Grammer May 28, 2010 at 1:24 am

Jenny is pro-life and so am I. If I had a daughter who was raped, same scenario as pitched to Jenny, my answer would be very similar to hers. Jenny is more vocal about it than I am, but I speak up when I feel it will do some good. (Jenny please forgive me for speaking on your behalf and feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

I like to focus on things that most of us will agree on: No third trimester abortions, children have to get parental consent to get an abortion, no one can be coerced to have an abortion, and so on. If at the end of the day, we have accomplished all of the things I just brought up, then we can have an easier time discussing where life begins and the right to life for the child begins.

dj May 28, 2010 at 1:43 am

Doug,

To help us better understand your position, please define “Pro-life”, based upon your comment…

“If at the end of the day, we have accomplished all of the things I just brought up, then we can have an easier time discussing where life begins and the right to life for the child begins.”

Feel free to consult with Jen…

Doug Grammer May 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm

There are only so many things that non-elected people can do to influence this debate. For my part of being pro-life as based upon my comment, I back legislators with similar values on the subject, such as Rep. Martin Scott. He is the author of the human life amendment. The GRTL has contacted several counties about a non-binding referendum in July about support of the HLA. I have talked with many of the county chairmen in my area and I think most of the counties in the northern part of the state will participate in putting this question to the public. In 2008, I think Forsyth County was the only county in the state to do so.

dj May 29, 2010 at 12:10 am

Doug Grammer,

Have you defined “Pro Life” yet, or am I just missing it? Does it take a village, or can you speak for yourself?

dj May 29, 2010 at 12:19 am

Doug Grammer,

Please do us a favor and explan Rep. Scott’s position and any conflicts it may have with my scenario as presented to you and Jenny, wherein, you agreed with her response…regarding a 14 year old rape victim’s options…

Doug Grammer May 29, 2010 at 11:31 am

DJ,

You aren’t getting it. You can look up the HLA on your own. I will have sympathy for a 14 year old who is a victim of rape, but I will also have sympathy for her unborn innocent child. I don’t sit by a computer waiting to be asked questions by you all day long. Sometimes, it may be as much as 12 hours before I reply to a question.

dj May 29, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Doug Grammer,

No worries…it’s hard to respond to a question when the posts were removed! Wonder why that happened??? LOL

Doug Grammer May 28, 2010 at 11:20 pm

While I respect Jenny, I will probably spend more time consulting with legislators than with her.

dj May 29, 2010 at 12:12 am

+1

Lady Thinker May 27, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Leaving forceful sex out of the equation like rape and incest, I think we need to educate people that it is each person’s responsibility to prevent conception if they do not want a pregnancy or if they do not want to pay child support. Education like this should lower the abortion need but too many people feel that birth control is the woman’s responsibility only. To tell people to abstain is non-productive and doesn’t always work.

dj May 28, 2010 at 2:11 am

Jen,

To your comment…

“On and on and on. There’s a lot of money to be made off the dehumanizing process of human butchery. And there are a lot of devastated women in the wake>”

Back alley abortions, …I couldn’t agree more

dj May 28, 2010 at 7:43 pm

They are back…thank you…it’s all about accountability…

dj May 29, 2010 at 9:50 pm

Correction…I don’t see Jenny’s post wherein she stated something to the effect of how “wicked” men were…what’s going on at PeachPundit with the disappearance of posts??? Looks a little like Graves facebook page! (LOL)
Icarus, it’s you, isn’t it?

ByteMe May 30, 2010 at 7:56 am

It’s above your comment here

When posts disappear, it royally screws up placement of subsequent comments in the thread, so you’ll know when that happens.

jenny May 29, 2010 at 11:22 am

DJ,

Pre-natal murder is an act of aggression against innocent life.

This is a very black and white issue. If you favor the ability to murder inconvenient people, I certainly stand by your freedom to express that.

Read Culture of Death by Wesley Smith, who by the way, is not promoting a anti-prenatal murder agenda.

~Jenny

dj May 29, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Jen,

So, if it is in fact “black and white”, abortifacient birth control pills (which can be regular birth control pills) and IUDs would be illegal under the HLA should it be incorporated, correct?

dj May 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Jen,
You never resonded to my post about what preventive birth control measures you would find acceptable? The Pro Life rhetoric sounds good, but your arguments are very weak…

Jen,
In light of your comment…

“Now our fertile daughters are a problem, and by age 12, 13 or 14 we’ve got them on birth control pills- pills which are abortifacient (81% of women continue to ovulate on low dose modern style pills), and radically increasing their risk of breast cancer–increased risk 10x!”

I suppose that you would not be in support of an IUD as alternative birth control measures as opposed to the birth control pill in that the IUD causes spontaneous abortion…

So…to “empower women” you want to eliminate access to legal abortions and, I would presume, narrow birth control measures as well

dj May 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm

Jen, (who wants to empower women)…

Black & White, really???

Your comment…
“Now our fertile daughters are a problem, and by age 12, 13 or 14 we’ve got them on birth control pills- pills which are abortifacient (81% of women continue to ovulate on low dose modern style pills), and radically increasing their risk of breast cancer–increased risk 10x.”

My comment/inquiry to you…
“I suppose that you would not be in support of an IUD as alternative birth control measures as opposed to the birth control pill in that the IUD causes spontaneous abortion…”

http://personhood.net/objections.html

“Objection: The Human Life Amendment would outlaw contraception.
Response: This is absolutely false. Abortion is the taking of life while genuine contraception is the prevention of life. The Human Life Amendment would not restrict contraception in any way. The Human Life Amendment does no more than guarantee the rights of personhood once life has begun.”

Lady Thinker May 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm

Here is a problem with birth control, most juveniles and young kids don’t use them and why should they? Many of these children are innocents targeted by pedophiles and sex offenders. The youngest pregnant child I ever saw was ten and the perpatrator was her grand-father.

I would not want a young daughter taking meds to keep her from getting pregnant if I had a young daughter but you can bet your bottom dollar I would approve of an abortion if she were raped. That is the good thing, in my opinion, for having the “morning after” pill and for girls being able to take gardasil injections for the prevention of some of the reproductive cancers in the event they are raped. We give vaccines for childhood diseases and I see no problem giving cancer vaccines.

As for my son, I taught him from his early teens on that if he did not want to pay child support after a night of ‘fun’ that he needed to make conception prevention his responsibility. Thankfully, he took my advice.

dj May 29, 2010 at 10:53 pm

I would request that all PeachPundit posters that are on the ballot to reply as to if this 10 year old referenced in Lady Thinker’s post should be entitled to have an option for a legal abortion…don’t worry, if your answer is incriminating to your campaign, it will be “redacted” from the PP…

Who has the courage to respond???

dj May 30, 2010 at 8:49 pm

DJ spin zone

Madonna – Get into the Groove…

dj May 30, 2010 at 9:42 pm

Doug Grammer,
Please answer the question…

dj May 30, 2010 at 10:00 pm

Buzz,

Your answer would be most appreciated as well…don’t be afraid to respond…have courage…you want to be a public servant…pick a flag, take a stand…in honor of all those that have served us so bravely in the US Military…Happy Memorial Day!

dj May 31, 2010 at 1:26 am

Doug Grammer,

You too…don’t worry, you won’t risk life or limb, just answer the question…Happy Memorial Day!

And thank goodess that braver men than those that are currently on the ballot have heretofore defended our rights to freedom…

dj May 31, 2010 at 9:16 pm

Jen/ Doug Grammer,

Awaiting your reply…

Would the HLA, as stated, preclude birth control pills and IUDs as “legal” birth control options?

Don’t be afraid to respond…

dj May 31, 2010 at 9:17 pm

Buzz,

Your response is requested as well…

Doug Grammer May 31, 2010 at 11:00 pm

DJ,

You remind me of my three year old niece, saying “play with me?” repeatedly. When I feel like making additional comments, I will. My job in life is not to entertain you or answer your questions. Have you had trouble finding the HLA?

dj June 1, 2010 at 5:04 pm

Doug Grammer,

Once again, the question to you is as follows:

Would the HLA preclude the options of birth control pills and/or IUDs as legal options for birth control?

I understand that your preference would be to insult me rather than answer the question…I think your self allocated 12 hours to respond has passed…if you need longer to contemplate the answer, please advise. Or perhaps your preference is to ignore it?

Thanks

Doug Grammer June 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm

I’m ignoring you more than the question. If someone else asks, perhaps I’ll answer it.

dj June 2, 2010 at 11:08 am

Doug Grammer,

So…I am surprised at how easily you can be intimidated, and/or outsmarted…actually, it is no surprise at all…

Icarus June 2, 2010 at 11:35 am

Dj,

You’re contributing little here, though in high volumes.

If you wish to keep posting, back off of Doug.

dj June 2, 2010 at 11:47 am

Icarus,
I was merely looking for an answer…I understand that it is a difficult question…that no one wants to answer for obvious reasons…

dj May 29, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Jenny,

Please define hypocrite for us again…(LOL)!

jenny May 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm

DJ-
I kinda get the impression that you feel a need to justify your position to me. Are you uncomfortable with legitimizing the murder of inconvenient people by an appeal to emation?
Yawn. This conversation was over awhile ago, but feel free to continue lashing out in an effort to convince yourself.
:-) That said, I definitely support Sunday Sales of Alcohol, cuz if you can kill your kid on Saturday, yer gonna need a drink on Sunday.

jenny May 30, 2010 at 2:30 pm

My bad on the spelling error with emotion. Oops. Am typing in the car while driving since that wasn’t covered in the Messianic Statist texting bill and the glare from the sun makes seeing the screen difficult.

dj May 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Jen,

Do those children in the cars on the road with you a favor and stop texting while driving…
In addition to winning the debate…I exposed you for the hypocrite that you are…

dj May 30, 2010 at 3:08 pm

Jen,

I won the debate…get over it…

Doug Grammer May 30, 2010 at 5:53 pm

Uh, no you didn’t. You said what you had to say and she said what she had to say. If you brought her over to your side, you won. If she let you like a kid in the eleventh grade by you calling her a hypocrite when she’s not, she won.

Dash Riptide May 30, 2010 at 7:09 pm

If either of them “won” an abortion debate, it’s an historic event. Alert the media.

dj May 30, 2010 at 8:38 pm

I did…alert the press!!!

dj May 30, 2010 at 8:38 pm

One more…or get off the ballot! (LOL)!

dj May 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm

Doug Grammer,

Let’s tango…if you dare…

dj May 30, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Doug Grammer,

Highschool Debate 101…it’s not if you bring the other “side” to your side, it is who wins the most points…get it???

dj May 30, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Doug Grammer,

Seriously…you don’t know when to quit! Answer the question already, or get out of town!!!

Comments on this entry are closed.