Can Reps modify abortion stance?

[Gadawg73]

It's all about dehumanizing the population they want to eliminate.

They did it to blacks, they did it to women, they did it to jews, and now they're doing it to babies. Next it will be Christians.

When are they going to do it to you?
I am pro that.

 

[USwings]

Statistics

Abortions in the United States

Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2011: 54.5 million+

234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)
Abortions per year: 1.2 million
Abortions per day: 3,288
Abortions per hour: 137
9 abortions every 4 minutes
1 abortion every 26 seconds

These statistics include only surgical and medical abortions. Because many contraceptive measures are abortifacients (drugs that induce or cause abortions), it is important not to overlook the number of children killed by chemical abortions. Since 1965, an average of 11 million women have used abortifacient methods of birth control in the United States at any given time. Using formulas based on the way the birth control pill works, pharmacy experts project that about 14 million chemical abortions occur in the United States each year, providing a projected total of well in excess of 610 million chemical abortions between 1965 and 2009.

When conducting research on abortion statistics, you may also encounter two different sets of numbers. One set is from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) and the other is from the Guttmacher Institute, the "independent research arm" of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The Guttmacher Institute totals are actually the more accurate since the Institute conducts private research on abortion providers throughout the country and because not all states are required to report to the CDC. In fact, California and New York, where high numbers of abortions occur, are not included in CDC figures.


Education > Abortion > Abortion Statistics - 07/26/2012 | ALL.org

The CDC gets their numbers from Guttmachers, and they all get their numbers from PP....which has a vested interest in lying, and isn't even required to keep track in many states.

Thanks for the info, but it's clear that pro life is a moral position without a political majority. While you complain about what "they" are doing, I have yet to see from any of you how you think Reps will win. This is a political question. What I see is that winning doesn't matter, being able to complain about abortion seems to do it for you.

 

[USwings]

Most of the problem is from both sides is a position of no return. No one wants to talk. Everyone just wants to hammer each other with their position. This is so wrong.

One has to remember though, and boy oh boy I don't mean to come off harsh or strident in my other posts, that for all conservatives, at least half of us are women. Just like the left.

When Sarah Palin talked about being alone in her hotel room knowing she was carrying a Down's Syndrome baby and truly understanding for the first time in her life, that one glimmer of a moment of the thought of abortion where she could understand it for other women, I couldn't breathe at her honesty. I knew she felt it. Sarah would never have aborted Trig, but as a woman she understood. Bless her soul. She is just so honest.

I think if we could first and foremost actually have a discussion in the conservative community to make so many begin to understand that abortion is not a casual gesture except for the most stoned out idiots among us. Women die a thousand deaths making this choice. This is painful. This hurts. This leaves scars forever on the heart.

There must be other ways. But we have to open the dialogue.

Sadly as Romney understood, you can't affect any issue if you don't hold the office. All you are left with is your opinion. I would rather our guy be the one holding the meetings, and making the choices, than be the people standing outside holding signs. If you ignore the obvious, that the electorate doesn't want abortion outlawed, the party will be labeled out of touch. If Reps don't modify on abortion and immigration they won't be in office. We have 4 years of President Obama in front of us. Reps inability to compromise has lead us to a place where American tax payers will pay for abortion regardless of your level of morality.

Romney already did modify on abortion and he still isn't in office. And, I don't particularly know what you mean by "modify" on immigration. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and they shouldn't freakin' be here. What part of they're "illegal" and "breaking the law" do some folks just plain and simply not understand? Further, this nation can barely sustain the population it now has. So, we're going to let an average of approximately 1.3 million illegals in here a year? Oh...wait, let me guess. We have to abort some babies to make room for some illegals.

Yeah, I didn't know you felt that way, thanks for the insight. Yes, the problem of immigration is beyond your simplistic comprehension, that is part of the problem. You like to try and shoot holes in my opinion. Do you agree with the parts in bold? You understand that being hard headed is not being persuasive. Do you think Reps will win the next election? How do you think they will turn things around? I said Reps need to modify. You really only see what you want through your bias glasses. Romney is not the party, so a last ditch effort of a candidate is not going to bring voters to the party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My bad 3/5ths of a "person"...as if. THE point was that in order to treat them as less then human and therefore not deserving of the rights of the Constitutional protections, they deemed them not whole persons.

In fact calling them, slaves, in effect non "persons" (only 3/5ths so) they resemble even more the unborn. All agree unborn babies are 100% human...but the pro abortionists say they are just not persons.

Sick and wicked are the ways of the depraved and indifferent.

No, Einstein, THE point was to keep slave states from having more power in the federal government. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY move. It had nothing to do with commenting on their humanity, or their "personhood", or declaring them undeserving of Constitutional protections. The Constitution doesn't even say they're "3/5 of a person". It says that representation and taxes shall be apportioned by adding "the whole number of free persons . . . and excluding Indians not taxed, and three fifths of all other persons". That's a big difference.

Are you TRYING to present yourself as a poster child for the failure of American public schooling? You usually do a lot better at resisting the Illiteracy Kool-Aid than this.

I know what the ******* point is...since I am making it. I KNOW why they did so-that does nothing to tear down the fact of why they were able to deem them 3/5ths in the first place idgit. The POINT ms dumb shit is that they were ******* able to do so because they did not consider them ******* whole persons... they were mere slaves. Unworthy of Constitutional protections...JUST LIKE unborn babies.

The only Poster Child here is you trying out for uppity ***** of the year who can't understand a simple idea, but thinks she needs to explain one that was never in contention to begin with.

The POINT, Ms. Dumb ****, is that the only "proof" you have that slaves were not viewed as persons is a line in the Constitution that says nothing of the sort, and your own drinking of the Kool-Aid and projecting onto others. The POINT, that you are NOT making because you're utterly uneducated on this subject ASIDE from swallowing propaganda, is that they didn't NEED to "think of them as less than people" to "be able" to make that provision in the Constitution, because it was the people who wanted to END slavery who did it. Are you seriously trying to tell me that they were saying, "We need to end slavery, and we can decrease the power of the Southern states THIS way because blacks aren't whole people"? Is THAT the position you think I'm supposed to respect? It's pretty damned hard NOT to be uppity to you when you spew out ignorant shit like that. Almost anyone could feel superior in comparison.

Maybe YOU'D be dumb enough to try to justify slavery by claiming that they "weren't really people" or "they weren't whole people", since that sort of intellectual laziness and utter ******* stupidity seems so popular these days and you seem sadly susceptible to believing any damned thing that comes down the media pike, but back then, people believed the evidence of their own eyes, and the asswipery of "personhood separate from humanity" hadn't been invented yet. Blacks were demonized by being seen as UNCIVILIZED people and primitive savages, not by trying to pretend they weren't human beings at all, since the fact that they are is quite visually obvious.

And no justification was needed to not count slaves the same as free citizens for representation aside from the fact that slave states shouldn't be allowed to use their enslavement of human beings to increase their political power. Certainly they didn't need to find extra justification in a prejudice AGAINST the very black people they were trying to help.

Why don't you see if you can sound a little ******* dumber, Not-The-Least-Bit-Clever Girl, but do it on someone else's dime. You've exhausted any claim to being worth reading, let alone responding to. I'll let you know if I ever decide you're not beneath notice again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts are these: Cecilie1200 and koshergrl are certifiably nuts, clevergirl is fighting for a position, and the far right is refusing to see that they do not have a majority anymore in the party for their restrictive positions.

Yes, if it is only about yelling for them, fine, that is their right.

But if they want to be players in the political process, they will have to grow up.

 

[koshergrl]

Sadly as Romney understood, you can't affect any issue if you don't hold the office. All you are left with is your opinion. I would rather our guy be the one holding the meetings, and making the choices, than be the people standing outside holding signs. If you ignore the obvious, that the electorate doesn't want abortion outlawed, the party will be labeled out of touch. If Reps don't modify on abortion and immigration they won't be in office. We have 4 years of President Obama in front of us. Reps inability to compromise has lead us to a place where American tax payers will pay for abortion regardless of your level of morality.

Romney already did modify on abortion and he still isn't in office. And, I don't particularly know what you mean by "modify" on immigration. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and they shouldn't freakin' be here. What part of they're "illegal" and "breaking the law" do some folks just plain and simply not understand? Further, this nation can barely sustain the population it now has. So, we're going to let an average of approximately 1.3 million illegals in here a year? Oh...wait, let me guess. We have to abort some babies to make room for some illegals.

Yeah, I didn't know you felt that way, thanks for the insight. Yes, the problem of immigration is beyond your simplistic comprehension, that is part of the problem. You like to try and shoot holes in my opinion. Do you agree with the parts in bold? You understand that being hard headed is not being persuasive. Do you think Reps will win the next election? How do you think they will turn things around? I said Reps need to modify. You really only see what you want through your bias glasses. Romney is not the party, so a last ditch effort of a candidate is not going to bring voters to the party.

We've compromised ourselves right into irrelevance.

And it's the so-called "moderates" (who really are lefties) in our own party that have brought us to where we are. And what do they propose now? That we swing further left.

What's the point of winning if we become democrats to do it? Democrats are in power now, what is the point of a change if there's really no change at all?

 

[AmyNation]

Sadly as Romney understood, you can't affect any issue if you don't hold the office. All you are left with is your opinion. I would rather our guy be the one holding the meetings, and making the choices, than be the people standing outside holding signs. If you ignore the obvious, that the electorate doesn't want abortion outlawed, the party will be labeled out of touch. If Reps don't modify on abortion and immigration they won't be in office. We have 4 years of President Obama in front of us. Reps inability to compromise has lead us to a place where American tax payers will pay for abortion regardless of your level of morality.

Romney already did modify on abortion and he still isn't in office. And, I don't particularly know what you mean by "modify" on immigration. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and they shouldn't freakin' be here. What part of they're "illegal" and "breaking the law" do some folks just plain and simply not understand? Further, this nation can barely sustain the population it now has. So, we're going to let an average of approximately 1.3 million illegals in here a year? Oh...wait, let me guess. We have to abort some babies to make room for some illegals.

Yeah, I didn't know you felt that way, thanks for the insight. Yes, the problem of immigration is beyond your simplistic comprehension, that is part of the problem. You like to try and shoot holes in my opinion. Do you agree with the parts in bold? You understand that being hard headed is not being persuasive. Do you think Reps will win the next election? How do you think they will turn things around? I said Reps need to modify. You really only see what you want through your bias glasses. Romney is not the party, so a last ditch effort of a candidate is not going to bring voters to the party.

While I do think the party as a whole needs a facelift, I also dont think the GOP lost because of their stance on abortion or immigration.

They ran an uninspiring candidate, who didn't have any bold ideas. They allowed the dems to drive the conversation and did a poor job of refuting the positions dems assigned them.

The GOP's position on abortion is mainstream america, they need to do a better job of communicating that, or perhaps simply do a better job of calling out dem lies.

 

[koshergrl]

Yup.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The GOP platform on abortion is extremist not mainstream. Mainstream is a commitment to abortion rights with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. The party must move to that officially before the next presidential election.

Our stance on abortion was not acceptable to 70% of Hispanics and the overwhelming majorities of other immigrant populations in America. So, yes, that contributed to our loss.

You are right Romney was uninspiring. Anybody farther to the right than him would have been worse. A candidacy of a Ryan or a Santorum or a Perry would have been a disaster.

We have good potential candidates, and, yes, let's do a face lift for the GOP.

While I do think the party as a whole needs a facelift, I also dont think the GOP lost because of their stance on abortion or immigration. // They ran an uninspiring candidate, who didn't have any bold ideas. They allowed the dems to drive the conversation and did a poor job of refuting the positions dems assigned them. //
The GOP's position on abortion is mainstream america, they need to do a better job of communicating that, or perhaps simply do a better job of calling out dem lies.

 

[Katzndogz]

No, they claimed that they were "less than" human 3/5 human to be exact.

No one EVER claimed that a slave was "3/5 of a human". Every time I hear this canard parroted, I just weep for the state of History and Civics education in this country.

Of course, every time I talk to anyone under the age of 30, I weep for ALL education in this country, but that's a different topic.

My bad 3/5ths of a "person"...as if. THE point was that in order to treat them as less then human and therefore not deserving of the rights of the Constitutional protections, they deemed them not whole persons.

In fact calling them, slaves, in effect non "persons" (only 3/5ths so) they resemble even more the unborn. All agree unborn babies are 100% human...but the pro abortionists say they are just not persons.

Sick and wicked are the ways of the depraved and indifferent.

It is well to weep for the state of education in the country.

The three fifths compromise didn't have a thing to do with whether the slaves were "persons". It had to do with political representation. If the slaves were counted as "persons" for purposes of apportioning congressional representation slave holding states would overwhelm the north and reduce the political power in non slave holding states. The south would have many more representatives in Congress than the north.

Weep for the state of education in this country.

 

[koshergrl]

I do, every day.

 

[koshergrl]

The GOP platform on abortion is extremist not mainstream. Mainstream is a commitment to abortion rights with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. The party must move to that officially before the next presidential election.

Our stance on abortion was not acceptable to 70% of Hispanics and the overwhelming majorities of other immigrant populations in America. So, yes, that contributed to our loss.

You are right Romney was uninspiring. Anybody farther to the right than him would have been worse. A candidacy of a Ryan or a Santorum or a Perry would have been a disaster.

We have good potential candidates, and, yes, let's do a face lift for the GOP.

While I do think the party as a whole needs a facelift, I also dont think the GOP lost because of their stance on abortion or immigration. // They ran an uninspiring candidate, who didn't have any bold ideas. They allowed the dems to drive the conversation and did a poor job of refuting the positions dems assigned them. //
The GOP's position on abortion is mainstream america, they need to do a better job of communicating that, or perhaps simply do a better job of calling out dem lies.

^^^mentally ill loon who pretends progressives are the mainstream of the Republican party.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Sadly as Romney understood, you can't affect any issue if you don't hold the office. All you are left with is your opinion. I would rather our guy be the one holding the meetings, and making the choices, than be the people standing outside holding signs. If you ignore the obvious, that the electorate doesn't want abortion outlawed, the party will be labeled out of touch. If Reps don't modify on abortion and immigration they won't be in office. We have 4 years of President Obama in front of us. Reps inability to compromise has lead us to a place where American tax payers will pay for abortion regardless of your level of morality.

Romney already did modify on abortion and he still isn't in office. And, I don't particularly know what you mean by "modify" on immigration. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and they shouldn't freakin' be here. What part of they're "illegal" and "breaking the law" do some folks just plain and simply not understand? Further, this nation can barely sustain the population it now has. So, we're going to let an average of approximately 1.3 million illegals in here a year? Oh...wait, let me guess. We have to abort some babies to make room for some illegals.

Yeah, I didn't know you felt that way, thanks for the insight. Yes, the problem of immigration is beyond your simplistic comprehension, that is part of the problem. You like to try and shoot holes in my opinion. Do you agree with the parts in bold? You understand that being hard headed is not being persuasive. Do you think Reps will win the next election? How do you think they will turn things around? I said Reps need to modify. You really only see what you want through your bias glasses. Romney is not the party, so a last ditch effort of a candidate is not going to bring voters to the party.

The problem of immigration is beyond my alleged simplistic comprehension? How so...milquetoast? The problem with immigration is very simple...really. And, insofar as agreeing with the parts in bold? Well now, we presume Obama will be president for the next four years, barring unforeseen circumstances. And, that you presume taxpayers will be paying for abortions regardless of my morality? Don't count on it. And, lastly, do I think the Reps will win the next election? I don't make predictions as I'm not a soothsayer. I don't have the luxury of having a crystal ball of which I can peer in to, which shows me the future. But, they have just as much chance at winning as Democrats do and, to turn things around? They need to stop being such RINOs and pandering to the left. Then, perhaps, all those conservatives who stayed home the last election and the election before that because they felt Romney and McCain were too liberal, will actually go out and vote.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The facts are these: Cecilie1200 and koshergrl are certifiably nuts, clevergirl is fighting for a position, and the far right is refusing to see that they do not have a majority anymore in the party for their restrictive positions.

They do not have a majority anymore in the party for their restrictive positions? You made that up...didn't you? You have absolutely zero to substantiate your claim...right? Go ahead, let's see you qualify your claim with some actual proof to back it up. That's your challenge for the day.

 

[clevergirl]

No one EVER claimed that a slave was "3/5 of a human". Every time I hear this canard parroted, I just weep for the state of History and Civics education in this country.

Of course, every time I talk to anyone under the age of 30, I weep for ALL education in this country, but that's a different topic.

My bad 3/5ths of a "person"...as if. THE point was that in order to treat them as less then human and therefore not deserving of the rights of the Constitutional protections, they deemed them not whole persons.

In fact calling them, slaves, in effect non "persons" (only 3/5ths so) they resemble even more the unborn. All agree unborn babies are 100% human...but the pro abortionists say they are just not persons.

Sick and wicked are the ways of the depraved and indifferent.

It is well to weep for the state of education in the country.

The three fifths compromise didn't have a thing to do with whether the slaves were "persons". It had to do with political representation. If the slaves were counted as "persons" for purposes of apportioning congressional representation slave holding states would overwhelm the north and reduce the political power in non slave holding states. The south would have many more representatives in Congress than the north.

Weep for the state of education in this country.

WTF point is that you THINK you have made. Let's see, the government just decided that an entire class of people could not be counted as whole persons for the sake of power? Please do let us all see what educated insight you bring here.

For the umteenth ******* time...I know WHY they did it. The point was that they did not consider them WHOLE persons! Neither are the unborn considered whole persons... poof, just like that, government can determine the value of a person? ******* sick!

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The GOP platform on abortion is extremist not mainstream.

Bullshit!

Mainstream is a commitment to abortion rights with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. The party must move to that officially before the next presidential election.

Not when 50% of Americans are pro-life while, 41% of Americans are pro-choice.

Our stance on abortion was not acceptable to 70% of Hispanics and the overwhelming majorities of other immigrant populations in America. So, yes, that contributed to our loss.

Substantiate this claim. Don't just make shit up, back it up with some verifiable actual numbers.

You are right Romney was uninspiring. Anybody farther to the right than him would have been worse. A candidacy of a Ryan or a Santorum or a Perry would have been a disaster.

A disaster for the left...of course.

We have good potential candidates, and, yes, let's do a face lift for the GOP.[/quote]

Let me take a wild guess at one of the candidates you feel is a good potential candidate. John Huntsman...maybe? Yeah, he's even more of a flaming leftturd than Romney was. But, that's why I suspect you most likely feel he'd be a good "potential" candidate. Am I wrong?

While I do think the party as a whole needs a facelift, I also dont think the GOP lost because of their stance on abortion or immigration. // They ran an uninspiring candidate, who didn't have any bold ideas. They allowed the dems to drive the conversation and did a poor job of refuting the positions dems assigned them. //
The GOP's position on abortion is mainstream america, they need to do a better job of communicating that, or perhaps simply do a better job of calling out dem lies.

[/QUOTE]

 

[koshergrl]

jake makes shit up.

He's a mentally ill progressive, who thinks he's pulling the republican party to the left by repeatedly saying "I am representative of the republican party...all non-progressives are *extremists*". He's a lying douchebag, he won't substantiate anything. He's just a troll. Most of the posters on this board have him on ignore, which is why you only see a handful respond to him.

 

[JoeB131]

"
In March, Dan Shansky left Wisconsin for California to take a job with a union there, but that didn’t stop him from casting a ballot in the June 5th recall election. The community organizer, who lists the Milwaukee-based Community Action Now as a recent employer, was heavily involved over the past year and a half in the protest and recall movement in Wisconsin."



ELECTION FRAUD: California Union Official Voted in WI Recall

Oh Noes, one whole vote?

 

[JakeStarkey]

CG needs to do some googling and research instead of living in the dim cellars of his mind. Since CG does not support his numbers, I will ignore them. CG does not understand that almost all Americans are pro-life in that they don't like abortion. The majority of Americans will support abortion for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Our current GOP plank of abortion is small minority America, and the mainstream abhors it.

Since 66% of single women, 55% of all women, 70% of Hispanics, plus the large majorities of almost all minorities voted against Romney, common sense (CG is deficient here) tells us they would vote in greater numbers against Santorum or Ryan or Perry.

Check Huntsman's record as governor, and you will find that he is sufficiently conservative enough for you, CG.

 

[koshergrl]

CG needs to do some googling and research instead of living in the dim cellars of his mind. Since CG does not support his numbers, I will ignore them. CG does not understand that almost all Americans are pro-life in that they don't like abortion. The majority of Americans will support abortion for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Our current GOP plank of abortion is small minority America, and the mainstream abhors it.

Since 66% of single women, 55% of all women, 70% of Hispanics, plus the large majorities of almost all minorities voted against Romney, common sense (CG is deficient here) tells us they would vote in greater numbers against Santorum or Ryan or Perry.

Check Huntsman's record as governor, and you will find that he is sufficiently conservative enough for you, CG.

Shut up, you wack job, you've never supported anything you've said, ever.

I mean, statistically, at least ONE time you'd think you'd be able to easily justify your bizarre rantings....just as a matter of chance.

But you never have. So I have to admire the fact that you are the one most consistently and diabolically dishonest ****** on this site...that you are able to avoid even being accidentally truthful about something is indicative of a lot of effort on your part, and I have to admire the sweat equity, if nothing else.