POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
So Hillary now supports abortions on demand (i.e. not due to medical reasons like life of the mother or circumstances of pregnancy like rape/incest but actual on demand) up until natural birth? Same for DWS? And there are quotes? I see you say there are quotes, and then you summarize their positions without the quotes. I'm skeptical when anyone does that. Show don't tell.
Edit: a quick Google search shows that Gary Johnson supported a bill to ban late term abortions. I wasn't able to find that particular bill, but a NM bill that passed the lower chamber had exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. So is Gary Johnson's position no late term abortions with those exceptions? Is that the same as Clinton/DWS? There are quotes, apparently, so let's find out!
Last edited:
I will not ever vote as long as issues like damn fetuses are considered "political". I'm ashamed of this country and what it believes to be important.
Give the people their shit back. Babies, plants, education...GTFO and start talking about the money you keep spending that we don't have. Stay out of our shit. That should be the #1 priority of The Voting People. It's the opposite. F You People that vote for this shit.
I imagine marriage is a lot like our wonderfully F'd political system.
Give the people their shit back. Babies, plants, education...GTFO and start talking about the money you keep spending that we don't have. Stay out of our shit. That should be the #1 priority of The Voting People. It's the opposite. F You People that vote for this shit.
I imagine marriage is a lot like our wonderfully F'd political system.
Jim Gray running against Rand Paul. I don't mind Gray as a mayor, but can't see him winning, nor would I vote for him for national office
According to the WSJ today, TX/the Harris Co DA is not done investigating PP. The other two were indicted, but it doesn't mean PP is cleared yet......That was a quote from the DA, may just be political speak.....
Big Blue, Johnson is against partial birth abortion, but he has never said he would not make exceptions.
Here are Johnson's views through the years - his own quotes in bold:
Q: Should abortion be outlawed in the United States?
A: Let each state decide.
Source: Presidential comparison website www.iSideWith.com , May 16, 2012
Q: Most Republicans and everyone else on the stage but you identified themselves as pro-life; you have said that abortion should be legal until the fetus is viable. How do you hope to woo conservative GOP voters with that position?
JOHNSON: I support a woman's right to choose up until viability of the fetus.
Source: 2011 South Carolina primary debate
Q: But you have supported legislation that requires parental consent and signed a ban on partial birth abortions.
A: I think the decision can be made at an earlier stage. That's why I don't support partial birth abortions. I realize it's a fine line, but I generally come down on a woman's right to decide.
Q: Where do you stand on abortion rights?
A: It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman.
Source: David Sheff interview in Playboy Magazine , Jan 1, 2001
It is a disgrace that PP was not the ones indicted. They were the ones selling baby parts.
Unlike you, Willy has a shitload of actual libertarian posts on here as well as a history of banging on both parties. When he types something that is what he thinks. Thus, he is not a lying troll who can't man up and say he worships the politician in his avatar.
Is this a serious question? The Dem leadership has blocked it even from coming up for a vote.
Clinton also called for an end to the Hyde Amendment, longstanding federal policy prohibiting taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion on demand. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List responded:
“Not only is she opposed to defunding Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton has now argued that taxpayers have an obligation to support abortion at any time, for any reason. This is the most dramatic pro-abortion position espoused by a leading political figure to date, and it changes the abortion debate. ‘Safe, legal, and rare,’ is long gone.
“As many as seven in ten Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion – including majorities of young people and women. If Mrs. Clinton wants to use this election to go to war against this longtime consensus, we welcome the opportunity to engage and expose her. We are confident the American people will reject this level of extremism at the ballot box.”
Recent polling from CNN and Marist/Knights of Columbus found that a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion.
Personally, I would have no problem with a ban on "late" abortions as long as there's a medical exception. Don't want an infant that's already capable of surviving outside the womb? Fine, adoption it is. You've had months to decide. Why'd you wait until now?
The two problem with that, though:
(1) who gets to determine the definition of "late"? Guarantee if there's some miracle baby that survives an extraordinarily premature birth (like, 19 weeks) at the cost of millions of dollars and months/years of medical care, the radicals will say 19 is the new cutoff.
(2) tough to say "should've gotten an abortion sooner" when it's so GD difficult to get one in the first place.
The two problem with that, though:
(1) who gets to determine the definition of "late"? Guarantee if there's some miracle baby that survives an extraordinarily premature birth (like, 19 weeks) at the cost of millions of dollars and months/years of medical care, the radicals will say 19 is the new cutoff.
(2) tough to say "should've gotten an abortion sooner" when it's so GD difficult to get one in the first place.
No, evidently not. The videos clearly show that PP was talking about selling baby parts - those indicted were using false IDs (like so many other undercover people) to find out the truth about the sale of baby parts. One of the prosecutors is on the Board of PP which is unethical. They indicted those that went undercover to find the truth but didn't charge PP with anything. Really sad that PP has not been indicted for selling baby parts which is quite evident by the videos. The undercover people were discussing the buying of the baby parts but that was only to undercover that PP is indeed selling baby parts. I find it ironic that PP didn't refute the fact that they were selling baby parts
IMO he is the designated sacrificial lamb in that slot for the Dems. don't want to waste what precious few bodies they have left for a sure loser against Rand during a Presidential cycle.
Given the right circumstances (and assuming I would actually vote at all), I would vote for Jim Gray for governor. He isn't going to start us on the path to Libertopia, but as a Third Way Democrat he's decent enough and would probably do slightly more good than harm
You say "selling baby parts," but that's not accurate. Selling fetal tissue is illegal: "It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce." The term valuable consideration is not a mistake. It's a legal term: "A benefit conferred or a detriment incurred by a party in exchange for another's promise." The law (remember, these investigations are about whether PP broke the law, not your personal ethical code) clearly states that: "The term valuable consideration' does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue."
Now, the videos clearly show PP talking about money and fetal parts. They do not "clearly show that PP was talking about selling baby parts." It's a distinction that matters here because the law clearly exempts "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." The 11 states investigating PP are: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Ohio, and Louisiana. Do you think any of those states would not indict if they had evidence that PP accepted "valuable consideration" in exchange for fetal tissue? In other words, if those videos "clearly show that PP was talking about" exchanging "any fetal tissue for valuable consideration" wouldn't PP be indicted by one of those 11 states? Now, you may disagree, but I would tend to side with the 8/11 states that investigated and were motivated to find something illegal.
Now, the videos clearly show PP talking about money and fetal parts. They do not "clearly show that PP was talking about selling baby parts." It's a distinction that matters here because the law clearly exempts "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." The 11 states investigating PP are: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Ohio, and Louisiana. Do you think any of those states would not indict if they had evidence that PP accepted "valuable consideration" in exchange for fetal tissue? In other words, if those videos "clearly show that PP was talking about" exchanging "any fetal tissue for valuable consideration" wouldn't PP be indicted by one of those 11 states? Now, you may disagree, but I would tend to side with the 8/11 states that investigated and were motivated to find something illegal.
You are right it IS illegal and that is exactly what they were doing. How in the world that they indicted those that went undercover to find the truth is unbelievable. Let me rephrase - they were selling fetal tissue - it is clear on the videos is that is what they were doing. From what I understand the indictments were for 'buying' fetal tissue. How in the world can a video be shown where one party is selling and the other buying but only the buyer is indicted. Someone needs to investigate the Houston grand jury.
Hyde Amendment is about federal funding for abortions, not about late term abortions. Don't see the support for "at any time, for any reason" language in that video, let alone a discussion of late term abortions. The bolded is a quote from Marjorie Dannenfelser characterizing her view of Clinton's abortion position. And she overstates the position, at least according to the information provided in the article.
Clinton would not ban late term abortions because they are gotten for medical necessity. So does that mean she supports abortion on demand, for any reason, at any time? This gets there a bit, but not completely.
Since no one was able to provide those quotes saying something like "any time, for any reason," I did some sleuthing. "There can be restrictions in the very end of the third trimester, but they have to take into account the life and health of the mother." So there you are. As of 9/28/15, Clinton is for late term abortions without restriction between the start of the last trimester (or 20th week, if you define late term as some states do) and "the very end of the third trimester," and for restrictions at "the very end of the third trimester" if "the life and health of the mother" are taken into account. Right from the horse's mouth. In 2000, apparently her position was "I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected." Similar, but not quite (although hard to tell w/out detail).
The reason I wanted these quotes that I was promised were out there is because the media (and posters) often misrepresent someone's position. For instance, if a senator opposes a ban on late term abortions that does not include exceptions (life of the mother, rape/incest), can we then say they are pro late term abortions in the way that is bandied about on here? Or are they against late term abortions, but only if there are exceptions? People agree that Gary Johnson is against late term abortions, but he supports such exceptions. So it's not always easy to do what Marjorie Dannenfelser did and take one thing and make it into another. At least not honestly.
So yes, it was a serious question.
This from Life News on the grand jury indictment --
a Texas grand jury has ignored the videos exposing a Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion clinic caught selling aborted baby body parts and has instead indicted the man behind producing the expose’ videos.
The Texas grand jury indicted David Daleiden and another pro-life activist behind the videos. Instead of prosecuting Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts, Daleiden was indicted for buying them. If convicted, Daleiden faces 20 years in prison while Planned Parenthood officials face no legal consequences for their actions.
In a statement to LifeNews, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood has been unable to deny or refute the evidence he and his team collected in the videos that show the abortion company potentially breaking multiple state and federal laws selling aborted baby parts for profit.
“The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws,” he said.
This from Life News on the grand jury indictment --
a Texas grand jury has ignored the videos exposing a Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion clinic caught selling aborted baby body parts and has instead indicted the man behind producing the expose’ videos.
The Texas grand jury indicted David Daleiden and another pro-life activist behind the videos. Instead of prosecuting Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts, Daleiden was indicted for buying them. If convicted, Daleiden faces 20 years in prison while Planned Parenthood officials face no legal consequences for their actions.
In a statement to LifeNews, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood has been unable to deny or refute the evidence he and his team collected in the videos that show the abortion company potentially breaking multiple state and federal laws selling aborted baby parts for profit.
“The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws,” he said.
The indictments were for 1) tampering with a government record, and 2) the purchase or sale of human organs. The buyer can be the only party indicted where it was an attempt and the alleged seller was not actually offering to sell. Think of attempting to buy drugs from an undercover federal agent.
anytime I want facts, I go to LifeNews
In my view, PP should have been indicted to selling human organs. It was quite obvious if you saw the videos. Unfortunately, a lot of people did not want to face the truth about what PP is all about - they get their money from abortions and selling human organs. A lot of their money comes from us the taxpayers. There are many clinics, etc. that provide mammograms, birth control so their contention that they do a service for women is entirely bogus. Shut down the PP clinics and there will be plenty of places for women to get the services they need.
I mean there were several attempts in the news last year to put a post 20 week ban in. And each time the WH and HRC said it showed the GOP as anti-woman. There is a reason we are only one of 7 countries that allow.
They have already proven that you godbots made shit up. There's more proof that they didn't sell baby parts than there is proof of the bible.
Literally, fabricating something that did not happen. wow, a special kinda stupid with you.
Sure wish jesus would come back and take all you christians up to heaven and leave this earth for the sane people.
I am sure if it were left up to people like you, there would be no more Christians on earth. Well, maybe one day, when all the Christians have gone to Heaven, you and the other non-Christians will be left to endure the wrath of God. I am glad I will not be around to see that. God Bless You and may you accept Christ before it is too late.
This was her response to the House passing the bill last May, via the Hill:
"Politicians should not interfere with personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman, her family and her faith, in consultation with her doctor or health care provider," Clinton's senior policy adviser Maya Harris said in a statement.
.....
“This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which has protected a woman's constitutional right to privacy for over forty years," Harris said. "The bill puts women's health and rights at risk, undermines the role doctors play in health care decisions, burdens survivors of sexual assault, and is not based on sound science."
"Politicians should not interfere with personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman, her family and her faith, in consultation with her doctor or health care provider," Clinton's senior policy adviser Maya Harris said in a statement.
.....
“This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which has protected a woman's constitutional right to privacy for over forty years," Harris said. "The bill puts women's health and rights at risk, undermines the role doctors play in health care decisions, burdens survivors of sexual assault, and is not based on sound science."
You're a goddamn sinner for bearing false witness on people
"Selling body parts" although the EVIDENCE PROVES they didn't.
jesus christ face palm
I guess the evidence was cooked up by evil Satanists. Those same evil Satanists who planted dinosaur bones in the ground..
They were selling 'fetal tissue' - does that sound better for you. Aren't you glad that your Mom didn't abort you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spewing your contempt for the actions of people telling the truth about PP
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Most overrated programs based on preseason and final polls
- Latest: truebluewildcat