‘Hail Satan’: Abortion supporters troll pro-lifers outside Texas Capitol

The same orange-clad abortion rights supporters who sent children to #StandWithWendy in Texas today holding signs like “Stay out of my mommy’s vagina” didn’t limit themselves to strictly scientific arguments for unrestricted access to abortion. Groups of protesters also countered pro-life groups’ prayers with chants of “Hail Satan.”

As a matter of fact, not only did a CNN Express reporter note it; someone did capture it on video. It looks like it was all in fun, though. When you’re arguing for unrestricted abortion at any time during the pregnancy, invoking Satan isn’t so shocking a stretch.

CNN’s Josh Rubin declared it a battle of the drum circles and prayer circles.

  • gracepmc

    This is the Democrat Party. These are Barack Obama supporters.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHY_xOj2M_g PistolsForPandas

      This. In 50 foot neon letters.

    • DaMello

      From the same party that denied God three times at their convention even on national TV. Democrats … hail satan.. smh…

      • JoeMyGodNYC

        I was there. The booing was not to “deny God” but denounce the infliction of ONE religion onto what is supposed to be a secular organization.

        • http://lnsmitheeblog.blogspot.com LN_Smithee

          Nice try.

          One doesn’t need to be of any religion to recognize what life is and protect it in accord with federal law, i.e. Roe, which allows restriction of abortion in trimester three.

          Law written and passed by people motivated by their belief in God is NOT the same as establishment of religion. Deal.

          • JoeMyGodNYC

            Abortion was not being discussed when the booing happened at the Democratic Convention. Nice try.

            “Law written and passed by people motivated by their belief in God is NOT the same as establishment of religion.”

            Actually, that’s pretty much the DEFINITION.

          • Caleb Herod

            Actually, “establishment” refers to establishing an official state religion, perhaps bestowing certain privileges with membership.
            People’s personal motives for supporting this or that legislation is irrelevant, and does NOT constitute an establishment of religion in any meaningful sense.

          • Finrod Felagund

            Silly liberals have no clue what’s actually in the Constitution.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            quite a sweeping (and ridiculous) statement.

          • GrandsonOGrumpus

            Wow…
            Reading the “back and forth” between joe m.g. & Gand-Pappy, I had thought joe positions were simply contrarian— but as the general quality of his arguments has declined (well, “dropped like a stone”, though less kind would be more accurate…) I can see he really is as disingenuous and intellectually stunted as the majority of his detractors have indicated.

            A pity, that…

          • Chris H

            Pennsylvania is the Keystone state, Quaker State is a brand of oil you idiot.

          • GrandsonOGrumpus

            I think you meant your response for Rodney…
            I am really nothing like Rodney.

          • RodneyHaines

            In fact, states are ALLOWED to establish a religion; a la “The Quaker State!”

          • tom721

            The impetus behind the original signers was the creation of Protestantism as the national religion in England.

          • jimpeel

            Hear, hear!

          • Mike McCarthy

            That’s a nickname. It has no force of law.

            In 1947 the SCOTUS ruled that the Establishment Clause applies to states. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1

            So you are wrong again.

          • RodneyHaines

            The nickname was given because the Quakers did establish a state religion in PA; first known as THE QUAKER PROVINCE.

            There is no “Establishment Clause”; a figment of the lefts imagination. There is no “separation of church and state”; another figment helped along by an out-of-control left-wing Supreme Court. They used Jefferson, OUT OF CONTEXT in a reply he had to a question in a letter to a Baptist convention regarding Congregationalists. The Baptists were concerned the Congregationalists were going to become a state religion. Jefferson replied that there is a separation between church and state when it came to the U.S. endorsing/supporting/dictating a certain DENOMINATION….NOT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH!

            [Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, good night. Take care! Thank you, thank you! Good night everybody….]

          • Mike McCarthy

            Rodney,

            Penn is remembered for his policy of religious freedom. I quote ‘PENN’S guarantee of religious freedom and the rights of conscience attracted other dissenting groups such as the Moravians, Mennonites and Dunkards to Pennsylvania. For much of the 18th century, Penn’s colony was the only place under British rule where Catholics could legally worship in public.’ from http://web.archive.org/web/20080524050103/http://www.pym.org/exhibit/p078.html.

            I’m trying to convey to you that Quaker State is a nickname. For another example California is the Golden State. I live in California but I have no gold.

            The Establishment Clause is “first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
            See it’s a real thing in American history. It’s a term long applied to part of the Constitution.

            Cite me Jefferson’s letter. I’d like to read it in context. As far as I know there was never a time when Congregationalists were going to become a state religion in Virginia or entire United States. Was it in Massachusetts?

            I don’t think there has ever been a left wing SCOTUS.

          • RodneyHaines

            The Origin of “Separation of Church and State”

            Separation of Church and State

            NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE

            by Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA

            Our Founding Fathers

            Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, “The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God,” words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.

            Never Intended to Separate State from God or from Religion or from Prayer

            The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase “separation of church and state.” The First Amendment simply states:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

            Obviously, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.

            While most recognize the phrase “separation of church and state,” few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?

            The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.

            Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: “We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation.”

            This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:

            “By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.”

            Again, note the emphasis: “We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation.”

            In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that “the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state.”

            His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential “religious” activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of “religion,” then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

            Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” without either the context, or the explanation given in the letter, or its application by earlier courts. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.

            For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate Christian principles from government. They desired a so-called “separation of church and state” with chaplains being turned out of the congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government.

            Both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their reports. The following are excerpts from the House report delivered on Mary 27, 1854 (the Senate report was very similar):

            “Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]…. In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

            Two months later, the Judiciary Committee made this strong declaration:

            “The great, vital, and conservative element in our system [the thing that holds our system together] is the believe of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

            The Committees explained that they would not separate these principles, for it was these principles and activities which had made us so successful—they had been our foundation, our basis.

            During the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, yet another group which challenged specific Christian principles in government arrived before the Supreme Court. Jefferson’s letter had remained unused for years, for as time had progressed after its use in 1802—and after no national denomination had been established—his letter had fallen into obscurity. But now—75 years later—in the case Reynolds v. United States, the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson’s letter, hope to use it to their advantage.

            In that case, the Court printed an lengthy segment of Jefferson’s letter and then used his letter on “separation of church and state” to again prove that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 15 years during that legal controversy, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson’s letter to ensure that Christian principles remained a part of government.

            Following this controversy, Jefferson’s letter again fell into disuse. It then remained silent for the next 70 years until 1947, when, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson’s entire letter, but selected only eight words from it. The Court now announced:

            “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

            This was a new philosophy for the Court. Why would the Court take Jefferson’s letter completely out of context and cite only eight of its words? Dr. William James, the Father of modern Psychology—and a strong opponent of religious principles in government and education—perhaps explained the Court’s new strategy when he stated:

            “There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.”

            This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a “separation of church and state,” broadly explaining that, “This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent.” The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.

            The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the “separation of church and state,” people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!

            Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.

            Secular Humanism

            With that case, a whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable. “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. In 1997, 40 prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a position paper entitled, “We Hold These Truths,” in which they stated, “This is the very antithesis of the ordered liberty affirmed by the Founders. Liberty in this debased sense is utterly disengaged from the concept of responsibility and community and is pitted against the ‘laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God. Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.

          • RodneyHaines

            I suppose you could technically call it a nickname, since the name “Quaker” was introduced as an nickname. (See the last paragraph….)

            Pennsylvania’s nickname, the Quaker State, is from colonial times.

            It was known officially as the Quaker Province, in recognition of Quaker William Penn’s First Frame of Government constitution for Pennsylvania that guaranteed liberty of conscience.

            He knew of the hostility Quakers faced when they opposed religious ritual, taking oaths, violence, war and military service, and what they viewed as ostentatious frippery.

            The Quakers or the Religious Society of Friends is a religious movement, whose members are known as Friends or Quakers.

            The name “Quaker” was first used in 1650, when George Fox was brought before Justice Bennet of Derby on a charge of blasphemy.

            According to Fox’s journal, Bennet “called us Quakers because we bid them TREMBLE (quake) at the word of God”, a scriptural reference (e.g., Isaiah 66:2, Ezra 9:4). Therefore, what began apparently as a way to make fun of Fox’s admonition by those outside the Society of Friends became a nickname that even Friends use for themselves.

          • Mike McCarthy

            Rodney,

            You’re at best a word splitter. ‘Quaker State’ is the nickname. It says so right in the Wikipedia entry you quote from. There is no technicality.

            But the point here was that there was no religious establishment in Pennsylvania. You were attempting to prove the opposite – that’s why you brought this up.

            Since you stopped mentioning it I guess you concede that the ‘Establishment Clause’ exists.

          • RodneyHaines

            Just about every major college and university DOES NOT accept Wiki as a source. Sorry. From Purdue’s “The Owl” website –

            **Beware of using sites like Wikipedia, which are collaboratively developed by users. Because anyone can add or change content, the validity of information on such sites may not meet the standards for academic research.**

            I concede nothing. The essay from the priest (who must be a relative of yours???) which I posted, says it all. You can Google it to find all the reference sources if you don’t trust it.

            Have a great weekend! And thanks for all you do with the Green Bay Packers, Mike!

          • RodneyHaines

            Just about every major college and university DOES NOT accept Wiki as a source. Sorry. From Purdue’s “The Owl” website –

            **Beware of using sites like Wikipedia, which are collaboratively developed by users. Because anyone can add or change content, the validity of information on such sites may not meet the standards for academic research.**

            I concede nothing. The essay from the priest (who must be a relative of yours???) which I posted, says it all. You can Google it to find all the reference sources if you don’t trust it.

            Have a great weekend! And thanks for all you do with the Green Bay Packers, Mike!

          • Jerry Williamson

            Next time do a little homework regarding Pennsylvania before you get off with flapping your gums.

          • RodneyHaines

            I just gave a major presentation about the origins of the name “Quaker State”, documented with historical FACTS….and you present nothing to the discussion Jerry????

            You’re a lil’ troll….right Jerry? Aren’t you??

            OK, this will be my last response to you, Jerry, since we have all been taught NOT to feed the lil’ trolls.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, this. I should hope one’s religious beliefs inform their political beliefs….it would make no sense to have it be otherwise. Liberals don’t understand the ACTUAL meaning of “separation between church and state.” Their interpretation is not even close.

          • dave_570m

            THER IS NO SEP OF CHURCH AND STATE !!!!! If you read the constitution , no where does it say this. This was a term coined by jefferson in a letter written to the baptist councel. When are you people going to give up this joke ????

          • SkyePuppy

            They will never give it up. I suits their purposes to pretend the lie is truth.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            might help if you identified who “they” is in your quote

          • SkyePuppy

            They will never give it up. I suits their purposes to pretend the lie is truth.

          • vanmojo

            dave_070m: As much with your movement, you have almost totally missed the point while engaging in the most intellectually corrupt of exercises. Yes, no where in the Constitution do the words “separation of church and state” appear. You are also correct in your assertion that it was a phrase coined by Jefferson in a letter to Danbury Baptists. What you are omitting is the context, which I suspect is deliberate. The Danbury Baptists had written to Jefferson asking him to explain what the authors of our national charter meant by the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” Jefferson said the *purpose* of the establishment clause was the erection of a permanent wall of separation between church and state. If you want to play the game of Constitutional Originalism, then you are going to have to suck that one up. One of the two or three primary authors of the Constitution, when asked, said that a separation of church and state is what the establishment clause means. Moreover, you might take a gander at U.S. Constitution Art. VI, Sec. 3, No religious test. At it’s essence, the Constitution is blind towards a person’s religious beliefs and states that religious practice is essentially irrelevant to participation in the body politic or government.

            But thanks for playing…

          • https://ebible.com/users/167400/profile Amonite

            In context, Jefferson said that ‘wall’ was to protect government from interfering with the church. He never said -anything- about people being unable to use their faith/personal beliefs in voting for laws, or unable to practice their faith in public. The Baptists were concerned about the government restricting their freedoms – he told them the government had no power to do so. You cannot get “government can make laws restricting the rights of church goers” or “religious people shouldn’t use their beliefs to influence their votes” out of that.

            Also, Jefferson was a) not around when the 1st amendment was drafted and b) had a minority opinion compared to the rest of the founders on what the 1st amendment meant. (Such as, most of the founders were ok with a politician or congress advocating a non-required, voluntary days of prayer to God, wheras Jefferson was not comfortable with them).

            Also, considering Jefferson attended church every Sunday in the US Capitol Building (government funded church services – the military even played as the worship band in some government buildings) he is certainly not a good ‘poster child’ for separating religion from government. It was Jefferson, personally, who authorized the use of the Treasury and War Office for church buildings and put chaplains on government payroll.

            ‘Establishment of religion’ is just that – mandating that people follow a certain denomination or practice or setting up a denomination that everyone must follow. (Such as you *must* be Catholic or you *must* celebrate a certain day). Also, the government may not do this in a ‘negative’ manner, such as penalizing those who do not follow a given denomination or practice. Congress can make “no law” in regards to ‘an establishment’ of religion (mandating religious worship of any type or penalizing it). This does not mean congress must avoid encouraging religion altogether, or that religious politicians cannot act on their faith.

            Read the Supreme Court case “Church of the HolyTrinity vs. the United States” for further information on religion and America.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            < ^ what he said

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            QUICK SIDEBAR: “no where does it say this” — where does it say “god”, “jesus” or “christ”?

          • RodneyHaines

            You are absolutely right, dave. The First Amendment trumps any SCROTUS laws (or whatever they are called….) or any rulings the Supreme’s might have made. This was proven at yesterday’s “Line in the Sand” revival. No arrests were made because the government knew the First Amendment trumps any court cases. Case closed. Thank you, Your Honor….

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            “Their interpretation is not even close…” to the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court? Oh I think it is

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            “”establishment” refers to establishing an official state religion, perhaps bestowing certain privileges with membership.’ — nope

            IF that were true the Supreme Court would not have upheld “separation of church and state”

          • Caleb Herod

            I’m talking about the original, intended meaning, not some justices’ interpretation 200 years later.
            Find “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            by “intended” you are of course referring to YOUR interpretation which is, by legal definition, meaningless

          • http://lnsmitheeblog.blogspot.com LN_Smithee

            I thought you were saying you were in Texas, not Charlotte.

            No, the booing there was not about abortion. But it certainly wasn’t about the “infliction of ONE religion.” There was no religion mentioned in the proposed text to insert into the platform, simply the recognition of “God,” which had been in the DNC platform that Sen. Obama ran on four years earlier. If you believe your party leaders, it was an accident that it was written out in 2012 with Obama as POTUS.

            Not making it up. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4294579

          • http://redstate.com/ midwestconservative

            No actually its not.

          • JeromeFJ

            No, they booed belief in God as a party platform. It’s ok…you can admit that the Democrap party professes atheism. We don’t have to agree.

          • change12

            I was going to say.. I watched it live & they booed & screamed NO ! & then the guy calling for the decision went ahead & added God to the platform.. but the CROWD still booed & screamed NO . they denied Christ THREE times !

          • Osbhaimta

            This is true.

          • Osbhaimta

            This is true.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            “denied Christ” ?? no, we disagreed over the inclusion of christian language in our party platform. to “deny” the language would actually have to SAY THAT

          • Caleb Herod

            Not “Christian,” merely theistic. I imagine you reject the theistic language in the Declaration of Independence. Which is sad, since this is Independence Day.
            If you don’t believe in a Creator, it makes no sense to believe in natural (inalienable) rights. Without God, our “rights” have their source in nothing greater than the whims of those in power.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            we are a secular republic (by choice) subject to the rule of law, not to the laws of any “god”

          • Caleb Herod

            I wasn’t talking about laws, I was talking about inalienable rights. What would make them inalienable?

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            lemme guess: JESUS?

          • Caleb Herod

            So I can assume you think that “rights” are just something people invented and agreed upon. Is this correct?

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            SO can I assume you think there is a sky-fairy who wrote a manual for all of mankind, regardless if someone believes in ANOTHER or different sky fairy. Is THIS correct?

          • jeanbean14

            And the Democrats booed the simple phrase, “God-given rights” out of their platform. They couldn’t stand to have the word “God” in it, even though our freedom if based on the very concept that God has given us certain rights that cannot be taken away, as opposed to government-given rights, which can be revoked at any time. The Democrats have abandoned the very roots of our freedom, and have no clue. They don’t see that our freedoms grew out of Christian beliefs. They even want to erase Christianity from our history, even though almost all the signers of the Declaration were Christian, and half were even clergy. Morons! The Founders knew that our system of government could not work unless the citizens believed in God and followed his morality. The Democrats, and many Republicans, are working against the very foundations of our freedoms, and calling it good.

          • choiceone

            The Declaration of Independence does not say “God.” It says “Creator.” This is a secular pro-choice nation. Abortion was legal by the common law of every one of the original 13 states in the first decades of US history.

            If you want a different kind of nation, go to a Latin American country where the government is heavily influenced by the Catholic church and where that church excommunicates the mother and doctor of a nine-year-old pregnant with twins by rape because her life is threatened by the pregnancy, but does not excommunicate the rapist. Go to Rapeland.

          • Caleb Herod

            Can you explain how you distinguish between “God” and “Creator,” or are you just splitting hairs for the sake of being argumentative?
            The Texas law being debated makes exceptions for the very rare type of circumstance that you describe. Can I assume you therefore support the Texas law? If not, why not?

          • Dana

            Call it whatever euphemistic BS you want Starchy. I saw this with my own eyes and watched the hatred on one particular couple’s faces that the camera kept focusing on. They were screaming for “No God” just as the followers of the Pharisees and the Sagusees screamed when they were afraid to oppose the rabbis and sent Jesus to his death. That’s what I saw, I know scorn and hatred when I see it and that was one hateful crowd. Then again what do you expect from people that have no problem sucking live babies out of their mother’s womb even if they’re ready to be born. Can one get anymore evil? The satanists and the democrats. the new alliance!! How fiting. Just for the record, I am NOT a republican. They suck too but not so much that they would align themselves with satanists and folks that believe it’s ok to kill and unwanted baby that is 7-9 months gestation.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            you’re a one issue voter and you hate abortion — got it

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            when you say “they” you are referring to a handful of people, and yes there are atheists in the democratic party (is that ok with you?)

            however, the POINT is that we believe people should be free to believe whatever they want as long as that belief does not infringe or effect the lives of their fellow citizens.

          • Sebastian Oulrey

            Societal morality transcends religious norms, as far as I can research in this country, for a couple centuries now… I’m a Catholic who’s befriended “satanists” and actually read their “scripture” (The Book Of The Law, if you subscribe to Crowleyian satanism). While one would be surprised by some societal norms that are reinforced in that book, amongst others of the like, the basic value of Life is universal (outside of homicidal vengeance….never said it wasn’t ignorant).

            As a Catholic who understands (but vehemently disagrees with) satanism (notice the lack of capital lettering), I must call bs on all these morons and address your ignorance of the same like. What satanic lawmakers are in office, yet some of their own base morality contradicts these pro-choice ignoramuses? So much for your “establishment argument”.

            As a Catholic, I’m pro-life for non-religious reasons and can make the links to pro-life reasoning in almost any religion, even in as extremely self-contradictory as satanism….
            Hail The Lord and respect logic!

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            I don’t think you understand the definition of “definition.”

          • Jeremy

            He doesn’t understand much besides “Yeah Obama Yes We Can”

          • TravisJSays

            No, you are wrong, but it’s understandable, many are mis-educated on the matter of historically what “establishment” is really about. The ACLU has done a bangup job mis-educating Americans. … Caleb Herod has it correct.

          • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

            I don’t understand why it’s so hard for people to read and UNDERSTAND what the establishment clause actually means.

          • ThatConfused1

            Because most are not taught what the words were defined as when the document was first written or how the syntax is formed. : (

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            why is there no mention of “god”, ‘christ” or “jesus”?

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            the constitution is subject to INTERPRETATION by the Supreme Court

          • ThatConfused1

            Doesn’t help that most schools do not teach students the actual syntax of the 1700’s and 1800’s when dealing with such legal discussions but focuses on flawed modern translations to create warm fuzzies inside that hardly hits the mark of what some words mean in both the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights actually describe or mean.

            Hint for JoeMyGodNYC: Happiness does not mean Happy in such syntax, means happen chance or risk taking. Establishment means a Government ran Religion such as the Church of England, as it was seen as an evil to colonialists in the 1600’s and 1700’s for their intollerances towards those who won’t conform kinda similar by the likes of modern Liberals towards those who have different religious creeds. The word Respect means giving legal benefit or advantage to something which the government can not do and nor can the Government prohibit the free exercise of citizens of their religion’s choice… but it’s clear Joe’s a bit short in reading history and legalities.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            “focuses on flawed modern translations ” – are you referring to the legally binding rulings of the Supreme Court?

          • James

            You’re kidding, right? You think that private voters voting their consciences (however formed) is an “establishment of religion” by definition? That’s not even an argument. It’s patently absurd. An establishment of religion occurs at the very minimum when the state endorses a particular sect or religious preference. It does not occur when the state merely recognizes that God exists, and it most certainly does not occur where private actors vote based upon Christian (or non-Christian) beliefs that have informed their consciences. Your understanding is so thoroughly wrong that it surprises me to see you so adamantly state it in a public forum.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            “It does not occur when the state merely recognizes that God exists” — sure it does! you act as if “god is a given” and that anyone who THINKS (not “believes”, THINKS) otherwise is not worthy of representation

          • James

            So are you saying that the Declaration of Independence established a religion in America? It specifically references and acknowledges God, and it served as the theoretical framework of all later American law, including our Constitution. It was motivated by a belief that all people are “created” equal and endowed by a “creator,” that is, by “Nature’s God” with certain inalienable rights that are off limits to government precisely because they come from God and not from the state. When you boo God, you boo your own liberty. When you mistake religious motivation in forming law with imposition of a coercive state religion, you turn our founding on its head and make America into a secular state, which is contrary to our history and traditions. This is not France, Joe. This is still America.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            the Declaration is not the Constitution, and the Constitution does not mention the word “god”, “jesus” or “christ” anywhere. not. once.

          • BobM001

            Teste de Cazzo

          • Mike McCarthy

            Joe,
            This is the wrong place to try to make sense.

          • Kelly Layne

            Actually God Is a belief not a religion, being a baptist, methodist, cahtolic is a religion

          • Noah

            “abortion was not being discussed when the booing happened.”
            yeah, they were booing when ISRAEL was mentioned. so, you guys arent anti-life, youre just antisemitic. good to know.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            and by “they” you mean a handful of people

          • Noah

            i’ve seen some of your comments. ad hominems and strawman arguments. Define a “handful” of people and why would they be booing at all?

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            Handful is less than a dozen – that’s about the number I saw on my tee-vee screen booing at the convention during the point in question

          • labradog1

            You and your religion are cruel and stupid. God told me.

          • anonymouse

            Freedom “OF” not “FROM”. They just don’t get it.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            actually both “of” AND “from” – that must suck for you

        • http://redstate.com/ midwestconservative

          Last time I checked, there is more than just one “religion” that believes in an all-powerful god. I can understand you guys not liking Christianity or Judaism, but I thought you guys loved Islam.

        • annoyinglittletwerp

          I’m a Jewish pro-lifer(in Texas)and I stand in spirit with those prayer warriors in Austin. I will never stand with the baby killers. Infanticide is not a Jewish value. So much for your ‘one religion’ crap.

        • Jill

          How, exactly, were they ‘inflicting’ a singular religion? Have they no right to express their religious beliefs whilst engaging in protest?

          • Dana

            Jill, do you actually believe that these child killing advocates are actually satanists? I doubt it. This was more about insulting Christians, debasing our sense of spiritualiity, belief in Jesus and life at conception. I have seen many things in my life but this chanting a slogan worshiping the natural enemy of people takes the cake. I thought it was a joke when I read the headlines as I thought to myself “Who would ever say such evil no matter what issue it is”. This saddened me greatly because I was a teenage mom and now I have grandchildren of my own who I love with all my heart and just can’t imagine what kind of world I am leaving them with. God help us, we surely need it now rather than later.

          • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

            Abortion is glorified child sacrifice, made in the back rooms in secret now, instead of in front for ritual masses. Please see: Inca, Maya. Do some research. Yes, they are all “Satanists”. “Satan” simply means “adversary”. Children are God’s blessing, so again, yes, they are all satans.

          • ThatConfused1

            Well Moloch would do well with these pro-aborts as cultists… that’s for sure.

          • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

            please… this country has MORE than its fair share of “cultists”. your temples are LITERALLY everywhere

          • Brad

            Abortion and murder are the same

          • Dana

            KAdams, I’m fairly knowlegable about satanism, rituals, exorcism and their practices. I’m hoping yo take the Vaitcan’s course on Exorcisms this fall ( I’m praying!! ) I have done much research in this area because it fascinates and nauseates me at the same time. I was just wondering if they had any actual church affiliations as Anton LeVey’s church of satan. I hate to believe that an organized group of satanists would go to a debate to align themselves with pro-choice feminists and liberals in general. I can see the connection and truthfully, anyone who is pro choice should see who they are in bed with on this issue. satanists? Good Lord is there no end to the evil they would lower themselves to in order to believe it’s perfectly ok to kill a slumbering child in the safest place for them their entire lives, their mother’s womb? That place is not safe anymore for children because of this evil movement started by a gang of dissatisfied angry women long ago. I believe in what the premise of feminism disguised themselves as “equal pay for equal work” but it didnt end there did it? Now it’s out of control and probably the single most family destructive alliance than any other liberal group in the country. They pretended to want to help women and all they did was ruin everything for all of us. They deserve a spot beside these satanists, both are anti-God, anti-family and anti-life. They’ll dance in hell together!!

          • Deanna

            You have not done your research. The regret women have including the psychological changes by giving birth to a murdered fetus vs the natural birth and holding that child to say goodbye is heart-breaking! Go to a local birth choice and talk to their counselors and ask about the stories and choices (both sides). Get to know women who have chosen each-to keep full term vs abort. If that baby is not dead in the mother it should NOT be removed. And that procedure is ALWAYS a risk to the mother! It is INVASIVE! Take off the blinders and go research!

        • Guest

          There’s video, so no need for your biased testimony.

        • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

          That’s interesting, because from what I saw, some minority religions weren’t too keen on the idea either.

          Just keep telling yourself that you all get along and would if you weren’t united by $$$$$$ in the form of handouts and bailouts.

        • Jack Deth

          Really?

          Then what is “The Prime Directive”?

        • BobM001

          Kurats Glava

        • VESENG

          And which religion was that, Joe? Or are all religions the same to the atheist or Satan worshiping Democrats?

        • Jimni27

          trololol. That was without a doubt the best excuse for bad behavior I have ever heard come out of a libs’ mouth. Why not sing Lennon’s Imagine if that’s what they were going for? Come on, buddy- they just wanted to incite the pro lifers, admit it. Maybe make them mad enough to strike out? Problem is- that’s YOUR side’s M.O. and all it did was make them look like the lunatics the pro- late term abortion crowd are.
          Hey- just for sh!ts and giggles- what was the reasoning behind putting the “Stay Out Of My Mom’s Vagina” sign in the little kiddies’ hands? Bonus points if you have an answer for the “F*ck A Senator” sign.

    • Guest

      This is the Dipsh*t Party. What a sorry bunch of buffoons.

    • trixiewoobeans

      This is the Dipsh*t Party. What a sorry bunch of stooges…drum circles, “hail satan”… what clots. Might I say, they “beclowned” themselves?

      • Pali Pavone

        Not stooges; Satanists. Not beclowed; unmasked.

    • Damien Johnson

      This is our world today. This world is screwed. We’re in the last days for sure.

      • ThatConfused1

        Oh I don’t know about that, just Liberals might want to be more careful with whom they pick allegiances to for those they side with will cast them aside like dead weight eventually. And it’s not the last of days till we run out of bacon…

    • Brutus974

      This is not your Father’s Democrat party.

    • Texan357

      They don’t even realize how ridiculous, childish, and hateful they’re being. But that’s what I’ve come to realize… The political Left is motivated by base, negative human emotions: hatred, jealousy, and a host (indeed) of others. And they positively REVEL in it. Of all the people I know who call themselves Democrats, the comfortable majority of them are motivated by pure hatred – it drips from every line of their FB posts. The more innocent of them are either single-issue voters, or are motivated at worst by a feeling of smug superiority.

      The two extremes of American political discourse are not Republican and Democrat; they are Good and Evil – and the grey between.

    • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

      yes they are. and proudly so, fighting for women’s rights

  • http://discus.com yourmamatoo

    The paid union thugs are at it again, I see.
    And they will be shouted down.
    They do not have the support, they think they do.

    • Jeremy

      Yep more union buses unloading more morons to do their bidding.

  • Stephen L. Hall

    This just confirms what I’ve come to understand about liberals.

    The issues do not matter, just an unreasoning hatred for conservatives.

    • michael cole

      Isn’t that the same of conservatives and their hatred of liberals?

      • Stephen L. Hall

        No.

        • michael cole

          Then you do not pay much attention. I see just as many hate filled and unreasonable rants by conservatives as I see by liberals.

          • Stephen L. Hall

            Then you do not pay much attention.

          • michael cole

            Look at the responses here….. Tell me you do not see just as many conservatives with an unreasoning hatred for liberals.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        No.

    • Burpy

      Textbook example of projection.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Textbook example of objective observation.

        • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

          I think it’s just a demonstration of group think and mob mentality.

  • NY2DC

    What does “more white males” mean? According to these feminazis, is it just white males who aren’t allowed an opinion on abortion? Is it okay for black, Hispanic, and Asian males to tell us what they think? Is it irony that these people are chanting something like that in their support for organizations that only exist to exterminate the black race?

    • mike_in_kosovo

      No, they’re more inclusive than that … *ANYONE* who disagrees with them on abortion isn’t allowed an opinion. See responses to Kirsten Power’s piece on how she doesn’t support Wendy Davis as an example.

  • adam

    I don’t understand how them chanting ‘Hail Satan’ makes them feel like they are shaming someone singing a hymn. Maybe it’s because they feel everything is a collective and somehow their shameful behavior rubs off on others who don’t participate in it. The stupidity of their whole actions…..i guess they can teach us all about tolerance.

    • ICOYAR

      They weren’t saying “Hail Satan”.

      They were saying “Heil Satan”.

      • McHale72

        Oh, so they were just yelling pro-Obama chants? That would make sense then!

  • $29520529

    There are times when I think the unborn children these women aborted are better of never having to live day to day in the homes with such evil. At least in heaven they will live and have an eternity never knowing the evil these women represent.

    • Crazy_Librul_Inspector

      The Roe effect. It culls the herd of liberals, and ironically they support it.

      • Spiny Norman

        Margaret Sanger would be so proud of them.

      • msmischief

        They don’t believe in evolution, they just want it taught in school.

  • ICOYAR

    I fear for the future when these animals try to run for office.

    I can guess less that 20% of each of them even know what the Constitution IS.

  • James S.

    They boo’ed God, people, why is this a shock? Wendy Davis and her baby-blood-stained shoes makes me physically ill.

  • Wally West

    Well the liberals finally admit they hate god and worship their true leader Heil Satan Obama.

  • John

    Please tell me someone recorded this.

  • Bill Sullivan

    Well, they might as well come out the abyss!

  • BobHTX

    ‘Boo God, Cheer Satan’ #Democrats2014!

    • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

      Well, when you dole out the dough in the form of farm, wind and ethanol subsidies, you can say stuff like that and still have a chance to win.

  • HARP2

    They`ll get to meet him soon enough.

    • Jeremy

      Damn Right and it won’t be a friendly meeting either.They better hope they some amazing sunscreen on.

    • JeromeFJ

      Sooner the better.

      • Athelstane

        Not something we should hope for.

        “There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.” (Lk 15:7)

  • Caleb Herod

    You wingnuts are overreacting. Obviously, these #HailSatan folks are just really big hockey fans and were cheering for Miroslav Satan and their favorite team, HC Slovan Bratislava.

    • John Hartley

      I suppose Caleb that you don’t believe “Satan” exist? People that support abortion are if fact worshipping Satan, through their beliefs, actions or even in-action. It sends a chill through me they called him by name in a chant. Look at Biblical history. You insult people’s intelligence by down playing and saying this was something else other than what is was, the worship of satan, whether intend or not. IMHO

      • Damien Johnson

        That was a sarcastic comment you replied to.

      • Caleb Herod

        I agree with you. I was merely impersonating a liberal.

        • John Hartley

          LOL, that is dangerous now days. Your first sentence is what I tripped over. Sorry

  • Chimfish

    This was a display of liberals coming to terms with the fact that they are now the party of political correctness and being easily offended. They are now the letter-writers. This is what is looks like when they deal with the realization that they have become The Man themselves. All the “Hail Satan” stuff was a last gasp attempt at regaining a semblance of edginess and rebellion, and to pretend for an afternoon that they are challenging some kind of status quo.

  • Ntr

    Now why don’t all these pro-“choicers” do the brave thing and protest restricted womens’ rights in Islamic nations where it’s needed by women in far more desperate circumstances. I mean, they’re strong-willed, unrelenting and undefeatable activists who stand in unwavering solidarity against any force.

    Surely they can change the status-quo in any majority Islamic nation.

    • Minivan Mojo

      THIS is a fantastic idea. Let’s ship them all over to the Middle East to protest women’s rights. It’s a win-win!

  • Sonya A. Willis

    Lost, demented souls who are destroying America. God is watching and is not pleased.

    • Ntr

      If anything, God stopped watching long ago and we’re far past ‘destroying’ in this nation. With everything, we’re teetering even further on the edge of an abyss now and have been teetering on that edge for decades.

      And these people are not lost nor demented imo. They are very purposeful in what they take up.

      • ThatConfused1

        Clothed within hubris we march, bound to destiny our self-destruction.

      • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

        As in, Useful Idiots for Satan and Obama…. Who may be the same person, or not… Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Guest

    So by their words and actions they are confirming that abortion is the work of the devil. But some of us already knew that.

  • http://www.bobpowell.blogspot.com Bobby Powell

    If this is what they want, to worship the Prince of Lies, I say fine; let them burn.

    • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

      I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but it’s done largely to gin up frustration and anger for the Christians.

      I don’t a think a lot of these people have the motivation to be serious about a religion, even one around the father of lies.

      Kind of ironic in a way.

  • ML

    You know, sometimes I read these articles and wonder just how much God’s heart is breaking.

    • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

      Well, I can see that, but just remember that millions of people in this country still trust in Jesus and pray.

      The secular left, the big lobby and pro-choicers get more than their fair share of media coverage.

      Not that we don’t have problems, but Texas is holding its own. Remember, it was supposed to be this democratic-secular bastion by now.

    • fanofamerica

      I agree. But I also think, is His hand working to bring this to light? Does this awful display have to happen for eyes to open? What if the bill would have succeeded the first time around? The pro-abortion groups heinous ways are now being exposed even further.

  • Ntr

    If they support abortion then can we support a movement for voluntary (permanent) sterilization of ‘any and all genders’. And then go to white, liberal neighborhoods to push the ‘service’ as something that’ll improve their health and vitality.

    I mean, it’s far more humane than some, let’s say, historic eugenicist who targeted certain minorities with a variation of infanticide and eugenics supporters that do the same thing today. At least these adults, who get sterilized, are making their own decisions and it causes no health issues or harm to an unborn human.

  • phillyoscar

    “Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed
    innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters,
    whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted
    with blood.” –Psalms 106:37-38

  • LinTaylor

    We don’t need to waste the time and energy making fun of these psychopaths anymore – they’re doing our job for us! How considerate of them.

  • Jeremy

    These Obama Drones are the people on Satan’s side.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      Satan and Allah..half of the “Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse…. Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Waldo

    A lot of UT students in the pro choice crowd

  • Jill

    Aren’t liberals the self professed champions of tolerance? Should that tolerance not extend to all religions? Are you upset by our President’s professed adherence to the Christian faith?

    • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

      “tolerance” does not equate to capitulation.
      “tolerance” is acceptance of your right to do (or believe) whatever you want- as long as it does not infringe or effect others.

  • Steven A

    Unintentional truth in advertising.

  • Katie Collins

    As reported by the same CNN reporter you quoted (@CNNExpress), the chanting was done by FIVE teenage/early-20s pro-choice activists. Let’s not turn this into a reflection of the entire group of pro-choice activists anymore than we’d turn the actions of a handful of pro-life activists into a reflection of the group as a whole. Stupid people say/do stupid things. The end.

    • nc

      The end. Ok, if you say so. And if that’s true then FIVE activists will have no disruptive effect on legislative proceedings like they did last week.

      • Katie Collins

        Having a disruptive effect on legislative proceedings is not okay. Having a disruptive effect on a group of people singing religious hymns outside of a legislative proceeding… Meh, I don’t care.

        • ThatConfused1

          Having a disruptive effect on anything you care in life with a semi-tractor trailer horn and a cattle transport trailer: My new hobby.

          • Katie Collins

            Shaking in my boots! Question: If this situation were reversed and pro-lifers interrupted a chant by pro-choicers with a religious hymn, would you be upset at all? Is it rude? Yes, but why does anyone care? Not to mention when you put two passionate groups of people with opposing views in one place, you’re going to witness groups shouting over one another, chanting over one another, etc.

          • ThatConfused1

            I’d have fun with it Katie, but then again I’ve been in nations where abortion was mandated onto women and others were rounded up and forced into slave trades in this modern day. So your point? Plus I doubt you’d really love the smell of fresh cattle poop filling the air wherever you go, it kinda sticks to your clothes without ever having to touch you.

          • Katie Collins

            We’re a long way from mandating abortion if we’re still fighting for/against bills that will shut down almost all clinics in the third largest state in the nation. Don’t you think?

          • ThatConfused1

            Not really, as I said if you’ve read United States History you’d find that forced abortions and sterlialization has happened in the past on people who were later found to be mentally and physically healthy but was deemed, “unfit” to Progressive Eugenics standards.

            http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/GA/GA.html

          • V the K

            Because abortion mills would rather shut down then provide sanitary environments for baby-killing and comply with the same standards required of other medical facilities?

          • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

            Not really, Katie… The Pro-Abortion crowd would rather chant “Hail Satan!” Jawamax 8<{D}

          • Katie Collins

            5 stupid teenagers/20-somethings and suddenly all “pro-abortion” activists are Satan worshippers.

          • GaryTheBrave

            Yes, who tried to stop it? No one? Implicit support and agreement with the chants. Yes, Katie, your side owns the Worshipping of the Devil.

          • Kimmie Smith

            Who else do you think is responsible for encouraging an individual to want to eliminate a human life? satan is behind anything that has to do with making the choice to take away the life of another human being.

        • V the K

          Of course you don’t care; as long as you can legally scramble a baby’s brains up to the moment they exit the birth canal. Everything else… meh.

          BTW, it’s not that we’re objecting to the chanting, we are logically and rationally extrapolating what the words they chose to chant and who they chose to chant them at shows about them.

          • Katie Collins

            I don’t care because it was a public place where people are allowed to voice their opinions if they want. Whether those opinions are moronic or not, you decide. I am not a supporter of late-term/partial-birth abortion. Why is it so impossible to have a conversation with someone whose views you disagree with without jumping to conclusions?

          • Kimmie Smith

            The heart begins beating between 18-22 days after conception, how do you support trashing that at any time? Is it not a human life? The heart beat proves it is life and if you choose to butcher and trash it then the only thing you can call that is willful murder of another human being.

    • GaryTheBrave

      But one psychopath who shoots up a school or mall is reflective of all gun owners. That’s what your side claims.

      • Katie Collins

        I don’t believe that at all, Gary. I own guns. I believe that outlawing guns will mean criminals have guns while law-abiding citizens don’t, and we deserve to feel safe in our homes/schools/churches/etc. (How sad that feeling unsafe in a church is even a thing we can discuss!) I’m not arguing the stance of the DNC here. I’m pro-choice, not pro-Democrat.

    • FaithColeridge33

      Pro late term abortion activists. Isn’t that what you meant? Why can’t you ever say the ‘A’ word in your arguments?

      • Katie Collins

        Because I do not accept “anti-abortion”, “pro-abortion”, or “anti-life” as respected terms to represent either side of the movement. If you’ll notice, most pro-choice supporters use “anti-abortion” to describe pro-lifers. I use the terms each movement has chosen for itself, not the derogatory terms the sides have chosen for their opponents. Also ABORTION. I’m not afraid of using this word.

        • FaithColeridge33

          PC cancels out facts. Call any “pro-lifer” anti-abortion and I don’t think a single one of them will shrink from the label. In fact I voluntarily call myself anti-abortion. Call “pro-choice” individuals pro-abortion, and like you, watch them slink from the term.

          Go Google some images of a 20 week abortion. Even an 11 week abortion is shocking.

          • Katie Collins

            That’s because I am not “pro-abortion.” I think it’s a horrible decision for any woman to have to make. It can have lasting, negative effects on a person. I’d love to see a day when abortion isn’t even an issue. But to get to that point, I believe we need to teach safe sex (in addition to abstinence) in schools, and I believe we need to make contraception readily available and as cheap as possible.

            I do not want children. Would I have an abortion if I got pregnant even though I’m on birth control? I can’t say that for sure because it’s an enormous decision, one I can’t imagine ever having to make. But do I want the state or anyone other than myself and my doctor making that decision? No.

          • ThatConfused1

            If a horrible decision to make, then why advocate pro-choice?

          • Katie Collins

            Because women should be treated as autonomous beings, just as men are. It is not for the state or Christians or you or me to tell a woman she must bear the responsibility of sex alone.

          • ThatConfused1

            Strawman logic that is. It takes two to tango, if the woman is as loose in action as the man then the two should not be surprised if a child is conceived from careless actions.

          • Katie Collins

            And if the condom breaks or they happen to be part of the small percentage of women who get pregnant even while on birth control or the woman is raped? What then?

            And my point is that nothing happens to the man in your hypothetical scenario. He’s free to walk away. Meanwhile a woman can be forced to endure 9 months of stressful changes to her body only to undergo painful labor? Why? Because you say so?

          • ThatConfused1

            Still careless actions, if sexuality is treated for pleasure it should still be no surprise if a child is conceived from seeking fleeting moments of fleshly joys.

            Sexuality is a mute and dull point to me from the injuries I’ve sustained in my past works. Why people like you argue for loose choices and innocent blood to be spilled, I’ll never know.

            As for the man? Most situations, the man if known is typically expected to cover the costs of the child in child support or with the bill for abortion, but I guess you only want biology to be a part of this, so why not say no to being sexuality active instead? No child conceived, no need of abortion. Either that or use a B.O.B.

          • Katie Collins

            As someone who doesn’t plan to procreate, I do not treat sex as a means to that end.

            But you didn’t answer my question about rape. Do you believe abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest?

          • ThatConfused1

            So you believe that the sin of the father should be carried by the child? Or do you think there is a form of innocence in life, as I had already answered you with your desire to spill the blood of such.

            As for rape, that is an issue for the woman to choose if she wants to go though even more nightmares in life by taking the life of another. I’ve had a family member suffer though a rape and later commited suicide due to going though an abortion.

          • Katie Collins

            This is where our conversation kind of stalls out. I do not believe a fetus is a child until the point of viability. My issue with TX’s bill is not so much that legislators want to ban abortion after 20 weeks. (There was testimony last night by a woman who was pregnant at 15, didn’t understand pregnancy yet [because abstinence-only education teaches us nothing], and said she didn’t realize she was pregnant until after 20 weeks.) My issue is that under the guise of “making clinics safe,” the legislature is making it all but impossible for the women of Texas to obtain legal abortions.

            The argument has been made that placing a 20 week limit on abortion is a “slippery slope.” Is 15 weeks next? 10 weeks? 5 weeks? Where does it stop?

          • ThatConfused1

            You might want to examine the bill further and understand that they are examining the legal documents from the Gosnell trial that recently happened as a grounding to their logic. Any type of Gosnell incident in Texas will throw pro-choicer point of view to the trash can of the debate. Another Tiller incident in Texas will throw away a pro-lifer argument to the same trashcan.

          • Katie Collins

            I assume you’ve never worked in an environment where child support was being sought? It is near impossible in some states to get a person (man or woman) to pay child support. You can attempt to garnish their wages, and they quit their job. Not all fathers or mothers of unwanted children will do this, but in my experience as an HR professional, it’s common.

            But you didn’t answer my question about rape. Do you believe abortion should be legal in the case of incest or rape?

          • ThatConfused1

            Katie, before you speak in sheer ignorance I’ve worked for a State Government to drag in males who skipped their child support. I’ve worked outside of the United States to monitor many things you are advocating for that lead to mass genocide and slaughter. You never walked though the mass graves, I have.

          • Katie Collins

            If that’s so, then you recognize that it is not a simple and easy process, and many women (and men – we’ve had scum employees who were women and skipped out on child support too) suffer through supporting their children alone because of it.

            How does abortion lead to mass genocide and slaughter?

          • ThatConfused1

            Google: Kosovo
            Google: Rwanda

            Both ruling groups sought abortion to be forced onto those it deemed unwanted, and later started to use bloody force to purge the unwanted as the population did not decline as expected. You’ve had to count how many children and fetuses were left in a mass grave for humanitarian work?

          • Katie Collins

            As I said in another comment, I think we’re a pretty long way from forced abortion when we can barely protect the right to have one voluntarily.

            No, I have not. I greatly respect the work you’ve done. I can’t imagine… Honestly, it makes me sick.

          • ThatConfused1

            If you get to study United States history concerning Progressivism you’ll eventually come across the topic of abortion as first a, “right” then an eventual mandate on those deemed unfit by some seriously deranged Eugenics concepts. The very notions and ideas in Hitler started in the States by Progressive Eugenics and the ideas carried forward into various power hungry groups across the world to this day.

          • Kimmie Smith

            Why are you wanting to punish the unborn human life? Whether incest or rape, granted a horrible thing to happen, but again, it’s not the innocent human life that committed this crime, they had no say so or part in it. Punish the raper or the perpetrator but not the baby.

          • Kimmie Smith

            Do we punish the unborn human being inside because of the accident? That’s how life works, you make a choice to do something and if the outcome is something you don’t desire, well you be an adult and take responsibility for it, in this case a human life, you don’t just trash it cause it’s going to interfere with your life. If it’s rape, how is it justifiable to take it out on the unborn innocent human life for what the raper did? It’s not the innocent’s fault so why deny them their right to life?

          • GaryTheBrave

            It is also not the woman’s right to demand that the public pay for her abortion.

          • Kimmie Smith

            How should the unborn human life be treated? Her responsibility comes when she accepts the risks and possibility of pregnancy even when on birth control and takes responsibility for the outcome.

          • Spinmamma

            If you don’t want children at all, why don’t you have yourself surgically sterilized.? Then you will never have to make that choice.

          • Kimmie Smith

            Even just 4 weeks is shocking to see!

    • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

      An entire group of baby-murder supporters.

      FIFY

  • JoeCollins

    Finally, the Democrats are honest with us.

  • Mr. Saturn

    Hell’s Ironic Punishments Division would have a field day with these folks. And I don’t think they have the absurd stamina of Homer Simpson.

  • CommieJuice

    #HailSatan is trending at the very top on twitter right now. The clueless Obama supporters, excuse me, the ‘informed’ Obama voters are stunned and asking why it’s trending when they should be asking why their side framed this debate properly for once. Amazing Grace vs Hail Satan. Hmmmm, that sums it up properly on this issue.

    Hopefully this will help plant seeds for younger people curious why it’s trending.

  • Jon Allen

    I love you Bushies, you’ll convince yourself that anything you want to be true is true. One person’s sarcasm does not constitute “crowds.” It’s why the video is only 35 seconds long, and limited to a very small section of the massive pro-women crowd. But of course, this whole argument isn’t about “protecting unborn children,” it never has been. Rather, it’s about scared, ignorant, southern white males trying their best to keep women in the kitchen and strip them of the dignity to make choices about their own body. Shouldn’t y’all be celebrating the recent victory your 4.5 nut-job SCOTUS justices gave you, permitting the one thing you’ve all desperately wanted for the last 50 years; the ability to take voting rights away from minorities? Go buy a Paula Deen cookbook and die of coronary disease. Seriously.

    • DavidC99

      If you’re going to waste your existence in this life praising baby-killing while mocking and wishing death upon whites, men, southerners, and the unborn, then I can only say with all seriousness that God’s judgment awaits you. You’re a disgusting human being, cloaking yourself in hatred and prejudice against those who would simply choose life for those whose only “crime” is that they have been conceived without any choice in the matter. You have chosen to be partakers with those who would slaughter babies for nothing more than convenience.

      Wisdom says, “For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.”

      It is also written, “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”

      I suggest you repent quickly.

    • Kimmie Smith

      So, only white males do this?

    • RememberSekhmet

      Look in a mirror, sweetcheeks. Your happy azz appears to be white and male. If white males are supposed to STFU, when are you going to set the example?

  • timmy gryphon

    Hail sithis lord of the void

    • ForTheRepublic

      What is the music of life?

  • BobM001

    Pendejo Puto

  • Dana

    This is so surreal to me. Someone mentioned on a tweet in this article that it was “all done in fun”!! Someone please explain to me how chanting those words that I can’t even bring myself to type, is anyone’s idea of fun?? I watched the DNC platform decisions all by accident. I don’t watch stuff that is going to make me angry anymore and it was just on my TV for some reason I can’t remember at this time. I HEARD and WATCHED with my own eyes as the crowd of democrats angrily demanded that God be taken out of their platform. I was beyond shocked and disbelief that this could be shouted with such exuberance from a crowd of Americans!!! Screaming what they screamed in TX is just one more validation that this party is truly the party of evil. The other isn’t much better at all but I doubt any of their supporters of which I am NOT one, would stoop so low as to yell out that dreadful name of our natural enemy while others defend the faith that helped shape this country from it’s beginning and guided all of our laws and sense of morality that used to make us the greatest nation on the planet. That idea is long gone thanks to evil people such as these folks. So so sad.

    • Kimmie Smith

      That’s another one of the devils tools he uses to attack Christians. You know he’s going to attack Christians the most, he tries to get Christians all riled up and so angry and attempts to get them distracted away from God however he can, getting you to focus more on the darkness out here instead of the light. I notice that the more I pay attention to the news, even the legit news and not msm, I feel angrier than ever and if you allow that to happen you are allowing the devil a foothold in your life. I’ve had to really try to cut back on reading a lot of articles.

  • yviemarie88

    Libs removed God (not really but let them think it) and replaced Him with a new religion, whereby they all worship at the alter of self. It doesn’t matter how you say it, that is fact.

    • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

      It’s called “Secular Humanism”.

  • eeddggy

    Why don’t they wear T-shirts stating;
    Front; “Support Abortion– Murder Defenseless Lives”.
    Back; “Ban Guns — Saving One Life is Worth It.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      Paging the “Irony Iron” cartoon… Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Margaret Manzi

    Wow. Speechless at such stupidity.

  • Hugh Beaumont

    Waaaa! Waaaaa! I want to have sex with anyone and then kill my baby but they won’t let me. Waaaaaa!

    • FaithColeridge33

      How’s Barbara?

      • Hugh Beaumont

        She’s worried about the Beave. Eddie’s been scaring him about nuclear bombs.

        • FaithColeridge33

          Old Eddie giving him the business again.

    • bmiller107

      Waaaa! Waaaa! My mom had an IUD in when she got pregnant with me. Birth control is not 100% effective.

      • Hugh Beaumont

        “Birth control” is a euphemism. As life insurance should be called death insurance, “birth control” is really no birth and no control.

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    WAIT! WHOA, STOP!! Atheists, chanting “Hail Satan?” I thought those bozos didn’t worship anyone/anything! Jawamax 8<{D}

  • JoeMyGodNYC

    OK, I’ve watched the video several times and as far as I can tell only one girl shouted “Hail Satan” and she was clearly just trying to disrupt the singing. This story is a nothing burger.

  • IronButterfly

    Satan the father of all lies. Abortion protects the life of the mother.

    • David Raineri-Maldonado

      Wow, did you even READ the bill?! “To protect the life of the mother” is an EXCEPTION.

  • John Beam

    Well. Marx was a Satanist after all. They’re just getting down to their roots…

  • http://www.scootervanneuter.com/ Scooter Van Neuter

    I give the pro-unborn child killers props for being honest enough to publicly acknowledge their father – why hide who working for?

  • FilleGitane

    Per Ace: This is what happens when you hire a bunch of “protesters” from Craigslist.

    • Deanna

      Now THAT’s funny! :) Same place as the Occupy groups! Well they are only there to quiet the truth and prevent others from talking off their blinders. Their argument is weak therefore the only option is to try to silence the pro-life argument! They can Hail Satan their way to secure a permanent reserved spot with their leader!

  • http://www.nleomf.org/officers/ FlatFoot

    In other words, Hail Obama — Lord of the Flies!

  • biggiewmn

    The bill that is before the Texas House/Senate, should be one that pro-choice people would back. It requires safer places to have abortions so that hopefully we will not have women getting sick and dying from the filthy places they go to have the abortion. Abortion doctors will be required to have hospital affiliations for patients that need help. The only thing they could reject is that abortions after 20 weeks would not be allowed. For them to object to this is heartless. A baby this far along has a nervous system and feels pain. At this point, one of my granddaughters could be seen on the ultrasound, sucking her thumb! Babies already have their personality traits and feel pleasure as well as pain. They are a living human being with all the potential that life gives humans. When a baby this old or older is aborted, it is the same as murdering a baby in a crib. When women say that it is their body and they can do with it what they want, they are right. But the baby is not their body. That is like saying because you made a pan of cornbread in a skillet, the cornbread and skillet are one. Nope, The cornbread was made in the skillet, but it is seperate from it. It is the same with a woman and a baby. They are 2 individuals with their own DNA. To bring religion into it, that baby, from the instant of conception, has a soul. To end it’s life at any point is murder. If a woman does not want a baby, then have it and give it up for adoption. There are so many people out there who want children but cannot have them. Oops, going off in a different direction.

  • floridavet

    When you start chanting “Hail Satan,” and having your children hold signs saying you want to “f**k a senator,” and you don’t realize you’ve gone over the edge…then you’ve clearly gone over the edge.

  • http://nbcfund.com/ slcraig

    It appears that the source of that “penumbrae zone right”
    that SCOTUS found hidden in the 14th Amd for “absolute privacy” has
    been found….hail ‘who’..?

  • AMP48

    Stay out of my mommy’s vagina [my sister’s being murdered]

  • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

    “Small group of abortion rights protestors heckling a larger group of anti abortion activists. Chanting “more white males” sarcastically”

    Blacks currently make up 16% of all births in the US (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf, Table 13, p. 43).

    Given that the abortion ratio for blacks is 490 abortions/1000 live births – vs.156/1000 for whites and 326/1000 for Hispanics – there will ALWAYS be more white males (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6015.pdf, Table 13, p.29)

    Math is a stone cold bitch, ladies….

  • Name

    Murder of babys! To cause a painful death and slaughter babys!

  • stuckinIL4now

    I wonder how many of these protestors, who seem to represent the perfect
    example of the heartlessness of what they support, were the
    subject/object of an abortion should-I-or-shouldn’t-I debate within
    their own mothers?

  • souphands

    Oh lawdy me! Fetch me the fainting couch Beauregard!

  • David Hamm

    Welcome to Austin and the U of Texas.. Our universities are breeding ground for low IQ and info voters

  • eHossner

    Hail Satan, y’all!

  • Stephanie Warren

    Hail to your lord and master, idiots.

  • Gary Norton

    Hail Satan? Seriously? How ignorant and childish can you get?

  • Rena

    Why am I not surprised? Seems sacrificing a child is synonymous to Satanists, these women would rather sacrifice the life of their unborn child so they can live the life how they want without an ounce of sorrow or remorse, just the same as the satanists who would do the same to others. How sad this nation/world has become, but closer to the end…

  • dave_570m

    why do we let them get away with this ???? you fight FIRE with FIRE !!!!! it’s time to stand up to the slime and if nessecary physically remove them from everywhere !!!

  • dave_570m

    looks like a whole lot of double talk. Some of you use words that make it look like you are educated but i think your all full os sh_t !!!!! what it comes down to is what side you will be on when TSHTF!!!!! it won’t matter what god you believe in just who’s side your on, i for one will be on the right side ……

  • James A. Lonon

    They figure Satan is the true power in the world and want to be on the winning side. I have news for them. The battle has yet to begin. God is only waiting till people decide which side they are on before destroying them. I hope they like it hot where they are headed.

  • stevesimitzis

    False. They are chanting “not the church/not the state/women will decide their fate” which is a pro-choice chant going back to the 60s. Rewatch the video, you can clearly pick out the words once you know what they are.

    One dips**t at the end says “Hail Satan” for shock value, undeniably true. But that’s not what the crowd is chanting. Rewatch the video then correct this post.

    • Stephen L. Hall

      I thought the “Fates” were women.

  • Molly NYC

    All this shows is that the anti-abortion crowd (a) will happily lie like a rug; and (b) will believe anything.

    • Stephen L. Hall

      Kind of like those congressmen who claimed Tea Party members were calling them the N-word, for which there was absolutely no evidence, but (a) they lied and (b) liberals believed it. Oh, wait, this is nothing like that, because, however few there were, (a) it actually happened and (b) it was documented.

      • Molly NYC

        You might ask someone to explain to you the difference between being documented and being retweeted.
        Then you might ask yourself what possible reason pro-choice women would have for claiming to “worship Satan”–and whether, of all the reasons you can think of, any of them are more likely than the original tweeter simply fibbing.

        • Stephen L. Hall

          Um . . . video IS documentation.

          As for the reason, it was pretty obvious that the girl was trying to be offensive, not sincere. In fairness, it may have just been the one girl, but also in fairness, that is one more than those Congressmen slandering the Tea Party had.

          As for your assertion that the tweeter was simply fibbing, who am I to believe, your conjecture or my own eyes and ears watching the video.

    • Stephen L. Hall

      Kind of like those congressmen who claimed Tea Party members were calling them the N-word, for which there was absolutely no evidence, but (a) they lied and (b) liberals believed it. Oh, wait, this is nothing like that, because, however few there were, (a) it actually happened and (b) it was documented.

    • Eponymous1

      And the Pro-aborts will kill children for convenience, up to and after birth. The blood of 55,000,000 and counting, you’ve exceeded the genocidal butchery of the most monstrous (atheist) dictators of the previous century, the bloodiest in human history. Congratulations.

      • Dano2

        No need to lie about reality. We live in it every day. Stop your blatant and cr*ppy lying. It’s not convincing to anyone with an IQ over 80.

        Best,

        D

      • michael cole

        Actually Hitler was Catholic. But lets take it a step further…if you want to through genocide at athiests, then theists get every holy war in history….. quite an accomplishment.

        • Tony Thompson

          Being raised a Catholic doesn’t make one a Catholic anymore that being raised an Atheist makes someone that believes in God an Atheist. Hitler was hardly a Catholic being that he was trying to bring back the Nordic religions, rewrote the Bible to fit his Aryan views, replaced the crucifixes in all the chruches with pictures of himself and even supported a distorted view of Darwinism to Justify killing Jews. The Nazis where definitely for putting the secular over the religious.

          • michael cole

            I agree. We must judge people by individual actions, not generalized stereotypes we have of them.

          • choiceone

            FYI, the Nazis were also anti-choice. They encouraged abortion among those they wanted to eliminate, but they banned abortion for so-called Aryan women. They forced Aryan women to continue pregnancies.

          • Tony Thompson

            You’re right, the Nazis pushed abortion for the same reason Margret Sanger established Planned Parenthood or its forebarer, to kill the babies of undesirables…

          • Tony Thompson

            Of course if you want to go that way, Hitler was also a big environmentalist and provided government health care to his people… trying to compare the Nazis to Christians is absolutely ridiculous…

        • bitemeDC

          Oh lawdy here we go again with the Crusades….

      • rwgate

        eponymous1- whatever you’re smoking, put it out. It’s damaging to your brain.

        • David Raineri-Maldonado

          Have anything better than an argumentum ad hominem?

  • liberalssuck

    Ah liberals. hate the fact that we have freedom of religion, speech, firearms and just liberty in general.

    • Eponymous1

      They hate any freedom but that to rut with anyone or anything, at any time and in any place. If you’re not on board with that you “hate sex” (ha!) or are a bigot and hater of some sort. The freedoms in the Constitution they definitely can’t stand. That’s why they’re “liberal fascists.”

      • Stephen L. Hall

        See, they are just misunderstood and mislabeled.

        They are not “liberals”; they are “libertines”.

    • bmiller107

      Then why are you so against these people’s free speech?

      • Charles Hammond Jr

        We’re not against their freedom of speech… we’re just trying to keep them honest.

        You’re right to say anything you want. You don’t have the right to say something, then later come around and say that you didn’t say it.

        The right to free speech does not include the right to lie or commit fraud.

        The right to free speech also does not include the right to not be offended, nor does it give anyone the right to squelch opinions contrary to their own.

      • liberalssuck

        Where did I say I was? I am against abortion I even said I support their right to voice their opinions. I am in fact not offended by their speech. Again you bring up points I never said. Is there a reading comprehension problem?

  • liberalssuck

    Ah liberals. hate the fact that we have freedom of religion, speech, firearms and just liberty in general.

  • JimmyD

    Hahaha. Exactly one teenager says ‘hail satan’ to get under the skin of some religious nutters, and you people all throw up your hands and declare your actual belief that more than half the country are really Satan worshipers. Typical and hilarious. Don’t believe me? Here’s video:http://acahnman.blogspot.com/2013/07/texas-capital-abortion-supporters-chant.html

    • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

      Are you deaf and/or braindead?

      • JimmyD

        Name calling == admitting you’ve lost the argument.

    • Stephen L. Hall

      No one really claimed they were Satan worshipers, but ran with the symbolic jest. It is, however, obvious that they are crude, rude and socially unacceptable. These political agitators think that offending and mocking and over-shouting are legitimate forms of political persuasion. Unfortunately, there are those who follow their lead and join in their mocking and declare that their opponents “actually believe” the mockery was sincere. Sad, it really is sad how easily some people are led.

      • bitemeDC

        Or no how to access Craig’s list for an ez pay day doing what comes naturally.

  • demoivre

    I love how the pro-lifers at the Texas capitol are all normal families peacefully singing and stuff. You never see a pro-lifer with a vulgar sign at these rallies. But the pro-choice crowd are a bunch of horrible social oddballs with no respect for anything. The contrast is so apparent its unreal. I know what side I want to be on and it’s not the side of ugly dykes saying “Hail Satan” and demanding the right to free late-term abortion funded by the taxpayer. They are disgusting and only care about themselves.

    • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

      Is that a woman on the right? Or a man?

    • rwgate

      I really don’t want to be on your side. So God fearing. What a lovely person you are, imbued with grace and charity. We’ll just forget that little branding of yours, calling all the people there “ugly dykes”.

      You truly are a disgusting person.

  • Guest

    I love how the pro-lifers at the Texas capitol are all normal families peacefully singing and stuff. You never see a pro-lifer with a vulgar sign at these rallies. But the pro-choice crowd are a bunch of horrible social oddballs with no respect for anything. The contrast is so apparent its unreal. I know what side I want to be on and its not the side of ugly dykes saying “Hail Satan” and demanding the right to late-term abortion funded by the taxpayer.

    • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

      That lady in the red shirt is already well on her way to having her breasts as buddies for her navel. Ew.

  • Darrel Cox

    So, precisely what did everyone think was really going on in the United States all these years since Roe v. Wade? What was really motivating it? In recorded history, the sacrifice of life, particularly the life of the most innocent humans, pre-born or newly born, is an activity sought by preternatural beings. Their names among ancient civilizations were different (viz., Moloch, Baal, Ashteroth, et al.), but their nature and motivation remains the same to the day.

    And here you thought it was all about when life began (so the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade), and quickly turned to “a woman’s right to choose” when medical science’s ability to keep a pre-born baby viable earlier and earlier, to the point that no no one could any longer rationally based the grounds for abortion on not knowing when life began, but rather a “woman’s right to choose” is not pitted against a pre-born baby’s right to continue living.

    You will never be able to say you never knew.

  • liberalssuck

    I have a question, you all do not want murders to be executed. However killing a baby because it is unwanted is ok. I doubt you can see the hypocrisy but it is there. I notice too it is only the born who agree to abortion.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    It’s official-Those who #StandWithWendy are no better than the Philadelphia Eagles fans who cheered when Michael Irvin went down.

  • A Friend

    I heard that they also said that Mary should have aborted.

  • PilatesQuestion

    Finally the anti-life agenda comes out of the closet.

  • $8245944

    They espouse evil, so of course they hail Satan.

  • Loriech

    Now you know what the Army of Satan looks like and they will not rest until all Christians are slaughtered.

  • Loriech

    Now you know what the Army of Satan looks like and they will not rest until all Christians are slaughtered.

  • Lee1936

    Who was history’s greatest mass murderer? Hitler? Stalin? Mao?

    No, it was an attractive, well-married Irish-American girl named Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood. PP as a corporation went international, and now murders children in many nations. If you consider all those overseas murders with those in America, you’ll see that Sanger made Stalin, Hitler, and Mao look very unprofessional.

  • fred2

    UPDATE

    Satanists Distance Themselves From Pro-Abortion “Hail Satan” Chants

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/04/satanists-distance-themselves-from-pro-abortion-hail-satan-chants/

    You should seriously reconsider your support for abortion when the Church of Satan thinks you’re too wicked even for them.

  • Jrad

    Brady Surovik was the long awaited 8 pound 2 oz child of Heather Surovik, but tragically little Brady’s life was suddenly snuffed out by a drunk driver in Colorado on July 5th, 2012.

    Under Colorado law the drunk driver would normally be charged with vehicular homicide.

    Yet Colorado prosecutors refused to bring any charges against the driver.

    Why you ask?

    You see Brady was two days away from birth.

    This story is a result of how our society devalues the life of the weakest among us. If Brady’s mother knew some idiot that cannot control their drinking problem would kill her baby, she could have had labor induced and Brady would have been a person.

    This is outrageous, Brady was a person, he was a much loved and adored baby despite being killed in the womb.

    We as a society will never become fully civilized until we protect the rights of the weakest among us and it’s only a matter of time before we do advance to this stage so I suggest we focus on avoiding the need for abortion, prevention is the easy solution and should be something both sides can agree on.

  • Ellen K

    Note in photo that the Hail Satan contingent is seated on what would be considered a pentagram. It would have been interesting to see what they would have done had the evil one shown up.

  • Kleverabevera

    The name satan, (satan) – and the feminine form Sitnah: – come from the verb (satan)
    meaning to resist or be an adversary and is used six times in the
    Bible, for instance in Psalm 38:20, where it reads: ‘…they me because good follows me.’)

    The word “devil” means slanderer.

    Your entire premise crumbles. Wow that was easy.

  • NRPax

    And refusal to allow abortion in cases after 20 weeks when it is medically appropriate

    I take it that you are relying on talking points instead of reading the bill for yourself. Fetal deformity was covered as an exemption.

    So Democratic Party people are allowed to call themselves Democrats but heaven forbid anyone else does? I never knew that Democrat was the new N-word.

  • Pali Pavone

    So… let me see if I understand you, choiceone.. it’s “medically appropriate” to murder children with physical handicaps or maladies? Hitler would be proud of you.

  • Dana

    Choice, you have a lot of gall. You are missing the point of this deliberately by using arbitrary defintions of a word to validate your hatred for people of faith, particularly Christians who are the only group of people left in this country that it’s perfectly acceptable to malign and castiagate for our faith that does NOT condone evil such as this. Your euphemistic, semantic nonsense to validate what is a no brainer to most of us is just corroboration that your ideology as well as yourself are just as demonic as the people you attempted to lend credence to. Evil is evil no matter how you attempt to use it. Your obvious intent to blame one party over another when both are pathetic is a vain attempt to take focus off the story here and thus changing the conversation to ignore the reality of the blatant evil that is “pro-choice”!!

  • Redfury

    Abortion for a mother who’s life was threatened could still be done after 5 months…also severe birth defects. This was considered reasonable in the new bill that was to be passed….so I don’t know why that wasn’t considered good enough. For all other cases….5 months in utero the baby is fully developed by outward appearance…just needs to finish baking in the oven. Being called murderers is not slander. It is calling a spade a spade. I feel empathy for women who feel so hopeless that they give up the right to be called mom. Abortion enslaves….it does not free the women.

  • Caleb Herod

    Man, that was pedantic.

  • ThatConfused1

    If this is your nitpicks, you must be the most addle minded nerd rager I’ve seen in awhile. Democrats were calling themselves Democrats since the early 1800’s, so I don’t get your conflicting logic over naming conventions but I guess you just flipped your Whig.

    You might want to check up on who Susan B. Anthony was and what party she belonged to including her stances on such things as abortion. Hint: She was THE fighter for women’s rights and you’ll not like what she’ll say about pro-abortion groups or what party endorsed and backed her fight (another hint, it wasn’t the democrats that helped her.)

  • Kleverabevera

    The name satan, (satan) – and the feminine form Sitnah: – come from the verb (satan)
    meaning to resist or be an adversary and is used six times in the
    Bible, for instance in Psalm 38:20, where it reads: ‘…they me because good follows me.’)

    The Devil (from Greek: διάβολος or diábolos = slanderer or accuser)

    Your entire premise crumbles. Wow that was easy. I do not think you are ignorant. I just think you chose to lie to bolster your ridiculous argument.

  • FaithColeridge33

    Whatever gets you through the night.

  • romanmoronie

    What an embarrassing pile of crap you are. There was no intelligence on display, liar. How typical that you believe yourself better educated and cleverer than the great unwashed that you think you can post drivel, not once, but twice and we’re all too stupid to see through your nonsense. A-hole. You know, I have a different take on the Word of God than many people of faith and I believe He hates evil. That pretty much means He hates you, which also means I hate you. So anything I can do to screw up the life of a POS like you is good with me.

  • DavidC99

    Incorrect. As has been already discussed, the English word “Satan” comes from the Hebrew word השטן, which means “The Adversary.” It’s transliterated as “Hasatan” with all of the ‘a’ letters sounding something like the ‘a’ in “father,” depending on your English dialect.

    When faced with a group singing Amazing Grace, these people chose to praise Satan. It sounds perhaps like they just wanted to agitate the Christians by doing something that was blasphemous in their eyes, but either way, it’s blasphemous in God’s eyes, and they will receive judgment for this, in addition to their desire to kill off their own offspring.

    Lastly, you wrote to the person you commented, “you fit right in with those who hate God when you hate the right to choose.” On the contrary, those who love God’s commandments love him. We know that God wants us to value life. Abortion is murder. Thus, you have it completely backwards about God’s position on abortion and on those who love God. This means that you’re in danger of judgment, as it is written, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

  • bicentennialguy

    You can’t be friggin serious. Your Rold Gold pretzel twist nuancing is breathtaking.

  • Pali Pavone

    I’ve heard that that “Satan” is Hebrew for “the accuser” (which is what choiceone did above); and that “devil” is from the Greek “diabolos”, meaning “to foment, to agitate, to sow discord”, (which is what choiceone did above).

  • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

    Yes, there are many ‘satans’, as evidenced by Jesus calling out Peter, saying ‘Get thee behind me, Satan’… not calling him Lucifer, but calling him an adversary.

    It’s actually used 49 times in the Bible. Mostly in Job.

    Matthew 16:23
    But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

    Sounds like those above ‘savour’ abortion.

  • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

    Naw… God doesn’t hate people. He hates evil behavior and the spirit that influences such behavior. So while He may hate “evil”, we’re all just empty vessels, influenced by the spirit that fills us… not all have the Holy Spirit. As evidenced above, and in many instances daily.

  • Grandma HeadInjury

    “flipped your Whig”

    Awesome!

  • choiceone

    The people who are called Democrats belong to the Democratic Party, which is the official name of that party and the name that Democrats themselves use for their party. The only people who call that party the “Democrat Party” are non-Democrats, and they give away the fact that they are not Democrats simply by using that incorrect name.

    Susan B Anthony’s name has been abused by anti-abortion people for a long time. Go to the Wiki that discusses this and you’ll find that out. The world’s expert on Susan B Anthony is a real historical scholar, not a rich man’s housewife working for an anti-abortion group. And by the standards of historical professionalism, Susan B Anthony was not an anti-abortion ranter.

  • fanofamerica

    Anyone else see the pattern – that’s 3 times in the last week that liberals have tried to twist definitions in their defense – ‘creepy ass cracker’ (it’s Florida history!), ‘toxic little queen’ (it’s a compliment!) and now satan. Wow.

  • DavidC99

    “For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.”

    I think there is a case to be made that there are some people whom God hates.

  • GaryTheBrave

    Amen. Good point as well.

  • Spinmamma

    Just wondering, have you ever read the Bible in its entirety?

  • Hugh Beaumont

    Nice try. Babies are good. Stop killing them.

  • Montana Made

    I am always amazed at people who hitch their wagon to “theories” as actual facts when science cannot back up their beliefs. God (my not so imaginary friend) is in all things- science proves to me that fact every day. The earth cannot be so random to be this precise- in other words- we are NOT an accident- nor is this place we live in. We were created in His image and He made this place- and all the science that goes with it.

    Whether I can prove it or you can disprove it is still up in the air- but do not make the mistake of mocking those that believe either way.

    Look at it this way: If we both die today and there is no God- we both will have lived the lives we wanted to. If we die today and there IS a God… well good luck with that Charley- you will have an uphill struggle on your hands…

  • Kimmie Smith

    What is it that keeps some people from murdering others? Would it bother you emotionally to go out here and shoot a person and kill them?

  • KaraChu

    Nice try! That sex education encouraged those KIDS to EXPLORE THEIR SEXUALITY. So who’s to blame for teens and young adults getting pregnant before proper maturity?

  • Hugh Beaumont

    And you abortionists can’t even engage in sex rationally.

  • Hugh Beaumont

    And you abortionists can’t even engage in sex rationally.

  • Eponymous1

    Why when we want to talk about not killing children, you want to talk more about not making them? Oh, I guess you’re getting that covered by encouraging homosexuality…

  • Eponymous1

    Why when we want to talk about not killing children, you want to talk more about not making them? Oh, I guess you’re getting that covered by encouraging homosexuality…

  • Kimmie Smith

    You went to a Christian school and have read the Bible from front to end. I’m curious as to what happened to make you so angry and doubtful about the whole thing?

  • Spinmamma

    I asked because I find it perplexing that people pick out only the “angry god” stuff in the OT and completely pass up all of the OT passages describing God as compassionate and loving. Also, regarding Revelations, it might interest you to know that the Catholic interpretation of most, not all, of Revelations is that it pertains to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD and the horrible persecution of the neophyte Christians by successive Roman regimes. Under that reading there is no need to wrench the meaning to fit modern times. But, to each his own.

  • Spinmamma

    I asked because I find it perplexing that people pick out only the “angry god” stuff in the OT and completely pass up all of the OT passages describing God as compassionate and loving. Also, regarding Revelations, it might interest you to know that the Catholic interpretation of most, not all, of Revelations is that it pertains to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD and the horrible persecution of the neophyte Christians by successive Roman regimes. Under that reading there is no need to wrench the meaning to fit modern times. But, to each his own.

  • Kimmie Smith

    If it’s not human, what is it?

  • Conservagrl

    Just a curiosity question, are you for unlimited restrictions to abortion? or do you have your limits? if you have limits why? also just curious, if a gay gene was ever found would you then propose limits being imposed on abortions? Like I said it’s a curiosity question, but something tells me the left would be in an uproar if abortions were carried out based on whether an identified gene for homosexuality was found.

  • Jrad

    It’s easy to trample the rights of an entire class of people when they don’t have a voice to stand up for themselves. The pre-born citizens have the right to not be deprived of life without due process and it’s only a matter of time before society looks back at the holocaust of abortion to be far worse than the nazi holocaust, slavery, or other human right violations.

    If half the effort used to keep this murder legal was used to prevent unwanted preg, we would have little need for abortion in this country.

    ps. you were a human being long before your mother gave birth and other then the fact that you first begun breathing air, very little about you changed on that day.

  • Conservagrl

    Thank You for answering. I just have doubts that those on the left who advocate abortion on demand would still do so if a gene was found that could determine whether or not an individual would become gay.

  • Eponymous1

    Do you have any idea who it is you’re talking about killing at that stage in pregnancy? Here’s from Babycenter — not political in any way “This week, your baby measures over 16 inches long. He weighs about 3 1/3 pounds (about the size of a coconut) and is heading into a growth spurt. He can turn his head from side to side, and his arms, legs, and body are beginning to plump out as needed fat accumulates underneath his skin. He’s probably moving a lot, too, so you may have trouble sleeping because your baby’s kicks and somersaults keep you up. Take comfort: All this moving is a sign that your baby is active and healthy.”

    You advocate the killing of an independent, viable human being. I hope you are only willfully blind instead of thoroughly evil. Liberals pretend to love science, but they hate the science of fetal development — it puts the lie to their euphemisms.

  • Eponymous1

    Do you have any idea who it is you’re talking about killing at that stage in pregnancy? Here’s from Babycenter — not political in any way “This week, your baby measures over 16 inches long. He weighs about 3 1/3 pounds (about the size of a coconut) and is heading into a growth spurt. He can turn his head from side to side, and his arms, legs, and body are beginning to plump out as needed fat accumulates underneath his skin. He’s probably moving a lot, too, so you may have trouble sleeping because your baby’s kicks and somersaults keep you up. Take comfort: All this moving is a sign that your baby is active and healthy.”

    You advocate the killing of an independent, viable human being. I hope you are only willfully blind instead of thoroughly evil. Liberals pretend to love science, but they hate the science of fetal development — it puts the lie to their euphemisms.

  • Boetica

    It can survive in it’s normal and usual environment, which is the mother’s body. This is what constitutes viability. It is genetically separate with human DNA. And YOU have the nerve to mock people for not having an argument. Amazing.

  • Eponymous1

    Here’s your “zygot”

    http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-31-weeks

    Arms legs, head, moving and kicking, sucking its thumb, independent heartbeat, unique human DNA. Murder, Murder Murder.

  • Eponymous1

    Here’s your “zygot”

    http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-31-weeks

    Arms legs, head, moving and kicking, sucking its thumb, independent heartbeat, unique human DNA. Murder, Murder Murder.

  • Kimmie Smith

    So you think that a baby that has been born is able to survive more than a moment without the support of the mother?

  • Kimmie Smith

    So you’re saying it is NOT human? Is it plant, mammal, etc.?

  • Eponymous1

    At 31 weeks, it certainly can survive outside the womb, but no baby can “survive on its own” unassisted until long after birth.

  • Eponymous1

    At 31 weeks, it certainly can survive outside the womb, but no baby can “survive on its own” unassisted until long after birth.

  • Kimmie Smith

    Even a pre-teen cannot survive on their own without support of the mother/father. Should you be able to kill them up until they turn the age of being able to actually get a job and support themselves on their own?

  • Kimmie Smith

    Have you even taken the time to go look at what a 4 week old fetus looks like? I guarantee you if you go look it up you’ll find a picture of one that without a doubt resembles a human being with arms and legs beginning to develop already. The heart begins beating within 18-22 days after conception, only 18-22 DAYS. If the heart is beating, and you can go look that fact up yourself, you cannot deny that that is not a human life forming.

  • Tony Thompson

    It can’t survive on it’s own even when it’s outside the mother, so I guess you support the killing of infants. On the other hand, you criticize prolifers for not being able to back their arguments up with science yet your statements are completely unscientific. Zygote represents the first week of pregnancy and then it develops into a Epiblast by the end of the second week. Any biologist will tell you that is ceases to be a simple mass of cells after the third week and anything after the 1st trimester is certainly not that. At some point in the womb there is no question that it is a baby and it is murder. Any reputable scientist will tell you that.

  • DavidC99

    You haven’t advanced one argument in favor of your agenda, which is the slaughter of babies for nothing more than convenience. Now once you’re called out for your ugly position and your rabid hatred for your opponents to the point of wishing death upon them, you cower behind the concept of “sarcasm.” Where was the sarcasm in the comment to which I replied? (Before you open your mouth, I advise you to look up the word “sarcasm” in an actual dictionary. I doubt you know what the word means. Incidentally, if you don’t know how to use a dictionary, I’m sure someone would be more than willing to help you.)

    While you pretend you’re better educated, at least when compared to me, I sincerely have my doubts. First of all, the first word of this reply of yours should have been “Your” and not “You,” but I’ll forgive that mistake, because typos happen. Nevertheless, I should not expect an educated person to glory in the deaths of innocent children, like you do. Furthermore, an educated man should see no contradiction in saying that 1) God’s judgment awaits an advocate of infanticide, and that 2) an advocate of infanticide is a disgusting human being. Where is the contradiction, O educated man? Where is the hypocrisy? Would an educated man be so lacking in vocabulary and the ability to reason that he would write a post such as this tirade written by you? “‘Protect women?’ You stupid f***ing b***-less Republican d*** f*** a******. Governor Good Hair is a less than human piece of s***.”

    While you accuse me of hatred and bigotry, it should be painfully obvious to the educated that you are guilty of projection. Let me know if you need help looking that word up in the dictionary as well. It might help.

  • DavidC99

    You haven’t advanced one argument in favor of your agenda, which is the slaughter of babies for nothing more than convenience. Now once you’re called out for your ugly position and your rabid hatred for your opponents to the point of wishing death upon them, you cower behind the concept of “sarcasm.” Where was the sarcasm in the comment to which I replied? (Before you open your mouth, I advise you to look up the word “sarcasm” in an actual dictionary. I doubt you know what the word means. Incidentally, if you don’t know how to use a dictionary, I’m sure someone would be more than willing to help you.)

    While you pretend you’re better educated, at least when compared to me, I sincerely have my doubts. First of all, the first word of this reply of yours should have been “Your” and not “You,” but I’ll forgive that mistake, because typos happen. Nevertheless, I should not expect an educated person to glory in the deaths of innocent children, like you do. Furthermore, an educated man should see no contradiction in saying that 1) God’s judgment awaits an advocate of infanticide, and that 2) an advocate of infanticide is a disgusting human being. Where is the contradiction, O educated man? Where is the hypocrisy? Would an educated man be so lacking in vocabulary and the ability to reason that he would write a post such as this tirade written by you? “‘Protect women?’ You stupid f***ing b***-less Republican d*** f*** a******. Governor Good Hair is a less than human piece of s***.”

    While you accuse me of hatred and bigotry, it should be painfully obvious to the educated that you are guilty of projection. Let me know if you need help looking that word up in the dictionary as well. It might help.

  • Kimmie Smith

    Man, that school really did a number on you.

  • Kimmie Smith

    You said that Jesus hated healing the sick and feeding the poor in one sentence and then the next you said that Jesus was about love and compassion.
    Sounds extremely contradicting.
    And if you are against the death penalty then why aren’t you against abortion? Is the murderer guy as innocent as the unborn human life still in the womb?

  • Charley James

    It can survive with the help of the mother, the father, a nurse, a midwife, a wolf, my Golden Retriever, whatever, because as long as it’s given food, is kept warm and has shelter it can digest food and breathe on its own.

  • Jon Allen

    I accuse you of nothing. I merely point out the fact that you’re a hypocrite. I am pro-woman and pro-person, you are anti-reality and anti-woman: You want less abortions, increase access to birth control. Actual studies have shown this. But then again, I somewhat doubt you can read, since by your own belligerent admission, you can’t spot “the use of irony to mock or convey contempt” when it’s staring you in the face. As for education, you’re welcome to do a moderate amount of homework and find the papers I have published and research in relativity I have done. But thanks for stalking me, it’s kinda hot, big boy!

    Now go back to the tiny town from footloose and stop people from dancing.

  • Boetica

    “Human life begins at conception and progresses through natural death.” This is a scientific definition. You are not aware of your environment when you are sleeping, and most of the time when comatose. I guess that means you are fine with killing humans in their sleep?
    The “collection of cells” argument was abandoned long ago when ultrasound proved it wrong.

  • Boetica

    Few people object to abortion in a case like that. Then again, those cases are very few as well.

  • Jrad

    Many abortion activists have a history of abortion that haunts them, but convincing others that it’s justifiable to take the life of an unwanted baby won’t erase their guilt, it will only harden their hearts.

    Everyone has an opinion on what makes a person human, we’ve heard several here today, most range from a few weeks after conception to birth, but I have to question if anyone who can take the life of a baby is human… I’d suggest they are very similar to the description of a bunch of cells and fluid and totally lacking a soul, or any moral center of thought and reason.

  • Boetica

    That pretty much blows Charley’s argument out of the water. Good job.

  • DavidC99

    Except you haven’t demonstrated hypocrisy in my words nor sarcasm in yours. On the contrary, the only thing you have to offer is a bunch of contradictory nonsense. You claim to be pro-woman while you stand in favor of killing babies, some of which happen to be female babies who would have grown up to be women of whom you would then pretend to be in favor.

    Incidentally, only a pervert would claim a discussion on the Internet involving infanticide makes them aroused. You have serious issues. Everything I said originally about you deserving God’s judgment is true, and probably more so than I stated. I urge you again to repent.

  • DavidC99

    1) I think you answered your own comment about the death wish. Besides, the entire point of this debate is all about his abnormal desire to force death on babies, his ultimate opponents apparently.
    2) I have no idea what you’re talking about with regard to conservatives wanting to kill liberals; liberals are all in a tizzy because they want to butcher their own kids. Conservatives oppose murder.
    3) His rabid hatred was shown, at the very least, in his profanity-filled tirade that I had quoted.
    4) Your jab at the Bible and at my belief in it says a lot more about you than you probably realize.
    5) His first word in the comment was, in fact, “You.” He edited it later to correct his mistake. As you noted, I was gracious to forgive him. Typos happen.

  • Tom Anderson

    Please share with us videos of people all over America running around with loaded weapons while they shout down legislatures. I saw one guy, who was carrying legally and making a point about the NRA, not shouting down a politician or threatening him in any way as you infer. Go pound sand.

  • Tom Anderson

    Please share with us videos of people all over America running around with loaded weapons while they shout down legislatures. I saw one guy, who was carrying legally and making a point about the NRA, not shouting down a politician or threatening him in any way as you infer. Go pound sand.

  • liberalssuck

    Really all yea got. Actually most of us think abortion just for the sake of abortion is wrong. However most understand it is a private matter and they, the individual, will have to stand before god and explain it. I love the teabagger insult, coming from such bigoted people as yourselves, is an honor :). Unlike you all we understand it is a freedom of choice. Most do not agree but again that is between you and your maker. we also understand you voicing your displeasure is a god given right. However we too have those same rights, even tho that bothers you folks to no end.

  • GoneFishing

    That’s right, berate others for branding. But you think your own, “right wing Teabaggers” branding of others is just fine. What makes you think anyone wants to know about your sexual fantasies anyway?
    Have a taste of your own “You truly are a disgusting person” and go pound sand.

  • bitemeDC

    see: “hyperbole”:

    “A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.”

  • liberalssuck

    Please link it. I haven’t seen anything on that. No you do not. If you did, you would not violently protest religion, guns, or freedom of speech.

  • liberalssuck

    Please link it. I haven’t seen anything on that. No you do not. If you did, you would not violently protest religion, guns, or freedom of speech.

  • Jrad

    What planet have you been living on???

    Surely not Earth

  • bitemeDC

    Libs can be such “drama queens”…

  • David Raineri-Maldonado

    “…[T]he only people who’ve been calling for revoking the 14th [A]mendment are conservatives.”
    While I believe the Incorporation Clause should be upheld (I don’t want States violating the Rights of citizens), I would repeal the rest, as it allows the problem with anchor babies.
    ‘…I’ve seen plenty of cries on the part of conservatives to restrict voting rights….”
    To CITIZENS only. Also, if we are trying to exclude Blacks, WHY are the Voter IDs included REQUIRED to be free?
    “…[W]ho want to repeal women’s suffrage….”
    Proof?
    “…[W]ho want to go back to appointed Senators.”
    Since the current system isn’t working (just go to ANY poll after the first year of ANY Congress or Federal Administration for proof), why not go back to the old system, where the States had representation as well as the People more generally?
    “We strongly support the Constitution, all of it, not just the parts we agree with. Why can’t you?”
    “…[A]ll of it” sounds, at least to me, dangerously close to idolatry; don’t put your faith in materials, however powerful and ordering. Also, a. see the last two sentences of liberalssuck’s reply, and b. I can’t support ANYTHING that has been corrupted by progressives (understanding I. it’s been corrupted not because progressives touched it, but because their ideas are offensive against God, and II. I only don’t support the parts having been corrupted, not necessarily the whole document.)

  • liberalssuck

    Tom, it is all they got man. They feel superior and we look at them with disdain.

  • bmiller107

    If someone is willing to remove a 4 week old fetus from a woman’s body and care for it, I say go for it!

  • Jon Allen

    Hahahaha. You demonstrated hypocrisy in YOUR OWN WORDS.

    Obama will go down as the president who has done the most to curb abortion, precisely because Obamacare has made birth control more affordable and available. Yet you hate black people so much, you can’t see that.

    So I stand by my original statement; “I love you Bushies…” Seriously, you’re hilarious: You believe that a magical man in the sky is controlling everything while watching you masturbate in airport restrooms while thinking about dudes. But you’re totally not gay, so don’t worry; nobody knows.

    Seriously though, read a book. A book about science. Learn something. Explore the universe you live in. Stop hating women.

  • Jon Allen

    I urge you to stop hating women, minorities, and the poor, and instead live the life that Jesus spoke of. Also, I urge you to learn English and study logic.

  • Jrad

    Well Said

  • Charley James

    No, I was not a “human being” prior to being born. I was a collection of tissue and fluid without a functioning brain.

    I have yet to find a single “pro-life” person who can explain to me how you can equate termination with murder without theology. From a legal standpoint, you’re not alive until you’re born and take your first breath. A Certificate of Live Birth is not granted unless that first breath gets taken.

    In any event, this really isn’t about terminating a pregnancy; it’s about the
    control and subjugation of reproductive freedom and women. And the fact that
    some of the movement’s apologists have vaginas makes it even more offensive. People who are anti-termination are fronting for people and institutions – Governors Perry and Brownback, the Family Research Council, others – are laughing at you. You are being used and they can’t believe their luck.

    I’ll never be convinced that most anti-termination animus isn’t fueled by
    frustration that “sluts” get to evade the consequences of ignoring religious
    sexual rules. For these people, unplanned pregnancy is punishment for screwing
    outside marriage and terminating a pregnancy is a get-out-of-jail free card.

    Finally, a word to people who don’t trust women to make their own medical
    decisions: NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY. Mind your own business, please, and stop with all the patronizing bullpuckey. It’s insulting
    and regressive.

  • Kimmie Smith

    I’m talking about after the mother takes the infant home. Is it able to survive on its own without the support of it’s mother at that point?

  • dabhidh

    Please provide some evidence of Hitler’s “devout” Catholicism. He actually wrote a book, I believe – did it perhaps explain his plan for a Catholic Germany?

    HInt: There’s actually a pretty good Wikipedia article on Hitler’s religious views. It does not present him as a “devout Catholic”, although there are one or two quotes obviously intended for consumption by the gullible public where he proclaims his Catholicism. But do keep in mind that politicians of all kinds do tend to present false fronts. There’s plenty of information to indicate that Hitler’s relationship to Catholicism was tenuous at best.

  • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

    proof?

  • Dana

    Well Starchy, you are most entitled to your opinions of course but just keep thinking that way and see how that works out for you in the future. If I were you at the very least, I’d be thinking more on the line of “What if it’s not”? Good luck to you sir.

  • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

    yes of course! worry about things we can’t control- makes perfect sense!

    by the way: when you say “future” are you referring to time before or after death?

  • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

    ah no, that’s not what he said. In the quote you are referring to he is referring to Muslim American citizens who might face religious intolerance or “backlash” for the actions of radical extremists. Its the “ill winds” quote that has been misquoted quite often by teaparty radicals and low-information voters.

    and there is no mention of CHOOSING Muslims over christians in the quote either

  • Caleb Herod

    I’m still waiting to join in all the backlash festivities. Why has there never been a backlash? I know that the left frequently fantasizes about anti-Muslim or anti-gay backlash, but it never happens. But I guess that’s why we go to the movies.

  • Caleb Herod

    I’m still waiting to join in all the backlash festivities. Why has there never been a backlash? I know that the left frequently fantasizes about anti-Muslim or anti-gay backlash, but it never happens. But I guess that’s why we go to the movies.

  • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

    We were discussing a quote from a book.
    not sure what YOU are babbling about -care to explain?

  • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

    My post was in explanation of the contents and meanings behind a mis-quote in a published book, not an accusation aimed at anyone.

    but YOU were saying?

  • David Raineri-Maldonado

    So, no self-defense? Gotcha.

  • bitemeDC

    hyperbole

  • Dana

    It’s great Starchy if you can operate in this life in this country and not worry about how things will be for your children or grandchildren. I do worry about what we are leaving them with. Also, one should always be concerned about what happens when the end of your life approaches. Where do you want to spend enternity? I know where I want to go and it’s not the same place where these satanists are promised and where your lack of faith is going to take you. Believe it or not at your own peril. Again, good luck or should I say God bless you, you certainly need some blessings.

  • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

    “if you can operate in this life in this country and not worry about how things will be for your children or grandchildren.— who says I’m not worried about the future? Apparently I’m more worried about it then terrorists or bible-bangers who believe that the REAL “reward” is in some fictional afterlife.

    Look, I believe that THIS IS IT. this is all we get. and why do I believe that? because there is no evidence to the contrary.

    “Where do you want to spend enternity?” —- Its not a question of “want”, its inevitable.

    as for “believe it or not at your own peril” hey the Pope just wrote me (and all those like me) a free ticket! You no longer have to “believe”, all you have to do is be a good person. OK. that I can do

  • Dana

    What a dismal existence that must we for you Starchy. To think that this is it?? Ugh that is so boring and depressing. I would much rather live with hope of something more to come than to believe that this crappy world is it. Id rather be disappointed if you are right ( which you’re not ) and deal with it than instead of believing that living in what this nation has turned into is the end game. Did the pope really say that? Well he has no business saying that because it’s contrary to what the bible says. I am a lifelong Catholic and went to 16 years of Catholic education. Works alone is not the ticket to enternal life. Jesus said “only through me will you come to the father”. The pope should know that.

  • DavidC99

    None of my words demonstrated hypocrisy. Apparently hypocrisy is another word which you do not understand. This entire rant of yours demonstrates 1) your hatred for God, the Bible, and for all who who oppose you, is vicious and dripping off of your every word; 2) that your views aren’t grounded in any reason or logic but in a blind declaration that all of your opponents are evil in some way; and that 3) what I said about you originally is entirely true.

    You’re advocating killing babies. That’s pretty sick. Get some help.

  • DavidC99

    All this tells me is that you can’t find any real fault of mine to correct.

    I have not demonstrated hatred against any of the people about whom you’ve spoken. With regard to living the life of which Jesus spoke, it’s obvious that I already do; I live by the Bible, which you already mocked.

    Furthermore, there’s no reason to make up the need for me to “learn English” when it’s obvious that my command of the English language is quite sufficient for this venue, to say the least. Given that I have soundly defeated you in the realm of debate every single time I’ve offered a rebuttal, there seems to be little need for me to “study logic.”

    This is a losing attempt to pretend that strong points are actually weak points. Only the ignorant would agree. I dare say this is as good a white flag as any you could have offered.

  • KaraChu

    lol~ So you blame the rules rather than the perpetrators?
    That’s rather similar to how Obama and the lazy, opportunistic, bloodsucking, capitalistic politicians do things. Rather than catch the guys that go against the law, they loosen the regulations hoping that their actions won’t be so bad(coz the law says that it isn’t bad). That worked pretty well~ Yup. Lowing the standards works reeealy well.

  • KaraChu

    ahaha It’s funny that you are blaming the law rather than the law breakers. Ok then. Let’s copy Obama and other corrupt politicians. Let’s loosen the regulations so that the guys who just can’t stop themselves from doing wrong will be legally accommodated. Stealing is now legal~ as long as you don’t kill anyone and merch costs less than $1000. You’re a kleptomaniac? No doctor’s confirmation? No problem. Sign here. The tax payers will pay for what you “legally” claimed without pay. We have to work on paying the shop owners but Oh look, “less” people are “stealing” now.
    Lowering moral and societal standards DOES work. WOW!

  • choiceone

    The Democratic Party is called by that name. The members are called Democrats. The expression “Democrat Party” is a conservatives’ made-up word, which Democrats themselves never use, and whenever one sees the expression used, one can know instantly that the writer is not a Democrat.:)

  • Kleverabevera

    You are on the wrong side of history. The murder of the unborn is a matter of civil rights. Each human being on this planet is worthy of life, and you have no right to decide otherwise. You are on the same side of history as those who thought they had the right to enslave another person.

    Satan was a murderer from the beginning and you are promoting his main sacrament on a cosmic scale.

    If the reason you have twisted your mind into this “logic” you espouse, is because you yourself have had an abortion, there is even forgiveness for that. If you humble yourself and ask Jesus Christ for it, he will answer.

    Even if you do not want it, I will pray for you. I say all this with the humility of having been where you are, long ago.

  • Dana

    Choice, you have some serious issues if you even believe one sentence of what you posted. First of all, Jesus had not been born when God first spoke to Moses regarding some laws just for his chosen people, the Jews. Believe it or not, one of them said quite plainly “Thou shalt not kill”!! Ever hear of that one? It’s known to everyone as one of the 10 commandments and also the reason or one of them that murder is illegal in most societies as it should be. There are others of course such as Exodus 23:7 where God lays down the law for his people and said”Keep thee far from a false matter and the innocent and righteous SLAY THOU NOT, for I will NOT justify the wicked”!!! Also check out Isaiah Chpt 5:20-25 and there are many more to reference IF you by chance own a bible or can look at one at any library. I don’t know how much space is allowed here or I would go into details of what each passage says, if you’re truly interested in what the bible says regarding the abomination of abortion. How anyone can condone the evils of abortion especially a woman is beyond me. You have no idea what a Christian is or what we believe and for you to go on to judge all Christians together and say nothing ill of the satanists says more about your character or lack thereof if you will. You might want to join in with those evil satanists or perhaps to earn some cash for your much needed psychaiatric help, you might want to create a cottage industry for you and all of your like minded people by selling posters of the infamous Kermit Gosnell and all of his “work” for I think for people like you, this would be a lucrative endeavor!!!

  • choiceone

    There are actually several current scientific views on when human life begins. You will find a useful review of these in the section on scientific views, following a long review of historical views, at http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When%20does%20human%20life%20begin.pdf

    The views are: metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological (two uncommon and one common view), and ecological. Every one of the views is a view within biological science.

  • DavidC99

    You open the conversation with calling us hateful, ignorant, and self-righteous only then to proceed to compare us with The Adversary? How can you expect to have a serious conversation? You just spewed one the most vile accusations one could fire against people who are simply interested in preserving the life of the unborn.

    As for the Biblical basis, you’re wrong and rather ignorant yourself. Obviously many point to verses such as Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Another possible verse that could be referenced is this: “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” A very obvious verse would be: “Thou shalt not kill.”

    Nevertheless, a legal basis for responsibility for the life of an unborn child is very clearly found in the Mosaic Law: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” The word “fruit” in this case refers to the baby, and “depart,” in this case, means to be born. The Hebrew root is יצא and it more literally means “to go out.” So if a person harms a woman so that she has her baby prematurely, the woman’s husband gets to have a say in setting the punishment while she’s busy focusing on recovering and taking care of the newborn child.

    The passage continues: “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” So if the harm that befell the woman causes any injury, the injury must be reciprocated to the offender. One need not limit the injury to the woman; it applies to the baby as well. After all, the context is about a premature delivery due to a violent action to the mother, which can be quite dangerous to the baby’s health.

    Thus, if a man harms an expectant mother so she has the baby prematurely, the husband provides the punishment. If, however, complications arise, and there is any detriment as a result of the harm beyond the premature delivery, the offender is punished by receiving the same treatment. What can we conclude but that abortion is vile in the sight of God?

    You have it backwards on a very basic issue. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

  • THE_ORIGINAL_STARCHY

    ” I would much rather live with hope of something more to come than to believe that this crappy world is it.” —– good for you! I’m sure if you wish hard enough all your dreams will come true!

    “Id rather be disappointed if you are right ( which you’re not ) and deal with it than”—uh, “if” I am right there is no “dealing with it then”- your dead. game over.

    “he has no business saying that because it’s contrary to what the bible says”—- the bible? thats old news! the pope is infallibale. he talks to god and god speaks through him. if the pope talks its god talking.

    “I am a lifelong Catholic and went to 16 years of Catholic education”- shocking

    “Works alone is not the ticket to enternal life. Jesus said “only through me will you come to the father”. The pope should know that.” — oh well! pope trumps you so best re-adjust your thinking

  • Jrad

    I never suggested any human is of more worth than any other, only that this class of person is unable to speak for themselves making the crime of depriving them of life even more horrific.

    I get that you’re in favor of killing preborn babies for convenience and when it risks the life of the mother, but if you were to use your efforts to prevent the need for abortion then you would have my support. Business as usual, meaning unrestricted abortions that are easily preventable is not acceptable.

    I believe there is common ground and that any sane person would agree that preventing an unwanted preg is preferable to an abortion. Only those on the fringe would disagree, yet I see virtually no one trying to come together on this aspect of the debate.

    1. simple methods of birth control can prevent preg

    2. performing a D and C will prevent preg and the need for abortion in the case of unprotected sex, rape, or failure of B.C.

    3. Adoption is a far better alternative for an unwanted preg.

  • Boetica

    Yes, the narrative must be controlled with twisted logic. Life begins at conception, and that life is unique and genetically separate from the mother. It is a human life, in the early stages of development until it is killed by a “doctor”.

  • Jrad

    If you honestly believe that a baby is not alive minutes or days before birth, then you’re lying to yourself and believing your own lies.

    Also, if a cerfificate of live birth is required to be considered alive, then a home-birthed baby is not “alive” until a doctor certifies the birth… ridiculous

    I once saw a deer hit by a car and it’s head was ripped off and as it lay dead in the street, a man cut the deer open and pulled a fawn out of it’s womb and it’s still alive today. If the baby deer wasn’t “alive”, how could it be pulled from it’s dead mother and survive.

    The same could happen to a human mother killed in a traffic accident.

    The argument that it’s not a baby until we can see it is barbaric and outdated. We’re not living in the dark ages.

    Also, this isn’t about “reproductive rights”, it’s much more basic than that, it’s about basic Human Rights, specifically the right to Life that is protected by the constitution and no rational scientist would conclude that life doesn’t exist before birth. Birth only initiates the next stage of life for the baby, it isn’t a magical point where life suddenly begins..

  • Kimmie Smith

    What you said first, is NOT surviving on it’s OWN, it is getting help from all those different people you mention. ON IT’S OWN MEANS ON IT’S OWN. What part of that do you NOT understand????

    What do you mean by being “uncompensated”? Do you view a pregnancy as some kind of disease? Is it some kind of foreign alien object in your womb that you must eliminate? Is it a cancerous tumor? Is it some kind of evil entity?

    It is NATURAL for all species to reproduce and to care for that offspring. It is UNNATURAL to want to kill your own offspring. Your argument you have given me is completely asinine and the majority of sane people in this world would back me up on it. You liberals are sick and demented souls to want to willfully rip and shred your own offspring, to willfully stop their heart beat, and throw them in the trash as if it’s nothing! To knowingly and willfully do this is nothing more than a psychotic serial killer out here that has NO value for human life! NONE!! Go look at a 4 week old fetus (baby) and tell me that’s just a bunch of cells, I dare you to. If you have no problem even after looking at actual photos then I question whether you are even a human.

    You have sex and there is always a possibility of a certain outcome. What part of that is unacceptable to you?

  • Jon Allen

    Hahahaha. You accuse others of the very thing you do, seek to judge rather than understand, and gloat, calling your own ignorance on display “soundly defeating” someone who doesn’t have enough respect for you to enter into any “debate” with you; you’ve only ever been being mocked.

    Jesus must be so proud of you! Remember the parable where Jesus had the angry mob stone the hooker because of some nonsense he read on a far right wing nut job website? And the one where Jesus told everybody to get the tweezers out, cause they needed to pick the splinter out of their neighbor’s eye so that they could later gouge the eye out in retaliation? Yeah, you’re a Christian alright; you selectively choose whatever you want to believe and whatever you want Jesus to have said, cause that’s convenient.

    And the one thing Jesus never said, anywhere in the Bible? “Go learn logic, math, and critical thinking skills, because reality is a lovely place to live.” So on that point, at least you’re consistent, also refusing to live in reality.

    Sell your computer and donate the money to starving children who are here already instead of casting stones and picking splinters out of the eyes of others while beating your breast loudly at the front of the temple for all to see. Do it because that’s what that dirty hippie Jesus would have done.