Wendy Davis Filibuster

[minnie616]

I believe we also both know that the vast majority of pregnancies don't involve any extraordinary circumstances.

Still too many ...10 percent or more do cause conditions that threaten the woman's life and many many more affect her long term and short term health.

 

[iacardsfan]

I believe we also both know that the vast majority of pregnancies don't involve any extraordinary circumstances.

So because people abuse the system we take it away from everybody?

 

[iacardsfan]

I believe the youngest baby ever born was 21 weeks so at that point they are human.

One time that occurred. That is hardly the standard. What about the hundreds of times that babies die trying to be birthed at 21 weeks.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

One time that occurred. That is hardly the standard. What about the hundreds of times that babies die trying to be birthed at 21 weeks.

If they are human at that age then the argument about not killing a person sort of goes out the window doesn't it? Or is the just location, location, location that matters?

 

[Texmex]

So because people abuse the system we take it away from everybody?

I am more concerned about the unborn's right than I am over some woman who just doesn't want the consequences of her own choice.

 

[iacardsfan]

I am more concerned about the unborn's right than I am over some woman who just doesn't want the consequences of her own choice.

Nothing like somebody who advocates people's right then favors a dependent, not born child over a woman that is fully acknowledged by the law.

 

[minnie616]

I am more concerned about the unborn's right than I am over some woman who just doesn't want the consequences of her own choice.

What right do you think an unborn has?

The unborn do not have a right to life.
The SC rejected the fetal right to life argument in Roe vs wade and in other challenges to Roe vs Wade.

 

[Texmex]

What right do you think an unborn has?

The unborn do not have a right to life.
The SC rejected the fetal right to life argument in Roe vs wade and in other challenges to Roe vs Wade.

I don't care who ruled what, the unborn do have a right to life. Good thing for you that your mother felt this way.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

What right do you think an unborn has?

Apparently they have the right to be murdered by hey, they are just in the wrong place at the wrong time so it's really their own fault huh.

 

[minnie616]

I don't care who ruled what, the unborn do have a right to life. Good thing for you that your mother felt this way.

Well if my mom had not wanted me she would have aborted me.

And if I was aborted that would be fine since I would not miss the life i now have.

Since I was a wanted child my parents loved me very much.

My 4 children were also wanted children , they are loved very much and they are all adults now.

 

[cpwill]

there is a difference because the two year old can live without the mother. Up to 24 weeks the fetus is not considered to be able to survive on their own

I have a two year old. I am pretty confident in saying that his survival chances without a parent are approximately zero. nor do we define "human being" as "not dependent on others for survival". That is why, for example, were I to go into a hospital wing where they keep patients in medical coma's and machine-gun the lot I would be charged with murder, not vandalism, or cruelty to animals.

 

[YoungConserv]

What right do you think an unborn has?

The unborn do not have a right to life.
The SC rejected the fetal right to life argument in Roe vs wade and in other challenges to Roe vs Wade.

A ruling they had no authority to make.

 

[nota bene]

I have a two year old. I am pretty confident in saying that his survival chances without a parent are approximately zero. nor do we define "human being" as "not dependent on others for survival". That is why, for example, were I to go into a hospital wing where they keep patients in medical coma's and machine-gun the lot I would be charged with murder, not vandalism, or cruelty to animals.

Sadly, I think this is changing. Those who are in comas that become "persistent vegetative states" may not be machine-gunned in the future; they may just have their feeding tubes withdrawn or a merciful but lethal drug administered.

 

[iacardsfan]

I have a two year old. I am pretty confident in saying that his survival chances without a parent are approximately zero. nor do we define "human being" as "not dependent on others for survival". That is why, for example, were I to go into a hospital wing where they keep patients in medical coma's and machine-gun the lot I would be charged with murder, not vandalism, or cruelty to animals.

You know what I mean. Without the mother's body a baby can not be born. Even without a mother, other human beings or machines can keep them alive once they reach the age of two for example as your son.

 

[jstepp590]

Good point, it should be the woman's choice. The problem isn't really rich guys though, it is that the Republican's are full of social conservatives and it is causing them no end of grief. On one hand they need the social conservatives to garner energy and votes, but at the same time nobody except social conservatives will vote for their platforms.

Personally I would far rather that lady take birth control than get an abortion. Abortions used to be illegal in this country at one time. The reason it was legalized was not because of the morality of women's choice. It was because of unlicensed "doctors" who were performing the abortions with coat hangars and women were dying in droves from pelvic infections and would end up sterile for the rest of their lives. Back then they decided that abortions were the lesser of the evils rather than watch their daughters die. Birth control is a better option all around because any type of surgery carries risks and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

The problem isn't really rich guys though, it is that the Republican's are full of social conservatives and it is causing them no end of grief. On one hand they need the social conservatives to garner energy and votes, but at the same time nobody except social conservatives will vote for their platforms.

Sometimes people listen to much to the crap the MSM puts out. Perhaps the above is an example.

The republicans have huge problems when they don't run conservative candidates. There are a few exceptions, especially in the northeast but for the most part, that's how it is. Do they have problems in the House? No. Senate? Right now yes, but things look better and better for them with each passing day. The White House? Well, we're stuck with the most incompetent, corrupt administration in American history until his term runs out but who knows? Maybe the GOP will smarten up and actually run a conservative for president next time around. How about the State and local level? Count up the number of GOP governors vs want to be ist type governors and once again you'll see the GOP doesn't seem to be having a whole lot of trouble.

Now, some members like Sen Rubio are now in a world of hurt. When his term is up, he's one and done. He took a bite of the same wolf cookie you did, the only difference being it won't cost you anything. But when people do stupid things, they should pay a price for it. That way other people can watch and learn.

 

[minnie616]

A ruling they had no authority to make.

The SC court has the authority to determine if a law is constitutional or not.
They rejected the fetal right to life argument.

No case could be cited that holds a fetus is a person in the 14 th amendment.
See part IX of the Roe vs Wade decision.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

The SC court has the authority to determine if a law is constitutional or not.
They rejected the fetal right to life argument.

No case could be cited that holds a fetus is a person in the 14 th amendment.
See part IX of the Roe vs Wade decision.

So the SC has never made a mistake and should never be allowed to correct itself? Are you claiming that? Or that people can never change law?

 

[minnie616]

... Or that people can never change law?

Lawmakers can change law but Roe vs Wade is not a law ...it a SC decision and only the SC can overturn their decision.
You said they had no authority to reject the fetal right to life arugment and I showed why the SC rejected it.

 

[YoungConserv]

The SC court has the authority to determine if a law is constitutional or not.
They rejected the fetal right to life argument.

No case could be cited that holds a fetus is a person in the 14 th amendment.
See part IX of the Roe vs Wade decision.

They interpreted the constitution to reach that ruling that is outside their authority in article 3

 

[minnie616]

They interpreted the constitution to reach that ruling that is outside their authority in article 3

Your opinion.
The ruling has remained in place for 40 years.

 

[YoungConserv]

Your opinion.
The ruling has remained in place for 40 years.

It's not my opinion scouts has no article 3 powe to interpret the constitution and that is a fact!

 

[nota bene]

From WaPo:

AUSTIN, Texas — A proposal that would make Texas one of the nation’s toughest places to get an abortion won swift approval Wednesday in the state House, sending it on to the Senate where a filibuster and raucous protests derailed Republican efforts to pass it nearly two weeks earlier.

There is little Democrats can do to stop the measure this time in the GOP-controlled Legislature, but they’re seeking to create a legislative record that opponents can use to challenge it in federal court on constitutional grounds. Democrats also hope to use women’s health issues to win more seats in 2014.

...The Senate could cast a final vote as early as Friday.

Texas House passes abortion bill; Senate next stop - The Washington Post

 

[Drake McHugh]

Sick. The Dems are proud of their infanticide stance.

 

[nota bene]

I'm not aware of anybody talking about infanticide.