What these anti pro choice people dont seem to realize is, termination of pregnancy will continue whether it is legal or not. The only difference is it will go underground, performed by people who are not licensed and the rich women, they will just make an appointment in a progressive not backward country like America and have their abortion. Essentially women will be baby makers for the government, their bodies controlled by the government. What it comes down to is..the neocons need to mind their own business.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Well...I don't think legal abortion exists...
in any Muslim country.
THis was not about deciding whether abortion was legal...
it was deciding to allow an infant who survived an abortion, was breathing and heart beating OUTSIDE the mother, to be left to DIE. ANYONE who would countenance THAT is, to me, subhuman and has no heart. He claims tocare about the poor and downtrodden and wants to deny care to a baby who survived an abortion? What a liar. Barack Obama cares about getting Barack Obama elected and that is ALL he cares about.
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
My belief? "late-term abortion" or partial-birth abortion" = infanticide, it is sickening
So in these cases I do think, as in most things, there is no ABSOLUTE, but a judicious guideline for this should be investigated and established by the medical community, as far as survival/outcome, but then we must be willing to prosecute mothers and doctors who go outside the guidelines...with established jail terms....and more money to house these "criminals" for years. Why not let God by the ultimate judge, He has the wisdom and the power, and eternity without God is worse than anything we as humans can mandate, don't you think?
meant is against abortion...didn't mean supports abortion (NM) LEGAL
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMMIE!And yet it is still legal....
@@
Legal or not, there will always be abortions.
Abortions will always be performed whether they are legal or not. When I was in college, abortion was illegal. Several students became pregnant and had illegal abortions by back-alley butchers, and they almost died from hemorrhage and infection. Others tried to abort their pregnancies with wire hangers, knitting needles, and other drastic measures. I would much rather have legal abortions performed by licensed physicians than force young women to resort to barbaric procedures to terminate their pregnancies.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
it's not stealing - it's legal!
They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
Isn't it pretty much legal in Vegas?
xx
Or she might be almost 18, which would make her a legal adult. I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The concentration camps were legal, too.
Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
If Joe Legal is married and has 2 children
and 2 parents, whom he probably supports, why else did you mention this, anyways, Joe Legal does NOT pay 30% taxes.
After I read this statement, I did NOT continue to read your rant.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
He has no legal recourse to "recall" bonuses.
Unfortunately, because these are private companies, they have contracts with the CEOs and they are absolutely within their rights to honor those contracts. However, if Obama can find a loophole to keep them from getting paid, then we'll see what happens then.
This is why the government shoulder NEVER get involved in private businesses. Once they start handing on money, they think they own private businesses and dictate everything to them, so now we are caught in a catch 22 so to speak; government has no business in private businesses but yet they have given private businesses OUR money with NO stipulations beforehand and are now "surprised" the bonsues will continue?! Pleeeze!!!
Again, the screw up here is letting the screwed up American legal system handle legal cases that are best served by military tribunals.
McCain's legal adviser has already voted for Obama.
Yet another high-profile Republican has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama — and this time, it’s one of Sen. John McCain’s own advisers.
Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
GOP Pays Legal Bills in Vote-Thwart Case
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Republican Party says it still has a zero-tolerance policy for tampering with voters even as it pays the legal bills for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to thwart Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.
James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.
The Republican National Committee already has spent more than $722,000 to provide Tobin, who has pleaded innocent, a team of lawyers from the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. The firm's other clients have included former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Republican Party officials said they don't ordinarily discuss specifics of their legal work, but confirmed to The Associated Press they had agreed to underwrite Tobin's defense because he was a longtime supporter and that he assured them he had committed no crimes.
"Jim is a longtime friend who has served as both an employee and an independent contractor for the RNC," a spokeswoman for the RNC, Tracey Schmitt, said Wednesday. "This support is based on his assurance and our belief that Jim has not engaged in any wrongdoing."
A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.
At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.
"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.
The Republican Party has repeatedly and pointedly disavowed any tactics aimed at keeping citizens from voting since allegations of voter suppression surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000 that tipped the presidential race to Bush.
Earlier this week, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director, reiterated a "zero-tolerance policy" for any GOP official caught trying to block legitimate votes.
"The position of the Republican National Committee is simple: We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position," Mehlman wrote Monday to a group that studied voter suppression tactics.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Thursday questioned Mehlman's commitment to the policy. "This is just another example of his say one thing, do another strategy. Ken Mehlman tells crowds his party is against voter fraud and intimidation, while in the backrooms he supports Republican officials who engage in these dirty tricks," Dean said.
Dennis Black and Dane Butswinkas, two Williams & Connolly lawyers for Tobin, did not return calls seeking comment. Brian Tucker, a New Hampshire lawyer on the team, declined comment.
Tobin's lawyers have attacked the prosecution, suggesting evidence was improperly introduced to the grand jury, that their client originally had been promised he wouldn't be indicted and that he was improperly charged under one of the statutes.
Tobin stepped down from his Bush-Cheney post a couple of weeks before the November 2004 election after Democrats suggested he was involved in the phone bank scheme. He was charged a month after the election.
Paul Twomey, a volunteer lawyer for New Hampshire Democrats who are pursuing a separate lawsuit involving the phone scheme, said he was surprised the RNC was willing to pay Tobin's legal bills and that it suggested more people may be involved.
The new development "really raises the questions of who are they protecting, how high does this go and who was in on this," Twomey said.
Federal prosecutors have secured testimony from the two convicted conspirators in the scheme directly implicating Tobin.
Charles McGee, the New Hampshire GOP official who pleaded guilty, told prosecutors he informed Tobin of the plan and asked for Tobin's help in finding a vendor who could make the calls that would flood the phone banks.
Allen Raymond, a former colleague of Tobin who operated a Virginia-based telephone services firm, told prosecutors Tobin called him in October 2002, explained the telephone plan and asked Raymond's company to help McGee implement it.
Raymond's lawyer told the court that Tobin made the request for help in his official capacity as the top RNC official for New England and his client believed the RNC had sanctioned the activity.
Your telling me that a child that is born from a botched abortion should be left to die?
That is what this bill is about. If a child is born after an abortion attempt, that it should be treated as a US citizen with all rights of a citizen given, including the right to lifesaving medical care. You don't think that's fair?
Abortion
Haven't you guys who are going on about this given any thought that every time politicians start speaking of abortion, gay marriage, etc., it is a smoke screen. They know how to push our buttons, but then they are always hiding something else. The know if they keep our minds on these types of issues, we won't be paying attention to other under-handed things that are going on.
This is not about abortion. It is about a man who...
voted AGAINST giving medical care infants who survive abortion, who are living and breathing outside the mother and unattached even by the umbilical cord. That is horrific, and frankly I don't feel real good about someone who wants to fight for that TO happen, instead of AGAINST it happening. If he can't muster up enough sympathy for poor children dying alone in a dirty clothes closet, how could I possibly believe he cares about the "middle class?"
Talk about a STRETCH.
abortion
I think that it is sad that people do not believe abortion is murder. I am pregnant by surprise and had an ultrasound at 12 weeks (when many abortions are performed) and was able to see my baby move around and his hands and feet. If that is not a baby, heaven help us all. Having said that, I am not sure that abortion should be illegal. In my heart, I know that it is wrong, but in my head, I also know that it will continue to happen in an unsafe manner if it were to become illegal. However, perhaps not so prevalently, so this is a toughie for me, but I cannot believe that God condones it.
ABORTION
who KNOWS there are other alternatives out there? Come on people!! We all type this stuff...There are sooooo many different kinds of birth control out there. Why wait and kill a baby? Bottom line, that's what abortion is. I just cannot believe the mentality of some of you people. I may not have all the fancy words some of you use but I think this is just common sense. I don't even know that I think a woman should have her "choice" taken away but I do think abortion should not be considered birth control. If you don't want to have a baby and CHOOSE abortion, and it happens again and again, how about an old fashioned TUBAL LIGATION? All this talk truly makes me ill to my stomach.
I'm curious how many of you out there are willing to fess up about an abortion and sharing your feelings about your "choice." My sister had a "choice" to make years ago and she has nightmares about it still. The guilt she has felt is unreal. Maybe some of you do live with yourselves and I honestly think any woman who has made this "choice" and can live with herself without any sort of guilt EVER, is just a very hard person.
The issue is not about choice (and I have other views on that word as well) but about the taking of innocent lives who have no voice to speak for themselves. As far as welfare....it's coming already and it won't be me who pays, unless that top income bracket keeps spiraling downward into the low 5-figure numbers which is not an impossibility.
On abortion
Solomon's wisdom still at work today.....
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'
So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'
She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.'
The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!'
'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!
Oh if our current judicial system could only understand this fact.
Abortion..............s/m
You can talk your heart out, I was, am and will always be pro-abortion.
Till to the end of the 3rd month of pregnancy it is the mother who has the right to end the pregnancy.
Who is going to help me in all aspects if I, as the mother, know that I will most probably not be able to care and provide for this child? Not for all mothers is the option of adoption, this means GIVING AWAY one's flesh and blood to STRANGERS an acceptable option.
I am against partial birth abortion.
Really, no one is pro-abortion......
The term is pro-choice and there are a lot of Americans who are pro-choice. If you think they are going to overturn Roe vs Wade to satisfy less than half the population - you will be disappointed. This is just a political joust to get people arguing - with no end in sight. Give it up. They thought they'd win another election with this tired, worn out "issue" - and they were wrong.
And this is different from abortion... How? sm
Abortion is the ending of a life, plain and simple. Yet people get all up in arms when their "right to choose" is taken away from them.
the enormous numbers that need to be performed. In an age where birth control is so readily available and so reliably effective, that there are still SO MANY women seeking abortions, tells me one thing.....
People are careless, that is all. What other conclusion could you draw? If you only had true accidental pregnancies resulting from the small percentage failure rate of most contraceptives, the incest, the rapes, and the abortions to save a woman's life, it still wouldn't add up to a tiny fraction of the abortions we have now.
Every time I hear someone say that that it's a woman's right to choose, or to control her own body, I can't help but hear a little voice saying... THEN CHOOSE NOT TO GET PREGNANT, BE RESPONSIBLE, DON'T HOOK UP WITH SOME LOSER IN A BACK SEAT WHILE YOU'RE LOADED UP ON BOOZE, AND CONTROL YOUR BODY.
Why does choicie and control of one's body only begin after conception takes place?
"He voted against sending innocent Americans to a country we had no business going to all because of lies put out by the "republicans"."
First, I am not a Republican, but you cannot lay all the blame for going to war at the feet of Republicans, that's number one. A good many Democrats voted to go to war, otherwise we would not have gone to war. They were talking about regime change in Iraq when Clinton was President. Bush did not invent it. In fact, when Bush was elected the first time, he kept Richard Clarke and George Tenet over from the Clinton administration...both of whom brought with them the idea of regime change in Iraq from the Clinton administration. You should read the quotes from Democrats from the Clinton era through 2003. Either they were all lying too or they believed the intelligence too. I just don't get how people can read those quotes, totally ignore them, and say it was all Bush's lie or the Republicans' lies. I refer you to a post below that illustrates all those quotes. Either they were all lying, Clinton, Bush, CLarke, Tenet, all those Democrats including Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and on and on...either they were ALL lying or they ALL believed the intelligence. That is the ONLY thing that makes any sense based on their own quotes out of their own mouths. This old chestnut of "Bush lied men died" and "all caused by Republican lies" is the biggest lie of all.
How you vote is your business and you should do whatever your conscience tells you to do, as I am.
As to Jill Stanek...google her. The story is true. If the story were NOT true, the hospital she names would sue her, don't you think? They don't sue because it happened. They issued a birth and death certificate for that child. Everyone knows what happened. She came forward to try to get a law passed that would prohibit that from every happening again (and bless her for doing so) and Obama voted against it...3 times. That is a matter of record in the Illinois state senate. He and his wife are vocal supporters of all forms of abortion, including partial birth abortion. You heard him say in the video that "options should not be limited." That is exactly what he meant. And that, my friend, devalues human life and makes him doubly dangerous as far as I am concerned. And he said it with equal "lack of emotion."
Yes, it was barbaric to let that poor child just die. Horrific. Just as horrific is partial birth abortion. Look that up some time, what they actually do during that procedure, just to avoid what happened above...a live birth. They turn the child breech so that all the body except the head can be born. Then the needle at the base of the skull, suck the brain out and collapse the skill, killing the baby so that it is "born dead." Because if the head came first and the baby took a breath and THEN the brain was sucked out...THAT would be murder. So some inventive doctor figured turn the baby around and suck the brain out while the head is still inside the mother. That is barbaric. And it happens every day in this country. Legally. John McCain is against that. Barack Obama is for that. Enough said as far as I am concerned. And I agree...when are enough murdered babies enough? How many more million?
Spontaneous abortion is hardly....
the same thing as induced abortion...that's a stretch.
Okay, if where I get my polls is wrong and where you get yours is right, why not put it a vote of the people? Because, no matter what someone "says," it is a different story when you have to pull the lever and put what you say into action. Congress would never act on it or you would have a real abortion law instead of one shoved down our throats by judges. Just a question here...suppose a conservative majority got in the supreme court and struck down Roe vs. Wade? Would you defend their right to do that the same away you defend their right to strike down a law making abortion illegal? Somehow I doubt it. Would probably be first in line to say you can't legislate from the bench...just like I am saying. They are to interpret law..not make law. But, doesn't matter. It's a done deed. But last time I looked I had the right as s citizen to oppose it. Just exercising my right. Sorry if it chaps.
Good grief...silly statement. Of course I don't picture a 9-month gestation. I picture a human life being snuffed out. I see one human being given total control over the life of another. And to me, that is wrong. Especially one who is defenseless.
There is much more there than a "mass of cells" at 8, 10, 12 weeks. And if it makes you feel better to think it feels no pain, fine. I am not willing to assume that.
I agree whole-heartedly with everything you said in your last paragraph, but I would like to add teach responsibility for one's own actions. There are Planned Parenthood Clinics everywhere and if not, your local health department will dole out birth control. That is a pretty lame excuse as far as I am concerned. But what is the motivation for anyone to seek it? We already have a legal "oops" method in place.
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_messenger/2005805_57541_1_300x250_lrec_freewwcalls_love.gif")
