Michael69:

Compassionate as always.

I wouldn't have my child killed in my wife's womb, but if somebody else wanted to have an abortion I'd say "go ahead"....it is not my place to decide for them.

Just more proof, what majority Americans want, republicans obstruct!!!!!!!

I see this little guy Michael1969 is on a roll, all he needs to do now is "BOUNCE!!!"

WCA,

Silence never sounded so sweet.

Excuse me, but wasn't this argument settled long ago?

Coat hangers?

Really?

“These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff ... as he sipped his tea and wondered even where the White House was.

It's no one's business but the women who face this issue. churches and bleeding hearts try to stop it but I never hear a single one of them step up and offer to take the baby and raise it or provide the future mother with money to support an unwanted child.

From an editorial in the Right to Life Michigan

Many prolife people are concerned that the federal government under the leadership of President Barack Obama uses tax dollars to pay for abortions or subsidize abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1976. It prevents the DHHS from spending tax dollars on abortion. However, with the upcoming implementation of President Obama's health care reform law, new routes for abortion funding and subsidizing have been opened up.

To all you right wing losers in the room. What is the best way to stop abortion? Teach young girls and boys how to not get pregnant in the first place. But I seem to remember that you and yours didn't want that. You said that not having sex was the answer. But that didn't work. When Bill Clinton forced the issue and made them give out condoms at the Health Dept. and At schools. Teen pregnancy dropped big time. The Problem here is to many people making to much money to keep the fight going.

White Collar Auto. Was it you that said you didn't want tax dollars paying for abortions? Or someone else. So whom ever said it, would you rather pay $250 for an abortion, Or pay the Millions to raise an unwanted Child? You Good conservatives Christians or so called, wouldn't adopt a Crack baby, or a baby from a woman hooked on any drug. Who do you think is going to pay to take care of that baby? But I guess you would rather see the baby be born and starve to death. I say give them, and tie there Tubs. Or don't you believe in that either?

The country is ok with abortion, we all knew that anyway, because it has been around for forty years now. If the country by and large was not ok with it, it would have changed by now. As a nation we are far more concerned about our beer than we are abortion, prohibition lasted less than five years, we amended the constitution to prohibit alcohol, and then in less than 5 years repealed that amendment to the constitution.

Abortion is legal, if you don't like it don't get one. However you have no right to tell anyone else to do it or not to do it. It simply isn't your decision to make. Why? because abortion is legal.

White Collar Auto

Seeking Approval, you're an idiot.

Do you approve or disapprove the Roe versus Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision? If you don't know enough about this to have an opinion, please just say so and we'll move on.

Approve ...................................................... 39

Disapprove .................................................. 18

Don't know enough to have opinion ............ 41

Not sure .................................................... 2

"The headline states"

Try reading past the headline sometime instead of rushing to be ME FIRST

WCA - I think you're the one who's exhibiting 'idiot' for the world to see.

41% don't know enough ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT DECISION to make a judgement on it being right or wrong in thier mind. Which means: THEY ARE NOT answering a question about about abortion, they are answering about knowledge of a specific supreme court ruling.

If you can't tell the difference between a question about a supreme court ruling and an answer about thier opinions on abortion, then go ask someone with a brain.

Johntho,

I believe you do have a right to tell someone not to get an abortion, just as much as that person has the right to tell you, to take a long walk off a short pier.

You make your own decisions, but there will always be someone to challenge it.

Anyone who truly believes that abortion is should be illegal has not rationally thought it through fully. It's a belief based on bias from religion/politics or an emotion. I'm NOT a Republican or a Democrat, but I do believe that not a lot of people think about the true consequences of this issue.

The argument for pro-life that I always hear is that abortion should be illegal because all life is precious and that life (the life of the baby) is no exception. And that sounds well and good until you think about it. The problem is it isn't so simple as it seems on the surface.

All life is precious. Very noble. But then I inevitably ask, well what about the mother? That's a life. If the mother's life is threatened by the baby due to complications, then who are we to say she has to die for another to live? There are plenty of things that can happen during a pregnancy. Getting rid of abortion forces the pregnant woman to die every time in that situation. It is no more fair to do that then to kill off the unborn child. Who are we, to as the religious types like to say, play god with another person's life? Well if we ban abortion, we would wind up doing that anyway.

And what about that unborn child? Is it truly better to force all those children to be born into less than desirable situations? It is inevitable that people will have sex. And it is inevitable that some people, wrong as it may be, will have children and not be ready to care for them properly. Is it right to have those children subjected to less than adequate parents, who in many cases never wanted them, and in worse cases may be neglected, abused, or even grow up bad as a result of their poor upbringing? Not every child who needs it can get adequate foster care as it is. I can only imagine how much worse all that would get if every child had to be born. Unfortunately, you can't rely on everyone to be a decent parent.

Then there are the woman who become pregnant off of rape. I often hear that no real mother would kill their child. Unfortunately, life is not always so simple. That child they have could very likely look like the rapist who abused the mother. And no matter how loving or good that mother is, every time she looks at that child she might see the face of that rapist. This unfortunately does happen sometimes, and I can't imagine how hard that is for them. But I can imagine how someone might not be able to handle that. Is it not unfair, to force every woman who became pregnant as a rape victim to deal with that? It most definitely is. And is it not unfair, to force that child to go through that as well?

Throw politics aside for a moment. Step out of religious traditions for just a second. Just think what the consequences could actually be of not allowing abortion. Please, be rational about this. If you are arguing to get rid of abortion, then you don't really know the ramifications of what you are arguing for. Either that, or you are a very cruel person.

What's really remarkable about those numbers is that 700 of the respondents had landlines, and that typically means older people. If they had done all 1000 from the cell phone only crowd, I bet the numbers would have been even higher.

Abortions should be legal if it is by the choice of the parents .We have too many humans on this planet already and the other living things are being crowded out of existence. they have rights to life too.The amount of humans that are dying of starvation is increasing.the other species are being hunted out of their habitats.We are destroying our planet and as it is,for the foreseeable future,the only one we can live on I do not see why we should insist on more is better. Governments should be willing to bare the costs of abortions. It is cheaper than supporting those who can't support themselves.Let me add that I am not advocating murder of segments of society,merely bearing the costs of aborting unwanted humans.

I'm pro abortion.

There are too many people already and most are useless fools.

OK, I am pro-choice, but I find this comment below very troublesome.

Governments should be willing to bare the costs of abortions. It is cheaper than supporting those who can't support themselves.Let me add that I am not advocating murder of segments of society,merely bearing the costs of aborting unwanted humans.

listoire

Is it only me?

Well WCA I think that is a first, you telling me I am correct about something! You have all the right in the world to personally disagree with abortion, and nobody can force somebody to have one, but neither should they deprive them of that option if they so choose. We have freedom, a great deal of freedom, and not everybody agrees that our freedoms are moral, but that is the nature of freedom, if a person believes that drinking alcohol is immoral they can choose not to drink and nobody will force them to drink. We all do not have to agree on the morality of our freedoms, we just have to respect that we all have those freedoms, and the morality part is a just one more of our greatest freedoms, which allows us to make those choices as individuals as we see fit.

FEEL THE LOVE? ....... LMAO ...

White Collar Auto, what article are you reading? Or should I ask, who are you getting to read the article to you? It clearly states, "According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions" That is a total of 98% that feel one way or another, with 10% more feeling that it should be legal. Furthermore, the article also states, "In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision from being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about this."

My Pop believed in late term abortion, at least a couple of times when I was a teenager he threatened to kill me!

FEISTY REDHEAD is Right It is the Women who get to CHOSE! Under the Constitution the Individual is sovereign and has the right!

Ray Burns ...

It's no one's business but the women who face this issue. churches and bleeding hearts try to stop it but I never hear a single one of them step up and offer to take the baby and raise it or provide the future mother with money to support an unwanted child.

EXACTLY! And if none of you have ever had an abortion (which I haven't but have supported friends who made that difficult choice), I would ask if any of you then turned around and adopted a child that could have been aborted but was not. That I've done. Put your money and time and live where your so called "mouths" are. If you are not prepared to help with a solution then shut your F*ing traps!

So sick and tired of the "you're killing a baby conservatives" who then turn around and bitch about food stamps and welfare for mothers that HAD their babies!

Which is it? What one works for you?

Apparently NOW the GOP wants all babies, including immigrant ones as the birth rate in the US is going down and they are looking for votes . . .

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166655696/baby-bust-why-the-u-s-birth-rate-is-declining

ALL of you. Please, can we address the issue and stop the name calling? It really stifles any meaningful discussion to have all the nasty insults and bickering filling up the space. Say your piece and then shut up, OK? My piece.... I agree with Feisty and I want to be clear on this... women are not just walking wombs. They have rights that are equal to if not greater than an accumulation of dividing cells. Let's pick a reasonable time in pregnancy before which a woman can exercise her rights and draw a line. Up to that point it is no one's business but the woman involved and her doctor what she decides. America, indeed the world, needs to take care of the children we already have so that none go hungry or are abused or are deprived of an equal chance at a worthwhile life.

Let's make abortions illegal and cut funding for the young, single mothers and their children. That's the moral thing to do right ?

After raising two children ( now over fifty) ... I have changed my mind on abortion ...........

I believe that abortion should be legal till 18 ..... years! LOL

Bear Cat

You say you believe in abortion, that there are too many people and many are fools. Look I don't agree with Republicans either but they shouldn't be aborted, and there may be one or two who are not fools.

The republicans like to believe that only the liberals ever vote to give people their rights. The neanderthals that believe that actually believe that's where the constitutional laws come from. Wherever they get their so called, "God fearing", beliefs from, it's the constitutional judges that give people their rights and are not created from their neanderthal beliefs. Women have their rights and they will continue to practice their rights regardless of political beliefs, religious beliefs or public polls, or temporary state bans. The constitutional courts have and will continue to tear down any state statutes banning any and all groups from enjoying the protection of their rights.

Seeking Sanity, greetings, my first thought to your comment (#1) was maybe not quite "heads exploding" - but more like crapping a cue ball or watching a teabag going through a cheap paper shredder, I knew it was going to happen but I wasn't sure I'd live through it.

Much of this change, the NBC/WSJ pollsters say, is coming from African Americans, Latinos and women without college degrees

As a minority I find this so sad. How can any human agree to stop a heartbeat.

A heartbeat develops at 6 six weeks into pregnancy. Before a female realizes she is pregnant a very small heart is beating inside her womb.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy were against abortion. Times sure have changed and not for the better.

For jk1964,

Since nobody can prove when a soul LEAVES the body, nobody can prove when the soul ENTERS the body. So, don't call a zygote or fetus a CHILD.

And, the government (local, state, or federal) does NOT pay for abortions. I don't believe insurance does, either. Since this is so, it is a cash in hand situation.

Since nobody can prove when a soul LEAVES the body, nobody can prove when the soul ENTERS the body. So, don't call a zygote or fetus a CHILD.

In reality, they cannot prove a soul even exists to begin with.

Soul?!? WTF are you babbling about?

Regardless of wither you think abortion should be legal or illegal, every true american should be in favor of overturning roe v wade. Read the concurring opinion and you will see that the decision had absolutely no constitutional foundation. The dissents by white and rehnquist accurately show how baseless the outcome was. If you are truly an american and want abortion to be legal, you should be in favor of overturning roe v wade and attaining legality though legislation as opposed to a broad overreach by the supreme court.

Hmmmmm,

Funny how Liberals will advocate less punishment and greater freedom for Death Row rapists and murderers but will sit by idly as millions of babies are brutally slaughtered in their own mothers womb for a crime they never committed.

I don't care how you try to get past it, this is a human life from conception. Its not a dog, not a cat or fish, its a real human baby.

It's also a potential member of the 47% - think about that. Won't matter once it's born if that's the case because then it's someone else's problem who better not suck up your tax dollars.

“I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is 'Abortion', because it is a war against the child... A direct killing of the innocent child, 'Murder' by the mother herself... And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love... And we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts...” ― Mother Teresa

This is a classic case of an issue in America that needs a compromise so the rest of us that are sick of hearing about it can avoid having to listen. Deal within conservatives...Roe vs Wade is fact now.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Adopt an unwanted child or two and then get back to us...

In the U.S. there is approximately 35 couples waiting to adopt for every child up for adoption.

Jo Ann-666954

As a minority I find this so sad. How can any human agree to stop a heartbeat.

A heartbeat develops at 6 six weeks into pregnancy. Before a female realizes she is pregnant a very small heart is beating inside her womb.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy were against abortion. Times sure have changed and not for the better.

I agree Jo Ann, I also find it very sad. Mothers should get an ultrasound before deciding to get an abortion, if after looking at their baby they still feel this little being in their womb should not be given a chance to live then be it, you can't force a woman to go through a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

Maybe one day they will find a way to safely transfer a human foetus to another woman, we can only hope.

This is a 12 week old human foetus: http://legacy.owensboro.kctcs.edu/gcaplan/anat2/histology/Image646.gif

Seekingsanity, so if a Fetux isn't considered a baby, then you must agree with what the Nazis did to the Jews. Because the Jews were afterall, NOT HUMAN under Nazi law.

And you must so agree with Slavery. Because under our OWN laws Blacks were not considered human.

You can't have it both ways. You can't decide one law is wrong while the other right when the laws make the same claims.

I am assuming that Feisty meant 'choose' and not 'chose'.

I am not pro-abortion except in the case that it will certainly harm the immediate health of the mother and possibly in the case of rape. That being said, if you are going to 'give the woman the right to choose', the father should be involved. I still don't understand that if a woman 'chooses' to keep a child against the desire of the father, the father must pay child support. However, if the father wants to keep a child, the mother's 'right' to have an abortion overrides his 'right' to have the child. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

-Anna-

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Adopt an unwanted child or two and then get back to us...

In the U.S. there is approximately 35 couples waiting to adopt for every child up for adoption.

this is UTTER and COMPLETE BS!!! Show your source or shut up.....thanks!!

Here's the TRUTH: http://www.adoptuskids.org/

The Truth will set u free:

Children in foster care are regular children who, through no fault of their own, had to be removed from their families due to abusive or neglectful situations.

More than 250,000 children in the U.S. enter the foster care system every year. While more than half of these children will return to their parents, the remainder will stay in the system. Most of these children are living with foster families, but some also live in group facilities.

Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21.

True compassion may also include the liberal left not taking from one person and redistributing to another by force.

Stealing and giving it away is easy.....

But, of course, the conservative right is so pure...

How about funding a trumped-up war in Iraq with national debt? Mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future to fill Halliburton's coffers in a search for non-existent WMD's in Iraq. No redistribution there, eh?

Or the American Dream Downpayment Act - a bill sponsored by a Republican, co-sponsored only by other Republicans, passed by Republican majorities in both the House and Senate and signed into law by a Republican president. Its only goal was to put thousands of people into houses they couldn't afford while making banks and mortgage companies $Billions in profits. When the cumulative effect finally trashed the American economy, Banks and mortgage companies were bailed out with taxpayer money while the mortgage-holders lost their homes in foreclosure. No redistribution there, eh?

As you said, "Stealing and giving it away is easy...", the conservative right proved that during the last Republican administration.

A fetus or embryo is STILL not a child or baby, no matter how often you say it is. And after Dr. King's anti-choice niece, the entire family has denounced her.

What is wrong with you on this post. You are talking about murder. Plain old murder. It is ok to commit murder now? You people are sick. This country is sick.

I can think of many people I wish were aborted!

Regardless of wither you think abortion should be legal or illegal, every true american should be in favor of overturning roe v wade. Read the concurring opinion and you will see that the decision had absolutely no constitutional foundation. The dissents by white and rehnquist accurately show how baseless the outcome was. If you are truly an american and want abortion to be legal, you should be in favor of overturning roe v wade and attaining legality though legislation as opposed to a broad overreach by the supreme court.

Point taken, but I have a hunch it wouldn't matter - because I deeply know it in my heart that our Founding Fathers would have been PRO CHOICE. PERIOD. And I'm saying this being a conservative, and a guy. Now, I don't like the idea of abortion - I wish women would consider more options- but the fact remains that ROE Vs. WADE is the law of the land, and telling a woman what to do with her body infringes on individual freedom. So, in a sense, the ROE vs. WADE decision DOES have a Constitutional basis.

And trust me, if we men had the babies abortion would have been legal back in the year 973, never mind 1973; and abortion clinics would have been as ubiquitous as Mickey D's restaurants. FACT.

Believe it, our Founding Fathers would have been PRO CHOICE.

"Funny how Liberals will advocate less punishment and greater freedom for Death Row rapists and murderers but will sit by idly as millions of babies are brutally slaughtered in their own mothers womb for a crime they never committed."

And the funny thing is they think they are very smart and enlightened. It's quite funny to watch.

It directly effects the bible bangers life... HOW?

Because we value a human life that was created by God, unlike you Feisty.

If a fetus can be killed on a whim by its mother, and not be protected by society, the fetus has no intrinsic/objective value. Its value is purely subjective, the value the mother and mother alone places upon it.

Most women have abortions because the child would be a nuisance. Discarded like trash, worthless. If the abortion is legal, then society agrees with the mother: your child is trash and has no intrinsic value. Unworthy of any protections.

If a fetus is not protected from abortions, then any and all industrial chemicals or birth defect producing substances or companies should not be held liable for damages.

It's like this. If I can shoot my dog, the dog has no protections. If I can shoot anything legally, it has no protection under the law. If someone else shoots the dog, why are they in the wrong? They shot something without any legal protection.

Michael,

Your diet of FOX's propaganda has blinded you to the truth! Federal funds cannot fund abortions! My donations to Planned Parenthood do. So blame the 70% of the Intelligent Americans for it, but don't keep lying!

WCA and David - Funny how conservatives complain about the killing of "babies" but are OK with killing live individuals; how they don't care if live persons starve to death; how they don't care if unwanted pregnancies make it so women are the lesser of the species. How many children have you adopted? How can you complain about abortions and at the same time complain about the people stuck on welfare? How can you overlook the difficulty for young women to advance in life when they are saddled with a child due to one stupid mistake when they were too young to know better? The hypocrisy astounds me.

EEngineer

Or the American Dream Downpayment Act - a bill sponsored by a Republican, co-sponsored only by other Republicans, passed by Republican majorities in both the House and Senate and signed into law by a Republican president. Its only goal was to put thousands of people into houses they couldn't afford while making banks and mortgage companies $Billions in profits. When the cumulative effect finally trashed the American economy, Banks and mortgage companies were bailed out with taxpayer money while the mortgage-holders lost their homes in foreclosure. No redistribution there, eh?

As you said, "Stealing and giving it away is easy...", the conservative right proved that during the last Republican administration.

Now now E, we all know the roots for the massive housing collapse occurred during Billy “Blue Dress” Clintons presidency. Actually there were a number of issues that created and expanded the housing bubble.

Clintons National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream was most likely one of the biggest causes for the incredible redistribution attempt of home ownership and the housing bubbles expansion.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994.

The group formulated a plan for “creative” measures to promote home ownership. One of the WORST ideas, which fortunately never gained approval but points to the extremes that his administration wanted to enable unqualified people to own a home, was to allow first-time homebuyers to tap into their IRA or 401(k) plans with NO PENALTY to create a down payment.

The most glaring part of the Strategy was,,,

“For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required down payment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.”

This “creativity” brought about the famous NINJA loans that catapulted the housing collapse.

Here is a very good link to explain its incredible effect: (Just concentrate on the graphs if you don’t like to read)

http://theaffordablemortgagedepression.com/2010/03/11/origin-of-the-housing-bubble-the-national-homeownership-strategy.aspx

While leading the CFTC in 1998 Brooksley Born fought for regulations of CDS’s and CDO’s, she was summarily ignored and ridiculed by Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt. After Congress exempted the contracts from oversight in 1998 and again in 2000 the market grew from about $100 trillion dollar to $684 trillion in less than 2 years. The rest is history.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton fully opened the door to abuse. With the subsequent resistance of further regulations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when OFHEO demanded it in 2003 and 2004, the script for the greatest economic collapse was in place.

The famous words of Maxine Water, “we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines”.

This was only surpassed by Barney Franks incompetent statement, “I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems”.

Today Americans have been raped of over 40% of their wealth. The most amazing part of all this is that there was government malfeasance for decades and despite regulations and deregulations no one has been found responsible. The initial feel-good Community Reinvestment Act began a 30 year bubble that will be analyzed over and over by economists and other authorities. Yes, the same people who denied its existence and never saw the bubble growing will now decide what happened.

Good luck with that wet-dream.

I’m sure you just forgot to mention your boy-toy Clintons implication in the housing bubble, right?

Try to keep up Spanky.

Valuing human life does not mean forcing a woman who has been raped to carry a baby to term. Our neighbors daughter was forced and in the end she took both their lives by her own hands. Your righty nut cases are sick! Another family who's daughter was forced to do the same had their daughter go crazy with the anguish of bringing her rapists baby into this world so you could have your wish! Sorry, but you are all sick in the head.

A SAD COMMENT ON HUMANITY.

Two simple facts, the libs want a women to have freedom to choose, and they don't want gun owners to have the same ability to choose.

The libs is screaming we need to protect our children from Guns, but when the abortion debate comes up they put their fingers in their ears and scream blah, blah I am a hypocrite until everybody stops talking.

(FYI - I am not against abortion, )

I tend to lean a little right on most issues or like to consider my self a libertarian..but as with anything in life, if something is available, it can be abused.

In my opinion, I have no right to tell what others can do..Do I agree with it? not at all ONLY if it isn't use as a form of birth control. To many times here where I work I see young girls get abortion because they didn't use protection of some sort. I also seen it with a friend of mine where she didn't know she was prego. If it was due to rape, incense, or health issues, I have no problem with it. If it is "Oh I got prego and it wasn't planned" then I don't feel that is right and in to many cases, that is the case.

I like to see a demographic study on who, where, and why current abortions are taking place keep all confidentially done on the person.

Let's see outlawing abortions will get rid of abortions, outlawing guns won't get rid of guns... See the logic. To all my fellow human beings out there, if you see a Republican, don't talk to it, do not antagonize it. Do not even acknowledge it. For it is no good. It is a sub species of human, more animal than human actually. If you can avoid it at any cost, we do not yet know if the reason for it is extra chromosome can be picked up by humans and passed on to our children. There are many similarities in appearance between republicans but I assure you those are only external. They lack the ability to feel pain, reason, and think. Living near humans for so long the conservatives managed to imitate language, I assure you they are not human like the us.

A new report out last week shows that over 28,000 women died in 2012 - in alcohol related scenarios, many binge drinking in young women.

What will President Obama do - to help end this needless loss of women's lives in America?

The Barack hypocrisy continues

JJ - "How can you overlook the difficulty for young women to advance in life when they are saddled with a child due to one stupid mistake when they were too young to know better?"

You do know that many young women have became very successful. And at what point are you too young to know better but still having sex?

and it takes two to make a baby were are the fathers?

Destroying a future human because things may be a little hard IMO not a good reason to have an abortion.

(and finally like I said above I am not against abortion for others)

Frank - people are now considered a sub species of humans if they don't agree with you?

Wow how mighty are you?

I have many friends that are libs and I don't consider them a sub species of human.

White Collar Auto

Did you folks even look at the poll?

41% don't know enough to have an opinion!

NEARLY HALF!

And that is just the folks who would admit it.

Low information public, indeed.

Nice job Libbies, keep it up.

and this is exactly how obama got elected .. half the country are ignorant and blind.. go figure .. libtards are idiots

Can someone explain to me why a woman who aborts a baby at 15 weeks is aborting a fetus but when she miscarries at the same time, she's lost a baby?

Oh and consider the source... extreme left wing media at it's finest

To all anti-choicers: When you worship the contents of the womb, you just sound crazy. You have the right to make the decision for yourselves, not for anyone else. The person most concerned is the woman, not you. It is her right to make that decision with her doctor.

You also sound crazy when you want EVERY pregnancy to come to term and then want to cut supportive services, Head Start, WIC and the like when REAL children need help.

I expect each one of you anti-choice nutters to contact your "teabagger" House Representatives to remind them of their duty to the poor.

That is your ONLY choice in this matter.

"Your diet of FOX's propaganda has blinded you to the truth! Federal funds cannot fund abortions! My donations to Planned Parenthood do. So blame the 70% of the Intelligent Americans for it, but don't keep lying!"

This nitwit doesn't give a dime to anyone. Certain that he milks the taxpayers like most democrat party voters.

If only we could Abort the "Coward' and his disgusting nut case rigth wingism!

And God breathed life into Adam! I get by the words from the Bible that life and breathing through the mouth go together somehow! Not a speck just fertilized! Certain not a life that was created by rape or incest!

Michael: "I don't believe a woman or anyone else has the right to kill a child, even one unborn."

Then don't get an abortion. Oh that's right, you can't. Until then, maybe you should let a woman choose what's right for her.

David Puddy,

How wrong you are and just another example of why the republican party will die if it isn't in its death throws already! I give small , but substantial funds to causes I support. It used to go to the republican party when Goldwater and Reagan were around, but now wit t he extreme right turn as you are an example, I have shifted my giving to causes that matter. By the way Goldwater's views seem moderate to me today compared you nuts in the party today. Evan Reagan seems moderate.

newday - What makes us have a duty to the poor? Our representatives pay bills with our money. Please enlighten us all how Mr and Mrs Public made them poor. If you are so fired up about giving someones money to the poor, have Nancy Pelosi give up a few million of the money she makes on inside info. Don't come back with that she does not, the majority of our reps in congress do.

Would you Call FOX "Fair and Balanced?" O'Reilly has stormed against the left and the media for 20 straight shows and he has called FOX "Fair and Balanced!" LOL LOL!

I am a Conservative and hate the POS we have in office. I am also an atheist and think that people who cling to faith are weak individuals who can not deal with the problems in their lives and need "god" in order to make it through life. My wife has also had two abortions because we did not want children at the time, no other reason. That being said, I have respect for other people's views and do not try to force my opinions onto others. If you do not want an abortion, don't get one, if you do, go for it, just do not require a Christian to pay for it. Therefore, I do not think you can force Christian taxpayers to fund abortions, you can not force a catholic business to provide coverage for abortion, and you can not force a catholic hospital to perform abortions. Let people have their own opinions, live by their own morals, and worry about yourself.

Abortion is here to stay, it's settled law. Get used to it, and move on to something more constructive.

And let's be patient with our right leaning "friends" this morning, they're all just butthurt after watching the inauguration all day yesterday and realizing officially that they're STILL the minority party...

As a man and a father, I have to say it is interesting to read the comments here that abortion is about women making a choice, a choice after the fact. How about both parties (men AND women) make their choice before they get so hot to trot that they can't control themselves? There are various forms of birth control, pills, condoms, gels, foams...

Women don't get pregnant by themselves! If we would relax our puritanical attitudes and stop teaching our children that sex is something dirty while violence is righteous, so long as God is on our side, we might just find that abortion numbers tumble and murder rates fall precipitously. We might also find that waging war becomes less attractive.

We argue about unwanted pregnancy but everywhere we turn we are barraged with sexual images, words, music...there is a huge sex industry in this country and around the world, the continual stimulation of an already strong natural instinct drives behavior. Irresponsible sexual behavior is the root of the problem, education, contraception, perhaps toning down the "sex sells" mentality, are good ways to reduce, weaken the root and stifle the cycle of, "oops, sorry, I thought I could control myself better than that...oh well, it'll be okay, won't it?"

Many of the men here condemn the women but it is men that poke fun at women and then run away and hide when the women take it serious! If you are going to indulge in the activity then be a MAN and stand by the woman you impregnated so she doesn't find herself in a situation so desperate that she finds herself considering abortion.

It might just be that some women who seek abortion do so with this in mind; He doesn't care, so why should I?

this is UTTER and COMPLETE BS!!! Show your source or shut up.....thanks!!

Thanks the queenie!

I have difficulty believing anyone who throws a number like that out without a source to back it up!

The truthfully challenged crowd hasn't figured out yet this site isn't NewsforDumbFux...

Anyone else notice the underlying message from the RWNJ's tirades?

Control & Punishment of women!

And yet SOW, YOU are making the decision for the living, growing PERSON in the womb. You are a perfect example of "Do as I say, not as I do".

Since you say babies are not viable or considered persons since they can't survive on their own outside the womb's atmosphere, then that would make all of us non persons because we are not viable outside the "womb" of the earth's atmosphere and other life sustaining nutrients. Take us out of our protective environment and we are not viable either. Nor persons, according to your belief.

If a baby/fetus is not ALIVE, it would not GROW and be uniqe, one of kind. Like you...me, and everyone else. You rant about no one should make decisions for YOU, yet you have no problem with YOU making life and death decisions for another life, that is NOT yours to live or to take.

Downing Grover...

Abortion is here to stay, it's settled law. Get used to it, and move on to something more constructive

YES, we should do something more CONSTRUCTIVE vs DESTRUCTIVE which is what abortion does. Destroys a life.

I have a hard time with this one. The idea of letting a woman choose what is right for them vs. the right of the unborn. I'm not a woman so I cannot pretend to know what is best. But as a potential father, I would like to know if it was my baby that was being aborted. Many times, that issue gets lost in the argument. Men don't have a choice in this issue and I think they should. I mean, if a pregnant woman has the child, the man will be expected to pay child support (and he should), yet if a woman wants to abort the child, the man has no choice, even though it's his child also.

Personally, I'd like to see more education on this issue. I know it's an issue that has been suggested many times, but I think it needs more discussion and that's adoption. Each day, thousands of potential parents are begging for babies with none to be found. Many that's where this discussion needs to be going.

Seeking Sanity- A fetus is a living growing organism. You don't "suddenly" become a human once you pop out. Science proves the "fetus is not a child" argument wrong. All you are doing is making yourselves look foolish. Science proves that life is a continuum and that rights are not based on capabilities. You don't have the "right" to whimsically kill someone out of convenience. That's what it looks like to others. It looks like you want to call an immoral convenience a "right". The problem I have with liberals is the hypocrisy. The do as I say and not as I do attitude. The lack of logic. You want compassion but don't give it. You want to be treated nicely but treat others nastily. You want to be heard but don't listen to others. You mock the lack of science in religion but ignore the science of abortion. You cannot have a baby without the prerequisite to said baby. PERIOD! If the BABY HAS RIGHTS THE PREREQUISITE HAS RIGHTS PERIOD! That is the science! Not opinion. Separate DNA separate CHOICE!

True compassion may also include the liberal left not taking from one person and redistributing to another by force.

Stealing and giving it away is easy....

And it doesn't include the conservative right invading countries, starting useless wars, and killing innocent civilians at the cost of $10 BILLION/MONTH?

I see lots of ad hominems here. Not very convincing on either side...

Between 1973 - 2008 over 50 million legal abortions were performed in the United States. Of those 85% were performed on unmarried women, and over 56% of those performed were on women between the ages of 20-29. Sadly teenagers between 15-19 make up 17% of abortions performed, which means over 70% of all abortions are women ages 15-29. As this nation continues to fall in education performance, maybe due in part to the social engineering that has replaced reading, writing, and arithmetic, I wonder if it might be possible to shoehorn in some lessons on personal responsibility.

Please read Jim O's post at 1.119. Therein lies the disconnect from the antichoice nutters, who feel free to talk to us about how they are the party of God, and the choices they make, and expect their elected officials to make.

So riddle me this Jimmy old boy: do you expect the poor to happily and quietly starve to death? In my location, it is -14 degrees today, actual temp, I hate to think what the wind chill is, shall we allow the poor to freeze to death? Or would it offend you that you might have to step over the bodies?

We as a nation have a social contract which binds us together. Part of that contract is how we treat the needy.

The great Republican "teabagger" mantra is how they are holier than God Herself. Well, guess what?

Jesus was a liberal. His work was the poor and the ill.

The Republicans talk big, and forget the message.

So...the poor, the ignorant, the blacks and other minorities are becoming more and more in favor of abortion...Ms Sanger must be so proud looking down from the Great Beyond knowing her work is still going stronger than ever.

Eugenics...it ain't just for Nazis anymore.

Jesus was a liberal. His work was the poor and the ill.

I'm so sick of this nonsensical bullsh!t. Jesus was NOT a liberal, you morons. If you believe in God/Jesus, then you would know that a Deity is neither liberal nor conservative...those are HUMAN SOCIAL DESCRIPTORS based on our society's viewpoints on social issues.

Jesus NEVER said that governments were to feed the poor...or that societies have an obligation to help the sick....He talked about INDVIDUALS doing those things. Jesus was not a liberal, a socialist, a "progressive" nor a Democrat. That one would postulate such inane drivel only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the entire scope of the topic.

Btw, Jesus thought you should follow the laws of God with all your heart...how does that fit into being a "liberal", you dolt?

Sorry, Browenstein: I know it is inconvenient, but Jesus was a lib. It must KILL you on the right to have to realize that.

What did Jesus say about YOUR duty to the poor? What did Jesus say about the rich not getting into heaven?

He was a pure lib, and would consider the "teabagger" contingent to be evil.

Or don't you read your Bible, you Bible banger?

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Sorry, Browenstein: I know it is inconvenient, but Jesus was a lib. It must KILL you on the right to have to realize that.

What did Jesus say about YOUR duty to the poor? What did Jesus say about the rich not getting into heaven?

He was a pure lib, and would consider the "teabagger" contingent to be evil.

Or don't you read your Bible, you Bible banger?

lolol...your ignorance appears boundless. you assume anyone with an opinion opposing yours is a teabagger and/or a bible banger? talk about a broken record..

I'm an atheist...however, I studied the bible and religion for over 20 years. You are a perfect example of a cog in the machine of the ignorant masses.

Jesus taught that a person's first obligation was to love God and uphold God's laws...THEN, HE said that next important was to love one another as God loves them. You clearly have absolutely no idea what Jesus taught or expected of people...you only have your lib pablum.

And Jesus was (allegedly) at deity....trying to make Him out to be a "liberal" or a "conservative" is ridiculous idiocy, at best. You can't apply human descriptors to a deity...

Careful of the path that you choose to go down Michael1969. Maybe there will be a group of us who get tired of paying for fat old white guys and their heart transplants.

Women don't get pregnant by themselves! If we would relax our puritanical attitudes and stop teaching our children that sex is something dirty while violence is righteous, so long as God is on our side, we might just find that abortion numbers tumble and murder rates fall precipitously. We might also find that waging war becomes less attractive.

Nailed it. Add to that - Ninety five percent, if NOT more, of our social and economic problems in this Country would be solved if our youth had access to safe and effective birth control and were taught how to use it properly. Then abortion wouldn't be such a hot button issue. And so many people as it is now wouldn't be having children before they are absolutely ready for the responsibility.

I just wish......oh well, never mind....not that we would ever be able to convince the great unwashed here of that, sighber.

PRO-LIFE
MEANS:

Eliminate our dismal poverty statistics

Educate our children

Clean Air

Clean Water

Health Care

Protection from gun violence

Support your child financially

LOVE your child

Feed your child wholesome food

Raise them to be tolerant

Discipline any bullying

Encourage volunteering

Adopt

In other words, Brownenstein: you have no response.

Always the answer from the "teabagger".

I, too, have studied the Bible, and know what the message is. Very simply this:

Jesus' message to all of us: "you must give up ALL to follow me."

I do not know what the exact numbers would be, but out of the total number of abortions performed I would think that only a small percentage are done due to rape, incest or for the health of the mother. The largest number of abortions would be performed due to pragmatic economic decisions, a very conservative stance.

A zygote is not a human life.

Many of you people are delusional, masking your desire for power and control of women with your 'morality'.

Sickening.

I'm pro abortion.

There are too many people already and most are useless fools

Frightening. If this was the criteria for having an abortion, God help us all. You'd better hope that one day someone in power doesn't decide that you are a viable candidate for reducing our overpopulation problem...

Jesus was a liberal. His work was the poor and the ill

So why don't you show us where He said abortions were ok?

@Rick-3416939

One of the biggest campaigns of Planned Parenthood is educating girls and young women in reproductive health and also building up their self-esteem so that they aren't having sex indiscriminately. PP has been empowering young women for decades now, and I support their efforts 100%.

In the 40 years that abortion has been legal, I've known a handful of women who made that choice. In not one instance was that choice taken lightly, and, in only one case did the woman become pregnant again through unprotected sex. Abortion isn't used for "birth control" as much as you might think. I am concerned that there's a mental picture, that many have, of the "village whore", who should be PUNISHED for being such a slut--and the punishment seems to be having to bear a child. Naturally, it's all HER fault, as if it didn't take a man's (with zero personal responsibility) participation. Instead of help and compassion for this girl/child, we are quick to judge.

BTW, I don't know anyone like whom I've described. If you do, then I hope you will steer her towards Planned Parenthood instead of damning her.

Another generation of Americans bites the dust, except this time it’ll be legal a far cry from twenty!

Fewer moths for the government to feed, more food to send overseas to those who really need it!

What did Jesus say about YOUR duty to the poor? What did Jesus say about the rich not getting into heaven?

I'm a conservative and I'm not rich by any standard. And I believe the point made was about ONE's duty to the poor. Not the collective's duty. Are you suggesting that conservatives are not personally generous? Do not give to their church and charities?

Do you think Jesus would be pleased that the tax collectors decreeing a right to your income insist you send your money to the greater DC area, the richesrt cities and counties in all of the USA (wonder how they all got so rich over there?), to sprinkle a little on those who need it while wasting a significant portion of it?

I'll tell you, right off, if any of my daughters became pregnant and wanted to abort the pregnancy, I would probably beg them to consider having the child, then putting it up for adoption, IF the child was tested and proven to have no medical abnormalities. However, it is ultimately not my decision, but the decision of the parents. It's not the government's decision. It's not my neighbor's decision. It's not my church's decision. If it is determined that the child will, most likely, have a quality of life that is not pleasant, or if the child has an illness that could potentially land the family on welfare or even on the street due to the outrageously high medical bills to sustain its life, I would have an easier time with the decision to abort.

I think I've come up with the reason why most conservatives want to take away the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions. Plain and simple, most business owners are on the conservative side. Their businesses thrive when two things are present....high unemployment (many applicants willing to work for peanuts for few job openings) and high demand for goods or services these businesses supply. I dare say, there have been millions of abortions in the last 40 years since Roe v Wade was made law. You think jobs are scarce now? Can you imagine what the demand would be for jobs with millions more people in the country, looking for work? Can you imagine the drain on our social welfare system with far more people on welfare? Oh sure, there may well have been future business owners who would have created a few more jobs, but we're talking about MILLIONS of additional mouths to feed, bodies to clothe and will need shelter. And, where are these additional millions going to live? There's only so much land to create affordable housing that isn't developed to the hilt already....unless....oh, that's right....we have those pesky national parks with millions of acres of land that can be developed. All the conservatives see are dollars signs when they argue against reproductive rights! It isn't a religious issue with most of them!! If it was, they would be treating life after birth as just as precious and worth preserving as life in utero.

The NON-partisan SANDY STORM
frightened children
.
.
Hundreds left homeless.... no books, no toys, no Christmas tree, no school......

and (R) Congress DELAYS relief vote.

The NON-partisan MASSACRE in Newtown Connecticut murdered 20 children
and left families and a community hollow, angered, stunned, sorrowed
.
.
A NATION, horrified and (R) Congress folks who have NRA support resist gun control
.

SAVE
THE
CHILDREN
MEANS
STOP DEFLECTING THE PROBLEM by talking abortion.

SeekingSanity,A fetus has a developing brain and a heart beat, therefore, it is a child. Cure your ignorance.

Performing an abortion is legalized murder, no different then the children that were willed by the crazy with a gun.

Obamcare is paying for abortions, therefore, you, and I do in fact pay for it.

Since when is 39% a majority?

SeekingSanity,

How many adopted children are in your home?

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

In other words, Brownenstein: you have no response.

Always the answer from the "teabagger".

I, too, have studied the Bible, and know what the message is. Very simply this:

Jesus' message to all of us: "you must give up ALL to follow me."

LOLOL...did you even read my post? Have you suffered a brain injury in your past?

Jesus' message to all of us was "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God". Jesus NEVER advocated any secular, social obligations...ever. Jesus only called on his followers to love God first and keep His commandments and love each other. Jesus NEVER advocated any form of civil rights, secular human rights or any of the other crap that liberals try to attach to His teachings...Jesus ONLY was concerned with how an individual followed God's laws and how an individual tried to emulate Jesus' love of mankind so that a person could build reward in Heaven, not on earth. Jesus advocated ONLY acting toward building reward in Heaven for His followers, not working toward "equality" or "civil rights".

The entire idea that Jesus would be a proponent of civil rights is ludicrous to anyone with even an iota of understanding of what Jesus actually taught. Snakeoil salesmen who use religion as their soapbox to hawk their social agenda of civil rights only woo and win over the ignorant.

Gun control is not about protecting children, it is about protecting the LWNJs in advancing their agenda.

Rick-3416939

As this nation continues to fall in education performance, maybe due in part to the social engineering that has replaced reading, writing, and arithmetic, I wonder if it might be possible to shoehorn in some lessons on personal responsibility.

Excellent point Rick!

Unfortunately the Liberal/Progressive cabal is not interested in personal responsibility. They support and advocate “The Life of Julia” and refuse any independence and accountability.

As the unwashed masses on the Left proudly prance around and promote political correctness and their ignoble social and economic justice for the collective our society continues their intended downward spiral.

The Libbies have turned our primary and secondary education systems into a disgrace yet they still scream for more money and criminal union intervention. You just need to look at the embarrassment in Chicago last summer when the Chicago Public Schools went on strike. Their demands were the usual less work, more pay and no teacher evaluation. For this the children get college preparedness ratings on 30% in English, and that’s the high-point of their education.

Our shift from academic education to values education to our current workforce education training, or better known as outcomes based education, has obtunded our children. Multiple convoluted and irrational curricula have just dumbed our nation down more.

Most Americans read at an 8^th grade level, most can’t use—there, their and they’re—correctly in a sentence, ask most Americans to calculate 80 of 350 in their head and they start babbling. But we have some of the best children that can put a condom on a cucumber. More children are taught about Adam and Steve than Adam and Eve.

The Liberal/Progressive purpose is to keep the electorate illiterate to be manipulated easier. The problem is that it’s the very supporters the Left is controlling, and they don’t even know it. Human abortion is allowed and promoted but if you destroy an eagles egg you can be fined $250,000 and spend 10 years in jail. If you have an abortion at 16 weeks you aborted a fetus but when you have a miscarriage at 16 weeks lost a baby. Liberals will protest and riot to save a murderer or rapist on death row but sit idly by as a defenseless child is ripped out of its mothers womb for a crime it never committed.

This is the delusion of the Liberal mind and the Pro-Choice advocates. Education is the last thing they want advanced, it’s much easier for them to lead the useful idiots around when they are illiterate.

Personal responsibility on the Left is only what they are told to do, independent thought is never allowed.

OMG!!!! More killing of innocent kids! We need to ban women!

Gjalt,

I take it you have never been to Washington, DC.? Get off the main streets and you will see poverty like none other! It has been that way for decades! Money going there is better than being thrown at banks, corporations etc. to increase their profits to create jobs that they don't create and then reward their share holders.

Aborting the life of a human at any stage of development because you have the power to do so is tyranny. Humans establish their own existence, not the other way around. Arbitrary opinions do not establish human existence. There isn't one person alive today that hasn't established their own existence. There are many victims of tyranny who were not permitted to do so or were to weak to defend that existence. If we can't agree on allowing human life the ability to establish its own existence, how can we possibly compel others to respect that existence. Arbitrary opinions do not define human existence. Human existence expresses itself on its own terms. Taking away that opportunity of expression from anyone at any point is tyranny.

Ah yes, selective Civil Rights - only a liberal could promote. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, if your not aborted, I mean if your not murdered.

It's a horrible thing to them if 20 kids are shot, but just another day when thousands are aborted. The only positive thing I can come up with is that most aborted would have been raised liberals.

Really, Browenstein: (can't say moron, can't say it, but CAN think it.

Mark 10:21

Pretty clear, even to those without the intellectual graces.

Now. Go and sin no more.

By the way, the government in Jesus' time considered Him to be such a threat, they killed him. Kind of the original "teabagger v. Liberal" battle of its day. The precursor of those to come.

Yeah, you must take REAL pride to represent the "thought" (or what masks for thought" in that bunch of cretins.

Men were SLOW... and ANGRY about giving the WOMEN the right to VOTE.

SO
NO
MEN
POSTING
THEIR
OPINION....

WE WOMEN DON'T NEED YOUR INPUT.....
.
.Few of you who leave a woman pregnant and abandoned ever contribute to the support of the child.

TCBorn,

I'm an ultra Liberal-formerly a Goldwater and Reagan republican I hate the current Majority Leader and crybaby of the House also the nut case leader of the Senate. Mitch McConnel is n old fool and I hope he doesn't keep trying to make Obama a one term president as he has already failed badly!

@R I Mom, Human existence is not an opinion. That applies to both man and woman.

clwyd-2621393

Gjalt,

I take it you have never been to Washington, DC.? Get off the main streets and you will see poverty like none other!

Yes, that is typical of Democrat-run inner cities. But the riches that I speak of, 3 of the 5 richest counties in the USA, and the richest metropolitan area, Washington DC and Arlington, VA are the new super-wealthy. Bureaucrats sucking up your tax dollars with little incentive to be efficient or little fear of losing their jobs. Why is it better that they become rich rather than bankers and corporations? If the latter don't do their jobs well, they'll be out of business. If a bureaucrat does a crap job (and many do), then, well, we'll just increase their budget to compensate.

Oh, and I have been to Washington DC several times...

With the total degradation of our society having eroded soo far, it's no surprise most people think it's OK to murder babies.

Daveyob

1.161

You've had your say

We get it.

Go wear a condom.... that's the responsible, NOT ARBITRARY thing to do.

.

.

Out the FOCUS on MEN'S RESPONSIBILITY and suddenly......

zip

nada

zilch

from these "protectors of life".

When you guys start pinging on themen who don't pay child support...who beat their wives and kids...who demand health and education standards for children....

then you can add your voice.

Aborting the life of a human at any stage of development because you have the power to do so is tyranny. Humans establish their own existence, not the other way around. Arbitrary opinions do not establish human existence. There isn't one person alive today that hasn't established their own existence.

El wrongo. You have it exactly backwards. What IS tyranny is having a child and sticking ME and OTHERS who ARE responsible with the bill and expecting US to raise it for you. Which is why abortion is perfectly Constitutional. I have a wife and son to care for and look after - and ALL OTHER paternity actions brought against me have been successfully defended, TYVM. /sarc.

*eyes roll*

If you want to have an abortion, go ahead and have it. The law of the land is on your side, as it should be. If you want to have the baby, then do that instead. But please don't have any more than you can afford to. I support enough of those, TYVM.

And oh, b.t.w. - I AM a conservative - and no where near rich (my wife I are filing our taxes and pulled in 95k between the two of us last year, that's NOT rich).

Hotticket - "youth had access to safe and effective birth control"

Are you saying they don't? you can get a condom just about anywhere and planned parenthood give them away by the dozen.

RI Mom - I am missing your point if you have one other than you hate men.

@ R I Mom, I tell you when I've had my say, not the other way around. I will let you know when I think you get it. Until then I will express my existence and take into consideration your suggestion about a condom. I do not support the abuse of women or the decision to take away the absolute right for someone to establish their own existence.

"Regardless of wither you think abortion should be legal or illegal, every true american should be in favor of overturning roe v wade. Read the concurring opinion and you will see that the decision had absolutely no constitutional foundation. The dissents by white and rehnquist accurately show how baseless the outcome was. If you are truly an american and want abortion to be legal, you should be in favor of overturning roe v wade and attaining legality though legislation as opposed to a broad overreach by the supreme court."

Bingo. Roe was and remains a jurisprudential abomination. The majority created a new constitutional "right" out of thin air. Just read any of the dozens of dissents in post-Roe abortion cases and it becomes crystal clear. And I say this as being in favor of the woman's right to choose, within reasonable limitations.

You libs make me sick to my stomach...

If you found a bacteria on mars you would say you found life on mars! but something growing on the inside of you with a heartbeat is just a fetus and is not alive? YOU MAKE ME SICK! You are a bunch of murdering sickos...

"ohh I think a woman should have the right to choose" CHOOSE WHAT? TO MURDER HER UNBORN BABY? what was the babys crime?

NEXT TIME YOU TURDS WANT TO GO HAVE AN ABORTION WHY DONT YOU GIVE THE BABY A CHANCE???

write the name "baby" on a piece of paper, and then write the name "dad" and "mom" and "doctor" and add them into a bucket, shake it up and see who gets "aborted"

bunch of murdering sickos... I would be ashamed if I was you!

Repent of this evil!

I would be very fearful of what the Creator of this univers has to think about your actions!

I love how liberals want to give women this right to choose, but want to take away their right to choose light bulbs, the kind of car they drive, the type of guns they can have, and most importantly what to do with their money.

Daveyob

After you put on that condom...

starty rallying your men-folk to become RESPONSIBLE parents

Teach them about RESPONSIBLE family planning

Have them go into the schools and teach boys about RESPONSIBLE sex

Tell them to start being RESPONSIBLE citizens and eradicate poverty

Have the men condemn bullying

Tell Congress that children are being murdered by MEN with guns

Remember that MEN start wars

.

.

Then explain this to 1.167 Tom - Plymouth-3672298

because he's worried about the light bulb bill that George Bush signed....

and his gas guzzling car....

and his money that he didn't spend on the 2 wars....

and his arsenal of killing weapons.

You know....his

ME

ME

ME

because

he is a man

Frank-512516 Let's see outlawing abortions will get rid of abortions, outlawing guns won't get rid of guns

wrong- outlawing abortions will lead to 'back alley' abortions instead, and an increased suicide rate.

I don't like abortion, but we can't make it illegal. What we can do is prevent it by preventing pregnancies in the first place. Good, comprehensive sex ed for all teens. Free birth control, especially long-term methods.

Reduce the stigma of being young and pregnant so if birth control fails, the girl isn't afraid of being called names, ostracized, kicked out of her home, etc. Teach kids responsibility, especially boys who might try to claim it's not theirs, or it's not their problem.

Look...

This whole issue shouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

We have the technology, and this is what we should do. For every baby that is born, that baby is implanted with an encrypted device that keeps the child in a sterile state for its entire life. Normal hormones will flow through the child not inhibiting its ability to grow into an adult; however, this now adult individual is incapable of breeding.

Should this person decide that they'd like to have a child or two, then they would have to pass a battery of tests. They'd need to have their psychology analyzed. They have their financials reviewed to ensure they're capable of caring for this child. They be checked for drug addiction and alcoholism. They're family history will be reviewed for prior domestic violence. Their criminal record will be checked.

Once this person has passed all the tests, and has proven themselves to be an honest, contributing, caring member of our society; THEN, the encrypted lock on his or her's sterility device will be disengaged and this person may have a child. After the child is born. Encrypted lock re-engages until the next rounds of tests are passed to prove that this person truly wants a second child.

Boom.

Done. No more out of wedlock children. No more abortions. People who want to just screw around ar free to indulge themselves as much as they'd like. Gone will be the days of unwanted children, being raised by idiot parents who didn't have enough brain power to even get a job at McDonald's.

I'm sorry, but in what universe is the opinion of 1000 people a valid representation of 315,000,000 people?

I'm sorry, but in what universe is the opinion of 1000 people a valid representation of 315,000,000 people?

in a universe that understands "statistics"

1.176
nightwalker28
.
.
I bet those 1000 people would ALL agree
that
MEN
should take responsibility
for their penis
and for the kids they were instrumental in creating.

Ho-ray Ho-ray! More Americans are in favor of killing babies than ever before. This is a great day for America! The fact that 41% are clueless to Roe VS Wade is, is of little concern. Probably the same 41% who think Obama is a great president.

Toxic Chemist,

You may not have your child killed in your wife's womb, but she can do it without your permission.

1.179
ABORTION
is a LEGAL
personal
choice
.
.get a grip

RI Mom

just because murder is legal does not make it right...

Take it up with God... He is the one you are in trouble with!

@ R I Mom. I will raise my son to respect your rights as a woman but first I must teach him to respect your life. If he doesn't respect your life, your rights as a woman will be insignificant to him.

1.183
Daveyobab

I raised my son and daughter to RESPECT the LEGAL rights of others.
NO ONE is PRO-abortion

.
.
NO ONE
.
.
But if LEGAL RIGHTS are challenged, then be prepared to warn your son that his LEGAL rights will be insignificant.

.
.

and again, NOT A WORD from you on making MEN & BOYS more responsible for the consequences of sex.... and the responsibility of raising children ..

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Really, Browenstein: (can't say moron, can't say it, but CAN think it.

Mark 10:21

Pretty clear, even to those without the intellectual graces.

Now. Go and sin no more.

By the way, the government in Jesus' time considered Him to be such a threat, they killed him. Kind of the original "teabagger v. Liberal" battle of its day. The precursor of those to come.

Yeah, you must take REAL pride to represent the "thought" (or what masks for thought" in that bunch of cretins.

You have to be trolling me now...no one could possibly be this stupid.

Please be a troll...because if you aren't, it's mind-numbing that you are allowed to vote.

It's ironic that liberals don't want the mentally ill from owning a gun (a constitutional right) but will foam at the mouth at the very suggestion that the mentally ill be prevented from voting.

Is it really so much of a leap to connect the lack of respect for human life that abortion exhibits with the lack of respect for human life we see in the terrible abuse and murder of children and people we see in our society? If you are raised to think of your unborn child as "a clump of cells to be flushed down a toilet at will", is it really that much of a stretch to link that those who think like this yet birth a child for their welfare incentives would actually respect the humanity of that child?

Abortion devalues our collective perception of the value of human life.

I am SICK of MEN'S LEGAL RIGHTS trumping Women's legal rights.
It's WRONG
.
.31-States-Give-Rapists-Rights-to-Child
.
.
.
.
.

Legal Voice - Parental Rights of Rapists
legalvoice.org/focus/health/rapists-rights.html - Cached
Health and Reproductive Justice. Parental Rights of Rapists. Legal Voice Works to Help Mothers Protect Children Born of Rape. True reproductive autonomy for ...
Rapist Wants Visitation Rights With Child - ABC News
abcnews.go.com/US/massachusetts-rapist-seeks-visitation...child/story?id...
Sep 29, 2012 ... A convicted rapist in Massachusetts is trying to win rights to have visitation with the baby created when he raped a 14-year-old girl.

<p>Daily Kos: 31 States Give Rapists Rights to Child
www.dailykos.com/story/.../-31-States-Give-Rapists-Rights-to-Child - Cached

Aug 22, 2012 ... She is the author of "Giving Birth to a 'Rapist's Child': A Discussion and Analysis of the Limited Legal Protections Afforded to Women Who ...
Rapist Requests Visitation Rights to Child Born as a Result of His ...
foxnewsinsider.com/.../rapist-requests-visitation-rights-to-child-born-as-a- result-of-his-crime/ - Cached
Sep 30, 2012 ... A 20-year-old man is seeking visitation rights to a child born after he raped a 14- year-old girl. In an exclusive investigation by the Fox News ...
Raped, pregnant and ordeal not over - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist...rights/index.html
Aug 23, 2012 ... Shauna Prewitt's baby was conceived through rape and her rapist sued for parental rights. She calls for laws to prevent this injustice.

anjisan- I'll agree with you for the most part, but if we make it too difficult our population would drop too fast. I'd say make the tests a simple trip to the doctor's office and paying a small fee. Just limiting reproduction to those that want kids, and are willing to make a small effort to have them, would help out a lot.

@ R I Mom I repeat that I will raise my son to respect your rights as a woman which includes respecting the ability of your body to preserve, protect and nurture the life of a human being. I first must teach him to respect life. If I can't do that then everything I teach him about people and laws etc. etc. etc. is irrelevant.

White Collar Auto

The hypocrisy of the left that wails about the twenty children that were killed in an elementary school yet could care less about the 1000's of babies that are killed every year is just astounding.

You should be just as upset about one as the other.

White Collar Auto,

No babies have ever been killed by an abortion. A baby does not exist until after he or she has been born. People like you say babies are being killed because the truth is not dramatic enough. Another example of the Republican dishonesty.

Live with your religious beliefs and don't try to impose them on others.

1.189
Daveyob
.
.

You are raising your child
with a caveat....

RESPECT...

but you offer it with "judgement" and admonition to a woman who does not think the way you do.

Abortion is a non-option for me...my decision based on my ethics... TODAY.

Circumstances have blessed me .... so that I have never had to make a personal abortion decision.

NEITHER HAVE YOU.

I have no right to cast stones, or to judge otherwise on what has already been made legal.

Explain to your son why rapists have rights to the children they sire....

Why is that?
BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL.

Oh my gosh Johndevine. All this time I was trying to prove that I wasn't an opinion and now you tell me I am a religious belief. It seems that I am stuck in the ethically challenged foster care system without any idea of who or what I am. I am so glad you cleared up that existence thing for me. Silly me. I thought I existed before you determined I existed. You are so dang smart.

This article, I find it's title disingenuous and misleading. The first thing I noted was that there were only 1000 participants in this poll. Secondly it did not mention the demographics of the participants, however it did hint that a number of participants were "African-American, Latino and women without college degrees". Again if this poll was, of say, inner city participants rather than more rural participants that would also skew the results. The age group would also be a major factor. If you run enough polls often enough with limited depth you are bound to get the results you want eventually.

I can't imagine the opinion of Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics and Bible belters, i.e. fundamentalists changing much on this issue. The vast majority of people in this country are made up of these groups so I highly doubt this poll is even close to being accurate.

A baby does not exist until after he or she has been born.

If that's what it takes for you to feel good about abortion...you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

No babies have ever been killed by an abortion. A baby does not exist until after he or she has been born. People like you say babies are being killed because the truth is not dramatic enough. Another example of the Republican dishonesty.

JohnDevine: Can't have it both ways. Even in science, which you Democrats tend to spout, a organism is alive when the cells start dividing.

Even then, one- celled organisms are considered separate beings.

To say that they don't exist reflects upon the fact that even you Democrats don't value science too much.

Live with your religious beliefs and don't try to impose them on others.

Another example of democrats being hypocrites. When talking about evolution, don't you try to inflict this belief upon others?

Thank you R I Mom. I respect your opinions and sincerely appreciate you sharing your thoughts on them.

I am SICK of MEN'S LEGAL RIGHTS trumping Women's legal rights.
It's WRONG
.
.31-States-Give-Rapists-Rights-to-Child

I have no right to cast stones, or to judge otherwise on what has already been made legal.

Explain to your son why rapists have rights to the children they sire....

Why is that?
BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL.

RI Mom: Explain to me is this:

If women had the right to choose the abortions, should rapists be allowed to keep their children?

While I don't agree to any of the ways in which the child was concieved, the question remains what would be in the best interest for the child?

To be killed in the womb or to be allowed to live even if it was with the rapist.

The answer would be simple then: If this was a court of law, both parents would be seen as unfit.

So until you can claim that women's rights are in the best interest of the child(which you can't) , I see no reason why you should look down on the rapist's claims.

I personally believe that abortion is wrong, but I also believe that a rapist should have no rights to the child once it born.

DrowningGrover

I'm sorry, but in what universe is the opinion of 1000 people a valid representation of 315,000,000 people?

in a universe that understands "statistics"

I'd say that this particular "poll" is only valid in displaying the pollsters ability to weight a poll with people likely to give a desired result and then claim the poll is reflective of an entire society to publish in the mainstream media to create the illusion that society is gravitating toward an unprecedented support for abortion.

After all, a poll heavily weighted with not just women, but "minority" women is hardly exemplary of the population at large.

The answer would be simple then: If this was a court of law, both parents would be seen as unfit.

no...no court would ever think of a woman as "unfit" to be a mother if she would just as soon kill the baby inside her as birth it. it would be nice if that were the case...it would save untold misery for millions of children...but it isn't.

untold misery for millions of children

Let's fix the ones that are miseable because they are

fatherless,

homeless,

poor,

uneducated,

hungry,

unhealthy,

unloved,

abandoned,

ignored.

To be brief and for those comparing the Newtown massacre with abortion:

Ownership of Firearms= Legal

Newtown massacre of school children= Illegal

Abortion= Legal

Having an abortion= Legal

Ironically the same ones bringing forth the Supreme Court's "5 to 4 decision" are the ones bashing the Roe v. Wade decision.

Viability doesn't has to do with a baby's need to be fed after being born, but the time at which the baby can survive on its own after being out of the womb. Read the court's decision.

If everyone looks at the actual poll results.
You will see how seriously flawed it is.
Not only that but the probability that those who have land lines are older Americans who can't have children due to age is Very, Very High!!!

you can't take a poll which includes 70% land lines!!!!
Because that 70% are 95% of older people who are grandparents and who cannot and do not give birth.

Therefore, if 80% of those folks who are now finally choosing to say no to abortion because all of the crap they have done previously in life, of course they will say abortions should be illegal.

Call all cell phones!!!!

this is what the majority of Americans who are actually in the now regarding having babies are using.

Not some old Alexander Bell Corded home phone.

Back to the drawing board with the flawed statistical methods....

The posts on this thread, on this topic, are truly sad. The mere fact that there is a debate on the killing of unborn children is proof enough that this country is morally decadent. Our selfishness, our financial irresponsibility, and the upside down national values our country is embracing further add to the crumbling of our American Empire before our very eyes where it is obvious that we are in the process of joining other empires that came and went throughout history.

I find it fascinating that many of those who speak in terms of defending the defenseless, the homeless, the poor, the oppressed, and the aged have no hesitation of abandoning the most defenseless of all: the unborn child. Next time you grieve the horrific loss of 20 innocent children at Newtown, which I am sure all of us do, remember the millions of innocent lives that were snuffed out by those adults who were more powerful than they: YOU.

I have two adopted sons, one of whom was scheduled to be aborted. Thankfully, the mother made a mistake as to her timing and was too far along for the medical profession to perform the abortion, for my son is a true blessing to me and to all who have the pleasure of knowing him.

For those of you who have suggested that an unborn child who is medically unsound or may be born developmentally disabled would have no quality to his/her life anyway, I have but one basic and rudimentary response: you disgust me.

Here's a thought for all the people who say "right to choose." We can register everyone who has had an abortion as able to be legally killed and must clearly identify as such. Then the people we currently call "serial killers" can have a "right to choose."

The fact is that despite all the spin, abortion is about a form of legalized murder. A lot of people will shout "it is legal." Well, it shouldn't be. I realize that women like RI Mom find that having such power over another human being to be delicious and so want men to "butt out." That's not gonna happen.

Lilirocks:

All a Supreme Court decision is is a (possibly temporary) victory for one side or the other. Sometimes they make bad decisions. Saying the so-called "patriot act" was okay comes to mind. What you mentioned (aside from your own "argument" that abortion should remain legal because it is currently legal) is an unfortunate aspect of human nature in which people seek to consider results in their favor "final" and results against them something to be undone.

What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right or moral/ethical. After all, slavery was legal at one time in our country. Slaves were counted as property not humans. Isn't that what is being done with the unborn today? Are the posters who say that they are not human because they are not viable also against the late term abortions and partial birth abortions, where the infant is viable. Does it make it murder only because the child is completely out of the womb, whereas seconds before, they would not call it murder? Are these same posters the ones willing to give animals more rights at living than an unborn child? Remember, it wasn't that long ago that women and African-Americans did not have the right to vote. If women are saying ewhentheythey want the right to choose, what about the right of the unborn woman to choose (Life- which is the first inalienable right guarenteed us)? Adults madec their choice when they chose to have sex. Let the unborn girls have their choice if you are truly pro-choice,

Gjalt,

Yous still haven't mentioned if you have ever been to these places you are talking about. You didn't say the counties you clearly state the word DC. Once again lies out of the right. That is something you do best on the right! I love that fact it is 3-7 against ending Roe vs Wade! More republican support means more republican decline. If that is possible?

Just read through most of the comments here. One thing I have to believe is that Seeking Sanity is just like our purported president: never had an original idea in its life.

All everyone on the abortion side seems to care about is the decision of the mother. The problem is the decision should have been made months, days or hours earlier. Due to selfishness (in the majority of the cases) she has decided to have a sexual relationship with someone. I don't care WHO that person was. Due to that relationship a life was started. Now the selfishness REALLY kicks in and it it time to get rid of the result of the first act of selfishness and an abortion is performed.

Pathetic. No sense of responsibility from the very beginning. Only a sense of entitlement that I DESERVE TO HAVE SEX. Pathetic.

You say the woman's right to choose is being withheld. What a crock. What about the choice of the life that is in her?

Oh, an since when is 39% a majority over 41% that have not decided. The headline is FLAWED and MISLEADING as usual.

Idaho Steven, Spud nuts!

Read the the article! Almost 7 out of 10 isn't bad. You're probably one of those republicans that only 26% of Americans approve of and falling fast!

Lilirocks:

Your argument about viability is seriously flawed. Just as a fetus cannot survive on its own, neither can a newborn. It still needs nourishment and care. According to your argument, and the Supreme Court's argument, those newly born children should be able to be legally aborted as well, especially if they are as inconvenient as the fetus is to those mothers who choose to abort. The reality is that we humans are experts at rationalizing that which we want to do. All we have to do is come up with something that resembles logic and then run with it. You embrace the Supreme Court's ruling because it fits into your ideology.

FDJLakers1

I bet you embrace the Supreme Courts decision of 2010 on gun ownership because it fits your ideology.

Pvblivs

I don't doubt that we embrace some of the court's decisions and dislike others. You, (I'm guessing a man) shouldn't have a voice on abortion).

To you all, we live in a country of LAWS, and we should be proud of the fact. Laws cannot please everyone, but the lack of them can please no one.

Morality of laws is a personal view.

Our Justice System is made up of men and women, who spin the meaning of morality and of the Constitution to fit their own philosophies. Obviously, being human is an intrinsic handicap since the same Justice System that purports to have "just" laws, has also upheld laws that made slavery, abortion, women's non-right to vote, internment of Japanese Americans, extreme injustices to the indigineous Indian population, and the Patriot Act all legal at one time or another.

Prohibition was first declared legal, and was then overturned when enough people wanted it overturned. So we rule by what the majority wants, not by what is truly right or wrong. And when the majority starts to believe wrong is right, right is wrong, up is down, and down is up, then a Democracy is on its way out as it embraces more and more moral decadance. And when that same population understands that it can vote into office the Party that will give them the entitlements they they think they somehow deserve, then that Democracy is even closer to its demise.

Those involved in Jihad against us, who are united worldwide, must be laughing their rears off as we work to destroy ourselves from within. A Union divided against itself cannot stand. Have you ever seen this country more divided, more corrupt, and more decadent than it is today?

FDJLakers1: You are wasting your time with lilirocks. People like that forget about those choices in a couple of weeks, and then they have the nerve to blame God for " why wasn't He protecting us" such as with the Sandy Hook incident.

It fits the bible verse: Psalm 81: 11-12

“But My people would not heed My voice,
And Israel would have none of Me.
¹² So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart,
To walk in their own counsels.

¹³ “Oh, that My people would listen to Me,
That Israel would walk in My ways!
¹⁴ I would soon subdue their enemies,
And turn My hand against their adversaries.

@ lilirocks Human existence is not defined by man/woman made laws or arbitrary opinions. Whose personal view turned you from nothing of importance into a human being worthy of the protection of our laws? I am a man and I don't have an opinion on abortion. I am a man who knows that my existence was never an opinion of mine. My existence was and still is a fact. No law can change that.

LiliRocks:

To loosely quote you Miss Lili, because I am a man, I should have no voice in abortion. That is almost as illogical as saying because I am a man, that I should not have to pay child support. It is almost as illogical as saying that because you are a lady, that you should not have any voice in gun control.

Please understand that guns affect both men and women, so of course you should have a voice in gun control.

Please understand that both the man and the woman are responsible for the child they brought into this world so of course the man should pay child support.

And please understand that both the man and the woman created this unborn child and, assuming both are loving parents/people, that both love that unborn child. And in all cases both are responsible for its existence. So of course a man should have a voice in abortion. This fetus is not an extension of a woman's body Lili. Your arm is an extension of your body, but a fetus is a living and separate being who relies on the woman's body for nourishment and development. To say a man should not be heard on this issue is as arrogant and as sexist as those men who dishonor women in some way.

Unhap:

That is a very fitting verse. It's a sad verse, but unfortunately very fitting. Thank you.

God need better pimps, and more money!

To Queenie and Feisty:

The number I meant to type was 25 (which is a very approximate number, and most probably lower then it should be), not 35.

First let me inform you that my stepson is adopted (I thank God that his biological mother thought of him as a human being and not as some kind of tumor in her womb), and that I know for a fact that it can take a long time before potential parents are chosen, because there is so many of them waiting to adopt. This is why thousands of people adopt children from other countries every year. Also know that it cost quite a bit of money to adopt a newborn, $30,000 minimum (and more then that most the time), many cannot afford this eventho they would like to adopt, these people are not included in your statistics, as they have not taken the steps to adopt since they can't afford it (this inludes parents who would like to adopt a first time, and parents who already adopted one child and would like to adopt more children but cannot afford it). Also you should know that it takes very strong and mature people to adopt an older child, not everyone is able to cope with the possibility that their child may never call them mom and dad, and/or may never consider them mom and dad. And it would also be difficult for young couples to adopt a 20 year old "child" when they are about that age themselves. Also to be considered, in cases where the children has health issues, again not all couples have the strength to adopt these children, unfortunately (which doesn't mean that they are less then the other ones). God bless the ones who can tho. There is also other factors, for instance many older children want to keep a relationship with their biological family, again this can be difficult for a lot of people. For all these reasons and others, many prefer to adopt an infant.

The statistics are approximately the following (note that this is from previous years):

The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 500,000 women were currently seeking to adopt a child.

Virginia-based National Council for Adoption estimates that 20,000 or more U.S.-born infants are placed for adoption every year.

Do the math.

And specifically to Feisty: Please let me know where I said that women should be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

Point taken, but I have a hunch it wouldn't matter - because I deeply know it in my heart that our Founding Fathers would have been PRO CHOICE. PERIOD. And I'm saying this being a conservative, and a guy. Now, I don't like the idea of abortion - I wish women would consider more options- but the fact remains that ROE Vs. WADE is the law of the land, and telling a woman what to do with her body infringes on individual freedom. So, in a sense, the ROE vs. WADE decision DOES have a Constitutional basis.

Abortion was around and legislated against at the state level before the 14th amendment (the one that was primarily claimed to have been infringed upon) was adopted. If abortion was such an important right, don't you think that those writing the constitutional amendment would have included it? Since they didn't, you have no facts on which to base your claim that our founding fathers would be pro choice. Since we have absolutely no way of knowing what they might think now, we cannot apply that line of reasoning to the constitution without making an unfounded assumption. I will reiterate, the ruling was incorrect no matter what side of abortion you are on. If you think it should be legal, then push for either legislation at the state level or a constitutional amendment to establish a right. But under no circumstance should the court create a right, no matter how popular it may be.

For Michael1969 who thinks that Federal Funds pay for abortions - per FactCheck.org

...Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

Got anything to refute this, little guy?

If women would emulate Monika Lewinski with more frequency the need for contraception and abortions would be less and I think there would be a drop in the amount of violent crimes committed by males.

kim-H

The ban is actually imaginary. The reality is that the federal funding of PP frees up the funds it receives from other sources to be used to fund abortions.

Jim Spence -

NINJA loans = No Income, No Jov or Assets - this was the hallmark of the Bush administration, not Clinton!

Homeownership for minorities was a specific goal for Bush very early in his first term. This site has transcripts for every speech made by Bush on home ownership: (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/homeownership/archive.html). The speeches archived on this site clearly show Bush's commitment and the plan he had to increase minority home ownership.

From a radio address to the nation in June, 2001, just six months after Bush took office:
For instance, while the rate of homeownership amongst all Americans is nearly 68 percent, the rate among African-American and Hispanic families is under 50 percent.

One particular program, the American Dream Downpayment Fund, will provide $200 million in downpayment assistance to help 130,000 low-income families buy homes.

$200M in American taxpayer money to help low-income families with their downpayment for a house. When did Clinton ever do that?

From a radio speech given by Bush in June, 2002:
Yet today, while nearly three-quarters of all white Americans own their homes, less than half of all African Americans and Hispanic Americans are homeowners. We must begin to close this homeownership gap by dismantling the barriers that prevent minorities from owning a piece of the American dream. The single greatest hurdle to first time homeownership is a high down payment requirement that can put a home out of reach.

Also in June, 2002, in a speech given at a church in Atlanta, Georgia, Bush provided more details about how he was going to increase minority home ownership:
And so by the year 2010, we must increase minority home owners by at least 5.5 million.

First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment.

... to streamline the process, make the rules simpler, so everybody understands what they are -- makes the closing much less complicated.

We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home. We can change the print, and we've got to.

And we want to fully implement the Section 8 housing program, homeownership program. The program will provide vouchers that first-time home buyers can use to help pay their mortgage or apply to their downpayment.

Is this really a Republican talking? He wants to expand minority home ownership by using taxpayer money to make down-payments and expanding Section 8 (low income rental assistance) to include mortgage payments? If they can't afford rent, why in the hell assume they can afford a mortgage? And we can see the beginning of the biggest problem in the mortgage meltdown - Bush refers to streamlining the process and changing the fine print, in short, getting rid of all those complications that keep unqualified buyers from owning homes. There is the true birth of NINJA loans - get rid of all those pesky qualifications that make sure someone can actually afford to pay a mortgage.

In October, 2002, Bush called a conference in the White House on "Increasing Minority Home Ownership". From a speech given by Bush at that conference:
...you don't have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.

There it is, in black and white - Bush thinks that low-income buyers should own a nice house regardless of their ability to pay for it!

Now, the American Dream Downpayment Fund - what is that?

This fund was established by the American Dream Downpayment Act, passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by George W. Bush in 2003. What was in this act? Here is a copy of the fact sheet that was passed out before the speech announcing the push for this legislation one year before it was passed: (http://caps.fool.com/blogs/american-dream-downpayment-act/84971)

Most interesting in this fact sheet is the list of things that the administration had already accomplished before the bill was passed:

The Administration also implemented a hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) product that makes it easier for new homebuyers to stay in their homes in the first few years.

Substantially increasing, by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market specifically targeted toward the minority market.

Creating new mortgage products to meet the unique needs of recent immigrants.

What is a "hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage"? According to Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/5-1_arm.asp - axzz1azP0Dujh):

What Does 5-1 Hybrid Adjustable-Rate Mortgage - 5-1 Hybrid ARM Mean?
An adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) with an initial five-year fixed-interest rate. After this initial five-year period, the interest rate begins to adjust on an annual basis according to an index plus a margin (or, the fully indexed interest rate).

... Most borrowers who choose a 5-1 ARM intend to refinance or move before the expiration of the fixed interest rate period.

This had the effect of increasing the housing bubble immensely! With housing prices rising phenomenally, many people bought houses they couldn't afford, counting on mortgages just like these to keep the payments low until the house price rose enough to sell out and recoup a profit. This worked really well until the bottom fell out and house prices fell. Then the owners were stuck with houses that weren't worth what the mortgage was written for, the fixed interest time period ran out and owners were faced with a huge increase in their house payments.

What is the "secondary mortgage market"? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_mortgage_market):

The secondary mortgage market is the market for the sale of securities or bonds collateralized by the value of mortgage loans. The mortgage lender, commercial banks, or specialized firm will group together many loans and sell grouped loans as securities called collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs). The risk of the individual loans is reduced by that aggregation process. These securities are collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), also known as mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The CMOs are sometimes further grouped in other CDOs. Mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and decreased real estate values can make these CDOs difficult to evaluate. This happened to BNP Paribas in August, 2007, causing the central banks to intervene with liquidity.

Note the reference above to BNP Paribas above. Again, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNP_Paribas):

On 9 August 2007, BNP Paribas became the first major financial group to acknowledge the impact of the sub-prime crisis by closing two funds exposed to it. This day is now generally seen as the start of the credit crisis and the bank's quick reaction saved it from the fate of other large European banks such as UBS.

So, the Bush administration convinced "government-sponsored enterprises" (politico speak for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA) to invest $440B in a market that was one of the first to fail, signaling the entire subprime mortgage meltdown.

In fact, most detailed analyses of the recession put a lot of blame on the secondary market market for causing the subprime mortgage crisis in the first place. From (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-blame.asp - axzz1bmogOsCX):

The increased use of the secondary mortgage market by lenders added to the number of subprime loans lenders could originate. Instead of holding the originated mortgages on their books, lenders were able to simply sell off the mortgages in the secondary market and collect the originating fees. This freed up more capital for even more lending, which increased liquidity even more. The snowball began to build momentum.

And, in 2003, we have George Bush's own words in one of his speeches bragging about the fact that he pumped $0.44T into the secondary mortgage market. This is a simple case of supply and demand; with the huge influx of more money into the secondary mortgage market, prices rose precipitously, leading to a bubble that would eventually pop and help devastate the US economy.

All legislation is documented on government websites. Look this one up; it is quite interesting:

American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) - signed into law on Dec 16, 2003.

Sponsor: Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]

Co-sponsors: Samuel Brownback [R-KS]; Conrad Burns [R-MT]; Ben Campbell [R-CO]; Michael Crapo [R-ID]; Michael Enzi [R-WY]; Charles Hagel [R-NE]; Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]; Richard Santorum [R-PA]; Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]

Note that there was not one Democrat co-sponsoring this bill. The bill was sponsored by a Republican, co-sponsored only by other Republicans, passed by a Republican majority in the House and Senate and signed into law by a Republican president.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the major overseer for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac as well as the FHA. From a report by the Cato Institute (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/scandals):

Alphonso Jackson was named a deputy secretary at HUD a few months into President George W. Bush's first term. He became the acting secretary in late 2003, and permanent secretary in April 2004.

It was under Secretary Jackson that HUD decided in 2004 to increase Fannie and Freddie's "affordable" housing goals while allowing the financial giants to continue the Clinton-era policy of counting subprime mortgages as credit toward meeting that goal. Despite Fannie's 81-percent increase in lending to minority families in 2003, Jackson chastised the organization for its "failure to lead." Jackson's pressure on the GSEs came despite the fact that regulators were growing increasingly concerned with subprime lending. The Washington Post found that "housing experts and some congressional leaders now view those decisions as mistakes that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending that is roiling the U.S. economy."

Another indication that risky lending got out of control under Jackson is that default rates on loans insured by HUD's Federal Housing Administration hit record highs and continued to worsen as of early 2009. At the height of the housing bubble, Jackson advocated reducing the down-payment requirements on FHA-insured loans to zero. With private subprime lenders having reduced FHA's share of the housing market to 3.3 percent in 2004, Jackson stated that he was "absolutely emphatic about winning back our share of the market." The bubble burst, and FHA is now picking up the subprime slack—and currently insures one in three new mortgages—a precarious situation for taxpayers going forward.

From a profile of Alphonso Jackson by ABC News in 2005 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Inauguration/story?id=406759 - .Tsk2O7Knnd0):

Alphonso Jackson, a longtime friend of President Bush, has been asked to stay on in his job as secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Bush has been friends with Jackson since his days in Texas.

There you have it; a Bush crony put in charge of HUD and directed Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and the FHA to underwrite ever riskier loans at the behest of George W. Bush. Republicans have been quick to put a large part of the blame for the subprime mess on GSE actions (and rightfully so). What they have consistently ignored, however, is the fact that GSE actions were directed by a Republican president, required by Republican legislation and commanded by a Republican crony running HUD.

in a bipartisan Congressional report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the subprime mortgage crisis released in 2009 (summary here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32615):

• Lower down-payments led to housing prices that outpaced income growth: Once government-sponsored efforts to decrease down payments spread to the wider market, home prices became increasingly untethered from any kind of demand limited by borrowers’ ability to pay. Instead, borrowers could just make smaller down payments and take on higher debt, allowing home prices to continue their unrestrained rise. (p. 11)

• The Government Sponsored Enterprises led the way into the housing crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were leaders in risky mortgage lending. According to an analysis presented to the Committee, between 2002 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie purchased $1.9 trillion of mortgages made to borrowers with credit scores below 660, one of the definitions of “subprime” used by federal banking regulators. This represents over 54% of all such mortgages purchased during those years. (p.24)

Pretty damning. Note the time frame they mention; 2002 to 2007. More than 1/2 of all the subprime mortgages, $1.9T worth, was purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during that time. As I have shown above, they did this because they were told to do it by a Republican president, required to do it by a law first proposed by Republican legislators then passed by Republican controlled House/Senate and castigated by a Republican crony in charge of HUD when they didn't do enough of it!

No, you try to keep up, Spanky. Make no mistake - this was a Republican Recession!

Jim Spence -

You also make a big deal out of repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act:

Repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton fully opened the door to abuse. With the subsequent resistance of further regulations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when OFHEO demanded it in 2003 and 2004, the script for the greatest economic collapse was in place.

Let's look at exactly how that happened:

From Wikipedia:

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

Gramm = Phil Gramm, Republican Senator from Texas

Leach = Jim Leach, Republican Representative from the state of Iowa

Bliley = Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Republican Representative from the state of Virginia

You make a big deal out of Clinton signing it into law - not so much about the Republican politicians who crafted the law in the first place!

Democrats fought it. During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.

He must have been prescient - that's exactly what happened 10 years later!

Try to keep up, Spanky!

No, make no mistake - this was a Republican recession!

johndevine

White collar auto

No babies have ever been killed by an abortion. A baby does not exist until after he or she has been born. People like you say babies are being killed because the truth is not dramatic enough. Another example of the Republican dishonesty.

Live with your religious beliefs and don't try to impose them on others.

First let me say that my opinion has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with what I feel in my heart. My mother was very pro-choice, just like you, and I used to be too. I still believe that a woman should not be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy, but I also feel it is a very unfortunate choice, unless the mother's life is in danger.

This is a 12 week old foetus: http://legacy.owensboro.kctcs.edu/gcaplan/anat2/histology/Image646.gif

This is a 18 week old foetus: http://www.i-am-pregnant.com/Pregnancy/calendar/week/18

This is a baby who was delivered as a 21 week old foetus: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-20-tiny-baby_x.htm

Please take a minute to look at the pictures and tell me what they look like to you. Note that detectable brain activity starts at 6 weeks.

A baby does not exist until after he or she has been born you say? Do you know what the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is? It is intended to protect the life of a child who survived abortion, we are talking about a child who was born despite the abortion, who was still alive and could potentially survive. Obama voted against it. People who are ok with that should force themselves (notice here that I did not say "should be forced") to witness such a birth and look at the newborn that will be left to die, so you fully realise what it is you approve.

Isn't it republicans who say "pro-life," and then turn around and cut the school breakfast programs for underprivileged children?

Force babies to be born to parents who can't afford them, take food out their mouths, than go to Russia and adopt their children, that's the republican way?

EE

So Democrats did not want minorities to become homeowners because they were afraid the new homeowners would become Republicans.

First let me say that my opinion has nothing to do with religion

Say... Sweetheart... as long as YOU'RE talking about YOUR opinion would you please be so kind to back up your bull@!$%# on adoptions?

In the U.S. there is approximately 35 couples waiting to adopt for every child up for adoption.

I am not the only one waiting for you to prove yourself credible...

Thanks in advance!

PS: While you are at it, would you enlighten us on how it feels to be on the WRONG side of society?

This is a 12 week old foetus

PPS: I have never heard of a "foetus" care to elaborate?

1.217 Sweetlips, if you do not read the posts you will be waiting and looking stupid for a long time.

Lilirocks:

So, it is your claim that men should have no voice on laws? Obviously, I'm not going to agree with that. But you are much like many scoundrels. Many rick people think that the poor should have no voice so that the rich can dump their waste wherever they want. Many light-skinned people think that dark-skinned people should have no voice so that their group can do whatever they want. And many women think that men should have no voice so thet women can steal and kill with impunity. Only a tyrant declares that any group of people should be silenced on any law. And that is what you are -- a tyrant.

If women could get along with each other they would already be in command of the world. But they can't so they ain't.

I have not the time or desire to endlessly bicker here like some of you do, knowing that your opinion is worthless and will not change any facts. I will respond only this last time to your nonsense.

Pvblivs

It is only your claim that men have no opinion on laws, not mine. But if men would be the ones getting pregnant, abortion would've been legalized way, long before Roe v. Wade's decision. It's quite easy trying to control someone else's body. And you have the audacity to call me "tyrant"? LOL

FDJLakers1

Sorry to let you know you live in an idealistic world, and should come back to reality. Please read your own comment, Again?

Daveyob

The decision obviously was made by your parents. They didn't abort you. So you're now a grown up man. Your imaginary point is? Please don't bother responding by using religion or metaphysical logic.

Unhappy-1583758

Again, you're assuming too much. What makes you certain that I believe in what you're saying or even believe in God, just because you believe in it?

Lilirocks:

You posted comment 1.210 claiming men should have no voice. The claim that abortion is about a woman "controlling her own body" is a lie that no one believes. But some people think it sounds nice. If I thought that abortion was only about a woman controlling her own body, I would support it. But it is not and I do not. I advocate on behalf of the victim, the child, who is murdered -- even if an unjust law declares that it is okay.

But you can go away now. We all know that your comments are worthless. You can go tell your echo chamber how you kept your ears tightly closed. I am sure they will pat you on the back.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

First let me say that my opinion has nothing to do with religion

Say... Sweetheart... as long as YOU'RE talking about YOUR opinion would you please be so kind to back up your bull@!$%# on adoptions?

In the U.S. there is approximately 35 couples waiting to adopt for every child up for adoption.

I am not the only one waiting for you to prove yourself credible...

Thanks in advance!

I already did "sweetheart", scroll up, and I already said that I meant to type 25, not 35, and I explained how I got this number. And you're welcome.

PS: While you are at it, would you enlighten us on how it feels to be on the WRONG side of society?

This is a 12 week old foetus

PPS: I have never heard of a "foetus" care to elaborate?

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus I always spelled foetus myself, it can be spelled either way. And you're welcome for this information as well.

According to the Poll, when asked if the respondent (the person polled) agreed with the Roe Vs. Wade decision, 41% answered that they did not know enough to answer that question.

Check the details for yourself, but this response weakens the validity of this poll!

So Democrats did not want minorities to become homeowners because they were afraid the new homeowners would become Republicans.

No, no, nothing like that. But one has to wonder why the Republicans embraced the idea of minority homeownership, particularly at taxpayer cost since, after all, Republicans are such champions of fiscal responsibility (detect any sarcasm there?).

The answer is simple: Republican party dominance. From a 1999 article in the Washington Post, Republicans Admire Bill . . . McKinley, That Is

To be cutting edge in this presidential election, you have to learn the lessons of the '96 campaign. 1896, that is.

Why? Marshall Wittmann of the conservative Heritage Foundation explains: "1896 was the year that McKinley and [political booster Mark] Hanna tried to redefine the Republican Party. Instead of rehashing Reconstruction and the Civil War, McKinley offered an appealing image to new immigrants, rising entrepreneurs and working folks.

"The theory of the Bush campaign," Wittmann continues, "with the slogan of 'compassionate conservatism,' is to similarly expand the base of the Republican Party, specifically by appealing to minorities and more centrist voters."

The swami of McKinley Mania is Bush strategist Karl Rove, who got hooked two years ago during a class at the University of Texas. A tenacious student of political history, Rove dug deeply into the story...

Republicans dominated Washington for the next 35 years. Rove liked the sound of that.

The 2000 campaign, he declared, could be about "much more than one election -- there is the chance to make the Republicans the majority party for a generation. Just look at 1896."

So, in short, Republicans were doing exactly what they have accused the Democrats of doing for the last 4 years: buying votes with government policy.

Unfortunately, in the relentless pursuit of minority voters, they allowed financial institutions to underwrite so many sub-prime loans and avoid the risk of those loans by selling them to GSE's that the eventual failure of those loans trashed the American economy and most of the world's economies.

Show me where the CREDIBLE, SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has proven when HUMANITY begins, and we'll have a talk about banning abortion. And, by the way, your thoughts, as in statements like...

"Well it's obvious that human life begins at conception because what else could that embryo grow into?"

DO NOT constitute the credible, scientific community. That is your attempt at trying to logic through a complex biological problem, with your minimal biological skills. In other words, it is your OPINION and/or BELIEF, nothing more.

And psssst, the Hyde Amendment prohibits all public funds from being used on abortions. And don't give me that, "money is fungible" crap. When you deposit and withdrawal a $20 bill from the bank, they don't give you the same bill back, but the loss to the bank is the equivalent. Money is fungible, MATH is not.

Lilirocks. Don't telll me how to present my knowledge. My parents opinion on my existence had no bearing on my existence. How they reacted to my existence (aka. not aborting my existence) is the decision they made. My existence was never imaginary. Was yours?

And really Sarah? Human existence is not a biological problem. Human existence doesn't become a biological problem until that existence tries to end someone else's right to exist

You know, if the religious right ever get their wish and somehow overthrows Roe v Wade, and the zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a "person", with all the rights that come with being a person, can you imagine how many women would be brought up on charges of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment of a child if, for whatever reason, the woman has a miscarriage? That's what it'll come to, you know. The "mom" accidentally falls on an ice-covered sidewalk and 24 hours later, her month-old zygote gets expelled from her body because it's "dead". The prosecuting attorney will be asking "what were you doing walking with your child on such a dangerous sidewalk?", to which she'll answer "I never knew I was even pregnant"! He'll look at her sternly and chastise her "ignorance is no excuse" and she'll serve 5 to 10 in the state pen.

One good thing though....if you conceive in, say, the latter part of the year, you'll be able to claim your zygote/embryo/fetus on that year's taxes as an exemption, even though the child won't be born until the following calendar year....BONUS!! Cha-ching!!

No one can stop someone from trying to end somones right to exist. Laws only deal with the consequences. But make no mistake about it - when someone does achieve the goal of ending someone's existence that existence ends. Throughout this thread I have been called a choice, a religious belief, a decision, an opinion, a biological problem, a zygote/ embryo/ fetus but you know what? I am a human being. From the moment of conception to my last breath I have been and always will be a human being. Trivializing my existence with words does not make my existence trivial. I have never been trivial. Stop trying to make me believe that I was or am trivial. Do you want proof.? Well here I am and so are you. You can't separate someone's existence from their past. The only way to separate someone's existence form their future is to abort that existence

Dave,

Yes, the issue here IS when HUMAN existence or LIFE begins. Lots of things are ALIVE, but not all of those things are HUMANS, DESERVING OF RIGHTS.

THAT'S why that's the question. Anything else is BELIEF. Like your entire stance. It's NOTHING but opinion and belief. Since you can not prove, scientifically when something alive (fetus, embryo) becomes something HUMAN, you don't get to dictate to anyone what they can do with their bodies. You can say, "Well logically what else could it be?" but that DOES NOT constitute scientific evidence. It constitutes your BELIEF.

Sorry. You're NEVER going to overturn Roe.

It is not an issue of when. Time is a man made concept. When is an opinion. Human existence is not an opinion. You have no authority to tell others when they exist or that their existence is worthy of not aborting. That is tyranny. I find it ironic that a woman would argue about reproductive rights when the right to express reproductive rights is taken away from a human being through abortion. That human could have someday reproduced life. Sounds to me like the ultimate denial of reproductive rights.

You have no authority to tell others when they exist or that their existence is worthy of not aborting.

You're right. That's why I'm pro-choice. You'd have a point if I was mandated that everyone HAVE an abortion. You know, telling people what to do, LIKE YOU. So you apparently feel like YOU have the power and the right to tell people when human existence begins.

And again, NO right is being taken away from a human being until you CAN PROVE THROUGH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE when HUMAN life begins. Which you've still yet to do..

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or attempted arguments you make. NONE of that credibly proves that what is alive (i.e a fetus or embryo) is a HUMAN BEING deserving of rights.

Get over yourself, your ARGUMENT does not credible, scientific proof make.

I do not need to prove when human existence begins. Human beings establish their own existence. You need to prove that human existence isn't worthy of existence before you can take that existence away. If you can't then you are taking an awful risk on someone else's behalf based on your opinion of their worth as a human being. It makes you sound like a control freak. Maybe you should think about getting over that.

ps. and to address your need for scientific assurance, don't you think the focus of science should be to protect and inhance human existence instead of trying to prove when it is okay to abort that existence?

I do not need to prove when human existence begins.

Hate to break it to you, in order to legally invade the privacy rights of American citizens, (i.e. banning abortion which makes decisions about citizen's bodies for them) you DO.

You need to prove that human existence isn't worthy of existence before you can take that existence away

Your logic is incredible. And how do you suggest we do that if we can't prove when HUMAN BEINGS begin? We can't take it away, if it isn't there in the first place. Until you can prove it's there, you can't say it's being taken away.

How illogical that I'm saying each person makes their own choice, and you're calling that a control freak, while you're trying to tell people what they can't do with their own bodies.

And the focus of science should be science. Not speculation and "what ifs". if they can't prove something with the scientific method, they don't get to say, "Well just in case, we'll say this". That isn't SCIENCE.

Devil's advocate:

Or we could get away from the extremes of "birth control is an abomination" and "a bullet to the brain while a toe is still in the womb is perfectly acceptable." I remember reading that there are detectable brain waves at about 7 weeks along. I think that is a reasonable cut-off point. It also removes the question of "what if the woman was raped?" because it just does not take that long to figure that out.

I am not telling people what do do or not do with their bodies. It will never be right to take away somoenes right to exist based on an arbitrary value of that worth. That is all I am saying.

to simply sum up. If I am wrong then life or lack thereof goes on as is. Women make arbitrary decisions on the worth of whatever they decide they are carrying within them. Drs perform abortions based on their opinion they are doing no harm, murderers will still murder based on their lack of appreciation for human life, tyranical leaders will still kill their own people based on an opinion of their lack of worth.
But if you are wrong? Human beings are being killed. The burdon of proof is on you if you are not 100% sure that those aborted are not human beings. You really think that abortions should be performed on speculation? I already know they are human beings. How do I know that? Because I am living proof that my existence began when it did, not when your opinion or someone elses opinion declared it so. You will never be able to prove that I never existed after I was conceived but I can prove your existence because of that conception. Everyone deserves the right to express their existence even if people choose to ignore that existence. You had your chance and so did I. What makes you think it is right to take that away from others?

No, the burden of proof is NOT on me, it is on YOU, because woman ARE, unequivocally human beings with rights. Banning abortion limits those rights, so the burden is on those LIMITING THE RIGHTS OF WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

How do I know that? Because I am living proof that my existence began when it did, not when your opinion or someone elses opinion declared it so.

But that's YOUR OPINION, NOT scientific proof. So you have the right to NOT get an abortion. But since it is MERE OPINION it does NOT give you the right to BAN abortion.

Again, your philosophical arguments are NOT legal evidence (i.e. scientific proof) and THEY NEVER WILL BE.

What makes you think it is right to take that away from others?

Until you can provide PROOF, you have no legal leg to stand on. Every single one of your arguments are based on the PRESUMPTION of when HUMANITY begins. Until you can PROVE, not PRESUME TO KNOW, when humanity begins, they will remain meaningless to all but you.

I'll give you a hint. The proof you need to force your beliefs on us, will NOT come from you. Anything derived from your logic, as in your arguments, philosophies, what "you know" will not cut it.

It is the epitome of arrogance that leads someone to believe they can define the worth of someones existence without first getting their input. It's not important enough for people to wait 9 months? or 8 with my son or earlier with preemies. Really? Are you really trying to convince me that human life isn't worth that?

and one last thing. I have pictures of my children when they were still in my wifes body that I can show you that proves to me that they were human. I heard their heartbeat - that is proof to me that they were human. My wife told me how her body was reacting to their existence before I saw their pictures - that is proof to me that they were human. You tell me what proof you have that they weren't human! If you have children, at what point did you treat them with the respect you show to human beings? The same type of respect that acknowledges that they are worthy enough to be treated like human beings that you care about. To be protected and loved and acknowledged as human beings. When did you decide your children were worth that?

No, the burden of proof is NOT on me, it is on YOU, because woman ARE, unequivocally human beings with rights. Banning abortion limits those rights, so the burden is on those LIMITING THE RIGHTS OF WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

This is not a very good argument. Let's subsitute fetuses with slaves. There was a time where slaves weren't considered to be human beings worthy of "full rights"....it was even written into our constitution. We know know that those folks were ALWAYS entitled to the full array of human rights guaranteed to everyone else...no one "lost rights" because the rights of slaves were fully recognized. The "rights lost" were never really rights to begin with. So, if the SCOTUS does actually define when life begins one day as being at conception, then no woman's rights will be lost because the rights of the fetus will have been rights that always existed but were not recognized.

Just like how a woman's right to get an abortion always existed but was only recognized by the Fed Gov't after Roe v Wade. This "right" was also quite limited by Roe v Wade...it is not a unilateral human right for a woman to have an abortion. The SCOTUS says that the state's right to protect the life of the fetus supercedes the right of a woman to abort it.

EEngineer

Jim Spence -

You also make a big deal out of repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act:

Repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton fully opened the door to abuse. With the subsequent resistance of further regulations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when OFHEO demanded it in 2003 and 2004, the script for the greatest economic collapse was in place.

Let's look at exactly how that happened:

From Wikipedia:

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company

Democrats fought it.

Now, now E, you’re not playing fair. Just cutting and pasting some names to indicate they were Republicans shows your lack of research. History doesn't end at the author line.

Lemme ‘splain it to you.

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1), two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Notice, the Democrats refused the Bill in Committee until more “redlining” was eliminated which opened the door for more of the eventual NINJA loans. What happened with Gramm-Leach-Bliley had nothing to do with deregulation, actually none of the changes were “deregulations”, they were more appropriately reregulation. The expansion of banking to allow insurance, mortgages and financial vehicles wasn’t necessarily bad legislation, it was a matter of a Congress unfamiliar with the financial industry. We should have learned our lesson in the 70’s and 80’s with the S&L crisis, but Congress never learns its lesson. This is what happens when one bad government policy is used to change or justify another bad government policy.

Banks and other financial institutes hire the latest economics and math geeks from Harvard, MIT, Berkley and Wharton’s and pays them hundreds of thousands of dollars to find new ways to create new wealth for themselves, LEGALLY! The Code of Federal Regulations is over 73,000 pages long, not including State and Local government agencies. This is a breeding ground for the geeks to find the next “loophole”. This is what happens when Wall Street hires the geeks and pays them 10 times what our government does. Wall Street gets the geeks, Washington gets Geithner and Bernanke.

Anyway, by the final vote it doesn’t look like the “republicans and some conservative democrats pushed that hideous bill through”. 90-6 in the senate and 362-57 in the House looks awfully BIPARTISAN to me. No?

BTW your previous post about American Dream Downpayment Fund simply proves my point that the seeds for the housing and banking illiquidity collapse was firmly set in place by the Clinton administration.

You can try and bend and twist your boy-toy Billy Bobs presidency, there was much more fraud, corruption, fiscal malfeasance than you Libbies want to admit. It’s OK, we real Americans understand with the complex failure Barrack Hussein is continuing to be you have to grasp at any possible bright spot for Democrats over the past 50 years. I just hope you’re not one of the blathering buffoons who believe there was some mythical “surplus” created by Billy.

This IS a Democrat created recession. History is beginning to realize the long course of fraud and corruption it took to create this mess. The refusal of Democrats to follow OFHEO’s recommendations in the early 2000’s is proof of their complicity in the housing collapse.

Nice try at your typical revisionist history Spanky, it won’t work here or anywhere else.

Sarah

Many accept that human life has begun. And if they are wrong, what happens?

You accept that human life has not begun. And if you are wrong, what happens?

Lee - I doubt very seriously very many women consider abortion to be carefree and without worries. Apparently you are talking from your own experience and from what I understand, that is not the vast majority of women's attitudes. But, being a Republican I can see that you don't give a damned about others, after all, it's the Republican way.

Oh, and again, how many adopted children do you have? Because surely you aren't just concerned about a fetus until it becomes a child and is born. I'm certain you wouldn't want any child suffering. So, again, how many adopted children do you have?

Michael,

Is it ok for your tax money to support the big war machine and kill a hundred thousand civilians in another country?

starbuck49

Michael,

Is it ok for your tax money to support the big war machine and kill a hundred thousand civilians in another country?

If it protects me and my family from enemies foreign and domestic? Hell yes!

How are civilians in another country able to harm you?

starbuck49 - this isn't about anything but Republicans wanting to control women. That's all it's ever been about and Michael shows that!

Ok, so let' accept your argument and really take it to the logical conclusion. What should happen when the mother who is not allowed to abort the child, and makes more stupid decision, such as buying drugs before baby food. Should the state, who forced the birth of this child, be forced to give it a decent and reasonable existence until it turns 18?

Please accept my argument that no one of value or good intent wants the child. Please further the discussion by explaining what happens next?

Lee - unless it is YOUR body you don't get a vote. Again, how many adopted children do you have? I mean, clearly you care about a fetus becoming a child and being born so surely you care deeply about every child after it is born. So, how many have you adopted?

And, if you are so ignorant you believe only minorities get abortions you are completely brain dead. HYPOCRITE!

@Starbuck49

By flying planes into buildings. That's how civilians in another country can harm us.

@SeekingSanity

It's actually the majority in the US that are receiving abortions. Women outnumber men now.

Jonathan Reid-1158169

15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, Tell me why again we went into IRAQ?

Jonathan - no dumb dumb - READ the post again. Nowhere does it state that the majority of women in the US get abortions because the MAJORITY of women don't. It states the majority believe abortions should be legal. Do you on the right EVER get tired of being just totally STUPID!!!!!!

Lee Blake - how many babies have you given birth to? If it's none, then why are you compelled to tell a woman how to run her life. You have no idea of the many circumstances that occur. So unless you are an OBGYN, I'd lay off of the advice

As the 40^th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision takes place on Tuesday, a majority of Americans – for the first time – believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade from being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.

This is what the people want, and it is still the law, but the gopers want that reversed to control the women.

@Seeking Sanity

"Unless it's your body you don't get a vote."

What, does being adopted not count? Does being the child of someone who was offered the chance to have you aborted but didn't not count? Does being an abortion survivor not count? Does having a disability for which you could have been aborted not count? Does being someone who has had an abortion and now regrets it not count? Does being a former abortionist who had a change of heart not count?

Would you be willing to meet a person who has survived an abortion or was nearly aborted and say to them "you have no right to a say on abortion, because it isn't your body and doesn't effect you"?

Yes.

You Rep's are always crying about paying for abortion. Then your crying about Welfare. It cost one hell of a lot more to pay to raise that unwanted child then it does to Abort it. Simple math. Simple question?

starbuck49

Tell me why again we went into IRAQ?

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Maybe because Bill Clinton said so?

You all make me sick. You keep asking about how many adoptions have you done....Let me tell you a couple of things. First, I am a conservative. I an not a republican, and have never be registered as such. I also have been mostly socially mainstream and for a long time I was pro-choice. Both my kids are adopted. Both were abandoned at birth, one at a hospital and one was found in a dumpster. That was 13 years ago, and BOTH are now outstanding citizens of this world and are the very center of my existence. Over the years, I have done a lot of reading, and since Roe v Wade there have been 50mil abortions. Last year there was 1.2 million done. I know that some of the had to be done, but you know that this is a small portion of the 1.2 million. My views on abortion have changed. You can't tell me that all those abortions are necessary and needed. What really makes me even sicker is all the outrage about Newtown, (which was a horrific tragedy) but no, none, zero outrage about the number of abortions that are done in this country yearly. Shouldn't there be at least somebody thinking in these terms as to WHY there are so many abortions? Why does the left turn a blind eye to this, and vilify anyone that even mentions it?

Lastly I will say this. Feisty, I found your comments totally out of line and disgusting. As soon as anyone posts anything remotely right slanted on this board, they get tarred here as a teabagger, nut job or Rush loving Foxbot. Yes your leader won the election, but he will never be my president, because he doesn't represent anything remotely close to my values and the values of many. I will continue to question, debate and dissent. That is my right as an American in the country, a country that I served proudly. If those of you on the left don't like well then I do feel really sorry for you all.

Can anyone give me figures on how many tax payer dollars fund abortions ? To Michael 1969, your arguments are purely about money. Do you think it costs more to fund an abortion or support children on welfare ? Now before you start saying you don't want your tax dollars spent on welfare, you know that ain't gonna happen.

Oh yeah..another person that makes Sanity sick...well...that should tell you somthing... So when is more important for a woman to have a right versus killing an unborn child? It seems clear that we value the concept of a woman's right to "choose" over the life of a human being. It's that simple. When people start to devalue life we are less of a country with each day that goes by...

Reality,
Awsome and God Bless you for Adopting and changing your views on what has become of the Abortion movement is now Infantile genoside,The baby's Heart beat is detectable @ 26 days and Abortions go up to thankx to Obama's partial birth Abortions approval, At up to 38 weeks considered full term.
My parents Adopted my brother from a 16 yr old girl who was scared as most girls/women that do not plan on want/need a baby,As we see every single day about women/men practically begging for a child even go to other country's to get them or expensive treatments and then get on TV for having Abnormal amounts of babies at once.People want Unwanted baby's!,!!
Why are the Progressives so hell bent on preserving abortion when they scream about and use the children anytime they can to further their agenda? Don't they know The Founder of Their PPHood was started by a racist woman that hated Black people,the poor,the uneducated,the "undesirable"in society ? and targeted them for sterilization?And encouraged them to ABORT,so the girl could have a life??READ HOW SELFISH THAT IS...SO THE GIRL COULD HAVE A LIFE....
And what about the Father that wants the baby?He gets no voice,as well as any of the grandparents,And the Parent of the young girl who is scared and is told your parents don't even need to know....Kids often think getting rid of it is better than the overblown dreamt up outcome they have in their heads of telling Mom and Dad....It's never as bad as we think it will be,I know I've been there...And I kept my baby and I've had 5 more and have owned 2 company's and made a great life for all of us( along with my spouce)
There are exceptions to the rule but The day after pill(RUFor86) should cut down DRAMATICALLY the whole incest and rape argument.And the need for abortion due to that argument.
The other main argument is Mothers health...fine needs to save a life are up to Doc and parents, although most mothers would chose their baby over themselves...Its a Mothers natural instinct.But There is really NOo reason to get pregnant if you do not want a kid PPHOOD offers "free" contraception of every kind...either use it,get your tubes tied,or abstain from sex...There are TOO MANY options to AVOID pregnancy to still get pregnant,..if you Take RESPONSIBILTY for the body you claim to want to have control over...then PHUKIN Control it before you have to make a heartbreaking decision.
I have known those that have chosen adoption and say they are so glad they did,I've NEVER heard a positive Abortion story...They all wish they would have kept or adopted out.
Also I've known people that have known their child had Downs and had and love them anyway, and those who's tests were wrong and Baby was normal,and the few that thought they were having a healthy baby and turned out differently and all of them are Glad they had their Baby.

Realitybites/Douche you two are both sick. Get help.