Last night on Fox, there was an interview with a lady on-the-street who was asked how she would vote in the up-coming presidential election. Her answer was "I voted Republican in 2008 however I will vote Democratic this election to support my Reproductive Rights". Help me out here friends. I believe that a woman should have the "choice" to do anything with/to her body she wishes. But it's not HER body she is destroying when she commits abortion. Right?

My ex-wife (mother of my children) told me recently that she believes abortion is murder but she has other political issues she supports that make her a registered, life-long (and die-hard) democrat.

A customer told me recently that she is a liberal democrat and that most democrats don't believe abortion is right, but they support abortion to support women and their right to do as they please and make their own choices.

A trapshooting friend and liberal (some of you know) told me during a discussion at my dinner table that she thinks ending the life of a child should extend up to 2 years old as a child of 2 doesn't really know life yet. Her reasoning was that if the parents do not have the ability to support the child, having the child live is "cruelty".

Evidently people who vote Democratic (abortion supporters) know something I don't. What am I missing here?

milt

Allow abortion up to age 2?

You should have escorted her to your garage and sterilized her with a rusty coat hanger. Anybody that would consider murdering a young child up to age 2 deserves no less!

None of my kids would have made it!

Surely she was kidding. Afterall the only REAL reason we have kids is to see what they'll look like. Once the curiosity is satisfied it's too bad we can't send them back....

Guy B.

mette56,you wrote:

A trapshooting friend and liberal (some of you know) told me during a discussion at my dinner table that she thinks ending the life of a child should extend up to 2 years old as a child of 2 doesn't really know life yet. Her reasoning was that if the parents do not have the ability to support the child, having the child live is "cruelty".

Holly crap, how could you even asscociate with someone that has that mind set. That is one stupid ass statement.

Was she just kidding around or serious?

I guess the rights of the emerging human go under the bus for these slimeballs.

They need a "retroactive abortion" themselves. Why stop at 2 years old? some of them need it at 45.

HM

The really good news is that the libs and others who love abortion so much are killing off their next generation. Soon there will be none! Maybe we should amend Roe vs Wade so that only libs and welfare recipients can kill their babies - but only if they want.

391,

Yes, she was dead serious. Her husband, her, my girlfriend (who also witnessed this)and I were all the best of friends. Traveled to shoots, played golf together. After that incident, we spoke only on rare occasion. For me, I don't see the difference in a 2 year old and a developed fetus. If any, the fetus is TOTALLY innocent, helpless and TOTALLY dependent upon its mother. As far as "seeing it", I would always wonder what it would have looked like, who it would've turned out to be...how much love it could have given to my family and the world (if I wouldn't have killed it). OBTW, her husband, my girlfriend and I were/are all conservative and anti abortion. The rest of dinner that night after her statement was not comfortable.

milt

Interesting interview by Hannity of Ann Coulter on the subject of the womens vote.

Click on above address to hear it.

Why would anybody be surprised the Libs would want to extend abortion up to age 2 ???

We have been conditioned to accept abortion of the fetus as an okay thing. Next will be to euthenze those already born, because they don't turn out right and the old once they are no longer productive to society. Hitler already tried this.

Pro Life people have been trying to say for.years this is the next natural step. Yet they were and are painted as a radical bunch. The destruction of a society is always done in small steps.

I am pro-choice. Unlike most, however, I believe the choice takes place before having sex.

If thats the case how come the population of libs is increasing? Shouldn't they be aborting themselves to extinction?...Oh, I forgot about the liberal welfare puppy mill moms..oops

Halfmile..did you mean they should be able to abort themselves to age 45 or WITH a .45 I think either ways it sounds good to me

It is called "post birth abortion" (it should be called infanticide). The journal of medical ethics has had a couple of articles on it. Our president when he was a state senator said that "babies who wholly emerge from the mother are not "persons" and do not deserve equal protection under the 14th amendment".

Peter Singer is a philosophy professor at Princeton who has advocated for "post birth abortion". Google him to see all of his liberal views.....

On the plus side abortion eliminates a lot of future liberal voters.

No, they are not born, they are taught (or should I say brainwashed and perverted) by our public schools and universities, owned and staffed by Liberals.

This is actually quite an emerging fashionable opinion for liberals sharing a glass of wine with people they think they trust.

I had one tell me she believes violent crime rates are down because Planned Parenthood is preventing so many future criminals from being born.

...and remember, these people want to ration your health care when you're old.

She may have a point buzz. That's what made Russia, China, Cambodia, etal. the crime free utopias. They just took out the criminals, undesirables, achivers, free speech nuts.............. And look at em now, crime free, unless you consider taking a person out in the woods and shooting them in the head a crime?

The abortion rights issue echos the old slavery issue. It's based on privacy and property rights. The unborn child is seen as property and the woman's right to abort is a property privacy issue according to the courts. Mind you, the courts once ruled in Scott v. Sanford that a Negro was a subordinate class of being who had no rights or privileges that a white person was obligated to observe. So much for the wisdom of the courts. Women who favor abortion either have cold hearts or have never seen film of the squirming and thrashing the unborn child does as it's torn apart or burned with saline. People who support abortion are seriously lacking in human compassion just as those who kept slaves were. The parallels are way too many to miss. First, slavery was couched in special language to disguise what it really was. It was called the "peculiar institution" to avoid calling it slavery. Similarly, abortion has been labeled "pro-choice" to cover what it really is. Slaves were called "niggers" to avoid being recognized as real humans. Likewise, the unborn child is called a fetus to avoid associating it with babies. It's all one big dirty business.

R J Talley

The abortion rights issue echos the old slavery issue. It's based on privacy and property rights. The unborn child is seen as property and the woman's right to abort is a property privacy issue according to the courts. Mind you, the courts once ruled in Scott v. Sanford that a Negro was a subordinate class of being who had no rights or privileges that a white person was obligated to observe. So much for the wisdom of the courts. Women who favor abortion either have cold hearts or have never seen film of the squirming and thrashing the unborn child does as it's torn apart or burned with saline. People who support abortion are seriously lacking in human compassion just as those who kept slaves were. The parallels are way too many to miss. First, slavery was couched in special language to disguise what it really was. It was called the "peculiar institution" to avoid calling it slavery. Similarly, abortion has been labeled "pro-choice" to cover what it really is. Slaves were called "niggers" to avoid being recognized as real humans. Likewise, the unborn child is called a fetus to avoid associating it with babies. It's all one big dirty business.

R J Talley

I guess it all boils down to having sex without any guilt. That's always been the issue. Same with eveloution. When pressed about the reasons for promoting evolution, the secretary to Charles Darwin, expressed that their real reason for promoting evolution was so that it would eliminate God and they would be able to have any kind of sex, with whomever they like, without guilt. Google it and you will get all kinds of info.

Its all called, "Dumbing down of America" , Propaganda, PC, and Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans suffer from it!! Liberals more so then others.

Liberals think Roe vs Wade are two different ways to cross the Potomac river.

"I tried to join the sexual revolution, but I flunked the physical."

-Ruth Buzzi, "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In"

mette56: I suggest you direct your 'friend' to any website or book showing photos or descriptions of how Jewish children, some appearing to be 'under the age of 2', were treated by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Then ask her how killing a child under 2 differs from that atrocity.

Gene Batchelar Whaton, IL

Gene,

Thanks for the suggestion. I've not seen or talked with her since 2000. If you want to see heartbreaking pictures...just Google abortion and search a little. Or You Tube has some live videos of some truly vivid examples. Took me many years to bring myself to do that research. Wish I would have never gone there.

milt

Liberal young women obviously never heard of birth control.

I wish someone would mention birth control to Barney Frank..him and his hubby are trying to bring another turd of a Senator into the world