Obama Insults PA Voters

[mundame]

They are people. Look at a 3D Ultrasound Pictures and try to tell me with a striaght face they are not people

The body of the baby at 11 weeks
http://pregnancy.about.com/library/u...lus3d0511a.htm

They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

[red states rule]

They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

They are people period

So if the child has health issues - kill the child - is that wahat you are saying?

Make life easier for the parents so they will not be bothered?

[mundame]

They are people period

So if the child has health issues - kill the child - is that wahat you are saying?

Make life easier for the parents so they will not be bothered?

People do make that choice, yes, indeed. And the whole entire medical industry is set up to support them.

So we are going to keep abortion legal. Sorry, but that train has left the station.

[Hobbit]

Where does it say she doesn't?

Nowhere, of course.

That is actually a valid argument. The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant people rights but to limit the rights of the federal government. My counter argument, however, is asking where in the Constitution the federal government is given permission to override state law that doesn't violate the Constitution.

That's simple to explain: it's because fetuses aren't people yet.

Settles that problem!

That is a statement of opinion. That they are human beings is verifiable fact, as their existence makes them beings and the presence of distinct, human DNA makes them human. The idea of a person, however, has more to do with the concept of a soul, which cannot be quantified, and is, thus, unproven. The more correct statement is that Democrats don't care about the unborn because they do not believe them to be people.

However, I ask this. If it was discovered with absolute certainty that an unborn child was, in fact, a person, would you still support abortion on demand? If so, then how do you justify placing the rights of one person's convenience above another person's right to live? If it is because the child is totally dependent on the mother for life, and thus that right is less important, then are you also in favor of killing a child after birth, as they are still completely dependent upon others for survival? Where is the line?

I also ask you to consider the worst case scenario. If I am wrong and the policies I favor are enforced, then the worst I have done is make the ordeal of unwanted pregnancy (an easily avoided ordeal) a few months longer for many people, while at the same time shortening adoption waiting lists and saving women from the documented emotional trauma and guilt that often follows an abortion. If you are wrong and the policies you favor are enforced, then you have perpetuated a waste of human life more massive than the Holocaust. In the case of an unknown, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

[typomaniac]

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

She doesn't have to do that in California: she can just leave the baby at a hospital, police, or fire station, no questions asked.

Of course, that costs the taxpayers money - and personally, I think we should pay off the Iraq war before we start paying for defective children. (God knows we've got enough of them posting around here already!)

[mundame]

Make life easier for the parents so they will not be bothered?

Oh, and remember that men bug out when a handicapped baby is born.

So it's making life better for the WOMAN -----------------

Hubby wouldn't be bothered by it anyway, he'd be long gone.

[actsnoblemartin]

thats not the same

it was not a state issue, because the results would affect a NATIONAL election, but nice try my friend

Just like they did for the pubbies in Bush v. Gore, 2000!

[red states rule]

People do make that choice, yes, indeed. And the whole entire medical industry is set up to support them.

So we are going to keep abortion legal. Sorry, but that train has left the station.

Sad to see how the left sees the unborn as a disosible item

Yet they will bend over backwards to save a lost whale in SF bay, or protect the life of a convicted murderer

Liberal logic is a sight to behold

BTW, Hilter also killed off those with severe birth defects and impairments

[Abbey Marie]

...
And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.
...

Are you kidding? I see it all the time. My own grandmother raised a severly retarded child until he was in his late 20's. My grandfather stuck around and helped raised not only that child, but 6 other healthy ones as well. Are all the men in your area really that awful? Be careful of making absolute statements.

[typomaniac]

thats not the same

it was not a state issue, because the results would affect a NATIONAL election, but nice try my friend

'Fraid not: the electoral process is controlled by the states. Anyone here will tell you that, as long as you don't bring up 2000.

[actsnoblemartin]

why stop at killing kids with deformities, lets kill kids with autism, brown hair, not the right gender.

you see the slippery slope?

They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

[actsnoblemartin]

for a federal election?

I believe the feds have jurisdiction over state

'Fraid not: the electoral process is controlled by the states. Anyone here will tell you that, as long as you don't bring up 2000.

[mundame]

That is actually a valid argument. The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant people rights but to limit the rights of the federal government. My counter argument, however, is asking where in the Constitution the federal government is given permission to override state law that doesn't violate the Constitution.

Good, that's the counterargument, I agree. And indeed, is the usual dream of conservative men (not usually conservative women: that's why rightwing men rioted when Bush appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Rumors flew that despite her being a Republican and conservative, she was "soft" on abortion. I don't doubt she was --- I was till recently a Republican, and am fairly conservative, but you see what my opinion is. Women basically want men to butt out of this issue. Men basically want to control women and then take no responsibility for the child: this is unacceptable to us.).

That is a statement of opinion. That they are human beings is verifiable fact, as their existence makes them beings and the presence of distinct, human DNA makes them human.

Of course. They aren't foals or lambs, after all!!!! The "are they human?" argument always seemed strange and simplistic to me.

The idea of a person, however, has more to do with the concept of a soul, which cannot be quantified, and is, thus, unproven. The more correct statement is that Democrats don't care about the unborn because they do not believe them to be people.

Okay. I'm not particularly interested in "soul" arguments, which are rapidly getting passee in our secular intellectual climate.

However, I ask this. If it was discovered with absolute certainty that an unborn child was, in fact, a person, would you still support abortion on demand? If so, then how do you justify placing the rights of one person's convenience above another person's right to live?

Let me answer with another set of questions. If it was discovered with absolute certainty that a burglar was, in fact, a person, would you still support shooting him when he came into your bedroom? If it was discovered with absolute certainty that a Muslim suicide bomber was, in fact, a person, would you still support shooting him as he entered the crowded subway?

If it is because the child is totally dependent on the mother for life, and thus that right is less important, then are you also in favor of killing a child after birth, as they are still completely dependent upon others for survival? Where is the line?

It has to be before birth. Too hard on mothers after, though fathers often do it in many parts of the world all the same, mostly to girl babies. And they demand the right to kill these babies: it's a cultural right of fathers to kill their babies in India and China and so on. I don't see how that is morally different from abortion. Except that men want to arrogate all the rights to them ---------- sorry, not acceptable.

I also ask you to consider the worst case scenario. If I am wrong and the policies I favor are enforced, then the worst I have done is make the ordeal of unwanted pregnancy (an easily avoided ordeal) a few months longer for many people, while at the same time shortening adoption waiting lists and saving women from the documented emotional trauma and guilt that often follows an abortion. If you are wrong and the policies you favor are enforced, then you have perpetuated a waste of human life more massive than the Holocaust. In the case of an unknown, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

This is a specious argument, since caring for gravely impaired children is hardly only a few months chore. It's a lifelong tragedy.

Also, none of the above is the point. The point is, we get to choose and you don't. The pregnant person gets to choose. The non-pregnant one doesn't, though I agree that women can't ethically decide such a thing independently within a marriage; it is legal, but it is certainly grounds for divorce. However, in the case of a question about a Down's Syndrome child, a divorce would probably be appropriate, if the husband wanted to let the child come to full gestation, given the dire statistics on how he is likely to leave the marriage and she be stuck with the child her whole life, impoverished with huge care burdens and with poor prospects for another marriage.

Basically, your arguments don't matter if the woman is choosing. And we are choosing, so all is well.

[Hobbit]

They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

So whether someone is a person or not is a function of how much they're wanted? That seems twisted to me.

As far as disabilities. Which do you think inconveniences the kid more, being disabled or being dead? I would rather live with laundry list of handicaps than be dead. Maybe you wouldn't, but would you really feel comfortable with somebody else making that decision for you without giving you any input at all?

[mundame]

why stop at killing kids with deformities, lets kill kids with autism, brown hair, not the right gender.

you see the slippery slope?

It is a slippery slope, you are right, ANM -- and RSR cites part of that with his "BTW, Hilter also killed off those with severe birth defects and impairments."


In India today sonagrams are being used to sex children prenatally and then abort the females. This is a normal, routine use. The Wall Street Journal runs occasional articles on it because the supplier of the sonogram machines is an American company, and they know very well what is going on, so it's an ethical issue.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->