It’s official. The Democratic Party is in favor of both death and taxes.
Many Democrats aren’t, but they go along with those who are.
Even while they’re paying four dollars a gallon at the pump, they’ll keep on voting for the people who are shafting them!

It’s official… you’re a fool.

I am if you are buying gas for two dollars and nine cents a gallon.
That’s what it cost two years ago, when Democratic people-despisers took control of Congress.

What is the deal with the abortion issue. To be honest, abortion is a non-issue. Abortion is not the reason for $4 a gallon gas. Abortion is not the reason for the mortgage meltdowns. Abortion is not what we are fighting for in iraq. Give it a rest already. If all types of abortions were made illegal tomorrow, it would not solve all of the problems facing our nation. I will never understand this anti-abortion, pro-gun mentality. As if those issues are all that will matter when your unemployed, living in a box dowm by yhe river.

Every hour that a President spends working on preventing abortions is an hour not doing the job of the President. There is a wonderful job description in Article II of the Constitution, and it says nothing about abortion or, for that matter, “faith-based” institutions. However, because part of the job is to preserve and defend the Constitution (it’s in the oath of office) and to see that the laws are properly executed, I could see a President or candidate resisting efforts to give the government an unconstitutional power to compel a woman to give birth to a child against her will. I would hope that Sen Casey will talk about something other than a plea for the federal government to endorse a particular theology.

Rob Byer

Remarkably callous disregard for the lives of unborn babies.
There’s a price to pay in the world beyond for being more concerned with imaginary problems like global warming than with the lives of baby people.
Or, is this a “new compassion” that indicates the usual progressive enlightenment?

Thinking about what the cold steel forceps do to the arms and legs of the unborn baby may open the door to thinking that life should be protected, rather than destroyed

Before we delve into the muck of abortion politics, a word on Casey. I don’t see him receiving a prime-time slot at the Dem convention, primarily because the interest groups that prevented his father from speaking in 1992 haven’t exactly lost influence within the party since that time. True, a good portion of Dem success in the last election cycle hinged on recruiting “local” candidates (read: socially-conservative populists) to compete in vulnerable red districts, but the national party remains committed to the cause of abortion rights. Personally, even if Casey is given a prominent role, I’m not sure it really affects much of anything. Every four years, Republicans find every “pro-choice” member within their ranks and seemingly paste them onto their convention stage for a week. Yet, in the minds of most voters, the GOP is still associated with being “pro-life” and the Dems “pro-choice”. Changing faces hasn’t necessarily bred a change in attitudes within the parties on this issue. Speaking as someone who considers himself a “pro-life” person, I’m sick and tired of the way the abortion debate is typically conducted here in Pennsylvania and across the country. Depending on your point of view, there are two arguments to be made: it’s either a “person, not a choice” or “a choice, not a person”. If you accept the fact that an unborn child is indeed a person, any “choice” element in the discussion should go by the wayside. I find it hard to believe that, given the premise that the unborn are indeed people, they should not receive the same legal protections afforded to their counterparts outside the womb. We were once told that the unborn aren’t viable until the very last weeks of pregnancy. Now, some babies prematurely born at four and five months survive their earliest days and go on to live their lives. Hopefully, no matter where you are on abortion, we can accept the fact the advances in technology have shifted the goalposts on the issue.
Personally, I’m not sure the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade would be the “coup de grace” that many in the “pro-life” community make it out to b e. Yes, the Supreme Court recognizing and correcting an extremely flawed decision would be fantastic, but would that mean abortions would end in the United States? Of course not. The battle would shift to the states, meaning abortion would probably be legal in California and New York but outlawed in Texas and Indiana, for example. If unborn children continue to be killed in only 25 states instead of 50, this is “victory” for the “pro-life” side? When it comes to affecting attitudes on abortion, all the speeches in Congress and arguments in courts aren’t nearly as effective as…talking. Read interviews with young women who considered abortion. I’ve yet to see one that mentioned “a fantastic speech by a politician” or a “really convincing argument by a lawyer”. However, there are many who cite heartfelt conversations with someone at an adoption clinic or a member of clergy or just a trusted family friend. I’ve said previously that women (particularly young women) faced with unplanned pregnancies don’t need to be stigmatized or showered with sometimes hallow sympathy. They need solutions. They need a caring individual who promises the full support of either themselves or their organization in the raising and caring of that young girl’s child. The “pro-life” movement should become a force truly focused on “life” – promoting, cultivating, supporting life and the quality of it – versus hammering away on the abortion issue and coming off as high-minded hacks more concerned with personal conduct and “condemning” the other side than taking the actions necessary to actually prevent abortions from occurring in the first place.

All arguments are meaningless to a poor, helpless baby who’s been savagely dismembered in the womb.
We are either pro-life or we are pro-death.

Pro-life or Pro-death, really? If it were that simple, there wouldn’t even be a discussion. Without going into all the pros and cons on both sides of this issue, the point is it’s not an either/or issue. By the way, who is this “we” you speak of? President Bush proclaims his pro-life views, yet he is pro-death penalty. So where does he fit into your simple view?

We either want to keep unborn babies alive, or we are in favor of letting them be killed.

Those in favor of letting them be killed always want to muddy the water so they don’t have to examine the results of their “moral” choice.

The baby is either born alive or is killed.
Each of us is either in favor of one or the other.

This extreme view, that totally discounts a woman’s liberty, is at its most extreme when one considers rape victims who become pregnant as a result of a criminal act. To say that the state can force a woman to give birth to a child under those or most other circumstances confers a power on the state that might be more familiar in China than to our Constitutional scheme.

Of course it begs the question. The issue of when life begins is theological. The legal issue (not the religious one) involves potential life. Those who would make women subservient to biology are acting based upon religious belief, which they have the right to exercise freely, but not to establish as a governmental restriction on the rest of us.

I’m in favor of keeping them alive. But I believe the mother has the right to decide- NOT me.

A few years ago, there was a fascinating show on Discovery or one of the other cable science/nature channels about pregnancy. Did you know when a woman is pregnant, the fetus can actually regulate some of her bodily functions? For example, if it’s not getting enough blood, it can cause the mother’s heart to beat and pump faster. It can go so far as to cannibalize the mother’s body so it can live if it’s not getting enough nutrients. The fetus is not quite the helpless entity it’s made out to be. It has a strong and natural instinct to survive even at the cost of its mother’s life.

pd

So, this is a reason for mothers to kill their children?
Some of these posts indicate a degree of confusion that’s appalling.
Either a baby is allowed to live, or it is killed.
Some are in favor of babies being killed (“I didn’t want to, but it was the only way I could afford a new car.”), others are in favor of life.
Some people spend eternity in one place, some in another.
The same people who equivocate about killing babies usually equivocate about the eternity of their soul, as well.