PDA

View Full Version : Obama and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act



Bobbyrx
08-14-2008, 03:50 PM
interesting (http://townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_is_the_most_pro-abortion_candidate_ever)

pooltchr
08-14-2008, 06:34 PM
Interesting? I think it's the most disgusting thing I have heard. Obama thinks it's ok to allow a newborn baby to be left alone to die, and opposed legislation against it.
I doubt any of the lefties on here will be brave enough to comment.
Yeah...he's for "change" alright! What kind of changes he would bring should send fear running through every American's veins!
Anyone out there still planning on voting for a baby killer?

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 09:09 PM
No, we're all going to run out and vote for a torturer.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 09:36 PM
This article is so slanted is isn't even funny.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Brzezinski, who has endorsed Obama, was far more critical of a few figures now surrounding McCain, who he suggested were pushing the presumptive GOP nominee towards a radical foreign policy on issues such as Iran.

"Well, if McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is [Rudolph] Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV that they have been both favoring and predicting," he said, calling that an "appalling concept" (and adding that by their lights, the Cold War counted as World War III). </div></div>

Maybe we should keep our minds on the big issues for this election, and avoid the usual right wing efforts at slander, and their usual methods to divide the country over private issues that should not even enter into the political sphere in the first place.

Abortions are legal in this country, and it's BS propaganda like this, put out there by the right, and their sick pundits, that take our collective minds off the pressing issues, like a real Russian Mushroom cloud, instead of the fantasy style Republican Mushroom cloud, for example.

Regardless, Obama's going to win, and he'll have a larger Democratic Congress. Get over it.

Gayle in Md.

mike60
08-15-2008, 12:37 AM
The right wing has plenty of steam for pregnant woman but not a damn care for the children. They would force live birth of obviously untenable
children that will not survive for very long and if they do will never have any chance to live outside hospitals and intense care facilities. These same
self centered demigods howl when sex education includes birth control because they think it will encourage teens to have sex. Surprise, Teens
have sex all the time. They like it and nothing will ever change. Your little girls and boys are blowing each other and more daily get used to it.
And they deserve a decent sex education as Bill Clinton said abortion is a lousy form of birth control. The rightwingbat clan has zero claim to any
moral or ethical advantage as long as they continue to espouse late tenth century ideas.

miguel

Bobbyrx
08-15-2008, 12:41 AM
Sure it's slanted, like 99.9% of the ones you post. It's an opinion piece. However which FACTS about how Obama voted do you say are not true?

mike60
08-15-2008, 01:02 AM
Bobby, The religiously oriented citizens that oppose abortion are a small minority, very small but very obnoxious and some of them are murderers. I refer of course to James Kopp, sniper and convict. Good for Obama his principals are not in question.

miguel

pooltchr
08-15-2008, 04:35 AM
It's not about abortion...it's about allowing a baby who has been born to be denied the necessary care to sustain life, and just be left to die. Are we now going to say that life doesn't begin at birth, but at some point, oh, say 6 months after birth????

Understand the implications here. If it's ok to allow a newborn child to die from neglect, is it ok to allow an elderly sick person to die from neglect?

Again, this subject has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION.

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 09:21 AM
I couldn't agree more. The right's religious ideology, and their insistance on skewing the intentions of our founders in their desire for separation of church and state, is a big reason why this country is in the mess it's in right now.

The Catholic Chruch, and other religious organizations which expouse a religious responsibility to avoid birth control, reproduce, reproduce, reproduce, should be forced to pay taxes, and raise the money required to support all the illigitimate children that their ideologies create.

Thousands died in Africa, of Aids, because Bush cut off funding for prophilactics.

The right, can't connect between their demands, their votes, and the results of their ideologies. They don't want to raise taxes, for example, and bitch non stop about earmarks, and there is no way out of this mess without raising taxes, getting out of Iraq, and earmarks, their big bitch, represent a fraction of our budgetary expenditures.

McCain, for example, has voted against every single bill to increase funding for research and development of renewable fuels.

What can you say about people who vote against their own best interests, and those of their own kids. They might as well walk into a car dealership and buy a new Mercedes, and leave the tab for their kids to pay!

What they're doing is trying to avoid the truth, about the costs of the war, oil, pharmacueticals, the debt, and the Reagan/Bush illegal aliens for cheap labor for their corporate fascist pigs, without accepting the fact that Republicans have caused all of it with their policies. Secret oil deals, secret meetings with the pharmacuetical industry, and financing a huge welfare program for terrorists in Iraq! A war which Bush's Wolfowitz said the oil would pay for, and quickly! BWA HA HA HA! Those neocons, their really on the mark!

Reagan's amnesty, propping up Saddam, and the Talliban, and al Qaeda, also resulted,... Bush, blocking renewable fuels, censoring scientific studies, subsidies for oil, which take their profits and buy their own stock, spending less than 10 % for research and development of renewables. Iraq, with a coming 79 billion surplus, while we spend 50 million dollars an hour, and on tops of that, WE finance the rebuilding of their country, WHILE they gouge us at the pump, and the corrupt Bush created government won't even provide water and electric for their onw citizens! Iraq, spending only 10% of their billions on reconstruction of their own damned country, from 03 to 07, and I can't come up with a single reason why in the hell we're still there! For OIL! So we can continue to commit the biggest transfer of AMerican Wealth in history, to Middle East countries, and Russia, for oil, and to China while they cheat us and poison us? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

McCain, of the Keating Five, with a campaign full of corporate lobbyists for the fascists pigs, and a determination to stay in Iraq, and protect big oil, is the last thing in the world we need right now! We've already seen what one C student did in the WH, now they want a guy who was third from the very bottom of his class, who couldn't even get in without his da da's influence, who admits he doesn't know **** about economics, and has done every single thing that they bashed the last two democratic candidates for doing, including the flip flopps, infidelity, and marrying a rich wife to fly him around while he lies at every stop, and proves himself just as filthy and common as Bush and the Republicans of the last three Republican Administrations, worse!. And what does he promise, more drilling, and no tax raises, when cheap oil is what got us here, and raising taxes is the only way out of getting out of dangerous national debt.

And these geniuses on here, who are so condescending and brilliant, think there is no connection between borrowing, (more than all previous administrations combined) taxes and debt! Unbelievable. They yap about spending when their own party increased earmarks through the roof! And their own president, ran up more debt than all others combined, and their candidate is promising no tax raises!

Nuts!

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Again, this subject has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION.

Steve
</div></div>

BWA HA HA HA. It has everything to do with it, because it's just this kind of propaganda that the religious right puts out there non stop!

Every one of these kinds of tactics are connected to the Right and their religious element's desire to not only overturn Roe V.Wade, but to outlaw birth control altogether.

While I don't hear any of you grieving over all the people that Bush has killed these last six years, and you're the first ones to complain about your money going to the orphans, and the "Food Challenged" aka HUNGRY CHILDREN, which Bush VETOED!

G.

Bobbyrx
08-15-2008, 11:03 AM
Well you went all the way from Reagan to Republicans starving children again but you failed to touch on the subject.

What part(s) of the article are not true? Are you saying Obama didn't vote "present" and "no" ?

Hardly a couple of conservatives, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

Why would he vote against it and block it from being voted on in Illinois? A lot of possible answers but none make Obama look very good....

Wally_in_Cincy
08-15-2008, 11:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well you went all the way from Reagan to Republicans starving children again but you failed to touch on the subject.

</div></div>

What else is new?

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 11:11 AM
"I doubt any of the lefties on here will be brave enough to comment."

???? Why wouldn't they/we??
One can be against Bush, the war, etc...yet surprisingly (to you) be opposed to abortion.
Seems like you have taken this highly moralistic viewpoint, and believe anyone that opposes that would be afraid to express their thoughts on the subject...lest they suffer yours and God's wrath??
Seems like you have also made another quantum leap in judgment, by naming Obama a baby killer...or do you know personally of any babies that he has killed.
Without any expertise myself, I'm thinking that the decisions to abort are made by trained medical personnel, and for the most part,to spare the baby a lifetime of pain and suffering.
Here's some reading though that favors your idea:
http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2006/02/16/dont-those-with-downs-syndrome-deserve-to-live-too/
We did have a family member, not blood related, with severe mental "disorders" Despite the problems involved raising him, I think he brought some joy to his parents, as did his brother, an all-city athlete, MVP in two sports, and an "A" student.
Since the problems involved would strain the resources of most families, and you are against any "welfare" programs...a bit of a quandary there for you?
I don't think Doctors decide to "kill babies" indiscriminately, and believe Obama's vote (he had the only vote?) was to take the state, and religion out of that decision, and leave it instead, to the experts.
(does this make me a baby killer?)

pooltchr
08-15-2008, 07:05 PM
Wolf,
<span style="color: #FF0000">This is not about abortion.</span> This is about allowing newborn babies to die from pure neglect. Not a fetus, but a living, breathing baby. And Obama was the only vote not to offer protection to these newborns.
<span style="color: #FF0000">This is NOT about abortion...this is NOT about abortion...This is NOT about...</span>

Steve

pooltchr
08-15-2008, 07:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I couldn't agree more. The right's religious ideology, and their insistance on skewing the intentions of our founders in their desire for separation of church and state, is a big reason why this country is in the mess it's in right now.

The Catholic Chruch, and other religious organizations which expouse a religious responsibility to avoid birth control, reproduce, reproduce, reproduce, should be forced to pay taxes, and raise the money required to support all the illigitimate children that their ideologies create.

Thousands died in Africa, of Aids, because Bush cut off funding for prophilactics.

The right, can't connect between their demands, their votes, and the results of their ideologies. They don't want to raise taxes, for example, and bitch non stop about earmarks, and there is no way out of this mess without raising taxes, getting out of Iraq, and earmarks, their big bitch, represent a fraction of our budgetary expenditures.

McCain, for example, has voted against every single bill to increase funding for research and development of renewable fuels.

What can you say about people who vote against their own best interests, and those of their own kids. They might as well walk into a car dealership and buy a new Mercedes, and leave the tab for their kids to pay!

What they're doing is trying to avoid the truth, about the costs of the war, oil, pharmacueticals, the debt, and the Reagan/Bush illegal aliens for cheap labor for their corporate fascist pigs, without accepting the fact that Republicans have caused all of it with their policies. Secret oil deals, secret meetings with the pharmacuetical industry, and financing a huge welfare program for terrorists in Iraq! A war which Bush's Wolfowitz said the oil would pay for, and quickly! BWA HA HA HA! Those neocons, their really on the mark!

Reagan's amnesty, propping up Saddam, and the Talliban, and al Qaeda, also resulted,... Bush, blocking renewable fuels, censoring scientific studies, subsidies for oil, which take their profits and buy their own stock, spending less than 10 % for research and development of renewables. Iraq, with a coming 79 billion surplus, while we spend 50 million dollars an hour, and on tops of that, WE finance the rebuilding of their country, WHILE they gouge us at the pump, and the corrupt Bush created government won't even provide water and electric for their onw citizens! Iraq, spending only 10% of their billions on reconstruction of their own damned country, from 03 to 07, and I can't come up with a single reason why in the hell we're still there! For OIL! So we can continue to commit the biggest transfer of AMerican Wealth in history, to Middle East countries, and Russia, for oil, and to China while they cheat us and poison us? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

McCain, of the Keating Five, with a campaign full of corporate lobbyists for the fascists pigs, and a determination to stay in Iraq, and protect big oil, is the last thing in the world we need right now! We've already seen what one C student did in the WH, now they want a guy who was third from the very bottom of his class, who couldn't even get in without his da da's influence, who admits he doesn't know **** about economics, and has done every single thing that they bashed the last two democratic candidates for doing, including the flip flopps, infidelity, and marrying a rich wife to fly him around while he lies at every stop, and proves himself just as filthy and common as Bush and the Republicans of the last three Republican Administrations, worse!. And what does he promise, more drilling, and no tax raises, when cheap oil is what got us here, and raising taxes is the only way out of getting out of dangerous national debt.

And these geniuses on here, who are so condescending and brilliant, think there is no connection between borrowing, (more than all previous administrations combined) taxes and debt! Unbelievable. They yap about spending when their own party increased earmarks through the roof! And their own president, ran up more debt than all others combined, and their candidate is promising no tax raises!

Nuts!

</div></div>

One simple question...Do you think Obama was right or wrong in his failure to support this legislation?
(Please try to leave taxes, GW, the war, and all your other favorite topics out of your answer...just a simple answer to a very simple question will do)

Steve

wolfdancer
08-16-2008, 04:28 AM
I think Obama voted with his conscience, after carefully weighing the facts.
I also think that the issue is much more complex then you would have us believe. We all believe that life is sacred, but there is an associated "quality of life".
I'm glad that the decision to terminate a life, or save it for a lifetime of pain, is not up to me.
Mike60 summed it up best......
I have no problem though, with your take on the issue...my own religious teachings would lead me to the same thinking.

pooltchr
08-16-2008, 08:04 AM
Wolf,
My point exactly. He voted with his conscience, and was the only one who felt that way. How well does he represent the feelings of the majority of Americans? Even Barbara Boxer, who is the most vocal supporters of abortion, felt that this legislation should pass. I would have thought it would be impossible to find anyone who would think it's ok to allow a newborn to die from neglect. I guess I was wrong. We found one.
Steve

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 08:45 AM
This man

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=4606

Is in the same category with this man

http://mediamatters.org/

I don't base my opinions and posts on radical nuts. The man who wrotethe article highlighted in your post, is for torture. He is a tool for the right wing fascists, and, IMO, that relegates him to a right wing nut, hence, I don't buy anything he writes, just as I don't waste my time on people like former swift boater, Jerome Corsi, whose book has been published by Mary Matlin, who is just one notch above Anne Coulter.

Garbage in, garbage out.

sack316
08-16-2008, 09:16 AM
Gayle, you're right that's a bretty biased article. But who it is written by and the context of which it is writen in will still not change the way Obama voted on that. Or that he was the only one, republican or democrat, that simply voted "present".

If you're not a fan of Terrence Jeffery, I absolutely understand. But you can just do a little looking around a find a suitable author who will say pretty well the same thing.

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you're not a fan of Terrence Jeffery, I absolutely understand. But you can just do a little looking around a find a suitable author who will say pretty well the same thing.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">I doubt it. Most people realize that the right takes isolated, extreme events in their efforts to overturn Roe V. Wade and blows them all out of proportion. I have studied a lot on the subject of abortion, and I know what I need to know about it. This story about this nurse, is suspect, IMO, and furthermore, I am against late term abortion, anyway, but do not think it should be outruled in cases where a woman's life is endengered, or where a child will be brought into this world, only to suffer, and die, ultimately. I'm quite sure that those issues played into Obama's vote. </span>

sack316
08-16-2008, 09:31 AM
Were there not provisions within the bill that would specifically protect rulings such as Roe V. Wade? Surely the rest of the dems would have been standing right beside Obama had those issues you seem to think he took into consideration with his vote were real concerns, wouldn't ya think?

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 09:59 AM
Sack,
I haven't heard his version, or his explanation, but I know how these things are usually set up, and I know the lengths the nutty right will go to to do away with liberty and the pursuit of happiness, privacy, and the right of women to make their own choices on their reproductive rights, including even birth control.

I just think that our circumstances in this country require that we spend our time educating ourselves on the really important issues that our country faces at the present time, rather than allowing ourselves to get caught up in the right wing smear machine, of which both authors I highlighted are a part.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
08-16-2008, 08:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack,
I haven't heard his version, or his explanation, but I know how these things are usually set up, and I know the lengths the nutty right will go to to do away with liberty and the pursuit of happiness, privacy, and the right of women to make their own choices on their reproductive rights, including even birth control.

I just think that our circumstances in this country require that we spend our time educating ourselves on the really important issues that our country faces at the present time, rather than allowing ourselves to get caught up in the right wing smear machine, of which both authors I highlighted are a part.

Gayle in Md.



</div></div>

You really aren't going to give a straight answer, are you?
Do you agree that after a child is born, it should be protected from those who would allow it to die from neglect or not?
Steve

sack316
08-16-2008, 08:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack,
I haven't heard his version, or his explanation, but I know how these things are usually set up, and I know the lengths the nutty right will go to to do away with liberty and the pursuit of happiness, privacy, and the right of women to make their own choices on their reproductive rights, including even birth control.

I just think that our circumstances in this country require that we spend our time educating ourselves on the really important issues that our country faces at the present time, rather than allowing ourselves to get caught up in the right wing smear machine, of which both authors I highlighted are a part.

Gayle in Md.



</div></div>

So still, no real answer I guess. I agree, that we should focus on issues that are important. And that includes a whole lot of things right now. But, then again I tend to think that the part that comes right after "We hold these truths to be self evident..." holds some importance. Afterall, that's just how the whole thing got started

To say <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I just think that our circumstances in this country require that we spend our time educating ourselves on the really important issues that our country faces at the present time, rather than allowing ourselves to get caught up in the right wing smear machine, of which both authors I highlighted are a part.
</div></div> implies that this issue is somehow unimportant. Maybe because this issue tends to rear it's ugly head toward religion? I don't know. But what I do know is that most of this country does have some kind of faith and religious belief. And out of those that do, many of those see this as the taking of a human life. And in circumstances where that is the case, this becomes and issue of greater importance than the economy, or health care, or the energy crisis. So while this may not be a top priority issue for someone such as yourself, or even myself, or a number of other people... for millions of people who will be voting it is very important. And let us not forget, their vote counts just as much as anyone else's. And they deserve answers to their questions just as much as you deserve ones to the questions you have.

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-17-2008, 12:22 PM
If I thought there was any truth to it I would address it. There isn't. It's just another attempt of the radical religious right to criminalize women and doctors that abort fetus' which which would have nothing but suffering, and then die ultimately,IOW, this story is not true, IMO, right wing propaganda, as far as I'm concerned. They pay people like your so called nurse, to make these ridiculous accusations.

Regardless, I have said over and over that I am against late term abortions, unless the mothers health and survival are at stake. I have stated my opposition to any living person, or animal, being forced to suffer. You guys from the right are the ones who defend turture, not me.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-17-2008, 04:09 PM
Gayle, while the idea of letting a healthy infant alone to die is abhorrent to anybody with a conscience, I believe what they are actually doing is not trying to extend the life and suffering of infants with zero chance of survival...
Without any first hand knowledge of the decision process, I'd guess that it is similar to when Doctor's don't try to extend the life of people dying of a terminal disease.
I may be wrong...and I'm also not qualified to take a stance on the issue.
Steve is trying to make it a Republican V Liberals matter,(I doubt any of the lefties on here will be brave enough to comment.) with his side coming out as morally superior.
It's hardly a political matter though.......

pooltchr
08-17-2008, 04:52 PM
Wolf,
It became a political matter when the Democratic nominee for the office of President took a stand against a bill that would protect the infants after they are born. No, it's not a Rep vs Dem issue...it is strictly about Obama's position...and the fact that both Reps and Dems were all for it...he was the only one who didn't vote for it. Does that say anything about him as a man, and potential leader of our country? I happen to think it does. Apparently, you don't see it the same way. That's fine.
At least you have the facts before you cast your vote.
Steve

wolfdancer
08-17-2008, 05:39 PM
if it's not a right vs left thing to you....then why write that the left would be afraid to comment?.
I've commented and lightning hasn't struck me down....yet.
for the record...none of us here are exactly thrilled with Obama, but we also know that every candidate is somewhat of a compromise to our own wishes and beliefs. We have to weigh what we don't agree with him on, against whether he is the best overall choice for our vote. While many of us may not agree with him re: this issue, we may also believe this does not disqualify him as our choice. In short, I might vote for Obama over McCain, yet not buy into the rights belief that once elected your man speaks "ex-cathreda"
If Bush met all your criteria, then you should be excited about what he has done for the country.
For me Obama is just an alternative to the destructive path that Bush has led us on, and one that McCain is sure to follow.
That's what is so great about this country...we can both hold and express different opinions

PRQL8R
08-17-2008, 08:34 PM
Personally I see nothing "interesting" in an obviously biased and slanted piece of contrived right wing propaganda. I'd feel the same about any far left rags that also attempt to manipulate and create their own "TRUTHS" ...for the same reason I also don't turn to the National Enquirer as a responsible source for reliable information.

The issue has nothing to do with allowing the neglect and death of any infant. This is issue is akin to the heart wrentching decisions many unfortunately have to face when a loved one through some unfortunate tragedy, faces inevitable death and they have to give permission to pull the plug. I think wolfdancer most likly has it right in that the primary concern is to not attempt any heroic measures to attempt to extend the life and suffering of infants with zero chance of survival. As was the case in my own father's passing... primary treatment was only towards doing everything possible to alleviate any pain and suffering. I can only pray that the same heartfelt consideration be given me should the need arise.

Obama will have my vote ...Bob

Bobbyrx
08-17-2008, 10:16 PM
Are you saying that the article "contrived" the way that Obama voted? Is voting "present" the kind of decision making you want from someone who could be the leader of the free world? Did the same legislation not pass in the U.S. Congress without amendment by unanimous consent? And as far as the National Enquirer.....I guess John Edwards feels the same way.....Just curious, since Obama will have your vote, what qualifications he has to be president besides being of age and a natural born citizen? Has he sponsored ANY meaningful legislation in his 1/2 term in the senate? Has he even been a committee chairman?

sack316
08-17-2008, 10:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> what qualifications he has to be president besides being of age and a natural born citizen? </div></div>

Don't hope to get a real answer to that. I've still got that other thread floating around in limbo about his district. Either it's a completely uninteresting topic, or there is no defense for him on that one. Not sure which exactly. But I do think there are responses on there pointing out bad things about republicans, if you're interested /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

sack316
08-17-2008, 10:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I thought there was any truth to it I would address it. </div></div>

That's perfectly understandable, actually. But I would hope you realize that to millions of people that is a real issue, and does have some bearing on their thought process and decision here. As low-priority as this issue is with you as-is, it is equally as high-priority for others. And they get to vote too. Also, because you don't think there isn't any truth to it doesn't mean there isn't. Hell, I don't think we contribute to GW to the extent it's made out to be... but that doesn't mean I'm not wrong. And it certainly doesn't make it a non-issue unworthy of discussion.

Oabama's last answer to something like this? "It's above my pay grade". Which, BTW, both Obama and McCain did very well i think in that Q&A Saturday night... but that one answer, or lack of answer, just sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sack

p.s. if something is able to be "allowed to die", wouldn't that mean it is alive? I realize that's opening a whole other can of worms there, but that's just part of my thought process here.

sack316
08-17-2008, 10:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if it's not a right vs left thing to you....then why write that the left would be afraid to comment?.
I've commented and lightning hasn't struck me down....yet.
for the record...none of us here are exactly thrilled with Obama, but we also know that every candidate is somewhat of a compromise to our own wishes and beliefs. We have to weigh what we don't agree with him on, against whether he is the best overall choice for our vote. While many of us may not agree with him re: this issue, we may also believe this does not disqualify him as our choice. In short, I might vote for Obama over McCain, yet not buy into the rights belief that once elected your man speaks "ex-cathreda"
If Bush met all your criteria, then you should be excited about what he has done for the country.
For me Obama is just an alternative to the destructive path that Bush has led us on, and one that McCain is sure to follow.
That's what is so great about this country...we can both hold and express different opinions </div></div>

We may disagree on a lot of things Wolfie... but that was very well said. And please do understand that same principle holds true for many of us righties here. At any rate, good post "my friend" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

pooltchr
08-18-2008, 04:22 AM
Wolf,
I agree. Bush was not my first choice for President, and I have not supported many of his policies along the way. I didn't vote for him as much as I voted against another candidate. Once again, I find myself in the same situation. I hope that somewhere in what is left of my lifetime, we can actually nominate someone who I can feel confident voting for him or her. It sure ain't happening this time!

Yes, we all make our decisions based on what is important to us as individuals. And yes, the fact that Americans can participate in the process and are free to openly disagree is what makes us as strong as we are.

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 05:44 AM
These kinds of posts, defy logic. The Republicans, and the right wing religious nuts, are destroying this country with LIES. People like you, and BobbyRX, who spread the lies and misinformation from your party, hurt the whole country, and destroy the Democratic process.

The FACTS, which none of you ever bothers to search for, are that Illinois already had a law in place to protect any infants born alive. As I told you, from the very moment I read this, this was just another deceptive attempt to overturn Roe versus Wade, and more lies and smut and slander, from Republicans.


Here is an excerpt of Obama's answer to this question, in an interview with CNN:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They have not been telling the truth, and I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying.

I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely and fully in support of the Federal Bill that EVERYBODY suppoorted which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant born, even as a consequence of induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.

What that bill was doing was trying to undermine Roe versus Wade, and BTW, we also had a bill already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to all infants, so for people to suggest that I, and the Illinois medical society, Illinois Doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an Illinois infact born alive, is RIDICULOUS! It defies COMMON SENSE and it defies IMAGINATION, and for people to keep on PUSHING this lie, is offensive, and its an example of the kind of politics that we've got to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with my position on "choice" and another to misrepresent me." </div></div>


The very idea that the medical profession would even allow such inhumane treatment, was absurd on its face, but then anyone who believes that our budget, tax policies, and debt, AND OUR FUTURE AND PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, are not ALL inter-related, isn't able to see the big picture.

Please,
NO MORE LIES FROM THE RIGHT!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 05:50 AM
This is nothing but more lies and slander from the Republican Party. Just watching McCain out there spreading all the lies and inuendo that he has built his whole campaign upon, ought to clue people in on his lack of principles.

He can't speak, without taking every opportunity to exploit the fact that he was a POW. Frankly, he gets more and more repulsive to me by the minute.

For the love of PETE! We've already struggled through one pathological liar for the last eight years, the last thing we need right now is another one, even more out of touch with reality, than the last one, although it would be damned hard to determine which one is the worst!

Gayle in Md.
Sick and tired also of all the Rah Rah War Lovers, ready to slurp up the Republilcan LIES, AND sacrifice other peoples' lives, on lies, and then balk over the very idea, that we need to raise taxes to pay for the damn thing! Which has brought us nothig positive, at all!

LWW
08-18-2008, 06:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, we're all going to run out and vote for a torturer.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>
You can't vote for Pelosi from your district.

LWW

LWW
08-18-2008, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you saying that the article "contrived" the way that Obama voted? Is voting "present" the kind of decision making you want from someone who could be the leader of the free world? Did the same legislation not pass in the U.S. Congress without amendment by unanimous consent? And as far as the National Enquirer.....I guess John Edwards feels the same way.....Just curious, since Obama will have your vote, what qualifications he has to be president besides being of age and a natural born citizen? Has he sponsored ANY meaningful legislation in his 1/2 term in the senate? Has he even been a committee chairman? </div></div>
I posted this a while back with the same results.

You cannot have intelligent discussions with practitioners of "DOUBLETHINK" as they see no conflict with accepting that Obama was for this and yet believing that he's against it as well.

LWW

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 07:17 AM
Not slanted. It's an outright lie.

There was already a Bill in place that provided protection to any and all infants. Did you really think that the Medical Society in Ill., the Doctors and nurses in Ill., and any sane politician would allow such absurd inhumane actions?

I am never surprised at what they nutty religious right lies about.

This post of yours is a lie, period.

Deeman3
08-18-2008, 07:30 AM
I think we and Obama can separate the abortion question from those who have almost no chance of survival with any type of normal life. It's a heartbreaking call for anyone and, while I hate abortion, I don't feel I have the moral right to tell a family what to do in such a grave situation many must face.

If we can separate the abortion as a convienence from these questions which, IMO, are even hard calls for a person of faith, we might get somewhere in the debate.

There are some things government can't legislate for in every case. I'd much rather focus on how a president will select the next S/C members than every single case they comment on.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 07:53 AM
I don't think any woman would feel that there is anything convenient about having an abortion.

I think the Constitution sought to provide people with the liberty to make their own decisions about personal, private, family matters, and health issues, and individual decisions. its goal was not to allow one set of religious ideologies to dictate to all others, nor to allow one group to criminalize those private, personal decisions regarding such personal matters, between a woman, her husband, and her doctors. A woman has the right to control her own body. That is about as basic a human right as there can ever be.


Gayle in Md.

cheesemouse
08-18-2008, 08:03 AM
Choice now and choice forever.

wolfdancer
08-18-2008, 08:11 AM
thanks for posting that...it's about what I tried to say, but may not have expressed myself as well as you did.

wolfdancer
08-18-2008, 08:17 AM
Gayle, hopefully, that puts the matter to rest??
The way the subject appeared here...you'd have thought Obama had drawn up the bill, and passed it by himself, despite objections from everybody else.
But all's fair in love, war, and political campaigns.
Thanks for posting that!!

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 08:18 AM
Tap Tap Tap!

Since Roberts and Alito both stated that they viewed Roe versus Wade as settled law, I don't know why people are so stupid as to think that they have a shot at overturning Roe versus Wade. It's just a false carrot the Republican hold out, just like their phoney statements about oil, Iraq, and the economy.

It's just like their claim that they "Surge" has worked. BULL****! The Iraqis are still killing one another, and the government is still dysfunctional, with no lasting reconciliations in sight, and no improvment in coming to grips with their colliding ideologies.

The majority of our country supports Roe Versus Wade. It's just another attempt by religious nuts to dictate and force their subjective personal opinions and religious ideologies, upon all others.

McCain supported the war, Obama was against it. That alone is proof that McCain's judgement was way off. All foreign policy experts agree that it was the worst foreign policy decision in history.

It's one thing to have voted for it on false information spun by the administration, but it is quite another to have spent all these years defending a move that has been officially labeled by the experts as the worst foreign policy decision in history.

What more needs to be known!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

PRQL8R
08-18-2008, 09:59 AM
Of course I'm saying the articale is contrived, spun and filled with misleading half truths and outright lies. If you're really interested in the truth of the matter listen to Obama's intervies on the subject. He's very clear in his support of women's right to choose not in any sense that he sees abortion as a viable option for birth control but recognizes it as an extremely personal decision that women obviously don't take lightly. And before it's yet again even stated... the question of anyone willingly neglecting an infant to the point of death is an absurd assumtion and I've already given my answer to that.

Arguements as to, "is Obama qualified?", are ridiculous... of course he's qualified... otherwise he would not now be the presumtive nominee and clear frontrunner in the campaign. That sort of foolish arguement about qualifications has been thrown about against opposing candidates since Jefferson was running for President.

I also believe McCain is basically a decent man who really wants to be President. Unfortunately, he now appears so lost in the wilderness that he can's see the forest for the "Bushes". In an attempt to advance his uphill battle he seem's to have sadly compromised much of his principles becoming little more than the tail being waged by the Republican dog.

Do I really think I'm likely to change youre opinion with any of this??? Do you think you'll change mine??? Not bloody likely... but I'm not one to let what I believe to be misleading comments stand without my speaking out. I would suspect from your vantage point you feel the same way. So thank God for this Democracy and we'll voice our different views and then come November we'll vote. And then if we have any real sense we'll support our country and the newly elected President... while still continuing to work and speak out on those issues most peronally meaningful to us.

As for this topic.. I now think I'm done and I for one am now going to go play a little pool. ...Bob

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 10:09 AM
I think the reasoned responses from you, Deeman, and our poster from Canada, were excellent posts. The story wasn't at all logical from the start.

Your welcome,

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-18-2008, 10:11 AM
I've had similar thoughts about you...as you bend and stretch the truth to fit your version of politics.
Nothing wrong though with you being an extreme right neocon, whatever....just don't expect others to buy into your polarized beliefs.

wolfdancer
08-18-2008, 10:13 AM
A quick question for you....are those McCain's political advisers pictured above, and which one will he select as his running mate?

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 10:28 AM
Here's your simple answer.

The story is slanted, absurd on its face, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker, as usual.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
08-18-2008, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not slanted. It's an outright lie. <span style="color: #FF0000">Specifically what is a lie? Is there not a Born Alive Infant Protection Act? </span>

There was already a Bill in place that provided protection to any and all infants. Did you really think that the Medical Society in Ill., the Doctors and nurses in Ill., and any sane politician would allow such absurd inhumane actions? <span style="color: #FF0000">Well I guess both parties of Congress did. Did the U.S. Congress not pass the act without amendment by unanimous consent? "Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

What part of that is a lie???</span>

I am never surprised at what they nutty religious right lies about.

This post of yours is a lie, period. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-18-2008, 10:59 AM
The entire thrust of your post, is a lie. Illinois already had legislation on the books to insure the protection of any and all infants.

It's the usual deceitful and nutty right wing tactics, re-arrange the facts, cherry pick, and publish false assertions.

aka, swiftboating. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Bobbyrx
08-18-2008, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PRQL8R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course I'm saying the articale is contrived, spun and filled with misleading half truths and outright lies <span style="color: #FF0000">then point one out </span> . If you're really interested in the truth of the matter listen to Obama's intervies on the subject. He's very clear in his support of women's right to choose <span style="color: #FF0000"> by voting present?</span> not in any sense that he sees abortion as a viable option for birth control but recognizes it as an extremely personal decision that women obviously don't take lightly. And before it's yet again even stated... the question of anyone willingly neglecting an infant to the point of death is an absurd assumtion and I've already given my answer to that. <span style="color: #FF0000">In other words, I can't show any lies so I'll go on to the abortion issue, which of course was not mentioned </span>

Arguements as to, "is Obama qualified?", are ridiculous... of course he's qualified... otherwise he would not now be the presumtive nominee and clear frontrunner in the campaign. That sort of foolish arguement about qualifications has been thrown about against opposing candidates since Jefferson was running for President. <span style="color: #FF0000">In other words, I can't show you anything he has done that would qualify him to be president besides being born and being articulate </span>

I also believe McCain is basically a decent man who really wants to be President. Unfortunately, he now appears so lost in the wilderness that he can's see the forest for the "Bushes". In an attempt to advance his uphill battle he seem's to have sadly compromised much of his principles becoming little more than the tail being waged by the Republican dog. <span style="color: #FF6666">Is there any issue Obama has not moved toward the center on since he won the nomination? </span>

Do I really think I'm likely to change youre opinion with any of this??? Do you think you'll change mine??? Not bloody likely... but I'm not one to let what I believe to be misleading comments stand without my speaking out. I would suspect from your vantage point you feel the same way. So thank God for this Democracy and we'll voice our different views and then come November we'll vote. <span style="color: #FF0000">Is Ontario our 57th state? </span> And then if we have any real sense we'll support our country and the newly elected President... while still continuing to work and speak out on those issues most peronally meaningful to us.

As for this topic.. I now think I'm done and I for one am now going to go play a little pool. ...Bob </div></div>

mike60
08-18-2008, 01:43 PM
Gosh Bobby, You should vote for someone else, duh.


miguel

Bobbyrx
08-18-2008, 01:51 PM
Again.....SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS NOT TRUE? What facts are cherry picked or rearranged? He voted the way that he voted.

Bobbyrx
08-18-2008, 01:53 PM
Thanks for your ususal insight



Roberto

PRQL8R
08-18-2008, 03:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is Ontario our 57th state? </div></div>

Born in Shelbyville Indiana and raised in Chicago. Dual citizenship, a great thing... don't ya think?

Not to mention absentee ballots... looking forward to casting my legal vote in Cook County as a American citizen.

and now as I seem to remember saying before...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for this topic.. I now think I'm done and I for one am now going to go play a little pool. ...Bob </div></div>

Bobbyrx
08-18-2008, 05:25 PM
You got me on that one (every time I try to be a smart ass it backfires) and after reading your posts on the other side, you would be a good guy to shoot with. Later

PRQL8R
08-18-2008, 05:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">on the other side, you would be a good guy to shoot with. Later
</div></div>

Thanks and same back at ya... Bob

Qtec
08-18-2008, 07:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting? I think it's the most disgusting thing I have heard. Obama thinks it's ok to allow a newborn baby to be left alone to die, and opposed legislation against it.
I doubt any of the lefties on here will be brave enough to comment.
Yeah...he's for "change" alright! What kind of changes he would bring should send fear running through every American's veins!
Anyone out there still planning on voting for a baby killer?

Steve </div></div>

McCain claimed the right to life begins after conception.
BS,
Women ABORT many fertilized eggs every month! Should they be charged with murder?

Q............the twilight world.

pooltchr
08-19-2008, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
McCain claimed the right to life begins after conception.
BS,

Q............the twilight world.


</div></div>
That's just your opinion...and we all know what opinions are like!

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-19-2008, 04:48 AM
Good point, and many forms of birth control, abort fertilized eggs. A hidden goal of the religious right, si to disallow women access to birth control, altogether.

For example, should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for women? Hard to believe that some do, and get away with it. There are actually laws which allow that these people, men, can refuse to fill a woman's birth control pescription, on the bases of their personal religious belief.

What ever happened to that old saying, "Your rights end at the tip of my nose." Oranized religion encompasses the wish to dictate. Why is that?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the religious right started a movement to take away women's right to vote.

This charge against Obama, is false. It is nothing but another right wing smear, dishonest on its face, yet Fox News, this morning, was still spreading the lie. Typical.

Bobbyrx
08-19-2008, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good point, and many forms of birth control, abort fertilized eggs. A hidden goal of the religious right, si to disallow women access to birth control, altogether. <span style="color: #FF0000">I'm not sure who you refer to as the religious right, but I'm sure there is a very, very small group of people who don't want bcp's for anyone. There are also people who want adult/child sex to be the norm </span>

For example, should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for women? Hard to believe that some do, and get away with it. <span style="color: #FF0000">In Alabama there is a law that REQUIRES you to fill them. I've never heard of anyone here refusing to fill a bcp but I have heard of some refusing the morning after pill </span> There are actually laws which allow that these people, men, <span style="color: #FF0000">actually Karen L. Brauer, is Pharmacists for Life president, and defends the right of pharmacists to refuse medicine. I have never heard of her or the group but she definitely is not a man</span> can refuse to fill a woman's birth control pescription, on the bases of their personal religious belief. <span style="color: #FF0000"> I don't personally believe the way they do, however, do you believe people should be able to stay out of the military based on their personal religious belief. Should doctors be forced to perform abortions? Should people be forced to work on Sundays or Saturdays, that, depending on their religion, they consider wrong. Should Muslims be allowed to wear clothing to work that their employer considers inappropriate but that they think they must wear based on their religion? Should stores be forced to sell alcohol even if its against the owners personal religious beliefs. Where do you draw the line?</span>


This charge against Obama, is false. <span style="color: #FF0000">What is false.....he voted how he voted...what part is a lie? </span> It is nothing but another right wing smear, dishonest on its face, yet Fox News, this morning, was still spreading the lie. Typical.

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 07:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'm not sure who you refer to as the religious right, <span style="color: #000066">Basically, the nuts. </span> but I'm sure there is a very, very small group of people who don't want bcp's for anyone. <span style="color: #000066">REally? I don't think the Catholic Church Represents a very very small group. </span> There are also people who want adult/child sex to be the norm <span style="color: #000066">So you're comparing these two totally separate issues, one of which is against the law? Unbelievable! </span>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #000066"> </span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In Alabama there is a law that REQUIRES you to fill them. <span style="color: #000066">So they had to create a law, for something that didn't exist? LMAO! </span> I've never heard of anyone here refusing to fill a bcp but I have heard of some refusing the morning after pill </div></div>
</div></div> <span style="color: #000066">You've never heard about quite a few things, IMO. Apparently you never heard that Illinois already had laws in place to protect any and all infants before the vote you mentioned ever made it to the legislature, and hence, Obama's vote didn't hurt anyone. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">actually Karen L. Brauer, is Pharmacists for Life president, and defends the right of pharmacists to refuse medicine. <span style="color: #000066">Oh wow, well then, that must be the right thing to do! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </span> I have never heard of her or the group but she definitely is not a man <span style="color: #000066">Who said she was a man? I've never heard of her either, and that has nothing to do with the subject, anyway. Do you think all pharmacists are women, and none of them men?</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't personally believe the way they do, however, do you believe people should be able to stay out of the military based on their personal religious belief. <span style="color: #000066"> absolutely!</span> Should doctors be forced to perform abortions? <span style="color: #000066">No, and that doesn't happen, either. </span> Should people be forced to work on Sundays or Saturdays, that, depending on their religion, they consider wrong. <span style="color: #000066">Forced? Who could force them to take a job that doesn't suit their needs in the first place? </span> Should Muslims be allowed to wear clothing to work that their employer considers inappropriate but that they think they must wear based on their religion? <span style="color: #000066">If you want to work somewhere, it's your lookout. Most people who take a job without understanding what is expected of them, and refusing, get fired. </span> Should stores be forced to sell alcohol even if its against the owners personal religious beliefs. <span style="color: #000066">Another absurd analogy. </span> Where do you draw the line?

<span style="color: #000066">I, personally, draw the line on your irrelevant posts and absurd analogies. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif</span>
</div></div>

Bobbyrx
08-20-2008, 08:32 AM
For lack of time I'll take just one right now....

You said in your post " There are actually laws which allow that these people, MEN , can refuse to fill a woman's birth control pescription, on the bases of their personal religious belief."

I hope you can see where I might be confused but I can only assume that by "these people, Men" , you are saying that only men are refusing to or are allowed by laws to refuse to fill bcp's because of their religious beliefs. If this is not what you are saying please clarify.

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 08:47 AM
I'd be happy to do so. Although knowing my views, I thought you'd get it.

Many Pharmacists, ARE men. What could be more disgusting to a woman than their willingness to fill prescriptions for VIAGRA, while refusing to fill birth control pills! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Doesn't GOD have any hand in deciding when a man is old enough to be deprived of errections?

Why is there no "Christian" outcry! Tampering with God's infinate wisdom to prevent malformed suffering fetuses, from all that stale, old sperm! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

sack316
08-20-2008, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> from all that stale, old sperm! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif
</div></div>

Shew, gotta get to work and wasn't gonna have time to grab a bite. But you took care of my appetite anyway... thanks /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 09:00 AM
Anytime. Imagine how the prostitutes must feel! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

wolfdancer
08-20-2008, 11:08 AM
from all that stale, old sperm!
Ouch, that hurt. I still got a couple of good swimmers, it's just that they are doing the dog paddle now.
Yer getting too personal

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 11:11 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I wasn't aiming that statement! I probably have a few stale old eggs left, myself. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif However, I wouldn't hink of using them!

Anyway, Viagra is one of the best reasons to keep abortion safe, and available, that I can think of! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

That's what I call protecting fetuses! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

sack316
08-20-2008, 10:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc

Ah, he we go. 2:14 long, opening is recorded audio of Obama and his statements on the matter. In the middle is the story we all know, and see differently apparently. And closing with his answer the other night on the forum.

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-21-2008, 12:45 PM
this is all very sinple, friend.

If there was already a law in place which protected any and all living infants, regardless of their viability, at the time of his vote, or non vote, (on what was actually another right wing attempt to abolish abortion) then there is no way that the accusation is legitimate.

No medical society in any state in this country would allow any other remedy.

End of story.