Apr 17, 2015 3:09 AM GMT
Liberal DNS Chairwoman and Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz refuses to say whether the Democrat Party Opposes Ban on Third Trimester Abortions.
-
Apr 17, 2015 3:09 AM GMT -
Apr 17, 2015 12:32 PM GMTThe reason that we cannot come to a national consensus on abortion is that the Supreme Court illegally usurped that state's authority in 1973.In most of Europe,abortion is banned at an earlier stage.ThevDemocratic Party has lost millions of voters over their radicalism on this issue. -
Apr 17, 2015 3:09 PM GMTI feel like Abortion is one thing, but Abortion in the 3rd Trimester quite another. Absolutely no way should this practice be legal this late in a pregnancy accept under the most extreme circumstances when the mother's life is in danger. -
Apr 17, 2015 6:37 PM GMTThird trimester? I think abortion should be legal up to the age of two. That gives you time to decide if you've done the right thing, decide if you like the kid, determine if there are any chronic health issues, or any number of issues that may come up. You know - before you've had time to bond or invested too much time, money, or energy. -
Apr 17, 2015 7:46 PM GMTShe said she agrees 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.
AND whatever states have legally restricted.
Not too difficult to figure out. -
Apr 17, 2015 7:53 PM GMTWhat is this "Democrat" Party in your headline? Is that some new political party? -
Apr 17, 2015 10:22 PM GMTUndercoverMan saidThird trimester? I think abortion should be legal up to the age of two. That gives you time to decide if you've done the right thing, decide if you like the kid, determine if there are any chronic health issues, or any number of issues that may come up. You know - before you've had time to bond or invested too much time, money, or energy.
lol I'd raise that to 17 to give parents more time to cut their losses -
Apr 18, 2015 12:13 AM GMT7.3 billion people on the planet, 50% or so live in abject poverty. I don't know how these women can go to sleep knowing they give birth to (another) baby they know damn well they can't afford to feed or educate -
Apr 18, 2015 3:43 AM GMTShe was debating Megyn Kelly who is an extremely manipulative anchor. I've watched several clips where she yells over someone, as they are talking, if they don't fall into one of her traps; she sets the person up to try and say something about a particular issue and then Fox will quote it over and over again. It should be noted Megyn Kelly used to be an attorney and she uses that to her advantage, by being extremely calculated in certain interviews. There's nothing wrong with what Megyn does, but Debbie Shultz was careful not to say something she'd regret. A lot of things are taken out of context, even on Realjock, people do it.
I think most Democrats and anybody for that matter would say you better have a pretty damn good reason for aborting a baby 28 weeks in.
I just read an interesting article from The Daily UK. I should note The Daily UK is probably considered similar to the NY Post (some-what perceived as a tabloid). If anyone is actually from the UK and can chime in -- that would be great.
From the article:
"[In reference to her son having Down's syndrome] He just won't have the mental capability to understand why we're not turning up to collect him any more. And, once we're gone, who will keep him safe?"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2803834/I-wish-d-aborted-son-ve-spent-47-years-caring-s-shocking-admission-read-judge.html
I believe in personal responsibility, but condoms fail and sometimes birth control causes too many side effects. Abstinence would guarantee complete safety, but that is not a reality for most people. I mean even Megyn Kelly had a divorce, not an annulment, but a divorce with her first husband...
I think EVERYONE can agree EVERY country is lacking in scientific breakthroughs when it comes to malfunctioning brains. I have an aunt with vascular dementia and there should be better treatments for i.e. Autism, Alzhemiers, Down's syndrome, Major Depressive Disorder, Parkinson's, Alleviate PTSD symptoms of Soldiers who tend to have higher suicide rates -- especially when they avoid treatment and try to tough it out etc.
I asked my general doctor, who is interested in disaster and humanitarian relief as well as staying informed as a professor. He stated that in other countries they actually believe the mentally ill are possessed by an evil sprit, God is punishing them, or something to that effect.
SCIENCE really needs to make breakthroughs in this area; I could care less about sending astronauts to space. Obama has stated the brain is the new frontier.
I PRAY whoever does become president in 2016 continues to fund Obama's support of The Brain Initiative Program. It not only has the potential to change how we treat diseases in the world, but is also funding jobs to young scientists:
http://braininitiative.nih.gov/BRAIN-Brochure.pdf
-
Apr 18, 2015 4:59 PM GMTtj85016 said
UndercoverMan saidThird trimester? I think abortion should be legal up to the age of two. That gives you time to decide if you've done the right thing, decide if you like the kid, determine if there are any chronic health issues, or any number of issues that may come up. You know - before you've had time to bond or invested too much time, money, or energy.
lol I'd raise that to 17 to give parents more time to cut their losses
Nah. Invested too much time and money by that time and they'll tend to fight back. Best to do it when they're little and you haven't invested too much and they're so trusting and would never dream you'd kill them. It's more humane that way.
Although, you'd have better behaved kids if they knew you could off them at any time.
-
Apr 20, 2015 1:23 AM GMTNobody should ever have to answer that question. The decision is private, between a pregnant woman and her doctor.
The state should stay out of the free market and instead lodge itself transvaginally, right where it belongs. Isn't that right, small government conservatives? -
Apr 20, 2015 10:36 PM GMTExactly right, dude.
A fertilised egg is NOT a person. It is a fetus attached to the woman's uterus. We cannot make the choice for a woman if she wants to keep it or not. Only when the fetus has sufficiently developed, has brain activity and can survive outside its mother does it become protected as a separate entity.
