All At Once

I will check that out- thanks for the info.
Yeah, I saw the debates. I am basing my info on Obama’s voting record on the topic, not on what he says on camera, because actions speak louder than words.

Jennince - Oct 30, 2008 08:53pm

Gay or no gay, what do you have to say about partial birth abortion and socialistic leadership? Do you think that puncturing a hole in the back of a baby’s head (third trimester- 24 wks (6 mos_ and up) so that you can yank its brains out while it is still alive is humane, let alone should be LEGAL?

And let’s not forget about “spreading the wealth”- $250k or less? you have got to be kidding/ ThAT is called a CEILING my friend. WHY should I sustain an effort to work hard at what I do for a living- own my own business- be successful, if when I get to that “magic number”, I will be paying out the butt hole for taxes?
The answer is, I won’t. (not if that is the case- unless I work hard just to work hard and not to make money) And other people won’t either.

Under Obama, we will have a work force just like France. 4 days a week of work- six months off a year- and no production- no profit- no reason to succeed.

Like I said, McCain may not be the spectacular, but his track record shows he will not support partial birth abortion or socialism in this country.

And I support McCain.

I am beginning to think you only get information from bias pundits who get paid to be incendiary. Obama’s is quite possibly the best the democratic or republican parties have created in some time. It looks to secure more money for the majority of American citizens who spend the most (middle class families). When american consumer spending increases, production, sales and profit increase. I am not a guru when it comes to wall street, but that is a pretty great thing. The so-called distribution of wealth is not about socializing the American work force, it is about creating opportunity through a tax structure that benefits the majority.

As for abortion, Obama voting record does reflect that he has voted against bans on partial birth abortion, but if you were to dig a little deeper you would see that his reason for a no vote has and always will be because he wants previsions which will allow for the mother of the child to make a decision if her life is in danger. Dastardly baby killer, he is!

But I am sure glad that you are someone who feels that ONE issue is reason enough to make up your mind on a candidate. I for one believe if we did allow late term abortions the entire country would be killing babies left and right. Seriously, ask any doctor, they always say that come the third trimester, mother’s are begging for their babies to be aborted.

I think you, and many like you, need to honestly think hard about why a late term abortion is usually performed, and then realize that you are no better than the people you condemn because you would just as easily trade one life for another.

Partial birth abortion is never ‘necessary’ to save a mother’s life. Delivery of the baby at times, yes- via C-section or normal delivery, but when it is ever necessary to kill the baby? I am a mother myself, and if faced with that decision, why not just choose to have the baby delivered or removed via caesarian? Why take a life (and so violently) if I don’t have to?
Answer me that.
When is it ever necessary to kill a child to save a mother, vs delivering the baby and giving him/her a chance at life, while preserving your own?
Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortion, and the ban had NOTHING to do with saving a mother’s life.
Not to mention the born alive infant protection act.
And I am not voting based on this issue alone, but I have to admit, something as horrific and brutal as murdering an innocent baby (again, this is not some blastocyst embryo mass of cells, this is a 6 month old or more developed human being) is a stupid thing to vote on, huh?
As far as the socialist thinking on the left’s side, maybe you should study Carl Marx and notice all the points he has in common with Obama’s fiscal policies.

Jennince - Oct 31, 2008 08:24pm

Partial birth abortion is never ‘necessary’ to save a mother’s life. Delivery of the baby at times, yes- via C-section or normal delivery, but when it is ever necessary to kill the baby? I am a mother myself, and if faced with that decision, why not just choose to have the baby delivered or removed via caesarian? Why take a life (and so violently) if I don’t have to?
Answer me that.
When is it ever necessary to kill a child to save a mother, vs delivering the baby and giving him/her a chance at life, while preserving your own?
Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortion, and the ban had NOTHING to do with saving a mother’s life.
Not to mention the born alive infant protection act.
And I am not voting based on this issue alone, but I have to admit, something as horrific and brutal as murdering an innocent baby (again, this is not some blastocyst embryo mass of cells, this is a 6 month old or more developed human being) is a stupid thing to vote on, huh?
As far as the socialist thinking on the left’s side, maybe you should study Carl Marx and notice all the points he has in common with Obama’s fiscal policies.

Here is where your argument goes loopy… You allow your own personal bias to make other peoples medical decision for them. My Sister in Law just had a beautiful daughter earlier this year, she had a high risk pregnancy, due to different issues she had with her body she could not at any point in her pregnancy have had a C-section. I know it is crazy to realize that life and choices do not fit in neat little boxes, but it is the truth. So, an intelligent person looks at situations, like late term abortions, and sees that maybe, just maybe not everything is as easy as you make it seem to be. Would I ever want my fiance to have any abortion let alone a late term one? No. But if the situation arose, I can honestly say that I would want her to make the decision that gives us the chance to try and make another child.

Don’t over simplify complex issues, and for the love of god, learn some objectivity in your thought.

As for your push on “socialist Obama,” I can make the same argument for the right being fascist. You know why it is fairly easy to make this argument? Because fascism and socialism are the far ends of the political spectrum and both have connections to the more moderate political systems. 

But I will have to look up this Carl Marx fellow you speak of. I read a Karl Marx in a history course, I’m guessing they are related. Oh, no, I see what you did. By trying to sound intelligent, you made the mistake of westernizing his name. Silly.

KARL, not Carl.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act banned partial-birth abortions except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother and calls for a two-year jail term for violators. So in the event that there was no other way to save the mother, this Act allowed for it.
Yet Obama, by voting ‘present’, voted against it.
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress: “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.” Also, Jay Sekulow of the Center for Law and Justice, said the “so-called health exception” is a false argument aimed at undermining a “law designed to end (a) horrific procedure.”
As far as this procedure being performed for “medical reasons”, as you stated above, the truth is that even Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told The New York Times that “in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus” (Feb. 26, 1997). He also estimated that between 4000-5000 partial birth abortions are performed each year.
Now, I am pro-life no matter what. But this act allowed for the termination of pregnancy in the event that it was the only way for the mother to live- and still, Obama did not support it.
I hope for the best for this country, as I am sure you do. Whatever happens will be happened by close of tomorrow night. If Obama does win, I believe this country will be in a lot of trouble.
I pray that I am wrong.

Well, thank goodness Obama won. Now I can get as many Late Term Abortions as I want. I bet I can get some kind of discount.

Do you always take talking points from Anti-abortion websites? I know they sound smart, most of the times they are skewed a wee bitsy. Last year it was projected that the number of late term abortions as just over 1000. Of those, you know how many were for health reasons? I don’t. You know why? because I don’t care what a woman does with her body and with her fetus before it is viable. Do I think late term abortions are a good thing? Nope. Like I said before, I won’t allow my opinions to force a person’s decision.
I don’t believe I have that right, and I don’t believe the gov’t has that right.

But Obama won, and since you have made yourself appear as some sort of extremist, I am assuming you are hunkered in a bunker.

Let me show you where you and I differ, I looked at both of these candidates, and I saw what was good about this country. I saw a man who served his country for most of his life, who believed whole heartedly in his decisions and actions, and who believed in doing what he thought was right for this country. Then there is a man who comes from diverse background, grew up in a single parent house hold, served his communities and believes whole heartedly in doing what is right for his country. I believed both of these candidates would be great leaders, because I think both of these candidates embody what I love about America. You wrote that you hope for the best for this country, which is interesting, because you seem to be ignoring when the best is being presented to you.

Here’s my take on the abortion issue. 

Those who are pro-life want to eliminate abortion by making it illegal.  If abortion is wrong, it should also be illegal.  Sounds simple.

But, as has been pointed out, it’s not so simple.  For one thing, if you pass a law saying abortion is illegal, this will not stop women from having abortions.  Instead, the procedure will exist unregulated.  It will still be available to the rich, but it will not be available (or safely available) to the poor.  So, have you really solved the problem, or have you just outlawed the symptom and punished the poor?

Those who think abortion is something we should eliminate, but not something we should make illegal, are dismissed as baby-killers.  But if you are willing to listen to another perspective, it goes something like this:

Let’s eliminate the problem of unwanted pregnancies.  If we eliminate unwanted pregnancies, there will be no reason to have an abortion.  If girls and women learn to respect themselves and understand the sacredness of life, if they understand the responsibilities of becoming a parent, they will be less likely to engage in sex before the right time.

If girls and women understand the wonderful bodies God made, and understand how reproduction works, if they are given access to birth control and understand its responsible use, and then make an informed decision about whether to use it or to wait, there will be fewer abortions.

Just because we say that teens shouldn’t be having sex, doesn’t mean that is going to change.  We can stick our heads in the sand, but that will not change the reality of what is.  We have to look at the real behavior that exists, and come up with solutions that take that into account. 

By treating the cause of the problem, the symptom is more likely to disappear.

If we could have healthy discussions about this issue, without invoking emotional attack language, maybe we could actually make some progress in eliminating abortion.  Do you want to be right or do you want to solve the problem?

I do believe that Barack Obama voted present and no on those bills and that there were already laws in place that covered this.  That was one of the reasons he gave for voting no or present. 
Is it possible it was another attempt from anti-abortionists to change up the wording?

There are some mother’s who have to choose their life over a baby’s.  It’s important to make sure they have the choice.  If you had 2 children already and were faced with possibley losing your life if you continue with a pregnancy, I would think my might prefer the option to continue life with your other two children.  And yes, this happens.  So then you can argue, yes some babies can live even being born 25 weeks early… and then the debate turns to quality of life.  as they say… a slippery slope.

There’s no doubt that parital birth abortions are distrurbing.  I think the answer needs to be more about reaching out to women, making choices available and educating the women.  And more importantly supporting parenting in any setting, not just a traditional setting.  I don’t believe taking away women’s rights is the way to go.  just my opinion.

and Yea!!! I was thrilled with our choice on November 4th!