Posted on 07/20/2018 5:25:39 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The YouTube video … shows Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) making the following statement about the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade:
My daughters — twenty-something — I talk[ed] to them about Roe v. Wade, and they said, “We understand.” I said, You understand? Do you understand what it means if its overturned? [They said], “That’s bad for women.” I said, Where do women get the right to choose? Where do women get the right to have an abortion if they believe they need it? My daughters, relatively informed, relatively close to government — one of them said, “Oh, it must be in the Constitution.” [I said], “It’s not in the Constitution. And it’s not in the Bible, and it’s not by Divine decree — it was a court decision in Roe v. Wade, 1973. They roll back Roe v. Wade, that means a woman loses her right to choose. It’s not a game. It’s not theoretical. It’s not academic. That’s what they intend to do and that’s the consequence.In some form or another, this is the argument Democrats will be using to oppose the confirmation of President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It’s the argument they will use in the fall to oppose every candidate who professes to be pro-life and has the record to prove it. They will use it to drive Democrat voters to the polls, including many black Americans who think they have to vote the Democrat Party live. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
No. They have no interest in the process.
“Way to install Catholic moral beliefs in your daughters, eh Cuomo? You do know abortion is a grave, sin, right? For a Catholic “in good standing”, you are not passing on the faith.”
And I bet all of them show up for church, drop a wad in the collection plate and their priest smiles and nods! The Catholic Church never really got out of the business of “selling indulgences,” but now it includes murdering the unborn, and their priests diddling choirboys until they get caught.
I am not defending this because I believe an abortion decision should be made by both the man and woman due to the fact both contribute DNA to the child, except in special circumstances. If in the case where the woman wants the abortion and the man doesn’t the abortion should not happen but the man should have complete responsibility up to and beyond the birth of the child. The mother should be required to sign away parental rights. And vice versa. If in the case of rape (without consent or an adult lays with a minor), and a male commits the raping, the man should have no decision in these matters.
There is a clause in the Constitution in which the Founding Fathers saw that new rights may be formed but not at the time when the US Constitution was written stating that any right not written in the Constitution comes under the auspices of the State. This begs the question of whether or not the Founding Father’s would believe abortion rights are rights under Federal mandate or State mandate since the right is not explicitly written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. While most on the left say this is Federal, they do not appear explicitly written in the original nor an amendment has been ratified. to make it so. Abortion Rights, since they do not appear in the Constitution explicitly, belong solely within the mandate of the States. There are other rights people believe are fundamental but have not become part of the Constitution also belong within the mandate of the States to either create or deny.
There is no such thing as a *right* to murder.
Give the little peckerhead a gold star on his forehead!
No; that has nothing to do with “new rights” but already extant rights over which the federal government had no jurisdiction, and it refers to political powers. In addition, the Tenth Amendment heavily indicated that powers reserved to “the people” were never to be abrogated by any of the several states.
There is a clause in the Constitution in which the Founding Fathers saw that new rights may be formed but not at the time when the US Constitution was written stating that any right not written in the Constitution comes under the auspices of the State
I believe an abortion decision should be made by both the man and woman due to the fact both contribute DNA to the child, except in special circumstances.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree except I think the child should have a say as well. I mean, the baby has far more at stake than either “adult,” wouldn’t you agree?
That must have cost five years of his life.
Imagine, a truth!!!
Amazing.
One could hope the daughters followed the teachings of the Church on chastity and didn’t have sex outside of marriage.
Failing that, that they were bright enough and careful not to get pregnant when they don’t want to be.
Failing that, the family definitely has resources to care for them and an unplanned child.
Reminds me of Clinton saying women needed abortion because Chelsea wanted to build space stations. Engineers know about back-up systems and failsafes, but Chelsea, God love her, is no engineer, and neither are most people.
It has never been easier to cope with an unplanned pregnancy than it is now, and it has never been easier to avoid one. So why do we need abortion so much?
Hence my joke,
“How many people does it take to put on a condom before screwing?”
Maybe he doesn’t want to be a grandfather?
Cuomo understands two things—force and fraud.
He know Roe v Wade was a total fraud—and as for killing fetuses—he loves it, the more the better. :-(
Around politics all of their lives, and Cuomo’s 20-something year old daughter thinks the right to an abortion is actually in the Constitutuion?
Our education system completely sucks
Yet, Cuomo misses the stark legal and Constitutional point, that his daughters believed IT IS in the Constitution, which they are right to believe, because that is where restrictive rights against the government have been put.
And he admits it is not there, but accepts the legal error of judges naming on their own “rights” that we the people have not placed in the Constitution.
In reality, women in the U.S. have NEVER had “the right” to abortion, they have had no more than a legal permission granted by some judges who if still serving should be impeached, for usurping authority not given them - writing their own constitution.
Or maybe he sees abortion being for the “undesirables,” and not for the likes of his family.
You go ahead and keep thinking that. I guess you also believe in asking permission from a child who needs their diaper changed too, eh?
Parents can choose to murder their unborn child in your utopia as long as both parents agree? And you see a parallel with diaper changing. Wow. That is just pure evil.
You call abortion utopia? You know where you may descend into the fiery dark depths of and may every single day be filled with the greatest pains you have ever known.
Whether you like it or not abortion is not going to go away in the near future, doesn’t mean we have to like it. So we must have the courage to do what we can, step by step.
Denying the rights of the father for an unborn child is wrong no matter whose body it is, should the matter be a consensual one. Right now that should be where the fight should be: with the denial rights of the father. There are things that can be changed and then there are things that need gradual changing. Giving father rights to the unborn child (note I did not say fetus) will stop a good many abortions. Or you so blinded that you can’t see the forest through the trees. Half of this country sees this as settled law but it’s not and never will be. However, Rome didn’t burn in a day and neither will laws on granting abortions. Its a marathon rather than a sprint that must be played. The LGBT movement is something we need to pay attention to and learn from rather than just decry it as a damnation from hell, as it was a slow-moving movement that once gained traction began rolling ever so faster. Abortion, while most have never been through it, on either side, is a political pawn. Some of us would have been fathers who wanted our child, but only to be denied due to an abortion are silenced on this matter and our voices need to be heard. So you go straight to the opposite end and I will answer your question. Should two people consider dutifully that the abortion is the right thing to do and as the law stands now, then yes they can say have the abortion? However, abortion should never be the answer in except extreme cases.
You fail to see this isn’t about the abortion, it’s about denying the rights of one individual and to most, like you, will only see this as it being about the abortion. It’s not. It’s about the rights of the father before the child is born, but after the child is born the father is 100% accountable. And therein lies the rub thanks to the feminist movement of the seventies fathers all across America have had their rights suppressed n lieu of a woman’s body argument. However, she freely gave access to her body at the time of conception. So again this argument is not about the outcome it is, in its simplest terms, about the rights that should be exercised by both parties to determine a lawful outcome. Abortion be damned.
You clearly have no idea what I wrote and would like to see me condemned to hell because of your lack of comprehension. I place the child’s right to live over the convenience of either parent. If you think the right of the father to stop an abortion has political legs (which appears to fundamentally be your point), pursue that path. I see nothing in our political climate that encourages a law that gives a man control over abortion.
I want babies to live and not be killed. Giving the father a vote in the abortion decision supports the assumption that such killing is acceptable. It isn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.