<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Con Game</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/</link>
	<description>Fighting a never ending battle...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:04:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Soccer Mom [Visitor]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-588</link>
		<dc:creator>Soccer Mom [Visitor]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-588</guid>
		<description>I would prefer to know where Tom Davis stands and then see him vote accordingly.  I don&#039;t like being lied to or manipulated on such an important issue.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would prefer to know where Tom Davis stands and then see him vote accordingly.  I don&#8217;t like being lied to or manipulated on such an important issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Graham [Member]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-587</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Graham [Member]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-587</guid>
		<description>First of all, what you&#039;re dealing with in Rep. Davis&#039; voting record are issues that are on the periphery of the abortion tragedy. 91% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Most votes Congress deal with late term abortions or funding issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second point, even if Davis&#039; record is &quot;pro-life&quot;, he doesn&#039;t want pro-lifers to win. What he wants is to get their votes, while still keep 90+% of abortions legal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of all, what you&#8217;re dealing with in Rep. Davis&#8217; voting record are issues that are on the periphery of the abortion tragedy. 91% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Most votes Congress deal with late term abortions or funding issues.</p>
<p>Second point, even if Davis&#8217; record is &#8220;pro-life&#8221;, he doesn&#8217;t want pro-lifers to win. What he wants is to get their votes, while still keep 90+% of abortions legal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Soccer Mom [Visitor]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-586</link>
		<dc:creator>Soccer Mom [Visitor]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-586</guid>
		<description>Does this mean Tom Davis has been faking it all along when he votes pro-life?  Here are his ratings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abortion Issues&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2004  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2003-2004  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 91 percent in 2003-2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2003  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 10 percent in 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2001-2002  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 94 percent in 2001-2002.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does this mean Tom Davis has been faking it all along when he votes pro-life?  Here are his ratings:</p>
<p>Abortion Issues</p>
<p>2004  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.</p>
<p>2003-2004  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 91 percent in 2003-2004.</p>
<p>2003  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 10 percent in 2003.</p>
<p>2001-2002  Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 94 percent in 2001-2002.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Graham [Member]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-585</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Graham [Member]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:33:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-585</guid>
		<description>Yes, absolutely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, absolutely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael [Visitor]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-584</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael [Visitor]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-584</guid>
		<description>The only non-arbitrary time to list as the beginning of life is fertilization because that&#039;s when life scientifically defined begins. If viability is a test of humanity, we&#039;re on the road to Auschwitz.&lt;br /&gt;
Adam&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
 I had hopes to avoid this old line of reasoning . But since you insist , give me a time when you feel a fetus should be protected as a citizen ? Would it be day 2 ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only non-arbitrary time to list as the beginning of life is fertilization because that&#8217;s when life scientifically defined begins. If viability is a test of humanity, we&#8217;re on the road to Auschwitz.<br />
Adam</p>
<p> I had hopes to avoid this old line of reasoning . But since you insist , give me a time when you feel a fetus should be protected as a citizen ? Would it be day 2 ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea Graham [Member]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-583</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea Graham [Member]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-583</guid>
		<description>I have to agree with Adam. The fact that a child won&#039;t be able to survive outside the womb for several more weeks or months is not a justification for murder. Now, if termination were the *only* way to prevent the death of both mother and baby, like with a tubal pregnancy for instance, that is another story, but to save the life of the mother when she is in immediate danger of dying, is the only time I would think it permissible, morally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of government policy, however, I think the matter should be left up to the states to decide. That&#039;s the most fair way and it *is* what the founding fathers had in mind, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to agree with Adam. The fact that a child won&#8217;t be able to survive outside the womb for several more weeks or months is not a justification for murder. Now, if termination were the *only* way to prevent the death of both mother and baby, like with a tubal pregnancy for instance, that is another story, but to save the life of the mother when she is in immediate danger of dying, is the only time I would think it permissible, morally.</p>
<p>In terms of government policy, however, I think the matter should be left up to the states to decide. That&#8217;s the most fair way and it *is* what the founding fathers had in mind, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Graham [Member]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-582</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Graham [Member]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:01:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-582</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think it is &quot;THEE&quot; factor, I think it is &quot;A Factor&quot; along with other things.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;i&gt;Sure It is a human fetus. The question is when does it become a viable human. There is no consensus. If there were we wouldn&#039;t be rehashing the same aspects of this debate. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, if there&#039;s no consensus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1) It should be decided by people in the serveral states.&lt;br /&gt;
2) Its not something in the Constiution that forbids states from legislating on abortion which is the central point of Roe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also say the issue of viability is not as important as the issue of personhood. The only non-arbitrary time to list as the beginning of life is fertilization because that&#039;s when life scientifically defined begins. If viability is a test of humanity, we&#039;re on the road to Auschwitz.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Get this out of the national political sphere and it becomes a lot more manageable. Let Massachusetts make the laws it wants and Idaho make the law it wants and nothing gets shoved down any state&#039;s throat unless there&#039;s consensus by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States. Until then, let the states decide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think it is &#8220;THEE&#8221; factor, I think it is &#8220;A Factor&#8221; along with other things.  </p>
<p><i>Sure It is a human fetus. The question is when does it become a viable human. There is no consensus. If there were we wouldn&#8217;t be rehashing the same aspects of this debate. </i></p>
<p>First of all, if there&#8217;s no consensus:</p>
<p>1) It should be decided by people in the serveral states.<br />
2) Its not something in the Constiution that forbids states from legislating on abortion which is the central point of Roe.</p>
<p>I would also say the issue of viability is not as important as the issue of personhood. The only non-arbitrary time to list as the beginning of life is fertilization because that&#8217;s when life scientifically defined begins. If viability is a test of humanity, we&#8217;re on the road to Auschwitz.</p>
<p>Get this out of the national political sphere and it becomes a lot more manageable. Let Massachusetts make the laws it wants and Idaho make the law it wants and nothing gets shoved down any state&#8217;s throat unless there&#8217;s consensus by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States. Until then, let the states decide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael [Visitor]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-581</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael [Visitor]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:36:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-581</guid>
		<description>Proving when a fetus is human is simple: when does it have the genetic imprint of a human versus the genetic imprint of a frog? &lt;br /&gt;
andrea &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  Sure It is a human fetus. The question is when does it become a viable human. There is no consensus. If there were we wouldn&#039;t be rehashing the same aspects of this debate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would prefer that abortion not be the central factor which differentiates the two largest political parties.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 Adam. Keep in mind that the far left is constantly saying the Democratic party is becoming Republican light.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Proving when a fetus is human is simple: when does it have the genetic imprint of a human versus the genetic imprint of a frog? <br />
andrea </p>
<p>  Sure It is a human fetus. The question is when does it become a viable human. There is no consensus. If there were we wouldn&#8217;t be rehashing the same aspects of this debate. </p>
<p>I would prefer that abortion not be the central factor which differentiates the two largest political parties.</p>
<p> Adam. Keep in mind that the far left is constantly saying the Democratic party is becoming Republican light.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Graham [Member]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-580</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Graham [Member]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-580</guid>
		<description>But &quot;pretend pro-lifers&quot; haven&#039;t run for office saying that. They&#039;ve advocated the pro-life position, but now want to back off, because they&#039;ve been lying and deceiving people to obtain their support.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But &#8220;pretend pro-lifers&#8221; haven&#8217;t run for office saying that. They&#8217;ve advocated the pro-life position, but now want to back off, because they&#8217;ve been lying and deceiving people to obtain their support.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea Graham [Member]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-579</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea Graham [Member]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-579</guid>
		<description>Proving when a fetus is human is simple: when does it have the genetic imprint of a human versus the genetic imprint of a frog? Hint: (Despite appearances, it has the genetic imprint of a human at conception, it never has the imprint of a frog, not even when it resembles one)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do need less federal government intervention on morality. That&#039;s why we need to overturn Roe V. Wade, so the states will again have the freedom to choose. Then we can vote on these issues like a democracy--at the polls and with our feet if we vote with the minority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Proving when a fetus is human is simple: when does it have the genetic imprint of a human versus the genetic imprint of a frog? Hint: (Despite appearances, it has the genetic imprint of a human at conception, it never has the imprint of a frog, not even when it resembles one)</p>
<p>And we do need less federal government intervention on morality. That&#8217;s why we need to overturn Roe V. Wade, so the states will again have the freedom to choose. Then we can vote on these issues like a democracy&#8211;at the polls and with our feet if we vote with the minority.</p>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael [Visitor]</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_con_game/comment-page-1/#comment-578</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael [Visitor]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2005/11/20/the-con-game/#comment-578</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think that people view abortion as this sacrosanct thing that liberals do. Its viewed as a negative thing in society, even by many who support it and the percentage of people supporting the pro-life position is growing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adam&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abortion saddened and offends my sensibilities. However, I can no more prove when a fetus becomes a human than you can prove the existence of God. It is a personal matter best left to the individual. When it comes to issues of morality we need less government intervention , not more .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that people view abortion as this sacrosanct thing that liberals do. Its viewed as a negative thing in society, even by many who support it and the percentage of people supporting the pro-life position is growing. </p>
<p>Adam</p>
<p>Abortion saddened and offends my sensibilities. However, I can no more prove when a fetus becomes a human than you can prove the existence of God. It is a personal matter best left to the individual. When it comes to issues of morality we need less government intervention , not more .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

