Stop abortion. Overturn Roe v. Wade.

[ironbob2004]

What if, what if, what if you put "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" first? Do you understand our founding documents? Need a refresher? We established the Constitution to ensure our rights. We didn't establish it on a whim or so that future progressives could reinvent it to suit their needs. Life and liberty are immutable and eternal. Your little what-if scenarios can't change that. They mustn't or none of our rights are truly guaranteed. People like you will always be prepared to give them away.

What if I want my neighbor's possessions? You going to allow me to take them?

What if you want me to be your pool boy? Must I fulfill that role?

What if you wish to physically hurt me? Should I and others allow it?

Your refusal to accept the timelessness of our rights demonstrates why your compromises are poison. You have already rolled over and given in to those who wish to relinquish our life and liberty. Sometimes I wonder if (1) you honestly don't know you're regurgitating statist, progressive mantras and cannot think for yourself or (2) you're a clever sock puppet or plant.

There's no logic in any of their thinking. On the one hand it's a life when they want it to be then on the other hand it's property when they don't want it. I have news, my wife was adopted. A young mother couldn't care for her so she gave her up to a good family that loved her and raised one hell of a woman. Thank God she didn't run across some of the murdering pigs on this forum who shrug their shoulders as they snuff out life that they feel is inconvenient. I just hope there is a special kind of hell for people like that.

[tsalagi1]

The progressives want more abortion and everybody else on this thread wants to reduce them.

And from the reduce them side, I had an excellant suggestion : marriage. No progressive is going to tell me that pregnant women with husbands don't have fewer abortions then single pregnant women with no husbands.

And I made my statement previously here and there's nothing else for me to add so don't even bother trying to coax me into responding further.

So you want to bring back shotgun weddings eh...and if they don't want to get married??? But by your own admission getting married wouldn't stop abortions, merely have fewer of them, although I don't know why you would think that?

I lied.

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SHOTGUN WEDDINGS. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NOT HAVING SEX UNTILL YOU'RE MARRIED EITHER.

I SAID MARRIAGE .... IS AN EXCELLANT METHOD TO USE TO CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS .. AND THAT'S ALL I SAID.

Now you and the rest of the progressives here go ahead and try to claim that you are not arguing for and calling for more abortion because that is exactly what all of you are doing and nothing else.

All of you with this argument of yours wont be able to convince any pro lifer or at least any other pro choicer who thinks this problem has gotten way out of hand otherwise and you can keep trying untill the cows come home and it still wont matter.

(1) Why do you assume simply marrying the child's father would reduce abortions, and what makes you think the father would want to marry the woman?

(2) Just how do you plan on getting the woman to marry the father?

So people, when are you finally going to wake up to this guy? I've been saying it for years now and I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. Tslagi has no damn business on this forum. He's not conservative and I will guarantee you he's not a registered Republican either. This is one of a long list of leftist ideological stupidity that he's foisted on this forum for years now. And it just keeps going on and on and on and on and none of you seem to care. Internet unknown has given a clear and concise response only to be insulted by this poser. Isn't it funny that leftists like him will always plead that abortion is the choice of the woman. Very well, THEN STOP DRAGGING DOCTORS INTO YOUR DISGUSTING NIGHTMARE AND GO MAKE YOUR CHOICE BY YOURSELF AND WITH YOURSELF. If you women are so intent on destroying life then go grab your coat hangers and do it yourselves. After all, IT'S YOUR CHOICE. Any doctor that performs this disgusting procedure for any other reason then to save the life of the mother is a murderer and I don't give two rat craps what some old pig of a judge says about it. It doesn't mean that the facts change.

What the hell are you talking bout?..My questions, and Thoughtless' to by the way are valid, and we've asked for concrete solutions. Internet Unknown did not actually provide a solution, and it was anything but clear. Philly says..."marry the father", as if that will resolve it...IU says..."let charity, religous organizations, and private organizations deal with it", which doesn''t really say anything towards my basic premise.

"What if she doesn't want the baby"....You at least have put forth an option, that the woman return to the days of unsafe abortions where we lose not just one life, but possibly two. I'm not willing to have two lost lives on my conscience, and I'd rather have her come into my hospital where it can be done safely and save at least one life there IB.

I myself...wouldn't have one were I a woman, but (a) I'm not a woman, and (2) I'm not pregnant. So I have no frame of mind to counter my own philosophy.

Women aren't going to stop having sex..I'm assuming we can agree on that...

Oh, and yes, I'm a registered Republican...been voting for 28 years straight party ticket. Ironically, it was Ronald Reagan who brought me into the fold, the icon of the American Right..Thoughtless I believe is roughly 15 years older and remembers a different Republican Party.

[tsalagi1]

Ok..I'm going to approach this as an adult...we'll see if my opponents can do the same....without rhetoric. I can address this issue from either a Medical standpoint or a Religious one, I'll do both for argument's sake here.

Medical: By week 9. the majority of organs, and a circulatory system have begun forming, but the fetus still can not exist outside the womb.

By week 12, you have brainwave activity, the surest potential sign of consciousness, of self-awareness, but is the fetus self-aware or is the brainwave activity merely doing it's job of ensuring autonomic functions are being done. At this point, medical science just can't be sure. Week 12 by the way is the end of the first trimester, by which legally a woman can abort, anything past this point requires her physician's declaration that abortion will save the life of the mother.

So, up to Week 11 you have, from a medical stantpoint, a collection of forming body organs with no brainwave activity. Which is probably why the first trimester was determined to the default timeframe in which to abort.

From a Religious standpoint: My people's faith believe that the soul enters into the body at first breath outside the womb, til then what you have is merely an empty shell.

Let's go over some points.

1) Women are the only ones that can get pregnant

2) Women and men are going to continue having sex, unprotected and protected

3) Protection fails, pills fail, rubbers break, pregnancy can still occur

4) Women who get pregnant can experience either financial or relationship instability, in other words, they can't afford to have the child or the father heads for the hills refusing to marry, or otherwise take care of the child

5) Women are the only ones who have to get up on that ob/gyn table, easy for men to pass judgement when they themselves are insulated from pregnancy issues

6) Abortion, while in many eyes is a heinous action, there is no guarantee that the mother if she had to give birth would either adopt out or take care of the child. My ER sees abused children all the time, brought in by local PD or social workers.

7) Finally...if those against safe abortions for the mother get their wish and outlaw abortion, it will not eliminate abortions, women will die in unsafe abortions. Unless the anti-abortion crowd intend on handcuffing a woman to a gurney and locking her up for 9 months, there is no guarantee that the woman simply won't go to Canada or Mexico to get an abortion.

[dcbl]

does this mean that the anti confederacy love fest between tsal and bob is over???

[philly rabbit]

The progressives want more abortion and everybody else on this thread wants to reduce them.

And from the reduce them side, I had an excellant suggestion : marriage. No progressive is going to tell me that pregnant women with husbands don't have fewer abortions then single pregnant women with no husbands.

And I made my statement previously here and there's nothing else for me to add so don't even bother trying to coax me into responding further.

So you want to bring back shotgun weddings eh...and if they don't want to get married??? But by your own admission getting married wouldn't stop abortions, merely have fewer of them, although I don't know why you would think that?

I lied.

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SHOTGUN WEDDINGS. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NOT HAVING SEX UNTILL YOU'RE MARRIED EITHER.

I SAID MARRIAGE .... IS AN EXCELLANT METHOD TO USE TO CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS .. AND THAT'S ALL I SAID.

Now you and the rest of the progressives here go ahead and try to claim that you are not arguing for and calling for more abortion because that is exactly what all of you are doing and nothing else.

All of you with this argument of yours wont be able to convince any pro lifer or at least any other pro choicer who thinks this problem has gotten way out of hand otherwise and you can keep trying untill the cows come home and it still wont matter.

(1) Why do you assume simply marrying the child's father would reduce abortions, and what makes you think the father would want to marry the woman?

(2) Just how do you plan on getting the woman to marry the father?

Why are you so dead set against marriage as a means to reduce abortion if you do not support an increase in the number of abortions occurring regularly?

Is marriage required by law? Is it public service? Does everybody have to get married by the time they reach a certain age?

Of course it isn't, it's voluntary but progressives completely reject it as an option which only means they support an increase in abortions also.

Why else would they discount it?

[tsalagi1]

The progressives want more abortion and everybody else on this thread wants to reduce them.

And from the reduce them side, I had an excellant suggestion : marriage. No progressive is going to tell me that pregnant women with husbands don't have fewer abortions then single pregnant women with no husbands.

And I made my statement previously here and there's nothing else for me to add so don't even bother trying to coax me into responding further.

So you want to bring back shotgun weddings eh...and if they don't want to get married??? But by your own admission getting married wouldn't stop abortions, merely have fewer of them, although I don't know why you would think that?

I lied.

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SHOTGUN WEDDINGS. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NOT HAVING SEX UNTILL YOU'RE MARRIED EITHER.

I SAID MARRIAGE .... IS AN EXCELLANT METHOD TO USE TO CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS .. AND THAT'S ALL I SAID.

Now you and the rest of the progressives here go ahead and try to claim that you are not arguing for and calling for more abortion because that is exactly what all of you are doing and nothing else.

All of you with this argument of yours wont be able to convince any pro lifer or at least any other pro choicer who thinks this problem has gotten way out of hand otherwise and you can keep trying untill the cows come home and it still wont matter.

(1) Why do you assume simply marrying the child's father would reduce abortions, and what makes you think the father would want to marry the woman?

(2) Just how do you plan on getting the woman to marry the father?

Why are you so dead set against marriage as a means to reduce abortion if you do not support an increase in the number of abortions occurring regularly?

Is marriage required by law? Is it public service? Does everybody have to get married by the time they reach a certain age?

Of course it isn't, it's voluntary but progressives completely reject it as an option which only means they support an increase in abortions also.

Why else would they discount it?

Why do you continually lie about what I've said...where have I said anywhere that I'm against marriage?

First off..you're assuming that is the ultimate goal of the woman, or the man to get married, you're philosophy doesn't take into the ultimate issue of "What if they don't want to get married'.....you yourself just said it's not voluntary.

Second, you haven't present any quantifiable evidence to persuade me that married women would be less inclined then single women to not abort?

[tsalagi1]

does this mean that the anti confederacy love fest between tsal and bob is over???

Well..it was more of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.

[internet.unknown]

I was raised a Catholic. We were taught people will burn in hell for murder. If God believes abortion is murder they will burn in hell for all of eternity. I'm good that punishment. I have no idea what would happen if we suddenly had an extra 5 to 10 million ghetto babies a year? We don't want to pay for welfare, we don't want to give them contraceptives but we want to force poor people to have babies?

That math doesn't work

OK, so somebody believes that abortion is wrong. Fine. But abortion is the solution to a problem (I'm not saying it a good one). If you're going to simply outlaw it then you have to either:

1) Live with the problem with unwanted children (figure out how to get more adopted, build more jails, expand welfare)
2) Do something else to solve the problem (make contraception readily available, teach sex education)
3) Pretend there isn't a problem.

Laughable that the solutions from a republican require more state interference.

According to thoughtless, we must either deny the unborn the right to life or invite the government into our lives and wallets to solve the problem. I've heard this same "argument" from a liberal almost verbatim. It's like Minority Report in here. Stop the criminals before they commit crimes. Solve the problem of "unwanted" babies (even though pro-life is pro-Declaration of Independence) before there are any unwanted babies.

This isn't conservative or Republican thinking. "Well, since we can't do anything about it, might as well deny our inalienable rights or ask the nanny state to solve the problem."

If there is a number 4 (I suppose the "conservative solution") that you would like to share with us, I'd like to see it.

The conservative solution would be simple: charity. Worked t quite well before the government turned into our Big Daddy. Let private institutions, families, and religious organizations handle the problem Worked for decades. Personal responsibility also works. Don't get pregnant unless you want a child. Don't get someone pregnant unless you want a child. Worked for me. I didn't have my son until I was in the 30's and it wasn't for a lack of "practicing."

Ok..none of those are solutions to a woman pregnant already. It also doesn't address what happens when you've used contraception and it fails.

Are you trying to be ridiculous? Dense? Or just argumentative? Charity works AFTER a couple/woman is pregnant.

We can't relinquish life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because of accidents or difficulties.

By your logic, we should just outlaw recreational sex. That way, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and we would only sacrifice individual liberty for the common good. That's your goal, right? To trample one's rights for the convenience of another?

No..we're being serious..charity doesn't address the damn issue of the woman not wanting the child in the first place...you're still not answering the basic questions....

"What if she doesn't want the baby"....."what if she doesn't want to bring it to term"

Thoughtless and I have asked for practical solutions. My logic doesn't say we should outlaw recreational sex, in fact it counts on people continuining to have such sex.

The question on the floor is thus....A and B have sex...B gets pregnant...and now doesn't want to give birth......and.....take it away there IE with your plan.

What if, what if, what if you put "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" first? Do you understand our founding documents? Need a refresher? We established the Constitution to ensure our rights. We didn't establish it on a whim or so that future progressives could reinvent it to suit their needs. Life and liberty are immutable and eternal. Your little what-if scenarios can't change that. They mustn't or none of our rights are truly guaranteed. People like you will always be prepared to give them away.

What if I want my neighbor's possessions? You going to allow me to take them?

What if you want me to be your pool boy? Must I fulfill that role?

What if you wish to physically hurt me? Should I and others allow it?

Your refusal to accept the timelessness of our rights demonstrates why your compromises are poison. You have already rolled over and given in to those who wish to relinquish our life and liberty. Sometimes I wonder if (1) you honestly don't know you're regurgitating statist, progressive mantras and cannot think for yourself or (2) you're a clever sock puppet or plant.

Well...that was wasted typing...what I got was rhetoric...

So...you're either going to force the woman to give birth or you're going to let her get her abortion...which is it, just come right and say it man because frankly, at this point, my time has been wasted. This has nothing to do with the Founding Fathers, it has to do with Alice getting pregnant and not wanting the baby.

So..either you outlaw abortion, and charge her with murder, and strap her down to a gurney in order to give birth.

Just what the hell do you plan on doing, because NONE of what you stated came even CLOSE to an actual plan for dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

Gods, it's like I have have to do paint by the numbers for a child. You're making quotes about statists and I'm trying to get you to offer up your plan on dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

Thanks goodness you weren't around during the Lincoln's time. Just what are we going to do with all those pesky slave owners? They already own slaves! Are we going to charge them with a crime? Outlaw slavery?

[philly rabbit]

Overturn Roe vs. Wade then give the abortion issue to the states then watch how mad the progressives get.

They'll start whining it will bring back Jim Crow and segregated abortions.

Segregated abortions ...

[tsalagi1]

I was raised a Catholic. We were taught people will burn in hell for murder. If God believes abortion is murder they will burn in hell for all of eternity. I'm good that punishment. I have no idea what would happen if we suddenly had an extra 5 to 10 million ghetto babies a year? We don't want to pay for welfare, we don't want to give them contraceptives but we want to force poor people to have babies?

That math doesn't work

OK, so somebody believes that abortion is wrong. Fine. But abortion is the solution to a problem (I'm not saying it a good one). If you're going to simply outlaw it then you have to either:

1) Live with the problem with unwanted children (figure out how to get more adopted, build more jails, expand welfare)
2) Do something else to solve the problem (make contraception readily available, teach sex education)
3) Pretend there isn't a problem.

Laughable that the solutions from a republican require more state interference.

According to thoughtless, we must either deny the unborn the right to life or invite the government into our lives and wallets to solve the problem. I've heard this same "argument" from a liberal almost verbatim. It's like Minority Report in here. Stop the criminals before they commit crimes. Solve the problem of "unwanted" babies (even though pro-life is pro-Declaration of Independence) before there are any unwanted babies.

This isn't conservative or Republican thinking. "Well, since we can't do anything about it, might as well deny our inalienable rights or ask the nanny state to solve the problem."

If there is a number 4 (I suppose the "conservative solution") that you would like to share with us, I'd like to see it.

The conservative solution would be simple: charity. Worked t quite well before the government turned into our Big Daddy. Let private institutions, families, and religious organizations handle the problem Worked for decades. Personal responsibility also works. Don't get pregnant unless you want a child. Don't get someone pregnant unless you want a child. Worked for me. I didn't have my son until I was in the 30's and it wasn't for a lack of "practicing."

Ok..none of those are solutions to a woman pregnant already. It also doesn't address what happens when you've used contraception and it fails.

Are you trying to be ridiculous? Dense? Or just argumentative? Charity works AFTER a couple/woman is pregnant.

We can't relinquish life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because of accidents or difficulties.

By your logic, we should just outlaw recreational sex. That way, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and we would only sacrifice individual liberty for the common good. That's your goal, right? To trample one's rights for the convenience of another?

No..we're being serious..charity doesn't address the damn issue of the woman not wanting the child in the first place...you're still not answering the basic questions....

"What if she doesn't want the baby"....."what if she doesn't want to bring it to term"

Thoughtless and I have asked for practical solutions. My logic doesn't say we should outlaw recreational sex, in fact it counts on people continuining to have such sex.

The question on the floor is thus....A and B have sex...B gets pregnant...and now doesn't want to give birth......and.....take it away there IE with your plan.

What if, what if, what if you put "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" first? Do you understand our founding documents? Need a refresher? We established the Constitution to ensure our rights. We didn't establish it on a whim or so that future progressives could reinvent it to suit their needs. Life and liberty are immutable and eternal. Your little what-if scenarios can't change that. They mustn't or none of our rights are truly guaranteed. People like you will always be prepared to give them away.

What if I want my neighbor's possessions? You going to allow me to take them?

What if you want me to be your pool boy? Must I fulfill that role?

What if you wish to physically hurt me? Should I and others allow it?

Your refusal to accept the timelessness of our rights demonstrates why your compromises are poison. You have already rolled over and given in to those who wish to relinquish our life and liberty. Sometimes I wonder if (1) you honestly don't know you're regurgitating statist, progressive mantras and cannot think for yourself or (2) you're a clever sock puppet or plant.

Well...that was wasted typing...what I got was rhetoric...

So...you're either going to force the woman to give birth or you're going to let her get her abortion...which is it, just come right and say it man because frankly, at this point, my time has been wasted. This has nothing to do with the Founding Fathers, it has to do with Alice getting pregnant and not wanting the baby.

So..either you outlaw abortion, and charge her with murder, and strap her down to a gurney in order to give birth.

Just what the hell do you plan on doing, because NONE of what you stated came even CLOSE to an actual plan for dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

Gods, it's like I have have to do paint by the numbers for a child. You're making quotes about statists and I'm trying to get you to offer up your plan on dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

Thanks goodness you weren't around during the Lincoln's time. Just what are we going to do with all those pesky slave owners? They already own slaves! Are we going to charge them with a crime? Outlaw slavery?

Nice rhetoric...let's see if you can give me a rational plan here to this scenario

Scenario: 18yr old Alice, pregnant via unprotected sex with boyfriend Tom, age 19, Tom has no desire to be a father or married.

Alice absolutely does not want the child......so...bearing that in mind...what is your plan on dealing with it since it is clear she doesn't want it, let alone carry it for 9 months to term to adopt out.

[tsalagi1]

Overturn Roe vs. Wade then give the abortion issue to the states then watch how mad the progressives get.

They'll start whining it will bring back Jim Crow and segregated abortions.

Segregated abortions ...

You know..I try to remember you're an adult, please don't type this stuff. We have what is called "Full Faith & Credit Clause"...you do know what that is right..you're the champion of the Constitution right?

[internet.unknown]

You're the one playing with rhetoric. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate reading so many words strung together at once. God knows you won't read any of the brilliant conservative minds of today. Heck, you won't even give Thomas Sowell a chance. He ain't Ann Coulter, for crying out loud.

I've given you numerous examples similar to your perfect little "scenario." You've conveniently poo-pooed them all. I know you won't admit it, but others here will understand the truth. You're a sham and your "scenario" is a false one. Yes, it happens. Dumb teenagers get pregnant unintentionally. Dumb adults get pregnant unintentionally. Accidents happen to the young and old alike. But your little scenario doesn't address the real problem.

Our country currently enables our rights to be denied to certain classes of citizens. Because of academic, hypothetical "scenarios" that falsely sound oh-so-humane and compassionate, we are robbed of our basic rights.

Let me remind you and our readers. Our founding documents were established to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Scenarios don't matter.

So, to answer your stupid question, do as Philly suggests. Throw the matter back to the states. Let's see how many of them let people like you rob us of our rights.

Meanwhile, consider.

You're a statist. You claim Obamacare is like building the freeways.
You're a statist. You claim Philly wants to return to the dreaded 1950's yet you repeatedly long for the days of "progressive" Teddy Roosevelt (even farther back than the 50's).
You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion while referring to it as a simple medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.
You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion yet do nothing except champion its continuance with scripted scenarios.
You're a statist. You claim to endorse respect for all faiths but refer to Christ as a "short curly haired Jew" and then feign innocence when challenged.
You're a statist. You claim to support a free economy but also state that capitalism leads to "strip mining" of the environment (i.e.--Mother Earth, your curly haired Jew).
You're a statist. You claim you fear an attack by some dopey redneck more than Islamic zealots who slaughtered over 3,000 Americans in a single morning.
You're a statist. You claim to support private property but also praise the federal land-grabbing of Teddy Roosevelt.
You're a statist. You claim that the only way to end racism is by the point of the federal government's gun.

The list goes on and on and one fact is abundantly clear. You're a statist. You believe in the state more than in individuals. You believe in an ever expanding role in the federal government. You believe in its ability to control/modify our behavior to suit your agenda, both in public and private.

Like Reagan when he came to his senses: he didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left him. For you, the Republican party has left you. It's time for you to come to terms. All of your solutions require more federal involvement in our lives.

That isn't Republican. Neither are you.

[tsalagi1]

Here was your "solutions"....just so we're clear...

"The conservative solution would be simple: charity. Worked t quite well before the government turned into our Big Daddy. Let private institutions, families, and religious organizations handle the problem Worked for decades. Personal responsibility also works. Don't get pregnant unless you want a child. Don't get someone pregnant unless you want a child. Worked for me. I didn't have my son until I was in the 30's and it wasn't for a lack of "practicing."

1) Charity...chartity to do what? The woman who'd want to abort doesn't need charity?

2) Private, religious organizations, why do you assume a woman would want everyone involved in her personal business?

3) Personal responbility...well, we know that's not a solution, otherwise she'd not be pregnant.

4) Don't get pregnant unless you want a child....ok..you're assuming the end desire of sex is to get pregnant.

So in essence, you're for...a woman to not get pregnant in the first place, that's your master plan...ok..which does absolutely nothing for a woman who is ALREADY pregnant and not wanting to bring the child to term. Damn..this would be funny if I didn't know you were being serious.

One one hand you say my scenario is a false one, and then in the next sentence admit that it happens?...So which is it?

The issue is simple...a pregnant doesn't want to be pregnant any further...you offer her no solutions other then keep it and then adopt out. That's it apparently.

As for the State's issue, as I told Philly...the Constitution, which you profess to revere has as a cornerstone...the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that if valid in one State, it's valid in all of them. It's why you can drive from California to NY and your Driver's License is still valid, it's why my marriage to my wife is valid from California to NY.

It's why Jim Crow was illegal, and it took the Federal Government to ensure we minorities in the South got the same rights as whites.


I'm not a member of any Statist Party...I'm a member of the Republican Party, and in response.


You're a statist. You claim Obamacare is like building the freeways.
You're a statist. You claim Philly wants to return to the dreaded 1950's yet you repeatedly long for the days of "progressive" Teddy Roosevelt (even farther back than the 50's).
You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion while referring to it as a simple medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.
You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion yet do nothing except champion its continuance with scripted scenarios.
You're a statist. You claim to endorse respect for all faiths but refer to Christ as a "short curly haired Jew" and then feign innocence when challenged.
You're a statist. You claim to support a free economy but also state that capitalism leads to "strip mining" of the environment (i.e.--Mother Earth, your curly haired Jew).
You're a statist. You claim you fear an attack by some dopey redneck more than Islamic zealots who slaughtered over 3,000 Americans in a single morning.
You're a statist. You claim to support private property but also praise the federal land-grabbing of Teddy Roosevelt.
You're a statist. You claim that the only way to end racism is by the point of the federal government's gun.

The list goes on and on and one fact is abundantly clear. You're a statist. You believe in the state more than in individuals. You believe in an ever expanding role in the federal government. You believe in its ability to control/modify our behavior to suit your agenda, both in public and private.

Like Reagan when he came to his senses: he didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left him. For you, the Republican party has left you. It's time for you to come to terms. All of your solutions require more federal involvement in our lives.

[tsalagi1]

Couldn't edit it before it took.....page 2...

Here was your "solutions"....just so we're clear...

"The conservative solution would be simple: charity. Worked t quite well before the government turned into our Big Daddy. Let private institutions, families, and religious organizations handle the problem Worked for decades. Personal responsibility also works. Don't get pregnant unless you want a child. Don't get someone pregnant unless you want a child. Worked for me. I didn't have my son until I was in the 30's and it wasn't for a lack of "practicing."

1) Charity...chartity to do what? The woman who'd want to abort doesn't need charity?

2) Private, religious organizations, why do you assume a woman would want everyone involved in her personal business?

3) Personal responbility...well, we know that's not a solution, otherwise she'd not be pregnant.

4) Don't get pregnant unless you want a child....ok..you're assuming the end desire of sex is to get pregnant.

So in essence, you're for...a woman to not get pregnant in the first place, that's your master plan...ok..which does absolutely nothing for a woman who is ALREADY pregnant and not wanting to bring the child to term. Damn..this would be funny if I didn't know you were being serious.

One one hand you say my scenario is a false one, and then in the next sentence admit that it happens?...So which is it?

The issue is simple...a pregnant doesn't want to be pregnant any further...you offer her no solutions other then keep it and then adopt out. That's it apparently.

As for the State's issue, as I told Philly...the Constitution, which you profess to revere has as a cornerstone...the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that if valid in one State, it's valid in all of them. It's why you can drive from California to NY and your Driver's License is still valid, it's why my marriage to my wife is valid from California to NY.

It's why Jim Crow was illegal, and it took the Federal Government to ensure we minorities in the South got the same rights as whites.


I'm not a member of any Statist Party...I'm a member of the Republican Party, and in response.


You're a statist. You claim Obamacare is like building the freeways.

(1) Obamacare as far as I know is not a Federal Expenditure, but uses private insurance to insure people. It is not like Medicare or Medicaid, I should know..I've yet to see a patient enter my hospital with an Obamacare card. President Eisenhower did use federal tax dollars to create the US Highway system.

You're a statist. You claim Philly wants to return to the dreaded 1950's yet you repeatedly long for the days of "progressive" Teddy Roosevelt (even farther back than the 50's).

(2) Philly wants to return to a culture theme that only existed on Leave it to Beaver. I don't "long" for anything from Roosevelt's terms..he was a fine President though
You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion while referring to it as a simple medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.

(3) This may shock you, but yes, you can be against something but not endorse it. It is a medical, but far from simple, procedure between my patients and their doctors, both my patient and the doctor would appreciate if you'd but out of the woman's business.

You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion yet do nothing except champion its continuance with scripted scenarios.

Champion or merely defend..big difference..also has nothing to do with politics.

You're a statist. You claim to endorse respect for all faiths but refer to Christ as a "short curly haired Jew" and then feign innocence when challenged.

As far as I know this has nothing with what you call "statist"????? was not Jesus of Nazareth a Jew.. are they not as a people short brown/black curly haired people?? What about my description was inaccruate? What is in accurate is his portrayal for centuries by the Christian Church as a tall white guy with long flowing locks.
You're a statist. You claim to support a free economy but also state that capitalism leads to "strip mining" of the environment (i.e.--Mother Earth, your curly haired Jew).

You're telling me we can't have a free economy and preserve the planet?

You're a statist. You claim you fear an attack by some dopey redneck more than Islamic zealots who slaughtered over 3,000 Americans in a single morning.

Can you provide me some statistics that say I'm more liable to be murdered by a muslim terrorist going Allah Ackbar then a Racist prick? Also has nothing to do with politics mind you.

You're a statist. You claim to support private property but also praise the federal land-grabbing of Teddy Roosevelt.

I praise an action by a Republican President to safeguard our pristine lands for further generations.

You're a statist. You claim that the only way to end racism is by the point of the federal government's gun.

We minorities waited from 1865 - 1964 for the same rights as whites, how much longer should we have waited??

The list goes on and on and one fact is abundantly clear. You're a statist. You believe in the state more than in individuals. You believe in an ever expanding role in the federal government. You believe in its ability to control/modify our behavior to suit your agenda, both in public and private.

Like Reagan when he came to his senses: he didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left him. For you, the Republican party has left you. It's time for you to come to terms. All of your solutions require more federal involvement in our lives.

The Republican Party was moderate until Reagan (whom I admire by the way) and his conservative/Christian Right stormtroopers came in and bulldozed we moderates to the side, pretty much eliminating the Northeast and West Coast Republicans to the point the GOP is mainly a Southeast Regional Rump Party.

[philly rabbit]

"Philly wants to return to a culture theme that only existed on Leave it to Beaver. I don't "long" for anything from Roosevelt's terms..he was a fine President though"

Philly wants to return to a constitutional republican government.

The kind of government that Thomas Jefferson supported.

I think that predates Leave It to Beaver .. a show I never watched and never thought was a bit funny or amusing.

[tsalagi1]

"Philly wants to return to a culture theme that only existed on Leave it to Beaver. I don't "long" for anything from Roosevelt's terms..he was a fine President though"

Philly wants to return to a constitutional republican government.

The kind of government that Thomas Jefferson supported.

I think that predates Leave It to Beaver .. a show I never watched and never thought was a bit funny or amusing.

I wasn't aware we'd left a Constitutional Republican form of government, as far as I know the Constitution hasn't been voided, and we still elect our representatives via voting?

When did you notice you couldn't vote or if the Constitution had been shredded?

[ironbob2004]

So the resident, long-time liberal is quite fine with supporting baby murder because after all, we need to keep government out of dictating abortions but you can bet your rear end that if an abortion doctor denied an abortion to someone for religious reason then he'd want that same government ALL OVER that guy, guaranteed. Tsalagi, you're a phony. Go bask in the leftist sun over on Demorat.com. Your crap doesn't fly anymore because you're nothing but a lefitst plant, probably on the DNC payroll.

[tsalagi1]

So the resident, long-time liberal is quite fine with supporting baby murder because after all, we need to keep government out of dictating abortions but you can bet your rear end that if an abortion doctor denied an abortion to someone for religious reason then he'd want that same government ALL OVER that guy, guaranteed. Tsalagi, you're a phony. Go bask in the leftist sun over on Demorat.com. Your crap doesn't fly anymore because you're nothing but a lefitst plant, probably on the DNC payroll.

Can you explain to me in very simple terms what does my position on abortion reflect on the governing of a country.

4 years IB...4 years..and never, and I mean NEVER have you once told me what aspect of Republican principles I haven't endorsed at one point or another.

I'll freely admit, I'm not the fanatic, dogmatic right wing of the GOP...at worst...I'm not a social conservative...I can live with that, considering the social conservatives derive their philosophy from the Evangelical Right.

As to your statement...no...I wouldn't want the government over that Doctor, in point of fact, I have two physicians on my Staff that won't do abortions based on religious convictions..1 is Roman Catholic, the other is Buddhist, both respect life from different angles. The Board respects their position, a physician is not required to treat a woman seeking an abortion.

Listen IB..Roe vs Wade is set in stone...has been for over 40 years...it's never going away, it's met the litmus test in both liberal and conservative Supreme Courts...we can either deal with it and move on, or continue to waste political clout and pander to the social conservatives of the Party.

As for the childish "fine with baby murder" remark...really..really? Can you at least try to stay in the range of adult conversation? Leave the rhetoric at the door.

[thoughtless]

Listen IB..Roe vs Wade is set in stone...has been for over 40 years...it's never going away, it's met the litmus test in both liberal and conservative Supreme Courts...we can either deal with it and move on, or continue to waste political clout and pander to the social conservatives of the Party.

And that's why this battle is a waste of time.

Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, and to do so would scrap 40 years of judicial rulings for thousands of lower court cases. Only about 35% of Americans, when asked "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" answer "Yes".

The OP suggested a constitutional amendment, which would require a 2/3 approval by both houses, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. I don't know the odds on that one, but would guess one in a million.

The only way to reduce abortion is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I'm sorry to tell you guys that think abortion is just something you can eliminate by yelling loud enough, but that's the reality.

There is neither the means, nor the desire in this country, to eliminate abortion, and there never will be.

[rightwingagenda]

Abortion will never be outlawed. Frothing neocons need to focus on the important issues we are facing at this moment. We've had this useless abortion debate for decades now and it's gotten nowhere. Conservatives just need to educate young people, arm them with the tools needs to prevent unneed pregnancies and if the time comes that said person needs to make a decision. Let's leave it up to them. People will find a way to have illegal abortions if it is outlawed. We don't need that.

[philly rabbit]

Abortion will never be outlawed. Frothing neocons need to focus on the important issues we are facing at this moment. We've had this useless abortion debate for decades now and it's gotten nowhere. Conservatives just need to educate young people, arm them with the tools needs to prevent unneed pregnancies and if the time comes that said person needs to make a decision. Let's leave it up to them. People will find a way to have illegal abortions if it is outlawed. We don't need that.

But you progressives kept claiming all along that abortion would solve the country's social problems and it's made them all a lot worse.

You've used the reeducation camp system to get kids sexually active and rammed adult sex down their throats and your government sex education agenda is to promote sex for under aged children and that's been a disaster.

You've also managed to turn millions of potential men in this country into sissies who don't have a clue about what their role is supposed to be in the parent - child relationship.

It's costing the middle class millions of dollars every week for unwed mothers, fatherless kids, and sex education and your coveted abortion agenda lies at the root of all this governmental waste.

This issue .. along with all the other social issues should be handled by the different states but that was never good enough for you progressives and your precious Roe vs. Wade which was unconstitutional over a privacy clause in the document that never existed in the first place.

The Leviathan in Washington DC which all of you support has got nothing to do with liberty and this issue with RVW is something that is keeping that leviathon ever growing with wasteful social spending that is it's end result.

The progressives with their social justice is like everything else the left does in it's name whether they be Republican or Democrat.

Calling those who support the states handling these social issues which the constitution itself supports ... the name of neocons is A typical of these progressives who claim they're libertarians or conservtives.

[thoughtless]

Abortion will never be outlawed. Frothing neocons need to focus on the important issues we are facing at this moment. We've had this useless abortion debate for decades now and it's gotten nowhere. Conservatives just need to educate young people, arm them with the tools needs to prevent unneed pregnancies and if the time comes that said person needs to make a decision. Let's leave it up to them. People will find a way to have illegal abortions if it is outlawed. We don't need that.

But you progressives kept claiming all along that abortion would solve the country's social problems and it's made them all a lot worse.

You've used the reeducation camp system to get kids sexually active and rammed adult sex down their throats and your government sex education agenda is to promote sex for under aged children and that's been a disaster.

You've also managed to turn millions of potential men in this country into sissies who don't have a clue about what their role is supposed to be in the parent - child relationship.

It's costing the middle class millions of dollars every week for unwed mothers, fatherless kids, and sex education and your coveted abortion agenda lies at the root of all this governmental waste.

This issue .. along with all the other social issues should be handled by the different states but that was never good enough for you progressives and your precious Roe vs. Wade which was unconstitutional over a privacy clause in the document that never existed in the first place.

The Leviathan in Washington DC which all of you support has got nothing to do with liberty and this issue with RVW is something that is keeping that leviathon ever growing with wasteful social spending that is it's end result.

The progressives with their social justice is like everything else the left does in it's name whether they be Republican or Democrat.

Calling those who support the states handling these social issues which the constitution itself supports ... the name of neocons is A typical of these progressives who claim they're libertarians or conservtives.

No Philly. the problems you're griping about don't have anything to do with politics.

It's a different time now. Women vote. They work outside the home. They choose when to have sex and with whom. You seem to have it in your head, that if the right person wins a political office, women will forget about their "liberation", quit their job, strap on an apron, and concentrate on pleasing their man. If someone is promising you that, they're lying to you.

We aren't going to fight the civil war again because we didn't like the way the confederacy came out in the last one, we aren't going to make our kids say a prayer the first thing every school day, and we aren't going to decide that the "right to privacy" was a mistake.

However, if we concentrated our efforts on fixing the economy, we would get enough support from "normal" people to win a damn election.

[internet.unknown]

"Philly wants to return to a culture theme that only existed on Leave it to Beaver. I don't "long" for anything from Roosevelt's terms..he was a fine President though"

Philly wants to return to a constitutional republican government.

The kind of government that Thomas Jefferson supported.

I think that predates Leave It to Beaver .. a show I never watched and never thought was a bit funny or amusing.

I wasn't aware we'd left a Constitutional Republican form of government, as far as I know the Constitution hasn't been voided, and we still elect our representatives via voting?

When did you notice you couldn't vote or if the Constitution had been shredded?

YOU live in a post-Constitutional America. The things you expect and want from the federal government aren't in the Constitution yet you support them anyway.

Take the Obamacare you so naively disregard. It looks like the mandate at least will be struck down. But YOU, a statist, see nothing wrong with Obamacare.

This is your problem. You want the government to "do stuff" to "help people" without even understanding what is and what isn't Constitutional or what is and what isn't the Framer's intentions.

There is no statist party, correct. But you are a statist. You support a bigger and bigger federal government. That is statism. Today's democrats are all statists. Many Republicans are statists. You are a statist.

[internet.unknown]

Here was your "solutions"....just so we're clear...

"The conservative solution would be simple: charity. Worked t quite well before the government turned into our Big Daddy. Let private institutions, families, and religious organizations handle the problem Worked for decades. Personal responsibility also works. Don't get pregnant unless you want a child. Don't get someone pregnant unless you want a child. Worked for me. I didn't have my son until I was in the 30's and it wasn't for a lack of "practicing."

1) Charity...chartity to do what? The woman who'd want to abort doesn't need charity?

2) Private, religious organizations, why do you assume a woman would want everyone involved in her personal business?

3) Personal responbility...well, we know that's not a solution, otherwise she'd not be pregnant.

4) Don't get pregnant unless you want a child....ok..you're assuming the end desire of sex is to get pregnant.

So in essence, you're for...a woman to not get pregnant in the first place, that's your master plan...ok..which does absolutely nothing for a woman who is ALREADY pregnant and not wanting to bring the child to term. Damn..this would be funny if I didn't know you were being serious.

One one hand you say my scenario is a false one, and then in the next sentence admit that it happens?...So which is it?

The issue is simple...a pregnant doesn't want to be pregnant any further...you offer her no solutions other then keep it and then adopt out. That's it apparently.

As for the State's issue, as I told Philly...the Constitution, which you profess to revere has as a cornerstone...the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that if valid in one State, it's valid in all of them. It's why you can drive from California to NY and your Driver's License is still valid, it's why my marriage to my wife is valid from California to NY.

It's why Jim Crow was illegal, and it took the Federal Government to ensure we minorities in the South got the same rights as whites.


I'm not a member of any Statist Party...I'm a member of the Republican Party, and in response.


You're a statist. You claim Obamacare is like building the freeways.
You're a statist. You claim Philly wants to return to the dreaded 1950's yet you repeatedly long for the days of "progressive" Teddy Roosevelt (even farther back than the 50's).
You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion while referring to it as a simple medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.
You're a statist. You claim to be personally against abortion yet do nothing except champion its continuance with scripted scenarios.
You're a statist. You claim to endorse respect for all faiths but refer to Christ as a "short curly haired Jew" and then feign innocence when challenged.
You're a statist. You claim to support a free economy but also state that capitalism leads to "strip mining" of the environment (i.e.--Mother Earth, your curly haired Jew).
You're a statist. You claim you fear an attack by some dopey redneck more than Islamic zealots who slaughtered over 3,000 Americans in a single morning.
You're a statist. You claim to support private property but also praise the federal land-grabbing of Teddy Roosevelt.
You're a statist. You claim that the only way to end racism is by the point of the federal government's gun.

The list goes on and on and one fact is abundantly clear. You're a statist. You believe in the state more than in individuals. You believe in an ever expanding role in the federal government. You believe in its ability to control/modify our behavior to suit your agenda, both in public and private.

Like Reagan when he came to his senses: he didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left him. For you, the Republican party has left you. It's time for you to come to terms. All of your solutions require more federal involvement in our lives.

If your little world, there are only two options: abort or "force" the woman to carry the baby to term. You disregard a basic inalienable right. LIFE. You are in the wrong and you will forever be.

In today's world, 18 year old Jane can get herself an abortion. You will be happy.

In a world where we value our inalienable right to life, her options may be different.

But so long as statists like you are willing to give up our rights for an 18 year old's convenience, then she need not worry. You will continue to support your post-Constitutional American vision.

[internet.unknown]

Abortion will never be outlawed. Frothing neocons need to focus on the important issues we are facing at this moment. We've had this useless abortion debate for decades now and it's gotten nowhere. Conservatives just need to educate young people, arm them with the tools needs to prevent unneed pregnancies and if the time comes that said person needs to make a decision. Let's leave it up to them. People will find a way to have illegal abortions if it is outlawed. We don't need that.

Name-callers also need to learn what the term "neocon" means. It isn't someone who supports life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.