Obama Lies to the Pope

So now personally hoping for something is the same as doing everything possible......

It boggles the mind. There is no logic from the left. And we're the simple-minded.

Good grief.

 

Just what drives that hope? Why even hope for it at all? If abortion is right and not murder why the need to reduce it?

 

His personal hope doesn't negate the fact that he has increased funding for abortions. It seems to this simple-minded person that if you want fewer abortions, then you would do the things that lead to fewer abortions. It seems to me, the simple, that not increasing funding might help with that particular stated goal.

Please use your higher level of thinking to educate the simple about how Obama's actions match up with his words.

 

There's that binary thought process again, taking it to the extreme. Something can be less than murder, yet still be something that is not the best situation and should be reduced.
I will make one, and only one, pass at explaining this, so pay attention.

There are many folks who believe that abortion is not the optimal outcome, that it should not be used as "contraception". It is not something that ANY woman should take lightly. It is desirable to reduce the incidence of abortion, as it carries a significant number of risks, even if you put aside the fetus' welfare (which btw I do not).

However, there are instances where there is no good outcome. Instances that abortion is the least of all possible evils (e.g. the oft-discussed ectopic pregnancy). Therefore, one can believe it should not be outlawed (pro-choice) yet believe that the procedure happens all too often, and advocate for education, abstinence, and contraception as ways to eliminate the possibility of many abortions from ever happening (thus working to reduce the number of abortions performed).

This isn't that hard to understand, folks. This is not a procedure women have performed for entertainment. If you think it is taken lightly in most cases, you should think again.

And for the record, I have not ever been a party in anyone having an abortion.

 

I've paid attention and your second sentence tells us all we need to know. You said, "Something can be less than murder".

That's all the explanation needed for your viewpoint. You don't believe abortion is murder. So, you obviously won't feel as passionately about it as those us with the proper line of thinking, that it is murder. If you, and Obama, believed it was murder you would do all you could to stop abortion....not just reduce the number of them.

 

Wouldn't you say a reduction is better than an increase?

 

Since Roe versus Wade became law, what American president has made a serious attempt to make all abortions illegal?

 

Yes...a reduction of liberals on this board would be better than an increase, but an all out purging of them would be even better! :thumbsup:

 

What's your point? That since none of the politcians that have been in office have done anything about it that we throw our hands up in the air and give up?

Read my last post...become part of the purge.

 

How cute.

Would you say that a reduction in the number of abortions is better than an increase in the number of abortions?

 

Of course, but that doesn't mean that the best goal isn't to outlaw abortion. That is where you, Obama, and other liberals lose the game. You don't believe that the best goal is no abortions.

 

I still fail to see anyone show me where Obama is doing everything he can to reduce abortions.

 

That would be false

 

The question was "what American president has made a serious attempt to make all abortions illegal?"

So, what president has Rev?

 

Signing the partial abortion ban is a serious move in that direction. But you said politicians which leaves room for one to interpet that as being all inclusive. not just the President.

 

It is possible for a person, perhaps President Obama, to allow those who disagree with religious objections against abortion to choose for themselves, while at the same time personally hoping for a reduction in abortions.

Mr. Snow that is a great rationlization except for the fact that you are forgetting one thing. Your concern is for the mother's choice and if she were the only one involved your argument would be fine. However, you are ignoring the innocent baby. You seem to be saying that it should be ok for the mom to choose to murder that baby. After all, you may be against it, but it's her choice. Rationalizing the freedom to murder is what you are doing

 

I find it quite humorous that the same libs who scoff at the notion that teaching/encouraging abstinence in sex education saying that it doesn't work and that artificial birth control is the only realistic answer - because kids will do whatever they want and they can't possibly control themselves - now laud abstinence as a means to reduce abortions !!

 

Sounds very fascist to me..."My ideas only and if you disagree, you are banned." Why do you fear an open discussion of issues?

 

Try to keep up Targus. Your strawman is on fire. The issue is that "abstinence ONLY" programs are less effective than comprehensive biological and sexual education. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies thorough a holistic education, not one based on nothing but promoting abstinence.

 

When did that become the issue? In my experience libs say abstinence education doesn't work.

You are trying to make a fine point arguement that libs have generally not made previously. Was that in the talking points fax update?

Either way, Obama is cutting funding for abstinence education progams in general - not just abstinence only programs. So again his actions don't match up with his words.