View Single Post
Old 10-20-2008, 10:10 PM   #476
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
so having more than one simple reason negates all the reasons?
when he says, "I would have voted for it, except for reason A." Then says, "I didn't vote for it because of reason B." You should get suspicious. Especially when the reasons he promotes most publicly turn out to be lies.


Quote:
doctors, who opposed the 2002 bill, should be the ones to determine if a fetus is viable, not an attorney.

we should let the doctors make the medical judgement. period.
you mean the doctor that failed at killing the child on the first attempt? Seems to me that if you can't kill a baby on the first try, that's evidence for viability. edit: I can see, though, how saving a baby's life after first trying to kill it might expose a doctor to more lawsuits, as Obama has reasoned.
But more to the point - the AG wasn't able to enforce the law in the case of abortions, as Obama sometimes suggests. And he knows that.

Last edited by Usually Lurkin; 10-20-2008 at 10:17 PM. Reason: edited for more snark
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote