Abortion tussle at debate was wow

a reply to: MysticPearl

There was a case in a town near where I live, where this stupid mother allowed a 21 year old man to sleep in the same bed as her 12 year old daughter. Well, guess what? The daughter became pregnant. This is a question of choosing between two evils. Do you make a 12 year old rape victim go through a pregnancy and child birth? Or do you do the right thing and get her an abortion? Do you really believe that making a 12 year old have a baby is" what God wants??" I don't. The whole thing is unholy as can be. You have to be realistic about real situations.

Being female means many things, and one of them is having the ability to bear children. A heavy responsibility,and not something to be taken lightly. We know this. That is why women must have their own personal right to make this decision for themselves. This idea that getting an abortion is nothing but a couple hours out of your day is demeaning and just plain stupid. It's a heartbreaking decision, and there are many many reasons that decision is made. So quit being hollier than thou !

When do these innocent human beings have a voice?... When do their lives matter?... Never?... How about this... There are progressive researchers/doctors/philosophers(BSers) who are postulating that even after birth babies don't have rights because they are essentially the same as a fetus on the third trimester, and that parents should be able to decide whether to MURDER their babies even if they are perfectly healthy...

HIllary explained in a recent video that she thinks Roe vs Wade gives the right to women to kill their human babies even on the same day they are due...

So again, we keep seeing this "progressive" line of thinking that human fetuses, and even babies that have been already born don't have rights... I guess in the progressive mind the most innocent, defenseless of humans will never have rights because "they can be an inconvenience for the mother"...

BTW, as I have tried to show in the past even Roe vs Wade CLEARLY states that women have a right to decide up to the second trimester, but on the third trimester the state can decide instead to protect the life of the human fetus.

...
Trimester framework

The Court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion and the government cannot interfere with that right. In the second trimester, the woman still has a right to an abortion, but the state has an interest in protecting the woman’s health. Therefore, while states cannot ban abortion in the second trimester, they can protect the woman’s health by requiring physicians and clinics to meet certain standards (e.g., cleanliness requirements) in order to perform abortions. States can pass laws concerning abortion in the second trimester only so long as they intend to protect the woman’s health. In the third trimester of pregnancy, the Court decided that the state has a right to protect the life of the unborn if it so chooses. Because the unborn child is viable—she is capable of surviving outside the womb—the state’s right to protect the unborn is now more important than the woman’s right to have an abortion. Thus, in the third trimester, states may pass laws that significantly restrict or even prohibit abortions, as long as there are exceptions for when abortion is necessary to preserve a woman’s life or "health."
...

www.mccl.org...

For a long time progressives dubbed Roe vs Wade as a win, for a few years now they have been trying to even change the ruling on Roe vs Wade by claiming it gives more right to the woman on the third trimester, when the decision says on the third trimester the life of the human fetus is more important than the right of the woman to have an abortion, unless the life of the woman is at risk... And again, we have progressives even going beyond that and wanting to be able to give the "right to parents to murder their newborn babies even if they are perfectly healthy"...

The progressive mindset doesn't seem to be to protect the most innocent of us, but they are in favor of not killing murderers... and then these same progressives, like the Clinton staff, proclaim that religious people like catholics are backwards in regards to their religious views...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

BTW, as I have tried to show in the past even Roe vs Wade CLEARLY states that women have a right to decide up to the second trimester, but on the third trimester the state can decide instead to protect the life of the human fetus.

You are absolutely correct. My stance is that Roe V Wade isn't broken, so why fix it! I say, "Leave Rove V Wade alone". Perhaps we can agree on that?

And again, we have progressives even going beyond that and wanting to be able to give the "right to parents to murder their newborn babies even if they are perfectly healthy"...

I'm certain that you are misrepresenting something here. I can't imagine a scenario in the USA where the law would give the right to a parent to murder their child. My guess is that you are conflating euthanasia with some idea of extended abortion, or post birth abortion. From birth to old age, people who've been given a dire prognosis are left to languish in agony, waiting for their inevitable and forthcoming death. Many people argue that euthanasia is the most humane way to help these individuals.

But, of course, Donald Trump didn't address or consider any of these heart wrenching and real situations.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

maybe you can explain something to me......

South Carolina Code Title 44: Health, Chapter 41: Abortions
Statutory Definition of Legal Abortion Abortions defined as using instrument or medication with the intent to terminate a pregnancy (other than birth, to preserve a the baby’s live or remove dead fetus) are legal in South Carolina only under the following three circumstances:

In the first trimester with the pregnant woman’s consent
In the second trimester with the pregnant woman’s consent in a certified hospital or clinic
In the third trimester when necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman on the written recommendation of two doctors, and if the basis is mental health then both the two doctors and a consulting psychiatrist must agree in writing the abortion is necessary
Note this law says the husband’s consent is required in the third trimester, but spousal consent was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 and that can’t be enforced

statelaws.findlaw.com...

that's is So. Carolina's as it was written... I'm looking mainly at:

In the third trimester when necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman on the written recommendation of two doctors, and if the basis is mental health then both the two doctors and a consulting psychiatrist must agree in writing the abortion is necessary
Note this law says the husband’s consent is required in the third trimester, but spousal consent was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 and that can’t be enforced

so the way that the legislators who wrote this law originally had it was that a women had to have two doctors confirming that there was a need in order to preserve the life or health of the women....
but even then.....
she needed her husband's consent to preserve her own health or life!!!

luckily the supreme court saw the insanity in what those legislators had made into law. but, I have to ask...
just what were in the minds of those legislators that they thought it was a good idea to place the desires of the husband over the women's right to protect her own life or health!!! that's even if the husband wasn't out of state on one of his many business trips when the emergency popped up and couldn't be reached!!

it's like saying that the shopkeeper should have to get his spouse's permission before he shoots the robber that is about to shoot him!

a reply to: Greggers

Man you hit the nail. I catch myself now and again thinking this. I(t's the truth especially when they can get away with so much. This as much distraction as anything else....dam

There is so much out there to focus on from the past what about the PRESENT!

Whats going on now that they may have learned how to tighten everything up? That is actually really scary.....

We let NSA get away with it and its snowballed sense then in just what we know about. What about what they have been able to cover up in the near past and near future and present for that matter.

a reply to: dawnstar

How it is written there I could agree with that but nervous about the two doctors is a easy loophole with a lawyer or brains. However from what I hear and Hillary not denying it the new laws will not look so good?

a reply to: randomthoughts12

interesting you bring up new laws.....

south carolina had to back track when their new proposals for abortion included spousal permission being required for all abortion caused a backlash from their citizens.....

www.cbsnews.com...

again, the supreme court ruled long ago that spousal permission is not constitutional, at least until someone like trump gets in and manages to stack the supreme court...
then maybe the husband can have the final say as to weather a women should have to take the risk of death in a complicated pregnancy or if she is deserving of life!
because we all know that most certainly, the women can't be trusted with such a decision!!!

so you just can't bring yourself to trust the doctors to make the determination as to weather or not a pregnancy is dangerous or not?? just who would you trust then???


the party that thinks that their rights to guns... for self protection purposes are infringed by a law that requires them to make sure their guns are out of the hands of kids seems to think it's okay to take that same right of self protection from pregnant women when their pregnancies go sideways and put it in the hands of her husband!!!

This is also a piece to the bigger puzzle and lie.

madworldnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">madworldnews.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: randomthoughts12

interesting you bring up new laws.....

south carolina had to back track when their new proposals for abortion included spousal permission being required for all abortion caused a backlash from their citizens.....

www.cbsnews.com...

again, the supreme court ruled long ago that spousal permission is not constitutional, at least until someone like trump gets in and manages to stack the supreme court...
then maybe the husband can have the final say as to weather a women should have to take the risk of death in a complicated pregnancy or if she is deserving of life!
because we all know that most certainly, the women can't be trusted with such a decision!!!

so you just can't bring yourself to trust the doctors to make the determination as to weather or not a pregnancy is dangerous or not?? just who would you trust then???


the party that thinks that their rights to guns... for self protection purposes are infringed by a law that requires them to make sure their guns are out of the hands of kids seems to think it's okay to take that same right of self protection from pregnant women when their pregnancies go sideways and put it in the hands of her husband!!!

Ya gotta admit there is more than a little hypocracy in not allowing the father a say so in the abortion decision, but then have him pay child support for the next 20 years if she has it.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

so, because society expects men to pay a portion of their income to support their kids, they should have the right to decide weather a women can have an abortion that two doctors are attesting that is necessary for the women's life or health???

tell ya what, accept the idea that the gov't in within their right to make you lock your guns up so those precious little children don't shoot themselves or each other by mistake!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: JoshuaCox

so, because society expects men to pay a portion of their income to support their kids, they should have the right to decide weather a women can have an abortion that two doctors are attesting that is necessary for the women's life or health???

tell ya what, accept the idea that the gov't in within their right to make you lock your guns up so those precious little children don't shoot themselves or each other by mistake!!!

I think a perfectly fair system would allow the father to raise the child if the mother didn't want too and either side could opt out previous to the third trimester or whenever the normal cut off period is..


That said the logistics are insane..how do you verify paternity of the father pre birth? How invasive would doing a paternity test that early.

However this isn't a Perfect world

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: randomthoughts12

only god has that right.

I'm anti-abortion and religious and that's still bullsh*t to me.

It's the pregnant woman's right. No one else.
If her life is in danger why/how the f*ck would it be the government's job to intervene?

SOOOO REFRESHING...... to see your response. To be, as you say religious and still you state that its wrong that anyone else has any right to tell a lady whether she should keep her baby or not. Good on you!

This is not sarcasm before anyone jumps to that conclusion, I do mean it. Its absurd how the government or anyone can tell a pregnant mother what she can or cannot do with her child.

More power to the rights of the women and her unborn.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: JoshuaCox

so, because society expects men to pay a portion of their income to support their kids, they should have the right to decide weather a women can have an abortion that two doctors are attesting that is necessary for the women's life or health???

tell ya what, accept the idea that the gov't in within their right to make you lock your guns up so those precious little children don't shoot themselves or each other by mistake!!!

Wasn't referring to the "life of the morher nor late term abortions.just the dynamic as a whole.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm referring to an actual law, as it is written in So. Carolina that says before a women can get a third trimester abortion, two things has to happen. first, she needs statements from two doctors that her health or life will be endangered if the pregnancy continues, and second is that she needs to get a permission slip from her husband...

luckily the supreme court decisions prevents them from enforcing the second condition, and no permission is required.

but then, they are in the process of coming up with new regulations and wanted to extend the spousal consent bit to all trimesters, regardless of the fact that it couldn't be enforced. they ended up backtracking on it.

but, the one circumstance that there shouldn't be any disagreement as far as being a valid reason for an abortion would be when the mother's health and life are in jeopardy!!! when hillary clinton was asked that question about third trimester abortion in the debate, she points out that first, there is very few of them, and for those there are, they are usually surrounded by some really crappy circumstance that the mother would prefer didn't exist. I mean, if they didn't want the baby to begin with, they wouldn't have waited to the third trimester when it's just as dangerous to abort the child than it is to finish the pregnancy in most cases. these are the cases where abortion is truly and undebatable, women's healthcare issues most of the times, the other times is when there is terrible problems with the baby and it's prognosis is bleak. or maybe both situations exist.
I think what clinton was saying was that any law designed to regulate or restrict abortion access has to still protect the life and health of the mother, even in the last few days of her pregnancy...

and let's fact it, trump was out hitting one another women when his wife was pregnant, what if he was more serious in a relationship, ready to file divorce papers and she went into labor with sever complications. . well without the supreme courts leash, he could decide to save himself alot of money and just decide to not consent and sit by and watch her die!!! offended by the fact that I used trump as an example? well, sorry, couldn't resist, but keep in mind, that as vile as I just portrayed trump in this what if, there are a few men even more vile!

it's the women's body that carries the baby for nine months. for nine months her body is put through additional stress, and even with a normal pregnancy without any complications, there is going to be an impact physically from that pregnancy to some degree the rest of her life. the more pregnancies she goes through, the greater the impact is.

a man's wallet might be affected for 18 - 20 years, but a women's body might be affected for her lifetime, or might be so extreme as to shorten her life!
that is why she gets the final say when it comes to abortion.

originally posted by: BlackProject
...
This is not sarcasm before anyone jumps to that conclusion, I do mean it. Its absurd how the government or anyone can tell a pregnant mother what she can or cannot do with her child.

More power to the rights of the women and her unborn.

That right there tells us everything we need to know... You are not even talking about human fetuses anymore, but "what a woman should be able to do with her child"... That statement right there shows how backwards, and inhuman the progressive mentality is. We know there are plenty of women who think they can drown their children, or kill them in some other way 'because they gave birth to them" and that's the problem with the abortion debate.

All progressives don't want to give rights to a human fetus even hours before they are born, and there are progressives already trying to make it legal for parents to be able to murder their new born babies even if they are perfectly healthy. Progressives have been slowly, throughout the years blurring the line between right and wrong, and trying to take the rights from other human beings that can't speak up...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: randomthoughts12

south carolina had to back track when their new proposals for abortion included spousal permission being required for all abortion caused a backlash from their citizens.....

It should be required if the woman's health isn't in danger.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: randomthoughts12

south carolina had to back track when their new proposals for abortion included spousal permission being required for all abortion caused a backlash from their citizens.....

It should be required if the woman's health isn't in danger.

Only if the father signs papers to support and provide for the child for life or go to prison.