Tayo-D:

@darfur,
You don't really want to talk about hypicrisy do you. You don't want to talk about Obama's supposedly personal pro-life stance, but pro-choice stance on policy. You sure this is the conversation you want to have?

This is the most idiotic statement you have ever made on here.

Just like Obama, I have a personal pro-life stance but for Government, I have a pro-choice stance. The current laws do not stop me from practicing my pro-life stance. If my girl is pregnant, I will keep the baby, whether planned or not. However, not everyone has the religious beliefs I do. Should I force them to keep unwanted pregnancies? 

Please, Roe vs Wade is not a central political talking point. . . . only in a neanderthal country like America is it high on the agenda. . . . George Bush has been in power for 8 years, yet Roe vs Wade still stands. . . . so let people vote on what they can change, not what they cannot change. . . .it is very low on the agenda, although the Republicans try to make out that it is a central issue so they can garner Christian votes. . . . the truth is, even if they had the power to change it, they wouldnt - because they are already concerned about public spending, talkless of all the millions of unwanted babies the state would have to care for, not to mention the inevitable rise in crime 20 years down the line.

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,
it's part of the solution. Nuclear, clean coal and all renewables are on the table. Obama does not support all of these. if drilling isn't part of the solution, we might as well stop importing our oil na.

1. Obama does not support all of these - Again you are caught in a lie. Have you read Obama's energy policy? 10% of America's energy must come from renewable enrgy by 2012 and 25% by 2025. I say we are tired of reading lies from the republican war machine.

2. What renewables are on the table? - McCain OPPOSES renewable energy and has consistently voted against it. There is evidence . . . just google it please.

3. We have not said drilling is NO solution, we have simply asked . . . how does it solve the energy crisis? America has only 3% of the world's fossil fuel reserves and consumes 25% of the world's energy output . . . you do the maths.

Tayo-D:

Since you have failed to read some of the things I've said so far, how about the "bridge to no where"? What about the renegotiation of the oil deals in Alaska when she became a Gov?

I asked a specific question that you are ducking. give me ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE where she "stood up to special interests". It is not enough to keep parroting the same things you hear other journalists spew on foxnews.

Tayo-D:

Please tell us what Obama has done.

Wait till he becomes governor.

Tayo-D:

I'm sure you know what it means to be called a maverick. That is your answer right there.

Maverick could mean anything. What CHANGE has McCain SPECIFICALLY proposed?

Tayo-D:

Even Obama took this stand until yesterday when he confesse on the O'Reilly show that the surge has worked beyong anybody's wildest dream. What you and him need to understand is that the surge worked as planned, but people like McCain. So who is wrong here, you or Obama.

We didnt say the surge was a failure, we are only saying that it is hypocrisy to claim credit for the surge: the sunni alliance with the US played the greater part. Of course you don't expect Obama to say such bold truth . . . the american public is a flaky bunch.

the lion has been uncaged

@Darfur,

my problem is not john McCain, my problem is the republican who are running his campaigne and who will run his presidency(if he wins) john is a good man. and his wife too. but his frieends are the problem.

Oh, and I am supposed to ignore Obama's friends such as William Ayers, Rev Wright etc.? McCain stood up to Bush so why do you think he'll stoop to all these people you mentioned?

for now you've admitted, albeit unwittingly(in the absence of a response to my charge), that the republicans are a shameless, decietful cult whose interest is power and power alone.

it is Obama who wants to hang on to power by all means. In the process, he refered to his grandmother as a typical prejuduced white woman. While in one day saying he cannot distance himself from Rev Wright because he is like an uncle, he gladly threw him under the bus a few days after. Who is desperate here?

we

ll, if the so called blue collar uneducated voters insist on voting for them, good. but if obama wins, hey bro, i'm coming there.

You obviously don't know anything about the US. The blue collar workers are voting Republicans. it is the uneducated once whom the DNCs have in the tank through welfare that is their power base.

catch ya

Not even close.

@JeSoul
What's the so called "she is  christian" nonsense. So is Obama, Biden and Mccain(the adulterer). She is Christian fanatic(and a hypocritical one at that). The only difference between her fanatical nonsense and people like Bin laden is that she does not want anyone dead over it. Instead it should be forced on people by using the government. I share some hard line christian views too, that does not  means I should be her supporter, or belong to some party because some of there religious views are the same with mine.

 That is your opinion and not a fact. If she's so fanatical and polarizing, why does she have an 80% approval rating in her state? Yes she's got strong views but from her record I don't see where they have stopped her from doing her job.
  It's simple some people like her and some don't. To each his own, I have stated my reasons whether or not you agree is your own cup of tea.

"honest, diehard, everyday woman, who's not afraid to fight the status quo."
Give me a break. In washington, Repubs fight Dems, and Dems fight Repubs. She not an everyday woman, most of our mums are everyday women. they played major roles in our lives while we grew up. Fact is, being a politician is not a 9 to 5 job.

 The people closest to her, seen her and lived in her state, her citizens say that she is, her history says that she is but we should take your opinion that she isn't?

I dislike Palin, do not assume I am an Obama supporter for that.

 I never assumed anything, I don't think I even quoted or directed any of my post at anyone specifically. Please go back to my post I said 99% of Obama supporters.

davidylan:

2. What renewables are on the table? - McCain OPPOSES renewable energy and has consistently voted against it. There is evidence . . . just google it please.

This one must be nominated for the Nairaland Surreality Award. It's one of those statements you see regularly on Nairaland which don't have even the slightest connection with reality.

3. We have not said drilling is NO solution, we have simply asked . . . how does it solve the energy crisis? America has only 3% of the world's fossil fuel reserves and consumes 25% of the world's energy output . . . you do the maths.

I don't know anywhere in the world or any time in history a supply shortage is solved by limiting supply. The US has abundant energy resources yet it has placed prohibitions on energy exploration in large swathes of it's territory in exchange for buying oil from the Arabs.

Ibime:

Please, Roe vs Wade is not a central political talking point. . . . only in a neanderthal country like America is it high on the agenda. . . . George Bush has been in power for 8 years, yet Roe vs Wade still stands. . . . so let people vote on what they can change, not what they cannot change. . . .it is very low on the agenda, although the Republicans try to make out that it is a central issue so they can garner Christian votes. . . . the truth is, even if they had the power to change it, they wouldnt - because they are already concerned about public spending, talkless of all the millions of unwanted babies the state would have to care for, not to mention the inevitable rise in crime 20 years down the line.

Firstly,Roe v Wade is an issue that obsesses the pro-choice camp as much as the pro-life camp .You are either being disingenuous or merely ignorant of the facts. There are just as many people who vote on the basis of their pro-choice beliefs as vice-versa.

In reality,Roe v Wade represents the left's obsession with the issue. If you recall,the decision in Roe v Wade effectively means that women have a constitutional right to abortion. No analysis of the constitution  can justify this. To smuggle such a "right" into the constitution is absurd.

@Ibime,

This is the most idiotic statement you have ever made on here.

It is only less idiotic to yours.

Just like Obama, I have a personal pro-life stance but for Government, I have a pro-choice stance. The current laws do not stop me from practicing my pro-life stance. If my girl is pregnant, I will keep the baby, whether planned or not. However, not everyone has the religious beliefs I do. Should I force them to keep unwanted pregnancies?

So in your understanding of public service, you will choose what is best for your personal life but promotes second best for your society? And by the way, that was just a lie by Obama. In playing to the conservatives at Saddleback, he insisted he was pro-life personally, but he was the one who insisted he will not want his teenage daughter "punished" with a child if she became pregnant. How do you reconcile the two? Or have you also been smitten by the messiah?

This is not about religious belief, but about the constituion. Have you read Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence? It states thus in part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men Do you see the order there? Life comes ahead of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the Govt is meant to secure this right. Thoms Jefferson will be turning in his grave now seing what the DEMs are making of the Govt.

Please, Roe vs Wade is not a central political talking point. . . . only in a neanderthal country like America is it high on the agenda. . . . George Bush has been in power for 8 years, yet Roe vs Wade still stands. . . . so let people vote on what they can change, not what they cannot change. . . .it is very low on the agenda, although the Republicans try to make out that it is a central issue so they can garner Christian votes. . . . the truth is, even if they had the power to change it, they wouldnt - because they are already concerned about public spending, talkless of all the millions of unwanted babies the state would have to care for, not to mention the inevitable rise in crime 20 years down the line.

R v Wade may still stand, but Bush has taken cioncrete steps towards overturning it by his choice of Justices to the Supreme Court. You obviously have no clue what the Conservatives are up to. Let's just leave it at that for now.

Tayo-D:

it is Obama who wants to hang on to power by all means.

Lying again eh? Seems to be a republican habit. What power does Obama have that he wants to hang on to?

Tayo-D:

In the process, he refered to his grandmother as a typical prejuduced white woman.

Perhaps it is a problem to be honest even if it means confessing that your grandmother was a typical racist?

Tayo-D:

While in one day saying he cannot distance himself from Rev Wright because he is like an uncle, he gladly threw him under the bus a few days after. Who is desperate here?

If he were desperate he would have thrown him under the bus from day 1. He didnt, rather in the face of stinging right wing rebuke, voter backlash and harsh criticism from McCain, the media and Clinton . . . he stuck to the man as a mentor UNTIL the man adamantly refused to retract his racist claims.

On the other hand we have a McCain who could not even have the decency to mention Bush by name in his speech last night.

4 Play:

This one must be nominated for the Nairaland Surreality Award. It's one of those statements you see regularly on Nairaland which don't have even the slightest connection with reality.

its not very hard to do a diligent search you know.

4 Play:

I don't know anywhere in the world or any time in history a supply shortage is solved by limiting supply. The US has abundant energy resources yet it has placed prohibitions on energy exploration in large swathes of it's territory in exchange for buying oil from the Arabs.

The democrats also have drilling on the table, unlike the republicans however they think renewable energy is a more long term policy to pursue.

simple.

davidylan:

its not very hard to do a diligent search you know.

I say McCain doesn't ''oppose renewable renewable energy'',prove me wrong. If I tell you today that Margaret Thatcher is a man,it wouldn't make sense to ask you to do "a diligent search".

The democrats also have drilling on the table, unlike the republicans however they think renewable energy is a more long term policy to pursue.
simple.

That is why US Federal subsidies for renewable energy have increased tremendously under Bush? Removing the prohibitions on drilling will cost the US zilch financially and the extra revenue can be ploughed back into renewables. A sensible energy policy will be one in which all viable energy sources are utilised

4 Play:

I say McCain doesn't ''oppose renewable renewable energy'',prove me wrong. If I tell you today that Margaret Thatcher is a man,it wouldn't make sense to ask you to do "diligent search".

Correct. Statement retracted. I did some "diligent" search myself.

4 Play:

In reality,Roe v Wade represents the left's obsession with the issue.

This is a complete fallacy. The Republicans are way more obsessed with abortion than the Dems and they are the ones who always bring it to the political table. Many European governments policies mirror the Democratic parties policies and you will never see that abortion (or even National Security) is a talking point come election time. We don't buy that crap for one second.

4 Play:

If you recall,the decision in Roe v Wade effectively means that women have a constitutional right to abortion. No analysis of the constitution  can justify this. To smuggle such a "right" into the constitution is absurd,

Smuggle what. . . . something that is widely practiced in Europe?. . . . it wasn't smuggled in, it was written in after a long court case. . . . some may not agree with it but those who wrote it knew it was best for the country. . . . people were already doing it illegally anyway. . . . just like alchohol in the prohibition. . . . what is the point of fighting it and criminalising a large proportion of the population?

Tayo-D:

So in your understanding of public service, you will choose what is best for your personal life but promotes second best for your society?

Really?. . . .and who would pay for all these unwanted babies. . . . certainly not the Republicans!

We haven't even talked about the inevitable correlation between abortion and crime. . . .go and read Freakonomics where the author show that the fall in crime in the 1990's was due to the Roe vs Wade judgement. . . . by the way, the authors were undertaking economic research, not political. . . .before you accuse them of being Democrats. I know your usual riposte.

So which is better for society?

Tayo-D:

This is not about religious belief, but about the constituion. Have you read Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence? It states thus in part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

As they say, all life is equal but some are more equal than others?

If the Republicans value the life of these foetus' so much, are they willing to guarantee a mandatory life sentence for any woman who illegally carries out an abortion? . . . let us see how much they value these babies lives.

Even after this Declaration of Independence was written, slaves, even pregnant slaves infact, were still being killed with no recompense to justice. . . . so this right to life is not the unquestionable dogma you believe it is.

Tayo-D:

R v Wade may still stand, but Bush has taken cioncrete steps towards overturning it by his choice of Justices to the Supreme Court. You obviously have no clue what the Conservatives are up to. Let's just leave it at that for now.

Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, George Bush II. . . . how many years is that altogether?. . . and still they can't overturn it. . . . 100 years from now, it will still be the same story. . . . I am still waiting. . . . all they will do is pay lip service to it, no concrete steps. . . . they know the Government cannot afford it.

@Davidylan,

The democrats also have drilling on the table, unlike the republicans however they think renewable energy is a more long term policy to pursue.

You obviously don't consider the facts when you make your uninformed statements. In Bush's first term in office alone, more wind power were generated than the 8 years in office of Clinton and Al Gore. Here's a link to keep you a little informed -
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/news_detail.html?news_id=11924

1. Obama does not support all of these - Again you are caught in a lie. Have you read Obama's energy policy? 10% of America's energy must come from renewable enrgy by 2012 and 25% by 2025. I say we are tired of reading lies from the republican war machine.

You obviously don't know anything about Obama's policy, and yet you are blindly supporting him. America has the world's largest coal reserves and yet he will not explore the use of clean coal. he does not support the use of nuclear energy. Are these options not part of the "all" that I mentioned? You really need to get yourself informed of what is going on.

Ibime:

This is a complete fallacy. The Republicans are way more obsessed with abortion than the Dems and they are the ones who always bring it to the political table. Many European governments policies mirror the Democratic parties policies and you will never see that abortion (or even National Security) is a talking point come election time. We don't buy that crap for one second.

You make categorical claims that you can't justify. There is virtually no way of measuring who is more obsessed than the other but one thing no knowledgeable person can claim is that the issue of abortion is a flash point solely for Republicans.

If abortion doesn't figure in Democrats' thinking,why don't they ever nominate pro-lifers to run for President?

Smuggle what. . . . something that is widely practiced in Europe?. . . . it wasn't smuggled in, it was written in after a long court case. . . . some may not agree with it but those who wrote it knew it was best for the country. . . . people were already doing it illegally anyway. . . . just like alchohol in the prohibition. . . . what is the point of fighting it?

Before Roe v Wade,each state had the right to legislate on whether abortion is legal or not. What the the Supreme Court did was accord the right to abort standing along with other constitutional rights. Tell me which provision in the constitution that can be interpreted to include the right to abort.

One day some US Justices will accord themselves the right to smuggle in things in accordance with their political beliefs;incest,gay marriages and even Sharia.

@Ibime will you stop

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,
You obviously don't consider the facts when you make your uninformed statements. In Bush's first term in office alone, more wind power were generated than the 8 years in office of Clinton and Al Gore. Here's a link to keep you a little informed -
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/news_detail.html?news_id=11924

To be honest, neither do you. I've pointed out no less than 3-4 BLATANT LIES from you on this foreign affairs thread today alone.

Tayo-D:

You obviously don't know anything about Obama's policy, and yet you are blindly supporting him. America has the world's largest coal reserves and[b] yet he will not explore the use of clean coal.[/b] he does not support the use of nuclear energy. Are these options not part of the "all" that I mentioned? You really need to get yourself informed of what is going on.

where are the facts to support this blatant lies again? America gets a lot of her energy from nuclear and coal plants, is Obama threatening to shut them down?

You keep talking of "getting yourself informed of what is going on" . . . its very obvious you really dont know anything yourself. With all humility, when 4Play posts, i listen because i know he has a firm grasp of what he has to put across . . . when it comes to you here nada. Its all hot air and little else.

I asked you 2 questions that you have ducked successfully?

- How much do you know Sarah Palin? what are her credentials?
You accused Clinton of not being qualified to be president on the back of merely being a first lady for 8 yrs . . . what of Palin?

- I asked for SPECIFIC instances where you claimed Palin "stood against special interests" . . . nothing from you.

You LIED that Palin never mentioned starting construction on the gas pipeline, i pointed it out to you and you promptly avoided it as usual.

Talk of "being informed".

Yes Ibime please stop!!!

Your contrary views are really upsetting to some.

@Davidylan,

To be honest, neither do you. I've pointed out no less than 3-4 BLATANT LIES from you on this foreign affairs thread today alone.

Your accusations are based on your ignorance, so you shouldn't take them seriously. Please itemize the lies you have pointed out.

where are the facts to support this blatant lies again?

Are you asking me to educate you again? Seriously, you mean you don't know this?

Tayo-D:

This is not about religious belief, but about the constituion. Have you read Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence? It states thus in part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men Do you see the order there?

you're lucky you werent born black in the US in 1904, you'd have seen how much the republicans adhered to this piece of black ink on paper.

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,
Your accusations are based on your ignorance, so you shouldn't take them seriously. Please itemize the lies you have pointed out.
Are you asking me to educate you again? Seriously, you mean you don't know this?

Tackle the questions pls and stop pandering.
Produce the facts . . . if you are right i dont pussyfoot, i say it straight.

roflmao!!!

khai_khai:

Yes Ibime please stop!!!

Your contrary views are really upsetting to some.

No contrary views here. . . . I am strongly anti-abortion. . . but if I was President, I can never criminalise it, so please allow me to put my hard nosed political hat on. . . .

I am strongly anti-homosexual, but I can never criminalise it if I was President of America. . . . do you see what I am getting at here?

You can add abortion to that list. . . unfortunately, when you pass certain freedoms like the Americans always have, you end up with an irreversibly morally decadent society. . . . it is impossible to curb such things without criminalising half of the population. . . . only a few decades ago, homosexuality was illegal but only a stupid President will make it illegal again. . . . same with abortion. . . . unless you want to put half of your population in prison.

The truth is that abortion is not and should not be high on the political agenda.

I am still waiting for the Republicans to tell me who would pay for all their unwanted babies since they are already unhappy with the amount of public spending.

Since they value all life equally, I am also waiting to hear what sentence should be passed to mothers who abort their babies. Should it be a life sentence like they would for the murder of a fully grown adult?

Ibime:

The truth is that abortion is not and should not be high on the political agenda.

Abortion IS on the election agenda unfortunately, having a woman who delivered a baby with Down's syndrome and is letting her teenager keep a pregnancy means it is inevitably on the agenda.

Secondly, as long as the Americans feel it is something that should be on the agenda, it will remain there - some people will NOT vote Obama because of his abortion stance, call it 'backward' or 'unenlightened' or regard them as behind Europe in that area, but it still matters in the US of A.

There are sufficient numbers of people who will vote with abortion views being a strong factor in where they lean, and politicians being responsive beings, will align themselves as such. The day you find people caring less about it, the same day it will cease to be a political issue.

@Ibime,

No contrary views here. . . . I am strongly anti-abortion. . . but if I was President, I can never criminalise it, so please allow me to put on my hard nosed political hat on. . . .

So for political expediency, you will go against your conscience? besides, isn't the Govt meant to secure the right to life according to the declaration of independence? una do o.

I am strongly anti-homosexual, but I can never criminalise it if I was President of America. . . . do you see what I am getting at here?

Tell me, who has criminalised or intend to criminalise homosexuality? What some people, me include are against is homosexual marriage. I am against it just as I am against polygamy, polyandry etc,

You can add abortion to that list. . . unfortunately, when you pass certain freedoms like the Americans always have, you end up with an irreveribly morally decadent society. . . . it is impossible to curb such things without criminalising half of the population. . . . only a few decades ago, homosexuality was illegal but only a stupid President will make it illegal again. . . . same with abortion. . . . unless you want to put half of your population in prison.

How about encouragin people to bear the responsibilities of their actions? Let me tell youo what I will do as President. I will not encourage abortion but will rather put the babies in orphanages and up for adoption. The cost of taken care of the babies will be borne by the parents through special taxes. However, those who are raped will not be made to pay up. this way, I can fully say I have secured the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The truth is that abortion is not and should not be high on the political agenda.

So why are you bursting a vein over it. You can ignore it if you don't consider it important.

I am still waiting for the Republicans to tell me who would pay for all their unwanted babies since they are already unhappy with the amount of public spending.

Very simple - the parents. And by the way, who is paying for the abortion?

If the economics is an overiding concern, does that mean I can go kill my kids if I do not have money to take care of them?

Since they value all life equally, I am also waiting to hear what sentence should be passed to mothers who abort their babies. Should it be a life sentence like they would for the murder of a fully grown adult?

The principle is very clear. No cruel and unusual punishment. If you take a life, your life should also be taken.

uncle Tayo my answers o.

debosky:

Abortion IS on the election agenda unfortunately, having a woman who delivered a baby with Down's syndrome and is letting her teenager keep a pregnancy means it is inevitably on the agenda.

Secondly, as long as the Americans feel it is something that should be on the agenda, it will remain there - some people will NOT vote Obama because of his abortion stance, call it 'backward' or 'unenlightened' or regard them as behind Europe in that area, but it still matters in the US of A.

There are sufficient numbers of people who will vote with abortion views being a strong factor in where they lean, and politicians being responsive beings, will align themselves as such. The day you find people caring less about it, the same day it will cease to be a political issue.

No, I completely disagree. . . . it is in the interests of the Government to drop this political agenda. . . unfortunately, the Republicans keep bringing it up. . . . .do you think that a large percentage of people in Europe do not oppose abortion? . . . infact, do you think that many in America in the 1970's would not have liked to see the civil rights bill reversed? . . . . but in the interests of national harmony, it is best to drop all these political arguments as we do in Europe. . . . where you have 50% of a country agreeing with something and another 50% disagreeing, you are sitting on a political powderkeg which requires common sense on behalf of the political parties. , . .  if I ask you how many people in South Africa are opposed to abortion, you will tell me "more than 50%". . . . yet abortion is legal in SA and is not a political campaign issue. . . . even in Anambra State, abortion is legal. . . .I am sure 95% of Anambrans are anti-abortion. . . . but the other 5% are their relatives, cousins and sisters. . . . .I am sure they will complain, but sure enough, it is not a campaign issue.

Ibime:

The truth is that abortion is not and should not be high on the political agenda.

[b]I am still waiting for the Republicans to tell me who would pay for all their unwanted babies since they are already unhappy with the amount of public spending.

The answer is simple;American babies are not an economic burden,to the contrary,they are an economic blessing. America,like the rest of the Western world, suffers from a demographic crisis. You have an aging society with workers having to support an ageing populace with their pension and inevitable health needs. The proportion of workers to retirees is shrinking.

At the moment, the problem is solved through immigration but immigration presents it's own challenges. In a few decades time,many parts of Europe will become an extension of Arabia.

America will deal with the consequences of pro-life policies the same way Ireland has dealt with it. Ireland today enjoys a better standard of living than most European countries,including Britain,notwithstanding the presence of "unwanted babies".

Ibime:

even in Anambra State, abortion is legal. . . .I am sure 95% of Anambrans are anti-abortion. . . . but the other 5% are their relatives, cousins and sisters. . . . .I am sure they will complain, but sure enough, it is not a campaign issue.

Ibime, The Destroyer of Facts. No fact is an obstacle in making a point.

Tayo-D:


Tell me, who has criminalised or intend to criminalise homosexuality?

how about you take a look at the sodomy law that was in force in the US states in times past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States

Tayo-D:

So for political expediency, you will go against your conscience? besides, isn't the Govt meant to secure the right to life according to the declaration of independence? una do o.

To force your polarizing beliefs one people borders on fanacism.  It's what people like the Taliban and Bin laden do. Give people a choice.

The answer is simple;American babies are not an economic burden,to the contrary,they are an economic blessing.

Not if their mothers don't want them. They tend to be the sort of children who cost the state.
The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are to single teenage mothers. They cost the state a fortune.

Ireland today enjoys a better standard of living than most European countries,including Britain,notwithstanding the presence of "unwanted babies". 

Because the majority of Irish women who want abortions travel to the UK to get it done. Are US women who don't want their babies going to travel to Mexico to get an abortion?

@Davidylan,

uncle Tayo my answers o.

It is not my job to educate you. What have you done with the info I provided you already?

how about you take a look at the sodomy law that was in force in the US states in times past.

You don't get it do you? laws are not made to criminalise people to maintain law and order while upholding the constituion. You still haven't old me sho is criminalising homosexuality o. Last I checked, the disagreement is on homesexual marriage.

To force your polarizing beliefs one people borders on fanacism.  It's what people like the Taliban and Bin laden do. Give people a choice.

Why then are you forcing your polarising belief on me? Why should you force me to accept homosexual marriage and abortion? This is where the constituion take pre-eminince and the principle that "your right ends where muine begins". The woman has no right to kill that life.

Bastage:

Not if their mothers don't want them. They tend to be the sort of children who cost the state.
The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are to single teenage mothers. They cost the state a fortune.

There is no iota of evidence that the products of unwanted pregnancies are a net economic burden. Not one.

The most one can say is that they are not as productive to society as the rest.

Because the majority of Irish women who want abortions travel to the UK to get it done. Are US women who don't want their babies going to travel to Mexico to get an abortion?

Firstly,before Roe v Wade, a woman who wanted abortion in Georgia but couldn't get it,could simply head up to New York and get it. That is how it should be,it's not for city liberals to force down the entire nation's throats their ideas about the issue.

As for Ireland,if the premise that unwanted babies are nuisances is correct,Ireland should be an economic basket case or at the very least,it should be worse off than the UK were babies are aborted willy-nilly.