Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scot Walker does not support abortion in cases of incest, rape, or the life of the mother.
Quote:
Gov. Scott Walker answers the question: ‘Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?’
Quote:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who recently signed a 20-week abortion ban into law in his state, was asked by one of the main debate’s three moderators, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion, and with 83 percent of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?”
Replied Walker, “I believe that this is an unborn child that’s in need of protection out there, and I’ve said many a time that unborn child [sic] can be protected, and there are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of that mother. That’s been consistently proven.”
I work in medicine and I can tell you that there are definite cases in which the mother will die unless the pregnancy is terminated.
Also in the case of incest; it has been my experience that most incest pregnancies are in young girls who have just entered puberty, around the age of 12, and have been repeatedly molested by their father from young childhood. These are cases of children forced to have children and the offspring often has extreme chromosomal abnormalities.
Being required to carry a pregnancy when one's life is at risk or one has been raped or molested, is again victimizing the victim.
I am pro-choice, but truly hope the choice is NO abortion. Whether you outlaw them or not...they will continue to happen. Roe vs. Wade was enacted because girls were dying in gruesome ways, having illegal abortions. Those who are desperate will find a way to abort a child, if need be....and the law simply gives them a safe way to do so.
Sort of like have a safe place to leave a baby, if you decide you can't/won't take care of them....no questions asked.
None of these things are good....and we should encourage folks to make the right choices BEFORE a pregnancy happens!
I believe that if the mother's life is truly in serious jeopardy, it becomes a matter of self defense. Personally, I wouldn't choose to die on that hill if I were running for office. While I am pro life, I don't see a conflict between my personal pro life beliefs and allowing a woman to defend her own life. And by "life" I don't mean "lifestyle." I mean her literal life - as in "Medical professionals have determined that I will probably die unless I terminate this pregnancy."
It really doesn't matter what Scott Walker believes. The Supreme Court made the decision, and a president can't change it. As far as what I believe, I can't imagine having a 12 year old girl and forcing her to go through with a pregnancy. Should she have had sex? No, but she is not ready to give birth much less be a mother.
It really doesn't matter what Scott Walker believes. The Supreme Court made the decision, and a president can't change it. As far as what I believe, I can't imagine having a 12 year old girl and forcing her to go through with a pregnancy. Should she have had sex? No, but she is not ready to give birth much less be a mother.
The SCOTUS conclusion happened 42 years ago.
States are free to set parameters. 8 states have no parameters and they are not all liberal states.
I am unaware of a proposed amendment to ban abortion that has gotten any traction.
Presidents have no impact on amending the Constitution.
It really doesn't matter what Scott Walker believes. The Supreme Court made the decision, and a president can't change it. As far as what I believe, I can't imagine having a 12 year old girl and forcing her to go through with a pregnancy. Should she have had sex? No, but she is not ready to give birth much less be a mother.
Then you know what? There is such a thing known as adoption. An innocent baby should NEVER be tortured and killed. We are lucky our mother's didn't make that choice, in my opinon.
Yes, I make all important election decision based on the "what if's" and the less than 1% chances of stupid scenarios happening.
Whatever your small mind can get itself around is sufficient.
*waves hand* Hi. I'm in that 1%.
Would I have died? Maybe not. But I would have needed be on bedrest from 3 months on (impossible as a young person already barely making it with roommates financially due to cancer - I would have no way to stay afloat and pay for the extensive medical support I would need to keep myself and the fetus alive without being able to go to work), would risk my cancer relapsing, and also risk augmenting my existing life-long complications that already exist as a result of cancer.
Finances aside, my oncologist strongly recommended I have an abortion which is exactly what I did at 5 weeks. It was incredibly painful as I have spent the past few years mourning what I thought was infertility due to cancer. Despite the expectation of infertility, I still took the pill just in case. It failed.
I laugh in the face of anyone who calls themself pro-life who also claims that my situation does not exist. I am not the only young adult cancer survivor I know to have faced similar dire decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
