Jump to content

Akin


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 602
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Their "true agenda" is to privately support what Akin said while saying publicly they disagree with it. They believe as a Party as decreed by their platform that abortion's should be legal - even in the case of rape or incest. Something that they will never answer directly. They will even go as far as to cite phony scientific sources when they say that females bodies can prevent pregnancy due to forcible rape. They rely on false truths and misinformation to divide the country.

 

Akin's comments are a wide-held belief among many of the Christian right. You know these people as the Creationists who want laws to be passed to teach phony science in public schools. Text books informing kids that dinosaurs walked amongst man and that the earth is 8,000 years old.

 

Their answers to the non-believers? God intended to deceive us to find who the true believers are. Well if you believe that garbage why would you not believe that a females body can secrete an enzyme to prevent pregnancy?

 

For guys like Mitt Romney they dont truly care about these religious folks. They view these 80,000,000 ignorants as a means to help serve their true agenda of Plutocracy and Aristocracy.

 

So why are you arguing any of this?

 

I live in Canada but I'm going to vote in Ohio, Florida, Colorado and Wisconsin.

 

You wouldn't have a list of states where no voter I.D. is required, would you? I'm specifically looking for states that are close together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of everything that has been discussed, this is an extreme view. If I were one of the Super Pacs going after Obama, and considering how they have used the words rape and incest through PP ad's hitting Romney, which fact checkers have proven to be false, then as a direct counter, I would begin airing ads of Obama supporting infanticide, specially in rural areas.

 

 

 

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/audio-obama-says-fetus-or-child-was-just-not-coming-out-limp-and-dead_650611.html

 

Here's an audio recording of Barack Obama arguing as an Illinois state senator in 2002 against legislation protecting infants who had survived an attempted late-term abortions:

 

Obama's argument against the bill is that he trusted an abortion doctor, who had just failed to kill a child in utero, to provide medical care to that child if it survived the abortion attempt. "If these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after," Obama said.

 

Transcript:

 

OBAMA: I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there's, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? 23 pages and 400+ comments since Sunday - this issue is on fire and y'all wish it could go away.

 

Republican views on women's health in the instance of rape and incest will be one of main issues.

 

If this ain't a core issue than "why so serious"?

 

It's a very polarizing subject that pretty much has zero to do with moving this country forward.

 

Since most of you neo-cons live in WNY I smile knowing your vote won't count.

 

You'd be very wrong there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is what helps you sleep at night.

 

It's not like I lay awake at night wondering if I should share your moral values.

 

Which is kind of the point: you have yours, I have mine, other people have theirs. It's not an absolute, no matter how special you think yours are. So stop trying to force it on others. I don't care what you believe; I DO care that you think others have to believe it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many great people have been killed before they could contribute. Did some single mother abort the doctor that would cure cancer, or the engineer that would have developed anti gravity technology.

That technology already exists. Not that we're allowed to know about it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uah330yQcw

 

:D

 

/end of days

Edited by tgreg99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like I lay awake at night wondering if I should share your moral values.

 

Which is kind of the point: you have yours, I have mine, other people have theirs. It's not an absolute, no matter how special you think yours are. So stop trying to force it on others. I don't care what you believe; I DO care that you think others have to believe it as well.

So one person thinks it is okay to kill a zygote, another thinks it is okay to straggle an eight month old, in your world neither is murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So one person thinks it is okay to kill a zygote, another thinks it is okay to straggle an eight month old, in your world neither is murder.

 

Disgusting.

 

Time for you to go clean your Paul Hill and Scott Roeder Fat Heads.

Edited by K-9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So one person thinks it is okay to kill a zygote, another thinks it is okay to straggle an eight month old, in your world neither is murder.

 

If you're referring to an eight month old fetus, it is no longer a zygote, so the analogy isn't quite apt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...