[Wildcatk23]

It seems to me I found where the problem is. the amendment you speak of wasn't passed until 2002. From what I can find.... Obama voted NO in regards to the above bill, BEFORE the federal amendment was passed and signed.

But later, he voted YES on an amendment that made the bill identical as the federal in its protections. THEN VOTED NO ON THE BILL!!!! So, it wasn't that he'd vote for it if it were like the federal amendment. Your boy is a baby killer. And so are you.

http://www.bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.php

I dont think the ville has ever killed a baby.

Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would "get rid of" funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.

Does that make me and you baby killers since we are voting for romney?

[TheRealVille]

It seems to me I found where the problem is. the amendment you speak of wasn't passed until 2002. From what I can find.... Obama voted NO in regards to the above bill, BEFORE the federal amendment was passed and signed.

But later, he voted YES on an amendment that made the bill identical as the federal in its protections. THEN VOTED NO ON THE BILL!!!! So, it wasn't that he'd vote for it if it were like the federal amendment. Your boy is a baby killer. And so are you.

http://www.bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.php

If you knew me, or had been here any length of time, you'd know that weak shit doesn't work with me. Pushing me will also get you nowhere. You vote for who you want, and I will be pulling Obama's lever, in spite of what you say. Until your kind gets that monarchy of only white, conservative, males having the right to vote, it is still a choice all of us have. :biggrin:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

If you knew me, or had been here any length of time, you'd know that weak shit doesn't work with me. Pushing me will also get you nowhere. You vote for who you want, and I will be pulling Obama's lever, in spite of what you say. Until your kind gets that monarchy of only white, conservative, males having the right to vote, it is still a choice all of us have. :biggrin:

How amusing. I'm sure you would prefer a country of special interest groups (minorities, fruits, nuts, etc.) who pay no income taxes and have no standards or morals. Wonder who would pay to support this country of chaos and non-producers? And, wonder who would keep the streets clean and safe?

[TheRealThing]

If you knew me, or had been here any length of time, you'd know that weak shit doesn't work with me. Pushing me will also get you nowhere. You vote for who you want, and I will be pulling Obama's lever, in spite of what you say. Until your kind gets that monarchy of only white, conservative, males having the right to vote, it is still a choice all of us have. :biggrin:

What is his kind RealVille? People not blinded by talking points and bias? Your bob and weave is far short of artful. It's waaaaay time to get rid of Roe v Wade and waaaay time to stop the carnage, for reasons as dubious as "convenience" to the would-be mothers of needlessly slain innocents, by the untold millions. The dems openly campaign on women's rights and laugh to scorn those who favor limiting abortions, much less unfunding them. That's the truth of it.

[TheRealVille]

What is his kind RealVille? People not blinded by talking points and bias? Your bob and weave is far short of artful. It's waaaaay time to get rid of Roe v Wade and waaaay time to stop the carnage, for reasons as dubious as "convenience" to the would-be mothers of needlessly slain innocents, by the untold millions. The dems openly campaign on women's rights and laugh to scorn those who favor limiting abortions, much less unfunding them. That's the truth of it.

The kind, like you and a few others here, that would love nothing more than to have it to where only white, conservative, males have a vote. To the rest of your post: You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body medically, the same as you have no right making medical decisions about my body. It's private between all of us, just between us and our doctors. It all goes back to the viable argument that you and others want to dismiss. I'll take the medical opinion on it way before I take a religious, or right wing opinion on it. But, candidates being for, or against abortion, is not a deal breaker for me anymore, because R v W is here to stay.

[ronald reagan]

I dont think the ville has ever killed a baby.

Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would "get rid of" funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.

Does that make me and you baby killers since we are voting for romney?

Good observation. It was meant symbolically dip shit.

But about Mitt Romney, I've read the article you site as well as the further discussion coming out of the Romney campaign which apparently you've missed. Considering that Roe v. Wade is current precident (and CAN be overturned, regardless of the error in TRV's thinking), further legislation would be found unconstitutional. You don't keep up with this kind of stuff, its obvious. We, as a nation, have hit the theoretical limit on restrictions on abortion. We have ultrasound laws, waiting period laws, born alive laws, partial birth laws, parental consent laws, marital consent laws. Like Mitt Romney, I know of no legislation being floated around that is currently constitutional that could be part of a federal/national solution. If you do, then by all means, let the Romney campaign know. Mitt Romney said just today,

I think I've said time and again that I'm a pro-life candidate and I'll be a pro-life president. The actions I'll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I 've indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions overseas

He also made clear that he'd only appoint pro-life justices.

With that said, we know he following.
1)There's not any common-sense abortion legislation that is currently being floated around that would restrict at a federal level access to abortions and still pass constitutionality due to current precident regarding Roe v. wade, and Casey vs planned parenthood.
2)Defunding planned parenthood is the kind of legislation that Romney was likely talking about, as its a budget measure and not a policy stance or criminal code or type of regulation.
3)Defunding PP would decrease their ability to perform abortions by restricting cash flow to other more popular services like family planning, contraception (which i personally oppose), and womens health issues.
4)Appointing only pro-life justices could tip the balance, especially with Ginsburg nearing her retirement or better.. death.
5)The mexico city rule is non-legislative in nature, since its fueled only by executive order. And not federal law.
6)You need to do your homework before you come at me with your crap. :moon

[ronald reagan]

You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body medically, the same as you have no right making medical decisions about my body. It's private between all of us, just between us and our doctors. It all goes back to the viable argument that you and others want to dismiss.

So you would support your wife aborting your child without your say so? Its private and all.

And based upon the above, you'd be in total support of banning ALL abortions if the baby is viable? Because if you believe its alive at that point, as you've stated or insinuated on numerous occasions..... it'd technically be murder.

What I don't understand about your arguement, mostly because its just BS, but thats another matter.... Here's what I get out of what you and others say in regards to 'exceptions'.
1)Its wrong to have an abortion as a form of birth control. This is likely because you think its evil, or better yet, murder. There really is no other option. If you think its wrong and are against it, then there is compelling evidence to you that there's a moral or legal implication involved.
2)Baby's that are products of rape or incest.... don't matter. Reason number 1 doesn't apply. They are not 'worth as much'. Whats the fear of having a baby as the result of rape? The baby will inherit the rape gene? Or come out with a swastika on its forehead?
3)If you support them in regards to rape.... then would you agree that rape must be PROVEN? or else you risk having women left and right saying they were raped, in order to have an abortion that you believe personally is wrong? That opens wide the door for thousands of innocent men daily to be accused of rape.
4)You are very confused about what you believe because you can't possibly find it in you to oppose evil when it has a (D) beside of it.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The kind, like you and a few others here, that would love nothing more than to have it to where only white, conservative, males have a vote. To the rest of your post: You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body medically, the same as you have no right making medical decisions about my body. It's private between all of us, just between us and our doctors. It all goes back to the viable argument that you and others want to dismiss. I'll take the medical opinion on it way before I take a religious, or right wing opinion on it. But, candidates being for, or against abortion, is not a deal breaker for me anymore, because R v W is here to stay.

Wrong again, TheRealVille. But that is the norm. A woman should have the right to determine what to do with her own body. However, she should never have the right to choose to kill another human being.

As for freedom of choice her right should end when she participates in the creation of another human being. Of course, she has the freedom to keep her pants on.

Of course, the obvious question should center around what type of woman willingly murders her own child. That, TheRealVille, is the relevant question.

Since you live in Paintsville, i assume you are white. I also assume that you are male. So, what is your hangup in regard to white men? You sound a lot like another one of your boys, Al Sharpton.

[TheRealVille]

Wrong again, TheRealVille. But that is the norm. A woman should have the right to determine what to do with her own body. However, she should never have the right to choose to kill another human being. Medical viable definition comes in here.

As for freedom of choice her right should end when she participates in the creation of another human being. Of course, she has the freedom to keep her pants on. Viable when? Medical, or religious and right wingers definition?

Of course, the obvious question should center around what type of woman willingly murders her own child. That, TheRealVille, is the relevant question. Again,.......ahhh to hell with it. You'll never get it.

Since you live in Paintsville, i assume you are white. I also assume that you are male. So, what is your hangup in regard to white men? You sound a lot like another one of your boys, Al Sharpton.

I don't have a problem with white men voting. I, unlike you and your ilk, also have no problem with the rest of the citizens of the US helping to make decisions about what goes on in the US.

[Wildcatk23]

Good observation. It was meant symbolically dip shit.

But about Mitt Romney, I've read the article you site as well as the further discussion coming out of the Romney campaign which apparently you've missed. Considering that Roe v. Wade is current precident (and CAN be overturned, regardless of the error in TRV's thinking), further legislation would be found unconstitutional. You don't keep up with this kind of stuff, its obvious. We, as a nation, have hit the theoretical limit on restrictions on abortion. We have ultrasound laws, waiting period laws, born alive laws, partial birth laws, parental consent laws, marital consent laws. Like Mitt Romney, I know of no legislation being floated around that is currently constitutional that could be part of a federal/national solution. If you do, then by all means, let the Romney campaign know. Mitt Romney said just today,



He also made clear that he'd only appoint pro-life justices.

With that said, we know he following.
1)There's not any common-sense abortion legislation that is currently being floated around that would restrict at a federal level access to abortions and still pass constitutionality due to current precident regarding Roe v. wade, and Casey vs planned parenthood.
2)Defunding planned parenthood is the kind of legislation that Romney was likely talking about, as its a budget measure and not a policy stance or criminal code or type of regulation.
3)Defunding PP would decrease their ability to perform abortions by restricting cash flow to other more popular services like family planning, contraception (which i personally oppose), and womens health issues.
4)Appointing only pro-life justices could tip the balance, especially with Ginsburg nearing her retirement or better.. death.
5)The mexico city rule is non-legislative in nature, since its fueled only by executive order. And not federal law.
6)You need to do your homework before you come at me with your crap. :moon

Romney is currently pro life because its going to get him elected. I've seen the comments his team has released after he was wooing women voters.

I dont blame him. And i hope he wins.

Easy with the name calling there pal. Keep it civil.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I don't have a problem with white men voting. I, unlike you and your ilk, also have no problem with the rest of the citizens of the US helping to make decisions about what goes on in the US.

You are like a singer who only knows one note. For the fourth time, viability has nothing to do with the fact that the child, from conception, is a separate human being. That has been conclusively proven.

Your arguments are silly. Are you sure you believe the crap you post or are you merely trying to be "different"? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that it must be the latter. Otherwise, you are really a fool. And, sadly, millions of baffoons like you will vote.

[WideMiddle03]

You are like a singer who only knows one note. For the fourth time, viability has nothing to do with the fact that the child, from conception, is a separate human being. That has been conclusively proven.

Your arguments are silly. Are you sure you believe the crap you post or are you merely trying to be "different"? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that it must be the latter. Otherwise, you are really a fool. And, sadly, millions of baffoons like you will vote.

well not everybody thinks likes you. anybody should be allowed to vote and none of them should be called "baffoons."

[TheRealVille]

You are like a singer who only knows one note. For the fourth time, viability has nothing to do with the fact that the child, from conception, is a separate human being. That has been conclusively proven.

Your arguments are silly. Are you sure you believe the crap you post or are you merely trying to be "different"? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that it must be the latter. Otherwise, you are really a fool. And, sadly, millions of baffoons like you will vote.

When it comes to law, yes, viability does matter.

[TheRealThing]

The kind, like you and a few others here, that would love nothing more than to have it to where only white, conservative, males have a vote. To the rest of your post: You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body medically, the same as you have no right making medical decisions about my body. It's private between all of us, just between us and our doctors. It all goes back to the viable argument that you and others want to dismiss. I'll take the medical opinion on it way before I take a religious, or right wing opinion on it. But, candidates being for, or against abortion, is not a deal breaker for me anymore, because R v W is here to stay.

You really are delusional, I'd take Col Alan West as pres any day.To the rest of your post, it's the usual side step. When one makes a choice with regard to her body that results in the death (especially in the gory and hellish fashion that is the practice of abortion) of another person, it's wrong. There is a paradox with regard to the pro choice laws I have noted in recent years. If a pregnant woman dies in a car accident caused by a negligent action of another driver, why does the indictment charge the negligent driver with two counts of wrongful death? Now, that baby is assumed a person and viable.

[TheRealThing]

Romney is currently pro life because its going to get him elected. I've seen the comments his team has released after he was wooing women voters.

I dont blame him. And i hope he wins.

Easy with the name calling there pal. Keep it civil.

Well, not quite. I think he changed his mind at some point. That's not a bad thing. I've changed my mind about many things and the funny thing is, once a man changes his mind based on experience he never changes it back.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

When it comes to law, yes, viability does matter.

I'm rather surprised that, on an issue as vitally important as this one, you would depend upon the opinion of some in the legal community when this is clearly a medical issue. Either the conceived child is a separate being or it is not. Medical evidence is settled that, regardless of vulnerability, it is a separate being from the woman carrying it.

Our friends in the legal community base their findings on expediency, order, simplicity, and convenience. They do not have the knowledge or training to make medical distinctions.

Still, you made a nice try. But, again, you are wrong.

[nky]

A society that does value human life is sad indeed

[TheRealThing]

A society that does value human life is sad indeed

And, not destined to last long.

[nky]

nope

[Harry Rex Vonner]

It is really not possible to discuss this issue with TheRealVille. The sacredness of life is lost on one who, by his own admission, has no real spiritual beliefs. If I believed that I would not be held accountable for what I think, support, and do, I might well have no objection to abortion. After all, human life would have no real meaning.

However, I firmly believe that human life has meaning and that it must be protected or we will, and should, answer for our indifference. Human life begins at conception. That has been proven. Thus, we must protect all human life- viable or not.

[ronald reagan]

So you would support your wife aborting your child without your say so? Its private and all.

And based upon the above, you'd be in total support of banning ALL abortions if the baby is viable? Because if you believe its alive at that point, as you've stated or insinuated on numerous occasions..... it'd technically be murder.

What I don't understand about your arguement, mostly because its just BS, but thats another matter.... Here's what I get out of what you and others say in regards to 'exceptions'.
1)Its wrong to have an abortion as a form of birth control. This is likely because you think its evil, or better yet, murder. There really is no other option. If you think its wrong and are against it, then there is compelling evidence to you that there's a moral or legal implication involved.
2)Baby's that are products of rape or incest.... don't matter. Reason number 1 doesn't apply. They are not 'worth as much'. Whats the fear of having a baby as the result of rape? The baby will inherit the rape gene? Or come out with a swastika on its forehead?
3)If you support them in regards to rape.... then would you agree that rape must be PROVEN? or else you risk having women left and right saying they were raped, in order to have an abortion that you believe personally is wrong? That opens wide the door for thousands of innocent men daily to be accused of rape.
4)You are very confused about what you believe because you can't possibly find it in you to oppose evil when it has a (D) beside of it.

HAHA, no response again.

[ronald reagan]

Why do you keep spitting out crap about viability? You oppose abortion, remember? You think its wrong. You are clearly against abortion in all cases other than rape, incest, mothers life. you're a hard one to follow. You sure you even know what you believe? I mean, whats your point with the viability arguement? You are the most half-in, half-out liberal I've ever met.

So no abortions at all after 20 weeks? Right?
Why do you oppose abortion as birth control? But not with rape? It makes you sound like a walking contradiction. If its wrong, its wrong. There has to be a reason you oppose abortion in most cases. What is it? Put in the missing pieces of the puzzle for us.

[TheRealVille]

HAHA, no response again.

Well , I do sleep sometimes, but another reason is that it's only a loaded bunch of questions where you are trying to put your thoughts as my reasons, so not worth a response.

[RunItUpTheGut]

The best part about this free country, is everyone can openly express their opinion and believe what they want.
We see this everyday on the good ole BGR politics forum.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The best part about this free country, is everyone can openly express their opinion and believe what they want.
We see this everyday on the good ole BGR politics forum.

I agree that one can express his opinion openly on BGR. However, due to political correctness and other such abominations, that is not the case anymore in this country. One may express his/her opinion but he/she may well be punished for expressing it.

[ronald reagan]

Well , I do sleep sometimes, but another reason is that it's only a loaded bunch of questions where you are trying to put your thoughts as my reasons, so not worth a response.

I'll ask again.

• Why do you oppose abortion in most cases? What is your reason?
  
• Why is your reason for support of abortion tied to its legality? Would you support slavery if it were still legal? What about Child Molestation if it were?
  
• Since viability is your center piece of the arguement (which I still don't understand where it ties into someones arguement that says they thinkg abortion is wrong??), would you support banning ALL abortions past the 20 weeks?
  
• If/when Roe v. Wade is overturned, will you overturn your own opinion since its no longer legal?
  
• And finally - If you support abortion only in cases of rape and such, how would you go about proving the baby is a result of rape? Do you think that women would then lie about being raped and get abortions that violate your definition of acceptable abortions, ie. past viability stage, or as a form of birth control?
  

Your argument thus far just doesn't make sense. You have an excellent opportunity to clear up the matter. I have not added much if any of your thought, other than what you are clearly on the record saying. Answering these questions will be difficult for you, as always. But I think it'd clear up some of the inconsistencies.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I'll ask again.

• Why do you oppose abortion in most cases? What is your reason?
  
• Why is your reason for support of abortion tied to its legality? Would you support slavery if it were still legal? What about Child Molestation if it were?
  
• Since viability is your center piece of the arguement (which I still don't understand where it ties into someones arguement that says they thinkg abortion is wrong??), would you support banning ALL abortions past the 20 weeks?
  
• If/when Roe v. Wade is overturned, will you overturn your own opinion since its no longer legal?
  
• And finally - If you support abortion only in cases of rape and such, how would you go about proving the baby is a result of rape? Do you think that women would then lie about being raped and get abortions that violate your definition of acceptable abortions, ie. past viability stage, or as a form of birth control?
  

Your argument thus far just doesn't make sense. You have an excellent opportunity to clear up the matter. I have not added much if any of your thought, other than what you are clearly on the record saying. Answering these questions will be difficult for you, as always. But I think it'd clear up some of the inconsistencies.

Excellent questions, ronald reagan.

[ronald reagan]

I agree that one can express his opinion openly on BGR. However, due to political correctness and other such abominations, that is not the case anymore in this country. One may express his/her opinion but he/she may well be punished for expressing it.

There's a few quotes that come to mind. "While no one has the right to be wrong.... They still have the right to attempt not to be." and... "While you have the right to free speech... you have no right to an audience."

[TheRealVille]

I'lll make it easy. This all you get. I'm pro choice. Personally, there is no need to get an abortion, other than rape, incest, or the mothers health. There are tons of people that would adopt. It's not my right, or yours, to tell a woman what she can do with her body. That is my opinion, and all you get.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I'lll make it easy. This all you get. I'm pro choice. Personally, there is no need to get an abortion, other than rape, incest, or the mothers health. There are tons of people that would adopt. It's not my right, or yours, to tell a woman what she can do with her body. That is my opinion, and all you get.

Thank you for the standard liberal/pro abortion line. While it may not be our "right" to tell a woman what she can do with her body, it is our responsibility as human beings to speak out against the willful and premeditated killing of our most innocent fellow human beings. That is what human beings who believe in the sanctity and sacredness of life are obligated to do. Of course, since you have a much different personal philosophy, that obligation probably doesn't apply to you.

We who believe in the sanctity and sacredness of human life cannot support abortion actively or passively. We must be true to our beliefs. Therefore, it would be highly inconsnstent for one with such beliefs to vote for your boy in light of the indisputable fact that he is the most pro abortion, anti Christian person to ever live in the White House.

Some tenets are non-negotiable. This is certainly one of them.