WH - Unborn Children Not People, Unless Touring WH

Joined:

5.8 yrs ago

Elite

Who is WH? Am I suppose to know who that is?

May 8, 2012 - 10:32 pm

Zephard

Zephard:

Posting Rank: #29

Joined:

4.6 yrs ago

Elite

I am guessing White House but I do hate these abbreviations.

May 9, 2012 - 08:45 am

kingwooddiscg

kingwooddiscg:

Posting Rank: #37

Joined:

2.3 yrs ago

Elite

wow

May 9, 2012 - 08:50 am

Longstocking

Longstocking:

Joined:

5.5 yrs ago

Elite

Yes, the White House. Including the link to the story would have helped.

http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=14193

May 9, 2012 - 10:53 am

fcabanski

fcabanski:

Joined:

5.8 yrs ago

Elite

wow, that's very interesting that you have to register an unborn child.

May 9, 2012 - 11:05 am

aggiebutterfl

aggiebutterfl:

Joined:

4.4 yrs ago

Elite

Yes, the story is odd on two fronts.

1. WH requiring registration, for security purposes, for an unborn child.

2. WH (Obama admin's) stance on unborn children as not people for purposes of abortion (murder).

May 9, 2012 - 11:51 am

fcabanski

fcabanski:

Joined:

5.8 yrs ago

Elite

from my understanding of reading the article...if you're reserving space for a tour WHILE YOU ARE PREGNANT, but the tour will take place AFTER THE BABY IS BORN...the unborn child has to be accounted for. it's not as if you have to register an unborn child if you're taking a tour while pregnant.

May 9, 2012 - 11:59 am

taramay

taramay:

Posting Rank: #53

Joined:

4.0 yrs ago

That's what I got from reading it too @taramay

May 9, 2012 - 12:02 pm

mpjp0907

mpjp0907:

Posting Rank: #15

Joined:

2.1 yrs ago

Elite

Taramay is missing the point, or trying to raise a smoke screen. The article is clear on the registration for a future visit. But if an unborn baby is expected to become a baby, in other words if it is already a person who can register in expectation of a future WH visit, then the unborn baby is a person and abortion is killing a person. This policy exposes the argument that an unborn baby isn't a person. This policy proves the Obama admin and WH staff don't believe the convenient argument that an unborn baby isn't a person.

BTW, randomly CAPITALIZING WORDS does not make an ARGUMENT STRONGER.

May 9, 2012 - 12:47 pm

fcabanski

fcabanski:

Joined:

5.8 yrs ago

Elite

Taramay is missing the point, or trying to raise a smoke screen.

@fcabanski:

yeah...because everyone knows i'm the conspiracy theorist here

May 9, 2012 - 12:51 pm

taramay

taramay:

Posting Rank: #53

Joined:

4.0 yrs ago

No, but your post assumed that the info you WROTE (partially in randomly capitalized WORDS) somehow changed the meaning. That's a smoke screen.

There's no conspiracy. There's a conflict of policy within the same organization.

For purposes of WH visits an unborn baby is a person who will one day visit the WH. That person must register. For purposes of making "pro choice" (aka pro abortion) people's argument, an unborn baby isn't a person.

If folks can kill an unborn baby at will because it isn't a person, then how can expectant parents register the baby for a WH visit? It's not a person. It's a "lump of unlivable cells".

May 9, 2012 - 12:57 pm

fcabanski

fcabanski:

Joined:

5.8 yrs ago

Elite

good job fcab

May 9, 2012 - 12:59 pm

Longstocking

Longstocking:

Joined:

5.5 yrs ago

Elite

It doesn't take a good job or hard work to run circles around the "pro choice" argument.

"Pro choice" people always choose abortion - killing the baby.

History is filled with cases of people justifying brutality by claiming someone else isn't a person.

This situation is a case of inconsistent policy.

May 9, 2012 - 01:04 pm

fcabanski

fcabanski: