The abortion bogeyman

[alan1]

The abortion bogeyman​

The president cannot change abortion laws. See, there was this thing called Roe Vs Wade back in 1973 where the Supreme Court of the USA made a decision about abortion. No president can overturn that SCOTUS decision. Only the SCOTUS can overturn that decision. The president can nominate Supreme court justices, but it still takes a majority of the Senate to confirm said nomination. This whole “banning” abortion claim on the side of the liberals is a false point of discussion used to instill fear in their electorate. And the media eats it up, plays on it, tries to make it a valid topic – a valid reason to dismiss a candidate. It isn’t a valid argument.

It’s a bogeyman argument.
Basing ones decision whether or not to vote on a candidate concerning said candidates view on abortion is retarded. The media needs to stop pretending that is some sort of yardstick for measuring a candidate.
The foolish liberals need to stop making a personal decision about abortion a sticking point for them.
The foolish conservatives need to stop thinking that a president can change that SCOTUS decision.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a bogeman argument but that's not the complaint. The complaint against Romney is that he personally has morals and character. He might influence others. And, he will appoint Supreme Court justices that may not support the adult male rapists of under age girls.

 

[Plasmaball]

It's a bogeman argument but that's not the complaint. The complaint against Romney is that he personally has morals and character. He might influence others. And, he will appoint Supreme Court justices that may not support the adult male rapists of under age girls.

Oh good you said something retarded

 

[alan1]

It's a bogeman argument but that's not the complaint. The complaint against Romney is that he personally has morals and character. He might influence others. And, he will appoint Supreme Court justices that may not support the adult male rapists of under age girls.

Oh good you said something retarded

And you avoided the topic completely.
Care to add content instead of schoolyard insults?

 

[Sinjorri]

if you think abortion is not a big deal dont judge on people that do think abortion is a big deal. That is being immature. I am sorry if it offends you that i loathe that murderers get a second chance but an innocent baby does not. Excuse me for enjoying life and would wish life on anyone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The abortion bogeyman​

The president cannot change abortion laws. See, there was this thing called Roe Vs Wade back in 1973 where the Supreme Court of the USA made a decision about abortion. No president can overturn that SCOTUS decision. Only the SCOTUS can overturn that decision. The president can nominate Supreme court justices, but it still takes a majority of the Senate to confirm said nomination. This whole “banning” abortion claim on the side of the liberals is a false point of discussion used to instill fear in their electorate. And the media eats it up, plays on it, tries to make it a valid topic – a valid reason to dismiss a candidate. It isn’t a valid argument.

It’s a bogeyman argument.
Basing ones decision whether or not to vote on a candidate concerning said candidates view on abortion is retarded. The media needs to stop pretending that is some sort of yardstick for measuring a candidate.
The foolish liberals need to stop making a personal decision about abortion a sticking point for them.
The foolish conservatives need to stop thinking that a president can change that SCOTUS decision.

It is appropriate to base one’s vote on the likelihood of the types of judicial appointments a given candidate may make as president, including appointments to the Supreme Court.

Although it’s true a president can’t ‘ban’ abortion by fiat, he can appoint to the Federal courts, and Supreme Court, jurists hostile to the right to privacy, as demonstrated by their opposition to abortion, resulting in a loss of individual liberty and expansion of government authority.

‘Abortion’ is thus an indication as to whether a presidential candidate or jurist is an advocate of privacy rights and individual liberty or an advocate of a powerful state authorized to interfere with Americans’ personal lives.

Consequently, abortion is not a ‘bogeyman argument,’ as it goes to the very heart of fundamental American values: individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law.

 

[Moonglow]

It's a bogeman argument but that's not the complaint. The complaint against Romney is that he personally has morals and character. He might influence others. And, he will appoint Supreme Court justices that may not support the adult male rapists of under age girls.

OH Good God! A polichic clone/drone/soc

 

[Greenbeard]

It’s a bogeyman argument.
Basing ones decision whether or not to vote on a candidate concerning said candidates view on abortion is retarded. The media needs to stop pretending that is some sort of yardstick for measuring a candidate.

There's an easy way Mitt can make this go away. He can stop going around saying he thinks Roe needs to be overturned and go back to saying this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4]Romney on Abortion - 2002 - YouTube[/ame]

Problem solved.

 

[Colin]

if you think abortion is not a big deal dont judge on people that do think abortion is a big deal. That is being immature. I am sorry if it offends you that i loathe that murderers get a second chance but an innocent baby does not. Excuse me for enjoying life and would wish life on anyone.

How can you have the gall to say that when YOU don't practice what you preach!

Here's an example of how YOU judge others....

i just pity you at this point, eitehr you really believe that, or you are just showing people how immature you are. Either way i hope you grow up, and i mean that because the person who was aborted wont get that chance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/245631-a-question-for-pro-lifers-29.html#post5985901

Hypocrite comes to mind.

 

[alan1]

The abortion bogeyman​

The president cannot change abortion laws. See, there was this thing called Roe Vs Wade back in 1973 where the Supreme Court of the USA made a decision about abortion. No president can overturn that SCOTUS decision. Only the SCOTUS can overturn that decision. The president can nominate Supreme court justices, but it still takes a majority of the Senate to confirm said nomination. This whole “banning” abortion claim on the side of the liberals is a false point of discussion used to instill fear in their electorate. And the media eats it up, plays on it, tries to make it a valid topic – a valid reason to dismiss a candidate. It isn’t a valid argument.

It’s a bogeyman argument.
Basing ones decision whether or not to vote on a candidate concerning said candidates view on abortion is retarded. The media needs to stop pretending that is some sort of yardstick for measuring a candidate.
The foolish liberals need to stop making a personal decision about abortion a sticking point for them.
The foolish conservatives need to stop thinking that a president can change that SCOTUS decision.

It is appropriate to base one’s vote on the likelihood of the types of judicial appointments a given candidate may make as president, including appointments to the Supreme Court.

I agree

Although it’s true a president can’t ‘ban’ abortion by fiat, he can appoint to the Federal courts, and Supreme Court, jurists hostile to the right to privacy, as demonstrated by their opposition to abortion, resulting in a loss of individual liberty and expansion of government authority.

‘Abortion’ is thus an indication as to whether a presidential candidate or jurist is an advocate of privacy rights and individual liberty or an advocate of a powerful state authorized to interfere with Americans’ personal lives.

Consequently, abortion is not a ‘bogeyman argument,’ as it goes to the very heart of fundamental American values: individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law.

It is a bogeyman fear tactic of the left and media (redundancy alert). The president can't change that law, but both the left and the media (second redundancy alert) like to pretend that they can, and thus, the media tries to make it a topic of discussion when it comes to electing a president.
Agree with abortion or disagree with it, the president can't change the law.
Why does the media harp on the subject? Why does the media pretend it is a yardstick?