Hopefully Kerry's crew does not come back with as much bullshit as Bush's crew has concocted this time.

I also noticed someone posted something about Kerry's voting record and the support he is lending to trial lawyers and the rising cost of healthcare due to the lawsuits. I hope the poster sees this and and reads what the vote was REALLY for and does not continue to believe the Republican bullshit.

________________________________________________________

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"


It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."

07.12.2004

Summary


In an ad released July 8 the Bush campaign attacks John Kerry for missing many Senate votes but still finding time " to vote against the Laci Peterson law that protects pregnant women from violence." It's literally accurate, but artfully worded to avoid tipping off viewers to the real controversy over the bill Kerry opposed -- the legal right to abortion.
_________________________________________________________________


-- Modified on 7/14/2004 9:47:19 AM

What has a law protecting pregnant women against violence have to do with abortion?  

And what kind of human being would vote against it?

This is nothing compare to the half truths you so tout in Moore's latest hit film.

ending a human life manages to get in the way of the pro-abortion ideology.

In fact, Kerry did vote against protections for pregnant women, because he voted against the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which would make it a separate criminal offense to, in the commission of the murder of the mother, also murder her unborn child.

One fine day all you anti choice people will get what this is all about, control over women and all Kerry was doing was protecting women to make the choice, not the government. Who gives a rat ass if a women chooses to end a pregnancy, it's her body, it's no ones business but hers. I don't see anyone stopping men from doing any medical procedures.  Kerry supported a bill that protected pregnant women WITHOUT eroding a women right to control her own body.  If you don't believe in abortion don't have one.  If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.

JimmyIQ-

My personal wager is that if by some oversight/miracle, you got one of the ladies here in the family way, your views on Abortion would change overnight!

Best to leave decisions about a ladies body to the lady.  I like the Jewish tradition of counting a baby as a person only when it is outside the womb.  Otherwise you get all chicken and eggy.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was SUCH a BS attempt to attack Roe Vs. Wade, that any thinking person outside of the wacko Christo wing of the GOP was against it.  

Do we really have such weak sentencing guidleline that a Violent offender needs to get an EXTRA charge for hurting the baby when they attack a pregnant woman?  Smacks of piling on- a favourite political tack of every stripe.

Jimbo- IF YOU DO NOT LIKE ABORTION- DON'T GET ONE!  Can't you guys just let the folks who think it should be legal do their thing while you do yours and we can see who goes to hell later?  You are perfectly aligned with personal choice on things like taxes and schools- why not have this be choice too?

Try making anti-abortion arguments without using any religious references, and you end up with no arguments against a needed medical procedure.  Or are you prepared to donate your hobbying budget for the rest of your life to pay for all those unwanted babies of whom you seem to be a champion!

Better to be thought a fool, Jimmy, than post and remove all doubt!

His views may also change if it were him having the baby (apparently Senore Chavez wasn't sure on this one).  That is simply priceless (IMHO).

And not to pile on poor Jamey, but it's important to remember that every birth control device has associated with it a certain percent failure rate. Yes, indeed, there is no assurance that there won't be a pregnancy with a fertile female, even if you use condoms properly.

Despite their protestations, most people practice what's called "situational ethics". Or broadly translated, new situations require new ethics.

He's 8 months old, over 25lbs, and costing me a small fortune in diapers, baby food and lost income from the wife's now-on-hold teaching career. But I wouldn't change the situation for any amount of money.

RLTW

I presume if you're on this board that you're an active hobbyist.

If so the question then becomes how you, or indeed you and your wife, would feel if a provider filed a paternity suit against you?

To forestall such a possibility, would you pay for an abortion if the said provider requested one?

I believe such a question would be interesting (more relevant) if directed at James86.  But alas, I fear he would not respond (our loss).

I haven't seen a provider in nearly two years. Even then, it was only a couple times a year. I hang around the political board because I enjoy arguing with lunatics and irritating self-righteous liberals .

As for your question, I honestly don't know. Alot of posters have tried to paint me as a conservative, party line Republican but my political views are more libertarian. I support pro-choice as a public policy, but my personal values are pro-life. I was involved in an abortion during younger days, however my personal beliefs began changing after seeing the first ultrasound images, then things absolutely changed the moment I cut the umbilical cord of my first son.

RLTW

making anti-abortion arguments without using any religious references, and you end up with no arguments against a needed medical procedure


Oh please, abortion isn't a needed medical procedure, it's a way to cop out of personal responsibility.

Remember the only people who support abortion have already been born!!!

He's 8 months old, over 25lbs, and costing me a small fortune in diapers, baby food and lost income from the wife's now-on-hold teaching career. But I wouldn't change the situation for any amount of money.

RLTW



I love that attitude RLTW. Congratulations on the little boy.

The purpose of my post is to point out the fact that BOTH sides twist the facts and I wish they would stop.

But your reply leads me to believe you either did not read the article from the link or you did not comprehend it.

At least you have come to realize that the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is not chock full of lies.

We can keep a "fetus" alive and sometimes even healthy after the 24th week, when it is still legal to abort it.  What is the magic difference between in and out of the womb, when we can do this?  How is this different from infanticide?  Some say that since the fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life support, that it isn't really a human yet and can be terminated.  SO IS A NEWBORN INFANT.  It will surely die if left on its own.  So I really don't see the difference.  And I really don't see why this is a civil rights issue.  Do you really want to crusade for chopping up babies and sucking them out a tube, even ones that could have survived in the neonatal unit, like you crusade for voter rights or free speech?  Our massive amount of abortions in this country cheapens life and its inherent value, and that spills over into other areas, IMHO.
 My two cents is that any abortion is a sad event.  It was an unwanted child and a snuffed out human being.  Unfortunately, given the way the government tends to screw up regulations and laws, it may be the best solution to keep in legal, but actively encourage BIRTH CONTROL and ADOPTION.  And I back this up with action.  We plan to adopt within the next year from a disadvantaged child/race, and I will guarantee you our little child will be thankful his/her mother loved him/her enough to carry to term and place the child in a loving, protective home.

Dude-  I think EVERYBODY is anti abortion personally- I don't advocate it as a means of birht control.  but you have to have a backstop.

I want it to be available to people who have made a bad choice or a mistake so they can be helped from making more (neglecting or maltreating their unwanted kids).

What is the quote ?  I want it legal, easily available, and rare!

Stick it to the "irritating self-righteous liberals". And something does change forever when you become a parent, and I don't understand how someone who is a parent could champion abortion as a civil right, instead of the tragedy (necessary or unnecessary) that it is.

Good for you, Boomhower. Congrats and good luck with your adoption efforts.

RLTW

All Type-A maniacs. My mom always said I'd get pay back and she was right.

RLTW

Birth control and adoption ARE actively encouraged (condoms are heavily encouraged nowadays).  I agree, an abortion is a tragedy.  But the government telling a woman what to do in that situation is even (IMHO) a bigger tragedy.

The hypocrisy of these individuals who on the one hand claim they want less government in their lives and then on the other want to impose their beliefs on others via government enforced laws is just pathetic (Is it government $ or the right to life ?).  

Now, I don't think there is a ``solution'' for every woman in this postition.  I believe no one else can decide but the couple (ultimately the woman) involved.

Is it right that a decision can be made regarding the life of an unborn child ?  Well, IMHO it doesn't matter how you or I feel about this (only for ourselves).  Ultimately, free INDIVIDUAL will must exist in such a PERSONAL matter.

I bet you that 97.5% of these right to lifer's tune (on the down low) would change if it was their teenage daughter knocked up.  

Yes, adoption is a beautiful thing.  Congratulations !!!




-- Modified on 7/16/2004 7:05:41 AM

I wouldn't exterminate my grandchild for our convenience, nor would I wish the psychological and potentially physical harm of an abortion on my daughter for a mistake that a lot of people make (unprotected sex or birth control failure).  My wife and I had premarital sex, and it could have happened to us.  And again, you have to put your money where your mouth is.  If you oppose abortion then you need to be consistent (i.e. don't get one yourself and adopt if you can).
 And there is, IMHO, no hypocrisy in wanting less government in general and opposing abortion.  I want less government red tape, taxes, etc...  But I still want the government to protect from murder, foreign invasion, etc... If you believe a fetus is a human being, that mandates that you view abortion as a form of murder.  Who would say, "I want less government, so cops shouldn't prosecute people who shoot/stab/kill others."?  Of course, if you don't believe that a fetus is a human being, that arguement doesn't hold water.  That is why the pro-choice and pro-life groups generally can't come together.

Well, your in the 2.5%.  It does come down to what your beliefs are.  That is why it's a personal matter.  

If you don't belief your beliefs are the last word then that mandates that you view your beliefs as just that - Yours.  I don't feel I can speak for everyone else (not sure what I'd do if I were King - it would surely involve a harem though).

I want the government to protect me from other peoples religious beliefs.

BTW, I didn't mean that if your teenage daughter was knocked up that you would not oppose her having an abortion.  I do belief you are sincere.  That was a general statement (guess I'm a bit cynical when it comes to the champions of the religious right agenda).

quickly followed by the personal attacks challenging intelligence which reveal more about their author than about their target.

In that same attack ad they say Kerry missed a vote for funding the troops, yes he did miss it and it passed 97 to 0 anyway, real important that he show up for that, again a non issue that the Bush team spins negative. The other vote he missed was to cap malpractice awards in the hope to cut health care costs, first he did not support that bill and he knew it would lose and second, there is no relationship between capping court awards and health care costs, a matter of fact, doctors and other medical practitioners are more careful when there is no cap.  Just the Bush camp being negative about Kerry because there in nothing to be positive about the Bush admin's record.

is committed and the sentence is increased if the perpetrator has been found to have used racial slurs during the act.  Now it is a hate crime, which apparently is much worse than an ordinary premeditated murder or even the random "It just felt like the right time to murder" type murder.  More piling on, only from the other side.

Or was that just for murderers committed by blacks against white folks, which is the way that capital punishment mostly gets applied now.

I certainly can't understand what the problem would be to insure that hate and bigotry-driven murders received the maximum penalties, but perhaps you can enlighten us?