[Wondergirl]

An abortion is not birth.

[speechlesstx]

An abortion is not birth.

LOL, you're seriously going to take this line of reasoning? If it leaves the womb alive that's a birth. Eyes, nose, fingers, toes, brain, a beating heart... you kill that 'fetus.'

[Wondergirl]

Wikipedia: "Birth (calving in livestock and some other animals, whelping in carnivorous mammals) is the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring."

Abortion is not "bearing" or "bringing forth." Therefore, going by what you are saying, every birth is also an abortion.

[speechlesstx]

Sorry, but I cannot possibly take you seriously.

[Wondergirl]

It makes perfect sense. If abortion = birth, then birth = abortion. Tell me how that doesn't work for you.

[cdad]

Speechless Said, And Excon and I both agree, But Steve, Let's learn a new word a day. Todays word is FEE-TUSS Say it out loud because abortions don't kill bay-bees abortions terminate pregnancies along with then fetus. And if you take away that right from women you're seeking to control her medical decisions, I kinda warmed to old Steve when I found out he sparked a doobie or two. Sorta makes him seem a little looser. The one thing I learned working at the clinic is that while we focus on the women they focus on the unborn. They have all the answers EXCEPT what to do after she gives birth they aren't willing to fund programs to help unwed mothers unless it's a religious program. After 13 years I understand where they're coming from, I might not agree but I do understand, Regards, Tom

I don't see you and Ex agreeing at all. He supports viability. It appears you do not. How is that the same ?

[talaniman]

Even though the debate still rages, and opinions vary, the law of the land says abortions are legal in the first semester. Now many states conservatively governed have passed laws that add to that with all kinds of restriction. That's fine as long as they are legally done, but making viability at the moment of conception is a stretch since only two people can know that, and one is a doctor. IF you are smart enough to see one, but beyond all this moral stuff, its choice and family planning that becomes an economic issue with many who make up more than half the population.

Barefoot and pregnant is no joke, neither is not having some sort of support in a life threatening and life changing situation. The hypocrisy comes in when those that have the means to have choices and supports, deny the choice for others, and worse, when the choice is in the hands of those that never have to be pregnant in the first place.

Even more so hypocritical when its not your female you are denying choice to, nor your child that you made, and have NO intention to raise that child until they reach the age of maturity, and actively seek to erode and deny any type of support to mother and child.

So this viability is opinion and conjecture and is only as REAL as your intentions to step up and do the right thing to make sure a child is raised properly. If you are NOT willing to raise this child you choose to make others have, you should do like the rest of the irresponsible punks, and disappear, and stay the freak out of the way while real men do the right thing!

Funny how we regard the viability more important than the development until maturity, and that's as backward as it gets. Yeah defend the baby until it gets here then walk away.

How is that moral, or a viable acceptable course of action? Don't answer, because its NOT!

[tomder55]

I just wonder why the VP outright lied in the debate about the mandate that violates religious institutions 1st amendment rights. It's their policy ,they own it .Why can't they just admit they are forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception and abortifacients for their employees ?
Are they ashamed of their policy ? Or is that just a deception like the Stupak compromise ,giving their followers who have moral objections an out ?

[speechlesstx]

It makes perfect sense. If abortion = birth, then birth = abortion. Tell me how that doesn't work for you.

All the more reason not to take you seriously.

[talaniman]

I just wonder why the VP outright lied in the debate about the mandate that violates religious institutions 1st amendment rights. It's their policy ,they own it .Why can't they just admit they are forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception and abortifacients for their employees ?
Are they ashamed of their policy ? or is that just a deception like the Stupak compromise ,giving their followers who have moral objections an out ?

We have had that debate.

[tomder55]

Yes we have . VP Biden was opposed to the policy on religious grounds ;and mumbled a defense of the policy during the debate . It was easy to see that he had lost his energy to do the goody laughs and interuptions during that segment . That is because he was very uncomfortable supporting a policy that everyone knows he opposed for moral reasons.

Another major adm official ,Bill Daley also opposed the policy .When he lost the internal debate between him and the Valerie Jarret ,and Sebellius cabal of hardliners ,he had the integrity to resign.
This was a policy that violated the President's word to the Blue Dogs, who got suckered into voting for Obamacare .Many of them lost their seats in 2010 over their vote. Many more Dems in Congress will lose their seats next month for their support of the radical progressive policies of the President .

[excon]

Many more Dems in Congress will lose their seats next month for their support of the radical progressive policies of the President

Hello again, tom:

So, you think they'll elect, vaginal juice stops pregnancy, Todd Aiken?? You think, congress is 50% communist, Alan West will survive? How about Joe, won't pay child support, Walsh??

Nahhh... The dems might not take back the House, but they'll make gains. Those losers above will LOSE and Michelle Bachmann too.

In terms of Todd Aiken, I don't know WHY you guys don't learn... He's Sharron Angle all over again.. IF you HAD a chance to take the Senate, running an extreme right winger killed it for you again..

Excon

[talaniman]

So Biden lied about not imposing his beliefs on others? Great spin Tom, we will see. Seems to me despite your 4 year war on this president, and all the tactics to undermine him, he still is running ahead of you guys and the right wing.

Another month and we see how repeal and replace (?) works in the 21st century.

[speechlesstx]

I didn't put Akin out there, we're voting in a young gun Hispanic named Cruz.

[paraclete]

You think there is a war on women you really should speak to Julia Gillard
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politics...013-27jul.html

[tomder55]

It would have nothing to do with the fact that she is a radical lefty flake ?

[paraclete]

it would have nothing to do with the fact that she is a radical lefty flake ?

No when they call you Juliar and the wicked witch how could it, these traints aren't confined to the left, however she now thinks all her opponents are mysoginst. She could be right most of the country hate her

[excon]

Hello again,

While the REST of the country is talking about Roe v Wade being overturned, our resident right wingers would rather look the other way... They think I'm bonkers for bringing it up.

That's fine.. It leaves the playing field to ME... And, to ME, it's CLEAR that if Romney wins, Roe is toast..

My support of Roe has LESS to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether it can be controlled. I say, that no matter WHAT you write down in your lawbooks, if some lady WANTS an abortion, she'll get one... Rich ladies will travel to where they're legal, and poor ladies will seek back alley ones...

I don't know WHY you'd want to condemn ladies to that. Ok. Yes, I do.. You'll just DENY that it's happening.

excon

[tomder55]

The NY Slimes editorial board is the rest of the country ? That op-ed is just a desperate attempt for OFA to counter their reverses in the so called gender gap. They are finding out that women are more concerned with the jobs their families have lost ,with the jobs their new graduate children don't have ,than whether some life time activist student at Georgetown can get a free contraception pill.

Here's a thought for you . Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (because there is more than one person's health involved ) on the premise that health care decisions like abortion are a private matter and government has only limited authority to intervene in private health care decisions. Obamacare on the other hand is based on a philosophy that there is no right to privacy in health care. Government can control what health care people can obtain ;and can mandate health care decisions .

You want to talk about health care privacy ? Obamacare requires that all medical files be submitted and maintained in a federal database.The court just upheld a reversal in the concept of health care privacy. It is your side that is eroding health care "choice " . I'm going under the premise that if Roe is overturned ,that the Obamacare decision gave the justices the rationale and precedent to make that call .

Further the expanded power of the Sec HHS can also work both ways. Imagine a DHHS czar saying that abortion coverage is prohibitted . If they can force churches to provide contraceptives ,the next adm can equally deny coverage.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I can't tell exactly, but it LOOKS like you agree with me. If Romney is elected, Roe is dead.

excon