Rand Paul slams media on abortion: Ask Democrats if it’s okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the womb
posted at 4:01 pm on April 8, 2015 by Allahpundit
I have no idea how an answer like this plays among the electorate generally — maybe it’ll be seen as evasive — but among righties on Twitter, who are high-fiving over it as I write this, it’s spun gold. Via Dave Weigel, skip to 8:00 of the clip below for the question and answer. The AP tried to corner Paul on abortion this afternoon by asking him to state definitively which exceptions to a ban he’d support. (In their defense, although firmly pro-life, he has been strategically cagey about his intentions on this subject if elected president.) Paul danced around the AP’s questions; the DNC then dutifully sent the story around to the media, hoping they’d take the baton and keep asking him about it. Sure enough, at his presser in New Hampshire this afternoon, a local reporter asked him about exceptions to abortions bans. Paul was ready for them this time. Watch the clip and see.
And this is no idle tu quoque. The great majority of Americans oppose late-term abortion; the vast majority, maybe a unanimous majority at this point, of Democratic leaders support it without restriction. They are, without exaggeration, absolute fanatics on this subject. And proudly so.
DNC Chairwoman @DWStweets says there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Is the party united on this? pic.twitter.com/g2ZVQfRR3h
— Chris Moody (@moody) April 8, 2015
Obama feels no differently. Neither does Nancy Pelosi, who’s gone as far as to use the word “sacred” when discussing her feelings on this topic. Paul’s response should be a stock answer for any GOP candidate who gets a question on a third-rail social issue going forward: We’ll weigh in just as soon as Hillary Clinton does. Want to know what Marco Rubio thinks about abortion exceptions? No problem — just as soon as Hillary tells us when life begins. Want to hear Ted Cruz’s take on gay marriage? He’d be happy to provide it — just as soon as Hillary answers a simple question about how many genders she thinks there are. The wedge question should cut both ways this campaign, whether the media likes it or not.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Conservatives should keep talking about poverty – and not stop
Video: TSA will refuse drivers licenses from 5 states starting in 2018
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
So, Tlaloc, tell me – do democrats want 100% abortion access or don’t they?
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Reagan could go over their heads as president, and speak directly to the people. Rand Paul is not yet the president. Only then will he be able to do that. Look, he has no choice, either contest their various narratives or be defined by them.
cimbri on April 8, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Do democrats demand 100% full access to abortion during all trimesters of abortion?
Please answer the question. Now.
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Do democrats demand 100% full access to abortion during all trimesters of a pregnancy?
Even the last trimester? I really want to know.
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 9:50 PM
If Gosnell killed viable babies in the last trimester, and democrats demand, in lock-step, that abortion be available to women in the last trimester, it stands to reason that democrats think the Gosnell guilty verdict should be over-turned.
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Bmore on April 8, 2015 at 9:58 PM
Where are the tough questions to democrats about Kermit Gosnell?
If the DNC want abortion on demand, no matter what, no matter when, even in the last trimester, then they must think Gosnell is innocent.
Right? Will someone with any intellectual curiosity in the media ask a precious and protected democrat that question?
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 10:00 PM
I don’t know how to ask this question so it make sense but I’m going to give it a try. People talk about the need of an abortion to save the life of the mother. In a late term abortion, I assume the delivery is going to be the same. So how is a dead baby better for the mother’s health? If we’re talking mental health why is dead a better option than adoption?
Cindy Munford on April 8, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Democrats lie all the time. They use fake stats to trump up their crap logic. That is why they are obsessed with the “rape and incest” angle.
It’s a giant red herring.
Kermit Gosnell performed late term abortions. The DNC agrees 100% with late term abortion. Why?
Why won’t the pro-democrat hack press ask democrats in power why they support late term abortion?
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Nothing wrong at all with that question. Mothers dying in childbirth is ancient history since the advent of c-sections and modern medicine.
When I hear that alibi, I look at the person using it as ignorant or disingenuous. Sure mothers still die in childbirth but only in primitive areas without access to doctors like remote villages in Africa, South America or Asia but not in these United States. That said there are rare, extremely rare medical conditions where simply carrying a child could kill the mother but the occurances are so few in any given year.
Abortions have pretty much always been about convenience .
AH_C on April 8, 2015 at 10:32 PM
What do Kermit Gosnell and Debbie Wasserman Schultz(D) have in common?
They both agree with late term abortion.
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 10:33 PM
BACK-Snapping!!
…..he Broke The BACK of The Media -Right In FRONT of THEM!!!
….he Bddroke De BECK!!
williamg on April 8, 2015 at 10:48 PM
I’ve been asking that question for years. I posted this comment elsewhere earlier this evening.
She supports aborting full-term babies on a whim, and has the nerve to call us extremists, because we find that more than a tad ghoulish.
And spare me the “life of the mother” argument.
When my wife was pregnant with not even seven pounds of twins inside her, she became very ill, and was told the only way to prevent her from drowning in her bed as her lungs were filling with fluid was to end the pregnancy by scheduling an emergency c-section. At no point did anyone ask her “Now, Mrs. MacMahon, we’re taking your babies out today. Would you like them dead or alive? It’s your choice.”
And who waits 8.999 months before deciding to abort her rapist’s child?
Wasserman-Schultz is an insult to intelligent women the world over.
Bruce MacMahon on April 8, 2015 at 10:50 PM
Untrue. It only ensured that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT never sponsored a particular denomination. At the time, it was perfectly legal and common for states to sponsor a particular denomination of Christianity. The letter upon which the un-Constitutional separation of church and state is based, reassures a denomination that the Federal government would not pick a primary denomination. It made no mention of state Christianity denominations.
dominigan on April 8, 2015 at 10:59 PM
I know what you mean, I had pre-eclampsia at the end of my first pregnancy and the only cure is delivery of the child but I never even considered that the child wouldn’t be alive.
Cindy Munford on April 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Um no, Reagan went over the heads of the MSM when he was running. He never would have been elected if he was not able to do that. Rand could actually stop flip flopping on the issues and then be able to answer questions with conviction and not fake outrage. Rand’s problem is that he lacks integrity. That is something that no handler or political consultant can instill.
fight like a girl on April 8, 2015 at 11:05 PM
You’re clearly an idiot who has been contra-educated by the modern secularism of public “education” (indoctrination).
The Declaration of Independence is the founding philosophical premise for the Constitution. And all law is based in philosophical principles. As such the DoI establishes the legal first principles of “rights” – they are unalienable to man, equal among man, and superior to man above all other species. And only a Creator Whose image is reflected in man can satisfy that complete definition. Period. No exceptions.
Without the DoI there is no such thing as “rights” at all. There are only privileges meted out by superiors.
Augustinian on April 8, 2015 at 11:06 PM
My 2nd daughter was born 2 1/2 months premature and weighed 2 lbs 1 1/4 oz. You could hold her in one hand. She was in the NICU for about 2 months, and came home the night before Thanksgiving. She is now married and raising our first grandchild who turns 4 later this fall.
When monsters like Tlaloc throw around infantcide (and I use that word correctly since location… womb or world… does not change the fact of killing a human infant), I consider it a personal attack on my family.
Tlaloc is a horrible person that I am glad that I do not know in real life. What kind of cursed evil twisted soul finds glee in killing babies? When I think of him gloating over killing my child, my blood runs cold.
dominigan on April 8, 2015 at 11:11 PM
If a baby is viable outside the womb, there is never a reason to kill the baby for the health of the mother. I have known several women who had to deliver babies months before their due dates and the babies survived because of care in a NICU. The smallest was 2 pounds. Even the liberal AMA came out against late term abortions and said there was never a medical reason to kill the baby.
fight like a girl on April 8, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Still waiting for some answers from the holier than thou pro- late term abortion left.
According to the pro-democrat hack media and the official DNC platform — America is just a sea of women who would be dying unless they abort their babies… A horizon-less ocean of rape and incest.
AprilApple on April 8, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Then what the firetruck is wrong with DWS and why do they get away with that thinking?
Cindy Munford on April 8, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Cindy Munford on April 8, 2015 at 11:18 PM
She’s a Democrat.
ORconservative on April 8, 2015 at 11:28 PM
And Reagan wrote a book about his regret for being swayed by progressives wanting to feed Ba’al and calling it choice.
And King David killed a man in order to bed his wife. Does that make the Psalms invalid? Yes, politics and machinations are the art of the self serving possible.
AH_C on April 8, 2015 at 11:37 PM
Petard:
Hoist:
Wikipedia is such the cruel mistress…/
Want to try that whole “thousands of definitions” and “ahistorical” thing again?
Pattosensei on April 8, 2015 at 11:38 PM
While there are some conditions which may require immediate delivery (preeclampsia, etc.) I know of only one medical reason to kill a child in the womb: an ectopic pregnancy (commonly called a “tubal pregnancy”) where the fertilized egg implants not in the womb but in the Fallopian tube. Obviously, as the child begins to develop and grow there, a time will come when the growing child will burst the tube. The child will die and the mother could die. I have a sister who encountered this and she almost bled to death.
If and when we have the ability to “relocate” this child to its proper place in the womb, then I can think of no reason that would require killing the child.
And, yes, I consider this a human life from the moment of conception. If such a cell were “discovered on Mars”, there would be headlines of “human life discovered on Mars!”. The cell is life and the DNA is human.
(Preview seems to not work)
IrishEyes on April 8, 2015 at 11:52 PM
This is the answer I’ve been waiting for for a long time. Just once, I’d like to hear a reporter say to a pro-choice politician or Supreme Court nominee, “…but you won’t allow your personal views to affect how you govern/adjudicate, right?”
Meanwhile, most pro-life candidates get grilled and, instead of fighting back, simper away with “Could we talk about taxes or the ‘war on Christmas’ or something?”
Score one for Rand.
bmmg39 on April 8, 2015 at 11:53 PM
Score one hundred for Rand.
Kenosha Kid on April 9, 2015 at 12:36 AM
What Tialoc didn’t understand (and no surprise) is that I put it in quotes to differentiate it from the Declaration, if I wanted to quote the Declaration, I would have…I was using the generic “creator”, because the constitution, as you point out, was written by men who believed in a “creator”…
When he begin losing an argument, he resorts to lies and distortions…that’s all he has.
Long ago, it was settled, we were conceived by Christian men, as a Christian nation, but unlike all other nations, we are the most accepting of all faiths, of all nationalities…we are unique in that sense, and it has made us stronger.
But make no doubt, the strength of that comes from the true Christian faith that all men are worthy, until they prove otherwise, and that our creator guides us.
right2bright on April 9, 2015 at 12:36 AM
Trust me, he is living out his fantasy here…he would never spout out his beliefs in public, he is as ashamed of them as you are.
This is how he “expresses” himself, probably a very lonely person with few friends…here he can have people respond to him, even if it is to shame him, he does not recognize that. The fact that he acts out and gets attention is enough.
No one is a foolish as he is, no one is as, well, as stupid, as he is. This is his way of getting attention.
Over the many years of posting here, his type come along often, we usually have 3 or 4 that do the same. One, years ago, I just had happened to find out who he was by his “hints” of what he did, and I live in a neighboring city. He dropped the name of his business…
He was exactly what I stated he was, very meek, very quiet, and a relatively nice guy…but on line, totally the opposite, and had opposite views of what he showed in his personal life.
So I don’t take people like Tialoc serious, please don’t either, they are not well people, and this is their “outlet”, and in a strange way their social family. They just don’t know how to conform, so they get attention by being contrary.
right2bright on April 9, 2015 at 12:47 AM
What I have enjoyed reading is the other commentators dissing Rand for being so “rude”, as if they are some special group that should be treated with tenderness.
Rand gave it back and they are whining like a bunch of cry babies…keep it up and the people will tire of the whining press not being able to manipulate the debate…
right2bright on April 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Rand just went up about a dozen notches for me.
LawfulGood on April 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Term limits and abortion…hmmmm…I’m very glad he’s bringing up these issues. I just hope he’s not doing it as a calculated move to get support from Conservatives.
Now if he can come up with definite plans for destroying Obamacare, securing the border, fixing our fiscal and economic problems, reducing the Washington bureaucracy, doing away with the IRS and the 16th amendment, I might actually vote for him.
So, I guess I’m staying home after all. LOL
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2015 at 1:25 AM
Tlaloc
Progressives believe in abortion at any stage of development for reasons of rape, incest, mental health and economics.
You’re clearly the result of an incestuous rape; a clear danger to the mental health of humanity and I for one do not want to support you economicaly. So when can we abort you?
Actually that’s not fair. Infants don’t get asked, so why should we ask you. We’ll just let it be a surprise.
Deadeye on April 9, 2015 at 1:53 AM
I suggest ignoring the demon worshiper. It’s demon will eat it’s face one day and drag it’s soul to hell where it belongs.
Assuming a demon worshiper like lielock has a soul.
Meh, it’s not even worth wondering about. Trollcott the creature.
Andy__B on April 9, 2015 at 2:21 AM
They won’t. Not this cycle. Rand sensed that. They’re baby-killing freaks.
John the Libertarian on April 9, 2015 at 2:39 AM
Agreed. But sometimes it’s just fun to beat them about the head and shoulders with rhetorical wit and send them scurrying back to their parent’s basement.
Deadeye on April 9, 2015 at 3:48 AM
1) Re: health of the woman:
(Pause there if you need to re-read the bolded part because you didn’t believe it the first time.)
About 12% of all abortions. Because, like, y’know, morning sickness or whatever.
2) Re: rape/incest
Maybe 1.5% of all abortions.
—-
Ready for the really fun part?
About 1% of all abortions in the U.S. are the result of rape/incest, so we must protect all abortions.
About 1% of all firearms in the U.S. are involved in violent crime (it’s far, far fewer in reality, but just go with it), so we must restrict all firearms.
Compare and contrast.
rogerb on April 9, 2015 at 6:13 AM
Don’t miss this:
It’s pretty safe to call that the thread winner.
rogerb on April 9, 2015 at 6:16 AM
Finally. This “new breed” of Republican candidate is not afraid of the old MSM. They know information is not controlled by the media anymore. They also know they won’t “win over” those who listen to MSNBC or anything like that.
So why bother?
Fight them. They are a mile wide, but an inch thick, and frankly in my experience not that smart or quick on their feet.
Rand should follow his instincts and keep at them. They’ll quit asking the questions.
archer52 on April 9, 2015 at 6:17 AM
I am actually in the “do not care much about gay marriages” camp, but Tlaloc – since we are in fact talking about AMERICAN law, the only definitions of marriage which matter even slightly are American ones, perhaps English ones if you want to bring up ‘common law’. So answer the definition question with that stipulation. Also if you t to go with alternate definitions justifying things, then you are re justifying quite a few things you don’t want. Foreign law is completely, totally and in all and every single way and ways irrelevant to American law.. Or should be, although I know you desperately want to be able to impose international laws on Americans without their consent.
Arssanguinus on April 9, 2015 at 7:38 AM
Agreed. Great meme buster.
John the Libertarian on April 9, 2015 at 8:18 AM
Says the liar who demands that we change the definition of marriage.
njrob on April 9, 2015 at 8:21 AM
A+ to you both. But I think history also shows us that, when such smug, intellectually and morally deficient “people” gain even the slightest power – or any momentum in that direction – at that point no one can ignore them, and they’ll force you into a defensive exterminator mode – if only to maintain your beliefs, let alone ability to survive at all.
RL on April 9, 2015 at 8:41 AM
Late term abortion is when a baby is partially birthed, and then killed by severing the spinal cord.
Pelosi thinks this is “scared”.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is all for it. Obama, too.
AprilApple on April 9, 2015 at 8:45 AM
Curiously, the media never ask democrats why they are FOR late term abortion.
AprilApple on April 9, 2015 at 8:53 AM
Here’s the correct way to ask the question:
“Why wouldn’t you just try to save both lives?”
And then watch them squirm.
fossten on April 9, 2015 at 8:55 AM
Great analogy. I’m going to use that.
fossten on April 9, 2015 at 8:56 AM
It’s almost comical to listen to democrats & their pro-democrat press lap-dogs coordinate their tired red herring – but but but “rape and incest”!
AprilApple on April 9, 2015 at 9:05 AM
Hate to quibble, but it would have been more effective if he had noted how extreme their position is. Something like, “…and when she says she DOES support that, ask how she and the Democrats can have such an extreme position considering the vast majority of Americans don’t support that.”
It’s beyond absurd that it’s taken this long for a GOPer to respond properly to those questions. They ALL need to take this baton and run with it, while also reminding the media and America how extreme the OTHER side is on this.
changer1701 on April 9, 2015 at 9:12 AM
Some of are bandwidth limited. An 8 minute video without any written summary (or a transcript, even better) means we click out without getting the story.
Demonized on April 9, 2015 at 9:16 AM
Charger1701.
Exactly. The GOP needs to turn this around once and for all.
The GOP lets the pro-democrat press hound them – over and over- every election cycle.
AprilApple on April 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM
MONEY! Abortion is a multibillion dollar business and the abortion industry gives heavily to democrats. In turn, the democrats, give hundreds of millions back to abortionists and keep their doors open.
fight like a girl on April 9, 2015 at 9:21 AM
So according to leftists, killing a baby with a partial birth method is OK, just don’t pull the whole baby out. Right? Only then will the collective left define as infanticide.
Got it.
AprilApple on April 9, 2015 at 9:23 AM
I believe the situation here in the US regarding abortion and our ability to slowly change hearts and minds is exactly analogous to hostages being held by terrorists.
Morally, every baby, every hostage deserves to live- one is not more important that the other.
BUT… if the terrorists or abortion proponents agree to let most of the hostages go (or make most abortions illegal) saving back only the products of rape or incest, I think it would be an acceptable step.
Heartbreaking still, but better to save some hostages, some babies who would otherwise die today.
In reality, when pro-aborts are asked “Okay, if we agree to let women who were raped have abortions, can we make all the others illegal?” they will change the subject.
But as law, I think it would be a moral step, a Schindler’s List for the unborn.
Dolce Far Niente on April 9, 2015 at 9:24 AM
Rape and incest are so rare, it’s a red herring. I say fine- give the left their “rape and incest” exclusion. whatever. It’s not really an issue.
In return I want a ban on partial birth abortion and abortion after 20 weeks.
Many European nations have these same common sense 20 week restrictions.
The left will never acquiesce to any restrictions because they are in bed with the abortion industry. DNC demand zero restrictions and full access to abortion up to the final trimester. Why? they are nazis.
Progressives think partial birth abortion is fine and dandy, even though a majority of Americans find it abhorrent.
AprilApple on April 9, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Barack Obama:On when Life Begins/Above His Pay Grade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0n81xCL9ic
Jason58 on April 9, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Not only this, but they want taxpayers to fund it.
Midas on April 9, 2015 at 10:08 AM
Aww yisssss!
Democrats should be scaredscaredscared if this is how Republican candidates are handling wedge issues. Without the media wedges, Democrats can’t win.
Well done, Rand.
ramesees on April 9, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Why not? The left has done that to the word “marriage”.
Nineball on April 9, 2015 at 12:08 PM
You completely ignoring the direct question I posed to you certainly doesn’t reflect well on your confidence in being able to argue your side honestly.
DarkCurrent on April 9, 2015 at 12:38 PM
The language changed there, Tlaloc. I see how you think it’s no big deal to “scrape it out” but then when describing the “work” of Gosnell those called “it” become babies that deserve respect. So which is it? Scrape it out or respect the babies bodies? You can’t do both.
cmc on April 9, 2015 at 1:11 PM
.
Saw this last night, and it’s dead-nuts right-on.
.
On the other hand … (Devils advocate ALERT) . . . . . the same cell, or group of cells (or blob? or unviable tissue mass?) found on Mars, wouldn’t be causing an inconvenience to some hedonistic, partying hardy girl, down here on planet earth.
listens2glenn on April 9, 2015 at 1:19 PM
Do a Google search and you will not find a single instance of Wassertmann-Shultz condemning Kermit Gosnell.
AtTheRubicon on April 9, 2015 at 1:31 PM
It’s about time that a Republican actually acted like he had a set and put the media in their place! This has been the problem for the past 20 years. Standing up for yourself and your beliefs is never a wrong thing and not letting the Democrats define you is the only way that the GOP will ever win anything. Oh,I forgot, they don’t want to win! They want to be the proverbial loser nice guys taking the high road and getting their asses handed to them and when they lose, wanting the media to like them.
Get a clue GOP, the media will never like you, you can only make them fear you!
flytier on April 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM
This would never be accepted by the left. If Im not mistaken, I remember such a law proposed, that would have banned some abortions with the exception of “rape or incest”, but it was denounced by the left because it dared ask the woman for proof that rape conceived the child (like a police report).
AverageJoe on April 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM
This is the art of reason that the Republicans have failed to master. There are two sides to every story. Unfortunately for the RINOs, they like getting kneecapped. They have no clue on how to take the offense when bushwhacked by the Corrupt Lib Media which they know full well it’s coming. Rand should hold classes for his party.
RdLake on April 9, 2015 at 6:31 PM
FWIW, the last number I ran came out at about 0.003%, and that was just dividing the number of firearm homicides by the number of firearms owned in the US. I was being very generous in not accounting for the same gun being used multiple times (e.g. guns passed around among gangs), or any firearms that might be “off the grid” (e.g. black market).
So yeah, your analogy gives them way more credit than they deserve.
This is correct, and why it is pointless to get into debates about so-called “extreme” positions on this issue. They will never give away on-demand abortions to secure the rape/incest exception, so there’s no point in arguing it. They will never give away abortion procedures to secure abortifacient use, so there’s no point in arguing about life at conception. Most importantly, they will never give away late-term elective abortions to secure the ones that come before “viability”, so there’s no point even in arguing about viability.
It is all or nothing, and the only way to move forward is to demonstrate that all of these arguments proceed from a false premise.
The Schaef on April 10, 2015 at 10:01 AM
I know some that are ok with killing the baby after they are born. Like Obama is ok with that.
cptacek on April 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Although entertaining, this question will go nowhere.
The offended democrat bastards will ignore it, and their dictaphones in the press will talk about something else.
JackM on April 10, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Photoshop du Jour
Debrat
justltl on April 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM
It’s a fact that life begins at some point. It’s also a fact the filthy liberals allow a bunch of disgusting open-legged welfare sperm collectors, decide when it’s most convienent for said life to commense.
JackM on April 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM
By rape or incest, you’re still killing an innocent bystander.
JackM on April 10, 2015 at 11:53 AM
The one good thing about abortion, it has eliminated a lot of democrats.
JackM on April 10, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Why is the “health of the mother” even an issue?
Isn’t a good mother willing to die for her children?
Yes, yes, Abortion = Bad Mother
JackM on April 10, 2015 at 12:01 PM
.
It would be an issue … IF :
1) – it appeared that the mother would die before the baby could survive outside the womb.
2) – there were other children involved who would be orphaned in the absence of the mother.
.
This kind of decision must be left to the individual woman, her family (if she has one), and the doctor involved.
.
But I emphasize … ONLY in the event of a mother whose life is genuinely threatened.
listens2glenn on April 10, 2015 at 4:04 PM
.
That’s exactly correct.
.
.
* rim-shot *
listens2glenn on April 10, 2015 at 4:06 PM
Domestically, this guy is terrific. But when an existential threat such as Iran with a nuclear bomb and an ICBM to deliver it, I have to hear that he is going to end this threat. Period. If not, he has lost my vote.
MDLibertyLover on April 10, 2015 at 5:08 PM
There is NEVER a situation where a late term abortion is medically safer for a mother than a vaginal delivery or C-section. NEVER. EVER.
And I would defy anyone anywhere to prove that statement to be wrong.
justltl on April 10, 2015 at 6:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3