daws101
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2011
- 41,526
- 3,122
"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.
![](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi1353.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq674%2Fbrian_dawson1%2FHypocrisyMeter_zps6jp5fnfq.png&hash=bde90b82b496e624ac084c39efb53aee)