B...b...but look over there! Palin tried to ban books!!!

B...b...but look over there! Obama uses a teleprompter!!!

Hey Bri! Your response to this charge is?...

(also, I'd like to know a lefties response to Obama's attempt to get the troops to stay in Iraq just a bit longer... but that's a different discussion).

Brian:

How about a real response to that woman's story, eh? I am real curious how someone who supports Obama feels about the process of late term abortion where a child just might survive if the doctor doesn't kill it.

If you can watch this and still vote for him, I pray for your soul...and Americas'.

I'm with Mark.

Who could quibble with this woman. You've no soul if you do.

For what it's worth, the Obama campaign's explanation of the issue. It looks like Obama opposed the Illinois version of the law because it lacked a key clause that would have limited the bill's potential effect on Roe v. Wade. Also, the Obama material contends that existing Illinois law was sufficient to accomplish the same purpose.

I AM UNSURE OF EITHER PARTY. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE B O WENT TO SCHOOL WHERE HE LEARNED ABOUT THE 57 STATES IN THE U.S. AND IF HE IS ONLY IN HIS EARLY 40'S HOW HE HELPED WITH WATERGATE???????? AND I GUESS ALL WOMEN ARE LIPSTICK WEARING PIGS... HUM STILL THINKING WHO IS BEST

How about a real response to that woman's story, eh?

She's quite adept at evoking the emotions of those who are already pro-life, I'll give her that.

I am real curious how someone who supports Obama feels about the process of late term abortion

I favor there being a limit on when abortion should be available as an option. Certainly 7.5 months is beyond that limit. But my opinion is not influenced by stories of hardship that prey on emotion.

HUM STILL THINKING WHO IS BEST

hum...not spurwing...whatever.

But my opinion is not influenced by stories of hardship that prey on emotion.

Her survival is not a hardship, Brian. If she were your child that survived, of course you would not be affected at all.

I question your sensitivity to logic, Brian.

This woman is happy to be alive. That is a fact. She was damaged but not destroyed by her mother while she was a living soul. That was proven by her survival. She is happy to be alive in spite of the damage her mother caused her. She wants others like her to get the same opportunity she had.

I don't see anything illogical about that, do you, Brian? If so, what?

"It looks like Obama opposed the Illinois version of the law because it lacked a key clause that would have limited the bill's potential effect on Roe v. Wade. Also, the Obama material contends that existing Illinois law was sufficient to accomplish the same purpose."

Existing Illinois law was entirely insufficient.

The Chicago hospital where the botched abortion occurred, that led to both the Illinois bill and the federal law admitted to the Chicago Tribune that allowing aborted but 'botched' baby's to die in closets was common.

The existing law had a loophole that allowed abortionists to decide whether the aborted baby was likely to die and if in their judgment it was, they could withhold care.

Since allowing a baby to die is difficult even for abortionists, they would throw the baby in a closet. (if you aren't sick by now, may God have mercy on your lost soul)

As for the 'key' clause, after voting to include the clause in the bill which made the Illinois bill identical, word for word with the Federal bill, Obama voted to kill the bill in committee, ending its chances to become law.

The identical federal law was passed 98-0 and both Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer (the most pro-abortion senator) rose on the floor of the senate to speak in favor of the bill.

When this all came out, Obama accused those who had 'outed' him of being liers.

The organization immediately released documentation showing Obama's vote in committee to kill the bill.

The next day Obama's campaign publicly acknowledged that Obama 'misspoke' and had in fact voted to kill the bill. Obama did not apologize for calling them liers.

Obama's campaign said that he voted to kill the bill because he was afraid that providing basic medical care to baby's might lead to constraints upon Roe vs Wade...effectively condoning infanticide.

It's a tough pill to swallow but honesty requires the taking of ones medicine. Unless of course, you condone infanticide as well...

Her survival is not a hardship, Brian.

Ah, is it time for you to play childish games with words already?

I question your sensitivity to logic, Brian.

Ask me if I care.

I don't see anything illogical about that, do you, Brian?

Not at all. Did I say there was? It's perfectly logical for someone to speak up for what they believe in. Did you have a point to make?

Ah, is it time for you to play childish games with words already?

Tell us the words you're having problems with, because we'd really like a coherent answer.

Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight, Brian.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, as defined by President William J. Clinton.

Sarah Palin opposes birth control between married couples. Let's see how that plays to the public when it gets out.

Sarah Palin opposes the legality of abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Most of you on this site might support these views.

But, thankfully, you are not most of America.

Breaking news:

Over 4,000 fetuses, some as old as over 400 months, have died over the past 8 years as a direct result of the Bush Doctrine's reign of terror on our country.

Ryan, I see that you are continuing to just make up what you want to believe is true.

Have you always been this terrified by the thought of a woman in a position of leadership or is this something recent?

Sarah Palin is NOT opposed to contraception being taught in public school. Why would she be opposed to it being used between married couples? That's just silly.

Now, here's a thought ...

How about responding to the topic of this thread?

What do you think should happen to a baby who inconveniently survives an abortion attempt?

Ryan,

according to USA Today:
"This year, she (Palin) rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted her to add two abortion restriction measures to a special legislative session on oil and gas policy, even though she supported the bills."

From the Alaska Daily News:
6. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?
Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.
7. Do you support or oppose the use of public funds for abortion (e.g., paying for abortion, promoting abortion, subsidizing organizations that provide or refer for abortion)?
I oppose the use of public funds for elective abortions.

According to the LA Times, here is what Palin actually said about contraceptives:

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

As expressed by BHO and the resident trolls, "Democrat Party: More dead babies, not dead terrorists."

She is happy to be alive, she probably has a good life. Good for her! Good for the ones who love her. I can be hapy for her. But:
Stories are different, people are different. Women who chose to have an abortion do not do so becasue they are killers. They do so because they are the only ones who have the whole picture, the only ones who can tap into their own feelings and make a decision. And they are the only ones who will have to live with that decision. Some woman's decision to have an abortion does not change the essence of who she is, does not change at all, anything in my life. Why should I interfere then? Why should the government? Education first, support first. Some people say that "killing babies" reflects how a society is. Are babies in other parts of the world part of this equation? How about killing any other group of human beings? Are the babies killed in a war created by sick minds part of the equation? Because unless we stop being hypocrites, unless we stop invading other countries,ignoring places like Darfur, complying with China's human rights records, applauding a death penalty system that already proved to be flawd, the "let's fix our society by prohibiting abortion" speech is not convincing, is it? I am against abortion as a principle (as is Barack Obama) but I am aginst ANYONE else trying to decide for me without my invitation. Certainly not the Government

Adriana,

When you attempt a moral equivalence argument, you have lost.

Thanks for proving what we already knew - there IS no defense to killing a newborn infant, regardless of it was from a botched abortion.

Not one of you empty-souled cretins agreed that it was "o.k" to kill a baby that was already born, just that "hey, these other things are horrible too!"

Guess what: You disagree with the position of the Obamessiah.

HERETICS!

Tell us the words you're having problems with,

The pretense that I said "her survival" was a hardship, for one.

because we'd really like a coherent answer.

Incoherent snark doesn't deserve a coherent answer. But I gave you one anyway.

Brian~

Ah, is it time for you to play childish games with words already?

Let me put it another way. Her survival is a blessing. Your only focus was on her "hardship".
Your priorities would suggest a "cup half empty" rather than "half full". Childish games with words or you being defensive about your priorities because you imagine them to be "preyed upon"? Yes, this story of hope was just waiting to pounce on you like naive victim of emotion. Stop acting like a dweeb.

How about killing any other group of human beings? Are the babies killed in a war created by sick minds part of the equation?

And "stories" are different. Can you be any more vague? This topic centers on an abortion survivor whom is living a full life. If you want to get side-tracked into other subjects about how babies die, I'm sure you can find another blog to wander into where this comment fits right in.

You will never make it go away so keep it as safe and legal as possible within resonable limits. First twelve weeks for whatever reason the mother deems appropriate. Second trimester only of child has life altering deformities or the mother is at risk. Third trimester- you are signing away your rights and responsibilites to the CHILD and giving birth unless your your life is in grave danger and then you are having a c-section and the CHILD goes to NICU for medical care.

And to all of you adamant pro-lifers. Unless and until you put your name on a list to adopt the next baby born regardless of race,sex,health status,defect or deformity and raise that child, YOU NEED TO SHUT THE HELL UP!