Ken Buck trips over abortion measure

Ken Buck trips over abortion measure

There are 19 comments on the Greeley Tribune story from Oct 1, 2010, titled Ken Buck trips over abortion measure. In it, Greeley Tribune reports that:

A conservative Republican trying to unseat a rookie Democratic senator in Colorado is scrambling to explain his position on abortion in light of a ballot proposal to outlaw the procedure.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Greeley Tribune.

Cranky Old Man

United States

#1 Oct 2, 2010
So what is the conflict? The candidate has his opinion and the abortion proposal is a separate issue on the ballot.

“President DOWNGRADE..Ha Ha Ha!”

Since: Sep 09

Windermere, FL

#2 Oct 2, 2010
Buck changed his position after doctors and lawyers pointed out that the amendment would also ban some types of fertility treatments and emergency contraception. Buck now says he's not taking a position on the abortion-blocking amendment because of those concerns.

"I am in favor of personhood as a concept," Buck said on CBS' "Face the Nation" last week. "I am not taking a position on any of the state amendments. And I have said over and over, and it's been reported over and over again, that I am not in favor of banning any common forms of birth control in Colorado or in the United States."

Yaaaaawn.
Remember in November

Indianapolis, IN

#3 Oct 2, 2010
We need TEN seats in the senate JUST to rebalance our country, not to dominate it.

Since: Apr 07

Miami

#5 Oct 2, 2010
Remember in November wrote:
We need TEN seats in the senate JUST to rebalance our country, not to dominate it.
You do realize that 10 is now unattainable, right?

God bless the tea party!
Ho Lee Schitt

Richmond, IN

#6 Oct 2, 2010
Banning emergency contraception? Forcing rape victims to bear their rapist's fetus! Barbaric! How much lower can these self righteous anti choicers go??!! Why do some people feel they have the right to interfere in the lives of others? These 'religious' whackaloons are nuts!
Ocean56

AOL

#7 Oct 2, 2010
the Messiah wrote:
Buck changed his position after doctors and lawyers pointed out that the amendment would also ban some types of fertility treatments and emergency contraception. Buck now says he's not taking a position on the abortion-blocking amendment because of those concerns.
Amazing how Republican anti-abortion politicians can do a complete turnaround on what they said earlier when Democrats go on OFFENSE instead of defense.

I hope to see ALL Democrats running for re-election doing this as well. The reason is simple; I want to see an overwhelming majority of Democrats WIN in November.
Ocean56

AOL

#8 Oct 2, 2010
Ho Lee Schitt wrote:
Banning emergency contraception? Forcing rape victims to bear their rapist's fetus! Barbaric! How much lower can these self righteous anti choicers go??!! Why do some people feel they have the right to interfere in the lives of others? These 'religious' whackaloons are nuts!
I couldn't agree more. This "tea party" is FULL of militant religionists who have these extreme views.

That's why anyone who really values freedom of choice in sexual and reproductive matters needs to vote these kooks OUT of office. They would be very dangerous if they ever obtained any real power, because they would undoubtedly ABUSE it.
Seeking truth

Dearborn, MI

#10 Oct 2, 2010
the Messiah wrote:
Buck changed his position after doctors and lawyers pointed out that the amendment would also ban some types of fertility treatments and emergency contraception. Buck now says he's not taking a position on the abortion-blocking amendment because of those concerns.
"I am in favor of personhood as a concept," Buck said on CBS' "Face the Nation" last week. "I am not taking a position on any of the state amendments. And I have said over and over, and it's been reported over and over again, that I am not in favor of banning any common forms of birth control in Colorado or in the United States."
Yaaaaawn.
Why is it okay to kill babies so an infertile couple can have a baby? Why can't they adopt a living baby? Why do they fertilize all these eggs (dozens, sometimes hundreds of babies) only to save a few to implant, then throw the rest in the garbage? Why is that an exception? How can they say they are pro life and not pro choice. It's a LIE, hypocrisy.
Seeking truth

Dearborn, MI

#11 Oct 2, 2010
Ho Lee Schitt wrote:
Banning emergency contraception? Forcing rape victims to bear their rapist's fetus! Barbaric! How much lower can these self righteous anti choicers go??!! Why do some people feel they have the right to interfere in the lives of others? These 'religious' whackaloons are nuts!
Well, maybe you should hear what a survivor, like Rebecca Kiesling, thinks.

&fe ature=player_embedded

http://westhorp.typepad.com/dailygrit/2010/10...

Since: Apr 07

Miami

#12 Oct 2, 2010
Seeking truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it okay to kill babies so an infertile couple can have a baby?
Why is it ok to pretend that an embryo is a baby?
Seeking truth wrote:
Why can't they adopt a living baby?
Because they want their own child, one that shares their DNA, one that they created, and that's tough to do with an adopted child. And it's their decision anyway. Perhaps you should spend more time worrying about yourself and less about other people.
Seeking truth wrote:

Why do they fertilize all these eggs (dozens, sometimes hundreds of babies) only to save a few to implant, then throw the rest in the garbage?
Because unwanted unfertilized embryos ARE garbage. They are of no use to anybody. Well, they might be used for valuable stem cell research, but the religious right is against that too.
Seeking truth wrote:
Why is that an exception? How can they say they are pro life and not pro choice. It's a LIE, hypocrisy.
Pro life is just that, pro LIFE. No pro potential future life.

BTW, you should really change your screen name. You're not looking for truth, you're just pushing a twisted version of truth.
Seeking truth

Dearborn, MI

#13 Oct 2, 2010
Preston2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it ok to pretend that an embryo is a baby?
<quoted text>
Because they want their own child, one that shares their DNA, one that they created, and that's tough to do with an adopted child. And it's their decision anyway. Perhaps you should spend more time worrying about yourself and less about other people.
<quoted text>
Because unwanted unfertilized embryos ARE garbage. They are of no use to anybody. Well, they might be used for valuable stem cell research, but the religious right is against that too.
<quoted text>
Pro life is just that, pro LIFE. No pro potential future life.
BTW, you should really change your screen name. You're not looking for truth, you're just pushing a twisted version of truth.
I'm pro choice. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans pretending to be pro life. It's ridiculous for them to pretend that they are somehow morally superior.

Since: Apr 07

Miami

#14 Oct 3, 2010
Seeking truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pro choice. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans pretending to be pro life. It's ridiculous for them to pretend that they are somehow morally superior.
Sorry, I thought you were one of the Republican hypocrites.

Since: Aug 09

Walnut, CA

#15 Oct 3, 2010
I hate politicians who bible-thump during elections only to be caught up in some moral scandal later. That's why I will probably never vote for a Retardican.
DL Probing

Littleton, CO

#16 Oct 3, 2010
"Killing babies" is still illegal in every US State.

Buck's dancing on his hypocritical "less gov't intrusion"/abortion/equal rights stances is just going to get more desperate as the election draws near.

Should be entertaining.
Concerned US Citizens

Denver, CO

#17 Oct 3, 2010
Ken Buck has already proven he is Anti-American - he does not like Americans asking questions and wants US to shut up!

I say NOT A CHANCE! HOW ABOUT YOU?!

Look for Libertarian or Constitutionalist on the ballot - We are Americans! We'll try Our Constitution for a Real 'change'!

REMEMBER, ONLY a paper ballot is a Constitutional ballot.
PRO LIFE

Littleton, CO

#18 Oct 3, 2010
My take on it is the went a little over board. I think they should outlaw abortions for selfish reasons like if they were just bein irrisponsible an got pregnant an they just dont want it or if the cheated on there boyfriend/husband nd got pregnat and they dont want them to find out so they get an abortion. Rape victims should still be able to get them or for medical reasons that would put the baby or the moher at a fatal risk! I think that women and teens should still be able to have here right to birth contol. To sum it up if you go prgnant adyou just dont want it your selfish dont kill that baby give it to a couple who really wants and cant have a baby!!!!!

Since: Apr 07

Miami

#19 Oct 3, 2010
PRO LIFE wrote:
My take on it is the went a little over board. I think they should outlaw abortions for selfish reasons like if they were just bein irrisponsible an got pregnant an they just dont want it or if the cheated on there boyfriend/husband nd got pregnat and they dont want them to find out so they get an abortion.
In other words, it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of human life", instead it's all about punishing the whore for having sex for reasons other than procreation.

Well, at least you're being honest. Most anti-choicers aren't so forthcoming.
PRO LIFE wrote:
Rape victims should still be able to get them or for medical reasons that would put the baby or the moher at a fatal risk! I think that women and teens should still be able to have here right to birth contol. To sum it up if you go prgnant adyou just dont want it your selfish dont kill that baby give it to a couple who really wants and cant have a baby!!!!!
There are already over 500,000 children in America waiting to be adopted. Why would you want more unwanted children to be created, when there are already so many that nobody wants?
Ocean56

AOL

#20 Oct 4, 2010
Preston2 wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of human life", instead it's all about punishing the whore for having sex for reasons other than procreation.
That's EXACTLY the reason, although the right-wing kooks will never admit that publicly. The "sanctity of human life" spin works SO much better for them.
gutsy girl

Aurora, CO

#21 Oct 4, 2010
Ken Buck (and all Peetardy candidates) are like dirty diapers..in your face, full of shit, and all over themselves.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator Michael Bennet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Darryl Glenn Wins Republican Primary for U.S. S... Jul '16 Le Jimbo 8
News Colorado's GOP Senate contenders: Where they st... Jun '16 Elise Gingerich 1
News Colorado becomes the first state to vote on sin... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Elise Gingerdoodle 1
News AFP hits Bennet on Colorado co-op failure (Nov '15) Nov '15 Elise Killed Herself 1
News Colorado's Senators Working Together To Bridge ... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Shaded Tree 1
News 'Almost Any Deal Is Better': Iran Nuclear Deal ... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Nicole 2
News EPA: Colorado mine waste spill much larger than... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Agents of Corruption 2
More from around the web