Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Abortion...."Barring it"...really?

Wording from the GOP Platform :

ABORTION:
The party states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage.

Headline on liberal web venues:

GOP OKs platform barring abortions


Does it say it's BARRING ABORTIONS?   Yet, my cousin received this email this morning.....(direct quote)

I'll be damned if I'm voting for mitt and his sidekick! I will always support a woman's right to chose and the things that have been said by their party regarding that are incredibly scary!!

"incredibly scary!!" ?    

What do you think?

z

54 comments:

cube said...

Very sneaky headline from our lap dog media. There is a big difference between barring abortion outright and barring taxpayer funded abortions.

Unfortunately, many people don't read beyond the headlines.

Z said...

Hi, Cube...EXACTLY.

FrogBurger said...

I have a friend who posted something that said Ryan wants to allow rapist to file lawsuits against their victims.

Why the headline?

Because he was part of a bill that defined when life starts and therefore that would allow rapist to file lawsuits against their victim if they had an abortion.

So instead of looking at what's in the bill, they draw outrageous conclusions. Especially when abortions from rapes are around 1% of abortions.

So I told him Obama was for killing babies since he agreed to bill denying care for babies who survived botched abortion.

No response obviously.

I'm actually tired of that kind of debate. And that includes statements on the right sometimes. We have to stop giving bad intentions to people and fight them on the ideas and their results.

Z said...

FB, I feel it's important to see what headlines people are getting their information from...then voting.

by the way, have you checked out where 2016 is showing yet here in LA?

Silverfiddle said...

If liberals love abortions so much they should set up a fund to pay for them to make up for the lack of federal funds.

FrogBurger said...

Z, would you like to go see it? I know you don't like driving so we could drive if you want. You can check on movies.yahoo.com

FrogBurger said...

Z, it's playing in Century City.

Bob said...

The phrase, "right to choose" is a joke. Nobody has the right to choose what to do with their body. Not men, and not women.

Do crack, and you go to jail.

Attempt suicide, and you will be institutionalized,although there is no law against killing one's self.

The choice liberals want is the right to kill their offspring. It's that simple, but liberals are simpletons, anyway.

Thersites said...

Please people... you forget that "single payer" healthcare is the true path that we're on. And single payer means that the taxpayer funds ALL healthcare. Private healthcare and payment for abortions... is a Republican fantasy.

Anonymous said...

FROM Z:

SF...as if they'd put up their OWN money, right? Juan Williams was on the other night and someone asked him "do you want to pay for a neighbor's birth control?" He had to be asked at least three times.finally" NO!!"
But, he thought that was different than his tax dollars paying for his neighbor's birth controL!

FB..I LOVE to drive..Let's talk via email about the movie(and the driving)...thanks!

Bob...what great points. WHY are these lost on some people?

Elmers Brother said...

Anyone checked the Dems platform on abortion?

sue hanes said...


Z - I'm against a law telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

I am opposed to abortion - and would like to see more ways to encourage adoption and hold the father accountable.

It takes two - doesn't it?

sue hanes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chateau Robert said...

sue hanes said something seasonable? Halleluiah

Pris said...

- "I'm against a law telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body."

Sue,
My doctor told me that in Britain, no one over 70 years old, can have a heart bypass. If Obamacare goes into effect, you can bet it will be along the lines of European healthcare. You know, that's cutting costs, isn't it?

Also, Obama said in a speech in 2008 (and I paraphrase), that if a senior is very ill, just "give him/her a pain pill!"

So where's the choice for seniors? So much for choice, huh? Or don't they count!

I have a relative who had a heart bypass at the age of 86. She's now, 89, soon to be ninety, and going strong.

If the Obamacare program goes through, do you think she'd have had a choice, or would the rationing board sentence her to death!

I don't know about you, but I would prefer for my loved ones, and myself, not being a cost effective statistic!

You see, there are more choices than you can shake a stick at, and abortion is only one. When the Govt. is involved you can bet that choice will not be in our hands.

To my mind, pregnancy for the overwhelming number of women, is not life threatening, and being careless when it comes to birth control, is a no no if one doesn't want a baby. Why then should the taxpayers pay for abortion?

I do believe there should be exceptions such as rape, or incest.

Brooke said...

Here we go. We're going to see a lot of these sort of 'shock' sound bite headlines.

Hey, the MSM can always make a quiet apology after the damage is done, right?

sue hanes said...


Pris - My viewpoint on abortion is pretty loose - and would need a lot of work - but I don't like the idea of passing a law that legislates that a woman can't get an abortion. Rather I would like to put a lot of weight on educating people about the possibility of adoption - and about how abortion is wrong. I know this has been tried - but we can't give up on it. I just don't think outlawing abortion will work.

And what about the part of holding the father responsible too? Has that ever been done.? It is not fair for the woman to carry the weight of the unwanted baby alone.

Lisa said...

The party of choice is having 20,000 Muslims attend the DNC for a pre-convention prayer meeting.
I wonder if there will be people protesting them for being anti-woman and anti-gay rights.

Average American said...

If the Republican Party had some sense, they would NOT keep discussing the abortion question and NEVER should have made it a plank of the platform. Stay on fiscal problems and quit giving the damned dems ammunition!!

Take my word for it, if NOMObama wins, it will be because the Republicans scared away to many independents with their social issues discussions.

Elmers Brother said...

When I had a vasectomy there was a law that required me to be at least 32, have at least 2 children, go through counseling, wait a month (called a cooling off period) and I had to have my wife's permission.

Elmers Brother said...

Ya you know making the life of an innocent a priority is SOOOO embarrassing. /sarcasm

Liberalmann said...

The GOP are out of touch and out to screw average Americans. Wake up soon, OK?

Elmers Brother said...

99.6% of abortions are for the convenience of the mother. The rape and incest numbers are almost a statistical anomaly. IF we're going to argue the case for life, I suggest we argue the point using the reason for the vast majority of abortions

Elmers Brother said...

Out of touch Livermann, the vast majority of Americans oppose abortion on demand.

Elmers Brother said...

And BTW Conservatives outnumber Liberals by more than 2 to 1.

Anonymous said...

FROM Z AT WORK:

Liberalmann, you DO realize that everyone HERE is an Average American, right?
Let me correct that; everyone here is an AMERICAN, not a liberal who wants to twist the constitution, screw our Founding Fathers' reputations, and see a future of redistribution.

Chateau Robert, I have to stand up for Sue; I think she's made a lot of sense lately and I'm finding myself agreeing with her. It's nice, eh?!

Sue...I believe I agree with you almost 100%. While I hate abortion and grieve for every child God created in its mother's womb, how can we tell women without God she can't do something to her body? On the other hand, I'm quite sure I've heard atheists who argue against abortion on the sheer "it's a LIFE" point.
What a fasciating subject this is.

Elmer's Bro, you're right...the polls show Americans do not support abortion on demand; not only that, I'm hearing that young people are beginning to come around to the anti-abortion side.

Ed Bonderenka said...

"how can we tell women without God she can't do something to her body?"
I do not understand the meaning of that sentence.
Please tell me, with certainty, when it's not a baby in there.
Why would we ever sanction murder, regardless of the scene of the crime?

sue hanes said...


Thanks for your support - Z.

You make a lot of sense yourself - girl.

Anonymous said...

FROM Z at work:

Ed, believe me, I agree with you....in fact, my faith tells me that even a child conceived of rape or incest should live; if it's a HUMAN BEING at conception (which I believe it IS), then why say "Well, it was rape...kill it"

BUT, I said very carefully "A woman without God"...I don't condone her doing it, but my question is HOW CAN WE TELL SOMEONE WHO'S NOT INFORMED BY HER FAITH WHAT TO DO? We can try to change her heart, but will it sink in? I don't know.

FrogBurger said...

Libman, you're the biggest moron I've encountered. Don't wake up. Stay the same. It's entertaining.

Pope of Grenich Village said...

The Obama regime just looks more disgusting every day. They think that the American people are too stupid to see right thru them.

Elmers Brother said...

The real radical on abortion is Obama himself. Talk about a war on women.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Z:
I understand how you feel, but just because somebody feels justified in murder by their own convictions, we can't give them a pass to act on their convictions.
We're not constraining a woman, we're saving a child.

Z said...

Ed, I understand. But, the only way we can do this IS to overturn Roe v Wade and you and I both know that won't happen...Not in our lifetimes; and the left's taking us farther and farther down the rabbit hole of slime, too.

Still, there could be hope. I have heard that young people are more and more against abortion.

Always On Watch said...

"the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

The remainder of my comment is based on something that I read today, but I can't recall where.

This wording reflects the loophole in the Roe v. Wade decision.

If it can be established that the unborn child has fundamental rights, then de facto overturn is indeed possible.

Something to do with personhood, I think. See THIS, THIS, and THIS, for starters.

Always On Watch said...

Average American said:

Take my word for it, if NOMObama wins, it will be because the Republicans scared away to many independents with their social issues discussions.

I agree!

Always On Watch said...

EB,
the vast majority of Americans oppose abortion on demand

And that majority includes a lot of people of no particular faith or of no faith at all.

Kid said...

excrement smashes into wall. some sticks.

Ed Bonderenka said...

I hope I didn't give the appearance that I think that anti-abortion is predicated on faith in God.
Many people can (and do) see it for the evil it is.
The Republican Party was founded as anti-slavery, not restricting slavery.
Also with a Romney presidency, we could see a SCOTUS that would overturn Roe.
Wilberforce never gave up.
If you (whoever you are) think that abortion is wrong, but want to hold back for fear of losing an election, I beg you to rethink.
If you have no problem with abortion (or are pro-abortion) and want a Republican candidate to win so that your economic condition improves or YOUR rights are more secure, ignoring the rights of the unborn, do what you will.

Elmers Brother said...

Good one Ed.

Anonymous said...

You folks just don't get it. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz wants to ensure that women can murder their children with impunity. She says it's their absolute right to decide this issue. What is the matter with you?

~Louie

Chuck said...

The MSM has been at war against pro-life for decades.

It starts with us being anti-abortion and pro-abortion being pro-choice. It is obvious they use pro-choice because these people prefer it. Why don't they use pro-life because we prefer it?

Although I will proudly say I am anti-abortion. I will not shirk from it. I think it is murder and I am against it.

Chuck said...

As far as the woman having a choice. This is bull.

A woman has a choice. She has a choice to have sex. Once that choice is made, the die is set. We know what causes pregnancy. It is not an accident. You make a choice, you live with it.

Murdering a child is not a rational solution to becoming pregnant.

As to Sue's question about the father being held responsible, I think she is dead on. Men make the choice to have sex also. Once he makes the choice to have sex with a woman he has to live with the consequences.

Yes, women do have to carry the child. As of right now this not a fact that can be changed.

As I said, we know what causes pregnancy.

This really is a good example of how liberal and conservative ideology differ.

Conservatives believe we are responsible for our choices, liberal do not.

Lisa said...

I agree with Sue and Chuck about responsibility factor. Something the democrats lack in greatly or at least portray that message.
It's like they hate the term responsibility. That's why society has become what it is. So many teenage moms,so many dropping out of High School. They make it too easy to not be responsible. Very sad .

Z said...

AOW...sure, LEGALLY it might be do-able, but with the morality of this country these days? good luck!

To the rest of you dear people; you really think we're suddenly going to have a moral country where young people stop having sex on their first dates and, in the case of the Olympic Village, in broad daylight on the grass between buildings? Or do you think the morality horse is out of the barn?!

They Say/We Say said...

"Person" is not granted to us, by a Judicial Ruling, that is how they are going around the Constitution with the Loose Judicial Rulings-like Roe vs. Wade
And offerings to gaea (mother earth/humanism-environmentalism = Athena/Diana/Venus/etc.,etc.) by calling it pro-choice!
Yea, it is between a woman and her god - but is it our G_d the G_d of Abraham Issac and Jacob---NO!

They Say/We Say said...

No Tax payer funding for abortions.
Separation of Church and State!

Z said...

They Say/We Say...that's why I said "Her god" (small g)..
if it were God she was truly faithful to, how could she have an abortion?

They Say/We Say said...

I just get carried away.
Did you notice the "Person" that was taken away from us?

They Say/We Say said...

Maybe a new Supreme Court Ruling will clear that up.

Always On Watch said...

Chuck,
A woman has a choice. She has a choice to have sex. Once that choice is made, the die is set. We know what causes pregnancy. It is not an accident.

True on all counts by a huge percentage -- except in cases of rape (as to choice) and the failure of the pill (as to unwanted pregnancy).

As one who knows two women who were beaten to pulp and raped, I'm aware that rape really does happen in cases that are not nebulous in any way.

As to the pill's efficacy....My cousin got pregnant more than once while on the pill. She was clearly "a fertile turtle." And not promiscuous, I might add. Her two unwanted pregnancies occurred while she was married and after she had the two children that she and her husband had decided to limit their family size to. She had an abortion (VERY early term, which we the extended family found out only a long time later) in one case and a miscarriage in the other case (An STD her husband brought home to her caused the miscarriage and the subsequent divorce).

When she and her first husband divorced, she was delighted that the next man with whom she fell in love had had a vasectomy some 15 years earlier. In fact, I think that his vasectomy was one reason that she agreed to marry again. Understandably, she was soured on men for a long time after the STD.

Always On Watch said...

Z,
The morality horse is long gone out of the barn and galloping madly for town.

I do recall when sex education was supposed to curb sexual activity to some extent. It seems to me that the exact opposite has happened.

Always On Watch said...

They Say,
"Person" is not granted to us, by a Judicial Ruling, that is how they are going around the Constitution with the Loose Judicial Rulings-like Roe vs. Wade

The principle of personhood is indeed a moral question.

But, as the saying goes, "The law is an ass."

The loophole in the Roe v. Wade decision is, legally speaking, the issue of personhood. I recently read much of the ruling. Yeah, the loophole is there, but Congress has to establish the definition. Of course, even if Congress were to do such a thing, the SCOTUS could knock down that legislation; the Constitutional power of the court enables that possibility.

Z said...

AOW< at our high school, we have a group called REALITY CHECK come talk every year...people whose lives are changed due to incurable STDs, unplanned pregnancies they aborted and haven't ever gotten over the guilt........etc etc. It's given factually "I did this, and I wish I never had, because........"

The kids are mostly pretty touched by it. I know we have a lot of typical teen sex going on, but a lot of the brighter girls who have religious faith often say to me "I loved that talk...it strengthened my resolve to remain a virgin until I'm married.."

Who knows? I just don't want those lovely girls hurt.

I met a REALLY handsome grandson of a friend two weeks ago and he's 21; I asked him why he wears a wedding band and he said it's a purity ring he's worn since he was 16. NO sex until marriage. I was pretty stunned.