My county went 2 to 1 for Mccain....

[Deleted Account 5,203]

You don't have to be pro abortion if you are pro choice. It's like you speak and crap just rolls out. There isn't just a black and white area here. There are grey areas. You can believe how you wish and your opinion is just that, but if a woman is raped or her life is threatened how can anyone tell that woman what she has to do? Certainly glad you aren't in a political office, but then again with your genius, I can't see why not! Your county might be "wise," but they were also wrong and lost! Obama will accomplish more as President in 2 years than W did in 8. McCain F'd up by choosing Palin. If he chooses someone half way ready, then maybe he doesn't get his doors blown off. You stay happy in that Wise county of yours. Maybe you guys can annex yourself from the rest of the country and you can run for President!

 

The only thing I disagree with is that McCain "got his doors blown off". Dukakis got his doors blown off. Mondale got his doors blown off. McGovern and Goldwater got their doors blown off. McCain lost the popular vote by 5%. And I think W. had a worse effect than Palin.

[fieldgeneral 10]

You are wrong again my friend. Again what choice does the child have? Is it a child or not,Barack could not answer that. Besides most ,most abortions are performed not because of rape or her life being threatened ,did you know that ,genius. We are very happy here in our county, your the one who sounds like you have a corncob up your butt.lol.

 

 

It doesn't matter % is rapes or life threatening situations. Why would we as a country give our government the right to say what we do with our bodies? So you have all the stats on why these abortions take place? They don't write that down on the patient's file my friend because it's irrelevant at the moment...genius! I'm not saying abortion is right but you cannot take the option away because of those variable situations. If you did, we'd have a rise in the sale of metal coathangers...sad but true. Pull the corncob out from between your ears!

[wave316 64]

It doesn't matter % is rapes or life threatening situations. Why would we as a country give our government the right to say what we do with our bodies? So you have all the stats on why these abortions take place? They don't write that down on the patient's file my friend because it's irrelevant at the moment...genius! I'm not saying abortion is right but you cannot take the option away because of those variable situations. If you did, we'd have a rise in the sale of metal coathangers...sad but true. Pull the corncob out from between your ears!

 

Your wrong again my friend,how many times is that,3 I believe. You failed to answer whether the child was a child and if the child had a choice,you are pro choice arent you?? Iguess if you are the child in the womb ,you are irrevelant right??? Abortion is a sin ,bottom line. God said thou shalt not kill. That is for those out of the womb and those inside the womb.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Your wrong again my friend,how many times is that,3 I believe. You failed to answer whether the child was a child and if the child had a choice,you are pro choice arent you?? Iguess if you are the child in the womb ,you are irrevelant right??? Abortion is a sin ,bottom line. God said thou shalt not kill. That is for those out of the womb and those inside the womb.

 

 

Once again your basing your argument on religion. I go to church on Sundays. But the constitution says separation of church and state. There are many religions in this country, your argument is invalid. If my wife was pregnant and her life was in danger, I wouldn't want her to go. If my teenage daughter was raped and became pregnant, it wasn't her fault and she shouldn't have to endure pregnancy to make you happy.

[wave316 64]

Once again your basing your argument on religion. I go to church on Sundays. But the constitution says separation of church and state. There are many religions in this country, your argument is invalid. If my wife was pregnant and her life was in danger, I wouldn't want her to go. If my teenage daughter was raped and became pregnant, it wasn't her fault and she shouldn't have to endure pregnancy to make you happy.

 

ok, here we go again. Im basing my argument on religion,you say, Well sounds like much of our nations laws come from Scripture, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc.. In a moment IM going to start a new thread and we will allow fellow posters on this board to discuss the true meaning of seperation of church and state. You say you go to church on Sundays, thats great, I go to church on Sundays also. My faith is supposed to make me be as my Father which is in heaven. My heavenly Father takes no pleasure in the death of innocents in their mothers womb. God told the prophet Jerimiah I knew you in your mothers womb. When Mary the mother of Jesus visited her cousin Elizabeth ,who was pregnant with John the Baptist, The Scripture says the babe leaped in her womb when Mary showed up. Now you have brought up rape many times. OF the 50 million innocents murdered since 1973 ,how many were in that category. Wevw become a nation who wants pleasure but no responsibility. The easy thing to do is get an abortion. Peace to your heart.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Once again your basing your argument on religion. I go to church on Sundays. But the constitution says separation of church and state. There are many religions in this country, your argument is invalid. If my wife was pregnant and her life was in danger, I wouldn't want her to go. If my teenage daughter was raped and became pregnant, it wasn't her fault and she shouldn't have to endure pregnancy to make you happy.

 

Just putting it out there: rapes account for just 2% of abortion cases, statistically. Some of this may be because women don't report it, and while I don't understand how a woman reacts in that situation as it's impossible for me to be in it, I'm certainly sympathetic to the situation those women are forced into, and my heart aches for them. Regardless, though, even if the number is as high as 10%, it accounts for a tiny minority of abortions. This often goes well-overlooked.

[fieldgeneral 10]

ok, here we go again. Im basing my argument on religion,you say, Well sounds like much of our nations laws come from Scripture, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc.. In a moment IM going to start a new thread and we will allow fellow posters on this board to discuss the true meaning of seperation of church and state. You say you go to church on Sundays, thats great, I go to church on Sundays also. My faith is supposed to make me be as my Father which is in heaven. My heavenly Father takes no pleasure in the death of innocents in their mothers womb. God told the prophet Jerimiah I knew you in your mothers womb. When Mary the mother of Jesus visited her cousin Elizabeth ,who was pregnant with John the Baptist, The Scripture says the babe leaped in her womb when Mary showed up. Now you have brought up rape many times. OF the 50 million innocents murdered since 1973 ,how many were in that category. Wevw become a nation who wants pleasure but no responsibility. The easy thing to do is get an abortion. Peace to your heart.

 

While I don't need you to preach to me, I do understand what you have said and respect it, but what you don't understand is that we have a difference of opinion. I am simply saying that you cannot make it illegal based on a religious belief or just because you think it is wrong. There are some even as UVA shows that it may be as low as 10% that are problems where a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body if the pregnancy is the result from rape or her life is being threatened. None of which was done out of pleasure. Just because a woman is capable of having a baby, doesn't mean that if someone rapes her and plants his seed inside her in the act of a crime, it's pleasure.

 

I love children and have one small one of my own. I understand the love of a child and could not fathom my world without him. But I am sympathetic to those stuck in that situation that noone deserves.

 

I agree that many things in our nations history are based on religion or the fact that they share similarities with religion. I also realize that the United States has grown and changed a lot since then and we include many religions in this country.

 

I am not wrong and you are not necessarily wrong, just not seeing the other side of the coin. It's safe to say we can agree to disagree. Even if McCain were to be in office, they would never get enough vote to overturn the current ruling.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Just putting it out there: rapes account for just 2% of abortion cases, statistically. Some of this may be because women don't report it, and while I don't understand how a woman reacts in that situation as it's impossible for me to be in it, I'm certainly sympathetic to the situation those women are forced into, and my heart aches for them. Regardless, though, even if the number is as high as 10%, it accounts for a tiny minority of abortions. This often goes well-overlooked.

 

I appreciate the stats, but those 10% are still real people. Just like anything these days, people take advantage of the situation. There is really no way to police it with only if you were raped or your life is in danger. The rape claims would go through the roof and many men would be in jail and innocent.

[wave316 64]

While I don't need you to preach to me, I do understand what you have said and respect it, but what you don't understand is that we have a difference of opinion. I am simply saying that you cannot make it illegal based on a religious belief or just because you think it is wrong. There are some even as UVA shows that it may be as low as 10% that are problems where a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body if the pregnancy is the result from rape or her life is being threatened. None of which was done out of pleasure. Just because a woman is capable of having a baby, doesn't mean that if someone rapes her and plants his seed inside her in the act of a crime, it's pleasure.

 

I love children and have one small one of my own. I understand the love of a child and could not fathom my world without him. But I am sympathetic to those stuck in that situation that noone deserves.

 

I agree that many things in our nations history are based on religion or the fact that they share similarities with religion. I also realize that the United States has grown and changed a lot since then and we include many religions in this country.

 

I am not wrong and you are not necessarily wrong, just not seeing the other side of the coin. It's safe to say we can agree to disagree. Even if McCain were to be in office, they would never get enough vote to overturn the current ruling.

I have started a new thread under the true definition of Seperation of church and state. While this phrase is not even in the Constitution , we hopefully with the help of others get to the true understanding of what our founding fathers truely meant and not what some have twisted it to mean, I appreciate a change of tone in your last post. Perhaps we are on a better path of communjcating and the Good Lord above smiles at this. Another thought that really irks me concerns parental notification. My 6th grade daughter cannot be given a tylenol without my approval,but yet can be taken for an abortion without my knowledge,someone please explain this???

[fieldgeneral 10]

I have started a new thread under the true definition of Seperation of church and state. While this phrase is not even in the Constitution , we hopefully with the help of others get to the true understanding of what our founding fathers truely meant and not what some have twisted it to mean, I appreciate a change of tone in your last post. Perhaps we are on a better path of communjcating and the Good Lord above smiles at this. Another thought that really irks me concerns parental notification. My 6th grade daughter cannot be given a tylenol without my approval,but yet can be taken for an abortion without my knowledge,someone please explain this???

 

 

We will never know exactly what was meant by our founding fathers without them here to clarify and the world has changed so much since then.

 

As far as the comment on the 6th grader, that is a damn shame. That is a decision that she cannot make on her own at this age!

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I appreciate the stats, but those 10% are still real people. Just like anything these days, people take advantage of the situation. There is really no way to police it with only if you were raped or your life is in danger. The rape claims would go through the roof and many men would be in jail and innocent.

 

That's not exactly where I was going with that, but I do recognize and appreciate the merit in your arguments. I disagree, though, that rape claims would go through the roof, and that the jails would overflow with innocent men. It's just not the way the legal process works.

 

To substantiate a claim of rape, you have to have evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the sexual activity engaged in was not consensual. Due to the nature of pregnancy, the fact that a woman truly doesn't know for sure until some time after the fact, it would be impossibly difficult to go back and gather evidence after the fact to substantiate a claim of rape. This is counter-intuitive to a pattern seen in most pregnancy-by-rape convictions, where the woman will go get herself tested within the 72-hour window, then take an abortive measure when she is pregnant. See what I mean here? All a good defense counsel would have to do is say: "well, why didn't you act in that 72-hour window after you claim you were raped, or even before you learned about your pregnancy, instead of waiting until you found out you were pregnant?"

 

As an aside, for all the rape cases that come to trial, there is a 98% conviction rate, by far the highest for any felony. However, for the prosecutor to bring a case to trial, the evidence has to be in place. Gathering this evidence through discovery, depositions and interrogaties, is what adds to the ammunition for the prosecutors, and a lack of evidence means that the case doesn't get to trial. Put differently, it's not as impossible as it might seem at first glance to weed through false rape allegations, challenging though it still is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Where I was going with this is that many people proclaim pregnancy-by-rape to be this massive category of abortions, when in reality it's quite small. Miniscule, even. I'd even go so far as to say that many people unfairly use this small subsection to justify using abortions in every circumstance, and I'm vehemently against that. It's not that I disagree in utilizing abortion in cases of rape/incest/severe health impacts toward the mother. But using this as a justification for the other 90+% is disgustingly dishonest.

Edited November 9, 2008 by UVAObserver

[fieldgeneral 10]

That's not exactly where I was going with that, but I do recognize and appreciate the merit in your arguments. I disagree, though, that rape claims would go through the roof, and that the jails would overflow with innocent men. It's just not the way the legal process works.

 

To substantiate a claim of rape, you have to have evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the sexual activity engaged in was not consensual. Due to the nature of pregnancy, the fact that a woman truly doesn't know for sure until some time after the fact, it would be impossibly difficult to go back and gather evidence after the fact to substantiate a claim of rape. This is counter-intuitive to a pattern seen in most pregnancy-by-rape convictions, where the woman will go get herself tested within the 72-hour window, then take an abortive measure when she is pregnant. See what I mean here? All a good defense counsel would have to do is say: "well, why didn't you act in that 72-hour window after you claim you were raped, or even before you learned about your pregnancy, instead of waiting until you found out you were pregnant?"

 

As an aside, for all the rape cases that come to trial, there is a 98% conviction rate, by far the highest for any felony. However, for the prosecutor to bring a case to trial, the evidence has to be in place. Gathering this evidence through discovery, depositions and interrogaties, is what adds to the ammunition for the prosecutors, and a lack of evidence means that the case doesn't get to trial. Put differently, it's not as impossible as it might seem at first glance to weed through false rape allegations, challenging though it still is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Where I was going with this is that many people proclaim pregnancy-by-rape to be this massive category of abortions, when in reality it's quite small. Miniscule, even. I'd even go so far as to say that many people unfairly use this small subsection to justify using abortions in every circumstance, and I'm vehemently against that. It's not that I disagree in utilizing abortion in cases of rape/incest/severe health impacts toward the mother. But using this as a justification for the other 90+% is disgustingly dishonest.

 

 

But how can you police it to have it only used in rape / life threatening cases. I would be for that! I just don't see any way to set that up.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

But how can you police it to have it only used in rape / life threatening cases. I would be for that! I just don't see any way to set that up.

 

One's fairly simple to police, one's incredibly difficult.

 

Life-threatening cases shouldn't be that difficult to set up. You get 2 professional opinions from certified OB/GYNs, and a woman would be set. Of course, that's considerably simpler than it would be in statutory form, but that's a start.

 

Rape's the tricky one, especially given the *blazing* speed of the American judicial process. One thing that comes to my mind is allowing the abortion only if the female has first filed a warrant for rape and if the Commonwealth (in the form of Commonwealth's Attorneys) initiates proceedings. Initiating the proceeding isn't terribly hard, it's service and pre-trial discovery which is the beast of burden.

However, there must be severe sanctions in place to prevent against any women coming into the courthouse and filing a warrant for rape when no rape occurred; this may very well lead to the result you mentioned above, wherein the floodgates would open with false rape allegations. When I say severe sanctions, I'm talking about a Class 5 felony for a false rape accusation, which results in 5-10 years in the State Penitentiary.

I'd be tempted to make the sanctions much worse (and believe me, I REALLY want to, as in a Class 3 felony, or worse), but you want to have a little bit of prosecutorial leeway here. For example, you don't want to have a 16-year-old girl from the wrong side of the tracks getting pregnant, her parents all but abandoning her, seeing a false rape allegation as her only way out, and having to serve 10 years in the penitentiary for it. A prosecutor/judge could knock it down to a Class 6 felony or a Class 1 misdemeanor, which would result in a much more lenient punishment.

 

I haven't had time to truly flesh out these details, and this is pretty much the best I could come up with in 15 minutes. Not only that, I'm getting ill. But this would be a start, IMO. Would it be feasible? That's entirely up to debate.