Gay Parent Uses Her Kid As Political Prop

[red states rule]

It is sad to see children used as political props by these liberal nuts. The kid was obviously rehearsed, and mommy could not care less about using her son to score cheap political points

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2K8CGeC2M_U" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[logroller]

It is sad to see children used as political props by these liberal nuts. The kid was obviously rehearsed, and mommy could not care less about using her son to score cheap political points



I'm torn here. On one side, I see what you're saying. The boy was obviously hesitant to say anything, pushing him to say what he said is WRONG-- for political points, or otherwise. However, if it was my boy, I would, possibly, maybe be at least a little tempted to rehearse some line that might score me a little kiss. Nothing obscene or anything. Maybe just a good hug, i don't know.....bachman's HOTTTT, that's all I'm saying.

[jimnyc]

The fat fuck of a Mom was totally wrong for pushing a kid to say something he so obviously didn't want to say, at least not in front of a crowd or cameras. Tsk, tsk, fat dyke.

[Noir]

Saw this posted somewhere else were it was warmly accepted as a good thing, my reply there as here -

'I feel pretty sorry for the kid. He’s obviously been used, told what to say, and set up in such a way that someone who was in on it stuffed a camera in his face before churlishly giggling at the end.Kinda pathetic IMO, really wish people would stop using children as little more than tools. Getting an 8 year old to recite what you told him/her to say is in no way convincing, and serves only (in my opinion) to undermine your own stature as a decent human being. Regardless of your cause, the ends do not justify the means.'

4 main groups that *use* kids all the time, Gays, Pro-lifers, Pro-choicers, Theists. idk why its deemed so acceptable and so widespread but such is life i guess.

[Abbey Marie]

Saw this posted somewhere else were it was warmly accepted as a good thing, my reply there as here -

'I feel pretty sorry for the kid. He’s obviously been used, told what to say, and set up in such a way that someone who was in on it stuffed a camera in his face before churlishly giggling at the end.Kinda pathetic IMO, really wish people would stop using children as little more than tools. Getting an 8 year old to recite what you told him/her to say is in no way convincing, and serves only (in my opinion) to undermine your own stature as a decent human being. Regardless of your cause, the ends do not justify the means.'

4 main groups that *use* kids all the time, Gays, Pro-lifers, Pro-choicers, Theists. idk why its deemed so acceptable and so widespread but such is life i guess.

Interesting. Are the kids that pro-choicers use alive or dead?

[Noir]

Interesting. Are the kids that pro-choicers use alive or dead?

Alive. Saw one not too long ago of a girl (no older than 10) holding a sign saying 'my body my choice'

Like I said how people can stand that I've no idea. Sadly the 'pro-lifers' are not better, getting their kids to hold anti-abortion signs =/

[red states rule]

Alive. Saw one not too long ago of a girl (no older than 10) holding a sign saying 'my body my choice'

Like I said how people can stand that I've no idea. Sadly the 'pro-lifers' are not better, getting their kids to hold anti-abortion signs =/

Isn;t is amazing how everyone who supports abortion; the murder of the unborn; were never aborted by their mother?

[logroller]

Isn;t is amazing how everyone who supports abortion; the murder of the unborn; were never aborted by their mother?

Being pro-choice is not the same thing as supporting abortion. But yes, the miracle of birth is amazing-- irrespective of political, religious or moral beliefs.

[red states rule]

Being pro-choice is not the same thing as supporting abortion. But yes, the miracle of birth is amazing-- irrespective of political, religious or moral beliefs.

"Pro choice" actually does mean giving women the choice to murder or not murder their unborn child

There is no other definition LR

[logroller]

"Pro choice" actually does mean giving women the choice to murder or not murder their unborn child

There is no other definition LR


No other definition you accept perhaps, but there are others. All involve giving women the choice over what is inside their bodies. I am not a woman, ergo, it is not my choice. I have not had an abortion, nor have I EVER encouraged a woman to have one. Its a big leap to say that because I support a woman's right to abort a non-viable human from her body, that I also encourage her to do so, merely by giving her the choice. I haven't the need nor inclination to make others' decisions for them. I make my own, good or bad, they're mine.

We could argue indefinitely about how free-choice has its drawbacks, but freedom is double-edged sword; just as the burden is borne on the individual with the power to choose, so too is the glory. Where's the glory in having no choice? I feel its of no consolation, whatsoever, in doing the right thing only because you have no choice to do otherwise? Would we be better off had Eve never eaten from the tree of knowledge of good of evil? Probably, but such is the burden of choice.

When my first was conceived, I didn't even have a job. I wasn't financially or emotionally prepared to raise children. I wasn't married when my first was born. I, We, my wife and I, fit many of the parameters of those who do have abortions; but I have great kids and a greater life as a result of my limited capacity to influence my wife's decision to not abort them. Instead I raise my children, who, obviously, have not been aborted, as testament to the glory of making what I perceive to be the right choice. That one decision has had the effect of creating even more choices. Choices which I which I don't shy from, they're opportunities for greatness and glory. I invite all others to share in that, I encourage them to do so through the fruits of my choices; but it is their choice, as it must be.

[Abbey Marie]

Sooo, LR, explain to us how one can be pro-choice and not tacitly support abortion?

That is like saying you are pro-Hitler/Third Reich, but you do not support the concentration camps. One is tied to the other whether you express support for it, or rather passively say, it's not my choice to kill millions of Jews, but others who do should have the right to do so.

[Noir]

Isn;t is amazing how everyone who supports abortion; the murder of the unborn; were never aborted by their mother?

Whats even more amazing is that idiots think that forcing their children to further their political/social agenda is acceptable.

[ConHog]

Sooo, LR, explain to us how one can be pro-choice and not tacitly support abortion?

That is like saying you are pro-Hitler/Third Reich, but you do not support the concentration camps. One is tied to the other whether you express support for it, or rather passively say, it's not my choice to kill millions of Jews, but others who do should have the right to do so.

I'll give this one a shot.

I am against abortion; BUT I recognize that it's going to happen. Some women are going to abort their children no matter what we legislate, so I would 100% support making sure that those who would do it anyway have a legal and safe means for doing so. I sure wouldn't want anyone in my family or that I know getting one but I don't want a woman dying because of a botched abortion due to no safe alternative being available.

And of course we both know that not everyone considers abortions to be murder anyway so that's another debate altogether.

[Noir]

Sooo, LR, explain to us how one can be pro-choice and not tacitly support abortion?

That is like saying you are pro-Hitler/Third Reich, but you do not support the concentration camps. One is tied to the other whether you express support for it, or rather passively say, it's not my choice to kill millions of Jews, but others who do should have the right to do so.


You could say that for anything, ie do you accept that someone is free who have A baby with someone they've only meet once?
Once you agree to that imagine all the situtations you 'support' thereafter, that you dont actually support at all.

[logroller]

Sooo, LR, explain to us how one can be pro-choice and not tacitly support abortion?
I thought I did in post 11, but let me rephrase. You are Christian I assume, meaning you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. If you didn't have the choice to accept Him, meaning it simply is a fact that you are saved, regardless of whether you have accepted him as the path to salvation, are you saved? You must understand that to give someone a choice, you must allow for them to make it--good or bad, such is the nature of free will. It's not God's fault Eve ate from the tree. The decision was her's alone. I have to believe He knew the ramifications of instilling free-will, but like I said-- it's a necessary condition to glorify Him, despite allowing for, ie tacitly support, whatever evils may be also occur.


That is like saying you are pro-Hitler/Third Reich, but you do not support the concentration camps. One is tied to the other whether you express support for it, or rather passively say, it's not my choice to kill millions of Jews, but others who do should have the right to do so.

Wow. pro-choice = hitler, the third reich and genocide. Look up hyperbole, then explain how your argument is not so.

[logroller]

I thought I did in post 11, oops, post 10.

[Kathianne]

I'm pro-life, I think the abortion issue should be at the state level. I think there are strong arguments against abortion in most circumstances and the state has reasons for allowing children to be born.

With that said, at the present time, Roe v Wade is reality. I can vote for a candidate that is pro-choice, if I find their stand on other important issues in line with my positions. As for their pro-choice stand, that's between them and God.

I guess in general that's the same reason I don't have serious issues with gay positions regarding political candidates.

I do know the more fundamentalist Christians disagree with me here, nothing to do about that though.

[avatar4321]

This is just another symptom of our degenerating society.

Which should warn all those who see this that it's time to prepare ourselves for when things fall apart.

[ConHog]

I'm pro-life, I think the abortion issue should be at the state level. I think there are strong arguments against abortion in most circumstances and the state has reasons for allowing children to be born.

With that said, at the present time, Roe v Wade is reality. I can vote for a candidate that is pro-choice, if I find their stand on other important issues in line with my positions. As for their pro-choice stand, that's between them and God.

I guess in general that's the same reason I don't have serious issues with gay positions regarding political candidates.

I do know the more fundamentalist Christians disagree with me here, nothing to do about that though.

About the way I feel about it. I tend to look at a candidate's overall platform rather than just singling out one or two stances , so that just because I like a candidate that doesn't mean I agree with him/her on everything.

[red states rule]

No other definition you accept perhaps, but there are others. All involve giving women the choice over what is inside their bodies. I am not a woman, ergo, it is not my choice. I have not had an abortion, nor have I EVER encouraged a woman to have one. Its a big leap to say that because I support a woman's right to abort a non-viable human from her body, that I also encourage her to do so, merely by giving her the choice. I haven't the need nor inclination to make others' decisions for them. I make my own, good or bad, they're mine.

We could argue indefinitely about how free-choice has its drawbacks, but freedom is double-edged sword; just as the burden is borne on the individual with the power to choose, so too is the glory. Where's the glory in having no choice? I feel its of no consolation, whatsoever, in doing the right thing only because you have no choice to do otherwise? Would we be better off had Eve never eaten from the tree of knowledge of good of evil? Probably, but such is the burden of choice.

When my first was conceived, I didn't even have a job. I wasn't financially or emotionally prepared to raise children. I wasn't married when my first was born. I, We, my wife and I, fit many of the parameters of those who do have abortions; but I have great kids and a greater life as a result of my limited capacity to influence my wife's decision to not abort them. Instead I raise my children, who, obviously, have not been aborted, as testament to the glory of making what I perceive to be the right choice. That one decision has had the effect of creating even more choices. Choices which I which I don't shy from, they're opportunities for greatness and glory. I invite all others to share in that, I encourage them to do so through the fruits of my choices; but it is their choice, as it must be.


LR, it is very easy to be pro choice when you are not the one being killed

[red states rule]

I'll give this one a shot.

I am against abortion; BUT I recognize that it's going to happen. Some women are going to abort their children no matter what we legislate, so I would 100% support making sure that those who would do it anyway have a legal and safe means for doing so. I sure wouldn't want anyone in my family or that I know getting one but I don't want a woman dying because of a botched abortion due to no safe alternative being available.

And of course we both know that not everyone considers abortions to be murder anyway so that's another debate altogether.

Yea, lets make sure the killing is done in a clean enviroment and away from public view

Like that makes it any better

[red states rule]

As far as the OP, a gay rights supporter defends the cowardly mom for using her son to advance her agenda.

Right away you will see the lib give Bill the classic liberal smirk and the spin comes forth


<IFRAME height=421 marginHeight=0 src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=MBTCL71ZHBT2MZ8R&layout=&content_type=content_item&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowTransparency marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>

[ConHog]

Yea, lets make sure the killing is done in a clean enviroment and away from public view

Like that makes it any better

You'd rather mother AND child died because the abortion was done in a back alley abortion factory? Let's face it, abortion IS going to happen no matter what we do, and there ARE some valid reasons for choosing an abortion on top of that.

I don't agree with it, but the reality is what it is.

[fj1200]

And more abortions will happen BECAUSE it's illegal. Society would have to determine which is more tragic.

[ConHog]

And more abortions will happen BECAUSE it's illegal. Society would have to determine which is more tragic.


Some seem to believe we live in a fantasy world where we could dictate our own reality. I would suggest they stick to World of Warcraft for that kind of life. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

You'd rather mother AND child died because the abortion was done in a back alley abortion factory? Let's face it, abortion IS going to happen no matter what we do, and there ARE some valid reasons for choosing an abortion on top of that.

I don't agree with it, but the reality is what it is.

A liberal buddy of mine made the same lame excuse about HS kids having sex. they are going to do it so don;t worrry about it

I then offered him the next logical step using his arguement

We need to have "safe rooms" in the school. Have a nurse on duty. Have the protecton there for them to use. Clean sheets on the beds

But no cigs for the kids afterwards. that would be very unhealthy

He walked away without saying a word

Some people will bend over backwards to save a lst whale in the SF bay but yawn over the slaughter of millions of unborn children so the life of the mother can be made easier

[red states rule]

BTW CH here is an update on one of your abortion clinics that was called a "Chamber of Horrors"

But hey, abortions are going to happen so this is no big deal right?




The story of Kermit Gosnell is, perhaps, one that even well-meaning people would prefer to block out of their minds. After all, as a Philadelphia grand jury report put it, to talk of Gosnell is to talk of “a doctor who killed babies and endangered women.” Recall this most sickening habit of his: Gosnell would purposely induce the premature births of babies and then “snip” the spines of those premature — but living, breathing, viable — little persons to, as he put it, “ensure fetal demise.” In four decades, Gosnell killed hundreds and hundreds of babies in this way, collecting their severed feet in jars as evidence of his evil.

Gosnell was chiefly responsible for the wickedness perpetrated in his abortion shop of horrors, but he didn’t operate alone. As Michelle Malkin put it, Gosnell was helped in his hideous enterprise by “a crew of unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of women’s ‘choice.’”

Among them: his wife, Pearl Gosnell, who has now pleaded guilty to assisting at the corrupt abortion clinic — a clinic that the grand jury described as “a filthy fraud in which [Gosnell] overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.”

According to LifeNews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/13/kermit-gosnells-wife-pleads-guilty-to-abortion-horrors/), Pearl was charged with participating in an illegal late-term abortion, conspiracy and being part of a corrupt organization. Previously, she had considered “a plea deal similar to the one several of Gosnell’s former abortion center employees have made they have pleaded guilty to receive a lesser sentence in exchange for testifying against Gosnell.” But it appears Pearl — who by law cannot be made to speak out against her husband — has opted simply to plead guilty and remain silent during his trial. That means, I’m assuming, she’ll likely accept a longer sentence than she would if she’d testify.

Silence was a necessary condition for Gosnell’s death mill to flourish. As has been well documented (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/21/the-philadelphia-horror-how-mass-murder-gets-a-pass/), state governmental failure was and is an ominous element of the Gosnell story. Gosnell’s practice [I]was about criminal activity, yes, but, whatever folks might say to the contrary, it was also about abortion. Put simply: Gosnell was more easily able to perpetrate his crimes because of an abortion-accepting “culture of death” that has inured officials to the need to vigilantly protect life.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/13/kermit-gosnells-wife-pleads-guilty-to-assisting-at-his-abortion-shop-of-horrors/

[ConHog]

BTW CH here is an update on one of your abortion clinics that was called a "Chamber of Horrors"

But hey, abortions are going to happen so this is no big deal right?

You do realize that when you make stupid examples of relatively isolated instances like this and say they represent the whole that you are opening the door for groups to do things like point to the Westboro idiots and say "see, Christians are bad" don't you?

Not to mention, I NEVER said that abortions weren't that bad, let alone did I ever say that things like happened in that article aren't that bad.

Final conclusion:

You need a life, bad.

[Abbey Marie]

You do realize that when you make stupid examples of relatively isolated instances like this and say they represent the whole that you are opening the door for groups to do things like point to the Westboro idiots and say "see, Christians are bad" don't you?

Not to mention, I NEVER said that abortions weren't that bad, let alone did I ever say that things like happened in that article aren't that bad.

Final conclusion:

You need a life, bad.

Con, are you really going the "get a life" route? People who post on message boards are there to express their opinion. Why does Red need a life any more than the rest of us here?

As for the substance of his post, the only reason this type of thing doesn't go on much more, is that we have laws against it. Laws which, btw, our president, on record as a partial birth abortion advocate, would probably like to see repealed.

[ConHog]

Con, are you really going the "get a life" route? People who post on message boards are there to express their opinion. Why does Red need a life any more than the rest of us here?

As for the substance of his post, the only reason this type of thing doesn't go on much more, is that we have laws against it. Laws which, btw, our president, on record as a partial birth abortion advocate, would probably like to see repealed.

I agree, all of us that post on board could probably use a bit more of a life LOL

I don't agree at all that Obama would repeal laws which are meant to prevent abuses from happening.

[Abbey Marie]

I agree, all of us that post on board could probably use a bit more of a life LOL

I don't agree at all that Obama would repeal laws which are meant to prevent abuses from happening.

He voted for partial birth (extremely late term) abortion in Illinois. Is that not abusive enough for you?

[red states rule]

I don't agree at all that Obama would repeal laws which are meant to prevent abuses from happening.

For a guy who keeps coming across as so damn smart, you really do not know much

Here is the low down on Sen Obama and how he feels about babies who survice an abortion




snip

As reported by CNSNews.com last Wednesday, Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate who rose that day in 2001 to speak against a package of three bills designed to protect babies who survived late-term abortions.

“Back in March of 2001, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was one of--actually the only--senator to speak against legislation to protect infants who were born alive after an abortion,” Ingraham said to Palin. “He called them ‘pre-viable fetuses’ because if you call them people, he said directly, ‘I mean, it would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause doesn’t allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.’ Governor, what is your reaction to that?”

“It is absolutely atrocious,” said Palin. “And, you know, as we go around in our rallies and when I talk about John McCain and me and our desire for, and our commitment to, a culture of life and we are interrupted with huge applause, I think, you know, I wish I had more time to explain to people what Barack Obama’s position has been on this. Because I think, Laura, it has been missing out there in the discussion, in the debate, about the choices that they have in candidates on November 4th.

Noting first that Obama has said abortion is “a fundamental right” and that he “opposes banning partial-birth abortion,” Palin said that “more telling … has been his vote against legislation--three times voting against legislation--that would provide medical care to a baby born having been a survivor of a abortion. It is very appalling. And I think that if more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is, there would be a heck of a lot more outrage than we already see.”

A moment later on the Laura Ingraham show, Palin returned to the issue.

“Again, let me go back to this Born Alive legislation that Barack Obama could not support,” said Palin. “It is appalling enough, I think, even for those who are pro-abortion to understand that Barack Obama opposes banning partial-birth abortion--because that is quite extreme. But for him to have had an opportunity to vote to allow a child born as a result of a botched abortion to receive the medical care that he or she deserves--born with that inalienable right to life--and yet, he has sided on the wrong side three times, voting against legislation that would provide that medical care to the baby -- is the extreme position on abortion. Americans need to know that.”

In 2001, then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley proposed three bills in the Illinois Senate to protect babies who survived abortions.

O’Malley’s legislation was inspired by nurse Jill Stanek, who went public about the “induced-labor abortions” that were taking place at the Chicago-area hospital where she worked. These abortions, often done on babies with Down syndrome, involved a mother who was medicated to induce premature labor. At Stanek’s hospital, when a baby was born alive as a result of this induced premature labor, Stanek testified before the U.S. Congress, the baby was often placed in a laundry room to die without care.

When O’Malley was told by the state attorney general’s office that no existing state laws protected these babies as citizens of the State of Illinois and the United States, he drafted a set of bills. One mandated that any time a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a reasonable likelihood that a baby might be born alive as a result of the abortion, a second physician had to be present to assess the viability of the baby and provide medical care for him or her.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/palin-attacks-obama-s-appalling-refusal-defend-babies-who-survive-abortion

[ConHog]

He voted for partial birth (extremely late term) abortion in Illinois. Is that not abusive enough for you?



It disgusts me , but no I don't think it is abusive. Those women CHOSE to have abortions. Of course we could have a philosophical debate all day long about whether that is child abuse or not, but the bottom is they don't think it is.

[red states rule]

It disgusts me , but no I don't think it is abusive. Those women CHOSE to have abortions. Of course we could have a philosophical debate all day long about whether that is child abuse or not, but the bottom is they don't think it is.

So if you do not consider it abuse to drill a hole in the babies head, suck it brains out, collapse the babies skull, and then remove it from the mother's body - what the hell do you consider abuse?

[Abbey Marie]

It disgusts me , but no I don't think it is abusive. Those women CHOSE to have abortions. Of course we could have a philosophical debate all day long about whether that is child abuse or not, but the bottom is they don't think it is.

Choice, abuse and murder are not mutually exclusive.

[Missileman]

It disgusts me , but no I don't think it is abusive. Those women CHOSE to have abortions. Of course we could have a philosophical debate all day long about whether that is child abuse or not, but the bottom is they don't think it is.

If they're doing this to a viable fetus, it's murder.

[Kathianne]

If they're doing this to a viable fetus, it's murder.Yep. And who would think, other than present company, lol, that our resident atheist would be the voice of morality.


He voted for partial birth (extremely late term) abortion in Illinois. Is that not abusive enough for you?Yes he did. Even having pointed out to him that there were 'aborted' fetuses that cried, meaning breathed, and were put into buckets in closets to die. No mind.


It disgusts me , but no I don't think it is abusive. Those women CHOSE to have abortions. Of course we could have a philosophical debate all day long about whether that is child abuse or not, but the bottom is they don't think it is. With the above, you are still of a mind to argue relative morality?

[Missileman]

Yep. And who would think, other than present company, lol, that our resident atheist would be the voice of morality.


Atheist does not equal immoral or amoral despite what the thumpers believe.

[Kathianne]

Atheist does not equal immoral or amoral despite what the thumpers believe.

I know that, which I think you recognize. Some don't however.

[Missileman]

I know that, which I think you recognize. Some don't however.

I've never considered you a thumper.

[red states rule]

If they're doing this to a viable fetus, it's murder.

It is a fact that 50% of the people that enter every abortion clinic, do not come out alive

[Missileman]

It is a fact that 50% of the people that enter every abortion clinic, do not come out alive

Nice quip, but it's about as factual as a PB post.

[ConHog]

If they're doing this to a viable fetus, it's murder.

I personally agree with you, but currently the law does not, so no abuse; at least not from a legal standpoint. And I don't personally know what Obama considers the point where life becomes life, but I doubt he is for abortions after that point.

[Kathianne]

I personally agree with you, but currently the law does not, so no abuse; at least not from a legal standpoint. And I don't personally know what Obama considers the point where life becomes life, but I doubt he is for abortions after that point.

His voting record in Illinois says quite the contrary. I went with Wiki because the votes can be checked:


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.
<noscript> http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/nb/16024-128483-16064- (http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/nc/16024-128483-16064-) </noscript>

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Obama_vote_to_legalize_late_term_abortions_in_ Illinois_and_if_the_baby_lived_through_the_abortio n_then_Obama_said_the_baby_should_be_killed#ixzz1g duWJffZ

[ConHog]

His voting record in Illinois says quite the contrary. I went with Wiki because the votes can be checked:
<noscript> http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/nb/16024-128483-16064- (http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/nc/16024-128483-16064-) </noscript>

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Obama_vote_to_legalize_late_term_abortions_in_ Illinois_and_if_the_baby_lived_through_the_abortio n_then_Obama_said_the_baby_should_be_killed#ixzz1g duWJffZ

I have no problem with using Wiki as a source myself.

I do however have a problem with just assuming that a present vote means one thing or the other. I in fact oppose the present vote for that vary reason. They should have to take a public stand on all bills. Present is no stand either way.

[red states rule]

Nice quip, but it's about as factual as a PB post.

How you can say that is amazing. Two humans walk in to the butcher shop, and only one walks out

What point are you not getting MM?

[red states rule]

I have no problem with using Wiki as a source myself.

I do however have a problem with just assuming that a present vote means one thing or the other. I in fact oppose the present vote for that vary reason. They should have to take a public stand on all bills. Present is no stand either way.


and here I thought Virgil - the boards biggest Obama defender - was gone :laugh2:

[Missileman]

How you can say that is amazing. Two humans walk in to the butcher shop, and only one walks out

What point are you not getting MM?

For starters, only one of them is walking in every case, and in a lot of cases, only one person is involved in the procedure patient-wise.

[red states rule]

For starters, only one of them is walking in every case, and in a lot of cases, only one person is involved in the procedure patient-wise.

So you are saying their is not a baby being killed, just a bumch of cells and Protoplasma being tossed out in the garbage?

Is that what you are saying MM?

[Missileman]

So you are saying their is not a baby being killed, just a bumch of cells and Protoplasma being tossed out in the garbage?

Is that what you are saying MM?

Depending on the stage of development, yes.

[red states rule]

Depending on the stage of development, yes.

That explaines alot MM

It does make it easier to overlook the murder of unborn babies when you try to spin they are not babies in the first place

[Missileman]

That explaines alot MM

It does make it easier to overlook the murder of unborn babies when you try to spin they are not babies in the first place

It takes more than a couple of cells to make a person...even the bass-ackwards voters of Mississippi managed to see the common sense of that.

[red states rule]

It takes more than a couple of cells to make a person...even the bass-ackwards voters of Mississippi managed to see the common sense of that.

The Nazi;s offered a similiar excuse to dismiss the murders in the camps MM

Those people were not "really" human beings so they can be killed without giving them a second thought

[Missileman]

The Nazi;s offered a similiar excuse to dismiss the murders in the camps MM

Those people were not "really" human beings so they can be killed without giving them a second thought

So in your estimation, a fertilized egg is a person?

While you're at it, post this similar excuse the Nazis used.

[ConHog]

The Nazi;s offered a similiar excuse to dismiss the murders in the camps MM

Those people were not "really" human beings so they can be killed without giving them a second thought


Oh for crying out loud. Are you really comparing people who don't believe life starts until birth with people who believe that full grown adults aren't human?

I think you got some chemical imbalances that need a doctor's attention.

[red states rule]

So in your estimation, a fertilized egg is a person?

While you're at it, post this similar excuse the Nazis used.


Life always begins at conception MM'

and yes, you are dismissing mass murder as the Nazi's did. In both cases, they considered those being killed sub-human

[ConHog]

Life always begins at conception MM'

and yes, you are dismissing mass murder as the Nazi's did. In both cases, they considered those being killed sub-human

That is in fact an opinion, and I no more want YOUR opinion stated as fact than I do MMs. So while I agree with your OPINION, I don't want it stated as fact.

[fj1200]

^When else would it start?

[ConHog]

^When else would it start?

I'm the wrong person to ask since I agree that life starts at conception. BUT that doesn't change the fact that that is my opinion. No different in theory than I don't want some jerkoff telling me that it is a FACT that there is no God.

[Missileman]

Life always begins at conception MM'

and yes, you are dismissing mass murder as the Nazi's did. In both cases, they considered those being killed sub-human

That wasn't the question...let me repeat it for you: So in your estimation, a fertilized egg is a person?

[ConHog]

That wasn't the question...let me repeat it for you: So in your estimation, a fertilized egg is a person?


Only if its a conservative egg. if it's liberal , well fuck it then, no rights for that egg as far as Chariman Red is concerned. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Only if its a conservative egg. if it's liberal , well fuck it then, no rights for that egg as far as Chariman Red is concerned. :laugh2:

and I thought OCA had left the building

[red states rule]

That wasn't the question...let me repeat it for you: So in your estimation, a fertilized egg is a person?


Yes, it is a human life MM