This Election Is Becoming A Joke

[JustDoIt 10]

When his actions are often followed by a statement giving his reasons you refuse to acknowledge the statement and just follow the actions.and the $50 was for you to prove that Obama has said he doesn't feel as though a baby has rights even when it is out side of its mother and breathing. I have seen no proof of this. I am pro choice but anti abortion. I would vote pro choice every chance I got and all along I will say I'm anti abortion would you just bend that and go around telling everyone I'm for abortion?

I have more than proved this. Take a look at the history of The federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Obama actions.And as stated in previous post he did not answer the question asked at saddleback "At what point does a baby get human rights?". The question was not fetus it was baby, and he would not answer because he couldn't with his position on abortion.

[copernicus 0]

Again you show your maturity. To answer it could be 1,2,3 or a combo of any but why to some of you republicans does it always have to be 3?

I didnt say it could only be 3, and Im glad to see you admit that he might be a shitty interpreter of the law because it sure as hell isnt 2.

[irishguy 14]

I have more than proved this. Take a look at the history of The federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Obama actions.And as stated in previous post he did not answer the question asked at saddleback "At what point does a baby get human rights?". The question was not fetus it was baby, and he would not answer because he couldn't with his position on abortion.

Find me a quote where he says this and I will gladly ship you the money. You can't as he hasn't but keep twisting.

[JustDoIt 10]

Your original statement: "That bill Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability." is not supported by the links you provided, except in the case of the health of the mother -- and who can object to that in it's plain English understanding. And yes, I know BG's object that "health" has been defined as "financial health", and yes, that is appalling, but there is no evidence that Obama supports that interpretation. His lengthy, boring, rhetoric-filled speech is fill with lots of sound-bites and calls for more federal spending for birth control programs, but no calls for free choice after viability except for health reasons. The bill you linked doesn't even got that far, it only mentions choice to the point of viability.Sorry, but your links don't support the claim that he supports a fundamental right to terminate pregnancy after fetal viability.

Please explain where the health of a mother has any thing to do with Partial Birth Abortion?

[colonel Feathers 5]

Ive been to London once.since you are obviously upset you werent born here shouldnt this ber in the bad beat forum?

[copernicus 0]

Because they get the best political mileage out of #3. And political mileage is all this is about. Everyone including those passionate pro-lifers know for a fact that the Republican Party WILL NOT change anything regarding Roe V Wade. Do you think a pro-life judge will get past a Democratically controlled congress even if McCain is elected? The fact remains that though the Republican Party has touted itself as being pro-life, it's done NOTHING in that regard legislatively. And they had the opportunity to do so when both the Presidency and the Congress were controlled by Republicans for 6 years. So don't tell me that the issue is anything more than a political ploy to try to bring in social conservatives to the Republican fold. And so far they've continued to bite at that worm.

Lol. Its the Democratic party that likes to pass legislation that they know has no hope of being sustained. Why would the Republicans waste their time passing legislation that will be overturned by the SCOTUS? They have made plenty of attempts through the courts, which is where the law sits.

[irishguy 14]

I didnt say it could only be 3, and Im glad to see you admit that he might be a shitty interpreter of the law because it sure as hell isnt 2.

I know you haven't said it could only be 3 but many conservatives have certainly put that out there. I don't have the legal knowledge to guage the value in his interpretation.

[hblask 1]

Please explain where the health of a mother has any thing to do with Partial Birth Abortion?

My understanding of the procedure is that it only happens when there is a direct threat to the health of mother or the baby is born without a brain stem or some other serious condition that makes it more tumor than human. It never happens otherwise. Any claim otherwise is just scare tactics. If you have proof to the contrary provide it, but I've never seen any evidence of such a thing in all the years the debate has gone on.

[copernicus 0]

My understanding of the procedure is that it only happens when there is a direct threat to the health of mother or the baby is born without a brain stem or some other serious condition that makes it more tumor than human. It never happens otherwise. Any claim otherwise is just scare tactics. If you have proof to the contrary provide it, but I've never seen any evidence of such a thing in all the years the debate has gone on.

Since abortion isnt my hot button I havent researched it, however, my understanding is that all of the legislation being discussed has exceptions for the health of the mother. I also dont think the case of your "more tumor than human" is at all relevant because there is no requirement that a parent provide extraordinary life sustaining care to a baby that isnt viable without it. I have also heard that as strictly defined "partial birth abortion" occurs long after any health concerns for the mother should have been identified and earlier abortion appropriate.

[copernicus 0]

I don't have the legal knowledge to guage the value in his interpretation.

Neither do I, but certainly many in the Senate do, and advisors to Nancy Pelosi and other radical pro-choicers do.

[hblask 1]

Since abortion isnt my hot button I havent researched it, however, my understanding is that all of the legislation being discussed has exceptions for the health of the mother. I also dont think the case of your "more tumor than human" is at all relevant because there is no requirement that a parent provide extraordinary life sustaining care to a baby that isnt viable without it. I have also heard that as strictly defined "partial birth abortion" occurs long after any health concerns for the mother should have been identified and earlier abortion appropriate.

I'm like you, it's not one of my top issues...so in response to this thread I've done some reading, and it appears that the words "partial birth abortion" basically just mean whatever they need to mean to fit the speakers predetermined opinion on the issue.Anyway, the only reason I brought it up was that I doubted the claim that Obama supports free choice of abortion after viability for cases other than the health of the mother. The links provided failed to provide any evidence of the claim.

[copernicus 0]

I'm like you, it's not one of my top issues...so in response to this thread I've done some reading, and it appears that the words "partial birth abortion" basically just mean whatever they need to mean to fit the speakers predetermined opinion on the issue.Anyway, the only reason I brought it up was that I doubted the claim that Obama supports free choice of abortion after viability for cases other than the health of the mother. The links provided failed to provide any evidence of the claim.

Why doesnt it. The Freedom of Choice Act clearly states that a woman has the 1)right to an abortion up to fetal viability and 2)beyond in the case of the health of the mother. It is totally consistent and supportive of RvW. Obama opposes it. What conclusion is there other than that he supports abortion after viability of the fetus whether or not the mother's health is an issue?

[hblask 1]

Why doesnt it. The Freedom of Choice Act clearly states that a woman has the 1)right to an abortion up to fetal viability and 2)beyond in the case of the health of the mother. It is totally consistent and supportive of RvW. Obama opposes it. What conclusion is there other than that he supports abortion after viability of the fetus whether or not the mother's health is an issue?

I believe Obama supports this law, and in fact this is the one he that he said, in yet another pandering moment, would be his first act in office -- to sign it into law.Have I lost track of something somewhere?

[Balloon guy 158]

My understanding of the procedure is that it only happens when there is a direct threat to the health of mother or the baby is born without a brain stem or some other serious condition that makes it more tumor than human. It never happens otherwise. Any claim otherwise is just scare tactics. If you have proof to the contrary provide it, but I've never seen any evidence of such a thing in all the years the debate has gone on.

Last thing I read said in order to get around the ban, they now inject the baby with enough drugs to kill it, then do a cut and remove or a still born birth.So they still do last trimester abortions, just not by jabbing a forcep into the baby's head while half out of the birth canal. But only 13,200 times in 2005, or 36 per day, every day

[whatgreatis 0]

Obama, no matter how much people hope/dislike it,is not "far left" and is not a communist.

This is very true. FWIW the farr left, the radicals, don't like Obama. They feel he's too close to corporate America.

[whatgreatis 0]

Last thing I read said in order to get around the ban, they now inject the baby with enough drugs to kill it, then do a cut and remove or a still born birth.So they still do last trimester abortions, just not by jabbing a forcep into the baby's head while half out of the birth canal. But only 13,200 times in 2005, or 36 per day, every day

I thought conservatives wanted the government out of peoples lives? Why do you want a constitutional ban on gay marriage/abortion? (I'm just assuming you do) And doesn't that go against fiscal conservative views?

[brvheart 1,752]

If Obama is so erroneously placed on the graph, then surely Mitt Romney and co should be on the opposite end of the scale since they are polar opposites to Obama? They are extreme right, is this not correct? Anyway the site is very informative if you actually took the time to read it.

lol. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. He is a liberal... not a polar opposite of Obama.

blah blah blah

You're a communist.

[Balloon guy 158]

I thought conservatives wanted the government out of peoples lives? Why do you want a constitutional ban on gay marriage/abortion? (I'm just assuming you do) And doesn't that go against fiscal conservative views?

You are mistaking me with an anarchist.I like law and order.Protecting people isn't an intrusion.And why should gay people get extra rights?

[Balloon guy 158]

lol. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. He is a liberal... not a polar opposite of Obama. You're a communist.

Lol at you trying to speak sense to a couple of 19 year old college students on government loans who have never produced anything in their lives but think they know how the world works.LOL at you

[Wiz Adult 0]

Ok I am going to interject here as the levels of hypocrisy from the Conservative party and it's representatives here are out of the stratosphere: I noticed a definite theme at the GOP convention, it was along the lines of "those meddling democrats want to take away our freedom of choice", now surely even the most brain dead,Republican redneck should realise(They even call it pro CHOICE) that Obama isn't FORCING anyone to get an abortion, he is merely offering this measure as a solution to a very complex and difficult issue . Since when is Obama implying that abortion is compulsory? No matter what your personal outlook on abortion is,surely the people should have the choice? That is democracy after all.In fact was it not George bush who signed the bill making online gambling illegal in the US? This is basically fascism, and the polar opposite of what the GOP pretend to stand for. In fact if you analyse much of what the Republicans have done it is absolutely nothing like democracy. The most outrageously hypocritical party, on so many levels.

[Wiz Adult 0]

Lol at you trying to speak sense to a couple of 19 year old college students on government loans who have never produced anything in their lives but think they know how the world works.LOL at you

Mit Romney is a Neo-Liberal, ie far right. How embarrassing that a foreigner knows more about your politics then you do. Btw making unsubstantiated assumptions is exactly why you are voting for Mccain.

[copernicus 0]

I believe Obama supports this law, and in fact this is the one he that he said, in yet another pandering moment, would be his first act in office -- to sign it into law.Have I lost track of something somewhere?

Yes, you lost track of his actions, and believe his words.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ok I am going to interject here as the levels of hypocrisy from the Conservative party and it's representatives here are out of the stratosphere: I noticed a definite theme at the GOP convention, it was along the lines of "those meddling democrats want to take away our freedom of choice", now surely even the most brain dead,Republican redneck should realise(They even call it pro CHOICE) that Obama isn't FORCING anyone to get an abortion, he is merely offering this measure as a solution to a very complex and difficult issue . Since when is Obama implying that abortion is compulsory? No matter what your personal outlook on abortion is,surely the people should have the choice? That is democracy after all.In fact was it not George bush who signed the bill making online gambling illegal in the US? This is basically fascism, and the polar opposite of what the GOP pretend to stand for. In fact if you analyse much of what the Republicans have done it is absolutely nothing like democracy. The most outrageously hypocritical party, on so many levels.

Wow, you should have stated that Kennedy was killed by space aliens then you could have won the : "Post with most things wrong in the fewest words" Award.Instead you just get a renewal stamp on your Short Bus pass and a plea from the world not to reproduce

[copernicus 0]

Ok I am going to interject here as the levels of hypocrisy from the Conservative party and it's representatives here are out of the stratosphere: I noticed a definite theme at the GOP convention, it was along the lines of "those meddling democrats want to take away our freedom of choice", now surely even the most brain dead,Republican redneck should realise(They even call it pro CHOICE) that Obama isn't FORCING anyone to get an abortion, he is merely offering this measure as a solution to a very complex and difficult issue .Since when is Obama implying that abortion is compulsory? No matter what your personal outlook on abortion is,surely the people should have the choice? That is democracy after all.In fact was it not George bush who signed the bill making online gambling illegal in the US? This is basically fascism, and the polar opposite of what the GOP pretend to stand for. In fact if you analyse much of what the Republicans have done it is absolutely nothing like democracy. The most outrageously hypocritical party, on so many levels.

Giving someone CHOICE is (potentially) taking away someone elses RIGHTS. How hard is that to understand?

[Balloon guy 158]

Mit Romney is a Neo-Liberal, ie far right. How embarrassing that a foreigner knows more about your politics then you do. Btw making unsubstantiated assumptions is exactly why you are voting for Mccain.

Are you really 20?Or are your parents paying for your university/ beauty college?