It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Defends Sex-Selection Abortions

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Ok...now continue with your logic.


WHY did the House need a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority???




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Most likely 2/3 majority is needed to override a presidential veto, but what do i know

The fact remains the left defended selective abortions.
edit on 1-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





The fact remains the left defended selective abortions.


No one defended that... If you look at the reasons presented there are clearly other concerns of what the bill entails. Its not a hatred of children, as you seem to believe.
edit on 1-6-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 



Abortion is not "showing love" and yeah that can be seen as hatred abortion in any form is wrong.

Selective or otherwise.


*sorry for the rewrite misread.
edit on 1-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 





No one defended that... If you look at the reasons presented there are clearly other concerns of what the bill entails. Its not a hatred of children, as you seem to believe.


How does one get accused of "hating children" when i have years opposed abortion in any form and have condemned the actions of both selective abortions and plain ole abortion.

And yet "I hate children"

That is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard.

The fact is select abortions has become legally acceptable and meh no big deal so what.




What are you talking about??



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
He may find that he is at odds with Hillary Clinton on this issue, at least that's what it appears she's alluding too in an article in the N.Y. times in 2009 entitled, " A New Gender Agenda."

nytimes.com

Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes. But at the governmental level, there is a great deal of openness and commitment that I am seeing.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I'm no Obama fan and am appalled by the prospect of sex selective abortion, but I can see Doctors getting royally screwed. Who would be in charge of determining if the Doc gave an abortion for a 'normal' reason or because of the child's sex?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Most likely 2/3 majority is needed to override a presidential veto, but what do i know

The fact remains the left defended selective abortions.
edit on 1-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


No veto...try again.

It seems odd that you would even comment without knowing the facts....or maybe not so odd now that I think about it.




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




It seems odd that you would even comment without knowing the facts....or maybe not so odd now that I think about it.


Well since someone knows everything how about enlightening everyone else why a 2/3 vote was needed for passage of the selective abortion bill.

Go on,.

Facts:


The legislation needed a two-thirds vote and Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the legislation after President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood came out in opposition.


edit on 1-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Yes they are because the left blocked the attempt to make selective abortion be punishable by fines and prison terms.

They defended it.


Facepalm. Okay, let me go over this more simply:

Defending abortion rights: "I don't support gender discrimination in any way, but I will not allow this bill to undercut existing abortion laws for unprovable threats."

Defending gender selection abortion: "Women should have the right to abort based on gender reasons, so I'm vetoing this bill."



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 



de·fend/diˈfend/ Verb: Resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger: "we shall defend our country". Speak or write in favor of (an action or person); attempt to justify: "he defended his policy of imposing high taxes".


The democrats defended the attack on selective abortion by voting the bill down.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Well since someone knows everything how about enlightening everyone else why a 2/3 vote was needed for passage of the selective abortion bill.

Go on


Sure...you just had to ask nicely



They needed a two-thirds vote because they tried to fast track this bill by suspending the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote. Usually, this only happens when a bill has bi-partisan support and is for sure to pass.

In this case, instead of letting the rules play out and being able to definately pass the bill....the Republicans decided to play a political game and force the bill to fail.

Like I said...Republicans don't plan and have never planned on ever doing anything about abortion. They use it as a political ploy to fool easily manipulated people.

And look at all the people who are falling for it.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Which was not needed until


The legislation needed a two-thirds vote and Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the legislation after President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood came out in opposition.


So who changed the rules?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Pro-choice means pro-choice, and that includes sex-selection abortions. Of course they should be legal. Obama did well, IMHO.

Either you believe abortion is wrong and then lets ban all of them except to save the mother (pro-life), or you dont and then lets allow all of them including sex-selective (pro-choice). I dont see how one could cherry-pick like this, there is no other option.
edit on 1/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You don't seem to understand the House of Representatives rules and procedures.

A suspension of the rules always require a two-thirds vote...no one changed this.


Let's look at the history of this bill.

1) It was introduced on December 1, 2011 (who knew such a hot button topic was so old
)
2) It went to committee in February (bills moving very slow for such an important matter...huh?)
3) From February until this week...nothing is done with the bill
4) On Tuesday (May 29th), a video is released showing actors going into planned parenthood and asking if they can have an abortion just to select the sex of the baby...planned parenthood tells them there are no qualifications for reason to have an abortion (which I 100% disagree with, but that is the current law)
5) Later that day, May 29th, the bill is amended and announced that it will be fast tracked the next day. (Look at that...all of a sudden this bill is a huge priority).
6) Rep. Franks calls for a suspension of the rules to pass the bill....the vote fails. (Sacraficed a good bill in order to play political games)


The bill had a good chance of passing if they didn't suspend the rules and allow it to go through the House under normal procedures.


Face it...Republicans sacraficed this bill to play political games...which is why they are hypocrites.
edit on 1-6-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by beezzer
All I have to say on the subject.






I agree.


You should ask the pro-life Republicans you support why they killed this bill.



Who is a hypocrite?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


How am I a hypocrite?

I'm pro-life...and I have seen the Republicans repeatedly use the abortion issue over and over as a ploy to get votes and never do a damn thing about it.


Abortion is one of many issues to consider in casting a vote...I'm not a one issue voter....sorry.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
the topic of abortion at election time merely is a sheeple steering bit and bridle

neither here nor there in the grand robbery scheme of things
I guess it's the kind of interjection cass sundstien had in mind with this concept of infiltrating the forums with agitators to prevent any truth from being discussed
edit on 1-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


compared to letting corzine off the hook for what he did and the precident that set, it is exceptionaly insignificant
edit on 1-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by neo96
 


How am I a hypocrite?

I'm pro-life...and I have seen the Republicans repeatedly use the abortion issue over and over as a ploy to get votes and never do a damn thing about it.


Abortion is one of many issues to consider in casting a vote...I'm not a one issue voter....sorry.


Outkast, you are right about so many Republican saying they are Pro-life and then voting pro-abortion. It is hypocritical, yet if you look you will see both Dems and Reps doing this on lots of issues.

To me this is a CORNERSTONE ISSUE and it is the reason I did not vote for Obama. I have a conscious regardless of whether or not the candidates do. I have to live with myself and the day I put any issue above the right to life is the day I sold myself out. I will never consider voting for a candidate that supports abortion.

This is a litmus test. I have nothing in common with the candidate that supports abortion.

To thine own self be true and know politicians lie to get votes.

You say you are pro-life, well consider how much Mr. Obama has done to support abortion rights. Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion President in American History. If you voted for him knowing he was pro-choice, you and all the others who voted for him gave him the key the White House and let it happen - not my doing.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


This illustrates that Outkast doesn't see the issue of being pro life the end all of his/her voting choice.
Outkast did not fall into the trap. There are many many issues which are diametrically opposed from either side. Abortion, while being a hot one, is hardly the most important when the economy is tanking and the country is involved in not one, but 2 controversial wars.

This is what the politicians want you to believe. They latch on to opposite views in the hopes that your vote on the issue will go toward all the others they represent.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join