Why do people say the GOP platform opposes abortion without exception?

[Quantum Windbag]

Wheres the "up until the time of birth" part?

Seriously? Did you not read this part?

We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

Im not reading that as "we want to give women the right to have an abortion until the kid pops out". I have never heard any democratic representative advocate for abortion until birth.

XXXXX

Did you know that, according to Roe v Wade, the state has a legitimate interest from the beginning in protecting the life of fetus? Can you explain why you, among others, constantly try to tell me that a fetus does not have a right to life when the very decision you use to argue your position says exactly the opposite? As far as I know not one single person has actually made any legitimate argument that anyone's right to privacy trumps another person's right to life.

Then we have Planned Parenthood v Casey, where the court rejected the third trimester restrictions it approved, which is the legal cutoff under Roe. They essentially retried Roe, and held that, if a woman could find a doctor that agreed that her mental health was jeopardized, could get an abortion at any point during the pregnancy. Strangely enough, it also found that the state had a right to demand that a woman understand exactly what an abortion does.

If you like I can go through the entire history of abortion cases showing you how pro abortion activist continually chip away at the interest of the state in protecting the life of the fetus. XXXXX If, on the other hand, you want to learn the truth, I suggest you start by reading this story in the LA Times, which is about as far from a conservative paper as it is possible to get.

But here’s the problem. The bishops aren’t among those Americans who think only second- and third-trimester abortions are offensive. They have a much more purist position akin to Akin’s -- though they are willing to reluctantly accept “passage of a constitutional amendment that will protect unborn children's right to life to the maximum degree possible.” As I wrote at the time: “Tactically, the church might emphasize the offensiveness of late-term abortions because that is a way to get Americans to take a ‘second look’ at abortion in general. But the church can’t acknowledge that some abortions are worse than others without undercutting its teaching that life begins at conception.”
I think the same problem exists in reverse. In a column in the New York Times on Sunday, Ross Douthat warned Democrats who have been exulting in Todd Akin’s embarrassment that they “have a tendency to forget that the public doesn’t necessarily agree with them. Only 22 percent of Americans would ban abortion in cases of rape or incest, according to Gallup. But that’s an exceptional number for exceptional circumstances. The broader polling shows a country persistently divided, with women roughly as likely to take the anti-abortion view as men.... The polling also shows plenty of cases where public opinion cuts strongly against the pro-choice side. Large majorities support bans on second- and third-trimester abortion, on sex-selective abortion and on the controversial ‘partial birth’ procedure.”

Can abortion extremists attack other extremists? - latimes.com

 

[Katzndogz]

We know that liberals believe that rapists have a right to be a dad, which is why they gave rapists the right to vistitation, custody and child support if the victim was religious enough to not have an abortion. Liberals also extended rapist's "dad" rights to oppose adoption and force the woman to keep the child.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Debating does not mean presenting opinions and then coming to an agreement, it means using facts to effectively argue your point. You prefer to pretend that your side is perfect, I know my side has idiots, and accept that because they do not make me wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roe can be changed by five justices. However, it will not be during the Roberts court.

Isn't roe vs wade settled law?

Isn't it true that it could only be changed by a constitutional amendment?

 

[AmyNation]

Except I never suggested "my side" doesn't have idiots. However I still dont know of any elected representive who supports a woman's right to have an abortion "up until birth".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't roe vs wade settled law?

Isn't it true that it could only be changed by a constitutional amendment?

Any supreme court decision can be changed by another supreme court decision.

 

[Amelia]

Russ Feingold said that if a baby accidentally slipped out of the birth canal during an abortion procedure the decision on whether or not to go ahead and kill the baby would be between the mother and her doctor. Frank Lautenberg agreed with Feingold. Feingold must have realized how bad that answer sounded because he altered the congressional record, as is a senator's right.

Barbara Boxer wouldn't answer the question. She committed to the baby having a right to life when the mother took it home from the hospital but hedged on earlier time periods.

George Will: Barbara Boxer's Position on Abortion - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

 

[JakeStarkey]

So says Amelia, for what it is worth.

 

[Amelia]

So says Amelia, for what it is worth.

Did I fundamentally misstate anything? I gave a link with enough information for anyone who wants to track down the original statements. The official congressional record was altered but there is a record of what was actually said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is a record of allegedly what was said.

 

[Amelia]

There is a record of allegedly what was said.

What is the source of your doubt? Do you think that C-Span really did not have the original as has been claimed? If you believe that C-Span had the original in their archives, do you think that it was incorrectly transcribed? Surely on such a hot button issue, if the C-Span record had been incorrectly transcribed by pro-lifers someone on the pro-choice side would have corrected them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ignore is for pussies. Although you do have a tendency of going off on a tangent. You don't really want to debate as much as you like to preach.

Debating does not mean presenting opinions and then coming to an agreement, it means using facts to effectively argue your point. You prefer to pretend that your side is perfect, I know my side has idiots, and accept that because they do not make me wrong.

Except I never suggested "my side" doesn't have idiots. However I still dont know of any elected representive who supports a woman's right to have an abortion "up until birth".

Obama supports it after the point of birth, why else would he vote against a bill requiring a doctor to get medical attention for a baby after it is born?

Like I said, you can pretend your side is not the one that is extreme all day long, but your only hope of keeping that delusion alive is to put me on ignore, I will keep pointing out the truth.

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So says Barbara Boxer.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfLcldRH4Y8]Barbara Boxer - "Abortion" OK Even After Fully Born - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Debating does not mean presenting opinions and then coming to an agreement, it means using facts to effectively argue your point. You prefer to pretend that your side is perfect, I know my side has idiots, and accept that because they do not make me wrong.

Except I never suggested "my side" doesn't have idiots. However I still dont know of any elected representive who supports a woman's right to have an abortion "up until birth".

Obama supports it after the point of birth, why else would he vote against a bill requiring a doctor to get medical attention for a baby after it is born?

Like I said, you can pretend your side is not the one that is extreme all day long, but your only hope of keeping that delusion alive is to put me on ignore, I will keep pointing out the truth.

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Let me add Obama's appointment of a maniac who endorses the killing of infants well after birth: Princeton Profess Peter Singer.


President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.

 

[AmyNation]

Barbara Boxer was talking about partial birth abortion, not aborting a baby in or anywhere near the ninth month.

 

[AmyNation]

Debating does not mean presenting opinions and then coming to an agreement, it means using facts to effectively argue your point. You prefer to pretend that your side is perfect, I know my side has idiots, and accept that because they do not make me wrong.

Except I never suggested "my side" doesn't have idiots. However I still dont know of any elected representive who supports a woman's right to have an abortion "up until birth".

Obama supports it after the point of birth, why else would he vote against a bill requiring a doctor to get medical attention for a baby after it is born?

Like I said, you can pretend your side is not the one that is extreme all day long, but your only hope of keeping that delusion alive is to put me on ignore, I will keep pointing out the truth.

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Perhaps or issue is, when is "birth". The links provided talk abort late term and partial birth abortions, which are abortions right before the 25th week.

 

[Amelia]

Barbara Boxer was talking about partial birth abortion, not aborting a baby in or anywhere near the ninth month.

She was talking about aborting viable fetuses. The general subject was partial birth abortion. The specific details were about fetuses which could be born and could survive on their own if their birth weren't interrupted by having their brain suctioned out.

The very specific details included the issue of what the baby's rights would be if it were accidentally fully born and Boxer didn't want to answer that.

 

[AmyNation]

Barbara Boxer was talking about partial birth abortion, not aborting a baby in or anywhere near the ninth month.

She was talking about aborting viable fetuses. The general subject was partial birth abortion. The specific details were about fetuses which could be born and could survive on their own if their birth weren't interrupted by having their brain suctioned out.

The very specific details included the issue of what the baby's rights would be if it were accidentally fully born and Boxer didn't want to answer that.

I can see your perspective.

I felt like the question was a set up, because abortion is limited to non-viable fetuses.

 

[Amelia]

Barbara Boxer was talking about partial birth abortion, not aborting a baby in or anywhere near the ninth month.

She was talking about aborting viable fetuses. The general subject was partial birth abortion. The specific details were about fetuses which could be born and could survive on their own if their birth weren't interrupted by having their brain suctioned out.

The very specific details included the issue of what the baby's rights would be if it were accidentally fully born and Boxer didn't want to answer that.

I can see your perspective.

I felt like the question was a set up, because abortion is limited to non-viable fetuses.

Are you sure about abortion being limited to non-viable fetuses within the context of partial birth abortions? Serious question. I need to get that straight before I go any further on this track.

I thought that the controversy over partial birth abortion was that viable fetuses could be aborted if the mother had a doctor who was willing to sign off on the pregnancy being bad in some general sense for her physical or mental health.

 

[AmyNation]

She was talking about aborting viable fetuses. The general subject was partial birth abortion. The specific details were about fetuses which could be born and could survive on their own if their birth weren't interrupted by having their brain suctioned out.

The very specific details included the issue of what the baby's rights would be if it were accidentally fully born and Boxer didn't want to answer that.

I can see your perspective.

I felt like the question was a set up, because abortion is limited to non-viable fetuses.

Are you sure about abortion being limited to non-viable fetuses within the context of partial birth abortions? Serious question. I need to get that straight before I go any further on this track.

I thought that the controversy over partial birth abortion was that viable fetuses could be aborted if the mother had a doctor who was willing to sign off on the pregnancy being bad in some general sense for her physical or mental health.

You can have an abortion now, at any time if a doctor says the mother is at risk. It's my understanding that partial birth abortions were limited to non-viable fetus, however, I could be wrong on that.