Shultz and dems say no questions asked when killing 7-lb in utero babies.

[rdean]

Republicans don't know what an umbilical cord is.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."

Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com

The only time a 7 lb fetus is aborted is if there's a serious problem with the pregnancy. Either there's a serious problem with the fetus or the woman.

It's illegal to abort a fetus that is so close to birth with the exception of a serious problem.

Late term abortions save lives. Like my cousin's wife. She was in the last trimester of a very planned and wanted pregnancy. The cord got wrapped around the fetus' neck and strangled it.

She had to have a late term abortion to save her life. If people like you got their way she would have died.

Instead she lived and went on to have 2 children. If people like you had your way those 2 other children would never have been born and my cousin would have lost his wife.

Except, the laws state that late-term abortion is allowed to protect the health of the mother which can mean just about anything including simply to protect their fertility whether it was really threatened or not.

Prolife OBGYNS AAPLOG American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians Gynecologists Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary

Although most late-term abortions are elective, it is claimed that serious maternal health problems require abortions. Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion. The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby.

http://www.newsweek.com/abortion-what-health-exemption-really-means-91645

Senator McCain's point was that health exceptions, which his rival Senator Barack Obama supports, have "been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything." ...

McCain is correct when he suggests that the law does not specify which conditions or complications should be included in the legal definition of what constitutes a threat to the mother's health. That decision is left up to the doctor. Pro-life groups have long complained that the Supreme Court's definition is too vague and includes too many provisions. "It allows abortion under any circumstance because the Supreme Court has defined 'health' to mean a general feeling of well being or age or familial conditions or psychological factors," says David O'Steen, president of the National Right to Life (NRLC). "Health means anything." The NRLC has attacked Obama's own characterization of his abortion position in the debate as disingenuous.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Citing the Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton, some pro-life supporters have asserted that the word "health" would render any legal restriction meaningless, because of the broad and vague interpretation of "health".[6] This was of particular concern when it came to anticipated arguments that such a definition would encompass "mental health", which some thought would inevitably be expanded by court decisions to include the prevention of depression or other non-physical conditions.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And these are the findings of congress:

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion...is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If it's been strangled by it's umbilical chord, it's dead. It's not viable. Do you know what an umbilical chord is?

If it's dead, that is a miscarriage and is not even part of the abortion discussion.

 

[hadit]

Here is what is said in the link: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."

For disagreeing with this statement, Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocritical tards. Try to figure out why.

Kind of lazy to put that sole decision on women imo.

Why? The majority of Democrats want women's rights. The majority of Republicans want women's bodies controlled by the government turning women into what?

"Women's rights" is a vague, emotional, largely meaningless term. Most Americans emphatically do not, for example, champion a woman's right to absolute control over a baby growing within her, wanting common sense restrictions placed on her ability to kill said baby after 20 weeks or so. Where, beyond that, do women NOT have rights in the US?

 

[hadit]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

 

[Uncensored2008]

sure you don't write for ted cruz?
if not, you missed your calling.

After your gig writing for Pol Pot, you would know...

 

[Politico]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

Still none of your business.

 

[hadit]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

Still none of your business.

Is it my business when an infant is taken home from the hospital and abused? Is it my business when an elderly Altzheimer's patient who doesn't even know who they are is abused in a nursing home? How about when a man is killed because he is gay? I submit it is my business anywhere that people are being abused and slaughtered. Or perhaps you only want certain groups of people protected.

 

[koshergrl]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

Still none of your business.

Is it my business when an infant is taken home from the hospital and abused? Is it my business when an elderly Altzheimer's patient who doesn't even know who they are is abused in a nursing home? How about when a man is killed because he is gay? I submit it is my business anywhere that people are being abused and slaughtered. Or perhaps you only want certain groups of people protected.

The difference between normal, compassionate people..and progressives...

Progressives believe that the most vulnerable of us should totally be at the mercy of the most cruel, ruthless...and physically strongest...of us. So if someone is unable to physically defend themselves, it is just and right that they should be tortured and killed..and it's nobody else's business, and nobody should defend them.

Which explains why it's always progressive movements that end up engaging in the most egregious human rights violations on a massive scale.

 

[daws101]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

Still none of your business.

Is it my business when an infant is taken home from the hospital and abused? Is it my business when an elderly Altzheimer's patient who doesn't even know who they are is abused in a nursing home? How about when a man is killed because he is gay? I submit it is my business anywhere that people are being abused and slaughtered. Or perhaps you only want certain groups of people protected.

The difference between normal, compassionate people..and progressives...

Progressives believe that the most vulnerable of us should totally be at the mercy of the most cruel, ruthless...and physically strongest...of us. So if someone is unable to physically defend themselves, it is just and right that they should be tortured and killed..and it's nobody else's business, and nobody should defend them.

Which explains why it's always progressive movements that end up engaging in the most egregious human rights violations on a massive scale.

kinda like Christianity

 

[Politico]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

Still none of your business.

Is it my business when an infant is taken home from the hospital and abused? Is it my business when an elderly Altzheimer's patient who doesn't even know who they are is abused in a nursing home? How about when a man is killed because he is gay? I submit it is my business anywhere that people are being abused and slaughtered. Or perhaps you only want certain groups of people protected.

Man you need to put down the pipe.

 

[JoeB131]

"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."

That should be the end of the story.

The only two people who should make the decision on whether to end a pregenancy should be the woman and her health care provider.

Period.

If a woman is aborting a 'seven pound fetus" (They only reach that weight at about 8 months in) it's because something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy.

Everyone else should mind their own fucking business.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Obama believes those babies should be put in a dark room and allowed to die.

Liar.

 

[hadit]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

Still none of your business.

Is it my business when an infant is taken home from the hospital and abused? Is it my business when an elderly Altzheimer's patient who doesn't even know who they are is abused in a nursing home? How about when a man is killed because he is gay? I submit it is my business anywhere that people are being abused and slaughtered. Or perhaps you only want certain groups of people protected.

Man you need to put down the pipe.

Well, is it my business or not? Or should we all just point and laugh as the girl is gang raped on a public beach?

 

[Dana7360]

Here's my 2 cents....

If a fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby. Killing it at that point is murder. Period. End of story.

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because someone has to be the voice of the unborn, they cannot speak for themselves.

Your'e talking about a fetus that's either dead or near dead. Or a fetus inside a woman who will die if the abortion isn't performed. A 7 lb fetus that's dead will never speak for themselves. A 7 lb fetus that's inside a woman who will die without an abortion is already dead and will never speak for itself.

Guess what? If that woman dies so does that 7 lb fetus.

It's been illegal to abort a 7 lb fetus since Roe V. Wade. That law makes it illegal to abort a 7 lb fetus with the exception of there being a serious problem. Either with the fetus or with the woman.

Why do you want women to die just because their pregnancy goes wrong?

 

[Dana7360]

"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."

Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com

The only time a 7 lb fetus is aborted is if there's a serious problem with the pregnancy. Either there's a serious problem with the fetus or the woman.

It's illegal to abort a fetus that is so close to birth with the exception of a serious problem.

Late term abortions save lives. Like my cousin's wife. She was in the last trimester of a very planned and wanted pregnancy. The cord got wrapped around the fetus' neck and strangled it.

She had to have a late term abortion to save her life. If people like you got their way she would have died.

Instead she lived and went on to have 2 children. If people like you had your way those 2 other children would never have been born and my cousin would have lost his wife.

Except, the laws state that late-term abortion is allowed to protect the health of the mother which can mean just about anything including simply to protect their fertility whether it was really threatened or not.

Prolife OBGYNS AAPLOG American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians Gynecologists Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary

Although most late-term abortions are elective, it is claimed that serious maternal health problems require abortions. Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion. The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby.

http://www.newsweek.com/abortion-what-health-exemption-really-means-91645

Senator McCain's point was that health exceptions, which his rival Senator Barack Obama supports, have "been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything." ...

McCain is correct when he suggests that the law does not specify which conditions or complications should be included in the legal definition of what constitutes a threat to the mother's health. That decision is left up to the doctor. Pro-life groups have long complained that the Supreme Court's definition is too vague and includes too many provisions. "It allows abortion under any circumstance because the Supreme Court has defined 'health' to mean a general feeling of well being or age or familial conditions or psychological factors," says David O'Steen, president of the National Right to Life (NRLC). "Health means anything." The NRLC has attacked Obama's own characterization of his abortion position in the debate as disingenuous.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Citing the Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton, some pro-life supporters have asserted that the word "health" would render any legal restriction meaningless, because of the broad and vague interpretation of "health".[6] This was of particular concern when it came to anticipated arguments that such a definition would encompass "mental health", which some thought would inevitably be expanded by court decisions to include the prevention of depression or other non-physical conditions.

Yes the woman's health is more important than a fetus.

Yes a woman's fertility is more important than a fetus.

My cousin's wife had a third trimester fetus inside that was strangled by the umbilical cord.

If they had not performed that abortion she would have either died or have been left infertile.

Which means that the two children she later had would have never been born.

If you have ever experienced infertility you would know how cruel it is to take fertility from anyone.

 

[koshergrl]

"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?" Paul said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."
Schultz quickly came back with an answer: "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark, so we should take Schultz's answer seriously. The "Period. End of story," part clearly implies that there should be zero exceptions to the right to abortion — that is, zero laws, on any level, to protect the unborn if their mothers want them dead."

Rand Paul scratches the Democrats abortion surface bloody extremism pours out WashingtonExaminer.com

The only time a 7 lb fetus is aborted is if there's a serious problem with the pregnancy. Either there's a serious problem with the fetus or the woman.

It's illegal to abort a fetus that is so close to birth with the exception of a serious problem.

Late term abortions save lives. Like my cousin's wife. She was in the last trimester of a very planned and wanted pregnancy. The cord got wrapped around the fetus' neck and strangled it.

She had to have a late term abortion to save her life. If people like you got their way she would have died.

Instead she lived and went on to have 2 children. If people like you had your way those 2 other children would never have been born and my cousin would have lost his wife.

Except, the laws state that late-term abortion is allowed to protect the health of the mother which can mean just about anything including simply to protect their fertility whether it was really threatened or not.

Prolife OBGYNS AAPLOG American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians Gynecologists Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary

Although most late-term abortions are elective, it is claimed that serious maternal health problems require abortions. Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion. The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby.

http://www.newsweek.com/abortion-what-health-exemption-really-means-91645

Senator McCain's point was that health exceptions, which his rival Senator Barack Obama supports, have "been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything." ...

McCain is correct when he suggests that the law does not specify which conditions or complications should be included in the legal definition of what constitutes a threat to the mother's health. That decision is left up to the doctor. Pro-life groups have long complained that the Supreme Court's definition is too vague and includes too many provisions. "It allows abortion under any circumstance because the Supreme Court has defined 'health' to mean a general feeling of well being or age or familial conditions or psychological factors," says David O'Steen, president of the National Right to Life (NRLC). "Health means anything." The NRLC has attacked Obama's own characterization of his abortion position in the debate as disingenuous.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Citing the Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton, some pro-life supporters have asserted that the word "health" would render any legal restriction meaningless, because of the broad and vague interpretation of "health".[6] This was of particular concern when it came to anticipated arguments that such a definition would encompass "mental health", which some thought would inevitably be expanded by court decisions to include the prevention of depression or other non-physical conditions.

Yes the woman's health is more important than a fetus.

Yes a woman's fertility is more important than a fetus.

My cousin's wife had a third trimester fetus inside that was strangled by the umbilical cord.

If they had not performed that abortion she would have either died or have been left infertile.

Which means that the two children she later had would have never been born.

If you have ever experienced infertility you would know how cruel it is to take fertility from anyone.

Actually, you don't believe that, or you'd agree to oversight of abortion abattoirs. To progressive scum, the ONLY important thing is the death of a baby.

Not the woman's fertility.
Not the woman.

Just a dead baby, first and foremost.

PS...the word abortion defines KILLING the baby. If it was already dead, you fucking idiot, it wasn't an abortion.

This is the sort of lie anti-woman baby killers perpetuate in order to make it look like abortion is needed for the *health* of women.

Nobody has ever said that women shouldn't have access to D&Cs, or medical attention, in the event of accidental death in utero. Babykilling scum.

You pigs like to pretend that prior to abortion on demand, women weren't allowed to access medical care in the event of fetal death, or the (rare) necessity for medical abortion. You lie and claim that abortion *fixes* rape, and you pretend that it's *good* for the fertility of women.

All lies.

Because if you tell the truth you're exposed for the disgusting human-rights abusing pieces of filth you are.

 

[koshergrl]

abortion

noun abor·tion \ə-ˈbȯr-shən\
: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus

Abortion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[daws101]

Here's my two cents. If a woman is carrying a fetus which your male Millennial ass will never do why do you feel you should have a right to tell her what she should do with it?

Because what she's carrying is not an it. He/she is an unborn baby.

Still none of your business.

Is it my business when an infant is taken home from the hospital and abused? Is it my business when an elderly Altzheimer's patient who doesn't even know who they are is abused in a nursing home? How about when a man is killed because he is gay? I submit it is my business anywhere that people are being abused and slaughtered. Or perhaps you only want certain groups of people protected.

Man you need to put down the pipe.

Well, is it my business or not? Or should we all just point and laugh as the girl is gang raped on a public beach?

I smell vigilante justice a brewin'