For the ladies, why is Santorum TOO conservative?

All you post is 'stupid shit' as typified by your post above. If you actually read the article, you obviously didn't understand it, but that's typical for you mentally deficient Obamanites. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I did read you article (link)

from your article, first paragraph

and the National Right to Life Committee says he’s conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions


an abortion is not being born.

THE END

Exactly. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Ms Olivia, you didn't read the article either.

This needs to be prominently posted somewhere in our clubhouse. Compliance from the offender may be another issue.

Poor I.B. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

a friend of mine is a national dristributor of trophies/parts ..

I can get a bill board engraved if you want one

I did read you article (link)

from your article, first paragraph

and the National Right to Life Committee says he’s conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions


an abortion is not being born.

THE END Originally Posted by CJ7

You and Little Blind Boy are truly ignorant, mentally-deficient SOBs who cannot read. Paragraph #8: “2003 state [Illinois] bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.” Obama voted against SB 1082 in committee.

abortion

The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy


birth

The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother. b. The act or process of bearing young

.Dumb
...↓

a friend of mine is a national dristributor of trophies/parts ..

I can get a bill board engraved if you want one Originally Posted by CJ7

.Dumber
....↓

This needs to be prominently posted somewhere in our clubhouse. Compliance from the offender may be another issue.

Poor I.B. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

a friend of mine is a national dristributor of trophies/parts ..

I can get a bill board engraved if you want one Originally Posted by CJ7

LOL! Naw, he's a serial post polluter. I already see too much of his crap in posts where someone quotes him. It bypasses the ignore status I have him on. At least it shows me he is still a mean-spirited dumb ass who repeats himself a lot.

He deserves only what negative attention necessary to warn other posters.

He continues to give us examples of his serial repetition of and abuse of the words "birth" and "alive" in describing aborted fetuses.

Unless they were dead before the abortion, I would suspect that each fetus was alive and growing before the procedure most of us call abortion.

However, poor I.B. continues to wrongly call them "alive" after they have been aborted (the word I.B. equates with birth).

Poor I.B.

Your collective lies, conjecture and deceit only serve to illustrate how moronic you two are.
.Still Dumb
......↓

abortion

The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy


birth

The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother. b. The act or process of bearing young Originally Posted by CJ7

.Still Dumber
.. ...↓

LOL! Naw, he's a serial post polluter. I already see too much of his crap in posts where someone quotes him. It bypasses the ignore status I have him on. At least it shows me he is still a mean-spirited dumb ass who repeats himself a lot.

He deserves only what negative attention necessary to warn other posters.

He continues to give us examples of his serial repetition of and abuse of the words "birth" and "alive" in describing aborted fetuses.

Unless they were dead before the abortion, I would suspect that each fetus was alive and growing before the procedure most of us call abortion.

However, poor I.B. continues to wrongly call them "alive" after they have been aborted (the word I.B. equates with birth).

Poor I.B. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.


(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.


Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8


Little Blind Boy and CJ7 choose to remain ignorant, nothing they post repudiates that fact.

So Stevie and CJ, are we to understand that you support the intentional killing of living babies who have survived an attempted abortion?

I'm defining "attempted abortion" as an abortion where the intent was to remove the growing fetus from its mother with no signs of life, however, despite the best efforts of the medical personnel, the fetus remained alive, and became a baby outside its mother's womb.

So, if the baby survives the attempted abortion, you support killing the baby, even though the baby is alive and outside its mother's womb. Do I have that correct?

Really? Someone said they got rid of me??? I've must have missed that post. As for being born...a child who survives abortion comes out through the birth canal and not the ass. I think that qualifies that child as being born. Even if a child was delivered by C-section...well, just look at that word "delivered". A child is delivered by C-section and they are recognized by medicine and science as being born.

So the question still stands, would you support a candidate a candidate who sponsored a bill that would kill a child after birth or would allow a viable child to die? Yes or no?

A website with names and faces of children who survived abortion. You would kill these people and so would Obama.

Victoria Joe Stinnett was cut from the body of her dead mother in Skidmore, MO. She was kidnapped and taken to Kansas. Four days later she was reunited with her father. Today she is seven years old. According to CJ7 and some other she should be dead even if someone had to do it. She was not born by their standards. Even the Amber alert delayed broadcasting the kidnapping because someone decided that since she wasn't born, she didn't qualify.

http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

So, if the baby survives the attempted abortion, you support killing the baby, even though the baby is alive and outside its mother's womb. Do I have that correct? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, no, you don't.

In the article from IB Hankering's link:

"It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."

Wonder why some in here would want to disregard that part.

Anyways, this bill we're now talking about wasn't about what to do with a viable fetus. It was about what to call an unviable fetus that happened to still have some vital signs. That's why it was viewed as a back-door attempt to under-cut Roe V Wade.

Actually, no, you don't.

In the article from IB Hankering's link:

"It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."

Wonder why some in here would want to disregard that part.

Anyways, this bill we're now talking about wasn't about what to do with a viable fetus. It was about what to call an unviable fetus that happened to still have some vital signs. That's why it was viewed as a back-door attempt to under-cut Roe V Wade. Originally Posted by Doove

Wonder why a little worm like you ignores this part of the article:

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

"The statement was still on Obama’s Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act."

Wonder why a little worm like you ignores this part of the article: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Because that part of the article is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not Obama supports infanticide. The suggestion is absurd on its face (as are most of your anti-Obama screeds), but this one takes it to a new low. Nevertheless, if you want to claim Obama actually supports infanticide, perhaps you can show us where he was either against the Illinois law that requires doctors to care for viable fetuses after an abortion, or where he voted to over-turn the law that requires doctors to care for viable fetuses after an abortion attempt.

Going on and on about his position relating to a bill that wanted to give "rights" to an aborted fetus because its heart beat 3 times after it was aborted - and linking that to a willingness to deal in infanticide is just morbid - and it says more about you than it does about Obama.

Because that part of the article is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not Obama supports infanticide. The suggestion is absurd on its face (as are most of your anti-Obama screeds), but this one takes it to a new low. Nevertheless, if you want to claim Obama actually supports infanticide, perhaps you can show us where he was either against the Illinois law that requires doctors to care for viable fetuses after an abortion, or where he voted to over-turn the law that requires doctors to care for viable fetuses after an abortion attempt.

Going on and on about his position relating to a bill that wanted to give "rights" to an aborted fetus because its heart beat 3 times after it was aborted - and linking that to a willingness to deal in infanticide is just morbid - and it says more about you than it does about Obama. Originally Posted by Doove

It’s not “irrelevant” at all. Obama deceitfully equivocated – just like you are doing. He falsely posited a precondition and then “said” that precondition was not met. In doing so, he lied. Face it. Obama has lied from day one and continues to lie. What he “says” in some position paper is very much “irrelevant”. What is “relevant” is quantifiable: his vote. That vote is the measure of the man. He voted against the bill which met every precondition he set. He voted against protecting the life of a living infant. It matters naught that you squirm like the weasel you are, you cannot deny that fact.