Wendy Davis: Liberal Hero, Abortion Hero (but I repeat myself), Liar

[8manpick]

Well I mean being a zealot isn't good, but I appreciate her standing up for her beliefs on abortion

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Handicapped candidates cause all sorts of problems for political campaigns...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-texas-davis-20140121,0,4838257.story

Davis's response to the outcry over her fudged biography:

We’re not surprised by Greg Abbott’s campaign attacks on the personal story of my life as a single mother who worked hard to get ahead. But they won’t work, because my story is the story of millions of Texas women who know the strength it takes when you’re young, alone and a mother. I’ve always been open about my life not because my story is unique, but because it isn’t.

The truth is that at age 19, I was a teenage mother living alone with my daughter in a trailer and struggling to keep us afloat on my way to a divorce. And I knew then that I was going to have to work my way up and out of that life if I was going to give my daughter a better life and a better future and that’s what I’ve done. I am proud of where I came from and I am proud of what I’ve been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. And I guarantee you that anyone who tries to say otherwise hasn’t walked a day in my shoes.

I bet Abbott would love to walk a day in Davis's shoes.

[michigancat]

LMAO, K-S-U trying to tug at our heartstrings.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

She's a total loser and user. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

The wheelchair is the only reason Abbott has gotten to where he is, though. If he doesn't go for a run under a decaying oak tree and that tree doesn't fall on him, he doesn't get to sue the landowner for $10 million, and he likely never gets into politics.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The wheelchair is the only reason Abbott has gotten to where he is, though. If he doesn't go for a run under a decaying oak tree and that tree doesn't fall on him, he doesn't get to sue the landowner for $10 million, and he likely never gets into politics.

Wow, a tree fell on him? That sucks. Davis should really roll a mile in Abbott's chair before accusing him of calling her fake bio into question.

I just thought her choice of words (let's be honest, some campaign flack's choice of words) was kinda funny. Reminds me of a certain Joe Biden moment.  

[Dugout DickStone]

Hard working guy, suing wealthy landowners for acts of god.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

This one's for you, Wendy Davis: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/22/statement-president-roe-v-wade-anniversary

Statement by the President on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  [We'll recommit ourselves to it, but we won't actually use the word "abortion" anywhere in this statement, 'cause, you know, the less we have to actually think about what "reproductive freedom" actually entails, the better.] And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. [Except for the 55 million or so that have been aborted since RvW.] Because this is a country where everyone [except unborn babies, even the viable ones] deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

[Emo EMAW]

I bet the insurance paid the $10M, not the rich landowner.

[star seed 7]

i figured out what ksu fucktard is confused about.  he thinks unborn babies are people, and they aren't.  maybe he won't be so confused anymore.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

i figured out what ksu fucktard is confused about.  he thinks unborn babies are people, and they aren't.  maybe he won't be so confused anymore.

So a perfectly viable baby is not a "person" entitled to protections until it clears the birth canal? Seems like an awfully arbitrary line without a logical basis that would lead to monstrous results (think Gosnell).

Perhaps a better line would be to confer personhood when one is capable of rational thought. You still wouldn't qualify.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Unborn fetuses are without a doubt living human organisms, and I view abortion as highly immoral. However, as fetuses are not yet members of society, I don't view abortion as a threat to society. I am firmly against the government legislating morality, so I lean toward abortion being legal. Who am I to judge? Abortion is definitely one of the issues that I can actually somewhat sympathize with the hard line, borderline extremists of the right wing, though.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Unborn fetuses are without a doubt living human organisms, and I view abortion as highly immoral. However, as fetuses are not yet members of society, I don't view abortion as a threat to society. I am firmly against the government legislating morality, so I lean toward abortion being legal. Who am I to judge? Abortion is definitely one of the issues that I can actually somewhat sympathize with the hard line, borderline extremists of the right wing, though.

So it's not a threat to society, just to the unborn (or partially born) babies. I'm a little confused about your "society" argument though. Again, seems arbitrary to say that you don't join society until youre out of the birth canal, and I'm not sure how being a part of "society" really matters.

Murder affects those who are murdered. Abortion affects those who are aborted. Of course both murder and abortion have indirect victims too, so I'm still not seeing your "society" distinction.

As for the "who am I to judge" position, when viable babies are killed in the womb or after being partially delivered feet first (sever the spine, burn the skin away with a saline solution, inject the heart - take your pick), I judge. I'm perfectly comfortable judging that to be an abomination.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Unborn fetuses are without a doubt living human organisms, and I view abortion as highly immoral. However, as fetuses are not yet members of society, I don't view abortion as a threat to society. I am firmly against the government legislating morality, so I lean toward abortion being legal. Who am I to judge? Abortion is definitely one of the issues that I can actually somewhat sympathize with the hard line, borderline extremists of the right wing, though.

So it's not a threat to society, just to the unborn (or partially born) babies. I'm a little confused about your "society" argument though. Again, seems arbitrary to say that you don't join society until youre out of the birth canal, and I'm not sure how being a part of "society" really matters.

Murder affects those who are murdered. Abortion affects those who are aborted. Of course both murder and abortion have indirect victims too, so I'm still not seeing your "society" distinction.

As for the "who am I to judge" position, when viable babies are killed in the womb or after being partially delivered feet first (sever the spine, burn the skin away with a saline solution, inject the heart - take your pick), I judge. I'm perfectly comfortable judging that to be an abomination.

As I said, I definitely view it to be wrong. I just don't believe in setting up laws and sentences with the goal of punishing people who I believe to be immoral. I believe in jailing those who have proven themselves to be threats to society, and I just don't think people who get abortions qualify.

[star seed 7]

Unborn fetuses are without a doubt living human organisms, and I view abortion as highly immoral. However, as fetuses are not yet members of society, I don't view abortion as a threat to society. I am firmly against the government legislating morality, so I lean toward abortion being legal. Who am I to judge? Abortion is definitely one of the issues that I can actually somewhat sympathize with the hard line, borderline extremists of the right wing, though.

So it's not a threat to society, just to the unborn (or partially born) babies. I'm a little confused about your "society" argument though. Again, seems arbitrary to say that you don't join society until youre out of the birth canal, and I'm not sure how being a part of "society" really matters.

Murder affects those who are murdered. Abortion affects those who are aborted. Of course both murder and abortion have indirect victims too, so I'm still not seeing your "society" distinction.

As for the "who am I to judge" position, when viable babies are killed in the womb or after being partially delivered feet first (sever the spine, burn the skin away with a saline solution, inject the heart - take your pick), I judge. I'm perfectly comfortable judging that to be an abomination.

they aren't people.  and generally an abortion is for the best.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Unborn fetuses are without a doubt living human organisms, and I view abortion as highly immoral. However, as fetuses are not yet members of society, I don't view abortion as a threat to society. I am firmly against the government legislating morality, so I lean toward abortion being legal. Who am I to judge? Abortion is definitely one of the issues that I can actually somewhat sympathize with the hard line, borderline extremists of the right wing, though.

So it's not a threat to society, just to the unborn (or partially born) babies. I'm a little confused about your "society" argument though. Again, seems arbitrary to say that you don't join society until youre out of the birth canal, and I'm not sure how being a part of "society" really matters.

Murder affects those who are murdered. Abortion affects those who are aborted. Of course both murder and abortion have indirect victims too, so I'm still not seeing your "society" distinction.

As for the "who am I to judge" position, when viable babies are killed in the womb or after being partially delivered feet first (sever the spine, burn the skin away with a saline solution, inject the heart - take your pick), I judge. I'm perfectly comfortable judging that to be an abomination.

they aren't people.  and generally an abortion is for the best.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

[Institutional Control]

Who knew so many people cared about Texas politics?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[ChiComCat]

I don't get how Repubs want people to have the baby but do not want to provide social services for it.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I don't get how Repubs want people to have the baby but do not want to provide social services for it.

That has always been the parent's responsibility. Not sure when it changed to government responsibility 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't get how Repubs want people to have the baby but do not want to provide social services for it.

That has always been the parent's responsibility. Not sure when it changed to government responsibility 

But I can see ChiCat's point. Because Republicans don't want to expand entitlements any more than they already are to take care of people kids, they're hypocrites for wanting to restrict the ability to kill them. Damned hypocrites.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Unborn fetuses are without a doubt living human organisms, and I view abortion as highly immoral. However, as fetuses are not yet members of society, I don't view abortion as a threat to society. I am firmly against the government legislating morality, so I lean toward abortion being legal. Who am I to judge? Abortion is definitely one of the issues that I can actually somewhat sympathize with the hard line, borderline extremists of the right wing, though.

So it's not a threat to society, just to the unborn (or partially born) babies. I'm a little confused about your "society" argument though. Again, seems arbitrary to say that you don't join society until youre out of the birth canal, and I'm not sure how being a part of "society" really matters.

Murder affects those who are murdered. Abortion affects those who are aborted. Of course both murder and abortion have indirect victims too, so I'm still not seeing your "society" distinction.

As for the "who am I to judge" position, when viable babies are killed in the womb or after being partially delivered feet first (sever the spine, burn the skin away with a saline solution, inject the heart - take your pick), I judge. I'm perfectly comfortable judging that to be an abomination.

they aren't people.  and generally an abortion is for the best.

Serious question: At what point in the pregnancy do you believe they become people?

[star seed 7]

When you are born. Obviously there are situations that might not follow that, but it's a good general rule.

How about you?

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

Serious question: At what point in the pregnancy do you believe they become people?

7 months

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

When you are born. Obviously there are situations that might not follow that, but it's a good general rule.

How about you?

well, I would say when they start to show brain activity which is at about 3 months. I also think that's long enough to make a decision whether to keep it or not.

What would be your time limit on abortion?

[star seed 7]

That's a tough question. My heart and head are at odds.

7ish months seems like a decent compromise