Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
that's a good an explanation as any.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
Wrong.
It's only when the birth fairy comes and waves her magical progressive wand over the unborn child once it passes out of the birth canal that it becomes human.
illegal babies? the hate Obama dementia.. reeks on this thread.please show me where Obama says that.Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
"President Obama, when in the Illinois State Senate, opposed efforts to require hospitals to care for babies who survived abortions."
Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com
Obama voted four times against legislation to protect and care for infants accidentally born alive during late-term abortions.
What if they were illegal babies who survived abortions?
It might be enough to change his position.
red herring....that's a good an explanation as any.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
Wrong.
It's only when the birth fairy comes and waves her magical progressive wand over the unborn child once it passes out of the birth canal that it becomes human.
illegal babies? the hate Obama dementia.. reeks on this thread.please show me where Obama says that.Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.
"President Obama, when in the Illinois State Senate, opposed efforts to require hospitals to care for babies who survived abortions."
Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com
Obama voted four times against legislation to protect and care for infants accidentally born alive during late-term abortions.
What if they were illegal babies who survived abortions?
It might be enough to change his position.
It's what happens when obama alocates billions for illegal aliens but ignores the plight of poor folk in places like Detroit.
In fact, the UN was talking about providing drinking water to them in Detroit
please show me where Obama says that.Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
Here is what is said in the link: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
For disagreeing with this statement, Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocritical tards. Try to figure out why.
another dodge !please show me where Obama says that.Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
I don't think Obama ever said they should be put in a dark room. He does support late term abortion.
Sen. Obama’s controversial history with the ‘Born Alive’ legislation
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act drew a firm line in the sand—no killing innocent humans after they have been born. It was a line Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama refused to accept.
Obama unwavering in his disregard for vulnerable human life
- Obama voted four times against legislation to protect and care for infants accidentally born alive during late-term abortions. The carefully worded bill had no effect on abortion rights.
- A federal version of the bill passed Congress in 2002 without a single dissenting vote.
- For four years, Obama has said that he would have voted for the federal version because it contained a pre-birth "neutrality clause" the Illinois legislation lacked.
- New documents show that Obama voted on a version identical to the federal bill, which included the so-called "neutrality clause. " He voted against it.
you are correct. have you ever been a part of that decision.Here is what is said in the link: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
For disagreeing with this statement, Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocritical tards. Try to figure out why.
Kind of lazy to put that sole decision on women imo.
another dodge !please show me where Obama says that.Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
I don't think Obama ever said they should be put in a dark room. He does support late term abortion.
Sen. Obama’s controversial history with the ‘Born Alive’ legislation
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act drew a firm line in the sand—no killing innocent humans after they have been born. It was a line Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama refused to accept.
Obama unwavering in his disregard for vulnerable human life
- Obama voted four times against legislation to protect and care for infants accidentally born alive during late-term abortions. The carefully worded bill had no effect on abortion rights.
- A federal version of the bill passed Congress in 2002 without a single dissenting vote.
- For four years, Obama has said that he would have voted for the federal version because it contained a pre-birth "neutrality clause" the Illinois legislation lacked.
- New documents show that Obama voted on a version identical to the federal bill, which included the so-called "neutrality clause. " He voted against it.
These people are pure evil! They also want to kill babies AFTER they're born! They are nothing but a death cult! "PERIOD"!"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."
Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com
you are correct. have you ever been a part of that decision.Here is what is said in the link: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
For disagreeing with this statement, Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocritical tards. Try to figure out why.
Kind of lazy to put that sole decision on women imo.
Not even close. As reported by the huffington post,both ..Who is the real extremist, the one who wants to protect healthy, viable babies in utero or the one who wants them to be killed on the whim of the mother, even if they manage to survive the killing attempt?non sense...on the other hand consevobots oppose ANY abortion under any circumstancesLefties have to oppose all restrictions on abortions, no matter what. Otherwise, their house-of-cards argument collapses.
Overwhelmingly, Americans would prefer to protect these babies. You're expressing a minority opinion.By a margin of 59 percent to 30 percent, respondents to the new poll said they would favor a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
It is objectively legal to do so in some places. Why should it be so?can any of you present any objective evidence that anyone has ever aborted a 7lb baby /fetus or it's it an exaggeration or complete bullshit.?
Who is the real extremist, the one who wants to protect healthy, viable babies in utero or the one who wants them to be killed on the whim of the mother, even if they manage to survive the killing attempt?non sense...on the other hand consevobots oppose ANY abortion under any circumstancesLefties have to oppose all restrictions on abortions, no matter what. Otherwise, their house-of-cards argument collapses.
Not to mention the elderly, the *depressed*, the sick..pretty much anyone who's vulnerable and can't fight them off is at risk.These people are pure evil! They also want to kill babies AFTER they're born! They are nothing but a death cult! "PERIOD"!"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."
Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com
That's probably the best reason for abortion.If abortion had been cheap, legal and easily available back in the day, there would be no Barack Obama.They don't know, because the liberal media didn't report anything negative about Obama.please show me where Obama says that.Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
He fought for it in court. How come you Obots never know the details of your own messiah?
Oh bullshit, the media would ask Romney what he never paid taxes, and turn around and ask Obama how his children were doing.also falseThey don't know, because the liberal media didn't report anything negative about Obama.please show me where Obama says that.Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.Here's my 2 cents....
If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.
He fought for it in court. How come you Obots never know the details of your own messiah?
Who is the real extremist, the one who wants to protect healthy, viable babies in utero or the one who wants them to be killed on the whim of the mother, even if they manage to survive the killing attempt?non sense...on the other hand consevobots oppose ANY abortion under any circumstancesLefties have to oppose all restrictions on abortions, no matter what. Otherwise, their house-of-cards argument collapses.Not to mention the elderly, the *depressed*, the sick..pretty much anyone who's vulnerable and can't fight them off is at risk.These people are pure evil! They also want to kill babies AFTER they're born! They are nothing but a death cult! "PERIOD"!"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."
Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com
Why? The majority of Democrats want women's rights. The majority of Republicans want women's bodies controlled by the government turning women into what?Here is what is said in the link: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
For disagreeing with this statement, Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocritical tards. Try to figure out why.
Kind of lazy to put that sole decision on women imo.
If we have to be worried it's about ignorant Republicans getting into office and sending more of our young off to the Middle East to become maimed or get killed and then let them return to try to make in it the streets because helping them would be socialism, cost them their freedom. Besides, it's too expensive. We see that now. Republicans don't help anyone, they help themselves. You know that to be true. You're one of the worst. It's not like you hide it.Who is the real extremist, the one who wants to protect healthy, viable babies in utero or the one who wants them to be killed on the whim of the mother, even if they manage to survive the killing attempt?non sense...on the other hand consevobots oppose ANY abortion under any circumstancesLefties have to oppose all restrictions on abortions, no matter what. Otherwise, their house-of-cards argument collapses.Not to mention the elderly, the *depressed*, the sick..pretty much anyone who's vulnerable and can't fight them off is at risk.These people are pure evil! They also want to kill babies AFTER they're born! They are nothing but a death cult! "PERIOD"!"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."
Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com
Oh don't worry, once they get everyone desensitized to aborting their babies. They'll start on the old and weak. They aren't contributors anymore. they are just eaters. a waste they can't suck as much money out them so give them the needle
