"We have 7 billion people on the planet and people want abortion outlawed. This is ridiculous!"

The most intelligent post on this discussion so far. Not only should abortion be legal because reproductive rights should be enforced like in all civilized countries, but it should be legal to protect our limited resources. If the so-called "pro lifers" (ha ha, what a hypocrisy) really care about the human race, they would agree.

pishaw,

Condi Rice/Marco Rubio.........2012. From my mouth to God's ears!!!

pishaw,

I so agree. I voted for Hillary in the primaries. Obama has been a mediocre president at best. Yet the Republicans are set to run nothing but losers. It is just simple logic. 1. It is the rapist who is the criminal. 2. The raped is the victim. One does not punish the victim. The victim should be given deference and should be able to choose whether to continue any pregnancy. How is that not decent and honorable. A conception is just that a conception. Most conceptions never become born. A conception or fetus does not and cannot have the same rights as an adult person.

it's because they would rather blame the black guy

You ask, "Why does the Republican Party want Obama to be president?"

Try one of these on for size:

1. Because it will make Sarah Palin look almost reasonable in 2016.

2. Because Obama IS a Republican. Ask any progressive.

3. Because they believe the world is going to end on Dec. 21, 2012, so why bother?

4. Not one of them has any hint of a glimmer of an idea how to fix the economy, so f**kit, continue to blame the black guy.

There are more than one, Pishaw. Both Huntsman and Buddy Roehmer were sane, intelligent, reasonable republican presidential candidates. It is probably BECAUSE they are normal, logical persons that they gained no traction from the idiotic republican voters who want someone they can relate to!

Great point, Leroy! LMAO.

Condoleeza Rice was probably the smartest of the group and shook DC off her heels as soon as Pres Bush's time was up. I seem to remember something about the Republican party approaching her to run in '08. She not only said no, she said the proverbial H*** no and ran, did not walk, to the nearest exit.

Despite the relative hatred of anything Republican in the '08 campaign, I think Condoleeza Rice would have given any Dem candidate a heck of a run.

It is true that the first and best indicator that someone is untrustworthy to have public office is the fact that they are willing to run for office. Anyone willing to subject themselves and their families to the vicious treatment of the American public and its sensationalistically voyeuristic media is clearly far too blinded by their hunger for power to be a responsible public servant.

Exactly Warren, men have NO BUSINESS even voicing an opinion on the subject and should have no say in it whatsoever. If men could get pregnant, there would be an abortion clinic on every corner.

Exactly Warren, men have NO BUSINESS even voicing an opinion on the subject and should have no say in it whatsoever.

I'm a guy, and yes it is my business! I think woman should have a choice in what they do with their own bodies. It is the most basic of all freedoms; once you lose that choice, there is no freedom. This doesn't just effect woman, it effects everyone.

If they take that right away, what will they take next? Don't ever say, "It's not my business"! You bet your ass it is.

Exactly! And all men should support abortion if they have any common sense - do they really want to end up supporting a child every time they have sex? We are not insects, we should have the ability to control unwanted pregnancies.

Exactly.

Something tells me by the way Perry acts, he'd be into that sort of thing.

Something tells me that Perry is into playing in the sandbox with a plastic dumptruck!

Don't you remember the old campaign slogan: Don't change dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in '72?

Humans are not going extinct, Con, in fact they are a plague on this planet, and the rest of the animals would be better off without us.

The last couple of fertilized eggs. They must be quite rare and valuable. Human embryos, there are 7 billion humans. The human embryos will never become the now extinct animal. They are common and thus not precious. They might develop into another Hitler or Mahler. Who knows? However, if they were fathered by a rapist, then genetically they would be more likely to be bad. In any case, by themselves they will never be anything. It takes a woman, her uterus, and her body for the conception to amount to anything. It is the parasite and she is the host. The woman is the rape victim. She should be allowed to decide if she wants to endure pregnancy for a criminal's offspring.

Leroy / Dale: Your comments are exactly why liberals are rightly accused of not caring about human life. Numbers have nothing to do with it. It is what the egg becomes, regardless of the numbers already here.

They are common and thus not precious

Please tell your children they are not precious. It will make them feel so loved and secure.

Dale sorry, the right of that child to live overrides whatever mental anguish the woman may suffer. It's not the child's fault they were conceived.

Abortion is the most selfish act there is: Putting your own life and convenience ahead of that of your child.

Funny how the only people ever in favor of abortion are those that are already here and have life. Life that they selfishly will deny the most innocent among us, while at the same time, crying and carrying a candle to save the life of a putrid convicted serial killer or other criminal.

You know what else is funny, Con? It's funny is how the republicans care deeply that every embryo reaches birth, but could care less about them once they are born.

When a woman has a miscarriage, it is an act of God, right? Then God must be pro abortion. Just using your conservative logic buddy.

Excellent point Marcos. "God" has performed more abortions than all the abortion doctors in the world ever have or ever will.

Andrea Yates is a prime example of how mental anguish can be tragic. She didn't put her life ahead of each of the children she was carried, she was by Conservative's definition unselfish. Then one day she drowned all of her children because she was batsh*t crazy. Forcing someone to be a mother because of your religious or moral beliefs is insane and dangerous. How many unwanted children have you adopted? If I had to guess, I'd say none.

I'd bet that you are against welfare too. Which has always confused me with conservatives, they want women to bring children that they don't want or can't care for into the world but don't want to provide support for them and only want abstinence taught in schools. Can you really have it all??

Leroy: Oh really, then tell me how it is that conservatives, and especially religious conservatives, give far more to charity than liberals?? How does that happen Leroy if conservatives don't care?? And it's not a small percentage difference either, so don't hand me that BS lie. How is it that Michelle Bachmann raised 23 foster kids Leroy?? Tell me how does that happen Leroy, if conservatives don't care?

We have sponsored two indigent children in South America with monthly cash payments for almost 10 years, who would feel they live like kings here off the government assistance America provides if they had access to it. How does that happen Leroy?? How many kids, not of your own, do you do anything for??

So, as usual, when the liberal argument is destroyed with facts, they revert to the tired old "you don't care BS lie" because they know they have no ground to stand on.

marcos: That's actually a very good point. The only problem with your logic "buddy" is that you're not God. So, when you let God be God, and quit trying to play God yourself, then you might have some room to talk "buddy".

Shada: Oh please, as you said, Yates went crazy. No one forced her to get pregnant. If you don't want kids, then please, go get your tubes tied. After we had the two kids we wanted, I got my little wagon fixed so it wouldn't happen again. That's called being personally responsible, something liberals apparently know nothing about.

Outside of rape, there is not one excuse for a woman to become pregnant if she doesn't want to. Birth control is cheap, effective and easily accessible by anyone in this country. But, it does take some personal responsibility on your part. Apparently, personal responsibility is deeply offensive to liberals. Yes, to the liberal, it's always about, I get to do what I want, when I want it, and the consequences of those actions be damned because it's all about ME.

As far as welfare, I have no problem with a temporary safety net. The KEY word there is TEMPORARY. But what welfare means to liberals is a multi-generational way of life where the kids are taught that the government will take care of you.

There was an article in our local paper here not too long ago where a woman was soooo glad that the Federal Gubment was going to fix up her public housing. How long had she lived there? FORTY YEARS!! And she was not disabled, nor had any other circumstance that would prevent her from getting her own place, other than she knew she didn't have to because she could keep milking the tax payers.

And that example just proves why a puppy is smarter than a liberal. The puppy eventually opens its eyes, quits whining, and learns that it doesn't have to suck off of someone else for the rest of its life.

If you don't want kids, then please, go get your tubes tied.

And this sometimes happens after the birth of a first child, too. So by the time you learn you don't want kids it's too late. But then that's not your problem, is it?

So by the time you learn you don't want kids it's too late. But then that's not your problem, is it?

Well God forbid that you might actually have to put a little thought into something like that beforehand. We couldn't ask that could we?? Apparently, that's way too much work for a liberal to even have to even contemplate.

"Gee, before I have sex, and risk getting pregnant, maybe I should decide if I'm ready for kids, and if I'm not, I can either take the proper precautions ahead of time or, hey, I know, I can always have an abortion and kill my unborn child. (Rape aside of course)

Liberals run from personal responsibility like vampires from sunshine and holy water.

And finally, it's quite telling how you describe children as being "a problem". But I think you're being quite honest in that description, because that's how liberals actually view children.

Conservative,

Yes, birth control is cheap effective and accessible:

Tell that to the indigent women who cannot afford an OBGYN and who depend on the access from planned parenthood when they are trying to close down every planned parenthood.

My sister got her period when she was 8 years old!! Should we have put her on birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancies?

What about the ectopic pregnancies and the pregnancies that occur outside the uterus? After all, the fertilized egg is a parasite and will do whatever it takes to survive.

That's really the crux of the issue. Anyone who seeks to impose their own personal perspective onto other women who don't share that personal perspective (committing the sin of hubris, by the way), instead of directing those energies instead on providing such women every last bit of support possible to try to avoid the circumstance of the unwanted pregnancy entirely, is wasting the energy and dedication God gave them. There is no doubt that avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is simpler, more compassionate to all involved, and generally more efficient and effective (more abortions can be prevented by avoiding unwanted pregnancy than by trying to treat women like house pets).

Rebbie: That might be a valid point if not for the fact that there are several different kinds of birth control available over the counter at any drug store in the country. There is no mandate that you must visit an obgyn for every type of birth control.

And as far as I know, Planned Parenthood is still alive and well. The same can't be said for the kids that they helped to destroy.

If your 8 year old is having unprotected sex, then yes, absolutely, they should be on birth control. Unless, of course, you think it wise for an 8 year old to be having sex to begin with.

As I've stated several times, I'm willing to compromise on abortion for rape, incest (which in many cases is rape also) and life of the mother. Life of the mother would include pregnancy causing risk to life.

You just described the republican party!

wireman: But you wouldn't limit it to rape, incest or life of the mother would you?? No, of course not, but your example gives you a beard to wear, which covers your real objective of abortion on demand at any time, even if the baby is partially out of the womb.

That's your real position which you try and cover with your 10 year old rape victim example, isn't it?

But just to be fair, will you accept the compromise of rape, incest and life of the mother? Will you? I mean, after all, liberals are always so big on "compromise", that I'm sure you're willing to make that compromise aren't you?? Aren't you??

wireman: But you wouldn't limit it to rape, incest or life of the mother would you??

And again you make unprovable assumptions to try to make your case. The beauty of fanaticism is that you never need to listen to anyone elses points because you already know the answers.

That makes critical thinking totally unnecessary. Especially if you can put your words into the mouths of others.

Severed: Well, the assumption is only unprovable because they don't have the guts to answer the question in the first place. Just answer one simple question either yes or no, and the argument is either validated or proved false.

Of course, the most logical reason that they won't answer (other than maybe they just drop the thread and never check back) is because they know my argument exposes their real feelings. They try to hide it behind some other horrible crime, but since they know it's just a cover, they never will answer in the affirmative to limiting abortion to only rape, incest and the life of the mother.

But, since you decided to post, I'll ask you. Are you willing to limit it to rape, incest and life of the mother? If not, then the whole argument about rape and incest is proven false by default.

How can you say I never need to listen to anyone else's viewpoint, when I'm asking for yours right now??

So, now you have been given the opportunity to prove my argument true or false. I'd like your answer please.

Point is if a woman does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, she should not be forced to do so. The reverse is the same i.e China.

Conservative, you act as though you know all the intricacies of the female form and think that just because you and your spouse had a child or two, you can speak to every woman's body. The point of choice is so that the decisions are not mandated by the government and left to the woman, her family, her spiritual advisor and not the government!!!

Why would you say that liberals think of their children as 'problems?' Why would you paint with such a broad brush? I love my daughter and I am a liberal. I would not speak for all liberals either. That's just ridiculous!!!

That's why people can choose to educate their children or not, provide the bare minimum for their kids or excesses. Why not mandate these things as well as the religious see fit?

I am a liberal and I would not limit access to abortion to rape and incest victims. I would not presume to make decisions about your choices (or anyones) in health care, why do you presume to make them for me. If you are pro-life are you fighting for the lives of the people on death-row, already born, and some innocent? Were you fighting for the lives of the Iraqi and Afgan children who were and are casualties of a war we got into under false pretenses? Are you a proponent for healthcare and foodstamps for the poor children already born and living in poverty in our country and elsewhere? Do you fight for children and parents with HIV/AIDS? If you did all of those things, the world would be a better place and you would not have time to stick your nose in my womb.

Cornservative, You must be a barbarian.

Wireman: If someone is raped, I feel that is a legitimate reason to allow an abortion. It is still not the fault of the conceived child, but the victim took no action of their own which caused the pregnancy.

So, let's "compromise" on abortion, shall we? Let's limit it to rape, incest and the life of the mother. I'm sure you'll go along with that won't you??

Or....maybe not, since you didn't have the guts to answer the question to begin with, which only serves to show that my original statement of you using a 10 year old as a shield to protect your REAL intentions, is right on the money and pretty cowardly and disgusting.

Stop hiding behind 10 year olds and just say what your real motives are. Coward.

Cornservative, To my surprise I agree with you about who should and should not get an abortion. I do however suggest that you work on being a more mature and calmer person. People will respect you more and take you more seriously. I know you have had trouble in this area before. It is very easy to get you excited.

Back to the abortion issue, if laws are passed to limit abortions based on their situation, somebody will be the decider. I don't know who that would be. It might not be hard to decide that a 10 year old was raped. There could be a question about circumstances of any given 30 year old. Especially if the victim knows the rapist and he claims the act was consensual. I would not like to see someone put through even more pain after being attacked and brutalized.

Wireman: The law would be the decider. For example: If you claim rape, then a crime has been committed, and the pregnancy resulting because of that crime would allow for the abortion to occur. The decider would be the police report and the examination by the physician. Same with incest. In the case of life of the mother, the doctor, or doctor(s) most likely, would be the only one(s) determining if the mother's life is in danger. Since the doctor is already required to do proper notations of the physical condition anyway, it would just be a matter of referring to chart notations and record keeping that is already required. If you have a minor that was having consensual sex, and ended up pregnant, the doctor would decide the ability of the girl to carry the child to term.

Many states already have no questions asked drop off points for babies that are not wanted by the mother. Take the funds that would be spent on welfare payments for many of the children anyway, and put those funds toward care and shelter of the unwanted children born of minors.

I make no bones that my position is to eliminate abortion on demand because the pregnancy is "inconvenient" for the mother. And I make no apologies for it. The right of the child to live trumps any mental anguish the mother might suffer. Let me say that again. The right to live trumps mental anguish. Period. But, as I said, I'm willing to compromise on rape, incest and life of the mother.

So, the decider part is really already taken care of. It's just a matter of rearranging some of the administrative structure that is already in place. I understand other pieces of the puzzle would have to be worked out as well. I'll never claim my solution is perfect, but if it saves children's lives, I'm more than willing to pay more in taxes to work those things out.

As far as me being more mature, if you're referring to me calling you a coward, or gutless. That's fine, since you have answered the question, I'll retract both terms in regard to you. At least for this debate ;-)

Now, are you mature enough to retract your barbarian charge against me, in light of the fact that, since I have given you the logic behind my thought process, and now, by your own admission, you have agreed with me, does the charge still fit?? I'll be interested to see your answer to that question.

As far as you "knowing that I've had "trouble" with this area before"...I'm not sure whether to be flattered that you've paid that much attention to my posts, or creeped out by it, but you'll find that when a person directly answers my question instead of deflecting, then I'm just as likely to return the same amount of respect.

But, if you try and dump a load of BS on me, then yeah, I'm gonna call you on it, and I might get a bit testy about it. That doesn't mean we have to agree in any manner, but it does mean that you have to have enough on the ball to mount a respectable argument. Fair enough??

Zendoodle:

I would not presume to make decisions about your choices (or anyones) in health care, why do you presume to make them for me.

Using that statement, then I presume you are against Obamacare?? Why is it that when it comes to abortion, "it's my body", but when it comes to Obamacare, it's suddenly not my body anymore, and I must comply with what the state deems appropriate for me to take care of my body.

After all, if you do not presume to make choices for me about me health care, then logic would dictate that you must be against Obamacare, since that is exactly what it does; presume to make decisions for me about what I must do to take care of my body, regardless of whether I agree or not.

We'll start with that premise.

And, if by chance, you are against Obamacare, then we'll go to the next level. Let's see how good you are with that one first.

(Wireman: Was that mature enough for you ;-)

You are sensitive. This does not mean you are a bad person, it simply means you would be happier if you would relax a bit. I do stand by my original barbarian statement. If the shoe does not fit, you don't have to wear it.

As far as the decider argument goes, many rapes go unreported for many, many, many reasons. I don't have the time or patience to educate you in this area. In a perfect world, I agree with you. Since we do not live in a perfect world, your argument does not hold water. My views are based on my real experiences with people I have known or do know. I very much doubt you will see things the way I do because your experiences are different from mine.

If you have adopted a rape baby, I think you are a saint. Especially if that baby is a different race than your own.

May you and your family have a happy new year.

Wireman: With all due respect, I feel that with the limited scope of personal knowledge of someone that is ascertainable in a chat forum, especially over the course of a debate such as this one, your making assumptions on what would make me happier is a bit presumptive, to say the least. That is wholly different from your assertion of me being a barbarian, of which you are entitled to your opinion based on points of my stated position. That I have no problem with, but they are two different elements.

It does not surprise me that you would not retract your statement. That's pretty much what I expected. But in light of the fact that you admitted agreement with me, on at least a few points, not the least of which seemed to be rape, incest and the life of the mother, then the logic of your position is paradoxical at best. Not to mention that I've never tried to make this debate about me. That seems to be something you have been more concerned with.

So, I guess I'll just have to continue being a "barbarian"... while at the same time, not being a "bad person"...lol Since I have put many hours of thought into my position, and am personally very comfortable with it, I'll just say that shoe fitting doesn't seem to be your calling in life.

Rape is a crime. If the person who is the victim chooses not to report it, then, under my position, they have made a conscious decision to eliminate the option by which they could legally get the pregnancy terminated. If that's their choice, I have no problem with it. I agree that we do not live in a perfect world. In fact, I alluded to as much with my previous statement that my position is not perfect either.

And yes, we will never see things the same, because I see the pregnancy as a person with their own life and rights. The argument of "it's my body" has never held sway with me, because logic dictates that there are two bodies involved, not just one, and one of them does not belong to the mother. If that's not true, then why else would people convicted of murder of pregnant women be charged with two murders, not just one? The reason, of course, is because there were indeed two murders committed.

But regardless, from the "barbarian", I too wish you and your family a happy new year.

Neither do republican and sincere.

I'm Catholic and I'm not anti-abortion when it comes to the life of the mother, a case of incest or rape. A woman shouldn't have to carry a child she was raped with or implanted through incest! That is anit Catholic and anti-Christian!

clwyd: I'll ask you the same question I asked wireman just a few posts above. Are you willing to compromise on the abortion issue and limit it ONLY to rape, incest and the life of the mother? Or, is that just a cover to hide your real objective of abortion on demand at any time, even if the baby is partially out of the womb.

Liberals always bring up rape and incest, but are never willing to limit it to those cases, which just proves that their argument is a complete LIE!!

See my previous post.

See my reply above, the same one goes here.

Pandering to whom? The target audience of voters in Iowa is only 107,000 people. Hell, I have that many Iranians living in the house across the street from me.

Bill: lol, funny line.