For the "Small Government" and social conservatives, I offer these stark facts:

It costs less to perform an abortion than it does for the state to take care of an unwanted child.

Adoption and foster care services cost the state money - far more than a simple $600 procedure.

So which is it? Supporting Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex education, which leads to lower taxes in the long term, or overturning Roe v Wade and forcing Abstinence-only education upon public schools, which would cause a massive influx of children into the Adoption and Foster care system, which isn't free. What's worse, is most of the staunchest "pro-lifers" don't normally adopt. To me, this is NIMBY-ism at it's worst.

And let us acknowledge this cowardly act for what it is: an act of terrorism by a Christian Fundamentalist. This shooter has more in common with your average Taliban militant than an average mainstream American.

During the Clinton Administration, Abortion rates declined. Despite this, Christian Fundamentalist Extremists killed 9 doctors in their "pro-life" crusade. During the Bush administration, no doctors were killed for performing abortions, but abortion rates steadily climbed.

Clearly, the extreme right gets desperate when they perceive they're falling from power, but their vitriol is in no way grounded in reality... I hate to say it, but cowards like this will continue terrorize doctors who provide abortions, especially if the last 20 years are any indication.

>> ^nadabu: oh, and the whole abortion debate is handled on preposterously unscientific grounds most of the time. it's plain as day that unborn "fetuses" are very much human children long before they are born. my son was born at 24 weeks. would he really have been "just a fetus" that my wife had some "right to kill" for the next 16 weeks were he not premature? Heck, i saw my daughter on ultrasound at 8.5 weeks. She already looked very human (just with an oversized head) and was moving around. Where on earth do we get the idea that human rights should only start at birth?

Roe V. Wade, which is the current state of the law in the US, allows limits on 3rd trimester abortion, for the reason you mentioned. But saying conception, or 1/2/3 months = human would mean that most miscarriages are manslaughter, or that the mothers body is, at the very least, a crime scene, this would be more absurd than the status quo.

Fetuses before 20weeks have no brain function, that is the science, they are not people by any reasonable definition. We, at present, have a continuum of "value" which the law places on a fetus as it becomes more likely to be conscious. As it stands birth is the least absurd of the arbitrary criteria we could use for discrete personhood.

Our moral sense did not evolve to deal with the fluidity of personhood, but that is what we see when we look at the science. No solution is morally satisfying, because the universe is not structured to appease our moral sense.

^ yeah speaking of only with the volume muted, wtf? why did she watch the SNL skit with the volume muted? She's really out of her fucking mind. Even if she was reading/doing something else, there's no way you could do both effectively (ive tried it with homework).

About the video, the plight of rape victims is horrible, why o why o why would we ever want to make it worse by putting undue financial burden on them and then *sigh* making it illegal to get an abortion? So now having been raped will cost a woman money AND she has to carry a child around for 9 months?

and yeah yeah i know Roe vs Wade BUT Palin has stated that she would like to see that ruling overturned, if several more conservative supreme court justices get appointed I could see it happening.

fuck you palin

KP aborted your baby. See what Roe v. Wade does to innocent lives?

http://www.videosift.com/video/MarineGunrock-and-NetRunner-interviewed-in-1992

It's so funny and ridiculous and absurd that the right points to silly little minor gaffes like these to counter criticism against Palin, who says she's an energy expert because she's surrounded by oil, is a foreign policy expert because she can see Russia from her house, and can't name a single magazine or newspaper she reads or a Supreme Court case she disagrees with besides Roe v. Wade.

Yeah, they're clearly equally dangerous.

agreed GUNDAM,and jwray brings up the exact point (harming others) where this argument always gets caught up.
is abortion murder?
i say it is.but that does not mean i wish for the government to step in and create legislation to ban it.
roe vs wade has stood up well for 35 years,mainly in part (in my opinion) due to the fact it compromises.
and while i agree jwray that laws may pertain to morals,but really they are in place to protect the victims.
so while masturbation is a victimless crime,it is still against the law in some states.just as me using an old testament reference was a jab at brutality for the sake of justice,that was jab at stupid,archaic and puritanical laws.
that whole diatribe was my lil jab at some of the archaic laws that have infected human society.
though i understand your point,which you made succinctly,it brings us back to
the beginning,in which we ask,when does life start?this is the juxposition that can never truly be clarified.
if life starts at conception,then its murder.
and if thats true,
how can we deprive this "potential individual" of its/his or hers..rights?
and the deabte rages on.
all im saying is keep government out,
it is already a relative issue with the person involved.
a moral crisis they will have to face,and ultimately take responsibility for.
but thats my take on the issue.
i thank gundam and jwray for their well-thought out posts.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S

I'm not posting political videos these days, because:

1. I don't feel like it
2. I don't need to because so many others here are already doing it.

To be perfectly honest I'm getting a little burned out on them too, BUT I'm still glad they're being posted. If it takes one million videos to convince people that John McCain and ESPECIALLY Sarah Palin should NOT be leading the most powerful nation on Earth, then so be it. This video is a prime example of that. She's fucking clueless. She believes the Constitution (in regard to the right to privacy), which has jurisdiction over all 50 states, should be interpreted by each state? She's talking out her ass. And then she can't name one Supreme Court decision she disagrees with besides Roe v Wade? Fuck! I half-expected her to say "All of them."

Sarah Palin is George Bush with tits: Confident, opinionated, and extremely fucking stupid. And she could EASILY be our president if McCain wins, because with his health record he should probably be dead before his term would expire, statistically speaking. And then what would we have? The fucking hockey mom-in-chief!? She'd nuke Finland for hoarding all the best reindeer during hunting season.

How did it come to this? </rant>

Believe me, I'm totally with you on all that you just stated.. I really wish he hadn't focused on abortion and would have just left that cookie alone. I'm a centrist libertarian (There's a reason why my name is purple) meaning that I agree with Libertarian policies yet I disagree with a few issues such as abortion and corporate deregulation.

This is why I always felt it would have been awesome to see Paul,Kucinich and Gravel working together in an administration. Compromise would be required.

On that note.. I don't think Paul could have gotten Roe v Wade overturned anyways.. I bet that Congress would have blocked it. Also it's not an important issue compared to the other problems we're facing. He was apparently trying to appeal to his religious base. Something that I wish candidates would not engage in considering separation of church and state and also the fact that many ppl are waking up from the religious psycho-manipulation that they've been enthralled in.. yet some will never wake up from that slumber.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
Ok I'll keep that in mind. I usually do upvote my videos, but I forget it in some cases. Rest assured that I endorse my videos even If I haven't upvoted them yet.

Btw, thanks for your very insightful comment, could've been just as well a sifttalk submission in my eyes. I do like Ron Paul very much, but I have to confess that this is based on his views on the current administration and foreign affairs, which were pretty much the only topics I've heard him talk about. I once heard him talk about his views on (or against) abortions and found out I couldn't disagree with him more.

In reply to this comment by Constitutional_Patriot:
hey it's ok to upvote your own vids here.. in fact I don't like to upvote ppls vids normally if the submitter won't endorse it themself. Since this is a Ron Paul vid I'll upvote it anyway tho.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-Once-Again-The-Voice-Of-Reason-On-The-Economy

Fisk is spot-on.

The abortion issue is too big a vote-getter for the GOP that they'll never want to see Roe v Wade overturned. They have no intention of losing their biggest wedge issue, and discussing otherwise is a practice in futility.

Whoopi had a fair point there, actually. The Founding Fathers understood the Constitution to allow slavery. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution stipulates that slaves count as three-fifths of a free person for apportioning congressional representation. A really strict originalist interpretation would allow for slavery.

Of course, McCain's response should have been, "That's why we have amendments." Slavery is outlawed in the US under the 13th amendment.

Also, you don't have to be anti-abortion to oppose Roe v. Wade. Whatever your opinion on abortion is--I'm very staunchly pro-choice myself--but I can recognize that Roe v. Wade was a poor decision. It stands on extremely shaky legal grounds, uses sloppy reasoning, and more or less invents new rights whole cloth and labels them "constitutional." I would support a Constitutional amendment enshrining abortion rights up through the second trimester in a heartbeat, but Roe v. Wade just... isn't very good.

I'm not sure if she is a tactical error. These Pro-Choice/Life debates seem to come up every election and every election the Republican candidates have promised that in this upcoming turn Roe v Wade will be overturned and so far it has yet too. This is all orchestrated to motivate the core conservative voters, because there are people who will vote solely based on knowing the candidates support a Pro-Life agenda regardless if they act upon it. For this reason they want this debate to be an issues during election times. It distracts people from focusing on important issues that should be debated rather than spouted rhetoric. For this reason Palin is a "good" choice because she is someone who is only going to impassion her constituency further. How does a 65 year old man debate a 44 year old woman who has a child with down syndrome without coming off insensitive. Having a pregnant teen daughter simply will add to her resolve.

I'm not saying any of this is right or that I support it, but the more Palin is "attacked" or merely the focus because of her daughters pregnancy/abortion issues in general the more it helps their overall campaign.

The salient point: HYPOCRISY - Palin is so eager to legislate the Morality of everyone else in the country, yet refuses to ensure that it's Taught and Enforced in her own home.

Hey Sarah, instead of preaching Creationism and repeal of Roe v. Wade maybe you should've noticed that your own daughter was humping like a mink in the back seat of some guy's car.

As that J.C. guy said : "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you know Ron Paul's stance on a woman's right of choice, evolutionary science or healthcare?



Ron Paul on health care: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

Ron Paul on women's right of choice (or if we drop the noble euphemism, Ron Paul on abortion): http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Ron Paul on evolutionary science: http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-campaign-on-evolution/

And now a word from the Peanut gallery:

I don't agree with RP's personal perspective on evolution, with me being an atheist and all. I'm not, however, hiring a Dean for my school, so his religious beliefs or scientific perspectives are of little value to me, especially knowing he is willing to go against what he personally believes is moral or right so to honor the strict letter of the Constitution. In other words, he may be a religious man, but he's not going to overstep the separation of church and state, and so on.

As for abortion, I personally like that we have Roe v. Wade, but I also agree with Ron Paul that the Federal Government should have no jurisdiction over regulating what is considered murder. Why is that fair? I think putting it to the states is fair, even if I'm pro-abortion (I hate those silly euphemisms: pro-choice and pro-life).

As for health care, I'm not a big fan of my money being taken from me by force (and so much of it!) and redistributed wherever the government sees fit. This goes for unjustified wars as much as it goes to a socialized health care plan. I don't think it's fair for people who never intend on having children to pay into socialized education, either. That aside, there's a strong argument that federal government restrictions and regulations in health care has driven the price to where it is now.

Ok, found the stupid bitch: Cristi Adkins. Wonder is she is related to "Dr. Atkins" and his miracle destroy your liver diet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365687,00.html

COLMES: I don't understand how you go from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. Does that mean you all of the sudden; you would like to overturn Roe versus Wade? All of a sudden, you don't want equal rights for gays? All of a sudden, you don't want energy independence? All of a sudden, you don't want to end the war in Iraq? He has the diametrically opposed views on those issues to Hillary Clinton. How do you make that leap?

ADKINS: That's not — the bridge to McCain is a lot closer than the radical gap to Senator Obama.

Clintons4Mccain Founder Cristi Adkins says, "Move over David Duke, there's a new racist going for the oval office. Hillary supporters have seen Obama unfairly play the race card time and time again. In fact, Obama's crypto-ethnic, inflammatory remarks have become the senator's number one method of distracting voters from his lack of qualifications, numerous flip-flops and dangerous associations."

Cristi Babin Adkins, RN, CHT is certified in hypno-therapy by the National Guild of Hypnotists and a Registered Nurse who specializes in the body-mind-spirit approach. She served as the state representative for the American Holistic Nurses Association for the state of Utah in 1998-1999

Women's rights issues are pretty damn significant for, well, a good amount of the population. The right of a professional woman on birth control (for example) who still becomes pregnant to end that pregnancy is first and foremost a women's rights issue in many peoples eyes; having a child is completely life altering, and can be completely career altering. Without the 'right to choose' there is a legitimate argument that there can't ever be equality between the sexes.

Things could change pretty swiftly if McCain appoints certain Supreme Court judges (more than one will soon be retiring) and those judges hear a case that allows them to start chiseling at 'Roe V. Wade'.

Remember, alcohol was illegal for a time, and marijuana is currently illegal. Sometimes the moral opinions of others impact our lives significantly.