O'Reilly says Sebelius is "pro-abortion, she wants the babies done for"
May 11, 2009 9:53 pm ET
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
It's not a baby. It's a fetus. Those on the right twist the meaning of a legal medical procedure, abortion, to pretend that babies are killed in an abortion. They aren't.
Just like they twisted the meaning of "torture" to pretend they weren't torturing suspected terrorists.
Then, top that off with the fact that no one I know who is pro-abortion wants any woman to have an abortion. We want women to have a right to have an abortion if she thinks it's the right thing to do. We don't demand any woman have an abortion. We don't cheer when they happen. We want them to be rare. It'd be a wonderful world if every pregnancy were desired and healthy and every woman was able to continue every pregnancy full term and give birth to a healthy child.
But since that utopia will never exist, we want women who feel like they need to have an abortion to have that right. That's what being pro-abortion is. We don't want any fetus "done for". We want the women to have the right to control their own bodies.
decision? After all no competent legal scholar has ever been able to duplicate Brennan's logic. The only way to do it is to "twist the meaning" of the 14-th Amendment and a few others.
As for "torture" please point out where in US Law waterboarding is defined as torture. If waterboarding is torture, then what is life in prison? What is solitary confinement for life?
Sebelius had extensive unreported financial links with the doctor who aborted live babies as they were being born. How many people could even watch such a procedure? Some of the "patients" were underage --- so he also protected child molestors by not reporting the pregnancy. That is so disgusting that to accept money from such a fiend indicates to me she approves of the procedure.
It's hard to believe that someone who could be aware of Sibelius' "unreported" financial links would have trouble with language as plain as that.
To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war
Article 2 specifies which parties are bound, and under what circumstances.
That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered;
That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." .............
Do the people we are dealing with conform to the strictures of the convention?
Unless you are trying to say that we declared "War" on...well, a group of people with no nationality or base of operations or other means of identification? Thus giving us free reign to treat them as sub-humans (like they treat us) and shed all vestiges of civility and become like the terrorists we abhor? Are you?
Tell me, fairliberal: In this "war" we're in, what do the standard issue fatigues of the enemy look like?
The issue isn't that liberals want "the babies done for..." that's disingenuous.
It's about the government NOT telling an individual what they can or can't do with their body.
In essence this is more about limiting the governments role in our most personal aspects of life.You would think that Republicans would be FOR pro-choice rather than vehemently babbling on,and on about expanding the governments role in the private affairs of it's citizens.
Notice how Alan Keyes & Fox News are saying the same about Obama and exploiting that for his Notre Dame speech.
This is another strawman argument: if you do not outright BAN abortion, then you are FOR abortion in these teenie, tiny, little brains of theirs.
Nevermind that the majority of Americans regularly poll in support of free choice and that the Supreme Court upholds this right.