The Audacity of Death

[little jacob]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121261107480446197.html

The Audacity of Death
By DANIEL ALLOTT
June 5, 2008

According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."

* * *

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."

"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."

He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

* * *

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

Worst of all are Mr. Obama's accusations against antiabortion advocates. He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn.

In his campaign book, Mr. Obama accuses "most anti-abortion activists" of secretly desiring more partial-birth abortions "because the image the procedure evokes in the mind of the public has helped them win converts to their position."

All this explains why the National Abortion Rights Action League voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, as did abortion activist Frances Kissling, who called Mrs. Clinton "not radical enough on abortion."

It's surprising that 18- to 30-year-olds, the most pro-life demographic in a generation, are the same voting bloc from which Barack Obama, the most antilife presidential candidate ever, draws his most ardent supporters.

What's not surprising is that Gianna Jessen, who turned 31 last month, plans not to support Obama.

In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.

[BigCatDaddy]

This is the #1 reason I joined the republican party and would never vote for someone that is pro-death in any election.

[banyon]

Obama told Gianna's mom to kill her baby?

[Sully]

Obama told Gianna's mom to kill her baby?

He is a god. He is all things to all righties.

[little jacob]

Obama told Gianna's mom to kill her baby?

no comment on his ghoulish position i suppose?

[Chief Henry]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121261107480446197.html

The Audacity of Death
By DANIEL ALLOTT
June 5, 2008

According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."

* * *

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."

"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."

He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

* * *

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

Worst of all are Mr. Obama's accusations against antiabortion advocates. He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn.

In his campaign book, Mr. Obama accuses "most anti-abortion activists" of secretly desiring more partial-birth abortions "because the image the procedure evokes in the mind of the public has helped them win converts to their position."

All this explains why the National Abortion Rights Action League voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, as did abortion activist Frances Kissling, who called Mrs. Clinton "not radical enough on abortion."

It's surprising that 18- to 30-year-olds, the most pro-life demographic in a generation, are the same voting bloc from which Barack Obama, the most antilife presidential candidate ever, draws his most ardent supporters.

What's not surprising is that Gianna Jessen, who turned 31 last month, plans not to support Obama.

In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.

Good find Jacob...but you'll be chastised for it by die hard libs and some self proclaimed tweeners on this board.

[little jacob]

since whether or not you actually managed to be born doesn't matter much... how long should the time be in which PBA (post-birth) is permitted?

what if a woman does it herself, a few months after birth, saying she couldn't afford the procedure when she was expecting, and like Barack Obama says, she shouldn't be punished with a baby. surely we shouldn't let the person's financial means dictate her rights in the situation. So should she be charged with murder or lauded for exercising 'the most fundamental' right she has...?

[Otter]

Tangent - wrong thread

[Direckshun]

I favor death.

I want fetuses to be flushed down the toilet or even better stacked messily on street corners until the stench of fetal bile consumes every city on earth.

Go Democrats.

[banyon]

no comment on his ghoulish position i suppose?

What ghoulish position? That people be allowed to make their own choice about an essentially ethically unresolvable issue?

[Direckshun]

Nothing to resolve for me. I openly embrace creating as much death as possible.

If it's on unborn fetuses that can't protect themselves, all the better.

[Hydrae]

Just to play devil's advocate...

So it is that important for a handicapped child to live? How much money did that cost the foster parents and the state in providing medical assistance to this person? She is being put up as a poster child for this issue. But other than that, is she a contributing member of society or is she still a drain on social services?

(Wow, that really does sound bad on my part, doesn't it? While I am a pro choice person I would still like to limit those choices to the first tri-mester)

[little jacob]

So it is that important for a handicapped child to live? How much money did that cost the foster parents and the state in providing medical assistance to this person? She is being put up as a poster child for this issue. But other than that, is she a contributing member of society or is she still a drain on social services?

this is straight out of mein kampf

[little jacob]

What ghoulish position? That people be allowed to make their own choice about an essentially ethically unresolvable issue?

whether or not to strangle a living, breathing, live-born infant lying on the operating table is an ethically unresolvable issue?

[Direckshun]

whether or not to strangle a living, breathing, live-born infant lying on the operating table is an ethically unresolvable issue?
Not for me. I've volunteered at abortion clinics to perform this task myself.

Anything I can do to just wrench the life out of something. It's intoxicating.

[HonestChieffan]

Hard to imagine that this really is his position. First its politically way out in left field, no pun intended. In his statements on his faith and how he came to his faith as an adult, his friendship with a Catholic Priest, and association with what he claims is a strong Christian based church, there is no possible way these can be put in balance.

I cannot imagine this will slide by till November. Obama will find it very difficult to defend this and hold onto even his black voter base that is devoute Christian.

[banyon]

whether or not to strangle a living, breathing, live-born infant lying on the operating table is an ethically unresolvable issue?

Obama strangled an infant?

[Direckshun]

Death good.

Fetuses bad.

You know, they're just parasites living off a host body. It's about time we took matters into our own hands.

[Nightwish]

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
I suspect there's probably more to the story than is being presented here (and considering the source, it's very likely). What was the actual language of the legislation, and what were Obama's actual reasons for opposing? Is there a video or transcript this supposed speech on the Illinois Senate floor?

[HonestChieffan]

The Wall Steet Journal is untrustworthy as a source?

[Pitt Gorilla]

It's interesting that the author thinks this should be THE issue for voters. I consider myself pro-life, but I can't imagine that issue, and the candidates current positions on it, to be the only deciding factor.

[Adept Havelock]

The Wall Steet Journal is untrustworthy as a source?

The news sections are among the finest in the press.

The op-ed pages, far from it. Pure hackery for the most part, so I'm sure you would be a big fan.

Death good.

Fetuses bad.

You know, they're just parasites living off a host body. It's about time we took matters into our own hands.

You can also use them to make a wonderful pate'.

[trndobrd]

I suspect there's probably more to the story than is being presented here (and considering the source, it's very likely). What was the actual language of the legislation, and what were Obama's actual reasons for opposing? Is there a video or transcript this supposed speech on the Illinois Senate floor?


The bill wasn't even opposed by NARAL.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

[little jacob]

Obama strangled an infant?

Is it false that he supports the right to do so?

[SBK]

It's always fun to watch people defend one of the very few things that are truly in-defensible.

[bkkcoh]

The news sections are among the finest in the press.

The op-ed pages, far from it. Pure hackery for the most part, so I'm sure you would be a big fan.



Can the facts of the story be disputed?

One can disagree with the opinion of the author of the column, but not with the facts of it.

[tiptap]

no comment on his ghoulish position i suppose?


Pro Choice as fervently in my voting as you represent your religious position.

[Adept Havelock]

Can the facts of the story be disputed?

One can disagree with the opinion of the author of the column, but not with the facts of it.

AFAICS, the State Senate speech has not been confirmed true nor proven false.

It doesn't change that the WSJ, who has one of the finest news sections, has an op-ed section that is little but pure hackery. Thus, I'm considerably more skeptical than if this came from the news section.

[tiptap]

But just to get the religious notion so to really stir the pot, when do children with souls reach the age of accountability? Do newborns go to heaven, hell or limbo? Just wondering what the religious crowds position is on this?

[little jacob]

Pro Choice as fervently in my voting as you represent your religious position.

what religious position?

and, i dont see what religion has to do with the killing of live-born infants. in a manner less humane than that which we afford stray animals, no less.

[Adept Havelock]

what religious position?

and, i dont see what religion has to do with the killing of live-born infants. in a manner less humane than that which we afford stray animals, no less.

What evidence do you have of this alleged practice of "strangling" live-born infants, other than the vague conjecture by the op-ed author? If it's so common, I'd assume there would be many legal cases, and at least a few convictions.

To be clear, I'm no fan of PBA's. However, I generally share banyon's opinion:
That people be allowed to make their own choice about an essentially ethically unresolvable issue.

As I find the notion there is anything inherently "sacred" about any life to be laughable, and a myth developed out of self-interest, IMO it's ethically unresolvable.

But just to get the religious notion so to really stir the pot, when do children with souls reach the age of accountability? Do newborns go to heaven, hell or limbo? Just wondering what the religious crowds position is on this?
I think if their parents are good they get to go to Celestial Disneyland. However, if mommy and daddy are bad, or Democrats, they have to spend eternity in a Celestial Neverland ranch.

[Direckshun]

The Wall Steet Journal is untrustworthy as a source?
The Wall Street Journal is the conservative Washington Post.

[SBK]

How is KILLING AN INFANT 'ethically unresolvable?'

Only an attorney can come up with such a stupid statement.

[irishjayhawk]

What evidence do you have of this alleged practice of "strangling" live-born infants, other than the vague conjecture by the op-ed author? If it's so common, I'd assume there would be many legal cases, and at least a few convictions.

To be clear, I'm no fan of PBA's. However, I generally share banyon's opinion:
That people be allowed to make their own choice about an essentially ethically unresolvable issue.

As I find the notion there is anything inherently "sacred" about any life to be laughable, and a myth developed out of self-interest, IMO it's ethically unresolvable.


I think if their parents are good they get to go to Celestial Disneyland. However, if mommy and daddy are bad, or Democrats, they have to spend eternity in a Celestial Neverland ranch.

Well said. Although, I must ask, are you related to George Carlin? ;)

[irishjayhawk]

How is KILLING AN INFANT 'ethically unresolvable?'

Only an attorney can come up with such a stupid statement.

Because technically, they aren't an infant - in our law. And even if we forego technicalities, no one can be wrong on what constitutes an infant since we arbitrarily made that up for use with language. Historically, when it was used it meant AFTER BIRTH. Thus, to be an infant, they must be born. Just because science makes it possible to incubate and deliver babies earlier and earlier doesn't mean that they are infants.

Nature as set a line: birth.

[Adept Havelock]

Well said. Although, I must ask, are you related to George Carlin? ;)

Nope. Ted Nugent. I can understand the confusion. :p

How is KILLING AN INFANT 'ethically unresolvable?'

Only an attorney can come up with such a stupid statement.

Are you also going to try to convince me an aggregate of a few dozen cells is a human being? Or maybe even just two cells?

Because technically, they aren't an infant - in our law. And even if we forego technicalities, no one can be wrong on what constitutes an infant since we arbitrarily made that up for use with language. Historically, when it was used it meant AFTER BIRTH. Thus, to be an infant, they must be born. Just because science makes it possible to incubate and deliver babies earlier and earlier doesn't mean that they are infants.

Nature as set a line: birth.

Pretty much. :shrug: Either way, I say leave it to the mother to decide, and live with her decision.

[irishjayhawk]

Nope. Ted Nugent. I can understand the confusion. :p



Are you also going to try to convince me an aggregate of a few dozen cells is a human being?



Pretty much. :shrug: Either way, I say leave it to the mother to decide.

No, he's simply going to argue that the fetus on which a partial birth abortion is performed is more than an aggregate of a few dozen cells.

[Adept Havelock]

No, he's simply going to argue that the fetus on which a partial birth abortion is performed is more than an aggregate of a few dozen cells.

He'd be right. :shrug:

I mentioned that because of the yammerheads that try to convince me there's something "sacred" about life from the moment of conception.

It still doesn't change my belief it's the mothers decision, not yours, not mine, and certainly not the states.

[BIG_DADDY]

He'd be right. :shrug:

I mentioned that because of the yammerheads that try to convince me there's something "sacred" about life from the moment of conception.

It still doesn't change my belief it's the mothers decision, not yours, not mine, and certainly not the states.

So you're fully on board?

[HonestChieffan]

How is KILLING AN INFANT 'ethically unresolvable?'

Only an attorney can come up with such a stupid statement.

Im really amazed at this thread that we actually have peole who seem to be ok with killing an infant anytime they feel they want to up to and including immidiately after birth...and seem to have no thought that this is wrong.

[Adept Havelock]

So you're fully on board?

Personally, no. As I said, I'm no fan of PBA's.

That said, I'm fine with leaving it to the mother to decide, and live with her decision. IMO, on something with such diametrically opposed ethical views, and such a split among the population, it's a choice best left to the individual.

[BIG_DADDY]

No, he's simply going to argue that the fetus on which a partial birth abortion is performed is more than an aggregate of a few dozen cells.

Just watching you post is about all I need to be convinced that abortion just might not be a bad thing. Good job.

[BIG_DADDY]

Personally, no. As I said, I'm no fan of PBA's.

That said, I'm fine with leaving it to the mother to decide, and live with her decision. IMO, on something with such diametrically opposed ethical views, and such a split among the population, it's a choice best left to the individual.

You have no problem with partial birth abortion?

[Adept Havelock]

You have no problem with partial birth abortion?

I can't make it any more clear. :shake:

I have a problem with PBA's. As I've said repeatedly, I'm no fan of them.

However, that does not extend to me believing that others should have to live their lives by the fact I have a problem with them. Put simply, while I oppose them, I do not believe I have the right, nor the state, to tell someone else they can not choose a PBA.

When there are such opposed ethical views, both of whom are equally convinced they are right, and such a split in the population there can be no consensus, I think it's best to leave that choice to the individual.

[little jacob]

Im really amazed at this thread that we actually have peole who seem to be ok with killing an infant anytime they feel they want to up to and including immidiately after birth...and seem to have no thought that this is wrong.

why stop immediately after birth? what is special about a minute after birth as opposed to a week or a month or a year after birth?

what if I dont like the color the infant's eyes change? don't i have a right to reproductive liberty? should i be punished with a baby?

[Programmer]

What ghoulish position? That people be allowed to make their own choice about an essentially ethically unresolvable issue?

A baby that is born despite efforts to abort it has rights, or haven't you been watching?

[BIG_DADDY]

I can't make it any more clear. :shake:

I have a problem with PBA's. As I've said repeatedly, I'm no fan of them.

However, that does not extend to me believing that others should have to live their lives by the fact I have a problem with them. Put simply, while I oppose them, I do not believe I have the right, nor the state, to tell someone else they can not choose a PBA.

When there are such opposed ethical views, both of whom are equally convinced they are right, and such a split in the population there can be no consensus, I think it's best to leave that choice to the individual.

I guess we should all have the right to kill our own kids then, **** the state.

[Adept Havelock]

I guess we should all have the right to kill our own kids then, **** the state.


Somehow I knew you'd say that. :rolleyes:

It's pretty simple, we have a broad societal consensus that killing kids is wrong, hence it's illegal.

There is no such consensus on the topic of abortion. Just two fairly evenly split groups, both of whom strongly believe their outlook is the morally correct one. It appears there can be no consensus reached between the two groups.

Thus, IMO, the matter is best left to the individuals choice. :shrug:

You'll never convince me that two cells are a human being anymore than you could convince me a fertilized egg is a chicken.

As for PBA's, I don't think it's a good practice. That said, I'm unwilling to force others to abide by my opinion.

[BIG_DADDY]

Somehow I knew you'd say that. :rolleyes:

It's pretty simple, we have a broad societal consensus that killing kids is wrong, hence it's illegal.

There is no such consensus on the topic of abortion. Just two fairly evenly split groups, both of whom believe their outlook is the morally correct one. It appears there can be no consensus reached between the two groups.

Thus, IMO, the matter is best left to the individual. :shrug:

I believe early term is one thing but late term and partial birth is an entirely different matter. It's already a baby just short of being able to support it's own life. If you carried it that long you have the moral obligation to at least give birth then you can put it up for adoption if you want. I don't see any upside to killing a baby.

[Adept Havelock]

I believe early term is one thing but late term and partial birth is an entirely different matter. It's already a baby just short of being able to support it's own life. If you carried it that long you have the moral obligation to at least give birth then you can put it up for adoption if you want. I don't see any upside to killing a baby.

I don't see an upside to PBA either, unless it's to preserve the life of the mother.

I'm just unwilling to force others to live by that opinion.

[HonestChieffan]

I guess then its better to kill a baby than offer it up for adoption.

[SNR]

Death good.

Fetuses bad.

You know, they're just parasites living off a host body. It's about time we took matters into our own hands.Oh yeah? Well I support killing babies and oppose a woman's right to choose! Beat that!

[Adept Havelock]

Oh yeah? Well I support killing babies and oppose a woman's right to choose! Beat that!

LMAO

I still say you can make a decent pâté out of them.

It goes well with Fava beans and a nice Chianti.

[BIG_DADDY]

I don't see an upside to PBA either.

I'm just unwilling to force others to live by that opinion.

I believe that mothers certainly have a right to do what they want with their body until you are actually killing a baby. Killing a baby is killing a baby, nobody should have that right. 60% of the abortions in this country are in the first 8 weeks thank god. We need to keep the mass majority in that 8 week period. A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body unless she is killing her own child then we are talking about more than just her body.

[Adept Havelock]

I believe that mothers certainly have a right to do what they want with their body until you are actually killing a baby. Killing a baby is killing a baby, nobody should have that right. 60% of the abortions in this country are in the first 8 weeks thank god. We need to keep the mass majority in that 8 week period. A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body unless she is killing her own child then we are talking about more than just her body.

So, you're not willing to draw that line where some would argue, at conception. We certainly agree on that.

At what mysterious point do we draw it? When does the blastocyst/fetus become a "baby"? Apparently, you consider it before the next natural line I can see, when it can survive on it's own outside the womb. Other than that, I can't see any others except for birth.

I respect your position, I just have to disagree. Given the ambiguity of that line, I have to leave the decision to the individual mother. However, I'd personally go with "once it can survive outside the womb", as was the case in the original op-ed. There is also something to be said for your position, once it's that close.

I think the only place we really differ is in our respective willingness to turn our opinions into law.

Once again, it's been good chatting with you BD. Always nice to be able to agree to disagree with someone and have a pretty civil conversation on such a touchy subject.

To paraphrase John Wayne/Stuntman Mike..I've actually got a book, and you're OK in my book. :thumb:

[SNR]

LMAO

I still say you can make a decent pâté out of them.

It goes well with Fava beans and a nice Chianti.It's as relevant today as it was in 2004 when it was written

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

[BIG_DADDY]

LMAO

I still say you can make a decent pâté out of them.

It goes well with Fava beans and a nice Chianti.

They make good vaccines. God this is some sick shit.

[HonestChieffan]

Certainly a side of people i had not seen. Fighting over some issues is fine, heck getting downright mad is ok, and we can have differences. But on a subject like this, one can only hope some of whats here is simply people saying things to elicit a reaction. I hope its not the real feelings of people.

[Adept Havelock]

Certainly a side of people i had not seen. Fighting over some issues is fine, heck getting downright mad is ok, and we can have differences. But on a subject like this, one can only hope some of whats here is simply people saying things to elicit a reaction. I hope its not the real feelings of people.

I'm sure you'll be very disturbed to know I'm very sincere...except for the cannibalism bits.

I'm not a fan of PBA's. I'm also unwilling to force others to live by that opinion.

Two cells are no more a human being than a fertilized hen's egg is a chicken.

Given such opposed moral views and a split population, it's best left to the individual.

If you're disturbed, it only confirms to me that I must be on the right path. :)

It's as relevant today as it was in 2004 when it was written

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

They make good vaccines. God this is some sick shit.

ROFL

The Regressive party strikes me a bit as the political incarnation of one of my favorite Religions..Discordianism. Hail Eris!

[BIG_DADDY]

So, you're not willing to draw that line where some would argue, at conception. We certainly agree on that.

At what mysterious point do we draw it? When does the blastocyst/fetus become a "baby"? Apparently, you consider it before the next natural line I can see, when it can survive on it's own outside the womb. Other than that, I can't see any others except for birth.

I respect your position, I just have to disagree. Given the ambiguity of that line, I have to leave the decision to the individual mother. However, I'd personally go with "once it can survive outside the womb", as was the case in the original op-ed.

I think the only place we really differ is in our respective willingness to turn our opinions into law.

Once again, it's been good chatting with you BD. Always nice to be able to agree to disagree with someone and have a pretty civil conversation on such a touchy subject.

To paraphrase John Wayne/Stuntman Mike..I've got a book, and you're OK in my book. :thumb:

I think that would fall somewhere between 8 - 12 weeks. Almost 80% are done by the 12th week. There is simply no reason for someone to be any more irresponsible than that. **** the other 20%.

[Adept Havelock]

I think that would fall somewhere between 8 - 12 weeks. Almost 80% are done by the 12th week. There is simply no reason for someone to be any more irresponsible than that. **** the other 20%.

I can certainly understand that POV.

[BIG_DADDY]

ROFL

I wasn't kidding.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=38498

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccine_components_detail.cfv?id=32

[Adept Havelock]

I wasn't kidding.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=38498

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccine_components_detail.cfv?id=32

Interesting. Well, as long as they aren't doing abortions for the purpose of obtaining vaccine materials. That would be too "Joseph Mengele" for me. If they are only using the byproducts of abortions that occur anyway, I can't say I have much of a problem with it.

However, I'm still mixed on my opinions of the vaccination process. Some of that is due to things you've posted, so I'll thank you for that. :thumb:

[BIG_DADDY]

Interesting. Well, as long as they aren't doing abortions for the purpose of obtaining vaccine materials. That would be too "Joseph Mengele" for me. If they are only using the byproducts of abortions that occur anyway, I can't say I have much of a problem with it.

However, I'm still mixed on my opinions of the vaccination process. Some of that is due to things you've posted, so I'll thank you for that. :thumb:

Cool :thumb:

[BIG_DADDY]

Interesting. Well, as long as they aren't doing abortions for the purpose of obtaining vaccine materials. That would be too "Joseph Mengele" for me. If they are only using the byproducts of abortions that occur anyway, I can't say I have much of a problem with it.

However, I'm still mixed on my opinions of the vaccination process. Some of that is due to things you've posted, so I'll thank you for that. :thumb:

You want to see something really sick about this Obama clown. Check this out from wikipedia.

In 2002, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a bill requiring doctors to give medical attention to fully born babies who survive late term abortions.

You gotta be a sick POS. This is going to be our leader?

[Calcountry]

I can't make it any more clear. :shake:

I have a problem with PBA's. As I've said repeatedly, I'm no fan of them.

However, that does not extend to me believing that others should have to live their lives by the fact I have a problem with them. Put simply, while I oppose them, I do not believe I have the right, nor the state, to tell someone else they can not choose a PBA.

When there are such opposed ethical views, both of whom are equally convinced they are right, and such a split in the population there can be no consensus, I think it's best to leave that choice to the individual.By that logic, we don't have the right to tell anyone to not murder. I mean, that is a decision that is best left up to the individual(murderer).
That is a total deriliction of your civic responsibility to assist an innocent victim in a crime.

Shame on you. May your concience weigh on you until you quit hiding behind the cowardice of "individual choice" and you do something with that vast intellect of yours.

[Adept Havelock]

By that logic, we don't have the right to tell anyone to not murder. I mean, that is a decision that is best left up to the individual(murderer).
That is a total deriliction of your civic responsibility to assist an innocent victim in a crime.



It's pretty simple, we have a broad societal consensus that killing kids edit- or others by "murder" is wrong, hence it's illegal.

There is no such consensus on the topic of abortion. Just two fairly evenly split groups, both of whom strongly believe their outlook is the morally correct one. It appears there can be no consensus reached between the two groups.

Thus, IMO, the matter is best left to the individuals choice. :shrug:

You'll never convince me that two cells are a human being anymore than you could convince me a fertilized egg is a chicken.

As for PBA's, I don't think it's a good practice. That said, I'm unwilling to force others to abide by my opinion.

I am not in dereliction of my duty, as I see no crime. Abortion isn't a crime just because you want it to be. :shrug:

As there are equally convincing cases on both sides of the argument, I believe it is most responsible to permit the individual to choose. There is clearly no broad social consensus, as there is with your example, murder.


Shame on you. May your concience weigh on you until you quit hiding behind the cowardice of "individual choice" and you do something with that vast intellect of yours.

Thanks for the concern, but I'm very content with the professional and personal achievements permitted by my intellect. I wouldn't consider it vast, but I thank you for the compliment.

As for my conscience, it would be far more disturbed if I presumed to dictate to another they should live by my opinion, merely because I had a differing one.

[banyon]

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion
On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.
Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008


http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

[BIG_DADDY]

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion
On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.
Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008


http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

You know you are one of the last people I though would turn into a left of Stalin liberal on us. Lets see, are you taking a look at his actual voting history or are you just looking at a recent position he has taken up to try an make himself president.

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
Oh wow, look at that he did this just in time for the elections. How has he voted before i wonder. :hmmm:

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Then of course there is always this gem basically making the guy friggen Frankenstein.

In 2002, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a bill requiring doctors to give medical attention to fully born babies who survive late term abortions.


Of course you already know this as you are a pretty smart guy and most of it was taken from the same place you got your information from. You just choose to only post his most recent profiling for POTUS position instead of what the man really stands for. I am sure according to you this guy is also for standing behind the 2nd amendment and civilians rights to keep and bear arms as well, right? What a joke.

[irishjayhawk]

Just watching you post is about all I need to be convinced that abortion just might not be a bad thing. Good job.

Well, thanks for playing. The equivalent of the "you're gay" card doesn't bode well for any further arguments you may endear. It's a sign of a white flag. Sad.


I think that would fall somewhere between 8 - 12 weeks. Almost 80% are done by the 12th week. There is simply no reason for someone to be any more irresponsible than that. **** the other 20%.

And, see, just like that, we agree on something. Even after you decided to play the "you're gay" card.

[BIG_DADDY]

Well, thanks for playing. The equivalent of the "you're gay" card doesn't bode well for any further arguments you may endear. It's a sign of a white flag. Sad.




And, see, just like that, we agree on something. Even after you decided to play the "you're gay" card.

The only person who said gay was you. Don't turn into Zach on me.

[irishjayhawk]

The only person who said gay was you. Don't turn into Zach on me.

You don't even understand my point. Wow. :huh:

[BIG_DADDY]

You don't even understand my point. Wow. :huh:

Yea that's it. LMAO

I'm out of here. You guys have a great night.

[HolmeZz]

This is the #1 reason I joined the republican party and would never vote for someone that is pro-death in any election.

I'm pretty sure most of those guys you've been voting for have favored the death penalty.

[irishjayhawk]

Yea that's it. LMAO

I'm out of here. You guys have a great night.

It's all in the response you gave. Sad.

I'll simplify it for you:

Any argument that ends with "well you're gay" or something similar is an immediate white flag signaling the person's defeat.

Here, "you may have convinced me abortion is a good idea", or more directly without the subterfuge, "you should have been aborted" is the exact same white flag, admission of defeat, or anything else you'd like to call it. It's game over for your argument(s).

[irishjayhawk]

I'm pretty sure most of those guys you've been voting for have favored the death penalty.

Would Bush be considered Pro-Death?

[little jacob]

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion
On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.
Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008


http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

i am glad to hear more context. hopefully he will go on record again and again against things like pba and this live infant death and clear it all up.

[banyon]

You know you are one of the last people I though would turn into a left of Stalin liberal on us. Lets see, are you taking a look at his actual voting history or are you just looking at a recent position he has taken up to try an make himself president.

I'm not taking any turn. I personally don't give two s***'s about abortion either way, so it's just a criticism of the thread.

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
Oh wow, look at that he did this just in time for the elections. How has he voted before i wonder. :hmmm:

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Funny, you criticize me for not looking far enough and then you just quote the headline. Here's the quote:

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion
Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

Then of course there is always this gem basically making the guy friggen Frankenstein.

In 2002, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a bill requiring doctors to give medical attention to fully born babies who survive late term abortions.

I don't know about Obama's reason for voting against this bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1661LV.html), but it doesn't say anything about "fully born". At best it appears ambiguous and applicable regardless of whether or not the fetus is sustainable after it exits the birth canal. It seems to require doctors to provide all possible medical attention to any entity that has reached the zygote stage, since it would be "alive".


Of course you already know this as you are a pretty smart guy and most of it was taken from the same place you got your information from. You just choose to only post his most recent profiling for POTUS position instead of what the man really stands for. I am sure according to you this guy is also for standing behind the 2nd amendment and civilians rights to keep and bear arms as well, right? What a joke.

BS, I was only pointing out that the smears in the OP are completely misleading when they don't account for the possibility that he voted the way that he did due to concerns about the health of the mother.

[Logical]

Holy hell how many 100s of thousands of dollars were spent on her medical care getting her to where she could survive on her own, to live the rest of her life with disabilities that likely the taxpayer might also have paid for forever.

This is a lousy example.

[Adam]

Holy hell how many 100s of thousands of dollars were spent on her medical care getting her to where she could survive on her own, to live the rest of her life with disabilities that likely the taxpayer might also have paid for forever.

This is a lousy example.

A lousy example of what? Of why abortion should be illegal? In all likelihood she would have been perfectly healthy if carried to term, rather than having somebody attempt to murder her in her third trimester.

This story is appalling. Absolutely excruciating for any person with even an ounce of empathy to read. Just when I think that society can't sink any lower in it's value of human life, I read something like this and am reminded how naive I am.

[SBK]

Holy hell how many 100s of thousands of dollars were spent on her medical care getting her to where she could survive on her own, to live the rest of her life with disabilities that likely the taxpayer might also have paid for forever.

This is a lousy example.

Wow.

[Logical]

Wow.Wow you had not thought how this would negatively impact your insurance rates, or wow you only are concerned with unpaid medical bills when they come from illegal aliens?

[Taco John]

I get the sense that I could jingle keys in front of most Americans and get them to gaze at them dazzled by their shininess. This thread serves to reinforce the notion.

How many less abortions are we going to see after a McCain presidency. Oh, let's see: exactly zero. And with Obama as president? Is the abortion rate going to increase or something? Not likely. So what's the point?

Americans don't honestly care about abortion. There are bills in congress that would nullify Roe vs. Wade tomorrow and put the decision in the hands of the states. It's not going to happen though because if it did, Republicans wouldn't have this as a wedge issue during the 4 year election cycle. All this outrage over the Democrat Dujour's position on this every four years is nothing but empty talk. November will come and go, and so will this issue - until the next time a Republican needs to pull a bunch of fetuses out of the closet to spray their opponent with while pointing in horror. But once the election is done, they'll stuff 'em back in storage until the next time.

[stumppy]

Holy hell how many 100s of thousands of dollars were spent on her medical care getting her to where she could survive on her own, to live the rest of her life with disabilities that likely the taxpayer might also have paid for forever.

This is a lousy example.


Thanks for the reminder. I knew there was a reason I rarely check out this slime pit of a forum.

[banyon]

I get the sense that I could jingle keys in front of most Americans and get them to gaze at them dazzled by their shininess. This thread serves to reinforce the notion.

How many less abortions are we going to see after a McCain presidency. Oh, let's see: exactly zero. And with Obama as president? Is the abortion rate going to increase or something? Not likely. So what's the point?

Americans don't honestly care about abortion. There are bills in congress that would nullify Roe vs. Wade tomorrow and put the decision in the hands of the states. It's not going to happen though because if it did, Republicans wouldn't have this as a wedge issue during the 4 year election cycle. All this outrage over the Democrat Dujour's position on this every four years is nothing but empty talk. November will come and go, and so will this issue - until the next time a Republican needs to pull a bunch of fetuses out of the closet to spray their opponent with while pointing in horror. But once the election is done, they'll stuff 'em back in storage until the next time.

Agree 100%

[Programmer]

I get the sense that I could jingle keys in front of most Americans and get them to gaze at them dazzled by their shininess. This thread serves to reinforce the notion.

How many less abortions are we going to see after a McCain presidency. Oh, let's see: exactly zero. And with Obama as president? Is the abortion rate going to increase or something? Not likely. So what's the point?

Americans don't honestly care about abortion. There are bills in congress that would nullify Roe vs. Wade tomorrow and put the decision in the hands of the states. It's not going to happen though because if it did, Republicans wouldn't have this as a wedge issue during the 4 year election cycle. All this outrage over the Democrat Dujour's position on this every four years is nothing but empty talk. November will come and go, and so will this issue - until the next time a Republican needs to pull a bunch of fetuses out of the closet to spray their opponent with while pointing in horror. But once the election is done, they'll stuff 'em back in storage until the next time.

That is the most absurd comment I've seen on this board. You honestly think that Americans do not care if life is stolen from unborns?

At the moment there are legal abortions happening across the country, do you think that would change overnight if McCain were elected? If you do I'd say that you need to back away from the koolaid and move on.

I can see the need for safe abortions for certain situations but I do not agree that an abortion should be available for a person that "got caught" in an oops type situation.

It would all go back to when you believe life begins, there are a few opinions there but most "religious" people would say at conception, most secular people would say at birth.

I would agree with abortions that were a necessity to save the mother's life but not as a convenience item because of casual sex. I'm divided on the rape issue, there have been some amazing people born that were the product of rape. I don't condone it, but I'd prefer adoption over abortion in those cases.

[Sully]

I get the sense that I could jingle keys in front of most Americans and get them to gaze at them dazzled by their shininess. This thread serves to reinforce the notion.

How many less abortions are we going to see after a McCain presidency. Oh, let's see: exactly zero. And with Obama as president? Is the abortion rate going to increase or something? Not likely. So what's the point?

Americans don't honestly care about abortion. There are bills in congress that would nullify Roe vs. Wade tomorrow and put the decision in the hands of the states. It's not going to happen though because if it did, Republicans wouldn't have this as a wedge issue during the 4 year election cycle. All this outrage over the Democrat Dujour's position on this every four years is nothing but empty talk. November will come and go, and so will this issue - until the next time a Republican needs to pull a bunch of fetuses out of the closet to spray their opponent with while pointing in horror. But once the election is done, they'll stuff 'em back in storage until the next time.

Absolutely true.
The only time it is discussed is during election time. If they wanted to do something about it, they have had every opportunity.

[banyon]

That is the most absurd comment I've seen on this board. You honestly think that Americans do not care if life is stolen from unborns?

At the moment there are legal abortions happening across the country, do you think that would change overnight if McCain were elected? If you do I'd say that you need to back away from the koolaid and move on.

I can see the need for safe abortions for certain situations but I do not agree that an abortion should be available for a person that "got caught" in an oops type situation.

It would all go back to when you believe life begins, there are a few opinions there but most "religious" people would say at conception, most secular people would say at birth.

I would agree with abortions that were a necessity to save the mother's life but not as a convenience item because of casual sex. I'm divided on the rape issue, there have been some amazing people born that were the product of rape. I don't condone it, but I'd prefer adoption over abortion in those cases.

Now I agree with you Taco 120%.

[Programmer]

Now I agree with you Taco 120%.

Are you an American? Do you agree with murdering babies?

I'm an American and I do not believe in abortion, and it is not only during election years.

Get off your bandwagon and realize that you don't shoot the messenger.

[banyon]

Are you an American? Do you agree with murdering babies?

I'm an American and I do not believe in abortion, and it is not only during election years.

Get off your bandwagon and realize that you don't shoot the messenger.

Absolutely, I must be for all out baby murderin', that's the only other possibility. :spock:

[Programmer]

Absolutely, I must be for all out baby murderin', that's the only other possibility. :spock:

Do you agree with partial birth abortions?

What if a baby survives the abortion attempt? Do you agree that the doctor or abortionist is OK to kill that infant? When do you think life begins?

You read much more into comments than any normal person would. You might need to go back to school and get a little more education.

[Adept Havelock]

I get the sense that I could jingle keys in front of most Americans and get them to gaze at them dazzled by their shininess. This thread serves to reinforce the notion.

How many less abortions are we going to see after a McCain presidency. Oh, let's see: exactly zero. And with Obama as president? Is the abortion rate going to increase or something? Not likely. So what's the point?

Americans don't honestly care about abortion. There are bills in congress that would nullify Roe vs. Wade tomorrow and put the decision in the hands of the states. It's not going to happen though because if it did, Republicans wouldn't have this as a wedge issue during the 4 year election cycle. All this outrage over the Democrat Dujour's position on this every four years is nothing but empty talk. November will come and go, and so will this issue - until the next time a Republican needs to pull a bunch of fetuses out of the closet to spray their opponent with while pointing in horror. But once the election is done, they'll stuff 'em back in storage until the next time.

That sums it up nicely. Well said, Taco.

[Programmer]

That sums it up nicely. Well said, Taco.

You can't be serious, Americans don't care about abortion? Only every 4 years? That goes beyond common sense, it's a daily issue for many people.

[Direckshun]

I get the sense that I could jingle keys in front of most Americans and get them to gaze at them dazzled by their shininess. This thread serves to reinforce the notion.

How many less abortions are we going to see after a McCain presidency. Oh, let's see: exactly zero. And with Obama as president? Is the abortion rate going to increase or something? Not likely. So what's the point?

Americans don't honestly care about abortion. There are bills in congress that would nullify Roe vs. Wade tomorrow and put the decision in the hands of the states. It's not going to happen though because if it did, Republicans wouldn't have this as a wedge issue during the 4 year election cycle. All this outrage over the Democrat Dujour's position on this every four years is nothing but empty talk. November will come and go, and so will this issue - until the next time a Republican needs to pull a bunch of fetuses out of the closet to spray their opponent with while pointing in horror. But once the election is done, they'll stuff 'em back in storage until the next time.
Applause.

[banyon]

Do you agree with partial birth abortions?

I think the government should be able to restrict them, and so does Obama.

What if a baby survives the abortion attempt? Do you agree that the doctor or abortionist is OK to kill that infant? When do you think life begins?

No, that's a murder, and it's a situation that probably has occurred maybe .000001% of the time, but if you try to outlaw it by appending it to a bill where you try to get a bunch of protections for non-viable fetuses, then a vote against the latter isn't a vote against the former.

You read much more into comments than any normal person would. You might need to go back to school and get a little more education.

Yeah, it's not as if you're the one with the credibility issues. Do you get enough air in that plastic bubble that you're isolated in or what?

[Programmer]

Yeah, it's not as if you're the one with the credibility issues. Do you get enough air in that plastic bubble that you're isolated in or what?

I would think that you could be more adult with the conversation. You always lower to the insults to end your responses.

I am working to support my comments, if you disagree, simply disagree.

As for your commentary about Obama, I'm not sure this thread is referring to any candidates political stance on abortion.

[banyon]

I would think that you could be more adult with the conversation. You always lower to the insults to end your responses.

I am working to support my comments, if you disagree, simply disagree.

How are you so retarded that you start the insults EVERY TIME and then act appalled when someone insults you back?

Remember:

You read much more into comments than any normal person would. You might need to go back to school and get a little more education.

Then I replied in kind.

How anyone is this mind-numbingly idiotic is beyond me.


As for your commentary about Obama, I'm not sure this thread is referring to any candidates political stance on abortion.

:spock: And this is just so stupid, it's hard to even figure out how to reply. The thread isn't about a candidate's politcal stance, but the opening post is entirely about Obama's votes and commentary on them?

[SBK]

Wow you had not thought how this would negatively impact your insurance rates, or wow you only are concerned with unpaid medical bills when they come from illegal aliens?

No, I was amazed at what you had to say. A child that would have been perfectly healthy had mom not tried to kill it.....

[irishjayhawk]

I get the sense that I could jingle keys in front of most Americans and get them to gaze at them dazzled by their shininess. This thread serves to reinforce the notion.

How many less abortions are we going to see after a McCain presidency. Oh, let's see: exactly zero. And with Obama as president? Is the abortion rate going to increase or something? Not likely. So what's the point?

Americans don't honestly care about abortion. There are bills in congress that would nullify Roe vs. Wade tomorrow and put the decision in the hands of the states. It's not going to happen though because if it did, Republicans wouldn't have this as a wedge issue during the 4 year election cycle. All this outrage over the Democrat Dujour's position on this every four years is nothing but empty talk. November will come and go, and so will this issue - until the next time a Republican needs to pull a bunch of fetuses out of the closet to spray their opponent with while pointing in horror. But once the election is done, they'll stuff 'em back in storage until the next time.

I don't know if that's good, bad, or sad, but it's 100% spot on. Of course, noting the exception religious nuts who protest and sometimes, in an act of utmost irony, bomb an abortion clinic.

[little jacob]

No, I was amazed at what you had to say. A child that would have been perfectly healthy had mom not tried to kill it.....

although it appears the column in the OP is only one side of the story, I found it amazing how many people expressed support for the position. Surely no reasonable person believes in suffocating infants, at least I would rather not assume the world is so depraved and barbaric.

Presumably some just decided they agreed because their candidate did. It is interesting. No well formed opinion on an issue for some equals not using their own mind and core beliefs to form an opinion, but rather, "whatever Barak Obama believes is what I believe"

that is not a good sentiment for a free society. it's dangerous.

[banyon]

although it appears the column in the OP is only one side of the story, I found it amazing how many people expressed support for the position. Surely no reasonable person believes in suffocating infants, at least I would rather not assume the world is so depraved and barbaric.

Presumably some just decided they agreed because their candidate did. It is interesting. No well formed opinion on an issue for some equals not using their own mind and core beliefs to form an opinion, but rather, "whatever Barak Obama believes is what I believe"

that is not a good sentiment for a free society. it's dangerous.

Who said anything that remotely resembled what you've posted here?

[little jacob]

Who said anything that remotely resembled what you've posted here?

There were plenty who were more than willing to play devil's advocate, or say the issue wasn't important, or or try to heckle the life side in general. many obama supporters posted here but i dont remember anyone being surprised he seemingly believed in it. it was mostly just, well, but... but i may have been influenced someone by honestchieffan's posts reading back over it that the supportw as more tacit than i remembered.

even so it seems like i remember you saying the question was 'ethically unresolvable.' irish jayhawk contributed that they weren't people so it shouldn't matter anyway in post 35. adept in 41 says the mother should be free to decide on a PBA which is not really any different than this and is left of any politician i know of.

in reference to your comment in #78 regarding PBA, when is it necessary for the health of the mother? are there situations where delivering the head will be fine, but pulling the rest of the body out will endanger her health?

It's a hide-behind.

[Programmer]

I don't know if that's good, bad, or sad, but it's 100% spot on. Of course, noting the exception religious nuts who protest and sometimes, in an act of utmost irony, bomb an abortion clinic.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[irishjayhawk]

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

There are none so ironic as that.

[Programmer]

How are you so retarded that you start the insults EVERY TIME and then act appalled when someone insults you back?

You threw the first insults on this thread, not me.

Remember:

Then I replied in kind.

How anyone is this mind-numbingly idiotic is beyond me.

Oh wow, I really slammed you to the pavement with that one. You have always been quick to misspeak due to your lack of attention to detail and then claim it's somene else's fault.

I would enjoy a full day of reading this board without you insulting anyone. I'm sure that you can't do it, your ego won't let you.

Are you on summer break? Is that why you have all day to post here?

[banyon]

There were plenty who were more than willing to play devil's advocate, or say the issue wasn't important, or or try to heckle the life side in general. many obama supporters posted here but i dont remember anyone being surprised he seemingly believed in it. it was mostly just, well, but... but i may have been influenced someone by honestchieffan's posts reading back over it that the supportw as more tacit than i remembered.

even so it seems like i remember you saying the question was 'ethically unresolvable.' irish jayhawk contributed that they weren't people so it shouldn't matter anyway in post 35. adept in 41 says the mother should be free to decide on a PBA which is not really any different than this and is left of any politician i know of.

So, in short, you can't find anyone who did what you accused them of and
just adopted the position because their preferred candidate had adopted it?

Also, what is it you think Obama "believes in"? wrt abortion? That people should have unfettered access to partial birth abortions? That's not his position if that's what you were angling for.

in reference to your comment in #78 regarding PBA, when is it necessary for the health of the mother? are there situations where delivering the head will be fine, but pulling the rest of the body out will endanger her health?

Are you under the impression that all babies come out head first? Even so, I could easily imagine situations where delivering the head would be fine and pulling the rest would cause problems, particularly if there were entanglement or development issues. Paralysis is usually the main concern in cases where it becomes relevant.

[Programmer]

There are none so ironic as that.

Only your opinion. You have indirectly stated that only Americans have problems with abortions during election years and that they only protest at abortion clinics and do the occasional bombing.

You have missed those that work year round, every year, to get the laws changed to protect the unborn. I may be the American you wish to have live here, but at least I see the events and activities of the country and do not disregard them for political expedience.

[Adept Havelock]

So, in short, you can't find anyone who did what you accused them of and
just adopted the position because their preferred candidate had adopted it?


LMAO

Then there's the little problem that Obama is not my candidate, preferred or otherwise.

little jacob, if you truly believe that leaving decisions to the individual instead of the state is a far left position...:shake:

[banyon]

You threw the first insults on this thread, not me.

I'll take your failure to back that up with an example as a capitulation that you cannot, since it's patently false to even the most cursory review of the thread.


Oh wow, I really slammed you to the pavement with that one. You have always been quick to misspeak due to your lack of attention to detail and then claim it's somene else's fault.

I would enjoy a full day of reading this board without you insulting anyone. I'm sure that you can't do it, your ego won't let you.

Are you on summer break? Is that why you have all day to post here?

No, you may be right here, I don't have any more time to waste on your inanity.

[Adept Havelock]

No, you may be right here, I don't have any more time to waste on your inanity.
LMAO

iggy is your friend. It won't stop the quoted posts, but it still raises the apparent IQ of the forum by at least 40 points.

[Programmer]

I'll take your failure to back that up with an example as a capitulation that you cannot, since it's patently false to even the most cursory review of the thread.




No, you may be right here, I don't have any more time to waste on your inanity.

You claim to be a respected person on this board yet all you have is insults.

To be respected here you need to be an asshole. Well lady, you fit the bill to a tee.

[Programmer]

LMAO

iggy is your friend. It won't stop the quoted posts, but it still raises the apparent IQ of the forum by at least 40 points.

Your apparent IQ comment is funny. If there were a way to compare actual IQ's I'd throw mine up against anyone here. I guarantee the outcome would not be what you wish it would be.

If you use iggy you are fearful of reading others opinions. If I were to use that function here it would be to eliminate the cut and paste mentality of the liberal base.

I'd enjoy iggy from my pov. That way you won't feel the need to comment because of who you feel I am.

Have a nice day marilyn

[banyon]

Your apparent IQ comment is funny. If there were a way to compare actual IQ's I'd throw mine up against anyone here. I guarantee the outcome would not be what you wish it would be.

If you use iggy you are fearful of reading others opinions. If I were to use that function here it would be to eliminate the cut and paste mentality of the liberal base.

I'd enjoy iggy from my pov. That way you won't feel the need to comment because of who you feel I am.

Have a nice day marilyn

Since you're evidently here to be a :o) and that's it, let's hear it. What's the really high IQ you claim to have?

[Programmer]

Since you're evidently here to be a :o) and that's it, let's hear it. What's the really high IQ you claim to have?

What would that prove? You wouldn't believe anything posted so it is a moot point. There is no honor here, especially from you.

Let's just say that I finished my education with a 3.85 and the IQ test I took put me above 63% of the national tested average.

[Programmer]

What a chickenshit, though expected, reply. And of course you start with the insults. You are the biggest retard I have met on or off-line, congratulations.

Big man off board.

You, my friend, started the name slinging. But you already knew that.

I just love it when you compromise your principles and send PM's and neg reps!!!

ROFLROFL

[banyon]

What would that prove? You wouldn't believe anything posted so it is a moot point. There is no honor here, especially from you.

Let's just say that I finished my education with a 3.85 and the IQ test I took put me above 63% of the national tested average.

So that puts you at about a 105 (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx). No, I have no trouble believing that. You're slightly above average, congrats.

The fact that you think this is impressive, though, is tragically hilarious. LMAO

[banyon]

Big man off board.

You, my friend, started the name slinging. But you already knew that.

I just love it when you compromise your principles and send PM's and neg reps!!!

ROFLROFL

I haven't sent you any PM's in well over a year probably, and those were usually just in reply to the ridiculous horses*** you had sent to me first.

I'm not aware that I have ever articulated any "principle" about either PM's or Neg Rep, so perhaps you'd like to share the occasion when I did so.

[Programmer]

So that puts you at about a 105 (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx). No, I have no trouble believing that. You're slightly above average, congrats.

The fact that you think this is impressive, though, is tragically hilarious.You are obviously checking a source different than mine. It's not 105, but you knew that before you posted.

Keep trying if you wish, you're only wasting air time.


I'll give you a hint, you are off by more than 15 points.

[banyon]

You are obviously checking a source different than mine. It's not 105, but you knew that before you posted.

Keep trying if you wish, you're only wasting air time.


I'll give you a hint, you are off by more than 15 points.

You know that 120 is still in the average range, right? :doh!:

http://www.archure.net/p/IQ.gif

[Programmer]

You know that 120 is still in the average range, right? :doh!:



My God you are struggling with this. Just give it a rest. You can't handle the truth.

[banyon]

My God you are struggling with this. Just give it a rest. You can't handle the truth.

Struggling with what? The fact that you're bragging about an IQ in the average range? There's a struggle all right, but it's all pretty much on one side.

[banyon]

I just love it when you compromise your principles and send PM's and neg reps!!!



I'm not aware that I have ever articulated any "principle" about either PM's or Neg Rep, so perhaps you'd like to share the occasion when I did so.

Oh yeah, and I guess this was just some more hot air you were spewing earlier and can't back up.

[Programmer]

Oh yeah, and I guess this was just some more hot air you were spewing earlier and can't back up.

You are big at hammering those that use PM's and neg reps.

So you whine about those that send them but feel it's OK to send chickenshit type reps out?

RIGGGHHHHTTTT. You have no principles against it.

[banyon]

You are big at hammering those that use PM's and neg reps.

So you whine about those that send them but feel it's OK to send chickenshit type reps out?

RIGGGHHHHTTTT. You have no principles against it.

So you have no examples of my saying that, then?

I probably have commented that your PM's were idiotic, because they were, but I have nothing against them in general.

[Programmer]

So you have no examples of my saying that, then?

I probably have commented that your PM's were idiotic, because they were, but I have nothing against them in general.

Your eyes are brown aren't they?

Your actions prove my point. You may not have said outright that you disprove of them but the content of yours prove that you don't have the balls to keep it on the board.

[banyon]

Your eyes are brown aren't they?

Your actions prove my point. You may not have said outright that you disprove of them but the content of yours prove that you don't have the balls to keep it on the board.

So, now I didn't say I had some principle against PM's or neg reps, but my neg reps prove that I do have that principle? :spock: Holy hell, that's retarded even for you. Do you have any idea what you're saying at all at this point?

I'm pretty sure I've called you a bunch of names on the board, in this thread, in your face, or wherever you want. Usually that's quid pro quo when you start this crap, but don't worry, I'll keep insulting you in kind in both neg reps and in open posts so long as you keep up your typical dipshittery.

[Programmer]

So, now I didn't say I had some principle against PM's or neg reps, but my neg reps prove that I do have that principle? :spock: Holy hell, that's retarded even for you. Do you have any idea what you're saying at all at this point?

I'm pretty sure I've called you a bunch of names on the board, in this thread, in your face, or wherever you want. Usually that's quid pro quo when you start this crap, but don't worry, I'll keep insulting you in kind in both neg reps and in open posts so long as you keep up your typical dipshittery.

Oh yes, you have called me names on the board, but nothing like the ones you leave in the neg reps. My guess is that you don't want to harm your "credibility".

You are nothing, you will be nothing. You don't have a life and try to live out your fantasy's here.

I pity you and you solitary existence.

[banyon]

Oh yes, you have called me names on the board, but nothing like the ones you leave in the neg reps. My guess is that you don't want to harm your "credibility".

You are nothing, you will be nothing. You don't have a life and try to live out your fantasy's here.

I pity you and you solitary existence.

Go ahead, what did I call you in the neg rep that was so much worse than in the open forum?

[Logical]

That is the most absurd comment I've seen on this board. You honestly think that Americans do not care if life is stolen from unborns?

At the moment there are legal abortions happening across the country, do you think that would change overnight if McCain were elected? If you do I'd say that you need to back away from the koolaid and move on.

I can see the need for safe abortions for certain situations but I do not agree that an abortion should be available for a person that "got caught" in an oops type situation.

It would all go back to when you believe life begins, there are a few opinions there but most "religious" people would say at conception, most secular people would say at birth.

I would agree with abortions that were a necessity to save the mother's life but not as a convenience item because of casual sex. I'm divided on the rape issue, there have been some amazing people born that were the product of rape. I don't condone it, but I'd prefer adoption over abortion in those cases.Probably a full 3/4 of Americans don't want to see the status quo changed. There are problem 1/8 of Americans who passionately want abortion overturned. Then there is problem 1/8th of Americans who want the womans right to choice strengthened further.

So yes TJ is right.

[Logical]

So that puts you at about a 105 (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx). No, I have no trouble believing that. You're slightly above average, congrats.

The fact that you think this is impressive, though, is tragically hilarious. LMAOI have no idea what my IQ is really because I never had a formal test. But since I had a 29 ACT out of 30 and a 1520 (at least I know it was at least that high but it was so long ago what difference does it make) The point is even if VoldemorTOM is true Genious (CP spelling) I think I have the learned intellect to match him.

[Programmer]

Probably a full 3/4 of Americans don't want to see the status quo changed. There are problem 1/8 of Americans who passionately want abortion overturned. Then there is problem 1/8th of Americans who want the womans right to choice strengthened further.

So yes TJ is right.

So tell us oh intellectual one, where did you dig this up? Out of your anal orifice?

[Programmer]

Go ahead, what did I call you in the neg rep that was so much worse than in the open forum?

Your back door methods are what I'm talking about.

[Midnight_Vulture]

Get the hell out of here with this "womens rights" garbage. What about the baby's rights?? Do they not have any?

I hate that whole arguement that women should have a choice. Yeah they do have a choice...DONT GET KNOCKED UP! Wear a condom, use birth control. Its rather simple.

If I get a girl pregnant She is definitley not going to have sole control over the decision if I have any say about it.

[irishjayhawk]

Get the hell out of here with this "womens rights" garbage. What about the baby's rights?? Do they not have any?

I hate that whole arguement that women should have a choice. Yeah they do have a choice...DONT GET KNOCKED UP! Wear a condom, use birth control. Its rather simple.

If I get a girl pregnant She is definitley not going to have sole control over the decision if I have any say about it.

And when it a "baby"?

[HonestChieffan]

Get the hell out of here with this "womens rights" garbage. What about the baby's rights?? Do they not have any?

I hate that whole arguement that women should have a choice. Yeah they do have a choice...DONT GET KNOCKED UP! Wear a condom, use birth control. Its rather simple.

If I get a girl pregnant She is definitley not going to have sole control over the decision if I have any say about it.

In ObamaWorld, you wont have any say. And she can change her mind over and over, no rush.

[irishjayhawk]

In a FreeWorld, you wont have any say. And she can change her mind over and over, no rush.

FYP.

[J Diddy]

Get the hell out of here with this "womens rights" garbage. What about the baby's rights?? Do they not have any?

I hate that whole arguement that women should have a choice. Yeah they do have a choice...DONT GET KNOCKED UP! Wear a condom, use birth control. Its rather simple.

If I get a girl pregnant She is definitley not going to have sole control over the decision if I have any say about it.


and if she got raped?

[tiptap]

In ObamaWorld, you wont have any say. And she can change her mind over and over, no rush.

Do any of you know how to woo a women or like Middle East sand baggers do you have to OWN someone to get with the opposite sex?

[Logical]

So tell us oh intellectual one, where did you dig this up? Out of your anal orifice?I believe it was pulled for your cranium on a day when you were thinking soundly. A rare day granted, but even a blind pig will occasionally find the wild mushroom.

[Programmer]

I believe it was pulled for your cranium on a day when you were thinking soundly. A rare day granted, but even a blind pig will occasionally find the wild mushroom.

Weak, very weak.