Quoted Text

President Obama echoed his support for abortion rights today, the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court's pro-choice decision in Roe v. Wade.

"Government should not intrude on private family matters," Obama said in a statement, adding that he also supports policies to prevented "unintended pregnancies."

http://content.usatoday.com/co.....ks-abortion-rights/1

Yet, we're being force-fed healtcare and care more about stray cats than we do living human beings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_clinic_investigation_8

The government should stay out of the abortion issue and the government shouldn't be funding abortion with taxpayer money either.

"Govt shouldn't intrude on private family matters "... I totally agree.
~The decision weather to have children should be between a woman, her religious advisers, and her doctor.  Govt has no business telling her weather or not she can start a family.   Limiting a woman's choices is Not the govt responsibility.

"Govt shouldn't intrude on private family matters "... I totally agree.
Who someone marries, as long as both parties are not minors, is no business of the govt. and they should stay out of those decisions.

"Govt shouldn't intrude on private family matters "... I totally agree.
Religion is a private family matter and the GOVT. should stay out of promoting, advancing or denying, prohibiting any religion or where they build their place of worship.  Taxpayers should not be forced to fund religious services in any public buildings.

Quoted from Box A Rox

"Govt shouldn't intrude on private family matters "... I totally agree.
~The decision weather to have children should be between a woman, her religious advisers, and her doctor.  Govt has no business telling her weather or not she can start a family.   Limiting a woman's choices is Not the govt responsibility.

"Govt shouldn't intrude on private family matters "... I totally agree.
Who someone marries, as long as both parties are not minors, is no business of the govt. and they should stay out of those decisions.

"Govt shouldn't intrude on private family matters "... I totally agree.
Religion is a private family matter and the GOVT. should stay out of promoting, advancing or denying, prohibiting any religion or where they build their place of worship.  Taxpayers should not be forced to fund religious services in any public buildings.

agree.....they cant limit/promote caring/love either....If I choose to give you $5.00 for a happy meal or not is my business...and it
is not the government's responsibility to slip into my pocket and give it to them when they see fit....

I agree boxy........if a family can't afford a cell phone, that is a private family issue and the government should be intruding.
if a family can't afford a lap top, that is a private family issue and the government should not be intruding.
if a family doesn't eat veggie, that is a private family issue and the government should not be intruding.
if a family doesn't want health care, that is a private family/personal issue and the government should not be intruding.
if a family wants to eat big macs, that is a private family/personal issue and the government should not be intruding.
if folks want to watch olbermann, that is a private matter and the government should not be intruding.
if folks want to watch beck,rush,hannity, that is a private matter and the government shouldn't be intruding with the fairness doctrine.

The big problem with President Obama's view on abortion is that we are talking about the life or death of a human being.     If it is a "private family matter" about whether to allow an unborn baby to live or die ...  then one could argue that it should be a "private family matter" to decide whether a handicapped child should live or die ... or whether grandma or grandpa should live or die when they get old and sick.   Then .. we travel along theroad and become like some Middle Eastern nation  ---- if parents find out that their son is gay or there daughter is dating a person of another faith ... would it then be a "private family matter" if the parents decided to kill their child???  

My view is that the government should not be in the business of promoting a culture of death.  

The government shouldn't be promoting anything that the conscience of society doesn't want/accept......

who/what is society's conscience?

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The big problem with President Obama's view on abortion is that we are talking about the life or death of a human being.     If it is a "private family matter" about whether to allow an unborn baby to live or die ...  then one could argue that it should be a "private family matter" to decide whether a handicapped child should live or die ... or whether grandma or grandpa should live or die when they get old and sick.   Then .. we travel along theroad and become like some Middle Eastern nation  ---- if parents find out that their son is gay or there daughter is dating a person of another faith ... would it then be a "private family matter" if the parents decided to kill their child???  

My view is that the government should not be in the business of promoting a culture of death.  

I agree that the government should not be in the business of promoting a culture of death. But it is groups of 'we the people' that are running to the government to pass laws to suit their fancy. The government looks at them as a voter base and BINGO.....next thing ya know, it becomes political and it becomes a campaign issue......and there's a law!!

Quoted from bumblethru

I agree that the government should not be in the business of promoting a culture of death. But it is groups of 'we the people' that are running to the government to pass laws to suit their fancy. The government looks at them as a voter base and BINGO.....next thing ya know, it becomes political and it becomes a campaign issue......and there's a law!!

Except that in Row v. Wade,  an unelected Supreme Court "created law" out of thin air.   I don't believe that a majority of Americans would have voted for legalized abortion in 1973.     They had trouble passing pro-abortion laws in quite a number of states back then.

IMHO ---   Roe v Wade is the 20th Century equivalent of  Dred Scott vs Sandford.   There are many parrallels between the arguments of the Pro-Abortion crowd and the Pro-Slavery crowd.    
Eventually, folks will come to realize that abortion is just as evil as slavery ... and will ban it by amending the US Constitution.

The masses have trouble changing course....it's a fear of not being accepted into the 'clan of the cave bear'.....the 'clan' could be church, sports
government, gangstas, families etc etc etc.......the list is endless.....

all that matters is what the authority is in the conscience of society......what proceeds from that, is how the government will sit up.......

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Except that in Row v. Wade,  an unelected Supreme Court "created law" out of thin air.   I don't believe that a majority of Americans would have voted for legalized abortion in 1973.     They had trouble passing pro-abortion laws in quite a number of states back then.

IMHO ---   Roe v Wade is the 20th Century equivalent of  Dred Scott vs Sandford.   There are many parrallels between the arguments of the Pro-Abortion crowd and the Pro-Slavery crowd.    
Eventually, folks will come to realize that abortion is just as evil as slavery ... and will ban it by amending the US Constitution.

I would say this is a stretch comparison, a big stretch.   Slavery and abortion are the same thing ?   Pro arguments are the same ?   Diversity jurisdiction?   Abortion is a politically charged argument but equating it to slavery is harum-scarum.

Anti Choice means Govt interference.  I find it ironic that the party who opposes choice... who force women to give birth against their will, will then scorn those women when they have no means or desire to care for the result of THEIR decision.

Quoted from threeprongplug

I would say this is a stretch comparison, a big stretch.   Slavery and abortion are the same thing ?   Pro arguments are the same ?   Diversity jurisdiction?   Abortion is a politically charged argument but equating it to slavery is harum-scarum.

... Both decisions decided the legal value of human life and the constitutional protections they were extended.  The high rate, at which African American's are having abortions proportionate to Whites, makes American abortion policy look like a form of legal fetal genocide.

If you keep the inner city African Americans ignorant and limit their upward mobility through poor public education, thereby creating a dependency on the government and the welfare state, and then keep their birth rates down by putting a planned parenthood on every corner to prevent any real power in this representative democracy, you have the recipe of a permanent underclass and democrat party constituents for the white democrat party leadership.

Quoted Text

Definition of GENOCIDE
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
— geno·cid·al \ˌje-nə-ˈsī-dəl\ adjective
See genocide defined for English-language learners »
First Known Use of GENOCIDE
1944

Quoted Text

Definition of ABORTION
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2: monstrosity
3: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
See abortion defined for English-language learners »