Your Presidential Vote Goes To...

[VHawk15]

Let's turn this into one of those pointless National Conventions:

BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! ARNOLD ARNOLD ARNOLD!

Everyone, unless you want to kill our innocent babies, please vote Bush. Once the zygote is formed, if cared for properly, it will someday be a 20-year old playing fantasy football and drinking Sam Adams with kids of its own. So please don't endanger our future by randomly killing off our future and potential, what if Einstein were conceived now and were aborted two weeks later? That is not a chance we can take. So please vote Bush and preserve our excellence.

I say this because whoever is elect president will choose supreme court justices, and if conservatives are chosen, the chances the Roe v. Wade is overturned are significantly higher.

Voters, please don't buy into the ridiculous conservatives' abortion propaganda. The fact is, Kerry doesn't want to kill your babires. Kerry wants to ensure that the government doesn't have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

My person stance is this. I wouldn't want my future wife to have an abortion, because I don't like the practice personally. But that definitely isn't going to make me tell other women what they should do with their own body. That's why I'm not pro-abortion, but pro-choice.

I think it's important to realize that if we abolished Roe v. Wade, we would go back to the primitive age of the 70's when only the rich women were able to get under the table abortions from doctors. The poor women, unforuntately, performed coat hanger abortions, often resulting in the painful death of both the baby and the mother.

And if we take away Roe v. Wade, what happens to rape victims? I can totally understand and sympathize with a woman who has gone through a traumatic rape experience. Also, what happens to mother whose life is at risk? Once again, I'd rather save the mother's life via an abortion than both die. Abortion is never "randomly killing off our future." Absurd.

And I'm sure you don't buy the whole "Oh, the baby could turn out to a great human being" BS. It's just as likely that he/she could turn out to be an awful person. I don't mean to sounds coldhearted, but c'mon, it goes both ways. Did you know Hitler's mom considered an abortion?

Also, a quick word on the "Supreme Court Justices" issue. Bush has stated (even though considering his record as president, the chances are that he's lying) that if he has an opportunity to pick Justices, that he'll pick those who he knows will interpret the Constitution. Well, if he keeps his word, then he will pick a Justice that realizes that in the Constitution (I'm too lazy to find the quote), it clearly states that an individiual has NO rights under it is actually born.

[ForeverBlue]

Kerry doesn't flip flop on everything. He never flipped on his stance for partial birth abortions. You know when they pull out the baby's head then smash it. Yes Kerry has always Opposed the Ban of this procedure.

[skinsfan]

No, I don't think that we should limit liberties beyond CRIMINAL acts. Killing something that if unabated will become a full-grown human (and I believe already is a person) is inherently criminal. If a girl doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't f**k, as that is the biological goal. No everytime I get with a girl I'm not looking to spread my seed, but that's why I use rubbers. Once you are pregnant, tough luck, you have to have the kid. And if you are saying "what they want to do with their own bodies" is an issue, remember we aren't in the 1600's when giving birth was often lethal. Even so, abortion contributes to rampant cases of breat cancer:
1)the body thinks it will have a kid
2)it grows the breasts
3a) she has the baby, the uterus sends hormones telling the breasts to stop growing
3b)she kills the fetus, and they never receive the stop sign.

that is how it happens VERY often, especially with the most popular style of abortion, the French chemical abortion.

[VHawk15]

No, I don't think that we should limit liberties beyond CRIMINAL acts. Killing something that if unabated will become a full-grown human (and I believe already is a person) is inherently criminal.

The Constitution disagrees with you.

If a girl doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't f**k, as that is the biological goal.

Right, but if a girl gets raped, she isn't looking to get pregnant.

Once you are pregnant, tough luck, you have to have the kid.

Says who? Big Brother? The conservatives say we don't need big government, but this sounds like some type on anarchy.

And if you are saying "what they want to do with their own bodies" is an issue, remember we aren't in the 1600's when giving birth was often lethal.

Giving birth is still often lethal, and it's always painful nonetheless. And even if it wasn't, that's not the point. It's the woman's body, and to quote South Park, she "can do what she wants, whateva, whateva."

Also, basically you're saying there's a slim chance of breast cancer if the woman has an abortion, which is often times not lethal. I'm saying that if we abolish abortion, then women whose life is at risk that will DIE if they don't have the abortion, and since it would be illegal to have one under your system, then you would be killing two "people", instead of there being a less than .1% chance that the woman would get breast cancer.

that is how it happens VERY often, especially with the most popular style of abortion, the French chemical abortion.

Not sure where you're getting your stats, but BY FAR the most common abortion in America is through a pill.

[skinsfan]

Pills are still chemicals. Smart.
---
If a woman is raped, she still should have the child. At least let something good come of such a tragic event. Even so, rape pregnancies are very rare.
---
Pain happens very often. Yes it is an extreme pain, but it is for the sake of bringing a new life into the world as valuable as her's, your's, mine, or even the rapist's.

[MCG321]

If a woman is raped, she still should have the child. At least let something good come of such a tragic event.

If the woman doesn't want the baby, who says that it's a good thing?

[VHawk15]

If a woman is raped, she still should have the child. At least let something good come of such a tragic event. Even so, rape pregnancies are very rare.
---
Pain happens very often. Yes it is an extreme pain, but it is for the sake of bringing a new life into the world as valuable as her's, your's, mine, or even the rapist's.

I respect your opinion, and obviously we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, but the main point is that abortions aren't good, I agree with you. No one will say that abortions are good in any way and like I said, I wouldn't want a future wife or a relative of mine to have one. But that doesn't give me the right, you the right, and especially the government the right to tell a woman what she must do with her body.

[LBJackal]

No, I don't think that we should limit liberties beyond CRIMINAL acts. Killing something that if unabated will become a full-grown human (and I believe already is a person) is inherently criminal.

The Constitution disagrees with you.

Fair enough. But I think we're talking about what SHOULD be law, not what the law is. We already know what the laws says, and there are things we call constitutional amendments.

If a girl doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't f**k, as that is the biological goal.

Right, but if a girl gets raped, she isn't looking to get pregnant.

Laws should be different for rape victims. I realize it's hard to implement a law like this, but it's the right thing to do.

Once you are pregnant, tough luck, you have to have the kid.

Says who? Big Brother? The conservatives say we don't need big government, but this sounds like some type on anarchy.

Yeah, that's big government. They say you don't have the right to kill your unborn baby, and that's somehow trying to control your life.

And if you are saying "what they want to do with their own bodies" is an issue, remember we aren't in the 1600's when giving birth was often lethal.

Giving birth is still often lethal, and it's always painful nonetheless. And even if it wasn't, that's not the point. It's the woman's body, and to quote South Park, she "can do what she wants, whateva, whateva."

No, it's not her body. It's her baby's body. She can do what she wants with hers, but if it kills the baby, it should be a crime.

Also, basically you're saying there's a slim chance of breast cancer if the woman has an abortion, which is often times not lethal. I'm saying that if we abolish abortion, then women whose life is at risk that will DIE if they don't have the abortion, and since it would be illegal to have one under your system, then you would be killing two "people", instead of there being a less than .1% chance that the woman would get breast cancer.

If having a baby will cause them to die, they shouldn't get pregnant.

that is how it happens VERY often, especially with the most popular style of abortion, the French chemical abortion.

Not sure where you're getting your stats, but BY FAR the most common abortion in America is through a pill.

I don't care what the method is, the result is the same.

[VHawk15]

If having a baby will cause them to die, they shouldn't get pregnant.

I was going to stop posting in this thread, but I must reply to this statement. Don't you realize that if women have complications of the pregnacy and they will die without an abortion, that it's something they don't realize until the third trimester? It's not like the woman says, "Well, if I have a baby, it's going to kill me, but I might as well give it a try. You only live once."

And like I mentioned before, I think history speaks for itself. We didn't have Roe v. Wade in the 1970's and it was an absolute and complete disaster.

[LBJackal]

If having a baby will cause them to die, they shouldn't get pregnant.

I was going to stop posting in this thread, but I must reply to this statement. Don't you realize that if women have complications of the pregnacy and they will die without an abortion, that it's something they don't realize until the third trimester? It's not like the woman says, "Well, if I have a baby, it's going to kill me, but I might as well give it a try. You only live once."

And like I mentioned before, I think history speaks for itself. We didn't have Roe v. Wade in the 1970's and it was an absolute and complete disaster.

Well that's a tough situation. Do you have any links about this? I don't know much about the medical problems associated with pregnancy that aren't known about beforehand.

I still lean towards abortion being illegal, with a few exceptions (ie: rape, and possibly certain medical conditions that will cause the mother and child to die).

Claiming anarchy will take over is ridiculous.