Jordan Independent - Cruel DFLers? - Comments

Have you noticed that, when

bigbobbob — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:07:14 -0500

Have you noticed that, when when our Washington 'Finest' are called upon to testify before Congress with their 'right hand raised' they, not infrequently, have selective memory loss. This was especially noticeable when Congress called upon the man who holds the scales of justice in his other hand.

Forget about abortion for a

adman — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:10:52 -0500

Forget about abortion for a moment. I'm amazed that "slash in half funding" for anything could even come out of the mouth of a democrat.

Douglas E. Nachbar on

Doug Nachbar — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:39:11 -0500

Douglas E. Nachbar on Cruelty, Questions, and Editorial Protocol

A better question than ". . .should the editor of the paper be posting a press release from the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life?" is whether the editor should be posting anything in this forum or the paper from an anonymous source.

Tom Dubbe has had the stones to lift up the rug under which 20 years of ineptitude, incompetence, abuse, denial, shame, and nightmares have been swept in poor attempts at secrecy AND to associate that abuse with the ultimate abuse of the most vulnerable among us—"the in-the-womb child." The cure for Evil, and how to prevent the heinous and barbaric consequence of poor choices, is the exposure to the light of truth and the affirmation in all cases of "First, life. . . ." Just look at the pictures. They remind me of the pictures I saw at Dachau of another holocaust that is still denied by some. Dubbe's courage and conviction need to be lauded and copied, not closeted or condemned.

A question for the editor

writers bloc — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:56:34 -0500

A question for the editor and readers:

I realize that abortion is an incredibly emotional issue, and more often than not, it appears that people have strong opinions about it that are not likely to be swayed. Still, I think discussion of such topics in forums like this one are, by and large, healthy endeavors.

Having said that, is it responsible to begin such a forum by printing, in its apparent entirety, a press release from an interest group without offering equal space to the opposing viewpoint? I realize that this is a forum, not the news, and as I've already stated, I think it's great to invite discussion on the issue. But should the editor of the paper be posting a press release from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life?

Tom Dubbe For the unborn

TomDubbe — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:16:54 -0500

Tom Dubbe
For the unborn child, there is no nuanced debate. There is no room for verbal gymnastics. It is a matter of life and death and that is fundamental. No room for shades of gray. I have never me a pro-abortion advocate who didn't claim to be pro-choice. To consider killing an unborn infant by abortion to be an acceptable option is depravity.

The "choice" to end a human

Doug Nachbar — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:18:22 -0500

The "choice" to end a human life is not allowed without criminal consequences in all cases but abortion, even though we are either on, or approaching, that slippery slope with euthanasia as well. Both abortion and euthanasia are favorite issues of The Left despite one of our nation's two charter document's, The Declaration of Independence, assertion that life is a self-evident right endowed upon us by Our Creator. The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973 was a choice to write into law what didn't and doesn't exist in the second of our chartering documents, The U.S. Constitution—under the rationalization of a right to privacy written between the lines of the document. It's bad law; it's bad medicine; and it's heinous, barbaric choice. Just look at the pictures. This "right of choice" puts women and the state above God in the Universal Pecking Order and defies the very foundations of this nation. Choice, traditionally called "free will" by Christian people, needs to be exercised a little earlier in the process: choice of whether or not to have sex; choice of partner; choice of a form of sexuality that, thanks to Bill Clinton, isn't considered sex anymore; choice of contraception (which means "without conception"), and adoption as the natural option to an unwanted child rather than violation of Natural Law and our nation's written charters via abortion.

Amen. What an absolute way

writers bloc — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:51:45 -0500

Amen. What an absolute way to end an argument as a shortcut to thinking. It's the end punctuation of fundamentalists of all kinds. Forget nuanced debate, it's an either/or, black or white argument all the time, with no room for the reality of life, which is shades of gray. Speaking of colors, I've heard many pro-choice people talk about choosing a color of car, even what color they may want to paint their houses. To say that a pro-choice person must be confined only to the stance of pro-abortion is as preposterous as suggesting that people who oppose the death penalty are intrinsically pro-crime. A pro-life position is deserving of respect, but a pro-choice stance is deserving of the same and shouldn't be oversimplified by being pigeonholed into a "pro-abortion" framework. I've never met a pro-choice person who advocates abortion, only that the option should be left on the table as one of many. For those who choose the myopic view of "One is either Pro-life or Pro-abortion," it's clear they have stuffed their fingers in their ears and are no longer listening to, or participating in, the conversation, simply chanting a pro-life mantra. Amen. Period. No erasing.

Tom Dubbe Pro-choice is

TomDubbe — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:59:56 -0500

Tom Dubbe
Pro-choice is synonymous with Pro-abortion. The Pro-choice crowd is interested in only one choice and that is to take the life of an unborn baby. You never hear the Pro-choicers talk about the choices they make about the color of their car, the interest rate on their mortgage, the acceptabilty of pets, or anything else. When the Pro-choice membership talks about making a choice, they are talking about and promoting abortion. Pro-choice is a euphemism for Pro-abortion. One cannot equivocate on this issue. One is either Pro-life or Pro-abortion. Amen

I don't think anyone with a

mittens — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:06:01 -0500

I don't think anyone with a conscious is actually "pro-abortion" as has been stated previously. If you wish to refer to pro-choice elected officials as "nut cases" you are free to do so but the real misunderstanding stems from pro-lifers who think that the phrase pro-choice is interchangeable with pro-abortion. Abortion, to pro-choicers, is an option, it isn't "the option". As for cruelty by DFLers, I think that there would have to be a more logical explanation for the slashing of the funding for the Positive Alternatives Act. It sounds to me like the group provides legit services and if their government funding is lost they could likely find funding elsewhere for a program that sounds compassionate judging from their own press release but to know more there would have to be a second opinion not obtained from their own public relations department.

Tom Dubbe Anyone supporting

TomDubbe — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:21:52 -0500

Tom Dubbe
Anyone supporting the killing of an innocent in-the-womb child is cruel. Pro-abortion senators including Hillary Clinton and our own Amy Klobuchar are beholding to Emily's List, the left wing pro-abortion group that contributes oodles of money to off-the-wall female democrat politicians. Not all DFL'ers are pro-abortion nut cases. Nationally, and in Minnesota, we have some pro-life democrat politicians. We need more.

Cruel DFLers?

Mathias Baden — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:51:41 -0500

What's your opinion on this? Are DFLers being cruel?

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for life sent out the following press release last week: