Since I got my wisdom teeth taken out on Monday, I've had ample amounts of time to do absolutely everything, which gets kind of boring after a while.
Here are some things I've been doing/gadgets I've been drooling over/websites I've been frequenting (hopefully you can kill as much or more time than I have):
threadless.com . Coolest t-shirts ever. If anyone wants to buy me one you can have a digital cookie.
nystic.com . Great website with some awesome people who are willing to help you with hardware, software and the like or just to chat about life and music.
Macbook. If you just go look at apple.com you will soon see why they are so freaking amazing. What makes it even better is that it can run Windows better than computers made to run Windows can run Windows. I mean just look at this video of Smackbook. It's like the sweetest thing ever.
stuffwhitepeoplelike.com . It's good for a whole lot of laughs, if you are a white person reading it, you can laugh at all the lame things you do that are stereotypically white people things, and if you are not white, I encourage you to have a non-racist laugh about the weird ways of the white.
Dinosaurs or humans. The age old debate. Which would be more desirable in terms of ruling everything around you? Wait, stop, hold it. Before you answer that question, I want you to know a few things. First off, dinosaurs are absolutely ginormous. Think of how much space they would take up, how much land they would destroy, how much they would eat, how much they would drink etc. I mean, lets imagine 100 dinosaurs at Lake Lanier. They would drink all the freaking water. What would we drink? How would we shower? These questions are overwhelming me.
As you know, dinosaurs can be divided into two groups, herbivorous and carnivorous, respectively. You may think there would be no danger in herbivorous dinosaurs, because they wouldn't eat us, but think again. They would eat all the trees. All of them. There would be ridiculous amounts of carbon dioxide polluting our atmosphere. I know what you're thinking, "well, lots of trees are being cut down already, so the carbon dioxide level would be the same regardless." No, it wouldn't. You know why? Because /humans/ aren't /greedy/ like /dinosaurs/ and don't have a need to use /all/ of the trees. Besides, humans are cutting down trees so cows and horsies and all the "kyute wittle farm aminals" have a place to live. Dinosaurs would eat all the trees, then their carnivorous cousins would eat all the cows and horsies as well. We would be left with nothing. NOTHING!
If you were a carnivorous dinosaur, what would you eat? The most helpless thing around, AKA babies. I mean there is nothing more appealing to a dinosaur than a nice, juicy baby. Come on, they just sit there and cry, and then a huge dinosaur comes in and CHOMP it's gone. The dinosaur gets fed, and the human population gets wiped out. Wonderful. It's not like humans kill babies or anything like that. That's such a ridiculous notion. You love babies, right? I know I do.
After all of this, I find humans a much more suitable ruler for the earth than dinosaurs. Why? Dinosaurs are greedy and don't think about helping others. They destroy trees and humiliate animals. They don't care about babies or clean water. In fact, they really are oblivious to anyone's needs but their own. I'm glad humans aren't like that.
Here's the recipe:
absolutely needed ingredients:
- 1 cup brown sugar
- 2 cups regular sugar
- 1/2 cup butter
- 1 egg, not beaten
- 4 cups flour
- 1 teaspoon baking powder
- 1/2 tablespoon salt
- 1 cup milk
2. Add egg, flour, milk, baking powder and salt and mix with a wooden spoon/spatula.
3. Chill dough in freezer for 1 and 1/2 to 2 hours.
4. Preheat oven to 400 degrees Fahrenheit.
5. Make the dough into balls and evenly space upon the cookie sheet.
6. Cook for 13 -15 minutes or until you think they are done. But that time works :D
7. Put aside to cool. Decorate if you want.
Other things you could add between step 2 and 3:
try this and tell me how it turns out
Can anyone here do vocals? I just started recently, and my throat is bleeding A LOT.
But I discovered today that if you eat packets of sugar after you scream it will make your throat feel a lot better. It's a lot better than liquids, because it won't destroy electrical equipment for music if it spills.
What I'm doing is filling a plastic bag with sugar, cutting a hole in the bottom, and covering said hole with duct tape. When I need sugar, I can peel back the tape and get some throat sooth-age. Yes.
Any suggestions on solutions to throat pain and how to keep your vocal cords healthy? I wanna be able to sing still when I get old. Not metal of course. Old people singing metal would be really weird.
Here's an excerpt from their Wikipedia article:
"Thriving Ivory is a five-member American rock band from Santa Barbara, California. They released their self-titled Wind-up Records debut album on June 24, 2008 and are currently featured on VH1's You Oughta Know, which showcases artists on the rise. The debut album hit #42 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart.
The band has also been chosen for the current run of Yahoo! Music: Who's Next? User's Choice Competition.  They are up against 3 other artists, including We The Kings, Shwayze, and Mandi Perkins. The contest launched August 14, 2008."
Basically, I would describe them as like piano-infused indie rock. Clayton has a very nice, unique voice, and it sounds totally different from 90% of the bands playing the same type of music. So, check them out, tell me what you think. Post a comment. What are some of your favourite obscure bands?
aaaaaaaaaaaand QUIZ TIME!! woot woot
ok so basically what you do is you look at the question, type your answer in the search box on photobucket, and paste the link/pic of the first picture that comes up or any on the first page of results. Here we gooooooooo.
1. What is your name?
2. Where do you live?
3. Favourite food?
4. Favourite colour?
5. Favourite game?
6. Farthest you've been from home?
7. Best candy?
8. Best dressed male politician?
9. Coolest instrument?
10. What are you afraid of?
11. Favourite word (non expletive)?
12. Least favourite word?
13. Favourite restaurant?
14. Activity you want to do?
15. What do you do when your extremely bored?
16. Are you weird?
17. If yes to the previous question, why?
The end. I would love to see your answers. Comment please.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
The first premise is supplemented by the following acronym
Second law of thermodynamics
Universe is expanding
Great galaxy seeds
End of infinite time
The purpose of SURGE is to prove that the universe had to have begun, that it is not eternal.
The Second law of thermodynamics says that "Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy."
This means that all of the energy in the universe will gradually decrease. So, if the universe were infinite than all of the usable energy would have already been used because an infinite amount of time would have passed before now.
The Universe is expanding essentially means that when looking at the universe, it can be ascertained that the universe is moving outwards, away from a central point, but not only that but at farther away points it is moving slower.
For example, think of a bomb explosion. Once the bomb explodes the materials move away from the blast epicenter, and as they travel farther away, they move slower than they did when at the beginning of the blast.
This therefore means that the universe was "banged" into existence, that it started from one point and is now moving from that point, whereas an infinite universe would be sedentary.
The Radiation Echo is a rather recent discovery which was that all of the planets in our solar system are coated in a film of radiation, a layer of heat above 0 in the form of a radiation. This heat proves a radiation, because all of space is w/o friction, and w/o heat, therefore all the planets would be free of that heat.
Imagine that explosion again, after the explosion occurs and you touch the bits and pieces that came off the bomb, there is a residual heat.
Once again proving that the universe "banged" into existence, and has not just been for eternity.
The Great Galaxy Seeds is what scientists looked for after finding radiation echo. If there was indeed a residual heat that the universe "banged" from, there would also need to be a "ripple" effect that the blast created, slight variations in the radiation heat that rippled from the explosion.
Instead of thinking of the bomb explosion again, think of a rock dropped in a pond, it creates ripples in the water. This same principal holds true of explosions.
Low and behold, the scientists found (via the "COBE" sattelite) these very ripples in the universe, once more proving that the universe "banged" into existance.
The End of Infinite Time is a deep philosophical concept that i can just barely get my head around when explained to me by someone with a graduate degree in philosophy, so bare with me.
"1.An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
3.Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events."
The first of these premises is backed by the example of the infinite hotel (hilbert's paradox).
Imagine, a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms and a universe with an infinite population.
If one person comes to the hotel and asks for a room, while the hotel is occupied by an infinite amount of people, how does the hotel manager find the new customer a room? He moves every current customer down one room, so: Infinity-Infinity=1
Next, imagine if an infinite amount of people showed up to get rooms while the hotel was occupied by an infinite number of people, while an infinte number of people are checking out. How does the hotel manager fix this problem? He makes everyone in odd numbered rooms check out, and gives the infinite number of new guests a room in one of the odd rooms, while never moving those in even numbered rooms. Therefore: Infinity-Infinity=Infinity
Finally, imagine that the hotel has to shut down due to a major maintanence problem. So rather easily, the hotel manager asks everyone in the hotel to leave: Infinity-Infinity=0
We now have the following logical conclusions for how an actual infinity works.
Clearly we have a logical fallacy...
Premise 2 is easy to support, in saying that, an actual infinity would be that which does not have a begining, but merely existed.
Since an actual infinity can't exist, and the saying that the universe had no beginning implies that it is an actual infinity, we must therefore assume that universe can not be eternal.
Now I have proved in more than one way that the universe is not eternal and had to have begun-Premise 2, that coupled with premise 1, that all things that have begun had a cause, I can conclude that
THE UNIVERSE HAS TO HAVE A CAUSE
Whether you believe that the earth was created in 7 days or evolved, the universe had to have begun via a creator(since matter can't create itself...), Deism or Theism-Take your pick :)
If you do that, it's gonna be gone. I'll remember to listen to her next time I'm saving a 10 page paper.
first off, it's silly to think that the law cannot tell us what we can't do with our bodies. we can't put certain drugs in them or sell ourselves for sex. second, this statement totally ignores the fact that the unborn are completely separate individuals from the mother. how can someone have two heartbeats, two different blood types, two sets of DNA? and, if the unborn is a male, how can a woman have a male part of her body? yes, the unborn need their mother for nutrition and saftey, but that does not make them any more a part of her body than some food she swallows is a part of her body.
to refute this statement, i'll tell a story about a little boy who had surgery for spina bifida before he was even born. at the end of the surgery, the baby reached out of the uterus and grabbed the doctor's finger. my question is this... who grabbed the doctor's finger? (full story: http://joseromia.tripod.co
2) "what if she was raped?"
1% of all abortions performed annually are due to rape/incest. althought this is an extremely small number, this situation must be approached with great compassion, because the victim has already been through one violent act. why would we subject her to another, that of killing her own child? two wrongs do not make a right, and abortion will not alleviate the trauma of the rape. the victim needs love and care, and both she and her unborn child deserve better than abortion.
3) "you can't impose your morality on others."
using that logic, should we release all the rapists and murderers from prison to go free on the streets and allow them to do as they please, because we "cannot impose our morality on them?" of course not. if you saw someone beating a child bloody on a playground, would you not try to stop it? even if that's imposing your views on others?
we do not need to be given the right to speak up for the voiceless.
4) "you're all just a bunch of self-righteous jesus freaks."
not all pro-lifers are religious, but one doesn't have to be to have a sense of morality and know that killing a defenseless human being is wrong. simply because many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs doesn't mean abortion a religious issue. (the civil rights movement was sometimes led by pastors and led in churches, but that doesn't mean civil rights is a religious issue). besides, if we start rejecting laws just because they are supported by religion, since that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have get rid of all of our laws.
5) "it has nothing to do with you. stay out of other people's privacy."
if everyone were to follow this idea, then we would not have any security in our nation at all. if everyone just "stayed out of people's privacy," children would be molested, women would be raped in their homes, and people would kill each other and no one could do anything to stop it. we would have no security, no police force, nothing. should we stay out of someone's privacy' when they film child pornography in their basement? should we stay out of a man's 'privacy' as he beats his wife in their bedroom? should we stay out of a woman's 'privacy' as she goes to have her child intentionally torn limb from limb?
6) "if it is illegal, then women will die in illegal abortions."
abortion advocates are flat-out lying when saying thousands of women died each year from illegal abortions and their own research proves it: in 1986, the AGI (alan guttmacher institute, the research arm of planned parenthood) gave proof that shows in the fifteen years before abortion was legal, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in america was 136 per year and falling.
remember: pro-lifers don't perform abortions. if we made abortion illegal right now, and illegal abortionists came about in the next few days, each one of them would be pro-choice. think about it: any woman that ever died or was hurt during an abortion, legal or not, it was because of someone who was pro-choice.
basically, the abortion industry tells us, "if you make abortion illegal, women will end up dying because of it." but what in reality they're saying, "if you make it illegal for us to kill babies, then we'll start killing women."
7) "it's not a human because _______."
this is when people start making up their own definitions of what a human is in order to dehuminize the unborn. science undoubtely proves that at the moment of conception, a new human being is formed, with 46 human chromosomes and human DNA. at that moment, everything about that new human being is determined: gender, hair color, eye color, metabolism, whether they will be right-handed or left-handed, etc.
the definition of "human (noun)" and "human being" are interchangeable. wherever you look, you will see that when either is defined, the other is one of the definitions. in order to be a human being, biologically speaking, one must be a member of the genus homo sapiens, which the unborn are.
8a) "it's not a person."
according to the law, no. but if the law suddenly decided that those under age one are not considered persons, would you be morally comfortable killing them too?
8b) "well, it's not a LEGAL person so they shouldn't have more rights than the woman."
we are not advocating that the unborn have more rights than the mother. we are advocating that their rights are equal. if america was killing off women by the millions so kids could live the way they wanted, the pro-life movement would fight just as much to end that mass slaughter as well.
everyone has the right to live how they want, but they can't kill others in order to do so. when we say someone can't shoot someone in order to get money to buy a house, it's not to say he has doesn't have a right to buy a house or that he has fewer rights his victim; we're saying that someon's right to life is of higher value than someone else’s right to buy a house.
this idea also applies to abortion. the abortion industry’s own data shows that at least 93% of abortions are done for non-health issue reasons on a totaly healthy baby and a totally healthy woman who just doesn't want to be pregnant or have a baby, which shows that the abortion conlfict is between the unborn's right to life and a woman's wanting to not to be pregnant, and even though that desire may be rational, she can't be allowed kill for it.
another 6% are performed due to deformalities or disabilities of the unborn baby, which makes over 98% of abortions done solely out of convenience.
9) "the fetuses are parasites and a woman doesn't have to be a fetal incubator if she doesn't want it." (this one is for you, cameron johnson.)
parasites are something of a different species than the host. since both the woman and the unborn are members of the genus homo sapiens, they are both human beings, and therefore of the same species. also, during pregnancy, a woman's body goes through changes to deliberately provide nutrients and protect her baby. this does not happen with a parasite.
when a woman decides to engage in sexual activity, she risks pregnancy, even if she uses birth control. an innocent human being should not have to pay with his/her blood because someone's birth control failed. if one is ready for sexual activity, one must be ready to handle the consequences of their actions.
the pro-choice thought is that if people are "acting responsibly," they should not have any consequences. but even if people "act responsible" when driving their cars can still have accidents, and are still responsible for any damage they cause. in the case of engaging in sex, "acting responsibly" is more than using birth control to avoid pregnancy. it's also accepting (before having sex) that the woman may become pregnant, and abortion is about allowing people evade this part of responsibility at the expense of a child's life.
10a) "no one knows when life begins."
this means you are acknowledging the fact that it very well could be at the moment of conception, yet since they are unsure, it should be an accetable practice to destroy them. this is like sentencing someone to death before it's proven whether they are innocent or guilty. ridiculous, isn't it?
10b) "i don't think life begins until ________."
thing is, it doesn't matter when you think life begins. science proves it begins at conception. no scientific, biological, or medical text reference states that life begins at any other point. besides, pure logic demands it. life cannot come from non-life. if, at the moment of conception, the unborn are not, at least, alive, how is it that from that moment they are able to grow and develop?
11) "the fetuses aren't sentient. they don't feel anything. they don't care."
would it be acceptable to kill people in their sleep, then? or if someone you don't like very much is unconscious, is it ok to kill them? how about someone who is paralzyed? whether one can feel when they are being killed or not does not mean it's ok to kill them.
besides, if any of the pro-choicers took a little initiative and researched fetal development, they'd realize that nerves are developing by the eighth week, possibly even earlier. if touched, an 8-wk-old unborn human being will respond to the touch; they will move away from the stimuli; they will grasp an object placed in the hand.
and during an abortion, they will thrash around in a pathetic attempt to escape the sharp object that is ripping them apart.
12) "it's a legal right. it's about giving women a choice."
just because something is a legal right doesn't make it right. this is merely implying that the issue here isn't abortion. it's "chioce", and that is saying that what is being "chosen" really does not matter.
this is completely illogical, because we know that not all choices are equal. choosing what house to buy, or what color car to purchase, is entirely different than choosing whether to produce child porn. pro-choices think intentionally killing an innocent unborn human being perfectly fine, simply by choosing to have one.
13) "abortion isn't about convenience. a woman only gets one if she really needs to."
not only is this statement a lie, but planned parenthood's own research arm, the allen guttmacher institute, proves that 93% of abortions are done because of convenience (ie, the mother is single, the child would interfere with plans, the mother doesn't want (more) kids, etc), 6% are due to deformalities with the unborn/health of the mother, and 1% are because of rape. ("underlying reasons for abortion" http://www.guttmacher.org/
14) "if abortion is murder then masturbation is genocide!!"
whoever said this either does not know the definition of genocide or needs to go back to middle school and pick up a bio book. life begins at conception. not before, not after. we established this earlier.
abortion is genocide. what you do with your sperm... whatever. 23 chromosomes. not a human being.
15) "don't like abortion? then don't have one!"
typical pro-choice arrogance from those who realize they can't defend their stance on abortion!
of course, abortion can't be defended on its own twisted merits anyway, so the fact that many restort to this pathetic statement is quite understandable.
I just want to say that Barack Obama is probably the least Christian "Christian" politician I have ever seen. Why?
He is 100% approved by planned parenthood.
and why is that bad you might ask? Look at this: http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionfailure/a/aboutabortion.htm (don't worry, I'll spare you those gruesome pictures)
all of the reasons women listed for getting an abortion can be remedied by this thing called adoption.
and his church is pretty much racist. Replace the word black with white and everyone would agree to that.
Just wondering was your decision about race or what you actually believe?
If a hobo who is on welfare makes 0 dollars, and a teacher not on welfare makes 38,000 dollars annually are in this situation, the hobo will make more money. After Obama has the government take 15,000 from the teacher, and more money on taxes, the teacher will be left with almost nothing and the hobo will be spending the teacher's money, presumably on alcohol.
My solution: let's all become hobos and then we'll be rollin in the dough. Comments?
because my sarcasm comes out at din din.
Ok so, my daddy was all, "Do you have to stay after school tomorrow? Cause I have two webinars (Interwebs + Seminar) to go to."
and I was all, "wtf is a webinar? People think of the weirdest combination words. Like 'vlog.'"
and then my dad was all "So Randy put some of the questions in the iPod forecast."
(in case you didn't know, Randy is the pastor of my church, and the questions are for the series his doing)
and I was all, "today on the iPod forecast we have a great chance of some precipitation, mainly in the form of mpeg4's."
EDIT: I just choked on water. Awesome.
Ok so in all honesty, I'm terrified of what is happening to this country. Pretty much everyone who can vote is voting for the lesser of two evils, which is either Obama or McCain. I mean they're both not that great. I really don't like either one, and I tend to be more conservative. The only people worth voting for are either Stephen Colbert or Bob Barr. So if I could vote, I would vote for Bob Barr. Then he would have three votes. Me, Root, and himself.
I think one of the biggest deals for me is the abortion issue. What I am seeing in liberals, is the argument that it is just one issue out of many. That is true, but with life being reduced to "ball of flesh" status, there is no point in caring about any other issues, like healthcare. If you don't care about life before birth, why should a person care about life in any other stage?
Here is Barr's stance on abortion taken from http://ontheissues.org:
Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt.
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.
The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
Q: Could you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on Roe v. Wade?
No litmus test; nominate to Court based on their fairness
McCAIN: I would never, and have never in all the years I've been there, imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the Court. That's not appropriate to do.
OBAMA: Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people. And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe vs. Wade probably hangs in the balance. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.
As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship. But an unsigned--and previously unattributed-- 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama's views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.
1990: Wrote law article that that fetus cannot sue mother
The six-page summary considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.
Obama's article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libr
Obama, who favors a legal right to abortion, noted that he was trying to "reduce the number of abortions." But he went too far when he falsely accused President Bush of failing to meet that same goal, saying incorrectly that "over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."
FactCheck: Abortions HAVE gone down under Pres. Bush
This is an erroneous claim that we first tracked down and debunked more than three years ago when it was being repeated by Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, among others.
The Guttmacher Institute, whose figures are cited regularly by both sides in the abortion debate, say on their Web site, "In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million abortions in 2000."
There's little to show the decline has come about because of anything President Bush did or didn't do. In fact, the number of abortions in the U.S. has been falling steadily since the 1980s regardless of whether the person in the White House favored a legal right to abortion or opposed it.
On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.
Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion
Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.
As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.
Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?
We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life
A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..
- There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
- People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.
Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
Undecided on whether life begins at conception
A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
We've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.
Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception
But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.
And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.
We're not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.
"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."
GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy
--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.
The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.
The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.
AT A GLANCE
Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy
- Reproductive Choice: Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving a women's right to choose under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. Obama also supports expanded access to contraception, health information and preventive services to reduce unintended pregnancies.
- Protecting a Women's Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
- Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.
- Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women's right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007
- 2007: 100 percent
- 2006: 100 percent
- 2005: 100 percent
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".
Voted against banning partial birth abortion
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases
- Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
- Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
- Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
- Ensure Ethical Standards
Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.
When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.
Q: [to Keyes]: Doesn't your pro-life stance conflict with your support of the death penaty?
Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive
KEYES: It doesn't conflict at all. Abortion and capital punishment are at different level of moral concern. Abortion is intrinsically, objectively wrong and sinful whereas capital punishment is a matter of judgment, which is not in and of itself a violation of moral right. The question of whether or not you should apply capital punishment depends on circumstances and it's an area where Catholics have a right to debate and disagree.
OBAMA: Now I agree with Mr. Keyes that the death penalty and abortion are separate cases. It's unfortunate that with the death penalty Mr. Keyes respects that people may have a different point of view but with the issue of abortion he has labeled people everything as terrorists to slaveholders to being consistent with Nazism for holding an opposing point of view. That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in resolving a deeply emotional subject.
State Senator Barack Obama today called for passage of the Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act (HB 3589), which will permit embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. The bill, formerly known as the Stem Cell Research Act, was recently renamed to honor the memory of former President Ronald Reagan.
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill
The Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act specifically permits embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. Today, more than 100 million Americans are afflicted by medical problems [which could be affected by this research]. Obama says, "This bill affects diseases that attack Americans - regardless of their gender, age, economic status, ethnicity, race or political affiliation. This is about a commitment to medical research, under strict federal guidelines. I call on leaders in Illinois and President Bush in Washington to stop playing politics on this critical issue and expand the current policy on embryonic stem cell research so that we can begin finding the cures of tomorrow today."
For almost a decade, Obama has been a leader in the Illinois legislature in the battle to protect a woman's right to choose and promote equal economic rights and opportunities.
Protect a woman's right to choose
Yeah I know that was long, so I'm not going to write any more, but I'd appreciate some comments. Thanks.