"I don't think women make these decisions casually."

Bull. Crap.

beautifully put as always Barack. its good to learn something about the views of the candidate ur behind. upvote

"I should be home by 6:00, honey. I gotta pick up the dry cleaning, take the kids to soccer practice, go to the hairdresser's, and if I have a few extra minutes I'll get an abortion. I won $500 on the scratch-off lottery tickets, so why not?"

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Very well put. He knows he's not going to get the hard-core single issue voters anyway, so he's appealing to the middle.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
"I should be home by 6:00, honey. I gotta pick up the dry cleaning, take the kids to soccer practice, go to the hairdresser's, and if I have a few extra minutes I'll get an abortion. I won $500 on the scratch-off lottery tickets, so why not?"


If it was such a "tough" decision to have an abortion, the woman wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place to force her to make said decision. It seems that keeping their pants on is the real decision women have to make, eh?

So yes, I call bull crap. Of course, that's pretty much what comes out of Obama's mouth all of the time anyway...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Bill, your simplistic view of humanity is almost absurd. Every fiber of a human being is meant for procreation, not everyone has the will to resist that urge though we try very hard.

To say that it's a woman's decision to "keep her pants on" is ridiculously naive and fairly misogynistic.

You belong in the 50s neo-victorian era. Your views would be right at home. Pass the Brill cream.

There, I feel better. Thanks for being around Bill'O - you're like the wingnut practice sparring partner of the Sift. Now to head over to MichelleMalkin's site.

The decision of a woman to abort a pregnancy should have absolutely nothing to do with the government.

Ironic that only men have commented thus far eh?

>> ^dag:
Bill, your simplistic view of humanity is almost absurd. Every fiber of a human being is meant for procreation, not everyone has the will to resist that urge though we try very hard.
To say that it's a woman's decision to "keep her pants on" is ridiculously naive and fairly misogynistic.
You belong in the 50s neo-victorian era. Your views would be right at home. Pass the Brill cream.
There, I feel better. Thanks for being around Bill'O - you're like the wingnut practice sparring partner of the Sift. Now to head over to MichelleMalkin's site.


Every fiber, eh? So our artistic side, our religious side, our scientific side, they don't mean squat, eh?

And isn't it a woman's choice to keep her pants on? If not, who's is it? The government's? Barack Obama would like you to think so, I'm sure...

Look, all you LiberalSift regulars can debate this issue till the cows come home, but you all know you can't compete with my superior wit and reasoning, so let's just call it a win for me and leave it at that.

If you've been practicing your superior wit, Bill, I'm suing you for malpractice.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bill is absolutely agreeable here. Guess what bucko, it's not your flipping decision whether a woman you've never met aborts her child. Not your business in the slightest.

I'm going to offend some people here but I have to.

This guy has it all, pro choice and anti 2nd amendment.

Just because I support the 2nd amendment does not make me a religious conservative. I support the constitution, what does that make me?

And know I wont explain it to you naysayers out there, this guy is just the same as the other guy if not worse. He is "A peace loving decoy ready for retaliation." (-Dirty harry gorillaz).

He says he is pro gun, yet he supports the ban in Chicago, and in the District of Columbia even though they struck it down. Yet it is still illegal to own any automatic or semi auto gun? That's every gun except revolvers and lever actions and pump shot guns. Not to mention the class 3 weapons, that are classified assault. That usually means any weapon with a "bayonet lug", recoil suppressors, or heat plating (commonly seen on shotguns particularly the Spas series.)

http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1118

"Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated:
Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun

4 James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court to hear gun case," Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5 Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7 See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8 John Chase, "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds," Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9 Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10 See supra note 6.
11 About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law." See supra note 8.
12 See supra note 5.
13 As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14 On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers' protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up-your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti-gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16 On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17 On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA's membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18 Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, "We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit." Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19 See supra note 4. " Quoted from a (I Know absolutely conservative site ).

http://www.gop.com/images/research/062608Research2.pdf (this is a PDF) - its hard to find stuff that isn't blatantly republican.

All i am saying is do a little digging on this. I don't want warmongering republican or a lair democrat for president.

I have know problem with commonsense law, but don't lie about your record. I support background checks and the tests needed to get a CCW.

Get this, in some states all you need is hunters education can get a CCW.

This argument has nothing to do with pro choice or pro life in which case I am indifferent.

there is nothing wrong with obama, and that messes with your head, huh...

^
Always fall back on ad hominem, when faced with a challenging statement.

You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise. Only you kids on here would argue otherwise.

Don't kill the environment, noooooo, and don't kill that poor kitty, nooooo, but let's suck little Johnny's brains out thru a tube, while still in the womb. I think in high skool they called ya'll "posers." hahahahaha, too easy

@NordlichReiter, you realize the video is about abortion, right? If you have a point to make about Obama's record on gun control, can't you at least dig up a token video to accentuate it, and then make your point there?

Edit: I just noticed that you have done so.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
^
Always fall back on ad hominem, when faced with a challenging statement.

I'm confused. This clip only contains information about obama and abortion. I find it really odd that you posted up all your gun rights info on this video's comment section. So if we're going to talk debate tactics, I'd say switching to a whole 'nother topic is poor form.


>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise.


I disagree with that statement. Pro-choice, the actual phrase, means supporting the right to choose. Pro-abortion would mean you think abortion is the right choice.

If you support voting for the president, then you already recognize this difference. You do not want people to vote for the candidate you don't like, but you still want them to get a choice to vote for him or not. Just because you support their right to choose who they want to be president does not mean you support who they're going to vote for. In fact you may even be adamantly against one candidate or the other, while still supporting my right to vote for that person.

Lol the guy has to say stuff like this to get into goverment. whatever his Real views on annything dont matter, the american people are so vast and on one end clever normal and on the other utter retarded that to get into head goverment you have to apeal to so manny tards you have to spin everything you say to apeal to everyone regardelss of the actual content of your message.

I dont care what obama says, he cannot be worse than bush/mc stupid

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise. Only you kids on here would argue otherwise.
Don't kill the environment, noooooo, and don't kill that poor kitty, nooooo, but let's suck little Johnny's brains out thru a tube, while still in the womb. I think in high skool they called ya'll "posers." hahahahaha, too easy



I think in high school they call you a dumbass.
Hahahahaha, too easy.

>> ^jetako:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bill is absolutely agreeable here. Guess what bucko, it's not your flipping decision whether a woman you've never met aborts her child. Not your business in the slightest.


that may be true for you and i, but when he (anyone) takes the stance that the abortion is a murder, it becomes their business. i'm assuming there is no secret motive behind the pro-lifers, and they just feel morally offended in the highest degree. to them, it would be the same as you killing your four year old boy (that's scary).

so the solution is in finding a resolution to the definition of human life, but when someone is already preaching about saving your soul and the sanctity of sperm, the waters are bound to get a little murky.

Obama's point here is a good one, and i think the conservatives have to concede that hitting at the roots of why woman have abortions and solving some of these problems is something both sides should have long since started working towards together.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise. Only you kids on here would argue otherwise.
Don't kill the environment, noooooo, and don't kill that poor kitty, nooooo, but let's suck little Johnny's brains out thru a tube, while still in the womb. I think in high skool they called ya'll "posers." hahahahaha, too easy


why go for just the brain. you apparently have some sort of tube de suck, get the whole fetus.
I really really want to hit you.
who else thinks a kitten = human fetus -if it saves a single PERSONS life, you can kill them both. idk wtf that environment comment was. i didn't know that pro-choicers were all green hippies (no offense hippies)

edit: ur name is stupid.

>> ^iwastheturkey Pro-choice, the actual phrase, means supporting the right to choose. Pro-abortion would mean you think abortion is the right choice.


oh god the ludicrousy of someone being pro-abortion. someone (funnier than me) should make a short. "i believe abortion is the only acceptable reaction to pregnancy. anything else and ur going to hell."

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise.

You must by default be pro-sex to be pro-life.

The main issue, which Obama states rather clearly, is that the most effective ways to reduce both abortions and unwanted pregnancies is not the il/legaliziation of abortion.

Most of the hardcore pro-life crowd are also strongly anti-sex-ed, which is completely inconsistent with their claim that they want to reduce abortions. Reality-based sex-ed , and anonymously available birth-control and reproductive health services are the best way to stop unintended pregnancy, and STI's.

Stopping unwanted pregnancies stops abortions, simple as that.

>> ^BillOreilly:
>> ^kronosposeidon:
"I should be home by 6:00, honey. I gotta pick up the dry cleaning, take the kids to soccer practice, go to the hairdresser's, and if I have a few extra minutes I'll get an abortion. I won $500 on the scratch-off lottery tickets, so why not?"

If it was such a "tough" decision to have an abortion, the woman wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place to force her to make said decision. It seems that keeping their pants on is the real decision women have to make, eh?
So yes, I call bull crap. Of course, that's pretty much what comes out of Obama's mouth all of the time anyway...


You'll have to excuse bill. He hasn't really had to make a choice. You'd have to get laid before you were ever included in that discussion

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise. Only you kids on here would argue otherwise.
Don't kill the environment, noooooo, and don't kill that poor kitty, nooooo, but let's suck little Johnny's brains out thru a tube, while still in the womb. I think in high skool they called ya'll "posers." hahahahaha, too easy

It's "choice" and "poseur" maybe you should put down the bong for a second and pick up a dictionary. Furthermore, there's plenty of people that should have been aborted for the sake of the environment, kitties and other people. It's just as ok to abort a baby as it is to eat meat products. If you don't believe in eating meat and that all living creatures are equal and you don't kill bugs then you're probably not getting laid because you're too busy cuddling your platonic female friend and watching "The Notebook" to ever get busy and be in the situation where you had to make a decision.

I have known women who casually had an abortion, but they are the statistical anomaly, not the norm.

I don't think the terms pro-choice and anti-abortion should be used as polar opposites; they deal with different ideas. The former deals with a woman's autonomy, and the latter deals with a procedure.

>> ^BillOreilly:
If it was such a "tough" decision to have an abortion, the woman wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place to force her to make said decision. It seems that keeping their pants on is the real decision women have to make, eh?

I agree. I am not speaking for anyone but myself when I say I am pro-life. I believe life starts at conception. Once the cells start dividing, life is being formed. I have a friend who got pregnant while using the NuvaRing and condoms. There is no guarantee that birth control will work.

As for women that don't get abortions casually, I have another friend who was 19, no longer in school, and therefore unable to be covered by her mother's insurance. She was all out of b/c pills and refused to use condoms. She lived with her boyfriend and was a self-proclaimed sex addict. She made it clear to everyone that she was not doing anything to prevent a pregnancy, but that she would most certainly terminate it if she were to get pregnant. So to all of you who disagree with Bill O, it's definitely not as uncommon as you'd like to think.

Yes, I live with my boyfriend. I also keep my pants on. It's not as hard as you would think. And to Dag, it is absolutely not misogynistic to suggest abstinence as an alternative. It is a mutual decision, not just the responsibility of the woman. That's like saying a pregnancy is a woman's fault. It takes two people to make a baby. Self-control is in no way misogyny.

I do find it interesting that someone that professes to be a high-esteemed and very involved member of a Christian church is pro-choice in situations other than rape or health issues.

I can also guarantee you that no one I know would go to a pastor for counseling before an abortion. How exactly would that go? "Hi Pastor. So I've been thinking about getting an abortion. What do you think?"

^lulz for that last bit.

Also, way to completely ignore the actual question and not answer it.

I'm not pro-choice, I'm anti-life.

i'm antipolitician

I feel the parents should have 1 year after the baby is born to terminate.

>> ^LittleRed:
I do find it interesting that someone that professes to be a high-esteemed and very involved member of a Christian church is pro-choice in situations other than rape or health issues.

Not all Christians share the view that the only/best way to reduce abortions is by outlawing the practice.

Some think that just removes doctors from the situation, and just compounds the tragedy of the abortion with a risk of harm to the mother.

Some Christians think we should be giving kids real sex education, including an encouragement to use contraceptives, and possibly even providing easy access to them.

Personally, I'm pro-Choice, mostly because every woman I've personally asked about it has said it shouldn't be illegal. Not that we should encourage the practice, but it should be on the table.

I also don't have any kind of organized religion in me, so I find myself perpetually confused on how religion comes to believe they know an absolute truth about this, but that's a whole other discussion.

I'm so anti-life, I don't eat Life cereal or play the Game of Life. But I do abort babies with a coat hanger and a Hoover.

>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not pro-choice, I'm anti-life.

Like LittleRed, I believe that life starts at conception. So if a couple wants an abortion I make sure to punch the guy in the nuts before he cums.

And if that fails, I grab a vacuum cleaner and shove it up the woman's pussy, just to make sure the sperms never reach the egg. Otherwise that would be murder!

>> ^CaptainPlanet:
Obama's point here is a good one, and i think the conservatives have to concede that hitting at the roots of why woman have abortions and solving some of these problems is something both sides should have long since started working towards together.


It's too late for a cooperative solution; both sides are enjoying the argument too much. It's no longer about solving the problem of abortion, it's about 'proving' that your side is right.

>> ^thinker247:
I have known women who casually had an abortion, but they are the statistical anomaly, not the norm.

Any woman who would make that decision casually should have an abortion because under no circumstances do we want her DNA passed on.

>> ^LittleRed:
I agree. I am not speaking for anyone but myself when I say I am pro-life. I believe life starts at conception. Once the cells start dividing, life is being formed.

By the time the cells start dividing, life has been there for a while already. You realize sperm and egg are living cells, right? Or do you only care about life with 46 chromosomes?

Uhh, I blazed through the thread to make my off-the-cuff remark, that I missed this:

>> ^LittleRed:
>> ^BillOreilly:
If it was such a "tough" decision to have an abortion, the woman wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place to force her to make said decision. It seems that keeping their pants on is the real decision women have to make, eh?

Yes and no. Of course girls have to be responsible for their actions, just like the rest of us, and not see abortion as a trivial matter. You should not, however, punish those, who might actually want and/or need an abortion. If there are changes in personal life, a spousal death or whatever, then, within a reasonable limit, people should be able to abort their pregnancy. Guys do have a role to play too, however little..

The crux of the debate comes in littlered's response below:

I agree. I am not speaking for anyone but myself when I say I am pro-life. I believe life starts at conception. Once the cells start dividing, life is being formed. I have a friend who got pregnant while using the NuvaRing and condoms. There is no guarantee that birth control will work.

"Life begins at conception". I think this is wrong and it is what plagues the abortion issue. Sam Harris sums it up better than I can here.

As for women that don't get abortions casually, I have another friend who was 19, no longer in school, and therefore unable to be covered by her mother's insurance. She was all out of b/c pills and refused to use condoms. She lived with her boyfriend and was a self-proclaimed sex addict. She made it clear to everyone that she was not doing anything to prevent a pregnancy, but that she would most certainly terminate it if she were to get pregnant. So to all of you who disagree with Bill O, it's definitely not as uncommon as you'd like to think.

Uhm, don't hate me for being blunt (and a dick, and all), but she's a whore... She is being willfully irresponsible, which is A Bad Thing (tm). This is not what pro-choice is about. People like her are destroying it for the rest of us, by playing into the hands of the anti-choice/pro-life bunch.


I do find it interesting that someone that professes to be a high-esteemed and very involved member of a Christian church is pro-choice in situations other than rape or health issues.

This is a tough spot to go to, because if you actually have to FOLLOW the bible, just because you are a "very involved member of a Christian church" there are many, many other bad things you have to agree with, such as slavery, stoning and rape. I wonder why esteemed members of the church don't go so much for that these days either.

I can also guarantee you that no one I know would go to a pastor for counseling before an abortion. How exactly would that go? "Hi Pastor. So I've been thinking about getting an abortion. What do you think?"

Heh, this would be an interesting counseling session. I'm not sure your guarantee holds up to reality, though, because if you are very religious a pastor is indeed someone to go for guidence, like a third parent, and young people do fuck up, even if they are religious. On this last issue, I only have observational data though*, in that no one near me has ever been in the situation or looked up to a pastor in any way.

*(fancy way of saying that I'm talking out of my ass )

I really don't get how pro-choice people can talk like it's all about the woman and her choice, casual or not. I don't care how seriously you thought about killing that person, murder is murder.

I saw my daughter on the ultrasound just 6 weeks after she was conceived. She had arms, legs, hands, heartbeat, brainwaves, and we could see her moving around. Small, but very obviously a human being just halfway through the first trimester. I have seen babies who were born just 5 months after conception and survived, not even through the second trimester yet.

How can people be ok with killing these innocent little kids? I am passionate believer in limited government, but forgive me if i think that it is very much the government's duty to try and prevent murder, especially those innocents who cannot defend themselves. It is especially unconscionable that the federal government actively prevents state governments from stopping these murders and even goes so far as to fund them with taxpayer dollars. Makes me sick.

I want Obama as president because i do not trust McCain and i'm sick of Bush's policies. But i will not vote for him. I'll be voting for Bob Barr, thank you very much.

Oh, i should add that i don't have a problem with birth control or even morning after pills. I put the start of human rights at the start of brain waves, about 40 to 43 days after conception. I think that is a pretty clear line. So, i can't see any thing wrong with legal abortions in the first month of pregnancy. Putting the limit there would greatly put my heart at ease.

Bill Hicks: "You're not a human being until you're in my phone book."

I would give my real opinion about abortion, but I don't care what a woman does with the alien growing inside of her. She's the one who needs to feed this remora for nine months, then let it suck her tits for some time, all while ruining her body and her vagina. It's her choice. I guess that's sort of an opinion.

>> ^nadabu:

First off, that was a wonderful comment, and that's why I always hate the whole abortion debate, because I empathize with the pro-life argument.

I think calling it murder is associating it with the wrong crime. I think it's more like partial suicide, since the baby can't survive without the mother, and I don't think anyone has premeditated the malicious killing of their own child when they're having an abortion.

Attempting suicide is illegal, but it doesn't seem to have stopped people from doing it.

The pro-choice argument isn't about diminishing the life of the baby, it's about trying to keep these partial suicides from turning into full-on suicide, because banning abortions won't stop them from happening, but it will stop them from being done in a fashion that puts the mother at risk.

The other half of the argument, and the half that's gone neglected much of the time is that we do want to reduce the number of abortions, primarily by reducing unwanted pregnancies through sex education, and access to contraceptives.

That said, I always find myself wavering about this topic when it really gets discussed, and I'd really like to find a compromise on it that a) ensures it's rare b) ensures the safety of the mother c) isn't based on religious dogma.

The sci-fi fan in me says the whole thing would become moot if we had a way to transfer the fetus to an artificial womb. That way the former-mother would have the baby gone right away, but it could still be carried to term, and adopted.

Maybe the answer is to pour money into that, I don't know.

Since I can't resist the political angles, I've got to point out that Bob Barr's ex-wife says he consented to her having an abortion while they were still married (and Larry Flynt of all people presented evidence that supported the claim). Also, Bob Barr voted for the Patriot act just a few short years ago when he was a hardline Republican.

If you want Obama to win...vote for him!

>> ^nadabu:
I put the start of human rights at the start of brain waves, about 40 to 43 days after conception.

I think you are mis-informed, the medical data suggests that brain waves don't start until about week 20 of gestation, and are not even constant at that point, more like test-runs then a functioning brain. I'm fine with drawing a hard line there in cases which do not imperil the mother.

I'm a vegan with a vasectomy, so I could spend all day screaming "murderer" at people who breed/eat meat/have pets/wear leather, but it's a very pointless stance to take. I don't agree with what most people do, but practically speaking if some living thing can't stand up for itself, no amount of whining on my part is going to get most people to acknowledge their "moral" responsibility to do something which they do not feel is in their interest.

So if we are going to play "it's murder" poker, I see your 20 week fetuses, and I raise you running shoes and hamburgers.

In Denmark we have a relatively low threshold for abortion, 12 weeks after conception is the cut. This is before the fetus is very well developed and satisfies my desire for personal choice. When people say that life begins at conception, they need to remember that for the first few weeks "life" is still a round little ball of cells; it's not a tiny person.

It is not baby-murder.

12 weeks? No thanks. My daughter looked very well-formed to me at half that age. As for "brain waves", there is debate on what really counts as such. The lowest estimates are, to me, the safe and wise ones to base any legislation on. But, if we could even get a 20 week limit, that would be a great start. Currently, it is still legal to kill babies well into the third trimester (thankfully third trimester abortions seem very rare).

As for sucking on tits and ruining bodies and vaginas, you don't seem to have ever had a baby yourself or know anything about it. Incredible ignorance, that. My wife and her friends would laugh at you.

dgandhi, sorry, but nothing you can say will convince me to put animals on the same level as humans. killing humans is murder, killing animals is not. there may be times when killing is legally justified (not morally), such as self-defense, a soldier in war under orders, or even abortion if the pregnancy or birth is very likely to kill the mother, but it's still murder and is almost always traumatic for those involved.

oh, and great call with the vasectomy! i'll be getting mine as soon as my wife says she doesn't want any more kids. if you ask me, the vasectomy is one of the greatest things modern medicine has come up with.

>> ^nadabu:
dgandhi, sorry, but nothing you can say will convince me to put animals on the same level as humans.

Why do you feel that way? Humans are animals, after all. It's just that we've evolved the ability to be completely full of ourselves and think we're really special.

>> ^nadabu:dgandhi, sorry, but nothing you can say will convince me to put animals on the same level as humans.

ditto on 46 chromosome parasites my friend.

I have a solution, outlaw abortions, make vasectomies mandatory, for all males over 12.

No more unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. Try to dispute it.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
I have a solution, outlaw abortions, make vasectomies mandatory, for all males over 12.
No more unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. Try to dispute it.


isn't outlawing abortions redundant at that point?

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise. Only you kids on here would argue otherwise.
Don't kill the environment, noooooo, and don't kill that poor kitty, nooooo, but let's suck little Johnny's brains out thru a tube, while still in the womb. I think in high skool they called ya'll "posers." hahahahaha, too easy

It's "choice" and "poseur" maybe you should put down the bong for a second and pick up a dictionary. Furthermore, there's plenty of people that should have been aborted for the sake of the environment, kitties and other people. It's just as ok to abort a baby as it is to eat meat products. If you don't believe in eating meat and that all living creatures are equal and you don't kill bugs then you're probably not getting laid because you're too busy cuddling your platonic female friend and watching "The Notebook" to ever get busy and be in the situation where you had to make a decision.


Chill out, son, correcting someone's spelling is pointless, especially when you proceed to make the world's trendiest uneducated grammar mistake. And I've never seen the Notebook, so you'll have to enlighten me.

Back on topic, I expect to see more downvotes on LittleRed's opening comment. But wait, she's a woman, and everything she said was right. Ah, the burn...Man up and downvote it, c'mon. bwahahahaha

^LittleRed

I have a friend who got pregnant while using the NuvaRing and condoms. There is no guarantee that birth control will work.


Umm...You should tell your friend that the NuvaRing doesn't go in her ass and condoms go on penises before intercourse, not after. I keed I keed

Too soon?

One of the few opinions of Obama's I disagree with, and disagree with greatly. However, there is no perfect candidate, and so I would vote for Obama (if I were American) in spite of that serious difference of opinion. Yes, I believe abortion is murder, but then so is invading a country and ensuring the senseless deaths of countless soldiers and civilians, and McCain will no doubt ensure that the body count will continue to rise.

As seen on Wil Wheaton's blog: "I'm leaning towards voting for the presidential candidate not endorsed by the worst president in American history."

Obama still dodged the actual question that was asked. The question was, "at what point does a baby get human rights in your opinion?" Instead of approaching a subject he knew he would be on the wrong side of with this crowd considering his past voting record, he dodged that one completely and turned it into some fluff about "working together to decrease unwanted pregnancy." When a baby gets human rights can extend beyond just abortion considerations. There are cases where murderers of pregnant women are charged with double homicide. What if that woman had an abortion instead? Does the baby have rights when the mother is killed, but not when the mother kills it? It is an area that should be addressed and more clearly defined legally.

Of course, we already know where Obama stands from his voting record. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act out of fear that he might accidentally grant protection to a fetus and threaten Roe vs Wade (his own words). He also said he would vote for it on the federal level if an identical bill was presented that protected Roe vs Wade. When the identical bill that he said he would vote for was presented at the federal level, Obama voted against it. CNN and CBN confronted him in an interview about this and Obama called it lies and deliberate misrepersentations of his position. You can see that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c

Shortly after the interview, Obama's campaign admitted that this was false and he did in fact vote against the identical bill. This allowed living, breathing babies that were now outside the womb as a result of failed abortions to be thrown into medical waste bins. Until this bill finally passed in 2005, babies were being murdered legally. I say murder in this case because you are not even talking about dividing cells at this point. You are talking about a baby that is now breathing on its own outside the womb. In the face of testimony from nurses and evidence presented, Obama still voted against the bill 3 times with different excuses in each instance. So, back to the question he dodged. Obama never answered when he believes a baby gets human rights.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

* Condoms
* BC pills with 99% effectiveness
* IUDs
* The BC "ring" (Nuvaring)
* Morning-after pills

Ladies, if you're going a-whoring, you have no excuse for not being prepared.

Waiting 3 months to take care of an unwanted pregnancy smacks of sloth. If you're going to just lie around, do it with your knees closed.


Obama @ Saddleback = FAIL.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Waiting 3 months to take care of an unwanted pregnancy smacks of sloth.

While this would be true in a perfect world, the same folks who champion criminalizing abortion have also eviscerated sex-ed, through their absurd "abstinence only" campaign, and as a result an alarming number of people are not aware ( or are intentionally mis-informed) of their options, and can not, in their ignorance, act responsibly.

The anti-sex/pro-baby position is working at cross purposes, they want things that either defeat each other, or require fascism to keep in check. Obama, for all his faults, does synthesize a coherent third path, which is to do what works to reduce unwanted pregnancies, while providing realistic options to abortion. He says "let's have a little socialism, instead of a little fascism", I find it humerus that Christians who have a long history of socialism, and a long history of problems with fascism would prefer the fascist route.

cp420: nice downvote rampage on the comments, is that because you somehow think we are all trolling, or are you just offended that somebody might make a coherent point with which you disagree?

>> ^nadabu:
As for "brain waves", there is debate on what really counts as such.

That is analogous to arguing that Evolution by natural selection is debatable. Sure if people who are lying, or simply don't know what they are talking about argue against something you could say there is "debate", but their disagreement with the body of evidence and the understanding of people who work in relevant fields of study in no way undermines the validity of the general scientific consensus.

If your going to make a "brain waves" argument, taking whatever unsupported claim on when that happens you feel like, seriously weakens your argument.

If we agree to use brain-waves as the criteria, and it's well established among non-propagandists that this starts at about 20 weeks, then will you change your time-frame preference, or will you re-define "brain waves" to meet your already established preference?

dgandhi:

I always find it femur when people say pro-lifers ONLY want abstinence-only sex ed, but never offer up any citations whatsosever to back their claim up.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
dgandhi:
I always find it femur when people say pro-lifers ONLY want abstinence-only sex ed, but never offer up any citations whatsosever to back their claim up.

I have not claimed that. The social-conservatives in US play anti-sex and abortion to the hilt, the same people(political party) who work for one work for the other.

A very vocal section of the population, who have an anti-sex-ed position on the basis of a religious understanding of sex as a sin, have set the discourse for abortion-re-criminalization. I am not a pro-lifer, so I have no obligation to that community to make sure their position is articulated accurately. If some significant subset of the pro-life community is not anti-sex-ed, then they need to speak up and counter the hijacking of their own movement. Until then I will respond to the position presented, and point out it's failings, even if only a small minority actually believe what the movement espouses.

I'm all for an informed debate of the whole gamut of possibilities, but that seems to be what Obama is doing with this answer, finding a common ground where the standard political discourse offers none.

As for the bone ref, that's what I get for trusting spell check, which has been well established as the only method by which I am remotely intelligible.

... I think Obama thought too highly of his audience.

They wanted to hear a 20 second answer.

"I'm a father. I was raised by a single mother. I have 2 daughters. Abortion is a tremendously important issue. I think the role of the government is in health education, family education and examining everything possible to limit any appeal of abortions, but not limit access to abortions to women early on in pregnancies who have consulted pastors and friend and professional and thought long and hard about the option. I don't come to this conclusion lightly. And as a lifelong advocate for equal rights between the sexes, I don't see my position changing."

I think you all are missing the point here. This is America. People should be able to do what they want without the government intervening. Wrong or right people should be able to choose for themselves. If you don't like it....tough.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble here. But the candidates DO NOT CARE about abortion. AT ALL. It doesn't affect their daily worries as president. There's nothing the president can or will do about abortion, and the candidates realize that. They realize that these are just popularity contest questions that they have to answer to be elected. The same goes for gay marriage.

>> ^brain:
I hate to burst everyone's bubble here. But the candidates DO NOT CARE about abortion. AT ALL. It doesn't affect their daily worries as president. There's nothing the president can or will do about abortion, and the candidates realize that. They realize that these are just popularity contest questions that they have to answer to be elected. The same goes for gay marriage.


And the crowd sincerely thanks you, Dr. Obvious.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
And the crowd sincerely thanks you, Dr. Obvious.


I wish you were right about it being obvious. It seems like EVERYONE considers this an "issue" to vote on. Just google for candidate issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Issues.htm
http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

And if it's so obvious, why do they ask these questions and why does everyone go over the candidate's answers?

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.

All moral arguments aside. As far as the government is concerned, you don't exist until you're born. Otherwise, every woman in America could claim a few dependent deductions every single year, whether she has any kids or not. So, from a legislative point of view, banning abortion is simply controlling what a woman can and cannot do to her own body.

Let's assume for a minute that the government recognized a fetus as a citizen, therefore granting it all rights under the constitution. They would then be able to make it illegal for a mother to do anything to her body that could potentially harm that citizen inside her. Like shoot heroin. Okay, no biggie there, but what about cigarettes? Caffeine? Salt? Warm baths?

It astounds me that the same people that are "pro-life" are also, with a straight face, for less government interference.

"Pro-life" = Complete government control of a person's body.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by dbot2006.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.