Politics – Yes We Can . . . Abort. Obama often stood alone as an Illinois lawmaker in opposition to protections for babies who survived abortion.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
MaryLynn_
dokkyou08
thousandsunny
CelticFan08
lXkoch
tennisbetsite
yarrkz24
justleapit
marksflou
marinajls
goryatom
originalpranker
RobertVolosach
MedievalMagic
alamala
infiniteseo
Monte G
HOUSEMD
jamesjajames
Silverghost
Mintyfunk
BJTJ
mickoleon
Bonded
Helixbuilder
dimplesing
BoBo in Texas
ujin
jowo
ningyo
Hullios
mcarpentry
satansatan
kibasilasa
getreal1
digitalfever
jomarjarmo
Massager
pagey
tpsvca
Iris-Iris
Amroch
aust
bizexpert
anjel01
JessicaLaurie
nicest
aardael
brookehudson
newsarefree
401)
"Obama's position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman's "right to choose;" it attacks a living baby's right to life. His position is not simply "pro-choice;" it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a "uniter" would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies?"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207...
I can see no reasoning behind it. It's VERY sad.
He's a monster.
But by the end of a McCain term (perish the thought) another 4000 innocent (at least) Americans will have been slaughtered in our illegal occupation of Iraq and we'll still be no safer. All so you can fill up your gas tank. But I guess you'll feel better about yourself in church on sunday knowing you voted "pro-life". ;-P
What does one have to do with the other, mesodude? If we ended our military involvement in Iraq right this minute, would you join the pro-life movement to end the horror of abortion?
I would, if you promised to never fight another war, topple another presdient, protect the LIVING Americans, insure all Americans, fight for justice - both economic and legislative, support the notion of protecting our planet from the polluters so that we ALL have a right to live.
If that became what our nation stood for, and if the only way to get that is that I accept that a woman CANNOT choose her fate ... EVEN if shes raped ... then I would accept that ... but that means, all them wealthy families dont get abortions either, right?
I would, if you promised to never fight another war, topple another presdient, protect the LIVING Americans
But you know a Dem will start the next war as is the case more times than not. Will you be for us going into Darfur? You do know that Obama will most likely want to send in troops there, which I'd agree with BTW.
I like seeing that your liberal side of your bi polar disorder can spell well goppy
How can any American neg that?
"What does one have to do with the other, mesodude?"
I think he's just pointing out the utter hypocracy of someone who would support this measure also supporting the war in Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, a number of which are likely children. Not to mention the 4000 dead Americans who helped stuff money into the pockets of KBR/Haliburton while they fled to Dubai.
Are you suggesting that being pro-life without being utterly pacifistic is hypocritical?
The comment regarding Halliburton is simply nonsense to which I'll not reply.
Are you suggesting that Republicans are Pro-Life?
If they were, why dint they pass a law when they controlled EVERYTHING in government for 6 years?
As David Kuo pointed out in his book, Republicans care the LEAST about the 'unborn' of any human on this planet.
They only care that the issue remain alive for every national election.
Its the utmost example of spiritual ossification.
"Are you suggesting that being pro-life without being utterly pacifistic is hypocritical? "
No. I'm saying that being 'pro-life' while embracing murder (in effect being pro-death) is hypocritical.
Waging war is embracing murder? So, in other words, "pacifistic"? I fail to see a difference.
"No. I'm saying that being 'pro-life' while embracing murder (in effect being pro-death) is hypocritical."
How about being pro-abortion but anti-death penalty? Kill the babies but spare the murderers?
But nixie, you think it right to lecture women for, in your view, treating the unborn as inconveniences and that's exactly the way you people view those innocent children who need health insurance. Isn't it? So if you don't give a damn about them now why should anyone believe you ever did? Think about it...
Is that all you got? I pay my taxes, so I already support my state's free health care. Is there a second talking point you'd care to whip out?
s that all you got? I pay my taxes, so I already support my state's free health care. Is there a second talking point you'd care to whip out?>>>>
But that free health care isn't for preventative care. It isn't for yearly check ups. It's for emergencies. Your tax dollars paid more than $100,000 to keep a boy alive with a brain abscess, which eventually killed him. But it wouldn't pay the one hundred bucks to pull the tooth that would have kept him from getting the abscess that killed him. His mother wasn't poor enough to qualify for medicaid, but wasn't rich enough to pay for health care. You're in denial, just so you can be right. The consequences of your and others denial is costing children. Pro life my *ss.
Government provided health insurance is not in the U.S. Constitution. Redistribution of wealth is not in the U.S. Constitution. The government has no authority for either. In fact, the number one thing the Federal Government is required to do is defend this nation.
And yet you willingly fork it over for your elected officials without ever once mentioning the Constitution. Why's that? ;-)
WOW I guess FDR murdered a lot of people.
Pro-life and Pro-war stances are incompatible.
And, yes, Halliburton has profited enormously from the Iraq war.
Who profited on the Bosnia war?
There are always profits when any war is fought.
Two major differences...Defense contractors actually BID for their jobs when Clinton was in office (100K per month jobs weren't just given to his friends with no formal process and to people with no verifiable training) and we didn't go to war FOR THE PURPOSE of pumping money into the bank accounts of Clinton's cronies.
I'm already part of the pro-life movement (not to be confused with the "pro-life" cult to which you belong). I just happen to think that the way to reduce the number of abortions is not by criminalizing abortion, bombing clinics, murdering doctors, emotionally bullying women or playing morality and sex police. Those approaches are useless.
What do you do as part of the "pro-life" movement, exactly?
I can assure you that I have no ties to any cult. If you wish to define "cult" in some alternative way in order to suit your own purposes, don't expect me to give your defintion much credence.
I absolutely reject bombing abortion clinics, murdering doctors, and bullying women. Just because a few criminal zealots did those things doesn't invalidate every person who considers themself to be "pro-life".
As for playing morality and "sex police" those are simply inflammatory code words intended to deflect the issue from one of premeditated destruction of fetuses to "personal privacy".
"Just because a few criminal zealots did those things doesn't invalidate every person who considers themself to be "pro-life".
--Ohhh...boo-hoo. Did I hurt your feelings by painting all right wingers with one broad stroke--like you're pretending that everyone on the left who supports a woman's right to choose, also promotes abortion?
Would you care to answer my question? I'm curious to know what you do as part of this "pro-life" movement that you're part of. Tell us why you belong...maybe we'd like to join?
Supporting the right to "choose" abortion is the same thing as promoting abortion, is it not? If you disagree, please explain why.
"Would you care to answer my question? I'm curious to know what you do as part of this "pro-life" movement that you're part of. Tell us why you belong...maybe we'd like to join?"
--For starters, being a man and being biologically incapable of getting pregnant, carrying a child to term or giving birth, I don't impose my views on women. That, to my way of thinking, is one of the most pro-active things anyone can do. I like and love women and I vote for people who feel similarly (as opposed to those who think women are possessions they can bully, control and subjugate) I can't imagine anyone WANTS to have an abortion so I keep my judgements to myself. I believe if we were smart enough as a nation to pay for a college education for every man and woman in America who wanted one, abortion would be so rare that there would be no need for discussions like this. "Your way or the highway" is doomed to failure.
So, if the majority of women in the country voted to outlaw abortion, you'd be okay with that?
Fathers have no voice on the subject? If that is the case, if the father decides to abandon the mother because she won't get an abortion, why does he still pay child care? It was the mother's choice to not abort, right? I don't see things as so easily defined in black and white.
You talk about treating women as possessions, but isn't abortion as a whole reducing human fetuses to that exact status? A possession to be discarded if not wanted, for whatever reason?
"So, if the majority of women in the country voted to outlaw abortion, you'd be okay with that?"
--I didn't mention voting. My position would be the same as it is now. I won't ever have to experience childbirth so I defer to the INDIVIDUALS who are faced with this decision. If women alone were voting for it, it would make more sense then the current approach.
Anyway, we're getting sidetracked. As I said elsewhere, my goal is to understand the hypocrisy. I want to know why you're all concerned about the welfare of the baby and the father and the cousins, aunts and uncles BEFORE the baby is born but not after and you keep dodging the question. WHY?
So you encourage life by doing nothing?
Yep...Just the way you "support the troops" by doing nothing.
How do you know she does nothing?
The same way she knows I do "nothing."
What are your thoughts about this statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Doesn't this count for the child in the womb, who certainly has a beating heart, fingers, toes, eyes, a brain, etc.
- Former abortion providers witness to the power of seeing an abortion:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/powerof...
"Doesn't this count for the child in the womb, who certainly has a beating heart, fingers, toes, eyes, a brain, etc."
--And I'd ask those of you who vote for Republicans the very same question--Why aren't you interested in counting the fingers, toes, chins, eyelashes, etc of those children who are HERE and and at risk of DYING because of your selective definition and practice of socialism? What about all their itty little cutesy beating hearts and brains, etc?
"of those children who are HERE and and at risk of DYING"
Exaggerate much?
Nope. There's 10 million of 'em Tangy. TEN MILLION.
Riiiiiiiiggghht.
Interesting that you can't define exactly what it is you do for the pro-life movement. I really didn't expect you to be able to though. Rather, all you can do is sling your mud.
What's the matter, afraid that answering truthfully that you don't do squat will tell of who you really are?
I totally LOVE that you wingjobs PERPETUALLY dodge and duck the matter of your paying for Bush and the GOP's health insurance and for bombs which slaughter innocent babies in Iraq daily and then you seize on one question that YOU want answered as if the world is supposed to kneel at your grubby right wing feet in despair for lack of an answer. LOL You don't scare me, wingjobber... ;-)
It's about moral equivalence.
You cannot protest the killing of inncoent people (which by some peoples' definitions, abortion is), while endorsing the occupation of Iraq, as this has resulted in the killing of innocent people.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all...
There is nothing illegals about the war. You know this so stop saying it.
However, while youbitch about a possibility of 4000 troops dying over the next four years, you should think about the fact that over 5 MILLION babies will be aborted during that same time period.
You have no argument.
It's 100% illegal, Tangy. That's kinda why we're in Iraq (AND Afghanistan) virtually on our own. No one believes us because Bush cannot open his mouth without lying. It's impossible for him to do so. Face it... The world knows what we did last summer. Only you cons refuse to admit the truth. Bush lied, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi babies died and trying to smear Barack Obama won't change that. It might help you sleep better now but on judgement day you wingjobs are gonna get barbecued for your murderous hypocritical chickenhawkery. What will you say to your maker then, Tangy? "Duhhh...Well, I um...socialism and...well...Rush and Bush said...I mean..." You're gonna sizzle, baby! ;-P
I've noticed you have a tendency to talk quite a bit about lies and enjoy telling people to "stop lying". I think you need to take your own suggestion, mesodude.
The AUMF for Iraq was handled completely legally. If you've spent even the smallest amount of time investigating that subject, you know that is the fact of the matter. If you haven't spent that small amount of effort, you should do so.
"I've noticed you have a tendency to talk quite a bit about lies and enjoy telling people to "stop lying". I think you need to take your own suggestion, mesodude."
--And yet again, you're seizing on minutiae while sidestepping the REAL issue: Unborn Iraqi babies and their mothers being killed because we invaded their country don't CARE about UN resolutions or whether we followed the letter of the law or didn't when we invaded their country. And if YOU care as much about protecting innocent life as you say you do, then you shouldn't be falling back on such bogus reasoning yourself. Get serious. Abortion is legal in the US and that hasn't stopped wingjobs from trying to overturn the law on moral grounds. What makes you think a determination as to whether the war is legal or not changes the fact that unborn babies are DYING in Iraq as a result of our actions?
And you're deliberately conflating issues to avoid my reply that specifically spoke to your contention that the miltary action in Iraq is illegal. Injecting diversionary comments and inflammatory language isnt' hiding the fact that your statement that the war is "illegal" is completely false. The AUMF provided the legal basis for our military action.
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq does not make the war legal. It merely shift the responsiblity designated to Congress by the Consitution to the President.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. It is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime
PWNED!