Only 12 percent of all abortions are for the health of the Mother

[daveman]

88 percent are because of inconvenience or at the convenience of the mother.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed exercise that right.

Just as you are not required to 'justify' purchasing or owning a firearm to anyone as a condition to indeed exercise that Constitutional right.

In NYC, you are. You have to provide a valid reason when you apply for concealed carry.

 

[daveman]

88 percent are because of inconvenience or at the convenience of the mother.

Per this site, it's even more.

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

 

[R.C. Christian]

Whores should keep their legs close.

 

[rdean]

When you look at the states where abortion is provided:

and compare that to "out of state" abortions:

You suddenly realize how many women in Red States are having abortions.

Seems birth control would be cheaper and lot easier. Besides, isn't "Viagra" kind of expensive and right wingers have no problem paying for that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It doesn't matter how many and it doesn't matter why.

Its no one's business but the woman's.

The radical right has become nothing ore than Peeping Toms who don't have sex themselves, don't support their own kids and want bigger and bigger government, more and more laws but ONLY to control the lives of women and others they fear and hate.

The damn freaks need to MYOB.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Whores should keep their legs close.

You remember that when you're old enough and you're paying for your sex.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

When you look at the states where abortion is provided:

and compare that to "out of state" abortions:

You suddenly realize how many women in Red States are having abortions.

Seems birth control would be cheaper and lot easier. Besides, isn't "Viagra" kind of expensive and right wingers have no problem paying for that.

Oh noes!!

FACTS!

They have no use for facts. They'd rather blame it all on "whores".

Like Rick and Karen Santorum.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I'm too damn good looking to ever have to pay for sex you freak!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Roe vs Wade established I have a Constitutional right to privacy, how exactly is it legal for the US Government to spy on my computer use? My phone use?

 

[NYcarbineer]

88 percent are because of inconvenience or at the convenience of the mother.

So what?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Roe vs Wade established I have a Constitutional right to privacy, how exactly is it legal for the US Government to spy on my computer use? My phone use?

Because there’s no expectation of privacy when you willingly provide information to a private third party, such as a wireless company or ISP. See: United States v. Miller (1976), Smith v. Maryland (1979).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Roe vs Wade established I have a Constitutional right to privacy, how exactly is it legal for the US Government to spy on my computer use? My phone use?

Because there’s no expectation of privacy when you willingly provide information to a private third party, such as a wireless company or ISP. See: United States v. Miller (1976), Smith v. Maryland (1979).

So if you willingly have sex with a third party how does that equate to a right to privacy? It takes 2 people to make a pregnancy. Yet only the mother has the power of life and death, only the mother has the power to compel the father to 18 years of child support.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Roe vs Wade established I have a Constitutional right to privacy, how exactly is it legal for the US Government to spy on my computer use? My phone use?

Because there’s no expectation of privacy when you willingly provide information to a private third party, such as a wireless company or ISP. See: United States v. Miller (1976), Smith v. Maryland (1979).

So if you willingly have sex with a third party how does that equate to a right to privacy? It takes 2 people to make a pregnancy. Yet only the mother has the power of life and death, only the mother has the power to compel the father to 18 years of child support.

Because:

Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

And:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the State is free to violate my privacy but not a pregnant woman's I get it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So the State is free to violate my privacy but not a pregnant woman's I get it.

No, clearly you don’t get it.

Again, there’s no expectation of privacy when you willingly provide information to a private third party.

A woman does have an expectation of privacy concerning her bodily integrity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the State is free to violate my privacy but not a pregnant woman's I get it.

No, clearly you don’t get it.

Again, there’s no expectation of privacy when you willingly provide information to a private third party.

A woman does have an expectation of privacy concerning her bodily integrity.

Right, It takes her ALLOWING a third party to CREATE the fetus but it is only her concern at ending the life of the fetus. I get it. You are an idiot. Just like how you support the State outlawing firearms while claiming to oppose it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So the State is free to violate my privacy but not a pregnant woman's I get it.

No, clearly you don’t get it.

Again, there’s no expectation of privacy when you willingly provide information to a private third party.

A woman does have an expectation of privacy concerning her bodily integrity.

Right, It takes her ALLOWING a third party to CREATE the fetus but it is only her concern at ending the life of the fetus. I get it. You are an idiot. Just like how you support the State outlawing firearms while claiming to oppose it.

You engage in a personal attack against me because you don’t like the Constitutional case law concerning privacy rights and I’m the ‘idiot’?

That’s idiotic.

 

[Listening]

88 percent are because of inconvenience or at the convenience of the mother.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed exercise that right.

Just as you are not required to 'justify' purchasing or owning a firearm to anyone as a condition to indeed exercise that Constitutional right.

Constitutional right.....

Now, that's rich.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

88 percent are because of inconvenience or at the convenience of the mother.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed exercise that right.

Just as you are not required to 'justify' purchasing or owning a firearm to anyone as a condition to indeed exercise that Constitutional right.

Constitutional right.....

Now, that's rich.

The right to own a firearm is indeed a Constitutional right, no matter how much you may disagree…

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed exercise that right.

Just as you are not required to 'justify' purchasing or owning a firearm to anyone as a condition to indeed exercise that Constitutional right.

Constitutional right.....

Now, that's rich.

The right to own a firearm is indeed a Constitutional right, no matter how much you may disagree…

And yet you support New York using registration to illegally seize firearms. You support confiscation, registration and State laws that ban firearms illegally.