There's one abortion extremist in the race....Obama.

[koshergrl]

"
Google “Mitt Romney abortion,” restricting your search to the past 24 hours. You get pages and pages of hits, stories afire with the news that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney doesn’t envision abortion legislation coming before him if he were elected president, but he still supports various pro-life initiatives.

"This has lit up the left, who see themselves as the protectors of women’s “lady parts” with their pro-choice stance on abortion, and who view Republicans as enemies of women, licking their chops at the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

"—let’s not forget this: there’s only one candidate in the presidential race who believes that ladies, along with their lady parts, can be discarded with impunity, if they happen to be born as the result of a failed abortion. That is Barack Obama, the candidate who holds the most extreme positions on abortion in this campaign."

There’s one abortion extremist in this race: the president « Hot Air

"Protectors of lady parts" lolol...obviously this writer has met catz.

 

[koshergrl]

Obama's position on abortion is more extreme than NARAL:

"Barack Obama would not support a law saving the lives of babies—real, live human beings, not “fetuses”—who happened to be born after failed abortions.
This places the president to the left of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League. Here is their statement on so-called Born-Alive Acts from June 2001:

“NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year’s committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

There’s one abortion extremist in this race: the president « Hot Air
​

 

[Plasmaball]

oh good we needed a KG abortion thread.

 

[AceRothstein]

YAY! Go Obama! Go abortion! WOOHOO!

 

[Dissent]

We know this...problem is republicans nominated someone the people can't trust! He changes positions when its politically helpful to himself and his career. Obama told us what we were getting...and he is following through on it....I don't agree with him but damn...

 

[Moonglow]

another redundant thread that has been debunked before. Please try to fling new shit, and not the hard stuff, if you want it to stick.

 

[koshergrl]

It hasn't been debunked, you lying crap weasel loon. Obama doesn't even deny it.

"pro-lifers, whose viewpoints are often misrepresented as out of the mainstream (despite the areas of consensus found in the Gallup poll) and whose advocates are often ridiculed as religious zealots who all approve of violence to abortion providers (cue Law & Order music).
So, go ahead, talk about abortion, write about it, ask candidates about it. But on this topic, be clear: someone who will not stand up for live baby girls about to be tossed on the trash heap is no true champion of girls, women, ladies or any of their “parts.”

 

[Plasmaball]

yeah its been debunked over and over again, but you are too stupid to know this. Or you just don't care.

 

[AceRothstein]

yeah its been debunked over and over again, but you are too stupid to know this. Or you just don't care.

Or for both reasons you are pointing out.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No it hasnt, libtards dont want parental consent laws....they make sure they have them for a student to get an aspirin at school....but not an abortion?
And what about regulation of abortion clinics to the same standards as other medical facilities....funny liberals dont like that regulation either......

so yeah the democrats dropped rare from their abortion plank....now that is finally being honest

 

[Plasmaball]

No it hasnt, libtards dont want parental consent laws....they make sure they have them for a student to get an aspirin at school....but not an abortion?
And what about regulation of abortion clinics to the same standards as other medical facilities....funny liberals dont like that regulation either......

so yeah the democrats dropped rare from their abortion plank....now that is finally being honest

well yeah it was. The problem with being a senator on either side is you can be painted as anti something because bills and amendments tend to get lumped together and therefore you look like you are against it.

So.....yeah.....Debunked.

 

[koshergrl]

yeah its been debunked over and over again, but you are too stupid to know this. Or you just don't care.

I don't know it because it hasn't happened, crap weasel.

 

[Moonglow]

Since being moderate you attack without knowlwdge, all en in your eyes are evil rapists, pedophiles and child killers.
Obama would not vote for the bill because;

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Let us also remember that in 2002 there was aFederal law passed about the same issue but it included the language of not attempting to take away Roe ve Wade rights.

likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."[/B]Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable

So we see that there was and are already laws to protect fetuses from being killed during live births.

We also see tha Obama has never supported infancide or live birth abortion, why? Federal and state laws are and were already in place when Obama was a senator in Illinois, to not allow the practice.

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won’t try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

I know you will only call me names and use the same old dry, worn out attacks against me personally to try to make your point. He was willing to support the same federal bill for the same bill trying to be passed during Obama's tenure in the Ilinois senate. In no way has Obama ever stated thathe supports infancide or live birth abortions which are illegal in the USa period.

 

[Plasmaball]

yeah its been debunked over and over again, but you are too stupid to know this. Or you just don't care.

I don't know it because it hasn't happened, crap weasel.

what? you growing a brain? we know this already, evolution skipped over you.

 

[Moonglow]

No it hasnt, libtards dont want parental consent laws....they make sure they have them for a student to get an aspirin at school....but not an abortion?
And what about regulation of abortion clinics to the same standards as other medical facilities....funny liberals dont like that regulation either......

so yeah the democrats dropped rare from their abortion plank....now that is finally being honest

Bulshit, I would never allow , nor let my daughter have an abortion while she lived in my house under my care.. I would raise the child myself if I had too. But this progressive lib is not for abortion in my family.

 

[koshergrl]

Since being moderate you attack without knowlwdge, all en in your eyes are evil rapists, pedophiles and child killers.
Obama would not vote for the bill because;

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Let us also remember that in 2002 there was a law passed about the same issue but it included the language of not attempting to take away Roe ve Wade.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."[/QUOTE]

So we see that there was and are already laws to protect fetuses from being killed during live births.

We also see tha Obama has never supported infancide or live birth abortion, why? Federal and state laws are and were already in place when Obama was a senator in Illinois, to not allow the practice.

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won’t try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

I know you will only call me names and use the same old dry, worn out attacks against me personally to try to make your point. He was willing to support the same federal bill for the same bill trying to be passed during Obama's tenure in the Ilinois senate. In no way has Obama ever stated thathe supports infancide or live birth abortions which are illegal in the USa period.

Who are you talking to?

And what are you quoting? Link please.

 

[koshergrl]

No it hasnt, libtards dont want parental consent laws....they make sure they have them for a student to get an aspirin at school....but not an abortion?
And what about regulation of abortion clinics to the same standards as other medical facilities....funny liberals dont like that regulation either......

so yeah the democrats dropped rare from their abortion plank....now that is finally being honest

Bulshit, I would never allow , nor let my daughter have an abortion while she lived in my house under my care.. I would raise the child myself if I had too. But this progressive lib is not for abortion in my family.

Good for you.

Unfortunately for you, progressive eugenists don't think you need to know if your daughter gets an abortion.

 

[jknowgood]

Isn't that the bill he voted twice for? For everything else he voted present.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No it hasnt, libtards dont want parental consent laws....they make sure they have them for a student to get an aspirin at school....but not an abortion?
And what about regulation of abortion clinics to the same standards as other medical facilities....funny liberals dont like that regulation either......

so yeah the democrats dropped rare from their abortion plank....now that is finally being honest

Bulshit, I would never allow , nor let my daughter have an abortion while she lived in my house under my care.. I would raise the child myself if I had too. But this progressive lib is not for abortion in my family.

Well that's cool Moonglow...but I'm speaking of liberal abortion advocates AND Politicians that do what I said....they fight parental consent laws and while they love regulation of just about any business....they oppose it for abortion clinics....abortion makes them hypocritcal on a lot of their stances....

Now to give you credit, that you oppose abortion, you arent hyppocritcal on those stances...but the said advocates and polticians are

 

[koshergrl]

He doesn't oppose abortion. He just thinks he owns his daughter.