Hypocrisy

True that.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

This is in no way support for President Obama, but abortions have been legal in the United States since January 22, 1973. That's 50 years and eight presidents, not four years and one president.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sorry, make that 40 years and eight presidents.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

These days there are little excuses for an unwanted pregnancy.Other than forced rape, ignorance, laziness there are several forms of birth control and for many it is free.( there's always that abstainence thing too)Too many use abortion as a form of birth control.Rape, incest and jeoparedy of the mother's health I can understand. It's that whole taking responsibility for your actions thing again.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

*jeopardy

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Good point, Francine. Until Roe v Wade is overturned Obama and every other successive president will have nothing to do with the legalization of abortions. It is what it is.

LTE: "he voted to permit infanticide."

Webster's definition if infanticide: the killing of an infant

A fetus is not an infant. Period.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"At what age does a murdered child need to be before President Obama sheds any tears?"

+++

Well we have seen him display tears for an elementary age child. I feel certain that he would do the same for younger. But face it, he got re-elected in a large part due to the women's vote and much of that was his stance on abortion. So my answer would be at the 100% complete emergence from the womb in an alive state.

The unborn are a stepping stone in his rise to power. And further when he ends his Presidential oath with "so help me God", it makes me sick. Maybe he is really meaning "so help me god" where god refers to himself, George Soros, etc.

Okay, I have cast our President in a negative light but the bigger issue here is the unborn. Pray for and support a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v Wade.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The only HYPOCRISY is (even) the CONCEPT that males have some kind o' "Divine Right" to insist THEY know what's "best", regarding the issue of abortion.

Until males START becoming pregnant, they need to mind their own-damned-business!! This issue should be decided by FEMALES...ONLY...the individuals who are DIRECTLY impacted by THEIR decisions!!!

I've YET to meet any males who'd allow "some woman" to tell THEM what they were "allowed" to do with THEIR bodies.

"conservatives" need to limit their need, for a Patriarchy, to where it belongs...their "house-of-worship".

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mr. Shaman, would you feel the same if your mother had decided to get an abortion? It takes 2 to create a baby so I don't think men should be completely excluded from opinions on this.Why is it you feel that it's ok for a man to have no choice in this but it's ok for a woman to make this choice for the baby?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Why does this have to be so black and white, left verses right? Isn't it possible to pro choice in some rare cases, and pro life in most cases. How can anyone reasonably say that a twelve year old girl who's been raped by her father and is now pregnant should NOT have the option of terminating the pregnancy? Is that type of pro choice the same as all abortions regardless pro choice? Because if it isn't, then many people who say they're pro choice are not really pro choice in most circumstances, and most people who say they're pro lifers are not really pro lifers in some circumstances.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Francine, I think with many it falls somewhere in the middle. There are legitimate reasons IMO such as rape, incest and the mother's health.I think many are against it being used as birth control. I don't think they'll ever overturn it or ban it completely.There's no way to allow it for some reasons but not others.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"I've YET to meet any males who'd allow "some woman" to tell THEM what they were "allowed" to do with THEIR bodies."

Sham, you don't know any married men? Sad but it explains alot.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"A fetus is not an infant. Period." Again, what the*****is it? Sorry, these statements really irritate me.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The rights of the mother or father have nothing to do with the unborn’s right to life. The only debatable issue is at what point the unborn should be considered an individual and therefore has a right to life. It’s unreasonable to claim that it’s not a baby as long as one foot is still in the birth canal.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

It is up to the woman who is pregnant when it is a baby and not a fetus. She is the only one who can determine when that is not you Phil or any legislative body.

For the fetus to have rights that means that they are citizens and that would included the unborn in illegal immigrants. Something the right would never allow.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I don’t even know if chuck’s last post would qualify as magical thinking, lets call it nonsense and leave it at that.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

""A fetus is not an infant. Period." Again, what the*****is it? Sorry, these statements really irritate me."

Does it irritate your Spongebob Squarepants understanding of science to point out that there's a difference between a fetus, and a child?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Unfortunately, he hasn't appeared to shed any tears for the 1.2 million innocent unborn children aborted each year during his presidency"

Thats because an embryo isn't a child, anymore than an acorn is a tree. If you feel differently about it, please recall that you live in a free country, and thus are not required to have an abortion if you don't want one.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

If a woman ALWAYS has a human being, how can an "infant in the womb" be anything else? Change the name to make it easier to terminate, call it a right-to-choose, what, same as paper or plastic? With the mind-set of the "TMZ" voter, i.e. uninformed, gimme stuff for free, ect., ect., this Roe v. Wade ruling will be around for a long time. They have out-killed Hitler, now they're going after Stalin's and Mao's record.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Why is it that a fetus is not considered a child for abortion purposes but if a pregnant woman is killed the killer can be charged with 2 murders?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"I don’t even know if chuck’s last post would qualify as magical thinking, lets call it nonsense and leave it at that."

Nothing magical about it Phil you on the other hand are a libertarian hooligan.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Way to go with the insults Hazy. A fetus is a child not yet fully developed. It's certainly not any other animal. I don't like SpongeBob.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"If a woman ALWAYS has a human being, how can an "infant in the womb" be anything else?"

OK, lets play this game again.

1) Something that cannot survive when physically seperated from it's host can NOT be considered an "individual".

2) Something that lacks the requisite brain matter to be both conscious and self aware, can NOT be considered an individual.

It seems that the people on the right are so carried away with their black and white view of reality, they aren't even able the different stages of development of anything.

What would you call someone that called a caterpillar a butterfly?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Just because you don't like SpongeBob. Doesn't mean you don't have a cartoonish understanding of science.

And don't waste everyone's time whining about being insulted. Knowledge is the best revenge. Go read a book.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Alright Chris, lets play your game. If a baby still has one foot in the birth canal is it less an individual than one that’s fully born?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »