Yeah you may not like the source (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121) so go prove it wrong.

Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama

<hr size="1">Posted: July 19, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

<!-- end deck --> By Jill Stanek

<hr size="1"> <!-- copyright -->WorldNetDaily.com <!-- end copyright -->

In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.
Michelle called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure," and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it?
But that's not why Obama's opponent Alan Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for him.
Obama recalled Keyes' statement in a recent USA Today opinion piece (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm) but omitted his reasoning.

BIG OLD ADVERTISEMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR.


I know his reasoning, because I was there.
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.
I have framed on my wall a Chicago Sun-Times cartoon published during the campaign. Obama is holding a sign with "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION" on it. God is reaching down from heaven to a baby in front of Obama, and the baby is reaching up to God. Obama is yelling at God, "You keep out of this!"
<table align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td width="350">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/bamatoon.jpg
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
In his USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.
Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.
Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.
Obama stated pro-life proposals must be "amenable to reason."
OK, Sen. Obama, let's reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.
Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, "It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones."
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1" width="16%">

say is that I could not in good concious ever, EVER vote for someone who thinks Jesus would vote for them, regardless of party affiliation.

Yeah deflect. I understand.

And here I thought Obama was just for eating babies?? :rolleyes:

say is that I could not in good concious ever, EVER vote for someone who thinks Jesus would vote for them, regardless of party affiliation.I didn't realize that Jesus was even a citizen.

Yeah you may not like the source (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121) so go prove it wrong.As long as they're heterosexual white republican babies, I'm all for it. It's even better if he gets them before they're baptized because then they go to hell after he kills them.

I didn't realize that Jesus was even a citizen.

The fact that he died probably excludes him from voting, except in Chicago. Sure, he rose from the dead, but try explaining that to the voting board.

Like I said, prove the article wrong. If you really believe that a child born to this earth who lives and breathes should be terminated, you have a problem. I guess you are like-minded with Obama.

The fact that he died probably excludes him from voting, except in Chicago. Sure, he rose from the dead, but try explaining that to the voting board.

Doesn't Chi-town have a special residency qualifier for the undead?

Like I said, prove the article wrong. If you really believe that a child born to this earth who lives and breathes should be terminated, you have a problem. I guess you are like-minded with Obama.

Unfortunately, you are correct. I don't know how legitimate this article is. But if it is, it doesn't speak well for Obama.

I will still vote for him anyway. This is not the most important issue facing the country.

Again, the article is worth questioning though.

worldnetdaily...?!?!?!

alan keyes...??!!!???

lol

Unfortunately, you are correct. I don't know how legitimate this article is. But if it is, it doesn't speak well for Obama.

I will still vote for him anyway. This is not the most important issue facing the country.

Again, the article is worth questioning though.

I agree with most of what you said. This is by far the biggest issue I have with Obama. And since it directly involves killing, I'm really conflicted. I doubt McCain would push the issue enough to overturn Roe vs. Wade, so there's not really a firm pro-life candidate.

I added the emphasis in bold below. Anti abortion forces have used partial birth abortions as a doorway to language that would ban all abortions. The strategy was to pass a law with ambiguous language under the guise of banning partial birth abortions, then press the issue later to broaden its scope. Smart pro choice legislators see through that.

Ban partial birth is you must - with the exception of harm to the mother, Catholic position notwithstanding _ and leave the rest alone as the law of the land states. Women have a right to choose.

Do I support using abortion as birth control? Not so much. But aborting unwanted fetuses before viability is infinitely better than bringing children into the world with serious birth defects or to live unwanted and abused. Morning after pills are great.

Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because of YOUR religious convictions is wrong. You want them, you raise them. You anti-abortion folks out there, I hope you have a raft of foster kids and adoptees running around the house, eh?




http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

It depends on who you are voting for.

I added the emphasis in bold below. Anti abortion forces have used partial birth abortions as a doorway to language that would ban all abortions. The strategy was to pass a law with ambiguous language under the guise of banning partial birth abortions, then press the issue later to broaden its scope. Smart pro choice legislators see through that.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

Fair enough. There is always more to the story and context than what is published in some articles.

This is a complex issue. The laws could be modified to make more sense but that would require a spirit of compromise from both sides and that doesn't seem to exist.

Just like the gun lobby won't give an inch, so it is the same with the pro-choice lobby.

Obama is alright. Probably too intelligent for the job anyway.

Like I said, prove the article wrong. If you really believe that a child born to this earth who lives and breathes should be terminated, you have a problem. I guess you are like-minded with Obama.


The real question is why wouldn't Jesus vote for God? Did a little search on the Google and did you know that 15 to 20% of all pregnancies miscarry? So why does God hate little innocent babies?


And from an article from NPR:

How often is the D&X procedure performed?

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

over D & X a zillion times,it makes up a miniscule portion of the procedures.

sometimes for a doctor it is the best choice

after amnio (at week 16, results back around weeks18-20) they discover a fatal issue with the fetus.At that point it is already developed beyond the point of standard termination but it will perish either en utero or some point shortly thereafter.

docs used to have 3 choices
a) D & X
b) C-Section
c) Induced Labor

so doing a C means the mother most likely will never be able to have vaginal birth and it is major abdominal surgery, things can happen

Induced labor on someone in the 20th week is difficult to say the least. The mass doses of labor inducing hormones can do wacky things

D&X presented the least dangerous to the mother method and it has been banned by a bunch of ignorant phuktards. This article now taking the name from partial birth to live birth shows the inflammatory nature of the writer and the fact that he is willing to inflate the rhetoric further to enrage the brain dead. Why not discuss this rationally? Why not explain theactual numbers and reasons? Oh yeah,cause they don't want people to THINK

sometimes for a doctor it is the best choiceMy wife's obstetrician, the head of high-risk OB at a major teaching hospital,
said that he's never in his career (more than 40 years) encountered a case where D&X was either necessary or optimal. He is staunchly pro-choice but he said that it was bull to make D&X as a major part of the fight for abortion rights. According to him, outlawing it has no significant effect on abortion rights.

He is just one doc shooting his mouth off, but he's very sensible and has a lot of experience with high-risk pregnancies, so I would expect him to know what he's talking about.

My wife's obstetrician, the head of high-risk OB at a major teaching hospital,
said that he's never in his career (more than 40 years) encountered a case where D&X was either necessary or optimal. He is staunchly pro-choice but he said that it was bull to make D&X as a major part of the fight for abortion rights. According to him, outlawing it has no significant effect on abortion rights.

He is just one doc shooting his mouth off, but he's very sensible and has a lot of experience with high-risk pregnancies, so I would expect him to know what he's talking about.

which means he most likely suggests women carrying a fetus with osteogenesis imperfecta or other fatal fetal abnormality carry the baby to term and have it die on the delivery table.

there are 3 ways to remove a fetus at that point, if it is awoman'sfirst pregnancy a C-section means she will most likely never have a natural delivery, and things happen during major surgery.

inducing labor in a 32 week pregnancy is tough, 20-24 week is over the top.

Fredke, my apologies, you saidchoice and I thought 'life'. Sostatement retracted.

Correction. I wrote D&X when I meant intact D&X. There are alternative non-intact forms of D&X that don't involve cesarians or induced labor and I should not have lumped these all together. You are absolutely correct if you read me as talking about the whole gamut of D&X options.

I should have had another cup of coffee before posting.

The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007


Beat me to it.





joe

And here I thought Obama was just for eating babies?? :rolleyes:

somebody else..

I agree with most of what you said. This is by far the biggest issue I have with Obama. And since it directly involves killing, I'm really conflicted. I doubt McCain would push the issue enough to overturn Roe vs. Wade, so there's not really a firm pro-life candidate.

its actually quite easy. Its legal. Obama supports the law (he's a lawyer, ya know).
its OK...separation of church and state should ensure that stupid religious arguments against 30 year old laws are immediately throw out of the Supreme Court...as they should be..

Yeah deflect. I understand.

when he posted this.
ooopss!

our bad! :thumbsup:

its OK...separation of church and state should ensure that stupid religious arguments against 30 year old laws are immediately throw out of the Supreme Court...as they should be..



some people are opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons, myself included.

some people are opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons, myself included.
...you big rebel, you!!

...you big rebel, you!!



legal and right aren't automatically mutually inclusive.

some people are opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons, myself included.Here's a good example, from Nat Hentoff http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff042408.php3

legal and right aren't automatically mutually inclusive.

you don't have to have an abortion if you don' t want to...that's your choice.
they're like tattoos...you might have to live with one after a heavy night of drinking.
:thumbsup:

you don't have to have an abortion if you don' t want to...that's your choice.
they're like tattoos...you might have to live with one after a heavy night of drinking.
:thumbsup:



been there, done that, found a better solution. imo, abortion in that situation would be like killing the tattoo artist. it's not their fault you were a drunken moron.

some people are opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons, myself included.

+1

It doesn't even need to be against the law IMO. We just all need to think of ways to decrease the numbers down to only the cases that are necessary. I like babies.

you don't have to have an abortion if you don' t want to...that's your choice.This misses the point. For you and me, the fetus is not a human, so it's all about the woman's choices and hence no one else's business.

However, for anti-abortion people, the fetus is a living human with rights and your question becomes something like,
if you don't like lynching, you don't have to lynch anyone if you don't want to. That's your choice.The burden for our side of the argument is to show that the fetus is not a living human being with its own rights.

I added the emphasis in bold below. Anti abortion forces have used partial birth abortions as a doorway to language that would ban all abortions. The strategy was to pass a law with ambiguous language under the guise of banning partial birth abortions, then press the issue later to broaden its scope. Smart pro choice legislators see through that.

Ban partial birth is you must - with the exception of harm to the mother, Catholic position notwithstanding _ and leave the rest alone as the law of the land states. Women have a right to choose.

Do I support using abortion as birth control? Not so much. But aborting unwanted fetuses before viability is infinitely better than bringing children into the world with serious birth defects or to live unwanted and abused. Morning after pills are great.

Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because of YOUR religious convictions is wrong. You want them, you raise them. You anti-abortion folks out there, I hope you have a raft of foster kids and adoptees running around the house, eh?




http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

I disagree with the terminology of "choice" but pretty much share your position as to partial birth and the established laws.

For you and me, the fetus is not a human, so it's all about the woman's choices and hence no one else's business.

However, for anti-abortion people, the fetus is a living human with rights.


eloquently put.

God said by saying "thou shalt not kill"
"Killing babies is bad, Killing Arabs is bad. Killing criminals is bad".
Why the hell would Jesus vote at all?
Better that Jesus hit the bong!

+1

It doesn't even need to be against the law IMO. We just all need to think of ways to decrease the numbers down to only the cases that are necessary. I like babies.

you mean like education about and access to birth control?

Funny, the religious nuts, and the party that caters to them, are against that too.

they would argue that not having pre marital sex is birth control.

they would argue that not having pre marital sex is birth control.

it's nice living in fantasyland.

and what about married couples who don't wish to have children, either by choice, or because their economic situation isn't able to support them?

However, for anti-abortion people, the fetus is a living human with rights and your question becomes something like,
The burden for our side of the argument is to show that the fetus is not a living human being with its own rights.

It seems there's a connection here between a fetus and a corporation. And the evidence suggests the world would be better off with less of both. So a viable plan might be to have Homeland Security round up incorporated, pregnant pro-lifer's and...

Correction. I wrote D&X when I meant intact D&X. There are alternative non-intact forms of D&X that don't involve cesarians or induced labor and I should not have lumped these all together. You are absolutely correct if you read me as talking about the whole gamut of D&X options.

I should have had another cup of coffee before posting.

were both pre coffee unclear

we're all good

btw I love the Pan 290 series

It seems most didn't read the article. It didn't talk about all abortions. It spoke to late term abortions where the fetus is still alive after extraction and then left to die in a closet in a hospital. That's a real nice picture, isn't it?

It seems most didn't read the article. It didn't talk about all abortions. It spoke to late term abortions where the fetus is still alive after extraction and then left to die in a closet in a hospital. That's a real nice picture, isn't it?

I also think it's a fabrication.

Is there really anyone who is pro abortion?

it's nice living in fantasyland.

and what about married couples who don't wish to have children, either by choice, or because their economic situation isn't able to support them?
They don't fit into God's plans I guess. How 'bout the good old rhythm method? It worked for all those great big Catholic families in the past!

It seems most didn't read the article.


This seems to be a pretty typical retort here, usually aimed at the non-believer of BS.

Yeah it was such a fabrication that Congress voted unanimously to make it illegal. The bill was enacted on a false assumption that babies were removed from the womb alive and left to die on their own. Nah, that didn't really happen did it?

I shouldn't be surprised there are people here who believe our military men and women are murderers but that women, who willfully allow their child to be removed from them alive and well, and allow that child to die in a bottle on a shelf, are not.

It seems most didn't read the article. It didn't talk about all abortions. It spoke to late term abortions where the fetus is still alive after extraction and then left to die in a closet in a hospital. That's a real nice picture, isn't it?

Steam, if you did any digging on this (as opposed to just C & Ping from a far Right wing blog), you would realize that the reason this law was voted against had to do with the definition of viability.....which would have resulted in either the overturning of the law by the SC or the overturning or Roe vs Wade, based on the extrapolation of the law. The writer of the law, "Hid" the legal change in definition of viability within an emotianlly written law around killing live fetuses...a very clever ploy.

Len

The law had already passed in Congress. If it was going to test Ro V Wade, Illinois wouldn't have been the testing ground.

Yeah it was such a fabrication that Congress voted unanimously to make it illegal. The bill was enacted on a false assumption that babies were removed from the womb alive and left to die on their own. Nah, that didn't really happen did it?

I shouldn't be surprised there are people here who believe our military men and women are murderers but that women, who willfully allow their child to be removed from them alive and well, and allow that child to die in a bottle on a shelf, are not.

"Obama is all for killing babies." Now c'mon, do you believe that?

What is this unanimous congressional vote you speak of?

meh, personally I find the appeal of babies vastly over-rated.

If eating them is unacceptable, then perhaps they could be made into fuel for cars.

Just thinking out loud...

Tastes just like chicken - I hears...

Death sentences to all young mothers who kill their babies!

Seriously, how could half the nation offer their anti-abortion, anti-gay vote in exchange for an administration that gleefully dropped bombs on the heads of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? Take off the blinders. The ends do not justify the means.

Death sentences to all young mothers who kill their babies!

Seriously, how could half the nation offer their anti-abortion, anti-gay vote in exchange for an administration that gleefully dropped bombs on the heads of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? Take off the blinders. The ends do not justify the means.

Death to all men who yank their wankers...

Yeah you may not like the source (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121) so go prove it wrong.

Anything that comes from World Net Daily shouldn't be considered a source. It should just be, and rightfully so, a hard core right wing attack "news" organization, that basically makes things up out of whole cloth.

Nobody who has any remote thought patterns, or intelligence for that matter, would consider them a source for, well, anything. They are sensationalist at best, and downright liars and dishonest at the worst. They have no journalistic ethics, and it's scary that anyone would believe a word of what they wrote.

They're no better than the Daily World News, you know, Bat Boy and all.

Here's a can of worms:

Are not many of those who are pro-life also anti-welfare? Food for critical thinking?

Bush kills babys...you voted for Bush....you kill babys
or if you prefer
You consume oil...oil is killing the earth...you are killing the earth
or maybe
Judge not that you may be judged (have YOU helped any unwed mothers?)
bottom line is this is a sophmoric attack based on poo from a baby killer

The Christian right portrays all abortions as some sort of casual happy fun activity. I will assure you that there isn't a sane woman or doctor out there who has performed an abortion and thought it was in any way casual.

The Christian right portrays all abortions as some sort of casual happy fun activity. I will assure you that there isn't a sane woman or doctor out there who has performed an abortion and thought it was in any way casual.

It always makes me shake my head when anti abortion activists talk about "abortion on demand". I do know several women who have had abortions, and not one of them didn't go back and forth on their decision lightly and or easily, and for many of them, it took several weeks to finally come down on the side of having one, and they all, every one of them, have felt bad about it ever since.

It's not an easy decision at all. It might be one of the harder choices one has to make in their lives.

The US dropped bombs on hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? Really? Is that what you think happened? Got any proof? If not, move on.

Anything that comes from World Net Daily shouldn't be considered a source. It should just be, and rightfully so, a hard core right wing attack "news" organization, that basically makes things up out of whole cloth.

...

they're not even a "news organization"--they're a direct marketing website, just like newsmax. checkout biznetdaily.com or wnd's web store. they sell things, "conservative cruise trips" with Gordon Liddy, ridiculous books, nuclear-proof keychains, creationist books, etc, etc, etc.

"news" is not a part of their vernacular--at all. they simply put out hit pieces, poorly sourced and written by thoroughly discredited "movement people" (ie ideologues) that bring traffic.


www.conwebwatch.com (http://ww.conwebwatch.com) is pretty good at tracking them


WND features @ conwebwatch (http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=4669786&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&_charset_=&bcd=%C3%B7&query=worldnetdaily)


conwebwatch primer (guide to wingnuts on the internet) (http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/primer.html)
.
.

.
.
http://shop.wnd.com/store/subdept.asp?SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=70 (http://shop.wnd.com/store/subdept.asp?SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=70) .....<---- nice books :eek:
.
.

The Christian right portrays all abortions as some sort of casual happy fun activity. ...Perhaps because that's how they find themselves feeling about the murder of Iraqi civilians - as a similar sort of casual, happy, fun activity. It all boils down to differences in opinion as to which groups of people deserve to be treated as fellow human beings.

.
.
http://shop.wnd.com/store/subdept.asp?SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=70 (http://shop.wnd.com/store/subdept.asp?SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=70) .....<---- nice books :eek:
.
.

Oh, I know, it's just that we have a certain poster on here who tries to use them, and Newsmax, as some sort of voice about, well, anything and use them as a source, which again, is laughable at best, and downright sad in the least.

You're right, I took huge liberties with that statement - to make a point. Although there are some who estimate total Iraqi casualties at well over 1 million, the most scientific study done (published in the Lancet) figures that only about 655,000 civilians have died as a result of our invasion. www.iraqbodycount.org has been able to individually document about 90,000 civilian deaths. Bush doesn't mind admitting to 30,000 but doesn't really feel that its an important number. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands; what does he care?

This misses the point. For you and me, the fetus is not a human, so it's all about the woman's choices and hence no one else's business.

However, for anti-abortion people, the fetus is a living human with rights and your question becomes something like,
The burden for our side of the argument is to show that the fetus is not a living human being with its own rights.



How about the rights of the father? What if he doesn't want the baby aborted? Has he no say? If we have laws that make it a double murder if killing a pregnant woman also kills the fetus, should a non-consenting father be able to press murder charges against a woman who aborts his child?

How about the rights of the father? What if he doesn't want the baby aborted? Has he no say? If we have laws that make it a double murder if killing a pregnant woman also kills the fetus, should a non-consenting father be able to press murder charges against a woman who aborts his child?


paternal rights? now you're just talking crazy.

Dispute the charge. The facts are the facts. Obama didn't support the law that the entire Congress enacted.