Dems Party Of Death According to Vatican

geocajun said:

No one that believes babies should be killed for research can be called pro-life. McCain is not only in favor of doing that, but he also wants tax payers to fund it.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget of course that Obama supported allowing babies to be killed for convenience

MachZer0 said:

Let's not forget of course that Obama supported allowing babies to be killed for convenience

Click to expand...

And McCain supports killing them for convenience if its in the name of research.

There is no pro-life candidate running for president.

MachZer0 said:

Let's not forget of course that Obama supported allowing babies to be killed for convenience

Click to expand...

You seriously think that's the only reason that he voted against the Infant Protection Act?

jamesrwright3 said:

I am just pointing out voting for a pro-choice candidate and being a Catholic are not compatible.

Click to expand...

Inconsistency in religion? You are putting us on!

You can drop bombs on babies to secure control of oil. You make heroes of those who, following your orders, drop those bombs. You will sentence to death unknown numbers of innocents to have vengeance on a few of the guilty. You can claim to serve god, but actually serve money.

I remember what it was like before Roe vs. Wade: Upright Christians who sneered at unwed mothers, and called their children "bastards", the butcher shops where quacks killed mother and baby.

Hypocrites! Not only hypocrites, but fools! For six years the Republicans controlled both houses and and the presidency. They passed no law, no amendment. The monied lead the religious right around with a carrot on a stick, but they are never going to feed them. It would take away a valuable tool.

You politely turn your eyes away from a hundred thousand Iraqis, dead of your greed, but set yourself to gouge the mote out of another's eye with a splintery stick.

HannahBanana said:

You seriously think that's the only reason that he voted against the Infant Protection Act?

Click to expand...

He tried to spin it as something else, but it didn't fly. The end result: doctors could kill babies.

interesting

Gracchus said:

... For six years the Republicans controlled both houses and and the presidency. They passed no law, no amendment...

Click to expand...

The problem when I see absolutes like yours and others that try claiming similar is when a Republican comes by, reads it, and they can remember farther back than what they had for breakfast:
Victims of Violence act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212)
Feel free to look it up.

Oh, and people feel free to check into how the votes usually fall on protecting the unborn. I see the 38 votes for the law mentioned above had 36 D's and 2 R's, and 1 I under the "Nay".

Yeah, who do you think you are judge? I think he thinks he speaking something from God..............How dare God get into a political matter.......this is our choice....................right?

MachZer0 said:

He tried to spin it as something else, but it didn't fly. The end result: doctors could kill babies.

Click to expand...

It's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's illegal to kill born babies. Making redundant laws is called "playing politics". Making laws that just reiterate other laws doesn't solve problems it just creates complexity.

geocajun said:

It's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's illegal to kill born babies.

Click to expand...

It is now. We can thank Bush for signing that bill into law. Good thing Obama wasn't President when it came up

ChristianCenturion said:

The problem when I see absolutes like yours and others that try claiming similar is when a Republican comes by, reads it, and they can remember farther back than what they had for breakfast:
Victims of Violence act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212)
Feel free to look it up.

Click to expand...

I looked it up and found this:

U.S.C. 2283).
‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/pl108-212.pdf

Did you even read the law?

ChristianCenturion said:

Oh, and people feel free to check into how the votes usually fall on protecting the unborn. I see the 38 votes for the law mentioned above had 36 D's and 2 R's, and 1 I under the "Nay".

Click to expand...

The cited law specifically excludes prosecution for abortions performed with the consent of the mother.

I ask again, what anti-abortion statutes were passed by congress during the period the Republicans held majorities in both houses and the presidency?

I don't say there were none. Perhaps the press overlooked it, or it didn't make the evening news?

Gracchus said:

Hypocrites! Not only hypocrites, but fools! For six years the Republicans controlled both houses and and the presidency.

Click to expand...

Which 6 years were those?

MachZer0 said:

Which 6 years were those?

Click to expand...

Bush has been in power since 2001.
Republicans controlled the House of Representatives from 1994-2006
Republicans controlled the Senate from 2002-2006. Admittedly, the Democratic caucus had a slim majority (51-49) from 2000 to 2002.

You get the point, though. The GOP controlled the government totally for at least four years. and ran most of the government for six.

MachZer0 said:

He tried to spin it as something else, but it didn't fly. The end result: doctors could kill babies.

Click to expand...

What makes you think he was trying to spin it, and that he wasn't simply trying to correct people's misconceptions as to why he voted the way he did?

MachZer0 said:

He tried to spin it as something else, but it didn't fly. The end result: doctors could kill babies.

Click to expand...

So can bomber pilots, with less education.

MachZer0 said:

It is now. We can thank Bush for signing that bill into law. Good thing Obama wasn't President when it came up

Click to expand...

It has always been illegal to kill *born* babies. What part of that don't you understand?

Gracchus said:

I looked it up and found this:

U.S.C. 2283).
‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/pl108-212.pdf

Did you even read the law?

Click to expand...

I suppose memory is shorter for some than others - I'll help you out a little and remind that I was the one that posted it. Yes, I did read it. Did you read my post and see it stating anything about prosecuting anyone for abortion? I'll answer that for you so as not to come to a wrong answer - No, it does not.

Your post's little rant went on and on with the typical nonsensical rhetoric about killing, life, no law was ever passed blah, blah, blah. I pointed out that there are steps being made in the right direction and done, no surprise, by Republicans and opposed, no surprise, by Democrats. There are several more bills anyone can point out dealing with abortion and the unborn as well. The votes are seen to fall along the usual lines - Republicans representing discouragement for the profitable abortion industry or encourage honoring the sanctity of life. And Democrats... well we all know how the Democrats usually fall on the issue.
Looking at only a few of 2007...

S.Amdt. 3330
To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions.
Rejected 41/52/7
41 R's for Yeas
43 D's, 7 R's, 2 I's for Nays
Side note: McCain was a yea, Obama was a no vote

S.Amdt. 2708
To prevent contributions to organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Rejected 40/54/6
39 R's, 1 D for Yeas
44 D's, 7 R's, 2 I's for Nays
Side note: McCain was a yea, Obama was a no vote

S.Amdt. 2707
To prohibit funding of organizations that support coercive abortion.
Agreed to 48/45/7
44 R's, 4 D's for Yeas
40 D's, 3 R's, 2 I's for Nays
Side note: McCain and Obama were a no vote

S.Amdt. 2535
To codify the unborn child rule.
Rejected 49/50/1
44 R's, 5 D's for Yeas
43 D's, 5 R's, 2 I's for Nays
Side note: McCain was a yea, Obama was a nay

The cited law specifically excludes prosecution for abortions performed with the consent of the mother.

Click to expand...

Did my post say anything about it being a law to prosecute abortions? No.
Besides, since there are so many who like to support abortion without having to say so, there will be more ground gained if the movement continues on a path where government is discouraging abortion and penalizing (cut the money) those that do.

Oddly enough, your rant blathered something about money and oil, yet the killing of innocent life within the womb is well known to be the profitable business... that the vast majority of Democrats continually support.

I ask again, what anti-abortion statutes were passed by congress during the period the Republicans held majorities in both houses and the presidency?

I don't say there were none. Perhaps the press overlooked it, or it didn't make the evening news?

Click to expand...

The thread goes along the path of Democrats being the party of Death. If you wish to restrict posts to only a narrow aspect on abortion, feel free to start a thread on your own... and possibly not make similar bad assumtions so much when replying to those posts.

geocajun said:

It has always been illegal to kill *born* babies. What part of that don't you understand?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is exactly what they were doing in Illinois when Obama voted to allow it to continue

MachZer0 said:

I'm sorry, but that is exactly what they were doing in Illinois when Obama voted to allow it to continue

Click to expand...

Then what they were doing was illegal.

HannahBanana said:

Then what they were doing was illegal.

Click to expand...

It was no secret it was being done. Why do you suppose there were no prosecutions and why do you suppose Obama voted to allow it to continue?