The Next President of the USA will be?

[Hermit_]

NO PROGRAM will be effective if the children have no support at home, to include religious exposure. Yeah, I believe in God, too.

All the studies in the world mean nothing if the parents aren't raising their kids right.

And as I said before, if you're just mouthing all the "required parent-type stuff" (stay out of trouble, don't have sex, yada yada yada) but not reinforcing it with real effort, a solid foundation of religious principles and morals, and expecting the absolute best of them, you'll get just what your studies prove - it's the same as not even saying anything to them at all.

And here's a clue - LOTS of kids make it to their wedding night without pre-marital sex - it's hardly impossible.

My only point is not enough parents make the necessary effort to support their kids, instead giving in to the notion that "they're gonna do it anyway."

Your only point is well taken. I don't disagree. But since you and I have no control over what parents "out there in the world" do and don't-do, and since we do know for a fact that "not enough parents make the necessary effort to support their kids", then we can do the responsible thing and make sure that sex/reproductive/birth control education and counseling is available to those kids whose parents are ineffective and/or downright irresponsible.

Then why do they object so vehemently against women viewing sonagram/ultrasound images of their babies?

God forbid they get a glimpse of the living growing human baby inside them and decide maybe having a doctor poke a hole through its skull and vacuum its brain out before then removing the remains of the baby might not be such a great idea, after all.

You're misrepresenting the issue. PP doesn't "vehemently oppose women viewing sonograms/ultrasound images of their babies", they oppose women "being forced to" view sonogram/ultrasound images of their babies. I think women should be encouraged to look at the ultrasound image as doing so may influence their decision, but I don't think they should be forced to look at the image.

Apply that rationale to any other abhorrent act and see how it fits:

And as much as I'd prefer to see <insert random vile act HERE> not happen, I recognize that

they will take place.. and as such I support keeping them safe and legal.

I anticipated you'd come back with that response.

The reality is that unplanned pregnancies do happen; the reality is that in many of those circumstances the woman makes the choice (for reasons that are none of your or my business) to not have the child and seeks.. and has.. an abortion. Regardless of whether abortions are legal or not, they will take place, even if it means resorting to a coat-hanger and a bottle of whiskey. That is the reality. Its a grim reality, but it is a reality. I say keep abortions safe.

Here's another reality.. if those abortions didn't happen, unwanted children would:

1. further overwhelm the already overwhelmed adoption and foster care systems;

2. be abandoned, neglected and/or abused by their birth mothers who don't want them and/or are completely unfit to raise them;

3. would be born with birth defects or addicted to drugs (resulting from the mother being an addict throughout her pregnancy).

You pro-life folks like to rail against the injustice of abortion, but you're the same folks who rail against taxes to pay for social programs.. programs that would care for the children who are born rather than aborted. Pray tell, Typo, who do you propose is going to care for all those unwanted children who you would mandate be born to unfit mothers or to mothers who simply don't want to raise a child?.. and who is going to pay for that care?

Maybe married gay couples could adopt some of them, eh?

The truth is, I don't object so much to the legality of abortion as I do to the use of state or federal taxes to fund abortion or organizations that promote abortion. Again, except in the case of rape incest or endangerment of life.

Nobody "promotes" abortion. Nobody "delights" in abortions being performed. But the reality is that some women simply are not prepared to have a child at the time in which they mistakenly get pregnant. Of course I would rather see those kids delivered and given up for adoption and/or placed in foster care, but the reality is that those systems are already overwhelmed and underfunded. You cant have it both ways, Typo. If you want these kids born, you gotta be willing to pony up and pay (taxes) to fund programs have them cared for. The mothers that don't want them will give them up or neglect them; someone is gonna have to step in and care for them and someone (Joe taxpayer?) is going to have to pay for it.

Are you willing to see taxes raised to ensure that every child who is not aborted gets the care they need? And can you really "pay" someone to give a child what it needs most.. LOVE?

My biggest problem with pro-choice is:

Why is it illegal to even so much as put a filling in one of my daughter's teeth without my knowledge and consent, but it's OK to perform a D&C on her without my knowledge and consent?

Some states require parental consent of just one parent (or sometimes a grandparent); some states require consent of both parents; some states require only parental notification; and some states require neither parental consent nor parental notification. Its a mixed bag.

Anyway, what are you worried about, muh-man? If you did your job as a parent (based on the standard you set for other parents) your daughter won't have sex until she gets married, and this wont be an you have to deal with, right? And if you've been a good parent and have a solid daughter-parent relationship with your daughter and she did get pregnant by mistake, surely she'd tell you she got pregnant and she'd involve you in her decision, right?

You got the ideal family unit, Typo,.. you got nothing to worry about! ..right?

But let's say a parent (mom or dad) has been emotionally, physically, and perhaps even sexually abusive to their 16 year old daughter for years and years, and she knows full well that if she tells them she's pregnant [btw, she got pregnant by the stoner drug dealer drop-out she met hanging out on the street corner who she had sex with one time] she'll get beaten within an inch of her life.. over and over again.. should she still have to get parental consent.. and take their beatings.. in order to get an abortion?

..maybe she should carry the child she doesn't want to term and then give it over to

the adoption and/or foster care program your new tax hikes are gonna pay for, eh!?

I'm gonna drop my side of the abortion debate in the President thread, partly because I grow weary, and partly because it could engulf the whole thread, much as it does with the country in general. It's a debate that will change few minds, I know nothing I say will change your views, nor you mine.

Fair enough, bro.

So, back on topic - Obama is a poor choice for president.

There.

hijack released.

In comparison to the hundreds of millions the McCains have,

you're right, Obama is the poorer of the two choices *wink*..

..but Barack Obama is going to be the next POTUS. And pro-choice.. pro-Roe v Wade..

pro-women's health care issues women all across America are going to help him win.

[Pb Derigable]

Sounds very 'Rovish' as in Karl Rove to me.

Would be a great move, possibly grab up a bunch of those disgruntled Hillary gals by the bushel.

Del,

I love this election just based on the strategies and backroom deal that goes on. Yes, I would like somebody who could claim to be near the right. Still I hate how there is so called democratic or Republicans strategist,who are just cheerleaders. I love Karl Rove. I think Dick Morris is really good along with Kirsten Powers. They do have rooting interest, but they will admit when their candidate is wrong (unlike a some people on this site) and they have points on how the other candidate can beat their candidate.

[TypeO]

Anyway, what are you worried about, muh-man? If you did your job as a parent (based on the standard you set for other parents) your daughter won't have sex until she gets married, and this wont be an you have to deal with, right? And if you've been a good parent and have a solid daughter-parent relationship with your daughter and she did get pregnant by mistake, surely she'd tell you she got pregnant and she'd involve you in her decision, right?

You got the ideal family unit, Typo,.. you got nothing to worry about! ..right?

Your condescension is duly noted.

It was simply an example, my daughter just turned 8.

[eternal light]

For Father’s Day my son gave me a CD I’ve wanted for awhile, Merle Haggard’s “Bluegrass Sessions.” In that CD lies a story about how America has changed in less than a generation.

Hags has always had a checkered reputation among white liberals as does most country music. It reminds me of the famous line from the original “Grand Ole Opry,” when host George D. Hay said, “This ain’t grand opera it’s the grand ole opry!” For white liberals, especially of the limousine variety, country music gets associated with the word redneck a lot and many of them think of Merle Haggard as the biggest redneck of them all. Some progressives would no more have a Haggard CD in the house than watch Bill O’Reilly or read a book by Ann Coulter.

But to lump Haggard with those two is to completely misread the man. First, he’s got more talent. I remember reading once that his voice covers eight octaves. He also recorded one of the first country concept albums–and one of the greatest American recordings–a two record tribute to Jimmie Rodgers titled “Same Train, Different Time.”

Merle Haggard is actually one of a dying breed, a country performer who came up the hard way, from the poorest of backgrounds with a stint in San Quentin on his record, where legend has it he heard Johnny Cash and decided to become a country singer.

Like Cash, Loretta Lynn and others, Haggard gave a voice to those who didn’t have a voice, who needed someone to tell their stories, from those who worked the cotton fields like Cash’s family or the mines like Lynn’s or the California labor camps filled with displaced Okies like Haggard’s family.

The Counterrevolution tried to turn Haggard into an icon, an Ann Coulter with a guitar, but he shunned the role, for he is a more complex soul than that. He also was plainly uncomfortable with being used. Sometimes when he would sing “Okie from Muskogee” he would do it with that famous Haggard smirk he can get. Some got it, some didn’t, and some refused to say they got it.

Back a few years ago, country music stars wrapped themselves in the flag and those who didn’t were soundly castigated. Remember the Dixie Chicks? In a London concert lead singer Texas native Natalie Maines said on stage,

We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.

Immediately after the remarks hit this side of the pond, a firestorm broke out, with people calling for a boycott of the Chicks and smashing CDs in demonstrations designed to attract as many cameras as possible. In one of the most controversial reactions, radio stations stopped playing Chicks’ recordings. Gail Austin, Clear Channel’s director of programming for two Jacksonville, Florida stations said:

Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, [we] have taken the Dixie Chicks off our play lists.

That was 2003, but in a signal of things to come, one of the country performers who spoke out for the Chicks was none other than Merle Haggard.

Five years later even stars such as Toby Keith, who plays a star-spangled guitar, and Tim McGraw had changed their tunes. According to CommonDreams.org:

Now Keith says he is a lifelong Democrat and has claimed he never supported the war….Tim McGraw - the biggest contemporary country star - has a hit single with If You’re Reading This, about a dead soldier’s last letter home, and the Dixie Chicks, boycotted in 2003 after lead singer Natalie Maines told an audience in London: “We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas,” won five Grammy Awards this year.

But the biggest story of all is Haggard. This fall when Haggard came out with the “Bluegrass Sessions” he had America talking yet again. This time the center of attention was a song titled “What Happened?” The tag line of which is:

What happened? Where did America go?

I can’t quote any more of the lyrics because of copyright restrictions, but let’s just say “What Happened?” is an interesting song the covers a lot of bases. Some of them echo themes in the book Strange Death. For example, Haggard’s chorus laments the decline of “mom and pop” owned stores at the expense of corporate behemoths such as Wal-Mart. He also hits the high price of gasoline (and this was before it hit $4) and one of his–and America’s favorite topics–the evening news.

On the other hand there a Reagan-like complaint about Uncle Sam spending your money and an ambiguous line about “truth that stood for years” no longer means anything. Finally there is the requisite reference to 9/11.

In many ways, “What Happened?” is a laundry list of the complaints that you can find in any recent poll about the attitudes of American voters. In short, they are angry and frustrated. Back a year ago, just before the Iowa primary, a Des Moines Register poll showed:

Sixty-four percent of Iowans believed “things have gotten off track.

After the release of his album Haggard did a most un-Haggard-like thing: he hit the road hustling his CD and gave interviews that made clear exactly how he felt about what had happened to America under one George W. Bush.

No less than Time ran a story, “Does Merle Haggard Speak for America?” which laid it all out:

Merle Haggard has always had his guitar hardwired to the gutbucket pulse of Middle America. Back in the Vietnam era, he seemed the essence of a historic political migration: white males fleeing the feminized, antiwar, politically correct Democratic Party.

In the interview Haggard went after George Bush, mincing no words:

The folks don’t have a say-so anymore. They’re being force-fed—music, yeah, but every other darn thing too. I supported George W. I’m not exactly a liberal. But I know how that Texas thing works, who those oil folks are and what they wanted in Iraq… I’m a born-again Christian too, but the longer I live, the more afraid I get of some of these religious groups that have so much influence on the Republicans and want to tell us how to live our lives.

But Haggard wasn’t done:

The thing that gets under my skin most about George W. is his intention to install fear in people. This is America. We’re proud. We’re not afraid of a bunch of terrorists. But this government is all about terror alerts and scaring us at airports. We’re changing the Constitution out of fear. We spend all our time looking up each other’s dresses. Fear’s the only issue the Republican Party has. Vote for them, or the terrorists will win. That’s not what Reagan was about. I hate to think about our soldiers over in Iraq fighting for a country that’s slipping away.

Then Haggard did something even more unprecedented he wrote a song endorsing Hillary Clinton for President with the line:

This country needs to be honest/This country needs to be large/Something like a big switch of gender/Let’s put a woman in charge.

Back in the 1960s there was a saying that when Lyndon Johnson lost Walter Cronkite was when he knew he had lost the American people. When George W. Bush lost Merle Haggard he had to feel he had lost the American people. The Counterrevolution also has to be worried that maybe America is finally catching on to its game.

Haggard’s support of Hillary Clinton also hints at an important dynamic that the Democrats would be wise to heed. Clinton’s successes were fueled by what might be termed “Haggard voters,” working class people who have long represented the core of Haggard’s audience. With Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal from the election there has been much speculation about where these voters will go come November.

If I were Barack Obama and the Democratic Party I would be sure I did not lose the “Haggard voters.” The themes he evokes in “What Happened?” are essentially about a country in which the playing field has become tilted so much that we have to wonder, “Where did America go?” Merle Haggard may be trying to tell the Democratic Party it needs to recover this theme.

What do you suppose would happen if Haggard wrote a song for Obama? That truly would signal change is in the air.

http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/tag/loretta-lynn

[zosodude13]

Here's a hint - stay in school.

What you refer to as a "simple" majority rule would trample underfoot most of what the framers of our Constitution and our nation understood wa-a-a-y-yy back then, yet many people STILL don't get today:

Your majority rule would completely eliminate/disenfranchise the votes and wishes of easily 75% of the states in our nation.

Does that seem fair?

That as long as you could win a few key major population areas over, you'd be president.

Our country would basically be run by the cities of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

With a population around 300 million, and most presidential elections hovering around 50% turnout, 75-80 million votes would put you in the White House.

Top 10 metro areas (2007 est.)

1 New York - 18,815,988

2 Los Angeles - 12,875,587

3 Chicago - 9,524,673

4 Dallas - 6,145,037

5 Philadelphia - 5,827,962

6 Houston - 5,628,101

7 Miami - 5,413,212

8 Washington - 5,306,565

9 Atlanta - 5,278,904

10 Boston 4,482,857

The top 3 represent over 40 million votes, a vast majority of which will consistently vote democratic/liberal.

What happens to the people of South Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, and many many more? They are effectively eliminated from having any say in who becomes president.

Candidates wouldn't even bother campaigning there. The will of a few major population areas would be imposed on the remainder of the country.

Anyone who favors "majority rule" over the electoral college system either doesn't understand it or doesn't care.

its a simple reason why there needs to be a simple majority popular vote: one vote should count as one vote.

as for tour point about disenfranchising votes... becuase of the winner-take-all electoral college system, voters can be turned away by the possible outcome

how do you think republicans in New York or Democrats in Texas feel when the electoral college totally ignores their vote? there are two states who give their electoral votes proportionatly to the popular vote and they are Nebraska and Maine... which means 9 electoral votes total out of 538 votes actually reflect the will of the people... the other 529 votes do not reflect the vote of the people

the another problem is the misrepresentation of states

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes which count for .6% of the electoral college's vote... in turn, Wyoming's population reflects .2% of the total population

California's 55 electoral votes equal 10% of the vote of the electoral college... while California's population is 12% of the nation

there has only been 4 times where the winner of the popular vote failed to win the presidency... the fact of the matter is to guarentee the people have the final say in electing their leader

[TypeO]

how do you think republicans in New York or Democrats in Texas feel when the electoral college totally ignores their vote? there are two states who give their electoral votes proportionatly to the popular vote and they are Nebraska and Maine... which means 9 electoral votes total out of 538 votes actually reflect the will of the people... the other 529 votes do not reflect the vote of the people

Most electoral votes go to the majority anyway, so that's a non-issue.

Nebraska and Maine just use it as the sole factor.

Do you really think any state has a negligible difference in popular vote and electoral votes cast?

It's quite rare it doesn't go that way, and I'm fairly certain it's never affected an election.

the another problem is the misrepresentation of states

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes which count for .6% of the electoral college's vote... in turn, Wyoming's population reflects .2% of the total population

California's 55 electoral votes equal 10% of the vote of the electoral college... while California's population is 12% of the nation

there has only been 4 times where the winner of the popular vote failed to win the presidency... the fact of the matter is to guarentee the people have the final say in electing their leader

you're only talking about a percentage or two here and there.

do you think the .4% differential in Wyoming will affect anything?

It's great to have classroom exercises to help understand things, but don't get carried away - your class wasn't the first to perform that exercise.

Pretty sure the framers had a better idea of what works than any government studies class.

[Hermit_]

Your condescension is duly noted.

It was simply an example, my daughter just turned 8.

It was sardonic sarcasm, not condescension.

And fwiw, I hope your daughter never (as a juvenile or adult) has to face that decision, bud.

I appreciate that you're trying to bring us back from the off-topic path we went

down, TypeO, but I am curious to know how you'd answer this last question. -->

You pro-life folks like to rail against the injustice of abortion, but you're the same folks who rail against taxes to pay for social programs.. programs that would care for the children who are born rather than aborted. Pray tell, Typo, who do you propose is going to care for all those unwanted children who you would mandate be born to unfit mothers or to mothers who simply don't want to raise a child?.. and who is going to pay for that care?

If you want these kids born, you gotta be willing to pony up and pay (taxes) to fund programs have them cared for. The mothers that don't want them will give them up or neglect them; someone is gonna have to step in and care for them and someone (Joe taxpayer?) is going to have to pay for it.

Are you willing to see taxes raised to ensure that every child who is not aborted gets the care they need? And can you really "pay" someone to give a child what it needs most.. LOVE?

[Del Zeppnile]

You pro-life folks like to rail against the injustice of abortion, but you're the same folks who rail against taxes to pay for social programs.. programs that would care for the children who are born rather than aborted. Pray tell, Typo, who do you propose is going to care for all those unwanted children who you would mandate be born to unfit mothers or to mothers who simply don't want to raise a child?.. and who is going to pay for that care?

If you want these kids born, you gotta be willing to pony up and pay (taxes) to fund programs have them cared for. The mothers that don't want them will give them up or neglect them; someone is gonna have to step in and care for them and someone (Joe taxpayer?) is going to have to pay for it.

Are you willing to see taxes raised to ensure that every child who is not aborted gets the care they need? And can you really "pay" someone to give a child what it needs most.. LOVE?

In other words, "If you won’t adopt my babies, don’t tell me I can’t kill them!"

Makes about as much sense as forbidding me from intervening when I see my neighbor physically abusing a child unless I am willing to adopt that child.

[dragster]

[dragster]

[Hermit_]

In other words, "If you won’t adopt my babies, don’t tell me I can’t kill them!"

Makes about as much sense as forbidding me from intervening when I see my neighbor physically abusing a child unless I am willing to adopt that child.

As usual, Delbert, your "in other words" summation misses the point entirely.

The (simple and quite obvious) point is that if abortion is outlawed, approximately 1.5 million "unwanted" children per year are going to be born and in many cases are going to have to be cared for.. for perhaps as long as 18 years.. by someone other than the biological mother. That care will most likely be provided by foster care programs, and the cost for foster care programs will have to be paid for by someone.. most likely Joe Taxpayer.

So, Del,.. if abortion is outlawed, would you be willing to have your taxes raised to fund foster care programs? Or do you have some other plan for addressing the issue of providing care for millions and millions of "unwanted" American children? [Or is making sure those children are cared for not your problem, Del? "In other words".. "as long as they're kept alive long enough to be born, it's not my concern if they're cared for after that or not".]

[fwiw.. I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to answer the pertinent questions. ]

-------------------

Tying this issue into the thread topic:

Barack Obama on Abortion

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)

Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)

GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)

Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

Voted against banning partial birth abortion [edit: on a bill that did not include

an exception for cases in which the mother's health and/or life was at risk]. (Oct 2007)

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)

Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)

Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)

Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)

Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)

Voting Record:

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

*source*

--------------

John McCain on Abortion

Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere. (Feb 2008)

GovWatch: 1999: Don't force women to have illegal operations. (Feb 2008)

Abortion issue shows what kind of country we are. (Aug 2007)

Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)

Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)

“Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)

Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)

Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)

Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)

Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion. (Oct 1999)

Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing. (Aug 1999)

Nominate justices based on experience, and values. (Jun 1999)

Restrict abortions; no partial-birth; no public funding. (Jul 1998)

Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)

Voting Record

Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

*source*

--------------

19992008

McCain's 1999/2000 campaign position notwithstanding.. it seems clear enough to

me that in 2008 he's the Pro-Life candidate and Obama is the Pro-Choice candidate.

If McCain is elected he'll nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v

Wade; if Obama is elected he'll nominate SC justices who will preserve Roe v Wade.

It's as simple as that.

[Del Zeppnile]

As usual, Delbert, your "in other words" summation misses the point entirely.

The (simple and quite obvious) point is that if abortion is outlawed, approximately 1.5 million "unwanted" children per year are going to be born and in many cases are going to have to be cared for.. for perhaps as long as 18 years.. by someone other than the biological mother. That care will most likely be provided by foster care programs, and the cost for foster care programs will have to be paid for by someone.. most likely Joe Taxpayer.

So, Del,.. if abortion is outlawed, would you be willing to have your taxes raised to fund foster care programs? Or do you have some other plan for addressing the issue of providing care for millions and millions of "unwanted" American children? [Or is making sure those children are cared for not your problem, Del? "In other words".. "as long as they're kept alive long enough to be born, it's not my concern if they're cared for after that or not".]

Obviously we have a deep philosophical difference when it comes to the right to life of innocent children. While you and people of your opinion, including Barrack Obama continue to make this an issue of social welfare or some other irrelevent point; the fact remains that it a human life that we are discussing.

In a previous post you stated," you would mandate be born to..."

It would appear that you believe that life is not a right for all classes of humans, especially innocent children. You attempt to qualify the conditions as to how and when a human being shall be permitted to have life. Our arguement is not about 'mandating' something that you should have a natural right to in the first place.

Barrack Obama is the canidate who is not only for abortions on demand. He is also against any law which prohibits late term abortions... even abortions up through the last weeks or days of an otherwise viable pregnancy. Partial birth abortions as they are also called, is when a fetus (one which in most states is already considered to have many rights under 'personhood' and could already survive outside the womb) is allowed to be "partially delivered through the birth canal --- and then killed before actually exiting the birth canal in a completed delivery/live birth. Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure and it demonstrates the wanton disregard for innocent life that the pro-death people are willing to allow.

I have already stated that I am not a supporter of John McCain for many reasons. However, I agree with him on this stand against the barbaric and inhuman practice of partial birth abortions. Barrack Obama on the other hand is perfectly fine with it.

[Hermit_]

^^

..good thing I'm not holding my breath awaiting your

answers to the actual questions I put to you, eh Del?

Perhaps you missed the questions the two previous times.

Here,.. lemme help pin-point your focus. [bold text, Del,.. bold text] -->

So, Del,.. if abortion is outlawed, would you be willing to have your taxes raised to fund foster care programs? Or do you have some other plan for addressing the issue of providing care for millions and millions of "unwanted" American children? [Or is making sure those children are cared for not your problem, Del? "In other words".. "as long as they're kept alive long enough to be born, it's not my concern if they're cared for after that or not".]

[fwiw.. I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to answer the pertinent questions. ]

[i'm still not holding my breath, btw. ]

[edited to add]..

Obviously we have a deep philosophical difference when it comes to the right to life of innocent children. While you and people of your opinion, including Barrack Obama continue to make this an issue of social welfare or some other irrelevent point; the fact remains that it a human life that we are discussing.

In a previous post you stated," you would mandate be born to..."

It would appear that you believe that life is not a right for all classes of humans, especially innocent children. You attempt to qualify the conditions as to how and when a human being shall be permitted to have life. Our arguement is not about 'mandating' something that you should have a natural right to in the first place.

How do you reconcile your 'unqualified' "right to life" position.. [you know,.. your "there should not be any conditions as to how and when a human being.. especially innocent children.. shall be permitted to live" position.. your life is something "you should have a natural right to" position].. with your position in support of wide-scale bombing of innocent women and children in the middle east?

What was it you said about... "barbaric and inhumane practice"?..

Apparently your personal sense of security is one qualifier that

does in fact trump that "natural human right to life",.. eh bud?

Apparently your position is.. as I guessed.. "once they're born, what happens to

them after that.. including their being bombed.. is not of my concern", eh Delbert?

[fwiw.. I'm not holding my breath that you'll answer these questions either, bro. ]

[The Rover]

The Next President of the USA will be . . . .

A Pawn for Big Business......

WHICH Big "Businesses"..... will depend on who gets the Election......

But, believe me..... Big Business of some sort.... will reap the major benefits of wither the Dems or the Reps....

The Little people.... will still continue to get the shaft......

THAT'S HOW WE ROLL..... IN THE GOOD 'OL U.S.A. ! !

[Del Zeppnile]

^^

..good thing I'm not holding my breath awaiting your

answers to the actual questions I put to you, eh Del?

Perhaps you missed the questions the two previous times.

Here,.. lemme help pin-point your focus. [bold text, Del,.. bold text] -->

[i'm still not holding my breath, btw. ]

I heard your question Hermt, but it is you have completly missed the point. Simply stated: The right to life has nothing to do with the tax code.

[TypeO]

I appreciate that you're trying to bring us back from the off-topic path we went

down, TypeO, but I am curious to know how you'd answer this last question. -->

You pro-life folks like to rail against the injustice of abortion, but you're the same folks who rail against taxes to pay for social programs.. programs that would care for the children who are born rather than aborted. Pray tell, Typo, who do you propose is going to care for all those unwanted children who you would mandate be born to unfit mothers or to mothers who simply don't want to raise a child?.. and who is going to pay for that care?

In other words, "If you won’t adopt my babies, don’t tell me I can’t kill them!"

Makes about as much sense as forbidding me from intervening when I see my neighbor physically abusing a child unless I am willing to adopt that child.

That's a pretty credible analogy.

And there are many people on waiting lists for adoption - why do you think adoptions from china and other foreign countries is increasing?

Most foster homes aren't filled with unadopted babies, they're filled with older kids removed from troubled homes - there's quite a difference.

But since you're favoring us with barack's voting record, it looks like you failed to mention Obama voted AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban, when even Pro-choicers like Boxer and Pelosi voted for it.

I'd say Obama is SAVAGELY obedient to his beliefs.

Bush gets hammered for being a fraction that set in his convictions.

[Hermit_]

I heard your question Hermt, but it is you have completly missed the point. Simply stated: The right to life has nothing to do with the tax code.

You can't live in denial, Delboy [Well.. you can, I s'ppose,.. and quite frequently you do, I've noticed,.. but why would you choose to?]. The fact remains that fewer abortions (which I'm totally for, btw!] will mean more unwanted babies being born (1.5 million per year) and more children who will need to be cared for by someone other than the biological mom.. ie, by foster care. And the fact remains that funding to pay for foster care programs will have to come from somewhere.. ie, from taxpayers.

The question remains: are you willing to have your taxes increased to help pay for foster care programs to care for "unwanted" children.. ie, children born of mothers who are unable to provide for their child and/or who are simply unfit to be a parent?

It's a simple yes or no question, Del.

Why your unwillingness to answer, muh-man?

Don't you care about the children???

[i'm still not holding my breath expecting an answer, btw. Nor am I holding my breath waiting for you to reconcile your pro-life.. 'every child has the right to live'.. position with your position advocating wholesale bombing of innocent women and children in the middle east.]

[Hermit_]

And there are many people on waiting lists for adoption - why do you think adoptions from china and other foreign countries is increasing? Most foster homes aren't filled with unadopted babies, they're filled with older kids removed from troubled homes - there's quite a difference.

You might want to refer to some actual statistics*, TypeO. There are far more children waiting to be adopted than there are would-be parents on waiting lists to adopt a child. Nonetheless, my point is that when 1.5 million more "unwanted" babies are born every year if abortions are outlawed, many of those children will end up in both the adoption and foster care systems.. systems that are already overwhelmed and underfunded.

* In 2000 and 2001, about 127,000 children were adopted annually in the United States. Since 1987, the number of adoptions annually has remained relatively constant, ranging from 118,000 to 127,000.

* Intercountry adoptions accounted for more than 15 percent of all adoptions. Intercountry adoptions increased from 5 percent to 15 percent of adoptions in the United States between 1992 and 2001.

* Adoptions through publicly funded child welfare agencies accounted for two-fifths of all adoptions. More than 50,000 public agency adoptions in each year (2000 and 2001) accounted for about 40 percent of adoptions, up from 18 percent in 1992 for those 36 States that reported public agency adoptions in 1992.

[*source*]

* Between 2002 and 2006, on average 50,000 children were adopted per year (via child welfare agencies); 130,000 were still waiting to be adopted at the end of each year; and 500,00 were in foster care. [*source*]

In summary: on average there are a TOTAL of 127,000 adoptions per year in the US. So,.. what's gonna happen, do you think, when the adoption and foster care systems are flooded with an additional 1.5 MILLION unwanted babies every year?

Tell me, TypeO,.. if you won't (as it seems you wont) answer whether or not you support having your taxes raised to help fund adoption and foster care programs, maybe you'll tell me if you're in favor of, or opposed to, comprehensive sex education and birth control education for teens, and (federally funded) adoption counseling for pregnant mothers who are considering abortion, eh?

But since you're favoring us with barack's voting record, it looks like you failed to mention Obama voted AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban, when even Pro-choicers like Boxer and Pelosi voted for it.

I'd say Obama is SAVAGELY obedient to his beliefs. Bush gets hammered for being a fraction that set in his convictions.

Look more closely and you'll see that the fact that Obama voted against partial birth abortions IS INCLUDED in the above facts about his record, muh-man. What's not mentioned though is that he voted against that bill because it did not include an exception for cases in which the health and safety of the mother was in jeopardy. A fact you'll no doubt conveniently choose to dismiss, I'm betting.

Fwiw,.. I agree with you that partial-birth abortions are barbaric, disgusting, unconscionable and should never be performed. Where we differ though is that I'd add the qualifier "unless saving the life of the mother absolutely requires it, and the mother (and/or her legal designee) chooses not to sacrifice her life for the life of the unborn child". I think that's a reasonable position to take. I do respect your right to disagree with me on that position though.

Make no mistake about it.. I am NOT pro-abortion. I AM, however, pro-choice.

I realize that distinction may too nuanced for your sensibilities.

[edited to add]..

Obama: Mental distress can't justify late abortion

July 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

The health care exception is crucial to abortion rights advocates and is considered a legal loophole by abortion opponents. By limiting the health exception to a "serious physical issue," Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.

*source: huffingtonpost.com*

[wanna be drummer]

The question remains: are you willing to have your taxes increased to help pay for foster care programs to care for "unwanted" children.. ie, children born of mothers who are unable to provide for their child

PLease, like taxes absolutely need to go up for those kids to get a proper place to live

We could make up for it by lowering taxes in other areas (i.e. lower the property taxes or sin taxes or possibly the sales tax). That would make up for the losses and voila, problem solved.

But to answer the question straight up, I'd say that yes, I'd drop a dime or two extra a year to help some kids

[TypeO]

The fact remains that fewer abortions (which I'm totally for, btw!] will mean more unwanted babies being born (1.5 million per year) and more children who will need to be cared for by someone other than the biological mom.. ie, by foster care. And the fact remains that funding to pay for foster care programs will have to come from somewhere.. ie, from taxpayers.

The question remains: are you willing to have your taxes increased to help pay for foster care programs to care for "unwanted" children.. ie, children born of mothers who are unable to provide for their child and/or who are simply unfit to be a parent?

So you're asserting that all those 1.5 million are poor, underage unwed mothers unable to care for themselves?

That's the same way pro-choice advocates always make the case for abortion citing victims of rape and incest.

The fact is that is easily the smallest percentage of all abortions.

The vast majority of abortions are for adults 20 and older.

So why am I paying higher taxes to support their children?

Yes I would pay increased taxes (how much could it possibly be?) for those children born to underage mothers under a certain income level (Under 18 they are their parents' responsibility.)

If the parents balk at supporting them and they're in need, then yes.

But that is a relatively small percentage of those 1.5 million you refer to.

Teenagers and girls under 15 represent less than 22% of yearly abortions.

Of those, I would wager conservatively 50% of those would be supported by family/parents. In reality, I bet it'd be closer to 2 out of 3.

The majority of that 1.5 million are average women that simply don't want to be "burdened" with a baby. Tough shit.

It's called responsibility.

You either apply that responsibility before you have unprotected sex, or carry that responsibility after.

That's my idea of Pro-choice.

[Del Zeppnile]

You can't live in denial, Delboy [Well.. you can, I s'ppose,.. and quite frequently you do, I've noticed,.. but why would you choose to?]. The fact remains that fewer abortions (which I'm totally for, btw!] will mean more unwanted babies being born (1.5 million per year) and more children who will need to be cared for by someone other than the biological mom.. ie, by foster care. And the fact remains that funding to pay for foster care programs will have to come from somewhere.. ie, from taxpayers.

The question remains: are you willing to have your taxes increased to help pay for foster care programs to care for "unwanted" children.. ie, children born of mothers who are unable to provide for their child and/or who are simply unfit to be a parent?

It's a simple yes or no question, Del.

Why your unwillingness to answer, muh-man?

Don't you care about the children???

[i'm still not holding my breath expecting an answer, btw. Nor am I holding my breath waiting for you to reconcile your pro-life.. 'every child has the right to live'.. position with your position advocating wholesale bombing of innocent women and children in the middle east.]

The question is a red herring Hermit. But I never said that I wasn't in favor of any program aimed at providing care for abandoned children or those in desperate need have I?

However, the insinuation that killing babies on the basis of fiscal policy --- sounds strangely like an argument we would have heard in Nazi Germany.

I'll never understand why liberals are 'wired wrong' as you are.

BTW, my wife and I make a contribution every year to a charity that provides assistance, counseling and adoption options for women with unplanned pregnancies... as do many pro-life people. So I really don't understand where you are coming from when you claim that we are unwilling to part with our own money in the interest of helping out on this issue. I suppose the tax question just goes against my conservative principles. As I believe that citizens should not look to the government to solve these these things as much as local charities do. I find the many faith based rescue missions, both Catholic and Protestant, do a much better job than another Federal bueacracy could ever do.

Don't know if that answers you question or not. But like I said, the right to life of the unborn has nothing to do with fiscal expediency.

[Pb Derigable]

Wow Del,

Liberals want to spend our tax dollars on illegal citizens, but an unborn American baby they rather do without. They rather pay fat people to sit on thier ass, than to take care of a baby.

I know the answers to that one.

Babies can't vote.

[Hermit_]

The question is a red herring Hermit. But I never said that I wasn't in favor of any program aimed at providing care for abandoned children or those in desperate need have I?

Your argument is a strawman argument.. because, as you well know, I never suggested you said you weren't in favor of any program aimed at providing care for abandoned children or those in desperate need. What I did suggest.. a suggestion that has been borne out (pun intended).. was that you (like most hardline pro-lifers) aren't willing to have your taxes raised to help fund planned pregnancy/sex education/birth control programs, adoption programs, and foster care programs.

However, the insinuation that killing babies on the basis of fiscal policy --- sounds strangely like an argument we would have heard in Nazi Germany.

You raising the specter of Nazi Germany is the reddest herring yet, Delbert. And as far as I can tell, you're the only one "insinuating" that killing babies is a matter of fiscal policy, muh-man. I never once said abortion is a matter of fiscal policy, I merely raised an obvious point that more unwanted babies will mean more need for social services to care for those babies, and I inquired of your willingness to pony up to help fund such programs. Seems pretty straight-forward to me, bud.

BTW, my wife and I make a contribution every year to a charity that provides assistance, counseling and adoption options for women with unplanned pregnancies... as do many pro-life people. So I really don't understand where you are coming from when you claim that we are unwilling to part with our own money in the interest of helping out on this issue. I suppose the tax question just goes against my conservative principles. As I believe that citizens should not look to the government to solve these these things as much as local charities do. I find the many faith based rescue missions, both Catholic and Protestant, do a much better job than another Federal bueacracy could ever do.

So then,.. the answer to my question is "No, Hermit, I am not willing to have my taxes raised to help fund adoption and foster care programs; my wife and I prefer to donate to our church which provides faith-based assistance, counseling and adoption options for women with unplanned pregnancies".

Fair enough, Del.. but uhh.. what took you so long to answer?

[And why the specious Nazi Germany reference before you finally answered? ]

Btw.. what about the many, many women who need unplanned pregnancy counseling who aren't "woman of faith".. women who may be more likely to be considering having an abortion and who aren't very likely to go looking to a faith-based program for advise, guidance, and counseling about unplanned pregnancy issues? And what about women who want contraceptive and birth control education? They won't get that education through a faith-based program, instead they'll be told to practice 'abstinence only' or to utilize 'the rhythm method'. That's not very effective "counseling and guidance", bud; neither of those approaches have proven to be effective in preventing unplanned pregnancies.

I appreciate that you give to your church, Del, but I think in doing so your money is not being spent in the most effective manner toward helping to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions in our country. I do appreciate though that women of faith who do decide to go to faith-based programs will get support and counseling and will be discouraged from getting abortions. Afaic, that's a good thing. My point is merely that not enough women in need can be reached that way, and faith-based programs do not offer safe sex/birth control/contraception education. The fact is that abstinence only programs are not effective.

Anyway.. you've answered the question, [your answer: No, you would not support seeing your taxes raised to help fund sex education, birth control education, adoption, and foster care programs] and as you probably know, your answer comes as no surprise to me. Nonetheless, I do appreciate you finally answering.

Don't know if that answers you question or not. But like I said, the right to life of the unborn has nothing to do with fiscal expediency.

I absolutely agree, the right to life vs abortion issue is not a matter of fiscal expediency. But to deny/ignore the fiscal aspect of the issue.. ie, the vast amounts of money required to care for millions of unwanted babies.. is to bury one's head in the sand.. is to delude oneself.. is to not be ready to address a very real issue that will directly affect millions of children. Denying/ignoring the fiscal aspect of the issue is incredibly short-sighted.. it seems (quite obviously) to me.

Why is that you conservatives are mis-wired in such a way that you are totally unwilling (or perhaps unable) to consider the ramifications of the policies you'd implement.. like rational people would.. you know, before you implement those policies?

Btw Del,.. have you come up with a self-delusion yet that enables to reconcile (in your own mind anyway) your "right to life -- every child has the right to live" position with your advocacy for the wholesale bombing (you know.. killing) of innocent women and children in the middle east? How is that you can have such a cold, callous, indifferent attitude about the killing of children for your own sense of security when you claim to feel so strongly.. supposedly based on your religious morality.. that "every child has the right to life"?

[Just asking again to let you know I'm aware that you're avoiding the question; but I'm not holding my breath waiting an answer, mind you. ]

[Nathan]

I'd like to ask a question on the whole abortion debate, and this question is one of the reasons my ex, and in fact almost all of the women I know, are pro-choice:

What if the woman is raped, and gets pregnant because of that rape? Should she be forced to have that child, a child that will only remind her of that rape? Or shouldn't she be allowed to abort something she never intended to have in the first place?

[Suz]

I need to get some popcorn. I love hearing men debate what's best for me and my reproductive rights.

Years ago I heard someone say, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would not be an issue." Or something along those lines. Interesting to ponder.

Here's the deal, Hermit- you've got it all wrong. You have to remember that it's all about NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.......except when our twats and dicks are involved. Get the picture? Stay out of everything but our sexuality and our reproductive rights. For THOSE things- by golly, there oughtta be a law.

The very second that a woman cannot make her own choice is the very second we are not full citizens. The attitude I've encountered from some radical pro-lifers is astonishing to me. It's as though we're stupid, heartless idiots running off to have abortions like it's nothing. Or, we're just sad little lost sheep who need to be counseled by religious zealots.

Funny.