Obama won't defend the unborn...Will You?

Always

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

You mean the same Reagan that signed abortion into law in California back in 1967?

As Governor of California, Reagan signed into law the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back room abortions" performed in California. As a result, approximately one million abortions would be performed; Reagan blamed this on doctors, arguing that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. At the time that the law was signed, Reagan had been in office for four months, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor he would not have signed it. He then declared himself to be pro-life.

Always have, always will.

For a nation to believe it is okay to slaughter there own flesh&blood; for the sake of convenience is beyond insanity.

Saddam insane did it, along with Mao tse Dong, Stalin, Lenin , Hitler. Ovomit is in good company.

To bad your mother didn't feel as you do.

How does the unborn baby feel about this so called medical procedure? Better yet, how does God feel about this so called medical procedure? People who condone abortion have no soul.

Who are you to judge? If a woman make a choice to abort that is her cross to ....
Remember you are not God .. so judge not ... or better yet ... mind your business.

These children belong to God ~ He is also the judge!!

No getting around that fact. You should see the horror on womens faces when they actually see what's done.

[...]

I don't need a God to tell me a baby is a baby.

That's good ..

Ghost is a 'Danite'. He firmly believes he's a descendant of the ancient tribe of Dan which were the judges in Israel. Sampson was also from the tribe of Dan and a judge. I know this because Ghost is my cousin. Look it up.

I believe judgement is the Lords ...

Peace to you!

Have read how the abortion procedure is done? The first thing the "doctor" does is to insert a needle into the babys brain, without any anesthetic, but that's O.K. it's not a living human so go ahead. At this point the unborn will kick and thrash about, just like a fish but that's O.K. it's not a human. Then the doctor uses a high velocity vacuum to suck out the babys brain, all the while the unborn is writhing about in pain,but that's O.K. you don't have a "problem" anymore. After the brain is sucked out it's just a simple procedure to pull out the rest of the problem and unceremoniously toss it into the dumpster. Whew, problem solved. You can say peace, and love to those who dislike what you stand for, and try to act as if you are above this and try to look down on others with your pseudo morality and ethics. Bottom line, you and those like you are an unspeakable thing. I feel sorry for "people " like you.

Save your sympathy and mind your business ...

Sorry sweetheart, open forum, you join up, state your opinion, we fire back. Don't like it ? Leave! Just letting you and your wonderful constituents know how your "personal decision" is preformed!

I understand what you're saying, especially when you said, "Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. Forcing a woman to gestate a pregnancy she does not want and will never care for is far more inhumane than aborting a non-feeling fetus who doesn’t even know it exists."

That's a bold assessment. If you are as declarative as you seem to be, surely you must agree that it is equally unreasonable for any woman to hold a non-consenting man responsible should she desire to carry forward with a pregnancy resulting from any union between them. While the man cannot claim dominion over the woman’s reproductive determination, she likewise has no right to conscript an unwilling man into fatherhood (and the resulting expenses) for the next 20 years. The man, given he has an equal right to reproductive choice, has the same right of self determination regarding when and if he will become a parent. The man should have the inviolable right to simply walk away without further responsibility.
Don’t you agree?

If a man do not want a child ... put a jimmy on ... he too has the right to choose ...

So you agree with those folks who oppose abortion telling you that if a woman doesn't want a child, she should just keep her legs closed?

No I do not ... I believe that a woman is in control of her body ... and have the right to choose what she want ...

You are very inconsistent. You told me for a guy it's tough luck, shoulda worn a "jimmy." But for a woman, she gets to decide for herself, and for the guy.

As its often been said, and your positions illustrate the truth, a person cannot be reasoned out of an opinion that wasn't arrived through reason.

Can a man carry a baby? Therefore, if he does not want one put a jimmy on it ... since women carry and deliver the baby ... she has the choice of what she does with her body ... not rocket science ...

Your use of the English language is atrocious.

My bad officer hehehehehehehehe as if you didn't get the point ...

Thank goodness for your beliefs, you won't procreate.

Check it out swamp dog ... I have the right to choose ... and per the highest court of American ... every other woman in America have that right too ...

You are too young to remember, but the Roe vs. Wade was a SCOTUS decision, not an amendment to the constitution, until that time it was the states prerogative. Don't get me wrong, if you want an abortion, get one, but be aware of how the procedure is done, and the ramifications on your eternal soul. Your last sentence should be...every other woman in America HAS, not have, that right too.

Everyone is accountable for their actions ... I make no judgments. Thank you for the grammar corrections ... I key/type whatever comes to my mind ... considering this is not a response to a proposal or school assignment - I could care less about grammar errors ... I suppose women right to choose come across profoundly ...

Since 1971 or 1972.

Your point?

That's when Roe vs. Wade became legalized. Essentially the SCOTUS was making LAW, that is not the job of the Judicial branch of the government, it the job of the legislative branch of government. The representatives and senators make the laws, not the Supreme Court. That is why there is still controversy over that issue today.

oh yeah ... however you look at it ... women have the right to choose.

Undeniably, but at what cost? Also when we get one perversion of the constitution, the second is so much easier.

Good luck with that ...

Just because he cannot carry the child is not a legitimate reason to compel his parenthood. That a woman has the ability to renounce her parenthood after conception, equality demands that a man has the same right. Since the man cannot reqire an abortion, he deserves a legal method of "aborting" his conception error. Or perhaps you object to equal rights.