…wow, just wow.

I don’t know…I hear east la is pretty rough after dark.

“The Most Dangerous Place For An African American Is In The Womb”
————————————–

Except if they’re conservative, then it’s the Democratic Party.

Democrats don’t like black Americans who dare to think differently than the Party tells them!

Why is Olby Sucks insinuating that parts of L.A. are dangerous? This is an outrage!

John, In r/e your editorializing, ” Planned Parenthood, the DEMONIC ABORTION FACTORY” is a pretty apt description. What do you think they do at PP? Discuss & teach how to raise children? They have two functions, to prevent pregnancies and to end pregnancies. It’s a very simple and straightforward organization, you guys should be honest enough to admit what their function is.

Go take a look at an ultra sound film of your OWN child before it’s born, it’ll make ya a little less likely to vacuum his brains out.

Here’s an idea:
When the GOP takes the WH next year, simply declare abortion unconstitutional, and refuse to defend it’s enforcement; you know, what the dictator is doing now with the DOMA!
- what he did with the oil drilling.
- what he did in Az.

Then, we’ll compare how the corrupt Leftstream Media this scenario when Republicans do it.

THIS is the pernicious character of the LEFT!

Planned Parenthood’s standing here might be a little higher if it wasn’t, you know, FOUNDED for the purpose engaging in eugenics… Just saying.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24617997/1932-Margaret-Sanger-A-Plan-for-Peace

NORBIT Jr. said:
Democrats don’t like black Americans who dare to think differently than the Party tells them!

Democrats don’t like successfull black Americans with money, they like ‘em poor and needy and voting for a handout.

If black women want to murder their unborn children why should anyone stop them? The Democrats certainly don’t want to!

For now, the billboard will remain up and, as always, the abortion debate will remain nice and classy.

Sorry, there’s nothing classy about abortion, nor is there anything classy about eugenics. One in four black babies doesn’t make it to birth. 12% of the population accounts for 35% of the abortions, and Planned Parenthood is all over the places they tend to live. Those are tough turds to polish.

timzank said:
” Planned Parenthood, the DEMONIC ABORTION FACTORY” is a pretty apt description. What do you think they do at PP? Discuss & teach how to raise children? They have two functions, to prevent pregnancies and to end pregnancies.

To be fair, sometimes they refer the blindingly illegal abortions to DEMONIC ABORTION FACTORIES run by the likes of Kermit Gosnell.

timzank said:
Democrats don’t like successfull black Americans with money, they like ‘em poor and needy and voting for a handout.

…and keep them Dependent on Government.
Everything Democrats have done for the past 50 years has been to increase THEIR control over the populace – using regulation, the courts and taxpayer monies to do it.

Democrats are the people Mao spoke of when he said America would destroy itself from within.

In 2012, Remember, and prove Mao wrong!

NORBIT Jr. said:
When the GOP takes the WH next year,

HAHHAHAA Keep that dream alive! SARAH is this YOU.Stupid noise from a NOBODY!

Why is this so “Controversial”

Tens of thousands of these babies are killed every year.

This is what Democrats do on a mass scale. They can keep them in the hood easier this way. It is that stupid “Control” things Democrats have to have over minorities.

Pablo said:
Sorry, there’s nothing classy about abortion, nor is there anything classy about eugenics. One in four black babies doesn’t make it to birth. 12% of the population accounts for 35% of the abortions, and Planned Parenthood is all over the places they tend to live. Those are tough turds to polish.

Very well put Pablo. Abortion is one of those subjects that even the whackjobs here have a hard time defending.

timzank said:
Democrats don’t like successfull black Americans

Another stupid noise.WE VOTED IN A SUCCESSFUL BLACK AMERICAN as PRESIDENT!

BatBoy said:
Why is this so “Controversial”

Tens of thousands of these babies are killed every year.

Every month, BatBoy. It’s more than half a million a year. I guess it’s easier to keep them on the plantation when there are so damned many of them.

BatBoy said:
This is what Democrats do on a mass scale. They can keep them in the hood easier this way. It is that stupid “Control” things Democrats have to have over minorities.

This makes zero sense. Does having to support eight children suddenly mean a poor family can get out of the ‘hood’?

^^^aren’t^^^

OK… first off I’m pro-choice and a non-believer. So put our steriotypes where the sun don’t shine. But if the #’s put out by none-political folk are to be believed, what in the ad is a lie??? Is it true??? Is the sign backed up by facts??? What is the rate of abortion for AA’s Vs. non-AA’s??? I remember someone in the 90′s saying the leading cause of death for young black men was young black men. And EVRYONE was outraged. But at the time it was true. Something to ponder…

pakattak said:
This makes zero sense. Does having to support eight children suddenly mean a poor family can get out of the ‘hood’?

Yes, it increases the odds that one or more of them will break out of the cycle. It also would lead to more responsible reproduction and before you know it, all kinds of personal responsibility would be breaking loose.

BlueBunny said:
Another stupid noise.WE VOTED IN A SUCCESSFUL BLACK AMERICAN as PRESIDENT!

I guess it all depends on your definition of “successful” If you consider getting a free ride on everything and never having to work or get a real job a success, then yep he’s wildly successful.

pakattak said:
This makes zero sense. Does having to support eight children suddenly mean a poor family can get out of the ‘hood’?

If you have 9 kids, it might be time to quit having kids.

Did you ever think of that?

Or is is just easier to get pregnant then just kill them because you can.

Wise UP!

Someone should invent something that would prevent conception.

BlueBunny said:
Another stupid noise.WE VOTED IN A SUCCESSFUL BLACK AMERICAN as PRESIDENT!

timzank said:
I guess it all depends on your definition of “successful” If you consider getting a free ride on everything and never having to work or get a real job a success, then yep he’s wildly successful.

I think it also depends on your definition of “BLACK” and “AMERICAN!”

@tatboy…The last statistic I’ve heard about abortions and the AA community – 40% of all abortions in the US are done on AA women…that’s why the ad is so, so powerful…and what percentage do AA make up of the US population…around 13%…ya think there is a bit of disparity here? Let’s see Jesse or Al tell that to their ‘constituents.’

This why Republican can wait Dems out. Dems have more abortions that Republicans.

Hello America!

I guess you’ve all heard that King Obama and Lord Holder have deemed the DOMA unconstitutional, and will not enforce this duly enacted law.

Word is they’ll be deeming GUN OWNERSHIP unconstitutional soon!

Maybe when the GOP takes the White House next year they should Deem ABORTION unconstitutional.

THIS IS YOUR COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND PART OF HIS COUP AGAINST AMERICA

@Bluebunny – you may be right about the Repubs winning the WH in 2012…but…they will OWN the House and the Senate – and probably to the tune of overturning Oblather’s vetoes

BlueBunny said:
Another stupid noise.WE VOTED IN A SUCCESSFUL BLACK AMERICAN as PRESIDENT!

I wouldn’t call a guy that shuffled around uneducated chicago hoodrat’s for a living a real success.

How do Liberals reconcile their beliefs that “Conservatives are racist” with the fact that Conservatives are trying to save hundreds of thousands of black babies every year?

It’s a pretty effective ad. It definitely delivers the message they intend to deliver.

I am pro-choice, because I think the alternative would be ugly. But everyone should to work to promote birth control, abstinence, and morning after pills so hopefully one day there won’t be a need, except for extreme life threatening situations.

What the dems have been doing to the AA community for the last several decades should be considered a crime against humanity

Don’t forget PP founder, Margaret Sanger, established PP precisely for eugenicist reasons: to reduce the population of “undesireables”. Included in Margaret’s “undesirable” category were Negroes. PP is sure keeping Margaret happy in her grave.

What’s Controversial?

Margaret’s grave is probably in a very, very dark hot place.

WHarropson said:
What’s Controversial?

It’s not NICE. Feelings could get hurt by mean people with facts.

Terminating a pregnancy has been around since the beginning of time, proper funding allows for safe medical abortions. If America wants to reduce/eliminate abortion, educate the young about safe sex AND hold the men/fathers accountable for their portion of all costs involved – I believe this will help reduce the number of abortions performed. Abortion will never be completely eliminated, and subjecting our young women to back alley/unsafe abortions is not the answer.

illusive man said:
What the dems have been doing to the AA community for the last several decades should be considered a crime against humanity

Yes, poor Barack Obama and the black community. He’s making more money a year than you, why won’t the Democrats stop pushing down African Americans?

XD

The perfect conservative ad, both pro-life and racist. lol.

Oh and they are wrong, the most dangerous place for an African American to be is at a Tea Party rally.

sarainitaly said:
How do Liberals reconcile their beliefs that “Conservatives are racist” with the fact that Conservatives are trying to save hundreds of thousands of black babies every year? It’s a pretty effective ad. It definitely delivers the message they intend to deliver. I am pro-choice, because I think the alternative would be ugly. But everyone should to work to promote birth control, abstinence, and morning after pills so hopefully one day there won’t be a need, except for extreme life threatening situations.

The problem, sara, is that the “eveyrone” you alluded to above is not:

Republicans
Tea Partiers
any GOPer in Congress

they certainly promote “abstinence” and pretty much legally defining women as only walking wombs whose needs should NEVER supercede a fetus.

Conservatives only care about life in utero, once out, you can send it to war, let it suffer without medical insurance, not provide assistance during hard times and supporting the death penalty. And some, demographically, are more than happy for that to happen to black people, brown people, yellow people, liberal people, girl people and poor people.

Bot said:
Don’t forget PP founder, Margaret Sanger, established PP precisely for eugenicist reasons: to reduce the population of “undesireables”. Included in Margaret’s “undesirable” category were Negroes. PP is sure keeping Margaret happy in her grave.

No matter what reason Planned Parenthood was founded, it is still one of the few places that lower-income women to get cancer screenings, affordable birth control, and oby/gyn exams.

It saddens me that people are willing to act out of pure ideological blindness, regardless of the practical consequences, even if they are counter-productive to that ideology. This is a case in point. Closing down Planned Parenthood will actually cause abortion rates to increase. And, even worse, many will be forced to have it done outside of a sterile medical environment.

Pablo said:
12% of the population accounts for 35% of the abortions, and Planned Parenthood is all over the places they tend to live. Those are tough turds to polish.

Income inequality has a very strong racial component, with blacks making up a large percentage of families below the poverty line. Planned Parenthood offers family-planning, STD education and contraceptive services to lower-income families.

It’s not that Planned Parenthood tends to be near black neighborhoods. They tend to be near lower-income neighborhoods, which frequently are black.

illusive man said:

Love Mass Effect. Mind if I ask, why choose such a ‘ends justifies the means’ character as your avatar?

sarainitaly said:
But everyone should to work to promote birth control, abstinence, and morning after pills so hopefully one day there won’t be a need, except for extreme life threatening situations.

I agree. I’ve never met a person who is pro-abortion, I don’t think I would ever want to. Pro-choice and Pro-life have a common ground: to reduce abortions. And Planned Parenthood works toward that goal.

NORBIT Jr. said:
I guess you’ve all heard that King Obama and Lord Holder have deemed the DOMA unconstitutional, and will not enforce this duly enacted law.

No, the DoJ will still enforce the law, they just won’t defend it against legal challenges.

Important note about Stephen Broden, board member, apparent spokesman for Life Always. This far right-winger in October went on record saying a “violent uprising” in “on the table.”

Graf from this piece:
http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/african-american-anti-abortion-ad-sparks-furor/

Before we go any further, we’ve yet to see this connection made anywhere else. In October we told you about how the same Stephen Broden challenged veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas’ heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising is ‘on the table.’”

The original article from October:
http://hypervocal.com/news/2010/broden-nazis-obama-planned-this-they-say-you-want-a-revolution/

Funny, blacks like abortion even though Planned Parenthood was founded by a RACIST who wanted blacks and other people to have abortions. Look it it up, it’s true.

http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

Anti-abortionism is exactly like animal rights. And yes, this time, with a racist twist. That ad is utterly retarded. anti-abortionism doesn’t “save babies” it abuses humanity in the wrong-headed idea of saving embryos, and calling people murderers when they could never kill a real child. It’s not a “child” until it can survive outside the womb and whether or not to abort should be up to the woman. Yknow, some women who didn’t plan on getting pregnant in the first place, have. But my gosh, those women just don’t matter at all to the anti-abortion crowd, all they care about is the “unborn” who doesn’t even exist enough to be aware of a thing let alone register what goes on with them. Conservatives need to drop this anti-abortion crap, liberals need to drop that global warming and animal rights crap, that would go a long way to making both parties much more credible and less abusive to the human race.

Wow, this ad goes a lot further than the typical “Is your neighborhood better off today than it was 50 years ago, when the Democrats took over?”
This ad has an undertone of genocide implied.
I’ll bet it has some real resonance in the black, particularly church-going (and voting), communities.

Couple that with ‘End Of Days’ for the public unions, and Obama’s might have to move past Newt in chasing his illusional center!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

Stephen Hogan said:
No, the DoJ will still enforce the law, they just won’t defend it against legal challenges.

Yes, but that would be defacto non-enforcement.
Do you think there would be this tepid, almost non-existent, response from the Leftstream Media if Bush refused to defend legal challenges to abortion rights?

Stephen Hogan said:
Love Mass Effect. Mind if I ask, why choose such a ‘ends justifies the means’ character as your avatar?

Stephen, first off all the illusive man is a fictional video game character who doesn’t exist. Second i would ask that question to a poster named SOMEDUDE who for quite some time used Che Guevara as his avatar. Che Guevara as you know who actually did exist, who actually killed innocent people, in order to promote actual communism (ends justifies the means). Great question stephen,but i think you are asking the wrong guy :]

NORBIT Jr. said:
Yes, but that would be defacto non-enforcement.
Do you think there would be this tepid, almost non-existent, response from the Leftstream Media if Bush refused to defend legal challenges to abortion rights?

But it isn’t ‘defacto non-enforcement’. Defacto non-enforcement would be refusal to enforce while the law is still in effect and that’s not what the Administration is doing. DOMA will still be enforced and will still be defended against legal challenges. The only difference is that the DoJ will not be the ones pursuing the defense, Congress will. Defacto non-enforcement would be refusal to enforce while the law is still in effect and that’s not what the Administration is doing.

Do you have a problem with equal marriage rights or are you more upset by the Administration’s decision? Because this practice, although uncommon, is far from rare. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and every other president since Truman refused to defend certain federal statutes.

illusive man said:
Stephen, first off all the illusive man is a fictional video game character who doesn’t exist. Second i would ask that question to a poster named SOMEDUDE who for quite some time used Che Guevara as his avatar. Che Guevara as you know who actually did exist, who actually killed innocent people, in order to promote actual communism (ends justifies the means). Great question stephen,but i think you are asking the wrong guy :]

I lurk here often and will comment every now and then. I do not remember ‘Somedude’ using Che as an image. Although, I do appreciate your sentiment on the matter. I, too, get flustered by seeing people wear Che shirts and not understanding that the man was ruthless and brutal.

I asked you because, being a fan of Mass Effect and seeing your avatar, I was just wondering why you would choose him. It was by no means an indictment of your morals or meant to be taken in offense.

illusive man said:
Stephen, first off all the illusive man is a fictional video game character who doesn’t exist. Second i would ask that question to a poster named SOMEDUDE who for quite some time used Che Guevara as his avatar. Che Guevara as you know who actually did exist, who actually killed innocent people, in order to promote actual communism (ends justifies the means). Great question stephen,but i think you are asking the wrong guy :]

To be honest, I asked that question because the character of the ‘Illusive Man’ is controlling, manipulative, opaque and willing to sacrifice everything for what he considers to be the greater good. It doesn’t seem to match with someone who (and correct me if I’m wrong) appears to be more conservative or libertarian in nature. Of course, that is based on a number of your posts that I’ve read, so I could be completely off.

Stephen Hogan said:
But it isn’t ‘defacto non-enforcement’. Defacto non-enforcement would be refusal to enforce while the law is still in effect and that’s not what the Administration is doing. DOMA will still be enforced and will still be defended against legal challenges. The only difference is that the DoJ will not be the ones pursuing the defense, Congress will. Defacto non-enforcement would be refusal to enforce while the law is still in effect and that’s not what the Administration is doing. Do you have a problem with equal marriage rights or are you more upset by the Administration’s decision? Because this practice, although uncommon, is far from rare. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and every other president since Truman refused to defend certain federal statutes.

I’m unaware of any incidences where another president unilaterally declared a law, duly enacted by Congress and signed by a prior president, as unconstitutional, and refused to defend it.

Also, if this were last year at this time, there’d have been a partisan Congress in place, and they wouldn’t have stepped in to defend it. It seems obvious that, like the oil drilling and legislation through regulation, Obama continues to show contempt for due process and separation of powers.

- Which brings me back to my original querry:
What would the reaction on the left be if Bush did this same thing with abortion, and a GOP Congress?

NORBIT Jr. said:
Hello America!

I guess you’ve all heard that King Obama and Lord Holder have deemed the DOMA unconstitutional, and will not enforce this duly enacted law.

Word is they’ll be deeming GUN OWNERSHIP unconstitutional soon!

Maybe when the GOP takes the White House next year they should Deem ABORTION unconstitutional.

THIS IS YOUR COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND PART OF HIS COUP AGAINST AMERICA

I appreciated you more and more each day.

It’s fun thinking you believe everything you type each day. A little mental anguish payback for the 8 years of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

printbrat said:
Terminating a pregnancy has been around since the beginning of time, proper funding allows for safe medical abortions. If America wants to reduce/eliminate abortion, educate the young about safe sex AND hold the men/fathers accountable for their portion of all costs involved – I believe this will help reduce the number of abortions performed. Abortion will never be completely eliminated, and subjecting our young women to back alley/unsafe abortions is not the answer.

If a woman is so intent on murder than that is her choice to take the risk of a back alley/unsafe abortion. Murder is Murder. Aside from that yes we need more accountability from both parents and better education.

Stephen Hogan said:
To be honest, I asked that question because the character of the ‘Illusive Man’ is controlling, manipulative, opaque and willing to sacrifice everything for what he considers to be the greater good. It doesn’t seem to match with someone who (and correct me if I’m wrong) appears to be more conservative or libertarian in nature. Of course, that is based on a number of your posts that I’ve read, so I could be completely off.

You are right, I guess it is ironic I chose a character like the illusive man who is every thing you said, and I do consider myself mostly libertarian (maximum freedom for every american, ending the war on drug’s, truly ending the war in iraq, ending the war in afghanistan, free market economics) with a mix of conservative beliefs (secured borders, strong standing millitary used for defence only) and I believe every intelligent individual should lead his/her own life so im not very controlling. On the other hand there is a time sacrifice is necessary like what happened after 9/11, however I think the war should of been fought differently for example instead of sending most of our millitary mabe we could of sent several special force units with all the support they would need like air strike and drone capabilities and with those tools at there disposal mabe after 6 month’s time the taliban would have been systematically wiped out in the region, but that is just my theory. But anyway since we both like Mass Effect what do you think the illusive man’s fate will be at the end of ME3?

Yes. Demons. Lucifer is near!!

So which are we talking about? AA’s as a group or the tokens they bring along to put up there to make it look like they care about the black people. You can’t even say liberals have put him in as it is

Snowspot said:
Oh and they are wrong, the most dangerous place for an African American to be is at a Tea Party rally.

I am really behind here. I was unaware that any black people have been hurt much less murdered at tea party rallies. Please forward me the statistics or news report of this. It changes everything. I really am shocked as to compare with abortion it has to be 100,000s of thousands or millions of murders to compare and I am really shocked at the cover up. Perhaps you are right and I am really dumb. I can’t believe I missed this.

Nan said:
I am really behind here. I was unaware that any black people have been hurt much less murdered at tea party rallies. Please forward me the statistics or news report of this. It changes everything. I really am shocked as to compare with abortion it has to be 100,000s of thousands or millions of murders to compare and I am really shocked at the cover up. Perhaps you are right and I am really dumb. I can’t believe I missed this.

Sorry I started to reply to something else and thought I had erased it. New at this and the quote stuff got in my way.

Stephen Hogan said:
No matter what reason Planned Parenthood was founded, it is still one of the few places that lower-income women to get cancer screenings, affordable birth control, and oby/gyn exams. It saddens me that people are willing to act out of pure ideological blindness, regardless of the practical consequences, even if they are counter-productive to that ideology. This is a case in point. Closing down Planned Parenthood will actually cause abortion rates to increase. And, even worse, many will be forced to have it done outside of a sterile medical environment.

I agree so we need to just make most abortions illegal. Only in the case of real and documented health concerns. Then we can fund PP to provide the things we really need them to provide.

avoidswork said:
The problem, sara, is that the “eveyrone” you alluded to above is not: RepublicansTea Partiersany GOPer in Congress they certainly promote “abstinence” and pretty much legally defining women as only walking wombs whose needs should NEVER supercede a fetus. Conservatives only care about life in utero, once out, you can send it to war, let it suffer without medical insurance, not provide assistance during hard times and supporting the death penalty. And some, demographically, are more than happy for that to happen to black people, brown people, yellow people, liberal people, girl people and poor people.

I hope you realize when you use the word “fetus” it is code for “not a human being”

You are just like the slaveowners 150+ years ago when they used the word “negro.”

Nan said:
If a woman is so intent on murder than that is her choice to take the risk of a back alley/unsafe abortion. Murder is Murder. Aside from that yes we need more accountability from both parents and better education.

It appears you need to look up the definition of the word murder, or go back to school and get yourself a proper education. Your rant is ridiculous.

Why don’t you two get together on the Harmony website and see if you have anything else in common.
Abortions are the killing of the innocent. Disgusting.

captaingrumpy said:
Why don’t you two get together on the Harmony website and see if you have anything else in common.Abortions are the killing of the innocent. Disgusting.

Hey Grumpy(Old Man), are you referring to the website eHarmony? Never heard of the Harmony website but then grumpy old people always miss the point. Perhaps you and Nan should meet up as soon as she pulls her Grandma panties out of her @ss, maybe you can help her?

BarneyFranken said:
I hope you realize when you use the word “fetus” it is code for “not a human being” You are just like the slaveowners 150+ years ago when they used the word “negro.”

No, a fetus is genetically a human being (homo sapiens) and the medical definition of fetus is a developing embryo greater than 9 (or 11) weeks of development through birth. ANY medical dictionary will concur with what “fetus” means. I give deference to the adult woman carrying it inside of her body and her ability to make decisions regarding herself and its (continued) development.

I challenge you to refute my assertions that life is only precious to the GOP in utero. The modern GOP/Conservative track record demonstrates that. See their budgets. See their state proposals (South Dakota, Nebraska, Oaklahomo, Iowa, etc.) See their attempted redefinition of “rape”. See their proposed legislation requiring a woman to prove her miscarriage (spontaneous abortion, another medical term) was not induced by anything else (Georgia).

I wasn’t alive during slaveowning times, but based upon my modern sensibilities, I’d be an abolitionist. I also would have been a suffragist, etc. I would not have been the person you are alleging I would be.

But, it’s easier to focus on my use of the word “fetus” than to refute anything the so-called “Pro-Life” side has demonstrated in terms of their politics. (Pro-forced birth, anti-choice, anti-woman).

captaingrumpy said:
Why don’t you two get together on the Harmony website and see if you have anything else in common.Abortions are the killing of the innocent. Disgusting.

So, last time I checked, abortion is legal.

Disgusting is forcing a woman to submit herself to womb slavery because a bunch of frakking MEN think that women are third-class citizens.

printbrat said:
It appears you need to look up the definition of the word murder, or go back to school and get yourself a proper education. Your rant is ridiculous.

Well I think you are ridiculous so there. Name calling and insults don’t further a conversation. Unfortunately the legal definition of murder uses the legality of the act so in the legalistic sense in this country abortion is not murder. However the understanding most moral people have is the killing of an innocent human being is murder. In that respects it is murder. Thankfully because of ultrasounds Americans are coming to understand that it is a living human baby and therefore murder.

printbrat said:
It appears you need to look up the definition of the word murder, or go back to school and get yourself a proper education. Your rant is ridiculous.

Nan said:
Well I think you are ridiculous so there. Name calling and insults don’t further a conversation. Unfortunately the legal definition of murder uses the legality of the act so in the legalistic sense in this country abortion is not murder. However the understanding most moral people have is the killing of an innocent human being is murder. In that respects it is murder. Thankfully because of ultrasounds Americans are coming to understand that it is a living human baby and therefore murder.

captaingrumpy said:
Why don’t you two get together on the Harmony website and see if you have anything else in common.Abortions are the killing of the innocent. Disgusting.

I should have just read one more comment and referred to your comment. It really says it well if not as dramatically and covers the comeback the death penalty confusion.

To the conservatives, life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Nan said:
Well I think you are ridiculous so there. Name calling and insults don’t further a conversation. Unfortunately the legal definition of murder uses the legality of the act so in the legalistic sense in this country abortion is not murder. However the understanding most moral people have is the killing of an innocent human being is murder. In that respects it is murder. Thankfully because of ultrasounds Americans are coming to understand that it is a living human baby and therefore murder.

You just proved my point, go back to school and get yourself a proper education. Looks like you can read and write (although not well), so read this c a r e f u l l y: I said your rant is ridiculous. My post did not call you anything. In addition, grow up.

My original post that started all this conversation was:
Terminating a pregnancy has been around since the beginning of time, proper funding allows for safe medical abortions. If America wants to reduce/eliminate abortion, educate the young about safe sex AND hold the men/fathers accountable for their portion of all costs involved – I believe this will help reduce the number of abortions performed. Abortion will never be completely eliminated, and subjecting our young women to back alley/unsafe abortions is not the answer.

Nan said:
Well I think you are ridiculous so there. Name calling and insults don’t further a conversation. Unfortunately the legal definition of murder uses the legality of the act so in the legalistic sense in this country abortion is not murder. However the understanding most moral people have is the killing of an innocent human being is murder. In that respects it is murder. Thankfully because of ultrasounds Americans are coming to understand that it is a living human baby and therefore murder.

Ultrasounds? Really? Because having it move inside of you doesn’t let you know it’s a living baby? Because understanding development doesn’t lead one to think it’s a living baby? Just because someone is pro-choice doesn’t make them amoral or immoral.

I can think of a lot of Catholic priests who are probably “pro-life” and what many of us would NOT deem “moral” people. Scott Roeder was pro-life and assassinated George Tiller at church. Sounds moral to me. I’m sure that lovely Shawna Forde who participated in the murders of Raul Flores, Jr., his 9-yr daughter Brisenia and the attempted murder of Gina Gonzalez also had such a high value on human life and is a very moral person.

Big, fat, grown-up kids understand that this is a very complex issue that is so far removed from black/white it only exists in shades of gray.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/nebraska-justifiable-homicide-abortion-bill

NORBIT Jr. said:
I’m unaware of any incidences where another president unilaterally declared a law, duly enacted by Congress and signed by a prior president, as unconstitutional, and refused to defend it.

Also, if this were last year at this time, there’d have been a partisan Congress in place, and they wouldn’t have stepped in to defend it. It seems obvious that, like the oil drilling and legislation through regulation, Obama continues to show contempt for due process and separation of powers.

- Which brings me back to my original querry:
What would the reaction on the left be if Bush did this same thing with abortion, and a GOP Congress?

Call me copypasta, but this is legit:

George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta – “The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems.”),

Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States – “Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda…. Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court’s Miranda cases.”),

George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission)

Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.”) all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional.

And in regards to your question, I’d probably be upset, like you. However, I wouldn’t say that he/her is ‘not enforcing the law’, because that’s not what he/her would be doing. Rather, I would consider his/her reasoning, probably disagree with it and work to try and urge that the DoJ resumed defense. But I would not call it something that it’s not.

illusive man said:
You are right, I guess it is ironic I chose a character like the illusive man who is every thing you said, and I do consider myself mostly libertarian (maximum freedom for every american, ending the war on drug’s, truly ending the war in iraq, ending the war in afghanistan, free market economics) with a mix of conservative beliefs (secured borders, strong standing millitary used for defence only) and I believe every intelligent individual should lead his/her own life so im not very controlling. On the other hand there is a time sacrifice is necessary like what happened after 9/11, however I think the war should of been fought differently for example instead of sending most of our millitary mabe we could of sent several special force units with all the support they would need like air strike and drone capabilities and with those tools at there disposal mabe after 6 month’s time the taliban would have been systematically wiped out in the region, but that is just my theory. But anyway since we both like Mass Effect what do you think the illusive man’s fate will be at the end of ME3?

Fair enough :) Thanks for the explanation :)

As for your question; I’m not sure. Personally, I think that, like most characters of his type, his obsession to meet an end that will never come will lead to his destruction. He’s totally going to go Ahab. What do you think?

avoidswork said:
No, a fetus is genetically a human being (homo sapiens) and the medical definition of fetus is a developing embryo greater than 9 (or 11) weeks of development through birth. ANY medical dictionary will concur with what “fetus” means. I give deference to the adult woman carrying it inside of her body and her ability to make decisions regarding herself and its (continued) development. I challenge you to refute my assertions that life is only precious to the GOP in utero. The modern GOP/Conservative track record demonstrates that. See their budgets. See their state proposals (South Dakota, Nebraska, Oaklahomo, Iowa, etc.) See their attempted redefinition of “rape”. See their proposed legislation requiring a woman to prove her miscarriage (spontaneous abortion, another medical term) was not induced by anything else (Georgia). I wasn’t alive during slaveowning times, but based upon my modern sensibilities, I’d be an abolitionist. I also would have been a suffragist, etc. I would not have been the person you are alleging I would be. But, it’s easier to focus on my use of the word “fetus” than to refute anything the so-called “Pro-Life” side has demonstrated in terms of their politics. (Pro-forced birth, anti-choice, anti-woman).

You ask me to refute that the GOP only cares about life in utero. First, I have to assume you are a reasonable person that is making an unreasonable statement for me to bother arguing with you.

SO you are saying that the GOP doesnt care about life in general, only unborn babies? I just want to be clear before we go on, because if that is indeed what you are saying, then you have an extreme and dangerously partisan point of view. I’ll wat for you to clarify that slanderous assessment of half the country.

Stephen Hogan said:
Fair enough :) Thanks for the explanation :) As for your question; I’m not sure. Personally, I think that, like most characters of his type, his obsession to meet an end that will never come will lead to his destruction. He’s totally going to go Ahab. What do you think?

You could be right, we will have to wait and see.

printbrat said:
You just proved my point, go back to school and get yourself a proper education. Looks like you can read and write (although not well), so read this c a r e f u l l y: I said your rant is ridiculous. My post did not call you anything. In addition, grow up. My original post that started all this conversation was:Terminating a pregnancy has been around since the beginning of time, proper funding allows for safe medical abortions. If America wants to reduce/eliminate abortion, educate the young about safe sex AND hold the men/fathers accountable for their portion of all costs involved – I believe this will help reduce the number of abortions performed. Abortion will never be completely eliminated, and subjecting our young women to back alley/unsafe abortions is not the answer.

Proved your point? Hardly, more like you proved mine. Insults and name-calling do not further the conversation and what do you do but continue to insult. I read your original post and agree with part of it as I said. But murder (not in the legal definition but by the act of killing an innocent) is still murder. No women is ever subjected to a back alley/unsafe abortion except with her consent so I hardly think society is subjecting her to it and if she chooses to break the law then she is welcome to but we as a society should not be condoning murder.

BarneyFranken:
As a Jewish democrat, I find your avatar both stupid and offensive. Offensive because even implying that we have anybody like Hitler in power is totally downplaying what happened during the holocaust. It is stupid because Hitler was FASCIST. In case you’ve never learned anything about politics, fascism is on the far CONSERVATIVE end of the Political spectrum. I could understand more if you made him socialist, but showing him as a fascist leader just proves that you are some sort of illiterate baboon.

Oh and Barney, one more thing:
You’re point of view is wrong, and you have presented no argument to show otherwise.

Stephen Hogan said:
Call me copypasta, but this is legit: George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta – “The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems.”), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States – “Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda…. Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court’s Miranda cases.”), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission) Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.”) all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. And in regards to your question, I’d probably be upset, like you. However, I wouldn’t say that he/her is ‘not enforcing the law’, because that’s not what he/her would be doing. Rather, I would consider his/her reasoning, probably disagree with it and work to try and urge that the DoJ resumed defense. But I would not call it something that it’s not.

I appreciate the research, and redact my objection to defending legal challenges; however, I don’t see in any of the cases listed where a president’s subjective determination of a law’s constitutionality established the sole basis for for this kind of action.
Even if we call it an anomoly, this president has shown an eager willingness to circumvent both Congress and the Courts in order to usurp more control over government.

Nan said:
Proved your point? Hardly, more like you proved mine. Insults and name-calling do not further the conversation and what do you do but continue to insult. I read your original post and agree with part of it as I said. But murder (not in the legal definition but by the act of killing an innocent) is still murder. No women is ever subjected to a back alley/unsafe abortion except with her consent so I hardly think society is subjecting her to it and if she chooses to break the law then she is welcome to but we as a society should not be condoning murder.

Again, since you don’t read well, s l o w l y this time: It appears you need to look up the definition of the word murder, or go back to school and get yourself a proper education. Your rant is ridiculous.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Hello America!

I guess you’ve all heard that King Obama and Lord Holder have deemed the DOMA unconstitutional, and will not enforce this duly enacted law.

Word is they’ll be deeming GUN OWNERSHIP unconstitutional soon!

Maybe when the GOP takes the White House next year they should Deem ABORTION unconstitutional.

THIS IS YOUR COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND PART OF HIS COUP AGAINST AMERICA

Um… wow. There was a LOT of random shit in there. First of all, DOMA is unconstitutional. It prevents men (men who are CREATED EQUAL) from PURSUING HAPPINESS. Secondly, as much as I personally think it should be illegal to own a gun, nobody is trying to say it’s unconstitutional. They’re regulating certain things, but you can still get a gun. Lastly, you cannot say that abortion is unconstitutional. It ISN’T. “All men are created with certain inaliable rights…life”. A fetus is not yet a man. It is a fetus.

BarneyFranken said:
You ask me to refute that the GOP only cares about life in utero. First, I have to assume you are a reasonable person that is making an unreasonable statement for me to bother arguing with you. SO you are saying that the GOP doesnt care about life in general, only unborn babies? I just want to be clear before we go on, because if that is indeed what you are saying, then you have an extreme and dangerously partisan point of view. I’ll wat for you to clarify that slanderous assessment of half the country.

Yes, in effect, I am slandering half this country (using your words). Dangerous? Hardly.

What has the conservative/GOP tact been towards:

help to the needy — food, welfare, health care subsidies, WIC
medical care/coverage — anti-Obamacare w/ no plan of their own
women’s issues — reproductive rights
higher education/education — slashing budgets six ways to Sunday, editing textbooks
poor people/neighborhoods
war
death penalty
unionized workers

that side talks the talk and fakes the walk.

printbrat said:
Again, since you don’t read well, s l o w l y this time: It appears you need to look up the definition of the word murder, or go back to school and get yourself a proper education. Your rant is ridiculous.

Even more you resort to insults. You do know that only someone who cannot make his point intelligently resorts to insults and name calling. FYI I did not need to look up the definition of murder but only had to clarify my use of the term, ie not in the legal sense. Look you disagree with me, simple. What happened to civility. A rant is a speech or text that does not present a calm argument. Resorting to insults and name calling is a rant.

Nan said:
Even more you resort to insults. You do know that only someone who cannot make his point intelligently resorts to insults and name calling. FYI I did not need to look up the definition of murder but only had to clarify my use of the term, ie not in the legal sense. Look you disagree with me, simple. What happened to civility. A rant is a speech or text that does not present a calm argument. Resorting to insults and name calling is a rant.

Then what should the punishment be for the “murder” of a fetus/baby via a legal abortion in your world:

For the female seeking/receiving
For the sperm donor (father)
For the Dr., Nurses, Assistants
For any not listed above who assists the female in seeking services and/or driving them to their appointment
For the owners of the facility that houses the office where the abortion is sought
For the protesters outside such a facility that were complicit in allowing that female to enter the building and seek the services

We are talking about a completely pre-meditated “murder”, after all, complete with a number of accomplices. And, while people want to attack abortion providers the most, shouldn’t the ire and scorn exist exponentially with the female seeking the pregnancy termination?

It’s a genuinely serious question.

The pro-life side uses a lot of language and rhetoric in the topic area of abortion. Murder is used over and over and over.

So what should the punishment be for the parties listed above who participate/involved?

Further, what should the punishment be for those judgemental souls who do everything in their power to prevent a female/male access to contraception? To Plan B? To proper sexual education? Shouldn’t attempts to block/enable an unwanted pregnancy also be considered as part of this large criminal conspiracy?

I understand how people feel regarding this issue whether on the side of pro-choice or pro-life. What I cannot wrap my head around is the way in which the pro-life side is throwing everything out in their arsenal to demonize sex, not provide true/accurate sex education, access to free/affordable birth control and availability of the (FDA safe) Plan B w/o a prescription.

Linked below is a 2006 article about a married 42-yr old woman who had an abortion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201405.html
Here is how the article begins:

“The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn’t want. Well, not literally, but let me explain…”

Here’s how it ends:
“…It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years.”

——-

It wasn’t the pro-choicers that caused the above couple to seek an abortion. It was the policies of the crazy pro-life, patriarchial-thinking religious freaks.

illusive man said:
You could be right, we will have to wait and see.

Indeed. I can’t wait.

Thanks for the conversation. You’ve struck me as a smart and thoughtful person. We’ll probably butt heads politically every now and then, but at least I know it will be civil. Nice to make your acquaintance.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Even if we call it an anomoly, this president has shown an eager willingness to circumvent both Congress and the Courts in order to usurp more control over government.

To that extent, I agree with you. To be honest, it seems like a backhanded veto. Had I been on the other side of the issue, I would most likely feel your concern. But, given that it concerns the expansion of human rights instead of changes in economic policy or defense policy, I agree with his actions. I also find DOMA unconstitutional.

However, I do not think this sets a precedent, since the precedent already existed.

Nan said:
Even more you resort to insults. You do know that only someone who cannot make his point intelligently resorts to insults and name calling. FYI I did not need to look up the definition of murder but only had to clarify my use of the term, ie not in the legal sense. Look you disagree with me, simple. What happened to civility. A rant is a speech or text that does not present a calm argument. Resorting to insults and name calling is a rant.

You talk as if you are under the illusion that you are a morally superior individual, as-if because you don’t believe in Safe Medical Abortions that it makes you morally superior, but someone (YOU) who thinks it’s ok for a woman to have a back alley/unsafe abortion with her consent (your words not mine – see below) instead of a Safe Medical Abortion is NOT morally superior to anyone, not even to a street rat.

YOUR WORDS: “No women is ever subjected to a back alley/unsafe abortion except with her consent so I hardly think society is subjecting her to it and if she chooses to break the law then she is welcome to but we as a society should not be condoning murder.”

You are the one who does not represent a calm argument by misusing the word murder; by insisting that other people words is “name calling” – as if that validates your argument – is doesn’t; and you are the one who is hiding behind the word “moral”.

The fact that you feel insulted is fine with me.

avoidswork said:
Then what should the punishment be for the “murder” of a fetus/baby via a legal abortion in your world: For the female seeking/receivingFor the sperm donor (father)For the Dr., Nurses, AssistantsFor any not listed above who assists the female in seeking services and/or driving them to their appointmentFor the owners of the facility that houses the office where the abortion is soughtFor the protesters outside such a facility that were complicit in allowing that female to enter the building and seek the services We are talking about a completely pre-meditated “murder”, after all, complete with a number of accomplices. And, while people want to attack abortion providers the most, shouldn’t the ire and scorn exist exponentially with the female seeking the pregnancy termination? It’s a genuinely serious question. The pro-life side uses a lot of language and rhetoric in the topic area of abortion. Murder is used over and over and over. So what should the punishment be for the parties listed above who participate/involved? Further, what should the punishment be for those judgemental souls who do everything in their power to prevent a female/male access to contraception? To Plan B? To proper sexual education? Shouldn’t attempts to block/enable an unwanted pregnancy also be considered as part of this large criminal conspiracy? I understand how people feel regarding this issue whether on the side of pro-choice or pro-life. What I cannot wrap my head around is the way in which the pro-life side is throwing everything out in their arsenal to demonize sex, not provide true/accurate sex education, access to free/affordable birth control and availability of the (FDA safe) Plan B w/o a prescription. Linked below is a 2006 article about a married 42-yr old woman who had an abortion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201405.htmlHere is how the article begins: “The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn’t want. Well, not literally, but let me explain…” Here’s how it ends:“…It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place. And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years.” ——- It wasn’t the pro-choicers that caused the above couple to seek an abortion. It was the policies of the crazy pro-life, patriarchial-thinking religious freaks.

avoidswork said:
Then what should the punishment be for the “murder” of a fetus/baby via a legal abortion in your world: For the female seeking/receiving

Same as any other mother who has her child murdered
For the sperm donor (father).
Did he have any part of the decision to abort?
For the Dr., Nurses, AssistantsFor any not listed above who assists the female in seeking services and/or driving them to their appointment.
Same as current laws for conspiracy or being an accomplice to murder.
For the owners of the facility that houses the office where the abortion is sought.
What did they know? What ever is done today for any other murder.
For the protesters outside such a facility that were complicite in allowing that female to enter the building and seek the services.
Your starting to get a little whacked out here. If there are protestors outside the building I think the cops would have been called don’t you.
We are talking about a completely pre-meditated “murder”, after all, complete with a number of accomplices. And, while people want to attack abortion providers the most, shouldn’t the ire and scorn exist exponentially with the female seeking the pregnancy termination?.
Pre-meditated it is. Female is putting out a contract on the baby and the doctor and others in the clinic are the ones actually doing it. I think we have current laws for the person who hires someone to do his killing.

Further, what should the punishment be for those judgemental souls who do everything in their power to prevent a female/male access to contraception? To Plan B? To proper sexual education? Shouldn’t attempts to block/enable an unwanted pregnancy also be considered as part of this large criminal conspiracy?.
Interesting! I’m not going to argue for this one as I believe in contraception and don’t believe our society would ever go for not allowing it. As for the education I am all for it as long as it is not promoting abortion except in cases of a threat to the live of the mother. Plan B? I am on the fence about this one.

I understand how people feel regarding this issue whether on the side of pro-choice or pro-life. What I cannot wrap my head around is the way in which the pro-life side is throwing everything out in their arsenal to demonize sex, not provide true/accurate sex education, access to free/affordable birth control and availability of the (FDA safe) Plan B w/o a prescription..

Your are not addressing my comments but all of your points on this issue and I am not going to go into all of this. Demonizing sex? Not something I am into, I quite enjoy it myself. As for the rest I answered above except I believe you and I would not agree on what constitutes true/accurate sex education.

Here is how the article begins: “The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn’t want. Well, not literally, but let me explain…” Here’s how it ends:“…It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place. .
As I said I am on the fence here and we were not discussing Plan B. But here goes. Of course passion rules all and if something happens well you should have an out. A pass via murder. What if you got passionate on the freeway and just had to you know. Do you take time to pull over?
And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years.” ——- It wasn’t the pro-choicers that caused the above couple to seek an abortion. It was the policies of the crazy pro-life, patriarchial-thinking religious freaks.
Of course it is someone else’s fault. Passion is passion after all. No accountability. BTW as far as I am concerned it is not about religion. It is about life and when it begins and accountability to both the mother and child.

Wow, I’ll bet you thought I wouldn’t answer. Hope I got the quotes in right. Keep in mind that the answers I gave are a what if we had laws against abortion in this country how would it look.

Sorry I didn’t get the quotes in right. I see how it is suppose to go now.

printbrat said:
You talk as if you are under the illusion that you are a morally superior individual, as-if because you don’t believe in Safe Medical Abortions that it makes you morally superior, but someone (YOU) who thinks it’s ok for a woman to have a back alley/unsafe abortion with her consent (your words not mine – see below) instead of a Safe Medical Abortion is NOT morally superior to anyone, not even to a street rat. YOUR WORDS: “No women is ever subjected to a back alley/unsafe abortion except with her consent so I hardly think society is subjecting her to it and if she chooses to break the law then she is welcome to but we as a society should not be condoning murder.” You are the one who does not represent a calm argument by misusing the word murder; by insisting that other people words is “name calling” – as if that validates your argument – is doesn’t; and you are the one who is hiding behind the word “moral”. The fact that you feel insulted is fine with me.

Getting better, your comment had some substance beyond insults and name calling. I do not mean to come off as morally superior about this but can’t defend the accusation because it is to me about a moral issue. The life of an innocent child. Don’t worry I wasn’t offended but merely pointing out your lack of ability to converse without that inferior tool. Now that was me being condescending and superior on purpose. We have differing opinions but you are the one ranting and accusing me of being uneducated. Talk about being superior. It is an ignorant tool used to put anyone down who you don’t agree with. Again I did not misuse the word murder. You insist on being completely legalistic and defining it as being lawful and you know full well I have explained I am referring to it in the common understanding of the taking of innocent life. I must leave you now as I have errands to run.

Nan said:
Wow, I’ll bet you thought I wouldn’t answer. Hope I got the quotes in right. Keep in mind that the answers I gave are a what if we had laws against abortion in this country how would it look.

Shorter Nan:

(1) inhabit an alternate reality

(2) create a new class of criminals who will need to be housed in prisons

(3) ensure class of (2) above is primarily women and medical providers

(4) pretend that assaults to sex education, cheap/free accessible birth control, no real reason for Plan B to be over the counter, don’t exist

(5) give disproportionate weight of value to a fetus over a living woman/couple/family

(6) not give a frak about the consequences of any of the above

(7) pretentd like the PPs of the world don’t devote 95%+ of their services to health care, family counseling, STD testing and the like

——-

you may think I sounded “whack” above, but the hysteria of the pro-life movement does not delve into the real world implications of what they want regarding fetuses, women and abortion. i don’t see you waxing on and on about how to facilitate and make easy public adoption. increases budgets to support woman/families in need, etc.

my side — we think through this deep/hard sh*t. your side simply doesn’t

——

Finally, it is *so* obvious that you didn’t read the article i liked based upon your “blame others’ comment. It’s actually a sad/heartbreaking story about what blocking access to certain services can ultimately lead to — allowing/enabling women to end up with unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.

Meanwhile, back here in REALITY…states and Congressional GOPers keep proposing legislation to pretty much corner woman into poor/no female health care and unwanted pregnancies. SD, GA, NE, VA, House Republicans, etc.

Posit a realistic solution, I’ll take your claims seriously. Right now, you’ve posited an alternate reality that we don’t live in. When I want that, I’ll just watch redverse Fringe episodes.

Nan said:
Getting better, your comment had some substance beyond insults and name calling. I do not mean to come off as morally superior about this but can’t defend the accusation because it is to me about a moral issue. The life of an innocent child. Don’t worry I wasn’t offended but merely pointing out your lack of ability to converse without that inferior tool. Now that was me being condescending and superior on purpose. We have differing opinions but you are the one ranting and accusing me of being uneducated. Talk about being superior. It is an ignorant tool used to put anyone down who you don’t agree with. Again I did not misuse the word murder. You insist on being completely legalistic and defining it as being lawful and you know full well I have explained I am referring to it in the common understanding of the taking of innocent life. I must leave you now as I have errands to run.

Who wrote that for you? All you have added to this conversation is false accusations while hiding behind the illusion of being a moral individual. Your most recent post (who ever wrote that for you) being yet another prime example of your hypocrisy.

avoidswork said:
What has the conservative/GOP tact been towards:
help to the needy — food, welfare, health care subsidies, WIC
medical care/coverage — anti-Obamacare w/ no plan of their own
women’s issues — reproductive rights
higher education/education — slashing budgets six ways to Sunday, editing textbooks
poor people/neighborhoods
war
death penalty
unionized workers
that side talks the talk and fakes the walk.

avoidswork said:
It was the policies of the crazy pro-life, patriarchial-thinking religious freaks.

Bravo to you both! Couldn’t have said it better myself..

Gabe Snyder said:
It prevents men (men who are CREATED EQUAL) from PURSUING HAPPINESS.

Nonsense.

Nan said:
Unfortunately the legal definition of murder uses the legality of the act so in the legalistic sense in this country abortion is not murder. However the understanding most moral people have is the killing of an innocent human being is murder. In that respects it is murder. Thankfully because of ultrasounds Americans are coming to understand that it is a living human baby and therefore murder.

There is definitely conflicting cases out there about when a baby is a life…

Man Charged With Hitting Girlfriend in Stomach, Killing Unborn Baby
A Charleston man has been charged with murder after he allegedly hit his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach, killing the unborn baby, according to police.

According to the Virginia-Pilot, Skinner, now 23, was “charged in Circuit Court with producing an abortion or miscarriage, a felony charge that her attorney argues cannot be used to prosecute a woman who ends her own pregnancy.”

Use of Force For the Protection of the Unborn Act

According to the National Right to Life Committee, 35 states currently have laws that protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent acts. Oklahoma is one such state as a May 2005 law recognizes “an unborn child” as a victim under state laws against murder, manslaughter, and certain other acts of violence.

Laws on the Killing of an Unborn Child

Florence woman charged with killing her unborn child

Woman charged with homicide in 2004 stillbirth

sarainitaly said:
There is definitely conflicting cases out there about when a baby is a life…

Man Charged With Hitting Girlfriend in Stomach, Killing Unborn Baby
A Charleston man has been charged with murder after he allegedly hit his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach, killing the unborn baby, according to police.

According to the Virginia-Pilot, Skinner, now 23, was “charged in Circuit Court with producing an abortion or miscarriage, a felony charge that her attorney argues cannot be used to prosecute a woman who ends her own pregnancy.”

Use of Force For the Protection of the Unborn Act

According to the National Right to Life Committee, 35 states currently have laws that protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent acts. Oklahoma is one such state as a May 2005 law recognizes “an unborn child” as a victim under state laws against murder, manslaughter, and certain other acts of violence.

Laws on the Killing of an Unborn Child

Florence woman charged with killing her unborn child

Woman charged with homicide in 2004 stillbirth

When you get down to it, to Modern Liberals/Progressives, life is not important; we are trespassing on Earth. They don’t like the unborn at one end and they don’t like the elderly at the other end.

They always talk about population control and, with their massive Cloward-Piven spending plans, they really are reducing the food supply.

Look at how this liberal (Robert Reich) thinks about the elderly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

Stephen Hogan said:
Call me copypasta, but this is legit:

George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta – “The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems.”),

Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States – “Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda…. Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court’s Miranda cases.”),

George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission)

Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.”) all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional.

And in regards to your question, I’d probably be upset, like you. However, I wouldn’t say that he/her is ‘not enforcing the law’, because that’s not what he/her would be doing. Rather, I would consider his/her reasoning, probably disagree with it and work to try and urge that the DoJ resumed defense. But I would not call it something that it’s not.

Sorry, we’re talking about a FUNDAMENTAL part of our culture, not signage. Imagine if a President said he was going not enforce Federal abortion laws. the Left would go berserk.

What Obama did is just plain wrong.

Alz said:
When you get down to it, to Modern Liberals/Progressives, life is not important; we are trespassing on Earth. They don’t like the unborn at one end and they don’t like the elderly at the other end. They always talk about population control and, with their massive Cloward-Piven spending plans, they really are reducing the food supply. Look at how this liberal (Robert Reich) thinks about the elderly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

Got your terms wrong, Alz.

It’s not the Liberals who are anti-life, it is the modern Conservatives/GOPers. Here’s their :”respect”

Environmental protections? Nah.
Food safety? Nah.
Aid (food, healthcare, housing) to working poor? Nah.
Education? Nah.
Greener living? Nah. Reducing need for fossil fuels? Nah?
Treating the elderly with respect regarding their wishes? Nah. End of life counseling? Nah.
Budget to infrastructure? Nah.
Working to reduce need for unwanted pregnancy? Nah. Truthful sex ed? Nah.

Obama’s Birth Certificate? Yes.
Drill Baby Drill? Yes.
Anti-woman bills? Yes.
Cutting social programs? Yes.
Frakking over unionized workers? Yes.

Economic growth of America? Nah.

Once again, the sheer hypocrisy of the Right when it comes to sanctity of all life (pre-born and after) is abysmal.

Alz said:
Sorry, we’re talking about a FUNDAMENTAL part of our culture, not signage. Imagine if a President said he was going not enforce Federal abortion laws. the Left would go berserk.

What Obama did is just plain wrong.

Yes, I know we’re talking about a fundamental part of our civil system. And, once again, Obama did not say that he will not enforce the law. He said that the DoJ will not DEFEND the law if it is brought into appeals court on a legal challenge. There is a clear difference between the two. The former would be dereliction of duty and a violation of his oath, the latter is perfectly legal and isn’t that rare. This has happened 14 times in the past 6 years, ten of those happened under Bush. Clinton did it. Reagan did it.

And while we’re on it, it doesn’t seem like Obama is enforcing abortion rights, considering only 18% of all counties in the country has a clinic that offers abortion services. He certainly isn’t doing anything to guarantee the safety of professionals that chose to offer these legal services.

Maybe you should re-read my comment. The comment you replied to has nothing to do with the sign in the story. It has everything to do with false claims that Obama is refusing to ‘enforce’ a law, when that is not at all what he is doing. I understand that the distinction is nuanced and can be confusing, but ‘enforcing a law’ and ‘defending a law’ are two different things.

Stephen Hogan said:
Yes, I know we’re talking about a fundamental part of our civil system. And, once again, Obama did not say that he will not enforce the law. He said that the DoJ will not DEFEND the law if it is brought into appeals court on a legal challenge. There is a clear difference between the two. The former would be dereliction of duty and a violation of his oath, the latter is perfectly legal and isn’t that rare. This has happened 14 times in the past 6 years, ten of those happened under Bush. Clinton did it. Reagan did it.

And while we’re on it, it doesn’t seem like Obama is enforcing abortion rights, considering only 18% of all counties in the country has a clinic that offers abortion services. He certainly isn’t doing anything to guarantee the safety of professionals that chose to offer these legal services.

Maybe you should re-read my comment. The comment you replied to has nothing to do with the sign in the story. It has everything to do with false claims that Obama is refusing to ‘enforce’ a law, when that is not at all what he is doing. I understand that the distinction is nuanced and can be confusing, but ‘enforcing a law’ and ‘defending a law’ are two different things.

Obama signaled his intentions and his intentions are wrong.