It is widely known that Cindy McCain had several miscarriages and while nobody can say for sure why those miscarriages occured, there are several swirling rumors that they were caused in part from complications suffered from an earlier abortion she had when she was younger.
Normally, I would say that digging up these kind of painful personal experiences is the lowest of the low for a political campaign but John McCain opened up the door during the Saddleback Church Forum when he clearly stated that he believed life to begin at conception. McCain also said, if elected, he would be a "pro-life President and have pro-life policies".
So what type of pro-life policies would John McCain support? Would he declare self induced miscarriages to be voluntary manslaughter? Would he have all miscarriages be reported to a Ministry of Health and then investigated? Women can self induce miscarriages in numerous ways, heavy alcohol or drug use to name one such method and we know that Cindy McCain was addicted to pain killers Percocet and Vicodin taking in excess of 20 pills a day.
So did Cindy McCain have an abortion? Or has her painkiller addiction induced her several miscarriages? The McCain's need to come clean quickly before a clever investigative reporter puts all the pieces together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Meaningless unless you have something to support your assumptions. I doubt you do but maybe you could sprinkle some resources through out your lazy article. You up to it?
C.
Great post!!!
I can;t help but feel bad for Cindy's addiction and the problems its caused her and her family but I definately do not want them representing the U.S. we need to bring some dignity back to the White House.
Thanks, but you didn't address my request that you substantiate your claim or assumption that Cindy McCain did anything of the sort.
Do you want the obama representing the US, and exactly how many different reasons would you need to change your mind if that is the case?
C.
Tifosi1f1.blogspot.com
The post is clear in stating the fact that Cindy has in the past had several miscarriages. It is also clear in stating that she was addicted to pain killers.
Those facts can not be disputed as Cindy has admitted to both, read the linked stories.
The post does classify their connection currently as "rumors"
It would not surprise me though as miscarriages result from heavy drug use.
Here is the crux of what I am getting at... "So did Cindy McCain have an abortion? Or has her painkiller addiction induced her several miscarriages? The McCain's need to come clean quickly before a clever investigative reporter puts all the pieces together. "
This is just lazy insinuation, and it seems with out some sort of effort to show that her pregnancy and her drug addiction overlapped, and in some way you could substantiate such a claim, with some resources, you are just slinging mud, and not even really at McCain but at someone who is not being elected. That is bad form and just insipid. It is a fallacy to suggest that the two are connected, unless you can establish some kind of link between the two.
I think what you are doing is a bit of "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc"
Or “after this therefore because of this.”
Again I call on you to substantiate your insinuation/claim or recant the insinuation/claim.
I like your blog, I think it looks good, but I disagree with you on this.
C.
Here is the crux of what I am getting at... "So did Cindy McCain have an abortion? Or has her painkiller addiction induced her several miscarriages? The McCain's need to come clean quickly before a clever investigative reporter puts all the pieces together. "
This is just lazy insinuation, and it seems with out some sort of effort to show that her pregnancy and her drug addiction overlapped, and in some way you could substantiate such a claim, with some resources, you are just slinging mud, and not even really at McCain but at someone who is not being elected. That is bad form and just insipid. It is a fallacy to suggest that the two are connected, unless you can establish some kind of link between the two.
I think what you are doing is a bit of "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc"
Or “after this therefore because of this.”
Again I call on you to substantiate your insinuation/claim or recant the insinuation/claim.
I like your blog, I think it looks good, but I disagree with you on this.
C.
Post a Comment