In 2002 Obama supported infanticide

Iriemon · 08-25-08, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Keep beating that drum with that red herring. That is NOT what I said at all.

I recognized your clarified position in my previous post.

Quote:

Never said I wouldn't pay exorbitant taxes--merely said I want some say in how that tax money is allocated.

We'd all like that, and have it to some extent thru our elected government.

For example, on this issue, McCain is against expanding health care, and though he doesn't say it directly, says he'll review programs that provide health, education and support to kids as part of his plan to slash spending.

Obama says he'll expand health care to those who can't afford it.

If you want to reduce abortions and provide support to the unwanted children who will be born, your clear choice is Obama.

Iriemon · 08-25-08, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

And killing human beings for convenience and to save costs is rational? NOT!

So then I don't understand why you were objecting to paying higher taxes to pay for them! That is exactly the position you are criticizing here.

independent_thinker2002 · 08-25-08, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

All abortions kill.

No Felicity, you implied that all abortions are being used as a contraception tool. Don't dodge the question. It is my understanding that those situations predominantly aren't "oops, I'm pregnant" situations.

bhkad · 08-25-08, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

How many late term abortions are being used as contraception?

They don't specify late term.

Quote:

Abortion as Birth Control

Using abortion as birth control means that abortion is being used as a back-up method to ineffective or improperly used contraception, or no contraception is being used at all. Of women having abortions,

* 46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant
* 8% never used a method of birth control
* 47% have had at least one previous abortion

Although there are situations in which abortion is in response to health concerns of the mother or fetus, or in response to pregnancy arising from abuse, the majority of abortions are obtained for social and financial reasons. The primary reasons given for choosing abortion are given below.

* 75% say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities
* about 75% say they cannot afford a child
* 50% do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

Using abortion as birth control is not healthy physically or psychologically, and is not a mature or responsible approach to sex. Women obtaining abortions are at higher risk for reproductive tract infections, including HIV and PID. If you are using abortion as birth control, you are encouraged to rethink your sexual decisions. You might wait on sex until you find a relationship where you could continue a pregnancy should one occur.

Source: AGI, Facts in Brief, Induced Abortion, Revised 1/2008.

Contraceptive Info :: Abortion as Birth Control

Iriemon · 08-25-08, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

"You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows." Larry Kudlow on Barack Obama and Tax Policy on NRO Financial

Off topic in this tread. But this is one of the wealthy tax-cutter more prominent lies.

After cap gains were cut in 2003, the revenues have never been as high as they were in 2000, before the cut, and economic growth has sucked.

The quoted statement is a flat out lie.

But the reason for the lie is not hard to understand. The wealthy with millions of investment and the trust fund babies live off their investments and pay investment taxes. Currently the max tax rate they pay is 15% + 2% for medicare. Those who work for a living pay up to 35% + the SS tax + medicare.

It's not to hard to see whay the richest and the media they control make outrageous lies like cutting the cap gains tax increases revenues and economic growth.

Felicity · 08-25-08, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I recognized your clarified position in my previous post.

We were posting simultaneously. Thanks.

Quote:

We'd all like that, and have it to some extent thru our elected government.

RADICAL change in the tax system is necessary.

Quote:

For example, on this issue, McCain is against expanding health care, and though he doesn't say it directly, says he'll review programs that provide health, education and support to kids as part of his plan to slash spending.

I don't support making change for change's sake--there needs to be a BETTER plan to garner my support.

Quote:

Obama says he'll expand health care to those who can't afford it.

Just expanding an already broken system merely wastes MORE money.

Quote:

If you want to reduce abortions and provide support to the unwanted children who will be born, your clear choice is Obama.

Baloney. Obama is the liberal status quo PLUS he wants LIVE INDIVIDUAL human beings subject to being defined as NON-PERSONS. I find that amazing coming from a black man. Didn't our country attempt to define some people of a certain race as some percentage of "person?"

How disgusting! It was disgusting then, it's disgusting now.

Felicity · 08-25-08, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

So then I don't understand why you were objecting to paying higher taxes to pay for them! That is exactly the position you are criticizing here.

How can you keep saying that with a straight face?

Felicity · 08-25-08, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

No Felicity, you implied that all abortions are being used as a contraception tool. Don't dodge the question. It is my understanding that those situations predominantly aren't "oops, I'm pregnant" situations.

Where are you getting that? If that's how you interpreted something, you're misinterpreting.

EDIT: Oh...I get it...NO, I meant that the idea that there's always a way out should the "UNTHINKABLE" (it won't happen to me!) happen leads to people's behavior not being as cautious.

Iriemon · 08-25-08, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

RADICAL change in the tax system is necessary.

I don't support making change for change's sake--there needs to be a BETTER plan to garner my support.

Just expanding an already broken system merely wastes MORE money.

A different and unrelated subject. We are not talking about your support for the tax system, but whether you (and conservative pro-lifers as a whole) are willing to support the unwanted babies and the higher taxes that will require.

Quote:

Baloney. Obama is the liberal status quo PLUS he wants LIVE INDIVIDUAL human beings subject to being defined as NON-PERSONS. I find that amazing coming from a black man. Didn't our country attempt to define some people of a certain race as some percentage of "person?"

How disgusting! It was disgusting then, it's disgusting now.

I don't think its baloney at all. How did I mistate the candidate's positions?

independent_thinker2002 · 08-25-08, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Don't have sex unless your willing to deal with the consequences without killing.

Don't get on my case for offering the same sort of thinking you offer above...

This is what you said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Where are you getting that? If that's how you interpreted something, you're misinterpreting.

EDIT: Oh...I get it...NO, I meant that the idea that there's always a way out should the "UNTHINKABLE" (it won't happen to me!) happen leads to people's behavior not being as cautious.

I was resonding to your comment. So, a mother must be willing to die if she has sex. That is one consequence that could happen in some cases where carrying the baby to full term puts the mother at risk. Not to mention that a woman may not choose to have sex but still get pregnant.

Edit: I just saw your edited part. Thanks.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode