[Bob Seger]

Yeah, the last time we had a budget. Obama is yet to produce a budget...figures. By the way, you forgot to cover October 2009 - 2012. Even with that small stretch eliminated, obama has outspent Bush by a wide margin. Explain what Bush did from October 2009 through now...you're excuses are running out.

Kinda speaks volumes, doesn't it?:Thumbs:

[TheRealThing]

Has he changed his views in the last two days? That was when he supported abortion for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Two days ago. How do you feel about his views, as he has expressed them as recent as in the last few days?

Okay, I'll play. I already posted at length on this very topic recently. According to the NY Times a mere 1% if all abortions are rape/incest, well being of mother related. If I were running for president I wouldn't support abortion for any reason other than a life threatening situation for the mother. In that case, the number of abortions is miniscule. The actual percentage of abortions directly associated as being a threat to the mother's life is 0.006%, according to a study done in England. (And even then, IMO it should be a decision made by the family involved on a case by case basis.) That's about 384 out of over 6 million abortions done every 4 years here in the USA. So you tell me, is 384 a better number than something north of 6 million every presidential term? But back to you're effort to make me look shallow. If I get to pick, you can bet your last dollar I'll be going with the 1% candidate as opposed to the sky's the limit candidate.

Now, if Romney were to ask me, I'd be more than happy to share my views with him. In the meantime, if we have a president willing to lead the way to rape/incest, health of mother abortions only. We would be saving the lives of 5,940,000 unborn innocents every 4 years while loosing an admittedly still unacceptable, 60,000 lives every 4 years.

Considering the above, I can very happily support Romney over the murderous abortion policy of the present admimistration.

[TheRealVille]

Okay, I'll play. I already posted at length on this very topic recently. According to the NY Times a mere 1% if all abortions are rape/incest, well being of mother related. If I were running for president I wouldn't support abortion for any reason other than a life threatening situation for the mother. In that case, the number of abortions is miniscule. The actual percentage of abortions directly associated as being a threat to the mother's life is 0.006%, according to a study done in England. (And even then, IMO it should be a decision made by the family involved on a case by case basis.) That's about 384 out of over 6 million abortions done every 4 years here in the USA. So you tell me, is 384 a better number than something north of 6 million every presidential term? But back to you're effort to make me look shallow. If I get to pick, you can bet your last dollar I'll be going with the 1% candidate as opposed to the sky's the limit candidate.

Now, if Romney were to ask me, I'd be more than happy to share my views with him. In the meantime, if we have a president willing to lead the way to rape/incest, health of mother abortions only. We would be saving the lives of 5,940,000 unborn innocents every 4 years while loosing an admittedly still unacceptable, 60,000 lives every 4 years.

Considering the above, I can very happily support Romney over the murderous abortion policy of the present admimistration.

Romney said "it was a matter of the courts, and had already been settled by the courts". Romney basically is saying he has the same views as Obama, where Obama said the subject was "above his pay grade". What you are saying, is that you will vote for your party(conservatives, since I already know you are registered democrat), when they have the same view, even when that view is for abortion, even though you have said you wouldn't support somebody that supports abortion.

[Hoot Gibson]

Romney said "it was a matter of the courts, and had already been settled by the courts". Romney basically is saying he has the same views as Obama, where Obama said the subject was "above his pay grade". What you are saying, is that you will vote for your party(conservatives, since I already know you are registered democrat), when they have the same view, even when that view is for abortion.

Nobody in this country is more in favor of abortion that Obama - nobody. Your attempt to equate Romney's position on abortion with Obama is pathetic.

Obama failed to support a law to require hospitals to give medical treatment to newborn babies, not once...not twice...but three times. I cannot name another person who has ever referred to a newborn baby, a survivor of a botched abortion, as a "non-viable fetus." Have you? Do you honestly think that Romney would have opposed such a bill? How would you have voted on that bill?

When the U.S. Senate voted on a federal version of the bill, it passed unanimously. Even NARAL did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

All honest individuals have always known that abortion is the willful killing/murder of another human being. Now, DNA has proven that to be an indisputable fact.

Therefore, one may indeed have the right to an abortion under the laws of this country. Nonetheless, if that individual is honest with herself (or himself in the case of a male doctor doing the killing), she/he cannot deny that fact. So, one may legally kill/murder her offspring but that doesn't remotely mitigate the fact that she has committed an abominable act against humanity.

Liberals like to refer to science- but not in the case of the willful and premeditated killing of the innocents.

In most all cases, with few exceptions, the use of "protecting the life of the woman" is a canard.

[TheRealThing]

Romney said "it was a matter of the courts, and had already been settled by the courts". Romney basically is saying he has the same views as Obama, where Obama said the subject was "above his pay grade". What you are saying, is that you will vote for your party(conservatives, since I already know you are registered democrat), when they have the same view, even when that view is for abortion, even though you have said you wouldn't support somebody that supports abortion.

You went to the touble to set up what both of knew was an attempt to set me up as a democrat turn coat and further, make the argument that Romney was no better than Obama, and that's the best you could do with it? 6 million innocent and sweet infants, versus 60,000. And I have made it clear. I don't have a party, I am married to. I vote for candidates. It aint no hard choice between Obama and Romney.

[TheRealThing]

All honest individuals have always known that abortion is the willful killing/murder of another human being. Now, DNA has proven that to be an indisputable fact.

Therefore, one may indeed have the right to an abortion under the laws of this country. Nonetheless, if that individual is honest with herself (or himself in the case of a male doctor doing the killing), she/he cannot deny that fact. So, one may legally kill/murder her offspring but that doesn't remotely mitigate the fact that she has committed an abominable act against humanity.

Liberals like to refer to science- but not in the case of the willful and premeditated killing of the innocents.In most all cases, with few exceptions, the use of "protecting the life of the woman" is a canard.

Very good point Rex:Thumbs:

[vundy33]

I believe what Romney believes...that exceptions should be made for rape, incest, or health of the mother (life and death). But, I think it's ridiculous that the official RNC stance on the issue does not include that. They can't get everything they want, no one can, and they won't get this. You can't just tell a woman who has been raped, raped by a family member, or is on the verge of dying what she is to do with her own body.

Also, in the case of health of the mother, I think she should have the choice of dying so her child may live.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I believe what Romney believes...that exceptions should be made for rape, incest, or health of the mother (life and death). But, I think it's ridiculous that the official RNC stance on the issue does not include that. They can't get everything they want, no one can, and they won't get this. You can't just tell a women who has been raped, raped by a family member, or is on the verge of dying what she is to do with her own body.

Also, in the case of health of the mother, I think she should have the choice of dying so her child may live.

Since the preborn child has been proven to be a separate human being from the woman carrying it, it would seem obvious that that innocent child should be entitled to due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

We know that we are dealing with the "rights" of two human beings- not just one as the abortionists would lead naive people to believe.

I realize that some women find it inconvenient to be pregnant. For those women, I support the right to choose. Their choice should be to get pregnant or not get pregnant. Once they become pregnant, there is another human being whose rights should be protected.

The preborn child should at least have the same right to life as does the convicted murderer. The latter's "rights" are defended appeal after appeal, delay after delay, year after year, usually decade after decade. Surely, in a civilized society, the innocents deserve no less.

[Panther Thunder]

Since the preborn child has been proven to be a separate human being from the woman carrying it, it would seem obvious that that innocent child should be entitled to due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

We know that we are dealing with the "rights" of two human beings- not just one as the abortionists would lead naive people to believe.

I realize that some women find it inconvenient to be pregnant. For those women, I support the right to choose. Their choice should be to get pregnant or not get pregnant. Once they become pregnant, there is another human being whose rights should be protected.

The preborn child should at least have the same right to life as does the convicted murderer. The latter's "rights" are defended appeal after appeal, delay after delay, year after year, usually decade after decade. Surely, in a civilized society, the innocents deserve no less.

That is the thing I do not understand. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A CHILD DO NOT HAVE SEX. It is not a shocking headline that with sex comes the chance of becoming pregnant.

[TheRealThing]

I believe what Romney believes...that exceptions should be made for rape, incest, or health of the mother (life and death). But, I think it's ridiculous that the official RNC stance on the issue does not include that. They can't get everything they want, no one can, and they won't get this. You can't just tell a women who has been raped, raped by a family member, or is on the verge of dying what she is to do with her own body.

Also, in the case of health of the mother, I think she should have the choice of dying so her child may live.

I think you'll find their stance does include that. What republicans don't support are the other 5.94 million abortions (every four years) performed merely for convenience sake to the perspective moms that decide they want to have sex but don't want to deal with the responsibility for their actions if a baby is produced as a result of that sex. So, what you're saying is in fact, the way most republicans see it, along with Romney as you have pointed out. I agree it should be mom's choice with regard to chancing her own life to bring her baby into the world. Many times the threat can be averted and both a mom and baby make it just fine. Medical advances have given them a very good chance to survive these days.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I think you'll find their stance does include that. What republicans don't support are the other 5.94 million abortions (every four years) performed merely for convenience sake to the perspective moms that decide they want to have sex but don't want to deal with the responsibility for their actions if a baby is produced as a result of that sex. So, what you're saying is in fact, the way most republicans see it, along with Romney as you have pointed out. I agree it should be mom's choice with regard to chancing her own life to bring her baby into the world. Many times the threat can be averted and both a mom and baby make it just fine. Medical advances have given them a very good chance to survive these days.

If the woman's life is really and truly in the balance (which is extremely rare), the taking of the baby could be termed as self defense. Otherwise, it is, like it or not, a premeditated termination of a human life (normally referred to as "murder").

Any woman having an abortion should never be referred to as a "mother" or a "mom" and certainly not ever as a "mommy". Those terms should be reserved for those who earn the title. If you don't want to refer to her as a murderess (the term I use), then just call her a "woman". She deserves nothing better.

[TheRealThing]

If the woman's life is really and truly in the balance (which is extremely rare), the taking of the baby could be termed as self defense. Otherwise, it is, like it or not, a premeditated termination of a human life (normally referred to as "murder").

Any woman having an abortion should never be referred to as a "mother" or a "mom" and certainly not ever as a "mommy". Those terms should be reserved for those who earn the title. If you don't want to refer to her as a murderess (the term I use), then just call her a "woman". She deserves nothing better.

I'm certainly not defending abortion by what I'm about to say. An unwanted pregnancy often is a time of tremendous upheaval. Even though anything seemingly goes in today's world, the stigma and shame for the unwed "woman" is epic. If these planned parenthood clinics and other so-called counciling agencies offered the real truth, I believe many "women" would choose not to abort their baby. "Women" from families that don't honor God in their lives are especially vunerable to suggestion in the shark infested waters of the left established, infant kill zone. Young pregnant girls go in a complete mess, and come out completely desvastated overcome by the guilt of their actions.

These clinics are staffed with folks who steer everybody who comes through their doors toward only one option, abortion. They call the act a proceedure or a choice. The truth is that these girls will suffer for the rest of their life as the result of the unfortunate prodding to get an abortion while being assured all is well and all their trouble will just go away, after all, everybody does it!

[vundy33]

Since the preborn child has been proven to be a separate human being from the woman carrying it, it would seem obvious that that innocent child should be entitled to due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

We know that we are dealing with the "rights" of two human beings- not just one as the abortionists would lead naive people to believe.

I realize that some women find it inconvenient to be pregnant. For those women, I support the right to choose. Their choice should be to get pregnant or not get pregnant. Once they become pregnant, there is another human being whose rights should be protected.

The preborn child should at least have the same right to life as does the convicted murderer. The latter's "rights" are defended appeal after appeal, delay after delay, year after year, usually decade after decade. Surely, in a civilized society, the innocents deserve no less.

I wasn't talking about any woman, clearly...I was talking about those who get pregnant as the result of incest, rape or could die.