Legitimate rape

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.

"Present," technically means "No." Senators will typically vote "Present" so that it won't be used against them in future elections.
SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.
SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.
SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.
SB 1095 Bill defining "born alive" defines "born-alive infant" to include infant "born alive at any stage of development." Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.

---

So he didn't say it.

Thanks.

lol technically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Here's the idealogical disconnect with conservatives I don't get...

They're against expanding welfare, to save money. Which is fine, except that means that all those mothers who have multiple children won't get as much support, meaning those children will suffer.

They're against increasing funding towards education (more money doesn't necessarily equate to better education, but there's obviously some link there).

Granted, I think Yoni does actually make some interesting points. As our ability to provide life-saving services for children born early increases, the moral question becomes, in my eyes, shadier. I'm against third-trimester abortions except in emergency cases, I'm unsure on 2nd-trimester, and I'm relatively ok with 1st.

---

I don't think there's an idealogical disconnect here. Or at least there doesn't have to be one. You can be against the government spending money on something without automatically being forced into a life view against that cause. Just because I don't want the government to spend money on a program censoring Justin Bieber doesn't disqualify me from hating Justin Bieber. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So he didn't say it.

Thanks.

lol technically

---

LOL at your gullibility. Present means he disagreed with the bill and didn't vote for it.

Spin it however you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

LOL at your gullibility. Present means he disagreed with the bill and didn't vote for it.

Spin it however you want.

---

LOL at your spin.

I asked yoni and you failed for him.

Eagerly.

Thanks again.

cowboy says he's not interested in the abortion debate or gay marriage debate........unless he's defending a fellow partisan hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

cowboy says he's not interested in the abortion debate or gay marriage debate........unless he's defending a fellow partisan hack.

---

Actually, I just despise chump for his ignorant smugness. He know what a "present" vote meant in that context...That he was so in the tank for abortions at any cost that it was OK with him if babies were born alive and their skulls smashed in with pincers as they crowned out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Actually, I just despise chump for his ignorant smugness.

---

The irony is thicker than a baby's skull

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Actually, I just despise chump for his ignorant smugness. He know what a "present" vote meant in that context...That he was so in the tank for abortions at any cost that it was OK with him if babies were born alive and their skulls smashed in with pincers as they crowned out.

---

sure, he or anyone else said that.

he made the best point. pro lifers don't give a shit about them after they're born.

not one shit

Huckabee Breaks With GOP, Throws Support Behind Akin

"The Party’s leaders have for reasons that aren’t rational, left [Akin] behind on the political battlefield, wounded and bleeding, a casualty of his self-inflicted, but not intentional wound. In a Party that supposedly stands for life, it was tragic to see the carefully orchestrated and systematic attack on a fellow Republican. Not for a moral failure or corruption or a criminal act, but for a misstatement which he contritely and utterly repudiated. I was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview. This was a serious mistake, but it was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin’s own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates? Do we forgive and forget the verbal gaffes of Republicans who are “conveniently pro-life” for political advantage, but crucify one who truly believes that every life is sacred? "

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...t-behind-akin/

And Huckabee is relevant why?

Because thinkprogress (lol) thinks so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Actually, I just despise chump for his ignorant smugness. He know what a "present" vote meant in that context...That he was so in the tank for abortions at any cost that it was OK with him if babies were born alive and their skulls smashed in with pincers as they crowned out.

---

Yeah, because you have multiple quotes of Obama's saying that over and over. He dines on the smashed in skulls of fetuses when they are prepared halal so he can break his Ramadan fast.

I got a reason to be smug in this case -- you failed.

For yoni.

lol

If his "present" vote on the ban isn't good enough to demonstrate Obama's position on partial-birth abortion, perhaps this video will suffice...

So again he didn't say anything about it.

And yoni is for government meddling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, Barack Obama's position is that he's in favor of allowing women to seek abortions, even in the third trimester; and, he voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions.

---

Even if he really believes that, if I had to choose between leadership who would ban all abortions vs. leadership who would choose not to have the government intervene on any abortions, I'm going to favor the latter.

Quote:

---

Is the point at which a baby can survive on its own, outside the womb, the same for every baby? Are there babies that cannot survive outside the womb, even after birth? Are there babies that can survive outside the womb at a point before which abortions are currently being allowed? Is that point subject to change due to medical advancement?

---

That's for the doctor to decide. Do we need a mandated deadline across all pregnancies to determine when every baby is now fit for life outside the womb? There doesn't have to be government regulation on everything, Yonivore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So again he didn't say anything about it.

And yoni is for government meddling.

---

:lmao @ chump.

He was asked a direct question and answered it.

And yeah, even though I am pro choice I am not for killing living viable babies "just because the mother knows best". If she wanted an abortion and "knew best" she wouldn't have fucked around and waited until the third trimester.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Even if he really believes that, if I had to choose between leadership who would ban all abortions vs. leadership who would choose not to have the government intervene on any abortions, I'm going to favor the latter.

---

Well, good for you. We simply disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

That's for the doctor to decide. Do we need a mandated deadline across all pregnancies to determine when every baby is now fit for life outside the womb? There doesn't have to be government regulation on everything, Yonivore.

---

Isn't there already an arbitrary point in the pregnancy before which all pregnancies may be terminated by abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao @ chump.

He was asked a direct question and answered it.

---

I asked someone else a direct question and you failed in his stead.

If you still don't understand what I asked, you're an idiot and a failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

And Huckabee is relevant why?

---

He's one of Your People on Fox Repug Propaganda network.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I don't think there's an idealogical disconnect here. Or at least there doesn't have to be one. You can be against the government spending money on something without automatically being forced into a life view against that cause. Just because I don't want the government to spend money on a program censoring Justin Bieber doesn't disqualify me from hating Justin Bieber. :p:

---

The way I see it (and this is a partial response to Yoni as well), is that conservatives seem to have a great deal of care for the unborn child, and want to create legislation to protect that child. But they are against legislation in other areas that might protect children as well, relying on charity/family/etc etc.

I know that's not a perfect analogy (you can't rely on charity to prevent abortion, at least, not without some steps along the way), but it seems a strange emotional/logical disconnect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

And yeah, even though I am pro choice I am not for killing living viable babies "just because the mother knows best". If she wanted an abortion and "knew best" she wouldn't have fucked around and waited until the third trimester.

---

That's what gets me. I don't see why any abortions are provided at the third trimester, besides those for emergencies like life of the mother.

The biggest issue with that though, is the slippery slope argument. If it's wrong to abort at 180 days, why is it ok at 179? etc etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

If his "present" vote on the ban isn't good enough to demonstrate Obama's position on partial-birth abortion, perhaps this video will suffice...

---

This one is better because it addresses partial-birth abortion specifically, instead of his general position on abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That's what gets me. I don't see why any abortions are provided at the third trimester, besides those for emergencies like life of the mother.

The biggest issue with that though, is the slippery slope argument. If it's wrong to abort at 180 days, why is it ok at 179? etc etc...

---

Oh, that's a good argument and exactly why Obama refused to vote to draw the line there. Just put that "moral stand" into actual practice though and it's pretty reprehensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That's what gets me. I don't see why any abortions are provided at the third trimester, besides those for emergencies like life of the mother.

---

I don't see why they're provided, at all -- except when there's a determination the life of the mother is at risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The biggest issue with that though, is the slippery slope argument. If it's wrong to abort at 180 days, why is it ok at 179? etc etc...

---

I would argue it's not okay; and, precisely because of the argument you raise. Who are we to make an arbitrary decision on when it's okay to kill a baby?

GOP Convention Will Formally Endorse the Todd Akin Platform


John Nichols on August 22, 2012 - 12:11 PM ET

Todd Akin announced Wednesday that he would not be attending next week’s Republican National Convention. Apparently, RNC chairman Reince Priebus could not find a suitable speaking slot for the Missouri Republican US Senate nominee after Mitt Romney asked Akin to quit the race.

But Akin will remain a powerful “presence” at the convention, which on Monday will endorse a platform that fully embraces the congressman’s stances on abortion rights and a broad array of social issues.

The platform, which has been firmed up this week, renews the party’s call for amending the US Constitution with a “Human Life Amendment” that seeks to outlaw abortion. It also includes a “salute” to states that have sought, even in the absence of an amendment, to complicate access to medical procedures that the Supreme Court has determined are safe, legal and legitimate—including requirements that women undergo invasive ultrasound procedures and accept anti-abortion “counseling.”

Notably, despite the controversy over Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks, the formal position statement of the Republican Party mentions no exceptions to the bar on access to a safe and legal medical procedure, even for victims of rape and incest.

This should come as no surprise. One of Akin’s most enthusiastic allies—and an unapologetic defender of the congressman even now—has played a a guiding role in the drafting of the platform.

The platform committee, which met Monday in Tampa, opened its session with a prayer by Phyllis Schlafly, the social-conservative campaigner who once lobbied GOP platform drafters but now oversees their deliberations from the inside—as a Missouri delegate and revered senior figure on what is officially dubbed the Resolutions Committee.

“God, we ask for your guidance in this platform process,” intoned Schlafly, the 88-year-old author of the right-wing tome A Choice Not An Echo, who at the 1976 and 1980 Republican National Conventions played a critical role in making the GOP an explicitly anti-choice party.

Since then, Schlafly has poked and prodded the party toward ever more explicit opposition to all abortions. She even founded a group, the Republican National Coalition for Life, “with the specific mission of protecting the pro-life plank in the Republican Party Platform.”

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169506...el=emailNation

Akin is mainstream Repug, not fringe outlier.