National Democratic Party Chair Supports Late-Term Abortions: No Limits “Period. End of Story”

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 6:20 PM GMT
    This is one issue that I really think the Democrats are totally wrong on and sometimes I think the only reason they keep supporting abortion is because Republicans are against it and they have this notion that anything the Republicans support is wrong, just because they are Republicans. They also are looking out only for themselves with this issue because they want the pro choice vote. But, it's really causing them to violate civil rights.

    I don't really see the difference between before birth and after birth. The baby is still developing and maturing after birth. So if the government is going to allow killing them before birth, what's wrong with after birth as well? That way they can terminate the child's life without having to go through an expensive abortion. It's still the same child either way. Any abortion is really murder, when you really think about it. The technology we have today really proves and shows real human life in the womb. We all went through that stage of life and development and to think that any one of us could be legally killed in that stage of our life in a civilized society is hard to believe. The Pharaoh of Egypt issued a decree to kill any Israelite baby boy that was born. The purpose for this was to control Israelite population by weakening them. Mothers really are weakening society when they have an abortion and they are harming themselves both physically, emotionally and spiritually. Our country is really strange. Illegal immigrants are granted citizenship, but our own flesh and blood children are not given even the right to live, much less citizenship. We talk about civil injustice. But what is more unjust than killing your own flesh and blood children?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 6:52 PM GMT
    Southbeach will be here in a moment to correct you that abortion is not a gay news item.

    What's your source?

    National Democratic Party Chair Supports Late-Term Abortions: No Limits “Period. End of Story”
    LifeNews.com‎ - 22 hours ago

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeNews
    LifeNews is a Russian news website and 24-hour television channel that is owned by the News Media holding company


    Or is it these charming people

    National Democratic Party Chair Supports Late-Term ...
    www.lifeissues.net/news.php?newsID=00041290&topic=
    National Democratic Party Chair Supports Late-Term Abortions: No Limits “Period. End Of Story”. Steven Ertelt lifenews.com 2015-04-09. April 8, 2015 — The ...

    Because according to CNN

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/rand-paul-abortion-democrats/
    "Here's an answer," she said in an emailed statement. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul."

    Then, she posed some questions of her own, saying: "We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women -- but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of 'personal liberty'? And I'd appreciate it if you could respond without 'shushing' me."


    As to any difference. Yeah, there's sort of a huge difference between when a baby is able to survive on its own outside of the mother's body and when a fetus depends upon a host body for its existence. No life has rights over another. Not as the born, not as the unborn, neither corporeal nor spirit. Our lives always are sovereign.

    So please stop being so full of shit.

    Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 8:38 PM GMT
    michael61 saidThis is one issue that I really think the Democrats are totally wrong on and sometimes I think the only reason they keep supporting abortion is because Republicans are against it and they have this notion that anything the Republicans support is wrong, just because they are Republicans. They also are looking out only for themselves with this issue because they want the pro choice vote. But, it's really causing them to violate civil rights.

    I don't really see the difference between before birth and after birth. The baby is still developing and maturing after birth. So if the government is going to allow killing them before birth, what's wrong with after birth as well? That way they can terminate the child's life without having to go through an expensive abortion. It's still the same child either way. Any abortion is really murder, when you really think about it. The technology we have today really proves and shows real human life in the womb. We all went through that stage of life and development and to think that any one of us could be legally killed in that stage of our life in a civilized society is hard to believe. The Pharaoh of Egypt issued a decree to kill any Israelite baby boy that was born. The purpose for this was to control Israelite population by weakening them. Mothers really are weakening society when they have an abortion and they are harming themselves both physically, emotionally and spiritually. Our country is really strange. Illegal immigrants are granted citizenship, but our own flesh and blood children are not given even the right to live, much less citizenship. We talk about civil injustice. But what is more unjust than killing your own flesh and blood children?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

    Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

    Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 9:52 PM GMT
    That last article is absurd. It's infanticide.

    The OP is quoting from thishttp://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/08/national-democratic-party-chair-supports-late-term-abortions-no-limits-period-end-of-story/

    Here is her response:
    “Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ’shushing’ me.”

    There's no love lost from Obama:
    “Mr. President,” she said, according to people familiar with the encounter. “I just want you to know, the DNC has retired its debt.”

    Obama looked at her.

    “Debbie, you think I don’t know?” he said. “I’m the President of the United States.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrats-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111077_Page2.html#ixzz3WqkeoD9h

    Fielding through all the histrionic Right Wing web sites when I Googled "Obama abortion", it was difficult to find his stance.

    On Wiki:

    "Obama expressed displeasure with the Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on "partial-birth" abortions saying the ban didn't sufficiently consider the mother's health.[11][12] Obama has, however, expressed support of bans on some late-term abortions, provided they include exemptions for the mental and physical health of the mother.[13]

    During the third debate during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama further detailed his stance on abortion:

    "...there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, 'We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby'. Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances."[14]

    OP: "I don't really see the difference between before birth and after birth. The baby is still developing and maturing after birth."

    So for you it starts at conception?


    Another irony is that Republicans are Pro-Life, but with the NRA's gun lobby and death sentences, they are promoting ending life.

    I agree with Roe vs Wade.
    Acknowledging that the rights of pregnant women may conflict with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing a pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters:

    During a pregnant woman's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
    During the second trimester, the Court held, a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman.
    During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the woman's right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

    AND

    In 2007, the Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the ban on partial birth abortion as constitutional, concluding that it did not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion.

    - See more at: http://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/how-did-abortion-become-legal.html#sthash.vKer8kcT.dpuf


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 1:16 PM GMT
    and how is this a gay man's issue?
    be happy icon_biggrin.gif an stay far away.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Apr 16, 2015 12:13 PM GMT
    As long as there is no tax money funding abortions, than I don't have a problem with it. Getting an abortion is a private good not a public good. If a woman wants to make her own decision on whether or not to have a baby than she and her health insurance provider need to come up with all the required money for the abortion. If she tries to run to the taxpayers to fund her abortion, than she has lost all legitimate right to decide whether or not to have the baby, period.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2015 3:11 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidAs long as there is no tax money funding abortions, than I don't have a problem with it. Getting an abortion is a private good not a public good. If a woman wants to make her own decision on whether or not to have a baby than she and her health insurance provider need to come up with all the required money for the abortion. If she tries to run to the taxpayers to fund her abortion, than she has lost all legitimate right to decide whether or not to have the baby, period.


    ^+1! I'd only add that the father has a right to say in the matter, too, IF he's been upholding his responsibilities as a father, married or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2015 4:36 PM GMT
    MGINSD said^+1! I'd only add that the father has a right to say in the matter, too, IF he's been upholding his responsibilities as a father, married or not.


    "upholding his responsibilities", huh?

    What's that at this point, taking the fetus to ballgames? Buying it a coke and a hotdog?

    Nothing but her own conscience ought to compel a woman whose life is rightfully, God-given-sovereign to be an incubator to a fetus dependent upon her body for its existence.

    The bearer alone is God's emissary. Her consort merely consultant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2015 6:20 PM GMT
    I grew up evangelical Christian. I was active in the 'prolife' movement back then.
    I changed my mind (sort of.)
    I worked during my training in a place where abortion was illegal and saw women with complications of illegal abortions.

    I know believe that women should have access to abortion. I think an abortion usually represents a mistake or a tragedy (no access to birth control, rape, etc) or a moral failure on the woman's part. However those choices should be made by her and her doctor.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 16, 2015 6:45 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    roadbikeRob saidAs long as there is no tax money funding abortions, than I don't have a problem with it. Getting an abortion is a private good not a public good. If a woman wants to make her own decision on whether or not to have a baby than she and her health insurance provider need to come up with all the required money for the abortion. If she tries to run to the taxpayers to fund her abortion, than she has lost all legitimate right to decide whether or not to have the baby, period.


    ^+1! I'd only add that the father has a right to say in the matter, too, IF he's been upholding his responsibilities as a father, married or not.


    No. That's like saying joint custody. One parent is always joint-plus. So in your world, mom wants an abortion, dad doesn't and has been "keeping up with his responsibilities," and the two parties are at logger heads. Does the woman get the abortion or not?

    If the father wants a say, and the relationship is healthy, then that will clearly factor into the mother's choice. If the two are at logger heads, he effectively trumps unless she gets to do what she wants. You can't split the baby. Your argument is little more than saying a man gets to decide. There'd logically be no other alternative, unless you're wanting some pro forma paperwork where the father formally declares his wishes but in the event of a loggerhead it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    Were you pushing for worthless paper, or what I suspect that the father gets to unilaterally decide?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Apr 16, 2015 9:56 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    MGINSD said^+1! I'd only add that the father has a right to say in the matter, too, IF he's been upholding his responsibilities as a father, married or not.


    "upholding his responsibilities", huh?

    What's that at this point, taking the fetus to ballgames? Buying it a coke and a hotdog?

    Nothing but her own conscience ought to compel a woman whose life is rightfully, God-given-sovereign to be an incubator to a fetus dependent upon her body for its existence.

    The bearer alone is God's emissary. Her consort merely consultant.
    No she is not merely consultant. The father if being responsible has all the legitimate say in the world. It's these negligent deadbeats that should not have any say.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2015 11:54 PM GMT
    I don't know what the position of the Democratic National Committee is ( and they probably don't have one). But it's the woman's body - so she should have a right to abort a fetus. Period. I have no problem with any abortion. In fact, I think it should be encouraged whenever a baby is going to be unwanted. A fetus is not a "person," no matter what some judges or the religious right says. After it is born (if it is born) it is a different story.

    If it becomes illegal in the states, I would support any non-profit that provides transportation for the pregnant woman to a country where she can get it done.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Apr 17, 2015 1:21 AM GMT
    The Republicans have made it their mission to try to control people's private lives, including their most difficult medical decisions.

    Late-term abortions are very rare and performed mostly in cases where the fetus is severely deformed and would not live long after being born.
    An abortion is the humane thing to do at that point to minimize suffering.
    Obviously a difficult and painful decision for parents and their doctor to make THEMSELVES, not for grandstanding douchebags like Ted Cruz to force onto already grieving couples.