Democratic Vice President?

Originally posted by Strangelove
The part where you said "He's not even Catholic" is what's ridiculous. Not everyone who professes an affiliation to a certain religion has to follow every doctrine to a T.

Being pro-choice and Catholic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's been proven, time and time again, that pro-choice policies reduce the number of abortions. So you could even say that being pro-choice and Catholicism mesh quite nicely.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Kerry was a pro-choice catholic, and Rhode Island, which has the highest percentage of catholics, voted pretty strongly for him.

Which to me would spport one of two possiblities. They're the type of Catholics Strangelove is addressing; Catholics that absoultely believe they're Catholic, even if they themselves realize they don't follow every Roman mandate. The other being that the typical Catholic voter pays as much attention to the details of the candidate for which they are voting as they do to the Pope.

So we've got luke-warm Catholics or idiot voters. And in this country, it's very much likely that it's both.

Indianna, Ohio and Virginia are all leaning towards McCain, Obama will still win the election, but Bayh would turn IN and OH back to Obama. Kaine will only turn VA. 31 vs 13.

Ohio is still very much a toss-up. But Bayh would help deliver Ohio, yes.

Biden (supposedly) has been acting standoffish and aggressive towards the press, makes me believe he knows he is out. So I say Bayh, unless Hillary comes out with some wildcard.

Not what I heard.

He bought them a bunch of bagels yesterday and was joking with them.

Originally posted by Strangelove
In fact, it's been proven, time and time again, that pro-choice policies reduce the number of abortions.

So much wrong there that I won't even touch it.

Allowing minors to have abortions without consent, pushing for late term abortions and policy that supports infantcide (as Obama has) is going to reduce aboritons from happening.

Right.

He's not for late term abortion and infantcide.

Please prove your claims.

Here's what Obama actually thinks of late term abortion - "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/04/obama-on-late-abortion-me_n_110884.html

In short, he's in favor of late term abortions if it's done because of safety concerns for the mother. Not unreasonable at all.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not what I heard.

He bought them a bunch of bagels yesterday and was joking with them.

Goes to show, for every "yes" story, there is a "no". Oh well.

Bagels, were they Jewish reporters?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So much wrong there that I won't even touch it.

Allowing minors to have abortions without consent, pushing for late term abortions and policy that supports infantcide (as Obama has) is going to reduce aboritons from happening.

Right.

I have my own anti-views on abortions, but the fact remains that making abortions illegal all around will not stop people that want an abortion from getting them; all it will do is make it dangerous for the woman getting one.

Women (with the rare exception) do not get abortions on a whim or use them as a method of birth control.

As BF pointed out, those are not Obama's stances.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So much wrong there that I won't even touch it.

Allowing minors to have abortions without consent, pushing for late term abortions and policy that supports infantcide (as Obama has) is going to reduce aboritons from happening.

Right.

Abstinence-only education is dangerous and in fact causes teens to have abortions at much higher rates than is necessary. And that is what I mean by pro-choice policies.

Originally posted by Strangelove
By "pro-choice policies", I mean age-appropriate sex education, the kind where you teach kids about how the dangers of sex and how to do it right instead of just telling them not to have it. Teenagers are going to have sex. No one can stop that. But if you teach them to use a condom and/or other contraceptive devices, then they are fewer teen pregnancies and thus fewer abortions.

Abstinence-only education is dangerous and in fact causes teens to have abortions at much higher rates than is necessary. And that is what I mean by pro-choice policies.

Originally posted by BackFire
He's not for late term abortion and infantcide.

Please prove your claims.

Here's what Obama actually thinks of late term abortion - "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/04/obama-on-late-abortion-me_n_110884.html

In short, he's in favor of late term abortions if it's done because of safety concerns for the mother. Not unreasonable at all.

A bill similar to one that passed almost overwhelmingly in the US Senate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_21aug21,0,6556075.column

If the baby is born alive and can breathe and has a chance, but you won't allow it to and have it terminated after it's born breathing and with a heartrate...that's infantcide.

I really don't get why the US Right doesn't simply resolve themselves to the fact that they will likely never have Roe v Wade overturned... and even if so will never (a) have abortion banned outright or (b) banned even to the point where it's only to protect the mother's life or physical health.

I can't foresee the US joining such luminous countries as Iran, Syria and Sudan for the former or Ethiopia, Malawi and Zimbabwe for the latter.

Perhaps its time to find a new hobby instead of trying to interfere in the lives of women you have nothing to do with?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well my misunderstanding then. When I read "Pro choice policies" the first thing in my mind is abortion, not sex education. He voted no on a bill promoted by foes of abortion, that would confer the rights of personhood upon any fetus expelled or extracted from the womb if that fetus was capable of breathing or voluntary motion, or if it had a heartbeat in 2003.

A bill similar to one that passed almost overwhelmingly in the US Senate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_21aug21,0,6556075.column

If the baby is born alive and can breathe and has a chance, but you won't allow it to and have it terminated after it's born breathing and with a heartrate...that's infantcide.

It's nice when all I have to do is quote a bit from a source you posted in order to deflate your argument.

State laws regulate nearly all abortion practices, so any changes in statutory definition on the state level can be fraught with legal complications. And there was the additional issue that Winkel's companion bill, 1083, would have exposed doctors to greater legal liabilities in cases that could have involved embryos just five weeks into gestation, when the heartbeat begins.

But Obama was far from the only state lawmaker who needed stronger assurances that these bills were not Trojan horses: Seven more bills related to "born-alive" failed in the General Assembly in 2004, and Obama had nothing to do with those bills.

But in defending himself against the preposterous charge that his record shows him to be a radical extremist who favors infanticide, Obama has given his opponents rhetorical ammunition by either misrepresenting or misremembering the events of March 12, 2003.

That last bit is neat because even the author of the article that YOU used as evidence points out that the idea that he's in favor or supports infanticide is preposterous.

Important thing when bringing up these old votes. They are complicated votes, usually involving much more than is on the face of them. The bill obviously wasn't simply "are you in favor of infanticide?" There were other things to consider. To lie and say that he supports infanticide simply because he voted against a bill related to it, while completely ignoring the other things attached to the bill and the locality in which they'd affect is extremely pathetic. Though not surprising.

So yes, please try getting your information from someone other than Sean Hannity.

It's still a vote that allows babies born with a heartbeat or breathing to be discarded. I don't care what provisions were or weren't in it that he wanted to see.

A similar bill passed with a 90% majority in the US senate because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Obama failed.

Well if you want to cherry pick data, concentrate on only one small part of the bill and ignore the rest that's your decision. It's clearly nonsensical and illogical to do so, but that's your choice. Going down this route allows one to say that McCain doesn't support our troops because he voted against a bill to give them more stuff after their first tour of duty. Of course, there were other things in the bill that made it understandable for him to not want to pass the bill. But since we're only concentrating on the part that fits into some BS talking points, that doesn't matter.

A similar bill passed because it didn't have a bunch of crap attached to it. No one wants to see babies die, but when you vote no on something that doesn't mean that you are against everything in a bill, it often means you think the bill could be better and you WANT it to be better.

I saw on the BBC news that Biden is a very likely. It also mentioned Hillary for some strange reason, and neither Bayh or Kaine.

Hmm.

This guy is in the spotlight now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chet_Edwards
http://www.chetedwards.com/

Dark horse.

Thank you, Cap'n Obvious.