No matter how one slices and dices Roe v. Wade, it is a legal hoax that has fostered, either directly or from those later decisions based upon it, over 50 million senseless killing of unborn babies. That barbarism falsely called a woman's "right to choose" is what I hold in contempt and especially politicians who approve and work to further it.

Lula posts:

Well, had it been your article, I may not have said this, but seeing it is KFC's, and since it is Biblical truth, I thought she'd be OK with it.

Opposition to abortion will never go away. We can't call our country or identify ourselves as civilized as long as it remains an accepted practice.

tease!!!!!

Sure thing, reading back , I see that now.

No Accomplishments???????  He turned a billion dollar surplus into a billion dollar deficit - twice!  He thoroughly destroyed the IT infrastructure of the commonwealth and sold it down the river to line the pockets of his cronies and made sure it cost as much as 5 times more!

How can you say no accomplishments?

I doubt those things you listed would be considered 'success.' More like disasterous consequence.

If you are voting for the person you most want to see in office then that candidate is NOT a spoiler.  The notion that the third party candidates "steal" votes from the major parties is insane.  The third party candidates fill a void that has been left by the divisivness of the two major parties.

I honestly don't care how abortion was legalized at this point I just know that without one my wife would have died and as such abortion was, and still is, a necessary evil.

It's not that difficult.  Are you really going to force a woman to carry a 9 month reminder around of a horrible event that happened to her?  Then force her to go through the painful labor only to have to either raise an unwanted baby or have to give up a child for adoption that she has been bonding with for 9 months.  No matter how you cut it it is torture for the woman to have to deal with, and she shouldn't be forced to.

But if abortion were made illegal it would become an issue.  For one thing how do you define "when the woman's health is at risk"?  Some states have attempted to make it so that it is only when death is imminent, meaning if the fetus isn't aborted then the woman has less than a day to live.  If you ask me it should be aborted long before that if the woman starts having complications that are known to be life threatening.

Quite simply because there might not be any doctors around to perform the needed abortion.  If a woman in Idaho needs an abotion because she is dieing and the only way to save her is with an abortion yet Idaho doesn't have any doctors that perform the necessary operation what is that woman going to do?

Unfortunately this is something that some people are incapable of but is necessary to really talk about the issue.

And here we get into the nuanced debate of when life actually begins.  I will refrain from that in this debate because you and I will never see eye to eye on that.

ahhhhhh liberal?  Let's just not discuss this part eh?  We don't really want to know where the truth may lead us?

actually no because I'm really "anti-religious." 

How is picking a VP candidate who is in favour of abortion betraying McCains beliefs? To impose the straightjacket that his VP candidate must agree with him outright on every single conceivable moral issue means that he may not really have anyone left that qualifies to pick! Since McCain would be the president, it would be his views on abortion that matter, not his VP's. The VP's would matter more if McCain was to die from a cold winter leaving the VP to take charge. It also seems rather bizarre logic to not vote McCain because he picks a pro-abortion VP, and instead vote for Obama when he is pro-abortion.. A bit like clinton supporters saying they will vote McCain out of spite for Obama, even though Clinton+Obama's policies are far more similar than Clinton+McCain's - a 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' type of mentality.

Moving onto the issue of abortion (since that's being discussed here along with VP picks),

A fairly big problem with this (actually it's more a flaw with the method proposed, the majority rule) - it can lead to minorities and those without a voice/vote being hurt at the majorities expense. For example a law that taxes all African immigrants at 50% and gives their money to everyone born in the US could in theory be popular with the majority (who benefit) while being deeply unfair to the minority. It's an extreme example, but is there to illustrate the point that the mob, or majority, decision is not always the best one. You also have problems in some cases of poor information and judgement, with the population often proving fickle on issues and changing their views frequently. In the case of abortion and whether people are in favour or against it, the very phrasing of the question asked can have a big impact (e.g. ask whether it's ok to abort a foetus and I expect you'd find more people saying yes than if you ask whether it's ok to kill an unborn child). Not to say that having just 1 person making the decision is any better of course, more that neither is perfect.

My own personal views are that while abortion generally is wrong, there are exceptions. Where the mothers life is in danger is a clear one, since then you are weighing up one life against another. It's a terrible decision to be faced with, but in that situation I would say the mother has every right to choose whether to have an abortion. Rape is another very difficult area and my views on it are not solid. Practically I know that it wouldn't be all that feasible to ban abortion but allow it for rape, but equally it seems wrong to force childbirth (and the inherrant risks of it), along with a child that could bring back memories of a terrible ordeal onto someone. Therefore my stance is that in cases of rape a woman too should have a choice, up to the point at which the child has a viable chance of life outside the mother (although any such law would need to have some flexibility, which would inevitably lead to some regrettable situations such as where women would cry rape in order to obtain an abortion. However it would IMO be better than the alternative of allowing mass legalised killing of children). However you don't need to legalise it in all cases, including a worrying increasing amount of times where it is used as a method of birth control. You could still have doctors trained in abortion procedures so that in the rarer cases they could carry them out, and of course you could have specialised units if it became a really rare occurance in the above exceptions (IMO unlikely though). To carry on from a later point you then made (e.g. of no doctors being trained), aside from making it mandatory that doctors are trained (so such a situation would be highly unlikely to ever arise) you could always then airlift the woman to the nearest doctor who was.

I'd agree - I'd probably classify it as any situation where it would be expected that the mother would suffer an increased risk of life threatening complications as a result of continuing with the pregnancy. It would obviously in part be a judgement call on the doctors part, but if someone's life is at risk from continuing a pregnancy (and not just the standard very low risk that would arise from any normal pregnancy) then an abortion should be available.  However I doubt few if any people would have an objection against that, since to deny abortions in such cases is to make a judgement about which life is more valuable for every such situation. When the persons life is not at risk (and it's not a case of rape which then brings up the tortue issues you mentioned) then it is no longer about weighing up one life against another, since there is only one life in danger, and hence I feel that life should be protected, and not deemed less worthy than convenience, or avoidance of childbirth pain resulting from a persons own actions (typically from having unprotected sex, although even in the case of contraception if you choose to have sex you are aware there is a chance that a pregnancy may result).

...  It shouldn't matter what the President believes about abortion.  It should matter if the President will abide by the will of the people on what *they* believe about abortion

A fairly big problem with this (actually it's more a flaw with the method proposed, the majority rule) - it can lead to minorities and those without a voice/vote being hurt at the majorities expense. For example a law that taxes all African immigrants at 50% and gives their money to everyone born in the US could in theory be popular with the majority (who benefit) while being deeply unfair to the minority. It's an extreme example, but is there to illustrate the point that the mob, or majority, decision is not always the best one. You also have problems in some cases of poor information and judgement, with the population often proving fickle on issues and changing their views frequently. In the case of abortion and whether people are in favour or against it, the very phrasing of the question asked can have a big impact (e.g. ask whether it's ok to abort a foetus and I expect you'd find more people saying yes than if you ask whether it's ok to kill an unborn child). Not to say that having just 1 person making the decision is any better of course, more that neither is perfect.

 Mob rule is not good.  Enligntened decision making is.  Are we children needing the government to tell us right from wrong?  Most people can understand the topic and the implecations as long as it isn't debated with 8 second sound bytes or screaming from the extremes on either side.  But these days it seems that 8 seconds of the extremes is all we get, so people either pick a side and become invested in it, or give up and look for someone else to make the decision for them.

Why on earth should we be selecting the Commander in Chief and Chief Diplomat for the country based on this one issue that we should decide for ourselves, that he can't decide for us anyway, and that the most he can do is nominate (and appoint, but not without confirmation) a couple of the nine people that must decide it for us because we refuse to do it for ourselves?

Guess what.  You're socially pro-choice, personally pro-life as you would not get an abortion but you see that there are conditions where abortion should be allowed and therefore you are pro-choice.

Excellent points and I couldn't agree more.

It depends on what state you live in.  Some states require parental notification, some even require parental consent for a girl at 12-15 to get an abortion.  If your state doesn't require parental notification/consent and you want it talk to your state representatives.

As for the "say of the unborn" or if the constitution applies to "the unborn" you correct it depnds on when life begins.  I don't think the fetus is a life until it is able to live outside the womb (with or without life support).  I think that if a child can be birthed (even if it's early) rather than be aborted it should be given the shot at life.  Until that point it is only a potential life and not an actual life because it could just as easily miscarry.