Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College

[Kevin Lang]

So if a poor 13 year old girl from the inner cities with no real parental support (financial or otherwise) is raped and pregnant and goes ot planned parenthood, or her local hospital for an abortion should she get turned away because taxes won't pay for it, or should she have the child and go on welfare? What other choices are there?

You mean to tell me that there aren't the left-wing equivalents of charities that would fund such abortions without using money collected from our taxes? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. :bwahaha:



I'm starting to get jaded on this whole inner-city underprivileged youth subject (living near Baltimore & DC for so long is having that effect on me), and as such I'm willing to assert that either way, in your scenario, she'll end up on welfare regardless. :boohoo:



Either way, in your scenario, we the taxpayers (the minority) are paying. I'd prefer that we in no way be forced to finance the lifestyles (such as they are) of others. When my tax dollars go to manipulating the lifestyles of others, I am indirectly manipulating the lifestyles of others, and I don't feel comfortable about that, especially when I'm indirectly steering peoples' lifestyles towards ends that I don't necessarily agree with. I've just read an article on the Massachusetts tax-funded sex change operation for a prisoner, so if this sounds extremely jaded to you, that's probably the kicker.

 

[H D]

Most pregnancies and abortions result from lifestyle choices, not rape. Just wanted to point that out in case anyone thought most abortions are the results of rape or incest. As such, why should I pay for it, religious convictions aside. I don't like expensive birth control or even affordable condoms as much as the next person and made less than $10k a year for the first six years of my adult life. I'm happy to report there have been no births or abortions as a result.

 

[Robert Thomas]

2004 Justice Department figures. Which most likely hold true today.



1% of all abortions are the result of rape.



75% to 85 % of all rape victims choose against abortion.



Most likely the relatively small number of actual cases which cannot be afforded could easily be covered by a small percentage of the funds spent yearly to promote the argument for government funding.



Given this small quantity of actual cases per year, is this the argument one needs to be hearing or that one should consider when choosing the individual that has to literally save this country?

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

You are missing the point/ original post... and therefore letting 07 ST off the hook. He posted another ridiculous uber/ultra wing nut slam on Pres Obama. Call him out on this post! Dont argue about abortion. Again!

 

[Les]

Dont argue about abortion. Again!

Frank, nobody died and left you King.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I see your point about the 13 year old being raped, but they do have the "Morning After Pill" which might be better than an abortion procedure. Even now, if a person is raped, shot, stabbed or otherwise a victim of a violent crime, they are still billed by the hospital emergency room where they were treated. Some cities have victim assistance groups to help victims of violent crimes, but in most cases, if they are indegent, and don't have insurance, they simply don't pay.



As for abortions in general, I don't feel that any man or government has any say in what a woman does with her body. That is a decision that only the woman should make after consulting with her physician, and clergy. There should be a law that prevents late abortions, but that should give the woman sufficient time to make her decision. The only exception to the late abortion law would be if the woman's life was in jeopardy if she carried full term.



...Rich

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Yeah Les... You are still here. Too bad.

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Did anyone watch the re-election party for President Obama? It was on all the networks all week .Last nights episode was great. Did you see any of it Les?

 

[H D]

I watched it. It was pretty lackluster and boring. Obama gave the same speech he's been doing. The excitement was, well, I guess I could say... forced. I don't know what it was, it just wasn't true excitement like it was during his first election.



I have been saying that if Obama would sit back and let Romney run his campaign and Obama just stay out of the campaign mode, he'd win by default because of Romney's personality and weaknesses. Obama couldn't do that, though. He had to launch the nastiest campaign we've seen and has simply denigrated the office of the presidency. For what I thought was a slam dunk win for Obama when Romney was chosen by the GOP, Obama has now given him a chance. A very good chance at that.



I'm actually now looking forward to a change in the White House when I was initially just hoping for the House and Senate.



By the way, "Forward" has been the marching campaigns of Marxist regimes around the world throughout history. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and kills your economy like a Marxist....

 

[H D]

Oh, and perhaps my favorite moment of the DNC convention was when C-SPAN was scanning the room while the cardninal was praying. Some very awkward looking people in there. Some bowing their heads, some confused, some blankly staring around the room; none looked as if they had a clue what was happening, lol. Then, the cardinal asked for protection of religious freedom and the protection of the unborn. Can you say awkward? Why ask a cardinal to pray over your convention when you've been attacking his religion and charity work for 4 years? Ooops!

 

[Kevin Lang]

I have been saying that if Obama would sit back and let Romney run his campaign and Obama just stay out of the campaign mode, he'd win by default because of Romney's personality and weaknesses.

I can't say that I agree with this. I would hope that someone on "Team Obama" would have to run interference when the Romney Campaign broke out the "Reagan Question" and when Romney mentioned his plans for America. Even though he's been vague, and is promising concrete figures (which I don't like), he has still given us much more of a plan than has Obama. Maybe I'm giving my fellow Americans too much credit, but I'd like to believe that a man with a "sterling business record" who spreads the word of his plans to the public would beat out an incumbent with no positive record who would, in this scenario, be sitting on his thumbs and not providing any sort of counter-argument.



Also, that would require Obama to be out of Campaign Mode. Has that happened yet? :bwahaha:



I sat through that speech of his. It was a lot of babble to say nothing. No promises, no plan, no point. I'm even told that by those who believe that it was a piece of brilliant oration (I still cannot see how the man is lauded as an orator, his skills are sub-par to say the least). It was almost as bad as his "I killed Bin Laden" speech that dragged on forever and a day last year.

 

[Mark K 2]

I'm voting for Obama. I do not favor public money being used to fund abortions as a first-line birth control method. The whole abortion market as it is now is self-regulating. Abortions aren't cheap; they cost a few thousand dollars. Therefore, the only ones getting them are doing so as a last-resort. I say maintain the staus quo. Don't shitcan Roe v. Wade. Don't make a law or amendment declaring a zygote a person.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Don't make a law or amendment declaring a zygote a person.

As I'm sure you know, neither candidate can make any such law. Seems like a weak reason for selecting a candidate.

I'm voting for Obama. ...I say maintain the staus quo.

Well, that's strange. The guy whose platform is all about destroying the status quo is the guy you're voting for when you want to maintain the status quo. I have to say that I'm scratching my head a bit over that one.

 

[Les]

I have to say that I'm scratching my head a bit over that one.

KL, I agree with you on this.



Mark K,

I do not favor public money being used to fund abortions as a first-line birth control method.

Isn't this more of a right view, than a left?

Abortions aren't cheap; they cost a few thousand dollars. Therefore, the only ones getting them are doing so as a last-resort.

Not true, abortions are available for a little as $350 from Planned Parenthood. "52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%. Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%. 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion. (All these facts were easily obtained on Google).

Don't shitcan Roe v. Wade.

I don't believe this will ever happen in my lifetime. Over 60% of people in this country believe abortion should be available during the first trimester. This has been true for several decades.