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.
Her answer means she believes that a baby doesn't gain any rights until it leaves the birth canal. A baby born at 7 months is a person with legal rights, while a baby aborted at 7 months is a fetus with zero rights.
Yes. This is what the thread is about. It's interesting because I don't think most people who are pro-choice would agree that it's ok to abort a 7lb baby. I thought most people had limits such as it has to be in the first two or three months. I'm surprised that anyone would be in favor of aborting full term babies. It's kind of shocking actually.
Yes. This is what the thread is about. It's interesting because I don't think most people who are pro-choice would agree that it's ok to abort a 7lb baby. I thought most people had limits such as it has to be in the first two or three months. I'm surprised that anyone would be in favor of aborting full term babies. It's kind of shocking actually.
There are lot of shades of gray in the abortion debate, but its often drawn in black and white and that does nothing for the discussion. There is actually a lot of agreement on this issue between large numbers of pro-life and pro-choicers.
About 70% of pro-lifers agree to abortions for victims of rape or to protect the life or health of the mother and the same percentage of pro-choicers object to late-term abortions. But the way this issue is addressed, you would assume there's only one extreme or the other.
There are lot of shades of gray in the abortion debate, but its often drawn in black and white and that does nothing for the discussion. There is actually a lot of agreement on this issue between large numbers of pro-life and pro-choicers.
About 70% of pro-lifers agree to abortions for victims of rape or to protect the life or health of the mother and the same percentage of pro-choicers object to late-term abortions. But the way this issue is addressed, you would assume there's only one extreme or the other.
Yes. This is what the thread is about. It's interesting because I don't think most people who are pro-choice would agree that it's ok to abort a 7lb baby. I thought most people had limits such as it has to be in the first two or three months. I'm surprised that anyone would be in favor of aborting full term babies. It's kind of shocking actually.
President Obama fought against passage of the Born Alive Act on the floor of the Illinois Senate. I was shocked that even pro-choice advocates would support a candidate that fought to withhold medical care to a born alive baby.
"Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
Wasserman Shultz is a disgusting slice of humanity as evidenced by her answer. My grandniece was born two months premature. A fully functioning human baby. Based on Wasserbeasts answer she'd had no problem having my grandniece murdered as long as she's still in utero at that stage.
DNC head: let "women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
I would vote for Paul before DWS, but my take on her answer is that the media now has the indicator to lay off harassing conservatives about abortion. The question should be, 'Does one support or oppose government participation/interference/funding in the abortion process'. The answer should be a resounding NO
But do you want the government involved; effectively coming between the woman and her doctor? When government provides money for abortions, it effectively plays the middleman. If it is a woman's right, then too, it is her responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
I agree with DWS and think RP is trying his best to give 'em the old razzle dazzle.
I'm ok with someone "killing a 7 pound baby" just for the record, and I'll say it in any way you want to phrase it.
IF a woman and her Dr. feel it's the best recourse given whatever the circumstances are. I'm fine with the medical establishment setting their own standards based on whatever info is available. I don't have to know the details of those circumstances because it's not my concern. But I'll sleep better knowing it's not the general publics concern either, and they (and the politicians) will have no input.
Her answer means she believes that a baby doesn't gain any rights until it leaves the birth canal. .
And there you have it in a nutshell.
I admit that seems like a bit of a sketchy definition to me.
In purist pro-abortion land, is it considered murder if the mother is pushed down the stairs?
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.