Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (137)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (74)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (70)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (66)
- Universal health care solves big problems (56)
- Stuck in neutral? Hardly! (38)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (35)
- Words from our forefathers (27)
- Majority cannot deprive the minority (25)
- City of Lodi staff looking into possibility of limiting number of taco trucks (24)
ADVERTISEMENT
Vote for respect for life
Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
I firmly believe this wonderful country of ours needs change! Remember when the whole world looked up to us because we were good people?
Since abortion on demand was made legal, our morals, respect and goodness have turned into selfishness, greed, divorce, undignified dress, child abuse, gang violence and war-a total absence of love.
We desperately need to change all of that, from abortion to terrorism. In war, some innocent people are killed accidentally, but abortionists and terrorists kill innocent people on purpose!
Vote McCain for respect for life and country.
Carolyn Hadden
Galt
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Nov 4, 2008 4:47 PM:
SportsGuru wrote on Nov 4, 2008 11:54 AM:
The bigger issue is that almost half of American's don't consider "sucking a fetus out of its mother's womb" to be killing a living being.
They consider it to be "removal of a piece of tissue".
Until you've held a newborn in your arms, you don't understand the difference. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:01 AM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:06 PM:
gflossmann wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:44 PM:
Brian, a Walmart greeter is above your pay grade. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:40 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:39 PM:
" Sources are now saying that Obama supporters believe once he wins the election he's going to walk on water.
Well, it appears FOX News will be wrong yet again. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:24 PM:
" Sources are now saying that Obama supporters believe once he wins the election he's going to walk on water. "
Sources are now saying that Brian is a drunken racist. "
Brian wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:56 AM:
-How voter has come to the conclusion that Lodisafeway opposes reducing abortion rates is above my pay grade.. "
Brian wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:51 AM:
voter wrote on Nov 1, 2008 8:07 PM:
Oral contraceptives are not free to everyone. About half of the healthcare plans provided by employers in this country do not cover contraceptives. Where would YOUR daughter get free oral contraceptives in Lodi? What about other contraceptive devices?
Comprehensive sex education is not a mystery. Read about it here:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/characteristics.htm
And a comparison with abstinence only programs here:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/definitions.htm
Abstinence only programs not only result in higher teen pregnancy rates, but higher rates of STDs as well.
Some very simple, proven, and cost effective measures would drastically reduce the abortion rate. It blows my mind that you oppose them. "
lodisafeway wrote on Nov 1, 2008 9:32 AM:
Predictably, no one who supports abortion is permitted to express any feelings for these human beings that were killed prior to birth. For if they do, they would be exposing themselves as actually believing them (the dead) to be human.
But no, the compassion for which they seek is directed at those who cavalierly engage in practices that result in the ultimate destruction of human beings; and because their lives could be "disrupted" as a result of being forced to protect the very lives of those they've chosen to create, they should be permitted to either kill these babies or depend upon the taxpayers and the government to provide their support.
Each of my children came with their own set of challenges for me. Because of them, was I unable to do something that I had to turn away from in order to tend to their needs? Yup! Gladly! "
lodisafeway wrote on Nov 1, 2008 6:14 AM:
The issue of abortion is not about healthcare, although many would like to think it is thereby starting the argument about government-provided medical care. This matter is simple - human beings taking responsibility for themselves. My compassion is wide, but it is limited. For those who cannot provide for themselves (please note the word "cannot" - this is key) - for those who "cannot" care for themselves then of course there are very few who would begrudge them the assistance they need. For those who "will not" (I won't repeat that one), the harsh reality is that they must fend for themselves. Angry at women? Not one bit. This isn't just about women - it is about human beings being responsible - now that's comprehensive. "
lodisafeway wrote on Nov 1, 2008 6:03 AM:
And you once again bring up this subject of "comprehensive" sex education yet you do not describe what that entails. Exactly what is this mystical method of teaching that magically reduces the numbers of pregnancies and abortions? Of course I've asked this question before.
You regurgitate the need for "adequate support, healthcare, access to birth control" - since this blog is specifically about abortion, let's really put forth the answer - don't get pregnant. Birth control pills are available for free to ANYONE who wants them (that's a fact). None of us should consider having children unless we have the means to support them. Do you suggest that humans lack the self-control to refrain from unprotected sexual activity? Even people in poverty understand that not taking precautions WILL result in pregnancy. "
Cogito wrote on Oct 31, 2008 10:02 PM:
Cogito wrote on Oct 31, 2008 9:57 PM:
voter wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:26 PM:
Cogito wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:53 PM:
voter wrote on Oct 31, 2008 6:02 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 5:26 PM:
But to expect (and actually demand) that the taxpayers "pony up" and pay for others' mistakes is entirely unreasonable. Along with making sure our youth understand precisely how they can become pregnant, we should also be demanding education that teaches them to be responsible for themselves. That course of instruction should be a firm understanding that they should not rely upon the government or their employer to bail them out when they've screwed up. Only when they fully comprehend and accept this will they become the type of responsible citizens that this nation needs. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 5:07 PM:
It wasn't that long ago when people found themselves sick they had to take care of themselves; they would need to rely upon their families or the goodness of friends or charitable organizations. Instead now there is this growing expectation that individuals should provide nothing to cover their own needs - the cost should be borne by the government and the employer. While I sure don't have any desire to get into that conversation here, suffice it to say I find the notion appalling. Self-control, personal responsibility for ourselves and for those we "choose" to be responsible for - these are the hallmarks of a responsible society - not dependence upon the government or anyone else.
For those who "cannot" take care of themselves there should be adequate assistance. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 5:05 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 4:49 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 4:38 PM:
Voter - What can be easier than going to Planned Parenthood and picking up a year's worth of birth control pills at absolutely no cost? I know for an absolute fact that they provide birth control pills in this fashion. What's next, a private nurse at public expense to ensure that our female population takes their pills each day?
You speak of "comprehensive sex education." Just what do you mean? What more can we do than inform our youth that if they have unprotected sex they will most likely end up pregnant? How much more comprehensive can we get? Too many people act as if having children is a new thing; that the act of procreation requires an advanced degree to understand its concept. This boils down to nothing more than a lack of self-control and/or responsibility.
Usually when the word "comprehensive" is used to describe a governmental program, it means that it makes no sense; it has no real purpose. That word was bantered around all during this election cycle. "
voter wrote on Oct 31, 2008 4:16 PM:
voter wrote on Oct 31, 2008 4:03 PM:
You are not willing to acknowledge fact--when society provides a social safety net, easy access to birth control for all, and comprehensive sex education, the abortion rate declines dramatically. It would seem that if you were as concerned with abortion as you claim, you would support these measures. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 31, 2008 3:34 PM:
lodisafeway: Your statement speaks volumes. Where did you address child molestation and rape? "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 2:22 PM:
While those who enter late in a conversation are certainly welcome to contribute, familiarizing themselves with the scope of the issue as it has been discussed might prevent them from appearing foolish. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 31, 2008 2:05 PM:
And when that little girl is molested or raped will you then be hope to remove any choice she and her parents have in what is now "their" choice? People with your views are usually the first ones to insist on having their personal CHOICE honored when these events happen in their lives. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:07 AM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:54 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:46 AM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:43 AM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:31 AM:
Just what more can be offered to these people to keep them from getting pregnant? What is missing from our "sex education policies" that creates an environment to require the wanton destruction of human life? Do you offer the same excuses for those who murder people on the other side of the womb? "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:01 AM:
What you offer as reasons for abortion are nothing more than excuses for the destruction of human life. You are discussing matters that occur well after the point of conception. My position is that the responsibility for human life begins "at" the moment a human being is created. It is right before that occurs when a man and a woman should be very aware of what might happen - and again, I challenge anyone to prove that two United States citizens of child-creating age are unaware of the consequences of having unprotected sex.
Perhaps you are unaware of single fathers who have to contend with the same type of pressure and responsibility as they raise their children. The notion that only women are seriously affected by their choice to raise children indicates a particular ignorance on your part. Yet many men do - and like women they also lose their jobs and endure other hardships. "
voter wrote on Oct 31, 2008 6:51 AM:
voter wrote on Oct 31, 2008 6:50 AM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 6:43 AM:
As you accurately pointed out that I don't know you (as I have previously stated about you earlier in this discussion), neither do you know me or probably too many others. What I do know about anyone is what they publish on this page. Obviously, what I "do" know of you doesn't impress me at all; in fact it disturbs me considerably (again, I've discussed this earlier).
Since I've already achieved all that I can here I will once again bid you all farewell. See you on a different page. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 31, 2008 6:32 AM:
However, under normal circumstances I do attempt to satisfy any questions specifically directed to me. In your case I have decided to limit my discussion because I am actually quite disturbed with your stance on the value of human life. We are so diametrically opposed in this one area (which to me is "the" basis for any abortion debate), that discussing ancillary yet relative other questions is out of the question.
While this is an anonymous blog I attempt to give the benefit of the doubt to most who present themselves as extremely radical in their thinking. But when anyone actually dismisses 45 million people deprived of their very lives as a good thing, well, I'm going to keep my distance from that person.
While you may align with another poster here in one area, I doubt you'll find the same support from too many others in your assertion that you are "smart enough to be able to look at the world through the eyes of others." I try to see the world through the eyes of the 45 million. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 31, 2008 6:02 AM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:05 PM:
For now Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. As such, I am not permitted to interfere with a woman's right to choose abortion and will acquiesce to that law. Hopefully in the near future a larger majority of Americans will have the courage to stand up for the weakest and most defenseless of us - the unborn - and make the necessary changes to permit them the same right of "life, liberty and that wonderful pursuit of happiness" that we who were not aborted have come to enjoy and treasure. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:50 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:46 PM:
In the cases of rape, incest and those whose birth-control has actually failed, I can understand the consideration for abortion. However, aside from rape and incest, an accidental pregnancy would be solved by adoption. There are too many women unable to have children to permit those who can have them to destroy them. "
voter wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:36 PM:
voter wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:34 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:29 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:24 PM:
The solution is for people to actually behave in a responsible fashion. Are we so devoid of self-control, common sense and common decency that continuing to permit this barbaric practice is the only way to deal with the issue of "unwanted" pregnancies? For a so-called progressive and enlightened society, we've become a nation of enablers and scofflaws. This attitude of "if it feels good, do it" has produced people with no sense of responsibility or moral compass.
Avoiding doing what is right because too many others will continue to do what is wrong is absurd. Those 45 million deprived souls just might agree with me. Of course we'll never know, will we?
And because I have other issues with our European counterparts, I am curious as to how a more accessible healthcare system figures into this issue. Do our children really not understand that if you have unprotected sex you will get pregnant? "
voter wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:04 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:45 PM:
As for the marriage issue (which really isn't an issue in this conversation), while the lawyers, judges and courts have intervened thus far, as of next Tuesday it will indeed be up to the "people" of California to make the final decision, "final" being loosely used as depending upon the way the vote goes, those nine justices in Washington may be given the opportunity to weigh in on the matter. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:37 PM:
You, on the other hand have exposed yourself as a very troubled person; one who apparently has little regard for the sanctity of human life. That is disturbing to me; not because I know anything more than this about you, but that I am concerned there are probably far too many more just like you.
What I will "tell" others to consider is reversing the decision of Roe v. Wade that was foisted upon this nation in 1973. Then, as now there is no place for the destruction of the most innocent among us. As I tried to convey earlier, when we place a higher value on trees, bushes and cows than human beings, we are treading very dangerous waters. I tried to make that clear in my example of the elderly, which you curiously avoided to comment upon. "
dogs4you wrote on Oct 30, 2008 5:25 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 5:20 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 3:51 PM:
Still, even the most ardent of unbelievers still have a higher respect for human life than other living creatures. It is out of this respect that we get along as well as we do. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 3:46 PM:
As far as anyone being "allowed" to have children, that should never be based upon what another believes, especially any government. Sure, they "should" be responsible in their desire to procreate, but all people are different. Your position that perhaps because 200 years ago humans viewed the value of human life differently than we do today is without merit. We are here "now." And while you are correct that our nation will not endure all time, it is how we behave now that could very well determine the course human-kind will take. To pretend to be able to know what the future holds is just as pretentious (and ridiculous) as accepting that we will resort to how previous societies treated fellow human beings. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 2:26 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 2:22 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 2:08 PM:
For all time there will be the mourning of the 6 million Jews that were murdered during the holocaust - yet you banter the number of abortions (45 Million!!!) around as if we should all be grateful that they're not here among us. This is very frightening - and nauseating. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:55 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:53 PM:
So, it's all about the money, huh? Actually it's about personal and societal responsibility. I should not have to support anyone else's children but no one should be permitted to kill a child simply because they don't want them. Before hopping into bed with anyone, people need to understand what can result. And for anyone in the United States to attempt to suggest that they don't know they could get pregnant by having sex - well I have a few words for them that the censors would rightfully omit.
We're human beings - we have the ability to think, reason and choose. Obama made it clear that he doesn't want a "mistake" to follow his daughters around which is why he supports this silly "right to choose" nonsense. No human life is a mistake, regardless of what science fiction writers would have you believe. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:51 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:47 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:45 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:43 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:42 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:35 PM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:12 PM:
Following your line of thinking am I to surmise that the fathers of these unborn children should be held responsible for them? I agree completely. Unfortunately, until that baby receives his/her first taste of air, any "freedom of choice" belongs exclusively to the mother. Daddy really doesn't have a say, unless mommy "decides" that he does. What you suggest would require the pregnant mom to relinquish that choice to the father as well - produce one woman who believes in abortion that would succumb to such a travesty. Not a chance!!
It's only after the "choice" has been made by the mother to save the child's life that the father is held responsible. And while this is the right thing, in order to exact true justice, daddy MUST be included in the decision as to whether the unborn child lives or dies. "
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:02 PM:
On the other hand, the price-tag for this so-called "freedom of choice" cannot be quantified in dollars alone, as you seem to suggest. What are the psychological ramifications to those who live with the fact that they ended a human life? Some may be able to dismiss their actions as a mere "mistake," but what of those who are forever scarred because we've made it so easy for them to kill something that they don't want responsibility for?
Yeah, it's costly alright - but not in the way you believe. People who believe as you do make me very ill indeed. "
MARZO2008 wrote on Oct 30, 2008 12:15 PM:
LodiReaderFromStockton wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:25 AM:
wtf wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:54 AM:
Yeah, don't abort those babies...we need 'em to grow up so they can be killed fighting wars based on lies. "
Cogito wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:05 AM:
T jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2008 6:00 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.