Posted on 09/01/2012 1:13:56 PM PDT by presidio9
When it comes to abortion, which political party’s views are more extreme?
Unless you’ve spent the past week as a stowaway on NASA’s new Mars rover, the approved media answer is obvious: Republicans are the abortion fanatics. Between the furor over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” gaffe and the GOP platform language calling for a constitutional amendment to undo Roe v. Wade, the Republicans have revealed themselves to be — as The New York Times editorialized on
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.boston.com ...
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your point.
Mitt just spit in our face by saying 1.3 million abortions per year is okay with him.
There’s your extreme problem.
No game. I know better than to get into this. As I stated, it is the first time and last time I enter the abortion discussion. I will continue to disrupt family functions with my fiscal, immigrant, defense, and marriage stances. (which are most likely the same as yours)
At a very premature stage the Dr. and I had a discussion.
"...We don't take the baby, they both will die. ..."
If the pregnancy was in a very premature stage the doctor never would have presented the "one or the other will die" choice. The only choice would be 'one lives (the mother) or both die' and no doctor would offer that choice.
Even in a late term pregnancy it is highly unlikely that a doctor would present the "one or the other will die" choice. Not without a serious discussion about probable outcomes for both patients and the relative chances of each of them. Such a situation would be extremely rare to begin with.
He also contradicts himself when he tells you...
You assume my wife was cognitive.
That's not an assumption when he had already said...
But we both made the choice,...
Things don't add up very well there.
I know of no case of classic life-of-the-mother situations (cancer of the uterus or cervix, ectopic prgnancy, pregnant woman hemorrhaging because of traums ---e.g. car accident--- where it was ever morally or legally considered an "abortion" if therapeutic measures were taken to save the mother's life --- even if it was clearly understood that the unborn baby would die.
"Therapeutic measures" could include surgery, drugs, chemo, radiation, hysterectomy, very premature delivery with no practical expectation of the baby's viability.
I say this because even in places and at times when the law in theory prohibited abortion, such laws have never prohibited or penalized actual lifesaving intervention to prevent the mother's death.
If anyone knows of any such procedure was ruled out because of the "absolute" laws in any state at any time in U.S. history, let me know. I don't know of any. I think that legally, it's a non-issue.
Democrats have a hard time reconciling their logic on anything but one wonders just what they consider to be "necessary abortions.!?!"
Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?
Less than 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
LOL, Alright Ted Kennedy/Mitt Romney, got ya.
“Murdering helpless human beings seems extreme to me. Just sayin’.”
You got my vote!
I think I'm going to have to form my own party though. ;^)
Again, I think that you are ignoring political realities here, and the powers outlined in the Constitution. If YOU were elected president tomorrow, nothing would change on the abortion front for the forseeable future. The bottom line is we (pro-lifers, not Republicans) need control of bother houses AND the executive branch for the chance at any change in the status quo. "I'm more pro-life than you" pissing contests accomplish nothing. The most likely first step involves a return to state by state decisions on this subject.
You are being very cryptic, and I think that's why several people (not just myself) have problems with your post. The more productive use of this forum would be for you to FIRST state your current position on abortion. From what you have said, I'm guessing that it has something to do with an exception for early term pregnancies where the baby's life is beyond saving. In which case, the good news is that even though this is not directly provided for in the Republican position, it is implied, because medical practice does not consider such procedures abortions in the first place.
The problem with what you have said so far is that there are inconsistencies to your story, and instead of clarifying, you have chosen to assume the moral high ground and disgregard anyone else's opinion. Can you see how that would rub people the wrong way?
We have allowed lawmaking to slip from our hands and into the Judicial and Executive branches.
This will not end well.
Also, short of “the little guy’s got a knife in there,” or some sort of major trauma like a car accident, or a fall down the stairs at the Tara Plantation, I am confunded by the idea that an early term pregnancy MUST END RIGHT THIS MINUTE, without discussion, or mom’s a gonner. Medical science has progressed to the point that human beings can be kept alive indefinitely without functioning hearts, kidneys, livers, lungs, even brains.
Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today - 2006)
The Mrs & I are both in our mid sixty’s, so we generally subscribe to the Royalty Principle.
But neither of us has murdered anyone lately!
Your cute responses are a indicative of why liberals have continued to own this debate for 30 years.
Well, I’m not going to read the entire, incoherent decision again, but I’ll take your word as to the accommodation.
I am almost 60 and I don’t know what the Royalty Principle is. Maybe you should fill me in so I don’t miss out. ;-)
That’s OK. I don’t know if there is even any mention of it in the Roe v. Wade decision. It was simply the law in all states prior to it.
No and no. I have just seen few laws made where they did not have a funding source for the ramifications.
And no, I do not support abortion for convenience. I just don’t foresee a ban without exceptions and the few calls for banning contraceptives are a show stopper for any voter under 70.
You are promoting the first officially, openly, aggressively, pro abortion republican presidential candidate in history, who is officially rejecting the republican Party Platform on abortion.
You are a pro-abortion liberal, you are pushing abortion to an entirely new level in politics, the creation of neither of the major parties being pro-life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.