Can Reps modify abortion stance?

Yeah, you don't have to verify your citizenship to register to vote.

I hand out voter registration materials every single day. You fill out a form, send it in, and you get a voter registration card. It asks for the last 4 digits of your ss# or your driver's license #.

And as far as i know, nobody checks either of those things.

You do. When you sign a voter registration form you are certifying under penalty of perjury that you are over 18, a US citizen and then whatever felony restrictions there are for your state.

My state most certainly does check driver's licenses and SSNs. If the information provided doesn't clear the Calvalidator system, the voter is required to provide ID at the polls when they vote.

Yeah nobody commits fraud, especially in Cali...

And we wonder where liberals are at on the IQ chart...

It's amazing that, completely aside from places like Chicago that are INFAMOUS for voter fraud, leftists honestly think that it's completely believable that tens of millions of people can vote in an election, and it's even REMOTELY possible that it could be fraud-free.
 
You do. When you sign a voter registration form you are certifying under penalty of perjury that you are over 18, a US citizen and then whatever felony restrictions there are for your state.

My state most certainly does check driver's licenses and SSNs. If the information provided doesn't clear the Calvalidator system, the voter is required to provide ID at the polls when they vote.

Yeah nobody commits fraud, especially in Cali...

And we wonder where liberals are at on the IQ chart...


Please provide a list of all voter fraud convictions in CA in the last five years.

Naive = Seawytch...

I bet you say that coming...
 
Slaves weren't people either. And it was legal to butcher Jews, Catholics, the rom....

Nobody ever denied slaves were people. Sorry, that one doesn't fly.

No, they claimed that they were "less than" human 3/5 human to be exact.

No one EVER claimed that a slave was "3/5 of a human". Every time I hear this canard parroted, I just weep for the state of History and Civics education in this country.

Of course, every time I talk to anyone under the age of 30, I weep for ALL education in this country, but that's a different topic.
 
Statistics

Abortions in the United States

Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2011: 54.5 million+

234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)
Abortions per year: 1.2 million
Abortions per day: 3,288
Abortions per hour: 137
9 abortions every 4 minutes
1 abortion every 26 seconds

These statistics include only surgical and medical abortions. Because many contraceptive measures are abortifacients (drugs that induce or cause abortions), it is important not to overlook the number of children killed by chemical abortions. Since 1965, an average of 11 million women have used abortifacient methods of birth control in the United States at any given time. Using formulas based on the way the birth control pill works, pharmacy experts project that about 14 million chemical abortions occur in the United States each year, providing a projected total of well in excess of 610 million chemical abortions between 1965 and 2009.

When conducting research on abortion statistics, you may also encounter two different sets of numbers. One set is from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) and the other is from the Guttmacher Institute, the "independent research arm" of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The Guttmacher Institute totals are actually the more accurate since the Institute conducts private research on abortion providers throughout the country and because not all states are required to report to the CDC. In fact, California and New York, where high numbers of abortions occur, are not included in CDC figures.


Education > Abortion > Abortion Statistics - 07/26/2012 | ALL.org

The CDC gets their numbers from Guttmachers, and they all get their numbers from PP....which has a vested interest in lying, and isn't even required to keep track in many states.
 
Nobody ever denied slaves were people. Sorry, that one doesn't fly.

No, they claimed that they were "less than" human 3/5 human to be exact.

No one EVER claimed that a slave was "3/5 of a human". Every time I hear this canard parroted, I just weep for the state of History and Civics education in this country.

Of course, every time I talk to anyone under the age of 30, I weep for ALL education in this country, but that's a different topic.

My bad 3/5ths of a "person"...as if. THE point was that in order to treat them as less then human and therefore not deserving of the rights of the Constitutional protections, they deemed them not whole persons.

In fact calling them, slaves, in effect non "persons" (only 3/5ths so) they resemble even more the unborn. All agree unborn babies are 100% human...but the pro abortionists say they are just not persons.

Sick and wicked are the ways of the depraved and indifferent.
 
Last edited:
No, they claimed that they were "less than" human 3/5 human to be exact.

No one EVER claimed that a slave was "3/5 of a human". Every time I hear this canard parroted, I just weep for the state of History and Civics education in this country.

Of course, every time I talk to anyone under the age of 30, I weep for ALL education in this country, but that's a different topic.

My bad 3/5ths of a "person"...as if. THE point was that in order to treat them as less then human and therefore not deserving of the rights of the Constitutional protections, they deemed them not whole persons.

In fact calling them, slaves, in effect non "persons" (only 3/5ths so) they resemble even more the unborn. All agree unborn babies are 100% human...but the pro abortionists say they are just not persons.

Sick and wicked are the ways of the depraved and indifferent.

No, Einstein, THE point was to keep slave states from having more power in the federal government. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY move. It had nothing to do with commenting on their humanity, or their "personhood", or declaring them undeserving of Constitutional protections. The Constitution doesn't even say they're "3/5 of a person". It says that representation and taxes shall be apportioned by adding "the whole number of free persons . . . and excluding Indians not taxed, and three fifths of all other persons". That's a big difference.

Are you TRYING to present yourself as a poster child for the failure of American public schooling? You usually do a lot better at resisting the Illiteracy Kool-Aid than this.
 
No one EVER claimed that a slave was "3/5 of a human". Every time I hear this canard parroted, I just weep for the state of History and Civics education in this country.

Of course, every time I talk to anyone under the age of 30, I weep for ALL education in this country, but that's a different topic.

My bad 3/5ths of a "person"...as if. THE point was that in order to treat them as less then human and therefore not deserving of the rights of the Constitutional protections, they deemed them not whole persons.

In fact calling them, slaves, in effect non "persons" (only 3/5ths so) they resemble even more the unborn. All agree unborn babies are 100% human...but the pro abortionists say they are just not persons.

Sick and wicked are the ways of the depraved and indifferent.

No, Einstein, THE point was to keep slave states from having more power in the federal government. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY move. It had nothing to do with commenting on their humanity, or their "personhood", or declaring them undeserving of Constitutional protections. The Constitution doesn't even say they're "3/5 of a person". It says that representation and taxes shall be apportioned by adding "the whole number of free persons . . . and excluding Indians not taxed, and three fifths of all other persons". That's a big difference.

Are you TRYING to present yourself as a poster child for the failure of American public schooling? You usually do a lot better at resisting the Illiteracy Kool-Aid than this.


I know what the fucking point is...since I am making it. I KNOW why they did so-that does nothing to tear down the fact of why they were able to deem them 3/5ths in the first place idgit. The POINT ms dumb shit is that they were fucking able to do so because they did not consider them fucking whole persons... they were mere slaves. Unworthy of Constitutional protections...JUST LIKE unborn babies.

The only Poster Child here is you trying out for uppity bitch of the year who can't understand a simple idea, but thinks she needs to explain one that was never in contention to begin with.
 
My bad 3/5ths of a "person"...as if. THE point was that in order to treat them as less then human and therefore not deserving of the rights of the Constitutional protections, they deemed them not whole persons.

In fact calling them, slaves, in effect non "persons" (only 3/5ths so) they resemble even more the unborn. All agree unborn babies are 100% human...but the pro abortionists say they are just not persons.

Sick and wicked are the ways of the depraved and indifferent.

No, Einstein, THE point was to keep slave states from having more power in the federal government. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY move. It had nothing to do with commenting on their humanity, or their "personhood", or declaring them undeserving of Constitutional protections. The Constitution doesn't even say they're "3/5 of a person". It says that representation and taxes shall be apportioned by adding "the whole number of free persons . . . and excluding Indians not taxed, and three fifths of all other persons". That's a big difference.

Are you TRYING to present yourself as a poster child for the failure of American public schooling? You usually do a lot better at resisting the Illiteracy Kool-Aid than this.


I know what the fucking point is...since I am making it. I KNOW why they did so-that does nothing to tear down the fact of why they were able to deem them 3/5ths in the first place idgit. The POINT ms dumb shit is that they were fucking able to do so because they did not consider them fucking whole persons... they were mere slaves. Unworthy of Constitutional protections...JUST LIKE unborn babies.

The only Poster Child here is you trying out for uppity bitch of the year who can't understand a simple idea, but thinks she needs to explain one that was never in contention to begin with.

:meow:
 
No, Einstein, THE point was to keep slave states from having more power in the federal government. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY move. It had nothing to do with commenting on their humanity, or their "personhood", or declaring them undeserving of Constitutional protections. The Constitution doesn't even say they're "3/5 of a person". It says that representation and taxes shall be apportioned by adding "the whole number of free persons . . . and excluding Indians not taxed, and three fifths of all other persons". That's a big difference.

Are you TRYING to present yourself as a poster child for the failure of American public schooling? You usually do a lot better at resisting the Illiteracy Kool-Aid than this.


I know what the fucking point is...since I am making it. I KNOW why they did so-that does nothing to tear down the fact of why they were able to deem them 3/5ths in the first place idgit. The POINT ms dumb shit is that they were fucking able to do so because they did not consider them fucking whole persons... they were mere slaves. Unworthy of Constitutional protections...JUST LIKE unborn babies.

The only Poster Child here is you trying out for uppity bitch of the year who can't understand a simple idea, but thinks she needs to explain one that was never in contention to begin with.

:meow:

:party:
 
So I've been thinking about the OP here, and I've come to a decision that I don't think would hurt anyone:

Can Republicans modify their abortion stance? They could...
But should they? No, they shouldn't.

Why? Because there are at least 2 sides to every debate, and Republicans, being "pro-life" as it were, should be allowed to voice that opinion. If Democrats are "pro-choice", that's great for them, but don't shut out Republicans just because they don't agree with everything you say, just because they're conservative.

I think it's great that both sides valiantly (and violently, sometimes) defend their position. Do I agree with either side? I'm not sure yet. My feelings on abortion have been mixed lately (as in the past couple of years), especially after having children myself. Sometimes I'm pro-life, other times pro-choice.

But that's neither here nor there.
 
It is exactly "here or there". Kudos. This debate on the Board and across the nation will never be finished on the issue. That the majority of the GOP is thinking of easing the party plank a bit to attract modern women voters is a good thing. What neither party can afford is absolutism.

So I've been thinking about the OP here, and I've come to a decision that I don't think would hurt anyone:

Can Republicans modify their abortion stance? They could...
But should they? No, they shouldn't.

Why? Because there are at least 2 sides to every debate, and Republicans, being "pro-life" as it were, should be allowed to voice that opinion. If Democrats are "pro-choice", that's great for them, but don't shut out Republicans just because they don't agree with everything you say, just because they're conservative.

I think it's great that both sides valiantly (and violently, sometimes) defend their position. Do I agree with either side? I'm not sure yet. My feelings on abortion have been mixed lately (as in the past couple of years), especially after having children myself. Sometimes I'm pro-life, other times pro-choice.

But that's neither here nor there.
 
"
In March, Dan Shansky left Wisconsin for California to take a job with a union there, but that didn’t stop him from casting a ballot in the June 5th recall election. The community organizer, who lists the Milwaukee-based Community Action Now as a recent employer, was heavily involved over the past year and a half in the protest and recall movement in Wisconsin."



ELECTION FRAUD: California Union Official Voted in WI Recall
 
"
In March, Dan Shansky left Wisconsin for California to take a job with a union there, but that didn’t stop him from casting a ballot in the June 5th recall election. The community organizer, who lists the Milwaukee-based Community Action Now as a recent employer, was heavily involved over the past year and a half in the protest and recall movement in Wisconsin."



ELECTION FRAUD: California Union Official Voted in WI Recall

Not California and not a conviction, but you can have a T-ball trophy.
 
Sending fathers to prison for non support would be a good start to lower the abortion rate. Ending the war on birth control is a second. More sex education in the schools a third.

What complete garbage.

Children are already educated at school about sex...they know a LOT more than they knew in the 70s, the 60s, the 50s..and the abortion rate continues to climb.

Any woman (or girl) can get free birth control from a school counselor or the county clinic.

Quit repeating the lie as if it makes it true. Progressives won't be happy until we enroll 10 year old girls in "how to enjoy sex completely" classes, complete with sex therapists, prostitutes and sex toys, paid for and demonstrated by the dept. of education.

You are uninformed as usual. High % of parents opt their kids out of ANY sex education and the % of those that get pregnant in the inner city has skyrocketed.
Sex is a dirty word to you. Do you poke holes in that bag you wear over your head?

Yeah, cuz the parents in the inner cities are opting out of sex ed for their kid.

What complete bullshit. Where did the chart come from , and provide some numbers and links to back up your ridiculous claims. Girls and women are better educated about sex than they ever have been, and even if they weren't now, the fact that abortion rates/unintended pregnancy rates climbed for two decades after RvW and school sex ed programs were initiated puts the lie to your ridiculous claim that MORE sex ed and BETTER access to birth control reduces the rate of unplanned pregnancy/abortion. You can't walk down the street without picking up free condoms being thrown at you..and still stds, abortion and teen pregnancy rates continue to go up.
 
Last edited:
Nobody ever denied slaves were people. Sorry, that one doesn't fly.

No, they claimed that they were "less than" human 3/5 human to be exact.

Um, no, you need to go back and read what the constitution actually says there.

Hey, addlepated, I know what it says. I already acknowledged it said 3/5ths "person", not "human". Like your addlepated counterpart you miss the actual point in your need to correct my minor error. What you idgits choose to avoid here is that those in power could only deem a human being as anything less then 100% a person if they considered them such. But slaves had no such consideration and were therefore denied the rights granted in the Constitution in the first place...JUST like the unborn! I have copied the point in question so that we can all see I know what it says and that you fools have done nothing to dismiss my original point.

Those opposed to counting slaves were the northern states, or, the liberals. Slave states had larger populations, and thus a great political advantage. Therefore, the north insisted a different reckoning of numbering the population. On the other hand, the South would be taxed more according to its states with large slave populations, if slaves were counted. Both sides had reason to advocate an adjusted basis for the census.

Article 1. Sec. 2, par.3 of the Constitution reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
 
It's all about dehumanizing the population they want to eliminate.

They did it to blacks, they did it to women, they did it to jews, and now they're doing it to babies. Next it will be Christians.
 

Forum List

Back
Top