After he loses the GOP primary, the next thing to do is to work on getting him the hell out of Austin. This man is an embarrassment to the state of Texas.

He's an embarrassment to the human race.

That too.

Any politician that makes a pledge to anyone other than the american voters should not be allowed in office; they have a conflict of interest and can not be trusted to do what is right for their constituents.

I wonder how he would feel about surgically terminating an ectopic pregnancy, one where the fetus is in the fallopian tube and the tube has torn, threatening the mother with bleeding to death internally. This happened to my step-daughter. If the pregnancy had not been terminated (aborted), she'd have bled to death and thus never been able to give me the two beautiful (adult) grandchildren that I am privileged to love today. So there, Perry. I'm conservative, but will not tolerate ypour new stance on abortion.

At least he has the balls to say what he believes. I can't say that about politicians on either side. They all lie, cheat, etc... to garner votes.

So what is it? Is it Perry himself, or is it that people are against abortion? We know libbies love killing the little critters in the womb at a womans request. After all, isn't an aborted baby just a hunk of flesh? Killing it is painless, right? Slicing and dicing is the preferred method, correct? There is absolutely no meaning into killing an unborn baby... and your champion says, abort them even if they've been partially born. That's right, that's Obama's stance...

All hail Obama!! Pro partial birth abortions. Whatta guy!

Moral accusations are counterproductive? To whom? What is killing unborn babies? MORAL?!?!?!

IntheMiddle, TX said, "At least he has the balls to say what he believes. I can't say that about politicians on either side. They all lie, cheat, etc... to garner votes."

What he believes? Are you paying ANY attention here? He opposed it until today. What will he believe tomorrow?

And Rick Perry is totally honest..lol..he is told what to believe and when to believe it.

What is it with GOP candidates? Must they all be so extreme? Why do we always have to choose between the backward far-right or the lunatic far-left? Are there any moderates in this country?

Hey BrianB, why don't you provide some context to the so called morality you are try woefully to espouse upon others.

Hmmm? So why not try voting for the ONLY candidate who has never flip-flopped? I wonder who that could be? {sarcasm}

They go back and forth,

and back and forth,

and they're playin' all night,

they think the people aren't bright,

Perry's got ol' Newt,

and Romney never sleeps at night.

H-b-bee, h-b-bee. Uh... That's all, folks!

THIS is a tough call I believe life begins at conception , I also believe in choice , you can chose not to get pregnant , HOWEVER in some cases that choice is removed , and in these circumstances , the choice must reside with the women , as would also be the case where the women's own life was in danger , The fact that a women chooses not to take precautions to prevent conception does not allow for abortion on demand which is Murder , in my belief , it comes down to individual responsibility in making the choices , If a women does not want to raise the unwanted child there are lots of people who do, so that is not an acceptable excuse for murder,

What a skank. Why even try to fool people? Just come out and say I am pandering to the righties because me butt is getting kicked. Wow, that's nice that a woman admits she was part of a rape. Did she ever ask her mother how it felt to carry that stigma with her for life? Don't you just love all these get government off our back repubs who just want to snoop and tell you how to run your life? Barry Goldwater would be disgusted by these panderers. BTW, Goldwater took his daughter to have an abortion because she was not ready to provice for a child. AND his favorite grandson is gay. Guess Barry wouldn't stand a chance of being a republican these days. How about this, all you pro-birthers: If you daughter was raped and impregnated by a Mexican illegal, how overjoyed would you be to have her keep the baby?

Brianb:
It ain't a baby till it's born...until then its a fetus. And yes, it's OK to either nurture it or get rid of it.

Late term abortions ("partial birth" being the safest methodology) are usually only done when the mother's life or long term health is being threated.

HEY itm tx what the hell do you think Perry just did. that the biggest flip flop I just heard.

What about multiple fertilized eggs for the woman trying to get pregnant? Let's see...they call it "culling" in those circumstances, but, really, it's abortion. How many would you like to keep? That's the question when there are multiple "takes." Come on! Is Rick Perry stepping in to stop these medically determined "culling" situations? And if he were raped, would he want to be denied medical treatment? These Republicans are making me crazy.

What about multiple fertilized eggs for the woman trying to get pregnant? Let's see...they call it "culling" in those circumstances, but, really, it's abortion. How many would you like to keep? That's the question when there are multiple "takes." Come on! Is Rick Perry stepping in to stop these medically determined "culling" situations? And if he were raped, would he want to be denied medical treatment? These Republicans are making me crazy.

Perry is a liar, and he has absolutely no morality... of his own.

I'm Catholic and I know where the church stands on abortion. Having said that, no priest or politician has the right to tell me what I can do with my body. Morally I think abortion is wrong but I will defend any woman's decision to have one if that is what she really needs to do. Perry is a moron and will say whatever he thinks will get him elected.

brianb you appear to be incapable of accepting other peoples viewpoints, you will never be happy until you have forced your views unto all.

and the "late term" abortions are only done in serious health threat cases, not because the mom "suddenly changed her mind"

Poor Perry. The republican boat has capsized in that proverbial creek out in Iowa. Newt and the Dead man are yet afloat, but poor Rick just can't seem to catch a buoyant "turd" worthy of the weight of his campaign.

I guess Perry felt he needed to figure out a way to pander to the anti-choice religious fanatics and managed to find a way by saying he was so moved.

There is a reason people don't trust politicians - you can't; they talk out of both sides of their mouths saying differing things at the same time and don't give a damn about what they say as long as someone is listening who might be able to help them get elected - both parties - equally guilty.

The Republicans just never can seem to get it through their heads that they are shooting themselves in the foot every time they trot out this hateful, nasty "anti-abortion" B. S. and in the process make them undesirable to elect - even by someone who can't stand Obama. Dumb as the porverbial post.

Yee-yaw, Rick 'n' the Republican Round-up! When ya bringin' in the burkas?

Perry and his ilk would not know honor if staring them straight in the face. In a FREE country, the fed and state govt should not dictate in these private family matters period. Phony conservatives play on peoples fears. The ONLY answer and solution is the rightous family structure. That is OUR responsibility, not govts.

The Republican electorate simply cannot buy a thrill. If they had a candidate of any caliber whatsoever there would be a potential Republican president with an excellent chance of election. The Old Guard Republican Party has trotted out the halt and the lame and now the stupid. Abortion is a hot button issue; even Independents like me know that. You go in with a position on hot button issues and you bloody well stick with it. Even if the religious right believed his conversion, there aren't enough of them to elect a president on this single issue alone. He would have to have something other to offer and he hasn't. He is simply another entry in the Republican GONG SHOW. I want to see Obama gone but not at the expense of common sense. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

Perry's pandering to the tea party types reminds me of a Rocky & Bullwinkle episode:

Fearless Leader: Boris, you are a schniveling boot licker!

(Offers his boot - Boris drops to his knees and begins slurping)

Fearless Leader: Fortunately for you, vee happen to like schniveling boot lickers.

I don't see Perry playing the Fearless Leader.

If the republinazis really wanted to put an end to abortion they would stop advocating abstinence only programs. It's the lack of sex education that leads to unwanted pregnancies and thus, abortions. What they truly want is a government that gives no services, no benefits and no security to anyone going through a tough time, but they certainly want to be in your doctors office, in your bedroom and to govern every aspect of your life as they see by their f'ed up interpretation of the Bible.

If this is true, then it confirms that Perry is completely insane, desperate, frantic and out of control. If he doesn't like abortion, then he shouldn't have one.

But in a free society, the government shouldn't be able to force a woman to have a baby that she doesn't want to have... nor should government be able to force a woman, or a man, for that matter, into a retirement program they don't want to participate in.

Ok so Rick Perry has suddenly decided his last chance is the American Taliban vote to subjugate women completely and remove them from the Constitution's rights of privacy and safe, LEGAL abortions. How pathetic can one ill-educated, pandering extremist get before he's completely marginalized from this race?

Zossima: You have your moral dilemma if you must. Among those who believe in what America stands for, there can be no debate. Your values do not trump all others. Your decisions are irrelevant except in guiding your own choices. Abortion is legal. What hypocracy you display to actually debate whether a woman meets YOUR standard of intelligence in making this choice. There are only two possibilities in the US. Women are either part of the constitution, full human beings accorded full rights under it, or they are no better off than the women of Iraq and the totalitarian states we supposedly stand against, subservient to the will of the state solely because they are women.

If there are any women on this board old enough to remember the fight over the equal rights amendment--over adding the simple words "no rights in this constituiton shall be abridged on account of gender"---you will remember that it was loudly denounced as unnecessary by the far right. Can there be any doubt now that women's rights are up for grabs for whatever extremist can help sway an election and buy off a politican in the process?

Anothony: where does your extremism end?? Your warped views would outlaw contraceptives. Your warped views would jail women to force them through unwanted pregnancy. Your warped extremism would reinstitute back alley abortionists. Your fanatacism that insists women are mere incubators with no constitutional rights does not hold legal sway in this country. That's the way it should be. That's the way it will stay. You and your ilk argue for a separate sub-classification for women--not quite fully responsible enough under the Constitution to make their own choices. The state must make that for them? There's no going back and I don't care how many Rick Perrys desperately plea for votes. Your American Taliban movement has no place here.

No Anthony: women are not a separate classification of some sort of limited rights human being. What an absurd argument to make in the United States. Women are fully and completely covered under the US Constitution by law whether you approve of the choice they make under that law or not. This is not Iran and we have no Taliban party and this is not your decision to make for anyone else. Women are not irrelevant "carriers" waiting for your ok or their government's ok about what they can do or not do with their own pregnancies. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

don't let the door hit you...this isn't a subject for boys.

BrianB - If you're so worried about unborn babies - then why aren't you as worried that the US ranks 15th in the Infant Mortality Rate - seems hypocritical to me - Yeah birth them, but don't care about prenatal care or caring for these babes after they're born

The heighth of hyprocacy!

@Anthony T

When are you going to make up your mind how you would approach this? First "absolutely not under ANY circumstance! Then," well if the wording can promise that it will only be if there is the imminent possibility of death for the mother " Then you also say" you don't think the goverment should make that decision for the family" Right after that you offer up your wife to continue to carry the baby as long as possible . "maybe the child might survive? Really ? Maybe your wife might not ! Someone made the remark "those that forget the past are bound to make the same mistakes " Well I remember that before abortions became legal women NOT men had to go to butchers to terminate or try to terminate it themselves in ways that were very dangerous. Why don't all you men have reversable vasecctomys since it's the male species that are the ones responsible for pregnancys caused by rape!?? How is it in this day & age men are still trying to mandate what only women can experience?? Who the hell are you all kidding? I have no plans on standing back while men try to dictate what the women of today are able to decide with or without their partners or rapists! My daughters & grand daughters should & do have the right to decide for themselves what they want to do if they should ever face the problem. I will not try to decide for them nor do I want a bunch of politicians to infuence or stand in the way of that decision. If they decide to get an abortion I want a safe clean medical facility available to them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but never the right to put women in danger when that person isn't going to pay the consequenses! I hope none of these things ever happen to some one you love. The End !

don't let the door hit you...this isn't a subject for boys.

In reality, it is just as much a concern for us boys as it is for you girls. I love my daughters to pieces and I would simply fight a war with these extremists long before I would have them control and force my daughters to live according to their beliefs.

Well said, well said. Hats off...

Anthony T... you're not as smart as you think you are. Tubular pregnancies happen more often than you realize and the baby will NOT be viable and the mother may DIE if this pregnancy is not ended immediately. Maybe you should go work in a high-risk OB-GYN clinic for awhile before you start spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about.

And, as for babies born out of rape or incest, are you opening your home to take these unwanted babies in? I cannot imagine being forced to carry and give birth to a child that was conceived as a result of my being raped! Nor can I imagine carrying and giving birth to my own father's child! No man has the right to tell me what I MUST do with my body, especially a GOVERNMENT official! You hardliners make me sick.... no reasoning whatsoever. I cannot even imagine the physological damage that would be done to a woman in either one of these scenarios.

If you think Perry or any of the rest of his ilk would not allow their wives have an abortion if their wives(I pray it never happens) were raped and became pregnant. So tell me, if a single mother becomes pregnant and her pregnancy cost her her life who will pay to raise her child? Republicans do not want to pay for it, that's welfare. Why do these NUTS sign all these Oaths to Religious and Political NUTS saying they will Disavow the Oath to the Constitution and All the people of the U S. The Oath of Office is to Uphold the Constitution of the United States.

hey after all, rapists and molesters should feel secure in the knowledge that they can make their victims suffer at least for another nine months.

So you think Life begins at Conception. Answer me this, what percentage of the times do you think an egg is fertilized and does Not attach to the uterine wall? Is it Never, 5%, 10% or more, Look it up. Question 2, Do we charge the woman with Murder when this happens (Clue,she is not on the pill, if its Gods Will then God is a Murderer) and how can we know? Question 3, If one of the functions of the "PILL" is to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall do we charge every woman on the "PILL" with murder?

Hey all of you right to life hypocrites. You basis for supporting your position is full of crap. The Bible was written by ignorant, superstitious morons. That’s why what's in it makes no sense. If life is so precious that no matter what the circumstance, it must be allowed to flourish, why did God kill the first born of Egypt? What did the first born of Egypt (mostly children) have to do with anything going on between the Egyptians and the Jews? It was just BS written down by superstitious morons. Otherwise, your God is a sadistic b-stard that doesn't follow his own rules. Let's use another example. If life is so precious that it should be allowed to flourish, why did God wipe out all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah? Again, these were stories written into the bible by superstitious morons that had no other explanation for what took place. Otherwise, your God is a blood-thirsty savage that doesn't give a rat’s a$$ about the people he created. So, you mindless minions of the "idiotic" word of the bible, the sooner you wake up to reality, the sooner you will free yourselves of the autocratic dogma of those that want to control your thoughts—Priests, ministers, Rabbis, and other holier than thou idiots. It’s time you got off of your righteous horse and give us all a break. We're really tired of your BS.

Why do these NUTS sign all these Oaths to Religious and Political NUTS saying they will Disavow the Oath to the Constitution and All the people of the U S. The Oath of Office is to Uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Excellent points, Joe. All of these special-interest oaths do, in fact, bring into question the candidate's ability to uphold the actual oath of office.

The Constitution is there to protect ALL of us - not to be a tool for the extremists to twist and break.

Anthony T - I dont want to hear from you I want to hear from your wife - does she share your views?

I guess the bottom line on this one will be decided upon death. If there's a God waiting for you, I'm sure he or she will let you know one way or the other and whether or not there will be consequences to your actions. So really what the law says may not matter at all.

Has anyone else noticed that the more money that we spend on sex education, the greater the rise in unwanted pregnancies? Anyone have a good explanation for this?

You see, as I have oh so often stated,.. The GOP are ALWAYS the opposite of what they claim to be. Making them liars. Small government? Fiscal responsibility? Freedom to be free? Hmmmm. It would seem more than any they wish to squash freedoms from here to there all the while blaming others for what they have done and are doing. .. ;]

Cheers

Has anyone else noticed that the more money that we spend on sex education, the greater the rise in unwanted pregnancies?

have you noticed they rise much faster with the "abstinence only" education?

@AG99

Because he thinks most of his supporters are also at such an extreme end of the scale. And he is right now, he just pushed away all Moderate Republicans; political suicide essentially.

Just goes to show you, politicians will say or do anything if they are down in the polls. This is why we need to have and enforce clean and factual elections; no mud slinging, no flip flopping say only what you really believe or get the **** out of the way for someone who can.

I would have thought that the GOP candidates would have listened to the states that have tried to legislate personhood at conception and heard the thunderous vote of NO. This kind of relgious extremism might play in Iowa but he just ended any hope(not that he ever had much) of winning votes in more moderate states.

Ron Paul claims to be a libertarian but even he caved to the personhood extremism.

Stick a fork in the lot of them because America has bigger problems than legislating morality at the sake of women's rights but that isn't as popular as playing "I can be more extreme that you".

The driving force behind the Anti-Abortion "Personhood" Laws being passed on the State level in several states, are run by political leaders in the Religious Right that are -- according to the Southern Poverty Law Center -- active members of a theological, racist secessionist group called, "The League of the South," that advocates that all 50 States break away from the U.S. Federal Government and form their own separate confederate countries based on Biblical Law.

www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/league-of-the-south

Excerpts from the Mother Jones reporter that investigated the proposed 'Personhood' laws, and who in the Religious Right are the architects of this ill-conceived amendment:

motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/race-gender-selection-abortion-bills-trent-franks

motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/abortion-mississippi-les-riley

A friend in Wisconsin, majoring in Law, sent me this by email:

The Religious Right’s Personhood Amendment would make these items, preventative measures and medical procedures ILLEGAL in the U.S.: genetic research into human diseases that arise in the developing fetus, all contraceptives becomes illegal, procedure to save the life of the mother in the case of ectopic pregnancies and other unusual, life-threatening conditions, including malformed fetuses. It would also make illegal, “morning-after” pills, abortions in the case of rape or sibling-inbred pregnancies from incest, and in-vitro fertilization.

In contrast, the Personhood Amendment would make perfectly legal, the homicide of abortion clinic doctors and the arrest and jailing of any medical practitioner that gave family-planning advice or advice to get an abortion in the case of rape, incest pregnancies, and if the life of the mother was medically threatened.

The Personhood law would also promote the turning in of anyone that discusses the possibility of implementing any of the above items or procedures.

The Personhood Amendment would also create massive cottage industries to render insurance policies to the unborn and grant property rights and other speculative financial and asset instruments to the unborn, for a private-sector profit.

It would also create taxation laws to reward pregnant mothers (or in some cases, tax them even more), and financially disadvantage women who cannot or will not for whatever reason, get pregnant on a year-by-year, state-government monitored basis.

No sweat off of Perry's ____, he certainly won't be having an abortion. He has NO problem forcing a 14, 15, or 16 year old girl to have a baby who was raped by a blood relative. Let's hear it for forced motherhood and unwanted children!!!!!! This is what EVERY woman just dreams about!

Sounds an awful lot like infanticide. Would you then be an advocate of the Caylee Anthony murder? Mom doesn't want the baby.

There is NO way that you could possibly be THAT far gone mentally... as to not know the difference between a fetus and an actual, living, breathing person who has already been born. Surely, despite most likely being a victim of our public education system - even YOU must be able to grasp that.

I never......EVER ......E V E R... mentioned the killing of childen who had actually been BORN.

Anthony T...no one is saying the life of an unborn, from embryo, to fetus to infant doesn't have worth. However, when pro-life people say, no abortions period, no exceptions end of story, they are saying the mother has no worth; that the mother's life, mental and/or physical health is irrelevant as long as the embryo/fetus/infant survives.

Let's look at Perry's "change of heart" and the idea that he was so moved by tis interview or whatever. So, one woman manages to emotionally and mentally "heal" from her rape and subsequent pregnancy and child. Does this automatically negate the other women, or even children, who are raped and get pregnant? Is Perry actually, even if subtley, saying that every female who is a vicitm of a rape and resulting pregnancy is going to have that same mental/emotional strength?

Any "candidate" that signed that pledge is a danger. In essence, what they are saying is that the life and psychological health of a living, breathing, awake and aware human being, that being the MOTHER, is worth nothing the moment she conceives.

I am against abortion as a form of birth control, however, I do firmly believe there are times when an abortion becomes medically necessary. Humanitarian reasons, to save the fetus from a life of pain from gross and untreatable deformities, life saving reasons for the mother in cases of unjury/illness and psychological reasons for the mother in the event of rape/incest. No one, and I do mean no one, could ever tell me that a child who is the victim of incest and forced to bear a resulting child, isn't phsychologically scarred and forcing a child as young as 11, which I believe is the youngest I've seen in that situation, is or can be very dangerous to her life, even if the pregnancy proceeds "normally" the ongoing mental health and physical well being.

There is no such thing as an honest Creationist.

Here's a little excercise for you anti-abortion kids out there:

You're in a burning doctor's office, you look down and to your left is a small refrigerator filled with viable embryos, 100,000 viable embryos. You hear a noise, and to your right you see 1 living, breathing, crying child.

You can only take one to safety. Which do you choose?

Joe...you are confusing the two "pills." The birth control version, the one taken monthly, prevents ovulation, meaning the egg is never released. The morning after pill is the one that prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. That is why so many pro-lifers call the morning after pill the abortion pill which it isn't. If the fertilized egg has already attached, the morning after pill will simply not work.

The right wing claims they want government out of our lives, and yet they would force a child who has been the victim of rape or incest to bear a child that resulted from a crime committed upon them. Jaycee Dugard would have been forced to bear the children of the man who kidnapped and raped her under their rule.

Government has no business deciding for women when and with whom they must bear children. We are not farm animals.

We have heard Man Coulter railing about the scourge of single motherhood. I suppose women who are raped and molested and then forced to bear the children of unwanted pregnancies would be excoriated by her too.

Please, give women the right to decide to bear children when they are prepared to do so willingly and properly. Raising children is too important to be left to chance or mandated by the government.

The right wing claims they want government out of our lives

They say that "this is different" - that imposing a religious precept on women who do not subscribe to that religious precept is somehow noble, while imposing compassion, consideration for others, and charity toward the less fortunate, is somehow sinful.

Two hundred years ago, the most common cause of death among young women was childbirth. Right winger regressive policies that would force women to give birth under any and all circumstances would return us to those times, leaving many of those forced-birth children motherless.

What, really, is behind such backward thinking? If it is 'morality' then where is the morality in forcing a woman or even a girl to endanger her physical and emotional health? What is to stop a rapist from deliberately attempting to impregnate women, knowing they would be forced to bear his children?

For serial kidnapper and rapist Gary Heidnik of Philadelphia, said to be the inspiration for the character of Jame Gumb aka Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs, such a law would be a dream come true. His “master plan” involved impregnating women by force. He complained about not having a family. He had four children with four different women but all the kids had been taken away from him and it was unlikely that he would ever get a chance to raise them.

Since what he said he really wanted was to have an extended family, he took it upon himself to kidnap and rape women to bear his children. Since they would not be willing, he dug a hole in his basement floor to keep them. He had to have somewhere to put the women he imprisoned as slaves to bear his children.

But that would be OK with right wingers? Not illegal, certainly, if women were forced to bear the children conceived of rape.

Rick Perry, Ayatollah of the American Taliban. Next women will lose the vote and only white male property owners will be allowed to vote. The "Ten Commandments" will become THE law of the land with each state dictating it's own interpretation of those commandments. We'll have "prayer squads" in schools to enforce the mandatory prayer and (Christian) religion classes and any one espousing a belief in anything other than intelligent design will be burned at the stake as a "heretic". We'll have "Christian Morality Police" poking their noses into our private lives and in addition to sales tax, state tax and federal tax you'll have to pay a "tithe" to the Christian church of your choice (or one will be selected for you).

You'd better not be Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or (gasp!) and Atheist, your lives won't be worth living in the new "Christian" America. And just like the moderate Republicans soon the Methodists, Anglicans, and other more "liberal" Protestant sects won't be "Christian enough" and they'll suffer just like the non-believers.

The Bill of Rights, only for Christians. The Constitution, only applies to Christians (that's who the founding fathers were talking about when they wrote it right? White Christian males?) Freedom of Speech, Religion, right of assembly and association? Only if you're a Christian doing "God's work".

The politics of extremism scare the HOLY CRAP out of me!

Obama/Biden 2012

If the state has the right to tell a women she cannot have an abortion, the state has the right to tell a women she must have an abortion. Christian evangelicals see women as subservient brood mares to their husbands. It's all about power over the female gender. If men could get pregnant there would be hundreds of reasons to have legal abortions and there would be an abortion clinic on every corner.

They can rant and rave and sign pledges. They will not prevent abortion. They will only make it unsafe again. Abortion has been around as long as copulation has been around. A bunch of backward thinking politicians and religious busy-bodies are not going to stop abortion.

He should just STFU and go die somewhere!

Can we recall him as governor once he comes back to TX with his tail between his legs? Someone PLEASE start the recall petition!

if the abortion procedure is ''interfering with god's will'' ---then logic would follow that invitro fertilization can be described as such. i don't hear the religious extremists crying out against interferring with infertility-----guess their play book (bible) does not have some irrefutable quote regarding procedures ''creating life''. keep abortion optional and safe!

ideologyspoilstheview

Well ladies, how will it feel to be owned by the state? Welcome to the Theocracy.

May well be true, but we're all letting emotion drive us right past our convictions...

You may or may not believe in abortion, but should the government be legislating on it?

I am sick and tired of government thinking that the resolution to ethical and moral issues is legislation. I thought that was what the GOP was all about... staying out of our business and personal lives.

right winger: Gov has no right to tell me whether or not to bear arms.

right winger: The gov has every right to tell a woman whether or not to bear a child.

morons.

Oh hell no! My daughter's body belongs to her, not to anyone else & certainly not the state!

what a complete moron! how dare he attempt to have say over my body or my sister's body or my daughter's body! if i were raped and became pregnant, there would be nothing stopping me from aborting the pregnancy. it would be done immediately. how dare someone try and tell me i would have to carry, deliver and raise a child from a man who raped me! screw him!!!

I have noticed that none of the politicians or others who oppose abortion in all cases, including rape and incest have any plans to assist the victimized woman in any way. The woman is expected to bear her unwanted child and either arrange for adoption or keep the child as a life-long reminder of her trauma.

What kind of future can we expect for either the mother or this child?

@ Brian, uhm you know we have 7 billion people on this planet right?

That said we're not some rare animal that needs protection from everything and we are FAR from unique. If there were 10,000 or less of us, then EVERYONE counts but 'til then 'tis no reason to sweat abortion. Besides, why dosn't we also see all the outraged folks living in abject poverty because they gave EVERY penny they ever had to care for babies?

I have the perfect cure for abortion...castrate all of the men. I say we start with Brian, Anthony and Rick Perry since they are so concerned for the "cause".

Are any of us surprised that "evangelicals" oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest? If it weren't for inbreeding, there wouldn't be any "evangelicals"!

It does also seem as though many men, not all, who wish to have there wives bow down as subservient seem to have a NEED to control all women. Through government intervention. To the point that they will make no, FORCE a woman to die in order to have a baby they may or may not want. How about un equal pay for women for so many years as an example as second class warfare?

Some men with power have a maniacal drive to control others through direct and or indirect means. Using government to enforce religious values on all even when all people do not subscribe to the religion is what? How many times has the U.S. denounced this in Muslim controlled countries? Hmmm.

Only to have the hypocritical aspect of the evangelical come to fruition time and time again. ; ]

If ALL life is soooo important whose decision is it to decide how important whose life is? Is the mothers life not as important as an unborn baby? To her parents? Her husband? Other child? Friends? Hmmm.

Cheers

I think the underlying belief to this is they believe sex outside of marriage is a sin. Prochoice dot org statistics report 83% of women who get abortions are unmarried. I seriously wonder if the right cares so much about the fetuses, or if they actually want to "punish" unmarried women for being sexually active. Often people on the right will make statements like, "they should keep their legs closed." In any case, I believe the two issues are connected. The right pushes abstinance until marriage, but they can't outlaw premarital sex. I think one of the reasons they hate Planned Parenthood so much is that PP offers free birth control to low income women, who are less likely to have traditional families, and who represent 57% of abortions. The sad truth is these poor, unmarried women who are least able to care for a child are the ones who are most impacted by abortion restrictions.

Why is this still an issue? Look at the number of posts that are from men. Guess what?? As a man, we have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Period. Anymore than someone in Washington has any right to tell a man what to do with theirs. However you want to look at it, If i wanted to go to my physician and have a vasectomy, it's my choice. These people who scream the loudest about Pro-Life are also Pro-Death Penalty.

This is a medical issue and has no business being in politics.

folks - anthony, brian, Bachman, Perry etc. are all from the same pod .... nutcases. Why respond to them, they are extremist and what is wrong with America.

Under a Perry administration, if I could, I would personally see to it that all the babies born to mothers who did not want them would be delivered to the president's doorstep for him to raise to adulthood at his own expense. If he wants to turn this country into a theocracy, he has to take the consequences.

@ Brian, uhm you know we have 7 billion people on this planet right?

... on a planet God created to support only about 2 billion people. If Judeo-Christian belief is to be believed, then the inescapable conclusion is that people misunderstood God's command to be fruitful and multiply. He wouldn't have instructed people to overpopulate his earth! Respect for God would reasonably demand no more than one child per family until God's vision, as revealed by the amount of resources He set forth for humanity to steward, is regained. Yet how many Jews and Christians have more than one child, thereby effectively defiling God's vision?

Walt: be fruitful and multiply

When "God" said that, he was instructing us to learn our times-tables.

You know what this hole issue about abortion is? The TEA PARTY GOP candidates and Christians alike, don't want abortions to be used as birth control, plus if it is paid for by a government agency, state or federal, that mean the government approves of it, so they want all abortions stopped, no matter what the conditions are. If they approve of one then they have to approve of all abortions. They can't decide which abortions they can allow or which ones they can't allow. GOPs are all the same in everything they talk or debate about, NEVER CAN MAKE A DISSION ON ANY SUBJECT.

WaltDIS

The problem with your "God" argument is that you have nothing to back up your "created to support only about 2 billion people" argument except rational thought, and nothing about creationism has anything to do with rational thought.

don, you should read the second sentence of waltdis's comment

When "God" said that, he was instructing us to learn our times-tables.

And eat bananas!

The problem with your "God" argument is that you have nothing to back up your "created to support only about 2 billion people" argument except rational thought, and nothing about creationism has anything to do with rational thought.

You are correct, sir.

Actually JT,

He's moved way beyond right into that far, far land of wrongies....

Remember Perry, our political system IS SEPARATED FROM CHURCH.

• Perry, please tell us HOW MANY ADOPTED CHILDREN YOU HAVE ?

None ? .........................................By the way, Perry looks funny on GOLDEN HI-HEELS but I bet you, he prefers his red ones.

Next up - Perry will remove his teeth and bark like a dog. That should put him over the top.

Perry is an idiot - let's say goodbye to him, now.

Hey, at least he didn't forget his lines this time.

I agree with Rick Perry 100%! He has, as he said, ungone a "Transformation"! He has transformed from a Republican Presidential Candidate to a 'political-whore', pandering and 'selling' his beliefs for even one vote from the Fundalmetalist, and non-rational, Christians! And so the GOP Circus continues!

While I support the right to an abortion, I also agree with Brianb. You can be against abortion and still be an atheist. I can see how one might believe life begins at conception from a biological point of view. Nothing religious in that.

Brianb, you know what I mean - it's fruitless to get into the debate of how fertilized egg and/or embryo which has 'potential' to become a fetus has been politicized.

What I mean to say is - if we as a country start basing our decisions regarding what's good and what's evil on any sort of 'religious dogma' and not rational humanitarian thinking, our decisions most likely will NOT yield productive results for our country as a whole; and, it is clear as day that abortion is used as a tool to get right wing votes.

An embryo has 'potential' to become a 'fetus', then 'potential' to become a baby. I am against using abortion as a birth control method, however, I can't agree with banning it for health and rape reasons - that's just slaughtering the mother who has feelings and loved ones! A potential human is not exactly a human capable of emotions/feelings yet. I find it highly distasteful that the right uses this as a tool to get votes.

Abortion is a humanitarian issue. Millions of our fellow human beings are being slaughtered because 9 people in this country said they could.

The Supreme Court never said that. They determined that one abortion law in this country was un-Constitutional. The 49 other states had similar laws, that would have also been un-Constituional. The Supreme Court NEVER legalized abortions.

Don't want abortions, ok so don't have one.

On another thought, if you really want to end abortions start teaching kids proper sex education. I'm clearly pro-choice, but I am of course anti-abortion, meaning I wish there were no more abortions. I wish women would stop getting raped, I wish there weren't pregnancies that threatened the life of expecting mothers, and I wish everyone who didn't want a child didn't have one, but since they all happen and since we don't live in a theocracy I will leave their decisions up to them.

I would like to know if anyone against abortion is also against abstinence only programs. Probably not, logic isn't a christian conservative's strong point.

ZZ: this isn't about whether YOU personally approve of any woman's choice in having an abortion, or whether she needs YOUR permission to get one. Abortion is legal. Your ability to force your opinion on any woman is not legal, not yet anyway.

Raddave: What the supreme court said was that up until the point a fetus can live without a woman, outside the womb, on its own, the government has no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do on the issue of abortion. The state may not disregard a woman's right to privacy. THAT's why abortion is legal. Women are not going back...no matter how you twist it.

AP - I never said I wanted to go back and I never tried to twist the matter either. I just gave my personal opinion - I have no intention to force it on anyone! Wow - I'm sorry I guess I was not clear! I don't think the government should ban abortion and that's what I would vote for if I needed to - there are boundaries though, especially with late stage abortions unless a woman's life is in danger. My main concern here is that women's rights to get an abortion is being used for political benefits through voters religious beliefs - this topic should no longer be used in politics.

ZZ: apologies...but next time you might ask yourself how many women you personally know use abortion as "birth control" before repeating such absurd fundamentalist propaganda.

AP, unfortunately I do know people who have had abortions for that purpose, and that's why I brought it up - I'm not into repeating absurd fundamentalist propagandas.. and thank you :)

Sorry ZZ but I don't believe the "I know people" routine for a minute. Regardless, these kinds of statements about why women have abortions are irrelevant. As long as it's a legal abortion, it need not be justified.

Okay - I have a solution - I would like to have one of my women Representatives bring forth a bill banning vasectomies and let's throw in Viagra and Cialis - see how many of the religious right would vote for that?

No sperm - no babies - simple yes?

You attack women's rights what about men's rights?

AP - Everything needs to be justified. Your presence on this board is justified by your desire to discuss current topics. You don't need to justify it to me, nor does any woman having an abortion need to justify it to me. That being said, they need to justify it to themselves. Therein lies the rub. Once an abortion occurs, it can't be taken back. There are no do-overs... no mulligans. It's forever. Maybe you should do a little research on post abortion mental problems with women. Since I have had personal experience in this dilemma, what you will find is a very disturbing picture.

A woman has a choice... up until the time that choice is made and acted upon. After that, women do NOT have a choice in how they will handle the knowledge of what they have done. Of course there are plenty of women that aren't phased by abortions.... until later in life. It's something that is never forgotten... and many women find that they can't forgive themselves. Choice? Clearly not a choice once the conscious demands satisfaction. Maybe you don't have a conscious... some people are void of it...

Brian, you're full of it. While the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a complex and difficult one, the vast majority of women who decide that it is the right choice for them at that period of their lives have no residual guilt over the decision. They live their lives, raise their families, contribute to their communities, etc. Of course, they have to deal with the harping of the American Taliban, calling them murderers and judging them without bothering to ask why. You kooks don't care one little bit about "innocent life" - it's all about control and subjugation. How dare women put themselves first?

Brian - What gives you the right to speak for women? You've posted time and time again your views but you have not addressed infant mortality - pre-natal care or caring for unwanted children what are your answers except to pull out the old ploy of castration From what I have seen with the sales of Viagra 25 million hits you guys already feel castrated - give solutions and not your wishes - and where is your wife- roommate or lover on these issues - you as a male cannot speak for half of the population of this country - and don't forget we also vote

I am a Christian and I am also from Texas and I guess Perry is just desperate ....he is playing to the extreme right in the Evangelical wing of the Republicans .... I am an Independent ...never in my wildest dreams could I ever vote for his extreme views....

@Brianb Until you grow a uterus you have no vote on this subject. Keep your pants zipped and you will never have to worry about any of your swimmers.

I too Brian think you are a pompous ass. How can you dedide for women what they will do with their bodies? If I were the victim of rape or incest, abortion would surely be at the top of my list of options! If I am not healthy or the fetus is not healthy during my pregnancy, it is between me and my doctor and my family what decisions I will make. I do not need help from you, my Congressman or my President. Your own mental health sounds like it needs tending, let me worry about mine.

Amen

Tim Mcveigh was raised christian. Although religion was not the motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing.

It's just that fundamentalist Christians don't have the gonads to get crazy or sacrifice their own lives. They try to influence the rest of the population in less direct and subtle ways, while still staying out of danger themselves. They aren't as hardcore in their beliefs, as Islamists are.

Are they(fundamentalists) just as dangerous? To the lives of the average American, no. To the freedom of choice and religion that all Americans should have, yes(they are a danger).

Stop trying to impose your version of morality on the rest of us, or you will end up being "persecuted"(like you already love to proclaim).

Any religious group trying to get political, should lose their tax exempt status.

Brianb - Fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous as Fundamentalist ANYTHINGs. If you are willing to kill people who disagree with you, then you should not be a citizen of the United States. And, I am Christian, I am Pro-Life and I am Pro-Gun.

But, I would rather work with the law to make Adoption cheap and easy, contraception free to prevent unwanted pregnancies, full sex education to help young women know HOW to keep from getting pregnant and make abortion the last resort for incest, rape and health of the mother situations.

Life and Death are not black and white. There are brain dead people artificially kept alive because of medical advancements. We can't say when a person is truly dead, how are we going to say when they are truly alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Patriot_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity_movement

McVeigh was agnostic.

Brian: If you are going to throw your own numbers out there, then so will I.

I'd bet that 90% of those professing themselves to be "Christians", are "Christian" in name only.

If you pick and choose what teachings of Jesus you want to follow, and don't follow them all, then you(they, not you specifically) are nothing but hypo-christians.

You can "speak firmly" all you want about your baseless opinion on Obama "imposing Marxism".

Without anything of substance to back up your rantings, it's only OPINION(and bullsh*t to boot).

People trying to impose laws on the rest of us, because they believe their holy book(the bible) or preacher tells them abortion is wrong, is a prime example of a religious group imposing their own beliefs on the rest of us.

Bingo, Keith-1952!

'nuf said!

Lobo - I will agree with you that many "Christians" aren't Christian at all. We live in the time of the Lacodean Church age. Many people don't even know what being Christian is all about. To many, faith is something you have after turning in a poorly answered test paper. "I hope it's graded with a curve."

Obama's Marxism is evident. He created the largest social program this country has ever seen. When its fully implimented, your freedom is lost completely. You will be 100% owned by the state... and in this case, the federal government... or you will not get health care. They will tell you what to eat, when to eat. They will impose their will on your every aspect of life. That's what health care means... to control your health, medication, eating habits.... etc. That is Marxism! There will be no freedom of choice... you will be told what to do or face the consequences.

Brianb - you would have to have taken more history than was required for your GED to learn about the horrible atrocities visited on the world by "Christians" I did qualify my statement by saying "Fundamentalist" if you are one of those I will leave it to you to look up the definition for yourself. Fundamentalism is a non thinking position without room for any interpretation other than the singular one a fundamentalist chooses.

Since you seem to know something about your book the "Bible" you might check it out. The bible says that life begins with the first breath.

I don't really have a position on abortion today because I am old and don't have to face those questions in my relationships. When I did last have to consider it, I was glad that other decisions were made, but I would not take the choice away from women even if I disagreed with the choice.

By the way, you don't know anything about Marxism either

Brianb:

Read on Catholics vs Protestants in North Ireland.

Keith--I agree with you. I am a Christian, but I am also a realist. I don't agree with abortion, but I am not going to force a woman to go to a back alley hack, or face jail time because she decided not to go through with a pregnancy. I feel there are too many families who can't have a child of their own for abortion to be a first choice, but it needs to be there as a choice.

Keith-1952,

Could you please let me know where Bible says, "Life begins with the first breath?" Not that I disagree with you, I would just like to know. Thanks.

BrianB: what a hypocrite! You dare lecture others about FREEDOMS being lost then argue against women having any freedom to have a safe, legal abortion in this country?? You whine about MARXISM, which you clearly don't comprehend---while you insist women be excluded from the Constitution's rights of privacy? You and your fellow fundamentalists are as a great a danger to fundamental freedoms of Americans as any terrorist. Get a dictionary. Look up theocracy. Then get a clue. We do not live in one.

My2Cents - I am sorry that I don't have chapter and verse for you but the first time is when God breaths life into Adam, in Genesis. That is when the spirit enters Adam. As I understand it in biblical terms we are spirit and that is what lives on in the afterlife. If Spirit or "Spiritus" is breath then life begins with the first breath. Some religions make a distinction between Spirit and Soul but I don't know what those are.

It has been years since I studied Religion so I can not recall readily where the other instances are but there are more than one.

My2Cents - here a few more for you, other references are Ezekiel 37:10, I Kings 17:17-21, and James 2:26.

You made me work for this one

AP - Hypocrite? Really now. Who is there to defend the unborn that are being slaughtered by the millions? Or don't you have any heart in your chest at all? Because I advocate for those children that will never experience life, I am a hypocrite because I don't believe abortion holds in it any good at all. Maybe you should examine your own soul and come up with some sort of feel good analogy for the MILLIONS of souls that never had the chance to experience what you've experienced.

Keith - It says in the Bible that God knew you before you were conceived in the womb. Now, does that indicate life? I would definitely say that if God knew you before you were born, then life exists in you before the first breath.

Since liberals in general don't believe in God, I can truly understand why they don't think an unborn child has life in it. Yes, I am being facetious again!

could there be a more absurd argument then the ridiculous "unborn" one?? You a defender??? what a joke. Do you lose sleep over each sperm and unfertilized egg? Absurdly labeling zygotes "children" fools no one. You think it irrelevant that you lose no sleep and shed no tears for women...just the "unborn" zygotes you have convinced yourself take precedence over the "carrier" known as women.Your bible is irrelevant here--don't lecture about souls and your ideas of conception and when life begins. They are irrelevant. We do not live in a theocracy. What about that is not understandable to you? Yes, you are a hypocrite. WHining about freedom and justice when you care nothing, not one whit, about the women you'd subjugate to your religious tyranny. No, you do not get to rip the US Constitution to shreds and then claim you do it to save "souls". Don't like abortion? Then don't have one.

Keith -

fun·da·men·tal·ism

   /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Woah!!! How dangerous! I didn't realize that fundamentalism was so horrific. My gosh, it's a literal plithera of death and destruction to mankind. Maybe it's the virgin birth... NO! I GOT IT!! It's the creation of the world!!!! That's the ticket!!! Danger, danger Will Robinson... Fundamentalism is going to get you killed!!!!

Sheesh!

Brianb - so this IS about religion being involved in politics then - I thought we were discussing it through a humanitarian point of view - since we live in a secular country… this is exactly why I said take religion out of politics!

You're being a little rediculous AP. Going off the deep end, are you? All your nonsense just to try to make a point to ricidule my belief that abortion is not good for anyone... The mother in many cases ends up with years of regret... I know this from personal experience. It's not good for the country because it makes us a nation that is providing genocide. It's not good for the unborn baby.... the creature that is destroyed with no regard for it's very life. Oh, but it's good for the mother because she can sweep a mistake into the trash can after the doctor has done the slice and dice.

I don't care how much you want to defend abortion... it's wrong! It is very unfortunate that this country has in it, those that can't see the manevalent nature of killing off millions of babies. But, since I live here, and it's the law of the land, people like me are viewed as dinosaurs or nonprogressive thinkers because we believe in the value of life as opposed to throwing it into the trash can.

ZZ - my stance against abortion is NOT a religious one. I can't help it that moral issues are tied in with the killing of a portion of our human race. Your hook does not work with me. I am fundamentally against abortion as a medical procedure. I am really against it as a method of birth control since there are so many safe alternatives. I said earlier that even though I am against it, the mother deserves her life over the unborn in the event of danger to the mother's body... That's a choice I can live with... even though it's a difficult choice.

Well speaking of going off the deep end: spouting religious justification for your extremism in a secular society based on law, is just ridiculous. No matter how many times you repeat "murder" and "genocide" because that's what your religion tells you it is, it doesn't make it any truer. Those are your terms and to me and millions of others, and thankfully the law of the United States, they are not only false claims, they are completely irrelevant. The US doesn't need YOUR definnition and women do not need your permission to exercise their legal and Constitutional rights. That's the best you've got: "it's just wrong"? What's next: "cause I said so"??? What you really believe in quite obviously is telling women how to live their lives by defining the most fundamental questions for them. You would substitute your judgements for theirs--You want to substitute your bible, your personal judgement, for the rule of law. yet you absurdly think yourself a great humanitarian. Now that's beyond wrong....It's just one more very good reason this extremist Presidential panderer is on his way to becoming a footnote in history.

Here you go Brian, I knew you wouldn't find an academic definition, and yes if you are one you are dangerous.

Any philosophy which is literal-minded or carries a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For instance, the Archbishop of Wales has said "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous," He also said, "the new fundamentalism of our age....leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."

In the United States, private or cultural intolerance of women wearing the hijab (Islamic headcovering) and political activism by Muslims also has been labeled "secular fundamentalism" by some Muslims in the U.S.

The term "fundamentalism" is sometimes applied to signify a counter-cultural fidelity to some simplistic principle, as in the pejorative term "market fundamentalism" applied to an exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems. According to economist John Quiggin, the standard features of "economic fundamentalist rhetoric" are "dogmatic" assertions and the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist.

Retired professor in religious studies Roderick Hindery first lists positive qualities attributed to political, economic, or other forms of cultural fundamentalism. They include "vitality, enthusiasm, willingness to back up words with actions, and the avoidance of facile compromise." Then, negative aspects are analyzed, such as psychological attitudes, occasionally elitist and pessimistic perspectives, and in most cases literalism.

Brianb, I don't have a grand plan to get anyone here! I just noticed how your reasoning came from your religious values - which is fine with me, you are free to believe in what you wish, however that's what I had exactly meant with my post which you had questioned! Moral values differ so drastically from religion to religion - we need to base our moral values to our social needs, we are smart beings, we can reason for our own good, we are capable of being ethical. It is time for us to take responsibility.

As you can see from all of these 'posts' abortion was a cow-pie that any intelligent candidate would carefully step around, whatever their personal views on the subject. But Texans and cow-pies seem to have an affinity akin to Newt Gingrich and dog turds. My advice - stay clear of either.

BrianB, you made Keith's point for him. By trotting out the "God knew you before you were conceived" line, the only way that would work would be because what God knew was your spirit, which is separate from your 'corpus' (body). The 'corpus' isn't animated with a spirit until that first breath. All those potential 'spirit hosts' that are aborted, are just that, potential hosts. The spirits will get their turn on the wheel, one way or another.

... Of course your superior mind thinks light years ahead of us mere mortals ...

Of course in academia, the pinnacle of liberalism, the word fundamentalism has a totally different meaning.

What you learned in liberal college is your only avenue to understanding... there is no such thing as finding out for yourself, if it's not located in some textbook or you didn't hear it from your liberal professor

Does anyone else find the recent (by recent I mean last 4 years) skid towards anti-intellectualism frightening?

The whole Joe the Plumber thing... Creationism in science class... Reps in congress smugly stating that "I'm not a nerd" while debating SOPA... The blatant misuse and misunderstanding of terms such as "Marxism", "Socialism", "Capitalism" and so forth...

It terrifies me, personally. It may be a little dramatic to say so, but it kind of seems like a return to the dark ages.

As much as I express optimism about humanity by highlighting how humanity is generally improved over the ages in terms of intelligence, as well as compassion and consideration for others, as they say on Wall Street, "Past performance is no guarantee ..."

Yes, regressing to barbarism of the past is something that everyone should be terrified of.

BrianB: It says in the Bible that God knew you before you were conceived in the womb. Now, does that indicate life? I would definitely say that if God knew you before you were born, then life exists in you before the first breath.

Sorry, but the words of a Bronze Age psalmist don't carry a lot of weight in a scientific question. They testify to his: 1) belief in God; and 2) eloquence. That's about it. And since I don't believe in the existence of the God in question, for reasons that have been very carefully thought out over several decades, any appeal to that same God in answering such a question has no weight, either.

McVeigh was agnostic.

Hitler was Christian. Rasputin was a priest. The serial killer Dennis Rader was the board president of his Lutheran Church. The Reverend Jim Jones murdered 909 people. I could go on and on.

The point is, there is no guarantee of a correlation between a person's professed religious beliefs and his morality.

Politicians use religion as a campaign tool and their hypocrisy is stunningly transparent.

Too bad. They don't care what happens to anyone.

I notice that it's always older white men making these decisions.

Big Bad Wolf: Please take a look at my post above (1.5).

Amen---Amen----Amen

We also say he is not as smart as King George but does have better hair

I remember Molly Ivans calling him Goodhair Perry. I didn't take it as a compliment.

Sure do miss Molly.

I miss Molly, too! Wouldn't she have had a ball with this GOP group? :)

Once upon a time, I used to fool myself into thinking they could produce an electable candidate. This primary season has proved otherwise.

Watching the Republican "debates" has just left me feeling like I've got my nuts caught in a tractor engine.

C NJ Mom,

You can remove Dr Paul from that list of yours, yes he signed it, because that is what he personally believes. But, in two of the national debates one of them being the thanksgiving religious debate, he very publicly said that it is not his position that anyone's beliefs should be forced on another, so although he personally is against abortion, it is a woman's right to choose. (he also added later in consultation with her husband)

Just because a person holds to a certain belief, doesn't automatically mean that he's going to push it on anyone else.

But the rest of your list, RIGHT ON GIRL!!!

Can any one tell me why the GOP has to sign pledges for everything?? Congress had to sigh a pledge to Groveron never to agree or pass a bill which raises taxes, not even one cent. Now the candidates have sign a pledge of PERSON HOOD???

I agree that MOST abortions should not be allowed, however, in every case there are some that can't be helped. If the mother and child both will die if the abortion isn't done, then how can anyone justify the letting two persons die just because of their beliefs. Or if the child will die anyway if allowed to be born, why allow the mother to go through the delivery and suffer the pain of birth just because of someones else belief.

Like someone stated before Keep religion out of the government and elections

C NJ Mom nope....

Paul signed the "Pledge". He lost the modicum of respect that I had for him.

He's seeing his poll numbers rise, and now he's having to compromise himself to become a viable candidate. Funny that is, when you're unpopular, you can say anything you want- no one cares. Now that he's one of the small points of light in the vast blackness of the GOP field, he's gotta start playing the game their way.

Actually my first sentence was wrong. I lost my respect for him when he said people without health insurance, that needed medical care, should die. I expect more coming from a physician.

Pledges prevent compromise. Compromise is the foundation of democracy........

The reason they sign pledges is to give the appearance that they will not flip flop on an issue and that they will actually try to enforce said political promises once elected. You see, despite how many MANY times Perry has been re-elected, he rarely follows through on his campaign promises and has even done some downright lefty things.

In other words, voters aren't complete suckers anymore. They gotta keep suckering them somehow- and pledges is the next way.

Egilman,

My husband likes Ron Paul, but even he admits that Paul's not electable whether he signed that pledge or not.

All - especially Brian B - there is nothing in the bible that addresses "abortion" actually women through the centuries have had many home grown remedies - from herbs to more extreme measures In my brief introduction of the bible - if you would call 12 years of Catholic Education brief - what stuck with me most was the phrase "It is better to put the sperm in a woman than spew it on the earth" And I believe it addresses masturbation - so Brian B if you be without sin and have indulged in the former than what can I say?

CNJMom - Read up on "The Birch Society" also Ayn Rand which Ron Paul named his son Rand Paul after and your husband might change his mind - just saying

B.A.J.,

I'm enjoying your posts on this thread.

I haven't read any of Ayn Rand yet, but don't worry - unless Ron Paul had a chance of winning, my husband will not be voting for him.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits and orcs and a magic ring."

Well, WaltDis (how ironic your handle & your comments about fantasy),

I've read Tolkien (wasn't Lord of the Rings a trilogy, rather than one novel BTW?), but probably can deal with reading Ayn Rand fairly well at this point in my life and will realize the difference!

how ironic your handle & your comments about fantasy

Not ironic at all. Rather: Simply irrelevant.

wasn't Lord of the Rings a trilogy, rather than one novel BTW?

No. It was presented to Houghton Mifflin as a single novel, made up of six "books". Houghton Mifflin decided to package the novel in three volumes of two books each.

but probably can deal with reading Ayn Rand fairly well at this point in my life and will realize the difference!

The point of the often-repeated quote is that Ayn Rand's story is generally used as a rationalization for immoral behavior.

Not sure that would help, rumor has it he suffers from micropenis.

If he kept his skirts pulled down he wouldn't get screwed so much....

Innocent! Is rape and incest the way that fundamentalists procreate? Rapists should be castrated and their fetuses aborted. The genetics of a rapist should never be rewarded.

Devon-1941382 and Dale3242: So glad I'm not either of you. I'd hate to go through life being that ignorant.

Devon. So you are in favor of an 11 year old carrying a child, possibly ruining her chances of ever having a child ever again. (Not to mention the scarring experience)

Circumcision is another religious abomination.

I agree with Dale3242, These so called pro lifers always use abortion and post pictures of cute little babies, but I have never heard the church or christian groups protest the daily killing of our children on the streets by these so called gangsta's that just want to feel what it's like to kill someone. Murder is murder whether it's a fetus or an innocent teenage child. Get wise people! These pro life groups use abortion because a picture of a little baby will make you open the purse-strings and donate to their agenda. When it comes to taking a life, age has nothing to do with it. Oh! wait maybe the bible say it's OK to kill them when they get a little older. You're all a bunch of christian hypocrites. You don't truly care, you just want to make sure your on the political correct side of the issue.

Dale - for every procedure there was a reason as far as circumsicion it was cleanliness - if you read history up until the Puritans - to take a bathe was considered immoral - same as not eating meat on Fridays - Catholics - went back to the fishermen to promote their industry - pork - uncooked pork and the way they were fed was trychonosis - shell fish for the Muslims , don't know maybe allergies to shell fish - if you go back in time all of these started for a reason of protection then evolved into control

Control the masses - make them feel like sinners if they disobey

Barbara J.

Control the masses - make them feel like sinners if they disobey

That's why religions all use dogma, the mystical rules, traditions and fairy tales they say we are supposed to live by based upon faith. But, in actuality, move us father and farther away from the truth, the real foundations of faith.

The true religious revelation is when the blindfold of Dogma is removed, and you begin to understand what faith and god is really all about. Dogma serves as public proof to everyone else of your belief in what ever version of god you are worshiping. God does not want blind followers, he wants everyone to make an individual choice based upon individual understanding. Churches are all about the collective, how the collected voice is greater than the single voice.

Establishment politicians are all about the collective also, they only want blind followers. The sooner we as a people understand this, the faster we will get our country back on it's feet.

Thank you Egilman -

I as you surmised I am against formalized religion - went to the Vatican, St Peter's looked at the line of pay for telephones and thought it was "Dial a Sin" - went to a church in Mexico passing farmers tilling their soil with mules and saw the grand edifice - with a plaque saying given by the people of Mexico - how many tractors could that have bought - was in Rio de Janerio to a church and had to put my sun glasses on because it was bathed in gilt and yet saw people begging in the streets and thought look what this could do for these people

Look at the mega churches - what a sham - if we could buy our way into heaven? These mega churches only make themselves rich not the followers

I for one probably never was with the Church even after 12 years of indoctrination in Catholic schools and always leaned toward nature and the beauty of it

I believe in live and let live as long as you don't tell me or mine how to live - and I do care for the lesser of us - not that I don't like lovely things or great food or good wine however understand how we come by our choices not what others tell us to believe -- end of sermon - sorry for that!

Shellfish was because if they are not cleaned and cooked properly (and promptly) you have high rates of illness due to salmonella. I had a case of salmonella once from improperly cooked shrimp from a 5 star restaurant. It is NOT pretty. Salmonella is one of the organisms that has a very high rate of death. Back in the days when the bible was being crafted, there was no refrigeration and little sanitation. shellfish would have to be consumed as soon as or very shortly after it was removed from the water. People could "farm" cattle, sheep and even pigs. The animal could be slaughtered shortly before it was to be cooked in the desert. But the process of catching shrimp, crabs, lobsters, scallops, clams, mussels etc would mean that they hauled the shellfish on board and then sailed or rowed back to shore meaning a much longer interval between catch (which kills them) and consumption.

If an adult woman voluntarily has sex and becomes pregnant, then it can be argued that she accepted, by voluntarily having sex, any resulting pregnancy.

It can be argued, but it is a dumb argument. The desire to have sex is a completely different thing than wanting to have a child. We should not tell people that they must endure pregnancy, childbirth, or parenthood simply because they had sex. The protections of the Fourteenth Amendment do not apply to the unborn according to the U.S. Constitution.

G-Dog,

It can be argued does not mean that I argue in that manner. The 14th might not apply to the unborn, but I argue that the 13th does apply to the woman. I agree with you that we should not tell people that they must endure pregnancy, childbirth, or parenthood simply because they had sex. I go further in that the state (government) cannot force a woman or child to endure pregnancy, childbirth, or parenthood when they are the victim.

It can be argued does not mean that I argue in that manner.

I understand that Dale; and found enough agreement with your comment to vote it up, but, since I don't think our government should be empowered to force citizens to endure pregnancy, childbirth, or parenthood regardless of whether they are a victim or not, a slight clarification was required to justify my agreement.

The desire to have sex is a completely different thing than wanting to have a child.

So........no one ever taught you where babies come from? Or responsibility?

Perhaps the reason why some people so vehemently oppose abortion is the cavalier attitude. The use of abortion should be met with sorrow over the destruction of a human being; not as relief over a drunken encounter or poor planning.

Doug: then I suggest you keep your pants zipped and your nose out of anyone else's business. No one has to prove to you they NEED an abortion or that it wasn't a "drunken encounter" or "poor planning". This isn't Iran. You may not have noticed, but American women don't do burquas. You are not the judge, jury or the "decider" for women...neither is your religion or your political party. This is why people oppose right to life extremists. Its the cavalier attitude.

So........no one ever taught you where babies come from? Or responsibility?

Yes, and yes. I also learned that having sex and having a baby are completely different things. You disagree? Most sex is accomplished with no desire for it to result in pregnancy or childbirth, but things don't always go according to plan. No need for blame, judgemental posturing, or government involvement.

So........no one ever taught you where babies come from? Or responsibility?

Well, as sad as it is to say, maybe not. Why not? Because fundamental right wing christian conservative nut jobs (who are ruining the republican party, BTW) want to eliminate sex education in schools, equate the pill to abortion and hide condoms from curious teenagers. We are raising a generation of kids who have no idea about sex, its benefits, its dangers and its inherent responsibility.

For the life of me I cannot understand how people think its logical to ban abortion while also preventing kids from obtaining the information and tools needed to make choices that are right for them. It's mind boggling to me.

And, anyone who says that a victim of rape and/or incest should have to carry the child is cruel and I bet the tune would change if they found themselves (or a family member) in the same predicament.

The only good thing about this news is that it will take Perry out of the race for good.

Wow, you have a superiority complex. And your entire brilliant argument is what exactly? That we are all idiots? Laughable.

And, by the way, by saying that women cannot have an abortion in the case of rape, Perry is indeed saying that a a victim of rape and/or incest should have to carry the child. It's right there in the article.

The fundamental right, conservative extremists have long advocated teaching abstinence over sex ed. I'm not going to waste the time pulling articles for you, but a google search should do the trick. It's really not a new concept.

Enjoy being banned.

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think it is a good thing to essentially commit the same offense as the poster you're replying to. There are ways to express the same sentiment without wording it as a direct attack. I do believe, though, that the religious right indeed does needs to engage in a patronizing superiority complex to project the dictates that they're trying to project. What is most insidious about it though is what they're effectively patronizing themselves as well, effectively prohibiting themselves from reasonable thinking for fear of undercutting their religious preconceptions.

Ahhhh, you're probably right. Just hate being called an idiot ;-)

What is most insidious about it though is what they're effectively patronizing themselves as well, effectively prohibiting themselves from reasonable thinking for fear of undercutting their religious preconceptions.

Exactly. They are so determined to be right in their religion and how they wish the world would be, that they cannot accept the reality of what is actually happening and, thus, present illogical arguments.

They also cannot see, or won't admit to seeing, the harm that would be caused, physically and politically, if women were stripped of their reproductive choices and, consequently, right to privacy in health.

Very, very good point, and just the right amount of humor. Well done.

That's actually an easy one. The guys (and gals) on death row earned a spot there. I'm pro capital punishment and anti-abortion, but I don't agree with Perry on this. I believe there are instances where abortion is a viable solution, I just find it a repugnant and vile practice that is, in fact, akin at least to murder. This is not for religious reasons but for logical ones. I'm effectively agnostic although my doubt is almost enough to be considered atheism, but I'm not rabid about that like a lot of folks either. I do think killing the potential sentient being that is a fetus is wrong. It's not like shedding a toenail or a tumor as some would have us believe because none of those ever have the potential to be a Mozart, Mandela, or Ghandi. Yes, there are liberty issues and other Constitutional considerations, and yes, it is a sticky subject, but at the end of the day how can anyone logically argue that destroying even a potential human being is a good thing? Preventing the conception, yes, by all means. I would even agree that a "morning after" pill should be free for the asking with zero restrictions, as long as people would stop looking at what might be the best human being ever born as an "inconvenience" that will go away with a couple hundred bucks.

Hypocrite. That's what someone that opposes abortion but supports capital punishment is. Who are you to decide that the law that sentenced someone to death is more legitimate than the one that allows a woman to terminate her pregnancy?

A!!yson

The failure in your argument about who is he to decide is as easy as pointing out that who are you to decide the same question?

Let me show you....

Hypocrite. That's what someone that opposes capital punishment but supports abortion is. Who are you to decide that the law that allows a woman to terminate her pregnancy is more legitimate than the one that sentenced someone to death?

It reads exactly the same way, with the same understanding, reversed.

The whole argument is one of "if you don't understand it I can't explain it to you"

A pointless argument serves to do nothing but stir up emotion when what is really needed is cogent thought and reasonable compromise.

Thanks Egil, but I'll answer this one as well, because I do believe the death penalty has more legitimacy than abortion, and again, it's for a simple reason. A person on death row has been accused and convicted of a heinous crime and put there by society and a jury of their peers. An unborn fetus about to be aborted has been condemned to oblivion by a person who is usually desperate to avoid the situation and is thinking almost exclusively of themselves and how the unwanted pregnancy will affect their lives. One is done to better society and one is done to better an individual's life. At the end of the day, an abortion is almost completely a narcissistic decision. People can say what they want, but I highly doubt anyone is thinking about the baby. Neither is perfect, but again, those on death row at least had a chance to become the next Mother Theresa.

aholee...exactly! you've probably opened another can of worms with the right :)

I think I would've been fine with Bush ruining the state's education standards for six years over him becoming President and leaving Gov. Hairstyle in charge for the past decade.

ed - darn I loved Anne Richards and Mollie Ivins (spelling) only true patriots of Texas

Anne and Mollie were the two best things that ever inhabited the state of Texas. Miss them both.

Rapists should be castrated and their conceptions aborted.

Idiot.

You're from that Westboro group, aren't you?

Kindly go take a long walk on a short pier.

Clapton, please kill yourself. Stop whatever you're doing, and kill yourself in the most expedient manner, no matter whose car you land on or whose floor you bleed out on. Just kill yourself, OK? A lot of normal people will sleep much better tonight.

and people who arent rapist have the inalienable right to put a bullet in said rapist when the need arises.

You! Out of the gene pool!

I think people missed the sarcasm...

Wilcox,

No, they don't. Retaliatory killing is also murder unless you're the government killing in its own name for the murder that was perpetrated. Then it's called the death penalty. However, the death penalty may be meted out only in special cases of first degree murder, not for rape. And private revenge is never lawful, no matter how vile or heinous the crime committed by the perpetrator.

Can I be the only person here who thinks Clapton was being sarcastic? Clapton, please tell us you were being sarcastic!

I think people missed the sarcasm...

That was my impression as well.

So... Didn't anyone catch Clapton's sarcasm ?

Thanks Clapton, I had a good laugh!

The art of stirring up thought and debate using sarcasm is lost in today's world. Probably because critical thinking skills are not taught in today's schools.

Clapton - if you think men rape to have children - then I frankly don't know what to say except a child is furthest from their mind Okay - a woman who has been raped tracks down her rapist and nine months later leaves a baby at his doorstep - what do you think would happen? What an ill thought out comment - how old are you?

Referring to Clapton's post #16, Egilman said:

The art of stirring up thought and debate using sarcasm is lost in today's world. Probably because critical thinking skills are not taught in today's schools.

I agree with your assessment of the sorry state of critical thinking in general. However, what makes Clapton's post any different than the many inanities and insanities posted here by Brianb-999431 for example?

Sarcasm only works when the source -- Clapton, in this case -- is widely known to hold the opposite views to those posted. Well, his guitar-playing notwithstanding, I certainly don't know Clapton well enough to say he/she was being sarcastic. And in emotionally charged threads like this one, ALL SORTS OF CRAZY @!$%# is posted in the most deadly earnest. (And usually in terribly mangled English.) For all I know, Clapton's post was just another fecal dropping from a demented simian.

My point is (sorry for the mini-diatribe) if one wants to be sarcastic, use punctuation (~ or or some variation) to indicate the slant, or risk being flamed.

The web is not an appropriate venue for any rhetorical device that relies so heavily on tone.

Oh, it's appropriate enough. It's just not foolproof.

No: Foolproofness isn't the issue. The obligation for communicating the true sentiment behind sarcasm rests squarely on the communicator, not on the recipient of the message, because an inappropriate medium is being used.

Having said that, adding "/sarcasm/" to the beginning of the message reverses that obligation. The fact that it takes so little to avoid confusion strengthens the obligation to take such measures. I generally assume that when someone employs sarcasm that is misinterpreted that they deliberately intended to hide an offensive remark behind a post-hoc claim of sarcasm. [And I say that without going back to recall what the actual sarcasm was that we're now chatting about (i.e., without remembering if I agreed with the sentiment expressed one way or the other or if agreement was even relevant).]

What is really telling is that so many people were not the least bit surprised that a conservative would hold this view, and that no sarcasm was intended.

leftcoastblue : From the word "alienable right" you know he was joking.

This, my friends, is why we need mood fonts. If we already had them, Clapton could've just turned on his sarcasm font and avoided this whole debate.

I agree. As someone who almost died in labor with my 5 year old son after an uncomplicated, routine, planned, WANTED pregnancy, I can attest that childbirth is still a potentially lethal proposition for a woman. My sister-in-law also almost died during childbirth with her son who may not have been PLANNED but was desperately wanted. My other sister-in-law also almost died TWICE as a result of pregnancies - one was my 19 year old niece and the other was their other daughter who was born at 24 weeks (I think) and lived for 36 hours. Both daughters were WANTED. The three of us are not related to each other except through marriage. One sister-in-law married my brother and the other sister-in-law married my husband's brother, so there's not even a possibility of a genetic component.

The entire party seems to be imploding. The intolerance alone should be enough for any of my generation to stay away.

Good for you. People of reasonable, moderate views are appreciated by this pro-choice person!

This talk of forcing women to carry life-threatening pregnancies to term against their will is really scary to me....if only it's so poorly thought through.

How can it be constitutional to force a US citizen to risk their life?. THis is even in the case (not that it should matter) where she is also Pregnant against her will (rape, incest) and is FAULTLESS!

There are THOUSANDS of women a year who must medically terminate pregnancy or she will die...tubal pregnancies are VERY common and they almost always, if not terminate, would rupture and kill the woman with infection (and the embryo is not viable in that location almost always, anyway...so it'd be for NOTHING)...in a young woman with pelvic pain...it's the FIRST thing checked for in the ER!

I had a thought about tubal pregnancies. Mind you, I'm not a doctor or anything, just curious. As I understand it, a fallopian tube may be cut and sewed back together and will still work properly.

What if a doctor cut out the section of the tube with the fetus in it, and sewed it back together. Then, he takes the portion of the tube with the fetus in it, and attaches it to the wall of the uterus? That portion of the tube would need to be cut open, I imagine, so as not to restrict the growth of the fetus.

I'm sure it would be very complex and expensive, and probably not worth the risk of ever actually performing it. I was just wondering if it was possible. If an artificial womb is ever developed, that could really be something to look into.

Since I am most likely to take flack for being a nutcase who is anti-abortion, I will state now that while I personally believe abortion is the same as killing someone, I will never try to tell someone else how to live their lives, nor judge them for their actions. It is not my place to control others, or to tell them what is right or wrong. I do, however believe in exploring options, and finding new ways to approach issues and problems.

Everyone must choose for themselves the path they will follow.

Perry is a walking talking ad for retroactive abortions. Is it to late to abort this moron?

Perry is an idiot and not a serious candidate. He knows he has no chance to win either the Republican nomination nor the general. These clowns will say anything to appease the most extreme in their base. What has happened to our country?

In usual GOP desperation they take party line extremes to appeal to their hard core members thereby insuring they have no chance to win the big enchilada. Total abortion ban that appeals only to the far right. Saber rattling that causes few of us to dream fondly of a Bush clone winning. Outrage at attempts to raise taxes on hedge fund managers paying their special tax of 15% on 10's of millions of income and equal outrage against states that will make it tough on these poor millionares by raising minimum wage 30 cents an hour January 1st.

And Ciara,

Your sister's case is the prime reason for keeping abortion available and legal for those who need it! Glad she's OK!

It is almost always rich white men who are so adamantly against abortion for any cause or condition. But you can bet that half of them would shell out for secret abortions for their mistresses or family members. I am not "pro-abortion," as President Obama has stated, neither are very many people. But there are circumstances where it is necessary and those rich white men should not be making that decision. Now they even want women with miscarriages to prove they were not intentional. I have said ever since Roe vs. Wade that if they are able to make abortion illegal, they will next go after any type of birth control and turn women into cattle. A man once said to me that a real man would not let his wife take birth control pills. Well, a real woman won't let these hypocrites manage their bodies.

Avice, I don't think anybody is "pro-abortion". I would never advocate that anybody have an abortion - except when their well-being or life is in danger. I *am* pro-choice ... giving every woman control over the CHOICE whether to have and keep or give up for adoption a child or terminate a pregnancy. I personally experienced birth control failure at a time that I was separated from my ex and living in a state where (since I was filing for divorce) every child CONCEIVED during a marriage is considered to be the husband's child when it comes to child support. I had no health insurance, was working a temp job, was receiving no money from my abusive ex and had been told by the same man that if he EVER had to pay child support for a child he knew or even suspected wasn't his (since he had doubts about one of his children from a previous marriage) that he would KILL the woman who forced him to pay child support. I reviewed all of my options and made the best CHOICE and decision for myself and my own circumstances.

My younger sister who had been pro-life since before she was an adult found herself in a situation after her husband died that she was pregnant from an affair with a married man. She had never understood the choice I made ... until she found herself in that situation. Then she called me asking where to go and what to expect. She has two sons who are now 18 and 17 ... and she found a boyfriend who she hopes to get married to eventually with whom she now has a daughter who is 2.

NOBODY can make the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy except the woman who is pregnant. Just as nobody can force (legally) a woman to give up her child for adoption or keep it after birth. I think the "pro-life" people need to flip the situation and imagine a world where people were advocating FORCED abortions for women to understand how truly repugnant it is to take the CHOICE away from women.

Cat,

You are correct - people may proclaim themselves "pro-life"; when a situation arises that they need access to a safe and legal pregnancy termination, it's a whole new tune.

Its always easy to say "I'll never do this or I'll never do that" until a situation arises and you find yourself doing that very thing....You never know what life will hand you..

I for one am not for abortion for myself, but I don't think the right to choose should be taken away from women.