http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290...c-mccarthy
Obamaâs abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for â Iâll use his words here â âthat fetus, or child â however way you want to say describe itâ when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was âmovement or some indication that, in fact, theyâre not just coming out limp and dead.â Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting âborn aliveâ legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.
I hope the fires of hell thaw his heart. :devilflam
What about Romney's support for abortion?
ronald reagan Wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290...c-mccarthy
Obamaâs abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for â Iâll use his words here â âthat fetus, or child â however way you want to say describe itâ when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was âmovement or some indication that, in fact, theyâre not just out limp and dead.â Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism b.
y supporting âborn aliveâ legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.
I hope the fires of hell thaw his heart. :devilflam
TheRealVille Wrote:What about Romney's support for abortion?
Romney does not support infanticide and he can distinguish between a newborn baby and a fetus.
i don't think obama supports that. it has been twisted by media.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Romney does not support infanticide and he can distinguish between a newborn baby and a fetus.
Yes he can. Make a couple dollars disposing of the waste.
Kardashian's complete lack of regard for the value of human life should be a surprise to no one. He has had this position all his life. He supports abortion at all levels- partial birth and late term included. He even supports the killing of babies who survive the abortion- lay them aside and let them die.
Modern "science", particularly in the area of DNA, proves conclusively that a baby is a separate being from its "mother" from the moment of conception. It is a human being. That can no longer be argued.
If Kardashian is reelected, you will see the depth of his radicalism. There will be no more elections to stop him. There is no way one can claim to have strong Christian beliefs and vote for him. One cannot rationalize away absolutes even if he is "cool".
Ironically, Kardashian was born prior to Roe v Wade. In light of his heredity and circumstances of birth, one can wonder if he would have been aborted if his mother had a choice.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Kardashian's complete lack of regard for the value of human life should be a surprise to no one. He has had this position all his life. He supports abortion at all levels- partial birth and late term included. He even supports the killing of babies who survive the abortion- lay them aside and let them die.
Modern "science", particularly in the area of DNA, proves conclusively that a baby is a separate being from its "mother" from the moment of conception. It is a human being. That can no longer be argued.
If Kardashian is reelected, you will see the depth of his radicalism. There will be no more elections to stop him. There is no way one can claim to have strong Christian beliefs and vote for him. One cannot rationalize away absolutes even if he is "cool".
Ironically, Kardashian was born prior to Roe v Wade. In light of his heredity and circumstances of birth, one can wonder if he would have been aborted if his mother had a choice.
How long can it survive outside of her womb if removed in the first trimester? Care to show us some of that scientific proof you speak of?
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Kardashian's complete lack of regard for the value of human life should be a surprise to no one. He has had this position all his life. He supports abortion at all levels- partial birth and late term included. He even supports the killing of babies who survive the abortion- lay them aside and let them die.
Modern "science", particularly in the area of DNA, proves conclusively that a baby is a separate being from its "mother" from the moment of conception. It is a human being. That can no longer be argued.
If Kardashian is reelected, you will see the depth of his radicalism. There will be no more elections to stop him. There is no way one can claim to have strong Christian beliefs and vote for him. One cannot rationalize away absolutes even if he is "cool".
Ironically, Kardashian was born prior to Roe v Wade. In light of his heredity and circumstances of birth, one can wonder if he would have been aborted if his mother had a choice.
All of the info I can find on the net points to 20 weeks being what is taught in med school as when the bay is viable. The doctors tell patients that if they can make to 23 weeks, they can save it. The earliest a baby has survived is 21 weeks. Before RvW, there were hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. As a matter of fact, in 1971 or 72(I lost my figures), there were 900 and some thousand abortions, the first year after RvW the number was 1.2 million.
TheRealVille Wrote:How long can it survive outside of her womb if removed in the first trimester? Care to show us some of that scientific proof you speak of?
If it survived for even a nano second... it'd be 'alive'.
The point though, Obama supports allowing a baby to DIE, if it is not killed during the abortion. This is disgusting! You are as well if you support that kind of thing.
ronald reagan Wrote:If it survived for even a nano second... it'd be 'alive'.
The point though, Obama supports allowing a baby to DIE, if it is not killed during the abortion. This is disgusting! You are as well if you support that kind of thing.
Did I offer an opinion? Don't assume you know how I think. I've never offered an opinion, either way. Those articles are opinion articles. What is the legislation number of the Illinois bill?
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Kardashian's complete lack of regard for the value of human life should be a surprise to no one. He has had this position all his life. He supports abortion at all levels- partial birth and late term included. He even supports the killing of babies who survive the abortion- lay them aside and let them die.
Modern "science", particularly in the area of DNA, proves conclusively that a baby is a separate being from its "mother" from the moment of conception. It is a human being. That can no longer be argued.
If Kardashian is reelected, you will see the depth of his radicalism. There will be no more elections to stop him. There is no way one can claim to have strong Christian beliefs and vote for him. One cannot rationalize away absolutes even if he is "cool".
Ironically, Kardashian was born prior to Roe v Wade. In light of his heredity and circumstances of birth, one can wonder if he would have been aborted if his mother had a choice.
Hawaii didn't fully legalize abortion until 1970. So you are correct. As reagan said, "Its funny that the only people who support abortions, are those who have already been born." Sometimes I question my support of pro-life causes, when I see the benefit of allowing them in cases like the current President. Interesting fact is, abortions actually hurt the democrat party. You would think they'd want to grow their numbers. specifically, democrats are killing themselves.
How can anyone even attempt to defend the actions of this man in regards to the original post. TRV becomes more delusional with each post. Its an obsession to elect evil.
Obama supports Infanticide! I support Romney.
---------------------------
TRV, you mention Romney's past support for abortion. That was 20 years ago that he did. Lets be clear, many have once supported it and changed their mind. The man in your last picture signature (Reagan) did just that.
TheRealVille Wrote:Did I offer an opinion? Don't assume you know how I think. I've never offered an opinion, either way. Those articles are opinion articles. What is the legislation number of the Illinois bill?
[YOUTUBE="blah!"]YUkbuhXzbvI[/YOUTUBE]
How about we just let Obama explain it himself.
Quote: essentially, adding a â an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.
disgusting!
[YOUTUBE="new ad"]gwFIEprF_9Y[/YOUTUBE]
ronald reagan Wrote:Oh really?
Disgusting. Supportive.
Well good. I didn't remember that I had expressed that I was against abortion, except for those other type cases. Now you know that I'm mostly against it.
TheRealVille Wrote:Well good. I didn't remember that I had expressed that I was against abortion, except for those other type cases. Now you know that I'm mostly against it.
There's alot you don't remember apparently.
I support abortion in no instance. I'm truly pro-life. Mitt Romney is wrong to support it in cases of rape, incest..... just as wrong as you are. And your support for a womans right to choose, makes you truly pro-choice. And pro-choice is pro-abortion. You can't be 'a little bit pregnant' with this issue. Being 'mostly against' something that you say you support, is the biggest 'have it both ways' comment ever made on this board.
Mostly against equals partly for.
A right leaning court, and a bunch of republican nominated Justices brought you Roe vs. Wade. Blame them.
TheRealVille Wrote:All of the info I can find on the net points to 20 weeks being what is taught in med school as when the bay is viable. The doctors tell patients that if they can make to 23 weeks, they can save it. The earliest a baby has survived is 21 weeks. Before RvW, there were hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. As a matter of fact, in 1971 or 72(I lost my figures), there were 900 and some thousand abortions, the first year after RvW the number was 1.2 million.
Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that, from conception, he/she is a separate human being. That is now established fact. The definition of a human being has nothing to do with viability. Your argument is bull dung, it is immoral, and it is dangerous.
Abortion is the willful killing of another human being. That cannot be disputed any more. Thus, you can go head and support abortion but, in doing so, you support the killing of another. And, unlike in the case of the one receiving the death penalty, your victim was not given his/her Fourteenth Amendment rights provided in the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.
And, for the record, Roe v Wade came down on January 22, 1973.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that, from conception, it is a separate human being. That is now established fact. The definition of a human being has nothing to do with viability. Your argument is bull dung.
Abortion is the willful killing of another human being. That cannot be disputed any more. Thus, you can go head and support abortion but, in doing so, you support the killing of another.
And, for the record, Roe v Wade came down on January 22, 1973.
I know when it came down, that's why I posted figures before abortion was legal, and after.
TheRealVille Wrote:A right leaning court, and a bunch of republican nominated Justices brought you Roe vs. Wade. Blame them.
Because 6 of the 9 were picked by Republicans..... that means they were right leaning? You need to study history. Nixon and Eisenhower were moderates at best......
TheRealVille Wrote:I know when it came down, that's why I posted figures before abortion was legal, and after.
Obviously, any fool could look it up. Where is your rebuttal of the rest of my post? If you are honest, you know you have none. You boys like to rely on "science". Well, my facts are backed by "science".
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Obviously, any fool could look it up. Where is your rebuttal of my the rest of my post? If you are honest, you know you have none. You boys like to rely on "science". Well, my facts are backed by "science".
He hasn't responded to about 15-20 of my posts. Or he'll just pick a line out of it, when the rest of it DESTROYS his arguement. haha. typical liberal. :hilarious:
TheRealVille Wrote:A right leaning court, and a bunch of republican nominated Justices brought you Roe vs. Wade. Blame them.
Wrong again, TheRealVille. Have you ever read Roe v Wade and do you understand the politics of the decision as they apply to Chief Justice Burger. I feel sure that you do not. Do you even know the actual makeup of the USSC in 1972 when the case was argued?
Your simplistic answer coincides with your simplistic approach to the killing of our most innocent- the preborn babies.
Educate yourself and maybe we can have a meaningful discussion. I feel like Clint Eastwood talking to the empty chair. You can argue your secular humanist crap all you want but, in regard to this issue, you are in way over your head.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Wrong again, TheRealVille. Have you ever read Roe v Wade and do you understand the politics of the decision as they apply to Chief Justice Burger. I feel sure that you do not. Do you even know the actual makeup of the USSC in 1972 when the case was argued?
Your simplistic answer coincides with your simplistic approach to the killing of our most innocent- the preborn babies.
Educate yourself and maybe we can have a meaningful discussion. I feel like Clint Eastwood talking to the empty chair. You can argue your secular humanist crap all you want but, in regard to this issue, you are in way over your head.
all you hear from the right is repeal obamacare which probaly will save LIFES but roe vs wade but for some reason you don't hear them trying to repeal it
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Wrong again, TheRealVille. Have you ever read Roe v Wade and do you understand the politics of the decision as they apply to Chief Justice Burger. I feel sure that you do not. Do you even know the actual makeup of the USSC in 1972 when the case was argued?
Your simplistic answer coincides with your simplistic approach to the killing of our most innocent- the preborn babies.
Educate yourself and maybe we can have a meaningful discussion. I feel like Clint Eastwood talking to the empty chair. You can argue your secular humanist crap all you want but, in regard to this issue, you are in way over your head.
I have posted the justices names, and who appointed them on here before. Look it up. I memory serves, 5 of the 7 that voted for RvW were appointed by republicans. And, 6 of the 9 sitting justices were appointed by republicans. Do your work before you say "wrong again". TRT and I have been through this before, maybe he will enlighten you on the numbers. Do your buddies on here a favor, and post the names of the justices who ruled in favor of it, and who appointed them.
I'm a nice guy, I'll help you. I found this pretty quick, and didn't have to lookup the paper I had it written on. If you've got a beef with R v W, again, blame republican Presidents.
Quote:Majority
Harry Blackmun
Warren E. Burger
William O. Douglas
William J. Brennan
Potter Stewart
Thurgood Marshall
Lewis Powell
Minority
Byron White
William Rehnquist
Blackmun, who penned the Supreme Court’s final Majority opinion, was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon. Also appointed by Nixon were Burgher and Powell. So far, three of the seven Justices in the Majority were appointed by a Republican President. But do not forget that Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. This means that five of the seven Majority Justices were appointed by Republican presidents (Douglas and Marshall were appointed by Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively). What’s more, take the two Democratic-appointed judges out of the Majority, and you are still left with all-Republican majority of the Court that legalizes abortion.
Only White (appointed by Democratic President John F. Kennedy) and Renquist (appointed by Nixon) opposed the Court’s decision to legalize abortion in the United States.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/05/21/are-liber...oe-v-wade/
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Obviously, any fool could look it up. Where is your rebuttal of the rest of my post? If you are honest, you know you have none. You boys like to rely on "science". Well, my facts are backed by "science".
I'll go with the medical people on when a fetus is viable, not right wing, religious opinions.
TheRealVille Wrote:I'll go with the medical people on when a fetus is viable, not right wing, religious opinions.
Can't you read. Viability has nothing to do with whether or not it is a separate being from the woman carrying it. It is a separate being. That cannot be argued. Your continual use of viability is a crutch. You are wrong. You have no valid argument.
TheRealVille Wrote:I have posted the justices names, and who appointed them on here before. Look it up. I memory serves, 5 of the 7 that voted for RvW were appointed by republicans. And, 6 of the 9 sitting justices were appointed by republicans. Do your work before you say "wrong again". TRT and I have been through this before, maybe he will enlighten you on the numbers. Do your buddies on here a favor, and post the names of the justices who ruled in favor of it, and who appointed them.
It would not be possible for you to "enlighten" me in regard to Roe v Wade. Whether it be the make up of the Court, the arguments made during oral arguments, the maneuvering by the members of the Court, Blackmun's majority decision and why he was chosen by Burger to write it, the fiat of Blackmun creating the trimester distinctions, Burger's uncharacteristic vote with the majority, White's stinging dissent, or anything else in regard to this case, you are, as they say, coming to a gun fight with a pocket knife. Forget it.
TheRealVille Wrote:I'm a nice guy, I'll help you. I found this pretty quick, and didn't have to lookup the paper I had it written on. If you've got a beef with R v W, again, blame republican Presidents.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/05/21/are-liber...oe-v-wade/
Thats the most ridiculous arguement to ever be posted on here. Liberal judges ARE to be blamed for roe v wade. Richard Nixon was to the left of Billy Clinton. Eisenhower wasn't exactly a conservative either. Your knowledge of politics is non existent.
I don't even know why we're talking about Roe v. Wade and 'blame'. Regardless of who did what legally speaking, the problem isn't with the courts.... Its with the people that do it, perform it, and support it. You can 'go with the medical community'... but that'd probably make you against abortion SINCE:
Quote:The new report, published today in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, finds 97 percent of physicians surveyed say they have encountered patients wanting an abortion while only 14 percent of doctors are willing to do an abortion. Thatâs lower than the 22 percent of doctors who said they would do an abortion in the last poll, from 2008.
Whats funny about your position is this... You say you're against abortion, but support others who do. Then you say also that you support the medical community. Why are you against abortion? Considering that you're making the case over and over that its ok to have one, and you support those who do. I mean its the most contradicting stance I've ever heard of. And if abortion is wrong, or even right....... then why are you one step in and one step out on the issue? Why on earth would anyone support something just because its legal? Does that mean when its overturned, you'll not support it anymore? That sure sounds alot like having no spine. ie being a liberal whack job. Is the wind blowing? or are you just confused about what you believe? either way... you're on record multiple times supporting it, and more importantly.... because its legal. Leads one to wonder what else you'd support if it were legal? Child molestation? check. rape? check. murder? check. stealing? check. arson? absolutely.