http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-va-governors-race-abortion-continues-to-be-a-hot-button-issue/2013/10/25/e444c21e-3cc5-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html

http://freebeacon.com/top-five-terry-mcauliffe-campaign-lies/

Fat~Bottom~Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://freebeacon.com/top-five-terry-mcauliffe-cam
> paign-lies/

Really? That's all you've got?

GOP-tards!

LoLz!

Yes, it's true.

I have absolutely no life.

I'm somewhat of a moderate in the abortion debate...

But one point I'd like to point out about abortion in debates amoung politicians is how ADOPTION is rarely brought up..

If someone what's to abort the fetus, then there's not that much regulation on that in many states..

But if you want to ADOPT a child.. holy cow.. there's tons of government and regulatory red tape concerning that.. LONG waiting lists..

Why don't we hear a politician say, "This abortion debate is at a stalemate as of now.. there's not much I can do in either direction in this debate.. but here's what I can try to do.. I'm going to reform the adoption process in a manner that is more efficient and give deeper incentives for those who adopt children. That way we can make adoption a stronger ALTERNATIVE to abortion.."

But none of them even attempt to reframe the issue in a manner that gets a more practical and humanitarian solution.

I think it's because there's strong and powerful special interest groups on both sides of the abortion debate (pro-choice vs. pro-life); and if either side completely caves to the other side, then the side that "wins" no longer gets money from their special interest groups.

So I think it's at least possible that there's an unspoken understanding between both sides of the abortion debate to keep the issue a stalemate as long as possible so BOTH sides continue to get money from their respective special interest groups..

That's my theory about the abortion debate, and many other political issues that have been debated for a long time with no significant ground being gained on either side...

SpeedFx187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm somewhat of a moderate in the abortion
> debate...
>
> But one point I'd like to point out about abortion
> in debates amoung politicians is how ADOPTION is
> rarely brought up..
>
> If someone what's to abort the fetus, then there's
> not that much regulation on that in many states..
>
> But if you want to ADOPT a child.. holy cow..
> there's tons of government and regulatory red tape
> concerning that.. LONG waiting lists..
>
> Why don't we hear a politician say, "This abortion
> debate is at a stalemate as of now.. there's not
> much I can do in either direction in this debate..
> but here's what I can try to do.. I'm going to
> reform the adoption process in a manner that is
> more efficient and give deeper incentives for
> those who adopt children. That way we can make
> adoption a stronger ALTERNATIVE to abortion.."
>
> But none of them even attempt to reframe the issue
> in a manner that gets a more practical and
> humanitarian solution.
>
> I think it's because there's strong and powerful
> special interest groups on both sides of the
> abortion debate (pro-choice vs. pro-life); and if
> either side completely caves to the other side,
> then the side that "wins" no longer gets money
> from their special interest groups.
>
> So I think it's at least possible that there's an
> unspoken understanding between both sides of the
> abortion debate to keep the issue a stalemate as
> long as possible so BOTH sides continue to get
> money from their respective special interest
> groups..
>
> That's my theory about the abortion debate, and
> many other political issues that have been debated
> for a long time with no significant ground being
> gained on either side...

Well, I have to give you props for at least trying to understand the situation. But you have some serious misconceptions.

First, 'there's not much regulation' on abortion because it is LEGAL, despite the best efforts of Republicans.

Second,the problem with adoption is not that people don't want to adopt (infants at least). Plenty of people want to adopt, but there is way more demand than supply. And you can't reduce human life to a cost-benefit ratio. Most women are not going to carry a baby to term just for the money.

Third, special interests are not important to a pregnant woman. They just expect to be able to have control over their own body.

Hope that helps clarify the situation.

BUT, it's not their body. It's another life altogether.

That's why the 2 sides will never come to an agreement, they're making different arguments. One side says it is womens' rights, the other says it's babies' rights.

> Well, I have to give you props for at least trying
> to understand the situation. But you have some
> serious misconceptions.
>
> First, 'there's not much regulation' on abortion
> because it is LEGAL, despite the best efforts of
> Republicans.
>
> Second,the problem with adoption is not that
> people don't want to adopt (infants at least).
> Plenty of people want to adopt, but there is way
> more demand than supply. And you can't reduce
> human life to a cost-benefit ratio. Most women are
> not going to carry a baby to term just for the
> money.
>
> Third, special interests are not important to a
> pregnant woman. They just expect to be able to
> have control over their own body.
>
> Hope that helps clarify the situation.


I give you "props" for your response.. However, I feel that it was misunderstood.

I understand adoption is legal.. When I'm talking about regulation, I'm talking about the extensive paperwork, waiting lines, and hoops people have to jump through to adopt a child.. That's part of what contributes to the long wait.. Part of the long wait is simply waiting for a child to be available to adopt. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585954/Advocates-blame-costly-time-consuming-regulations-for-adoption-decline.html?pg=all)

The fact that the demand is greater than the supply in adoption is all the more reason to promote adoption over abortion. There's plenty of people who would be more than happy to parent someone's child.

You said, "special interests are not important to pregnant woman".. I think you don't understand what I mean by special interests..

Here's a description of special interest group:
"A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences. They may at times also advocate or lobby on a particular issue or on a range of issues but are generally distinct from Advocacy groups and pressure groups which are normally set up for the specific political aim; the distinction is not firm however and some organizations can adapt and change their focus over time." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Interest_Group)

The Family Research Council would be an example of a conservative special interest group, or advocacy group, that is pro-life. (http://www.frc.org/abortion)

NARAL Pro-Choice would be an example of a pro-choice special interest group. http://www.naral.org/

SpeedFx187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm somewhat of a moderate in the abortion
> debate...
>
> But one point I'd like to point out about abortion
> in debates amoung politicians is how ADOPTION is
> rarely brought up..
>
> If someone what's to abort the fetus, then there's
> not that much regulation on that in many states..
>
> But if you want to ADOPT a child.. holy cow..
> there's tons of government and regulatory red tape
> concerning that.. LONG waiting lists..
>
> Why don't we hear a politician say, "This abortion
> debate is at a stalemate as of now.. there's not
> much I can do in either direction in this debate..
> but here's what I can try to do.. I'm going to
> reform the adoption process in a manner that is
> more efficient and give deeper incentives for
> those who adopt children. That way we can make
> adoption a stronger ALTERNATIVE to abortion.."
>
> But none of them even attempt to reframe the issue
> in a manner that gets a more practical and
> humanitarian solution.
>
> I think it's because there's strong and powerful
> special interest groups on both sides of the
> abortion debate (pro-choice vs. pro-life); and if
> either side completely caves to the other side,
> then the side that "wins" no longer gets money
> from their special interest groups.
>
> So I think it's at least possible that there's an
> unspoken understanding between both sides of the
> abortion debate to keep the issue a stalemate as
> long as possible so BOTH sides continue to get
> money from their respective special interest
> groups..
>
> That's my theory about the abortion debate, and
> many other political issues that have been debated
> for a long time with no significant ground being
> gained on either side...

You actually raise an excellent point. To his credit, the Governor (with the help of Secretary of the Commonwealth Janet Kelly) have actually worked pretty hard on this. It's been a bit of a behind the scenes initiative for whatever reason, but "Virginia Adopts" is supposed to help ease the process for prospective adoptees (is adoptees the right word? Adopters.. Hmm).

The site is http://www.virginiaadopts.virginia.gov/

Incidentally, Mrs. Kelly walks the walk. She's adopted two kids herself.

> You actually raise an excellent point. To his
> credit, the Governor (with the help of Secretary
> of the Commonwealth Janet Kelly) have actually
> worked pretty hard on this. It's been a bit of a
> behind the scenes initiative for whatever reason,
> but "Virginia Adopts" is supposed to help ease the
> process for prospective adoptees (is adoptees the
> right word? Adopters.. Hmm).
>
> The site is
> http://www.virginiaadopts.virginia.gov/
>
> Incidentally, Mrs. Kelly walks the walk. She's
> adopted two kids herself.


Thank you! I almost believed I was a crazy person who didn't know what they're talking about.. lol jk

SpeedFx187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Well, I have to give you props for at least
> trying
> > to understand the situation. But you have some
> > serious misconceptions.
> >
> > First, 'there's not much regulation' on
> abortion
> > because it is LEGAL, despite the best efforts
> of
> > Republicans.
> >
> > Second,the problem with adoption is not that
> > people don't want to adopt (infants at least).
> > Plenty of people want to adopt, but there is
> way
> > more demand than supply. And you can't reduce
> > human life to a cost-benefit ratio. Most women
> are
> > not going to carry a baby to term just for the
> > money.
> >
> > Third, special interests are not important to a
> > pregnant woman. They just expect to be able to
> > have control over their own body.
> >
> > Hope that helps clarify the situation.
>
>
> I give you "props" for your response.. However, I
> feel that it was misunderstood.
>
> I understand adoption is legal.. When I'm talking
> about regulation, I'm talking about the extensive
> paperwork, waiting lines, and hoops people have to
> jump through to adopt a child.. That's part of
> what contributes to the long wait.. Part of the
> long wait is simply waiting for a child to be
> available to adopt.
> (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585954/Advo
> cates-blame-costly-time-consuming-regulations-for-
> adoption-decline.html?pg=all)

Yes, I understand that. Crude as it sounds - supply and demand. But consider this...most prospective adoptive couples want to adopt a healthy white baby. What about a black baby - would you adopt him or her? How about an addicted baby? Or a handicapped baby? The pool of adoptive parents significantly dwindles when presented with what they consider to be a less than perfect child.

> The fact that the demand is greater than the
> supply in adoption is all the more reason to
> promote adoption over abortion. There's plenty of
> people who would be more than happy to parent
> someone's child.

Again, demand is not the problem. And you are assuming that the birth mother has no problem carrying a child to term and then immediately turning the child over to strangers. That prospect is at least equally as distressing as the idea of terminating the pregnancy early on (1st three months), actually more so.

> You said, "special interests are not important to
> pregnant woman".. I think you don't understand
> what I mean by special interests..
>
> Here's a description of special interest group:
> "A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community
> with an interest in advancing a specific area of
> knowledge, learning or technology where members
> cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within
> their particular field, and may communicate, meet,
> and organize conferences. They may at times also
> advocate or lobby on a particular issue or on a
> range of issues but are generally distinct from
> Advocacy groups and pressure groups which are
> normally set up for the specific political aim;
> the distinction is not firm however and some
> organizations can adapt and change their focus
> over time."
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Interest_Gro
> up)
>
> The Family Research Council would be an example of
> a conservative special interest group, or advocacy
> group, that is pro-life.
> (http://www.frc.org/abortion)
>
> NARAL Pro-Choice would be an example of a
> pro-choice special interest group.
> http://www.naral.org/

The pregnant woman does not care about these distinctions. There are few things more devastating than realizing that you are pregnant and that you cannot bring a child that you could never love into the world. The fact that a stranger may be able to love that same child is not a factor in most women's decisions.

Women are not breeders at the disposal of potential parents who can afford the enormous costs of adopting a child because they can't have one of their own. Please try to understand all sides of this issue.

I'm glad this is your last post because this conversation is going nowhere...

A pregnant woman may not care about those distinctions, but other people do. And those "other people" have influence over laws, and some actually make the laws. Talking about the distinctions gives clarity on why things are what they are.

I feel like I understand both sides of the issue based on the fact that I was never taking a "side" in the first place.

If a "side" of the issue includes some sort of emotional sympathy for some pregnant women, then I apologize for not understanding that was a part of the discussion.

At the same time, I do not understand how I was supposed to "understand" that aspect of the issue when it wasn't directly mentioned in the news article you shared, and it wasn't talked about in detail in any of your responses.

Because of that, my responses focused on the political aspect of the abortion debate, the same focus of discussion in the news article you shared..

SpeedFx187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm glad this is your last post because this
> conversation is going nowhere...

Well, we'll see. And I agree that 'this conversation is going nowhere' because you have a closed mind.

> A pregnant woman may not care about those
> distinctions, but other people do. And those
> "other people" have influence over laws, and some
> actually make the laws. Talking about the
> distinctions gives clarity on why things are what
> they are.

If I understand you correctly (and you will claim that I don't), the pregnant woman is pretty much immaterial since 'other people have influence over laws'. Which means that some 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) advocate - generally male - can take precedence over any woman's body. Any you wonder why you don't have the women's vote locked up.

> I feel like I understand both sides of the issue
> based on the fact that I was never taking a "side"
> in the first place.

Huh? Trust me, you don't understand ANY sides of this issue.

> If a "side" of the issue includes some sort of
> emotional sympathy for some pregnant women, then I
> apologize for not understanding that was a part of
> the discussion.

Oh boy...where to start? You came here under the guise of promoting adoption, when you are really are is just another anti-abortion extremist looking to impose your ideas on other people, especially pregnant women. Can't you people at least be honest? And really...how could you not understand that the pregnant woman is "a part of the discussion'? How arrogant and obnoxious is that?

> At the same time, I do not understand how I was
> supposed to "understand" that aspect of the issue
> when it wasn't directly mentioned in the news
> article you shared, and it wasn't talked about in
> detail in any of your responses.

I have no idea what you are talking about (but I can see you foaming at the mouth). At no point did I mention any 'news article'. Sounds like paranoia to me.

> Because of that, my responses focused on the
> political aspect of the abortion debate, the same
> focus of discussion in the news article you
> shared..

Again, I referenced no news article. And of course you focused on the political aspect of 'the debate', because that's all you really care about. I thought that you were a potential adoptive parent, so I tried to engage you on that level. It would really help if you would just identify yourself upfront as another anti-abortion zealot so we could all be clear on where you're really coming from.

The problem with abortion as a political issue is that the left refuses to understand that yes, people DO care about killing unborn children. It's not just "products of conception" or "tissue".

Meanwhile the right refuses to understand that people can hold that belief in varying degrees and most people don't have a problem with very early stage abortion - at least to the level of banning it in the first trimester.

Meanwhile the convoluted Roe v Wade fiat ruling has led to the system being unable to work things out in the normal political process. Most countries don't fight about abortion, yet most countries have settled things through the political process rather than by judicial fiat. (And incidentally most countries are more conservative on abortion law than the US, yet still far more liberal than what the right would like)

Ok... If you scroll to the very TOP of this post.. there's a news article cited. that's what I'm referring to.. And that news article iS a political news article covering a poltiical race. The news article doesn't really discuss the abortion debate in depth from the standpoint of a pregnant woman's right to choose, or whether or not a fetus is a life that should be protected. The news article was mainly covering the political race and discussion each candidate's stance on the abortion issue.

If you are someone different than "Fat-Bottom-Girl", then I apologize for assuming you were the same person who posted that article and started the thread.

You've used a different name on each of your responses in this post.. so I hope you understand my confusion.. If you don't understand, then I can at least understand your failure to understand.

Promoting adoption over abortion doesn't mean I have a closed mind. On my first reply on this post, I started off by saying "I'm somewhat of a moderate in the abortion debate." I hope I don't have to insult anyone's intelligence by having define the word "moderate".

Since I haven't shared my personal view on adoption in detail, I'll do it now.

I believe a fetus is a life that has rights. When life begins, I'm not clear. I'm personally okay with life being defined anywhere from conception till the first trimester of pregnancy. I'm 100% certain a fetus is a life by the third trimester of pregnancy.

With that being said, as a voter I'll only support abortion AFTER the first trimester if the woman's life is in danger.

If a woman has been raped, and life is defined to begin after the first trimester of pregnancy, then she has plenty of time to report the rape, and have an abortion done within the first trimester.

That has always been my view on the issue... And "YES!", I am a registered Republican. However, I'm not a Evangelical Christian social conservative Republican. I'm more libertarian leaning and have different views on social issues than many other Republicans.

That's who I am.

Maybe I should have made that clear from the beginning so you didn't decide to label me as an "anti-abortion extremist" or "closed minded"..

Suggesting adoption as an alternative choice to abortion doesn't necessarily make me an "anti-abortion exremeist" when I support abortion within certain boundries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2013 04:02AM by SpeedFx187.

Planned Parenthood’s war on women and their families
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20131024/OPINION/131029586/1065/planned-parenthood-x2019-s-war-on-women-and-their-families&template=fairfaxTimes

In response to Ms. Cianti Stewart-Reid’s opinion piece titled, “Cuccinelli’s record on women’s health issues troubling,” Ms Stewart-Reid continues the false narrative for Planned Parenthood of Ken Cuccinelli’s war on women. This is simply the left’s tactic to distract voters, especially women, whom Ms. Stewart-Reid believes are not intelligent enough to understand the real issues affecting all Virginians such as the economy, jobs and education.

As a former federal law enforcement officer and the mother of a daughter, it is particularly disturbing that Ms.Stewart-Reid would advocate for Terry McAuliffe. A man who is willing to leave his wife and newborn in tears to raise a few bucks for politics. A man who is currently under investigation as a partner in a scam against senior citizens and the terminally ill. A man whose wallet was the only thing impacted by the 9/11 attacks according to his own statements.

The rule of law means absolutely nothing to Terry McAuliffe. As governor, McAuliffe would turn Virginia state government into a game only he and his large campaign donors can afford to play. His role as governor would simply be that of a piano player in a large brothel.

The decision to be made on Nov. 5 for all Virginians is: Who do you trust to protect the public’s safety, and who has the experience to govern? Do you trust McAuliffe, a flamboyant, truth-stretching, political hack, to make life and death decisions affecting the families of the Commonwealth of Virginia? Or do you trust Cuccinelli, an experienced legislator, an attorney general with a public record of protecting families in Virginia? The logical and right choice is Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Donna Widawski, Haymarket

Tax dollars shouldn’t be funding Planned Parenthood
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20131024/OPINION/131029602/1065/tax-dollars-shouldn-x2019-t-be-funding-planned-parenthood&template=fairfaxTimes

Last week you printed a letter from Cianti Stewart-Reid, executive director of Planned Parenthood Virginia, railing against Ken Cuccinelli’s “extreme,” “dangerous,” and “offensive” views on abortion and Planned Parenthood in particular. By implication, anyone who opposes abortion — meaning fully half of the population, according to a May 2013 Gallup poll — is also a dangerous extremist. And, contrary to the impression that abortion advocates want to promote that women uniformly support abortion, the poll shows that women through the years have been consistently evenly split in their views.

It obviously rankles abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood that, 40 years after Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and for virtually any reason, fully half of Americans still refuse to be swayed by the abortion lobby’s euphemisms and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. I personally am offended that abortion is trivialized as “women’s health care,” especially since advocates couldn’t care less about women’s health, as demonstrated in their strident opposition to informed consent for women and higher abortion clinic standards, as well as their willingness to turn a blind eye to a Philadelphia abortionist’s horrific practices for 20 years. But would you really expect clarity on abortion from Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country?

There is no reason — absolutely none — that Americans should be giving their tax dollars to Planned Parenthood. We have county health clinics that provide women’s health services, and there are private options as well for poor women. Americans by large majorities have consistently opposed funding abortions with their tax dollars, and current law is supposed to prevent this. But yet the tax dollars continue to flow by back-door methods like funding Planned Parenthood. I applaud any politician who is willing to go up against the abortion lobby to represent the will of the people on this issue.

Whatever you may think of Mr. Cuccinelli’s stand on the many other issues affecting Virginia, you cannot deny that his pro-life stand is solidly in the mainstream. Educate yourself on just which side on this issue is “muddying the waters” and represents the extreme position.

Diane Britton, Fairfax

Fat~Bottom~Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fat~Bottom~Girl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://freebeacon.com/top-five-terry-mcauliffe-cam
>
> > paign-lies/
>
> Really? That's all you've got?
>
> GOP-tards!
>
> LoLz!

Yes, it's true. I go out and have unprotected sex and have abortions left and right. That's why I'm upset. It's because I'm irresponsible.

Hard Truth: Abortion is only still an issue in ANY election because a large percentage of women are gullible morons.

Abortion is NOT going anywhere and will NOT be outlawed by Cuccinelli or anyone else. Anyone who tells you differently is LYING to you. You are being manipulated into letting emotion drive your voting habits while you ignore the real issues.

Abortion is the only issue that ever matters in any politcal race, and is the single most important fact of life ever.

FBG2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abortion is the only issue that ever matters in
> any politcal race, and is the single most
> important fact of life ever.

Damn Right!

As a woman I believe that my vagina is the single most important thing in the known universe and its rights must be protected at ALL COSTS! And I'll vote for ANY politician who vows to protect them no matter how incompetent, corrupt, or generally horrible they may be.

The only other issue that comes even close to the the absolute importance of abortion is gay marriage. But I'd happily shoot every single homosexual in the face if it meant keeping my beloved abortion rights.

FREE ABORTION ON-DEMAND WITHOUT APOLOGY!!!

Please rent a clue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abortion is NOT going anywhere and will NOT be
> outlawed by Cuccinelli or anyone else.

Silly boy!

Just because abortion remains legal doesn't mean it remains available.

The Kookster & his ilk make end runs around legality by enacting excessively restrictive laws with which it is virtually impossible for clinics to comply.

Women, make no mistake: The Kookster will do everything within his power to prevent you from controlling you own body.

What exactly are those regulations? I have been looking for them. So far I've found widening hallways so patients can be removed on gurneys in the event of a fire, hands free sinks to prevent contamination, different rooms to store used and sterilized instruments, and good airflow in facility to prevent contamination. Clinics that are not performing surgical proceedures are exempt from the law for one year and then they must reapply to get waiver after that.

Really1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What exactly are those regulations? I have been
> looking for them. So far I've found widening
> hallways so patients can be removed on gurneys in
> the event of a fire, hands free sinks to prevent
> contamination, different rooms to store used and
> sterilized instruments, and good airflow in
> facility to prevent contamination. Clinics that
> are not performing surgical proceedures are exempt
> from the law for one year and then they must
> reapply to get waiver after that.

If you're responding to my post, then I'm notifying you that I was talking about regulation of ADOPTION, not abortion...

Really1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What exactly are those regulations? I have been
> looking for them. So far I've found widening
> hallways so patients can be removed on gurneys in
> the event of a fire, hands free sinks to prevent
> contamination, different rooms to store used and
> sterilized instruments, and good airflow in
> facility to prevent contamination. Clinics that
> are not performing surgical proceedures are exempt
> from the law for one year and then they must
> reapply to get waiver after that.

http://feministing.com/2013/04/22/new-trap-laws-force-virginia-abortion-clinic-to-close-after-40-years-of-service/

What exactly are the new regulations other than the ones I have listed? I would really like to know. It is so hard to find out! There are plenty of articles for both sides discussing why the new regs are good and why they are bad for clinics, but I would like to know what the actual changes are. Currently, all outpatient surgical facilities must abide by these regulations. What are they?