Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
I want her to make an 'informed' decision...not based on lies that those like you tell her...

So, if the doctor tells her that the life inside her is a baby and she still decides to have the abortion......would you not concede she has NOW made an informed decision? or are you going to blather on about more crap because you still didn't like or agree with her decision?

A woman who is wanting an abortion is ALREADY informed about what she has inside her and knows that it will go from a fetus to a child and it is the end results that she doesn't want.

You are entitled to your opinion about abortions......but you fail to understand that others don't have to see this issue your way.

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>You have a problem using your regular moniker, but your rhetoric and lack of proper English follow you everywhere. Keep it up, South Side Ghetto dweller 'Hussein is History', and not good history, in November. How's that work for ya? Romney wasn't my first choice, but he is far better that what occupies the White House now. Keep it up 'Ghetto Dweller' we have more...

o' afterbirth, it does not matter what you think of my screen name. The end result is still the same for your monkey azz. But your ignorant rhetoric makes your dumbazz stand out in a crowd of non racist folks. You had better get your fatal dosage of Jim Jones purple kool-aid surprise ready following the Black president being re-elected. Now as for your mentioning the White House, why the hell do think lying Romney is going around the country renovating his big houses into bigger houses you stupid b@st@rd? The Black president named HUSSEIN will make history and your boy Romney will be history. LOFL!!!!!!!!!!
LOFL!!!!!!!!!!
LOFL!!!!!!!!!!

Ken wrote:

<quoted text>
Abortion is murder...

Really? Exactly how many women that have undergone one are on death row, or have even been convicted?

Feel free to try again.

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>Voter fraud, I axed you before, still no answer, Chapter & Verse of Republican voter fraud?? Nothin'... Get a life, you're following in your Mama's footsteps, a lot of face time and nothing to say? Demorats can't win without fraud? Barack Hussein Obama can't sit another four years in the White House, without massive voter fraud?? It's going to be interesting to see the MSM and 'Obama Money' blobbering about Obama?

Yo' afterbirth, why the hell does anyone need to waste time explaining the truth to your ignorant monkey azz? I would rather use that energy pissing on and pissing you off. By the way, you need to cut the umbilical cord and move out of your parent's basement.
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
Lol!!!!!!!!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
So, if the doctor tells her that the life inside her is a baby and she still decides to have the abortion......would you not concede she has NOW made an informed decision? or are you going to blather on about more crap because you still didn't like or agree with her decision?
A woman who is wanting an abortion is ALREADY informed about what she has inside her and knows that it will go from a fetus to a child and it is the end results that she doesn't want.
You are entitled to your opinion about abortions......but you fail to understand that others don't have to see this issue your way.

Not 'a' baby...'her' baby. She should be able to acknowledge that fact to the fullest degree before making that decision....

cpeter1313 wrote:

And they can view it or not--at THEIR request.
<quoted text>

Not if the test isn't even done they can't....

cpeter1313 wrote:

You don't determine the level of information required by a patient in order to undergo a procedure. The woman's decision is hers to make for whatever reason is important to HER.
<quoted text>

I never said I did...I'm saying the government should mandate this.....

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is arguing that a women can't make her own decisions...the question here is what are we 'not' doing for her in order for her to make an 'informed' decision?? Would we operate on a heart without taking pictures first????

Damn stupid fundies can't ever make analogies.

No, we wouldn't operate on a heart without taking pictures of it first. But the patient isn't required to see those pictures, now is she?

And your stupid logic isn't about what you are "not doing" for her, it's about what YOU want to FORCE on her. There's a huge difference. Seeing an ultrasound does not make her "more" pregnant.

As someone stated before. You simply wish to make a bad situation worse, by FORCING an emotional element into a procedure that does not require one. It would be NO DIFFERENT then you telling someone that is going to be an amputee that they must first stare at a picture of the limb THAT is going to be severed for a few hours before the procedure is completed. You know, just so they can be "fully informed" of what is going to be removed. You are sick and you need help. If YOU want to see an ultra sound of YOUR fetus, then by all means do. But to guise your religious agenda in the cloak of "she needs this to be completely informed" is utter bullshyt.

cpeter1313 wrote:

The right to make one's own medical decisions has been proven to be constitutionally supported in many cases. A woman's right to abort has been constitutionally-supported. Really. It was in all the papers.
<quoted text>

The right to 'properly' and 'completelyh' informed is also the patient's right....

cpeter1313 wrote:

Only in the armed services. Otherwise, no they can't UNLESS deemed mentally incompetent. What they can't do is deny necessary medical treatments for their kids.
<quoted text>

Interesting point...why in the Armed forces do you think???

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Damn stupid fundies can't ever make analogies.
No, we wouldn't operate on a heart without taking pictures of it first. But the patient isn't required to see those pictures, now is she?

Now isn't that a dum'b statement...the patient doesn't want to see where the problem is and have the doctor show here how it will be corrected???? Yeah right...the lies don't get any dum-ber than this....

Before allowing a spouse to be taken off life support, the surviving spouse must first watch every VHS and DVD video the couple took of themselves throughout their life....just so they can be "fully informed" on what they are doing.

At least according to ole BusyBody Fool. Wouldn't want anyone not to see pictures of everything.

In addition, parents from now on must view the mutilated remains of their children that have been in accidents. We wouldn't want them holding an closed casket ceremony unless of course they had actually "been informed" by looking at their mangled remains first.

At least according to ole BusyBody Fool.

Oh, and from now on, people buying caskets will need to see pictures of what their relatives will look like after being in them for 4 decades. We wouldn't want to pick out a casket without being "fully informed" now would we. I mean, they might rot in one much slower than the other. Wouldn't everyone feel much better with those images??

Well, according to ole BusyBody Fool, they sure will.

Vile, just vile.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
The right to 'properly' and 'completelyh' informed is also the patient's right....

How does PP violate this?

Jonah1 wrote:

Before allowing a spouse to be taken off life support, the surviving spouse must first watch every VHS and DVD video the couple took of themselves throughout their life....just so they can be "fully informed" on what they are doing.
At least according to ole BusyBody Fool. Wouldn't want anyone not to see pictures of everything.
In addition, parents from now on must view the mutilated remains of their children that have been in accidents. We wouldn't want them holding an closed casket ceremony unless of course they had actually "been informed" by looking at their mangled remains first.
At least according to ole BusyBody Fool.
Oh, and from now on, people buying caskets will need to see pictures of what their relatives will look like after being in them for 4 decades. We wouldn't want to pick out a casket without being "fully informed" now would we. I mean, they might rot in one much slower than the other. Wouldn't everyone feel much better with those images??
Well, according to ole BusyBody Fool, they sure will.
Vile, just vile.

If someone is taking someone else's life into their hands..you are dam skippy they need to be totally informed of what they are doing...'TOTALLY' informed...

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:

<quoted text>
How does PP violate this?

...by getting involved in the first place, then profiting from the actual abortion. There is a 'conflict of interest' with this methodology....

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
So, if the doctor tells her that the life inside her is a baby and she still decides to have the abortion......would you not concede she has NOW made an informed decision? or are you going to blather on about more crap because you still didn't like or agree with her decision?
A woman who is wanting an abortion is ALREADY informed about what she has inside her and knows that it will go from a fetus to a child and it is the end results that she doesn't want.
You are entitled to your opinion about abortions......but you fail to understand that others don't have to see this issue your way.

The petri dish was doin just fine until RnL2008 walked by.
Ya had your space.
Never enough is it.
The lie is you, we brought you into this world remember?
A father and a mother.
A man and a woman.
The giant spanking will come.

Ken wrote:

<quoted text>
Check out the man-hater!
Beat it,troll...doubt whether you'd have any use for contraception.
What guy in his right mind would want to wake up next to a bitter harpy like you.

um... out of curiosity, why do you think that i hate men? that's really a strange thing for you to say.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Not 'a' baby...'her' baby. She should be able to acknowledge that fact to the fullest degree before making that decision....

Does that really matter? I mean it is inside her and therefore she is already aware that it is her baby, but still decides on the abortion.....the only person who needs her to confirm that information is YOU.....and YOU aren't there.....so, again whether the woman states "THE BABY" or "HER BABY" she still knows it's a baby and SIMPLY DOESN'T WANT IT.......she doesn't have to see it or hear it's heartbeat to know she wants an abortion and no matter how much you don't believe she is informed.....she is and it is HER RIGHT to make that decision.....NOT YOURS or anyone else!!!

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
...by getting involved in the first place, then profiting from the actual abortion. There is a 'conflict of interest' with this methodology....

OMG I never thought of that. I guess everyone in the medical profession should do it for free. Sweet no more doctor bills, no more hospital bills. Can you get this through congress? Your plan goes way way beyond Obama's plan. I see your point and I agree , right down to the drug companies.
None of them should be profiting from any form of health care.

Mad Experiment wrote:

<quoted text>
The petri dish was doin just fine until RnL2008 walked by.
Ya had your space.
Never enough is it.
The lie is you, we brought you into this world remember?
A father and a mother.
A man and a woman.
The giant spanking will come.

And your point is what? That figures.....you had none!!!