Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
None of the stories in the op ed in the first post of this thread were linked or cited.
Google is your friend.
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Why the obfuscation? I asked if YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights (and why), obviously a question you wish to avoid. So much for intellectual honesty...
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Why the obfuscation? I asked if YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights (and why), obviously a question you wish to avoid. So much for intellectual honesty...
You did not merely ask a Yes/No question. You asked a Why question so I took the trouble to give you a comprehensive answer.
That you cannot comprehend the answer is not my problem.
Furthermore that you felt it necessary to lie about my answer exposes that you lack honesty and integrity.
None of the stories in the op ed in the first post of this thread were linked or cited.
Google is your friend.
I'm not the one using them for political purposes, the op is, she used the stories and the op ed without any further information on any of the cases. I'm guessing there is a reason for that.
Again, your opinion. Is a fetus alive. I'll expect a one word answer; either yes, or no. Beyond that, you are expressing an opinion.A miscarriage is not an abortion any more than being struck by lightning is murder.
An abortion in the first or second trimester isn't murder either.
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Why the obfuscation? I asked if YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights (and why), obviously a question you wish to avoid. So much for intellectual honesty...
You did not merely ask a Yes/No question. You asked a Why question so I took the trouble to give you a comprehensive answer.
That you cannot comprehend the answer is not my problem.
Furthermore that you felt it necessary to lie about my answer exposes that you lack honesty and integrity.
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights?
That's not a 'Yes/No' question?
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state.
Again, your opinion. Is a fetus alive. I'll expect a one word answer; either yes, or no. Beyond that, you are expressing an opinion.A miscarriage is not an abortion any more than being struck by lightning is murder.
An abortion in the first or second trimester isn't murder either.
We have a certain segment of our population who wants to meddle in and control the lives of others. Basic rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution, have no meaning to them.
We have a certain segment of our population who wants to meddle in and control the lives of others. Basic rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution, have no meaning to them.
Women are now being put in jail for having miscarriages. Women are now being forced to have medical procedures that they don't want. One woman died because of it. We even saw a dead woman hooked up to machines to incubate a mostly dead fetus. She was 14 weeks pregnant when she was found not breathing.
We will see more of this happening in America.
I'm so glad I don't live in one of those states. If I did, I would find some way to move to a state like mine where this sort of thing can't happen. I've told my daughter that it's not safe for her to go to those states with these laws. I've told her that she will not only lose her birth control but be made a criminal for trying to save her life if her pregnancy goes wrong.
Unless you are hallucinating, please provide an example of a woman being put in jail for having a miscarriage.
I feel sorry for your daughter. Hopefully, therapy will help her cope with having a psychotic parent.
You didn't read the article. It listed several women who were arrested and put in jail for miscarriages. One was woman was locked up for over a year.
You acknowledge that you have nothing to justify such actions taken against pregnant women. The fact that you had to personally attack me and call me names proves you don't have any logical or humane excuses for what's happening to women.
Since you didn't read the article I'll post some of the cases of women being arrested and put in jail for having a miscarriage. One was arrested for having a still birth of a twin.
In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for “attempted fetal homicide.”
In Utah, a woman gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. Health care providers believed that the stillbirth was the result of the woman’s decision to delay having a cesarean. She was arrested on charges of fetal homicide.
In Louisiana, a woman who went to the hospital for unexplained vaginal bleeding was locked up for over a year on charges of second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Florida has had a number of such cases. In one, a woman was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a cesarean. Neither the detention nor the surgery prevented the pregnancy loss, but they did keep this mother from caring for her two small children at home. While a state court later found the detention unlawful, the opinion suggested that if the hospital had taken her prisoner later in her pregnancy, its actions might have been permissible.
In another case, a woman who had been in labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, strapped down in the back of an ambulance, taken to a hospital, and forced to have a cesarean she did not want. When this mother later protested what had happened, a court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights? Why or why not?
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Why the obfuscation? I asked if YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights (and why), obviously a question you wish to avoid. So much for intellectual honesty...
You did not merely ask a Yes/No question. You asked a Why question so I took the trouble to give you a comprehensive answer.
That you cannot comprehend the answer is not my problem.
Furthermore that you felt it necessary to lie about my answer exposes that you lack honesty and integrity.
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights?
That's not a 'Yes/No' question?
Which part of this 'Yes' answer do you need to have explained to you?
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state.
Do you want me to have health insurance? Is that not meddling and controlling the lives of others?
The state has an interest in having a healthy population of workers. The alternative was to implement universal healthcare however the extreme right obstructed that proposal so the Heritage Foundation proposal was implemented instead. That was a rightwing plan that included tax penalties for those who didn't have healthcare.
Workers must be born before being "healthy" producers.
Obamacare is reducing the incidence of abortions.
National Abortion Rate Sees Huge Drop As More Women Are Using Birth Control ThinkProgress
Between 2008 and 2011, the national abortion rate declined by 13 percent, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute that will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health journal. That puts 2011′s abortion rate at 16.9 abortions per every 1,000 women of reproductive age, the lowest rate recorded since Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973.
“The decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates,” Rachel Jones, the lead author of Guttmacher’s study, explained in a statement accompanying the new report. “Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective, long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD. Moreover, the recent recession led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing.”
While RWs support abortion by shopping Wal Mart and Hobby Lobby.
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Third trimester fetus is achieving viability in that it can survive outside the uterus. The odds of survival improve as the trimester progresses. The mortality rate for newborns at 26 weeks is significantly lower than for those in the 2nd trimester.
Chances for Survival
This was recognized by the RvW decision and that is why they gave the States the rights to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. However not all 3rd trimester fetus's will successfully make it to full term and some can actually threaten the life of the woman concerned which is why there must always be a heath exception to any regulations.
There are very few 3rd trimester abortions in spite of the hyperbolic vitriol spewed by the anti-rights groups. Those that do occur are almost always for women who actually wanted to have a child and most of them do go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy. The disinformation in this matter is legion.
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience".
Why the obfuscation? I asked if YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights (and why), obviously a question you wish to avoid. So much for intellectual honesty...
You did not merely ask a Yes/No question. You asked a Why question so I took the trouble to give you a comprehensive answer.
That you cannot comprehend the answer is not my problem.
Furthermore that you felt it necessary to lie about my answer exposes that you lack honesty and integrity.
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights?
That's not a 'Yes/No' question?
Which part of this 'Yes' answer do you need to have explained to you?
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state.
But you're obfuscating again my dear, tsk tsk...
The entire comment was as follows:
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience"
That is a true statement, the first sentence, however it says nothing of what your belief on the subject is, I don't see your agreement with that statement. The second may be true for most, but not for all, of course you did qualify it with 'reputable', so I'll give you that.
I love how you libs think you've given an answer with a non answer, must go back to Clinton and the word 'it', you think that somehow contorting the English language buys you something.
however it says nothing of what your belief on the subject is
This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.
This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.
WITH the success of Republicans in the midterm elections and the passage of Tennessee’s anti-abortion amendment, we can expect ongoing efforts to ban abortion and advance the “personhood” rights of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses.
But it is not just those who support abortion rights who have reason to worry. Anti-abortion measures pose a risk to all pregnant women, including those who want to be pregnant.
Such laws are increasingly being used as the basis for arresting women who have no intention of ending a pregnancy and for preventing women from making their own decisions about how they will give birth.
How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.
In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for “attempted fetal homicide.”
In Utah, a woman gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. Health care providers believed that the stillbirth was the result of the woman’s decision to delay having a cesarean. She was arrested on charges of fetal homicide.
In Louisiana, a woman who went to the hospital for unexplained vaginal bleeding was locked up for over a year on charges of second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Florida has had a number of such cases. In one, a woman was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a cesarean. Neither the detention nor the surgery prevented the pregnancy loss, but they did keep this mother from caring for her two small children at home. While a state court later found the detention unlawful, the opinion suggested that if the hospital had taken her prisoner later in her pregnancy, its actions might have been permissible.
In another case, a woman who had been in labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, strapped down in the back of an ambulance, taken to a hospital, and forced to have a cesarean she did not want. When this mother later protested what had happened, a court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”
Anti-abortion reasoning has also provided the justification for arresting pregnant women who experience depression and have attempted suicide. A 22-year-old in South Carolina who was eight months pregnant attempted suicide by jumping out a window. She survived despite suffering severe injuries. Because she lost the pregnancy, she was arrested and jailed for the crime of homicide by child abuse.
These are not isolated or rare cases. Last year, we published a peer-reviewed study documenting 413 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty during the 32 years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. In a majority of these cases, women who had no intention of ending a pregnancy went to term and gave birth to a healthy baby. This includes the many cases where the pregnant woman was alleged to have used some amount of alcohol or a criminalized drug.
Since 2005, we have identified an additional 380 cases, with more arrests occurring every week. This significant increase coincides with what theGuttmacher Institute describes as a “seismic shift” in the number of states with laws hostile to abortion rights.
The principle at the heart of contemporary efforts to end legal abortion is that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses are persons or at least have separate rights that must be protected by the state. In each of the cases we identified, this same rationale provided the justification for the deprivation of pregnant women’s physical liberty, as well as of the right to medical decision making, medical privacy, bodily integrity and, in one case, the woman’s right to life.
Many of the pregnant women subjected to this mistreatment are themselves profoundly opposed to abortion. Yet it was precisely the legal arguments for recriminalizing abortion that were used to strip them of their rights to dignity and liberty in the context of labor and delivery. These cases, individually and collectively, highlight what is so often missed when the focus is on attacking or defending abortion, namely that all pregnant women are at risk of losing a wide range of fundamental rights that are at the core of constitutional personhood in the United States.
If we want to end these unjust and inhumane arrests and forced interventions on pregnant women, we need to stop focusing only on the abortion issue and start working to protect the personhood of pregnant women.
We should be able to work across the spectrum of opinion about abortion to unite in the defense of one basic principle: that at no point in her pregnancy should a woman lose her civil and human rights.
Lynn M. Paltrow is a lawyer and the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, where Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, is the president of the board of directors.
Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com
Those are just three I gleaned from the OP's idiotic post.
You really want to defend this cretin?
I have no intention of defending your "cretinous gleanings" from the OP.
That you take things out of context and disingenuously misrepresent them means that you have disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread. Have a nice day.
She gave hers up when she got pregnant. See how that works?
Not according to the Constitution.
Yes, we understand that you don't know how the Constitution works.
Why the obfuscation? I asked if YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights (and why), obviously a question you wish to avoid. So much for intellectual honesty...
You did not merely ask a Yes/No question. You asked a Why question so I took the trouble to give you a comprehensive answer.
That you cannot comprehend the answer is not my problem.
Furthermore that you felt it necessary to lie about my answer exposes that you lack honesty and integrity.
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights?
That's not a 'Yes/No' question?
Which part of this 'Yes' answer do you need to have explained to you?
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state.
But you're obfuscating again my dear, tsk tsk...
The entire comment was as follows:
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience"
That is a true statement, the first sentence, however it says nothing of what your belief on the subject is, I don't see your agreement with that statement. The second may be true for most, but not for all, of course you did qualify it with 'reputable', so I'll give you that.
I love how you libs think you've given an answer with a non answer, must go back to Clinton and the word 'it', you think that somehow contorting the English language buys you something.
however it says nothing of what your belief on the subject is
I am not obfuscating at all. What you are looking for is not something that I ascribe to.
You have a "belief" about fetal rights.
I uphold the Law of the Land ergo no "belief" is required of me.
The law stipulates that States have the right to regulate 3rd trimester abortions in such a way as to provide rights to a 3rd trimester fetus.
I don't have a "belief" that gays have a right to marry because the Law of the Land stipulates that everyone is Equal under the Law.
I don't have a "belief" that I have a right to own a firearm because the Law of the Land provides that right in the 2nd Amendment.
So no, quoting the Law of the Land is not obfuscating. What is obfuscating is trying to impose your religious "beliefs" onto the Law of the Land by denying the rights to abortions and gay marriage.
My position is clear because it is based upon the Law.
Your obfuscation is unclear because it is based upon your religious "beliefs".
She gave hers up when she got pregnant. See how that works?
Not according to the Constitution.
Yes, we understand that you don't know how the Constitution works.
Actually according to unelected lawyers, the constitution is mute on abortion, paternity, and procreation in general.
What is being loudly broadcast though, is your sexism.
Those are just three I gleaned from the OP's idiotic post.
You really want to defend this cretin?
I have no intention of defending your "cretinous gleanings" from the OP.
That you take things out of context and disingenuously misrepresent them means that you have disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread. Have a nice day.
Lol, otherwise known as you have no real retort to what I said, and have to do the smarmy dismissal thing your progs hold dear.
School's over bitch, you are welcome.
She gave hers up when she got pregnant. See how that works?
Not according to the Constitution.
Yes, we understand that you don't know how the Constitution works.
Actually according to unelected lawyers, the constitution is mute on abortion, paternity, and procreation in general.
What is being loudly broadcast though, is your sexism.
Those are just three I gleaned from the OP's idiotic post.
You really want to defend this cretin?
I have no intention of defending your "cretinous gleanings" from the OP.
That you take things out of context and disingenuously misrepresent them means that you have disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread. Have a nice day.
Lol, otherwise known as you have no real retort to what I said, and have to do the smarmy dismissal thing your progs hold dear.
School's over bitch, you are welcome.
Your puerile response become ever more superficial and mindless.
You did not merely ask a Yes/No question. You asked a Why question so I took the trouble to give you a comprehensive answer.
That you cannot comprehend the answer is not my problem.
Furthermore that you felt it necessary to lie about my answer exposes that you lack honesty and integrity.
Do you oppose 3rd trimester "unborns" having rights?
That's not a 'Yes/No' question?
Which part of this 'Yes' answer do you need to have explained to you?
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state.
But you're obfuscating again my dear, tsk tsk...
The entire comment was as follows:
So yes, a third trimester (AKA the "unborn") do have rights administered by the state. There is no reputable doctor who will risk his medical license just to provide a 3rd trimester abortion as a matter of "convenience"
That is a true statement, the first sentence, however it says nothing of what your belief on the subject is, I don't see your agreement with that statement. The second may be true for most, but not for all, of course you did qualify it with 'reputable', so I'll give you that.
I love how you libs think you've given an answer with a non answer, must go back to Clinton and the word 'it', you think that somehow contorting the English language buys you something.
however it says nothing of what your belief on the subject is
I am not obfuscating at all. What you are looking for is not something that I ascribe to.
You have a "belief" about fetal rights.
I uphold the Law of the Land ergo no "belief" is required of me.
The law stipulates that States have the right to regulate 3rd trimester abortions in such a way as to provide rights to a 3rd trimester fetus.
I don't have a "belief" that gays have a right to marry because the Law of the Land stipulates that everyone is Equal under the Law.
I don't have a "belief" that I have a right to own a firearm because the Law of the Land provides that right in the 2nd Amendment.
So no, quoting the Law of the Land is not obfuscating. What is obfuscating is trying to impose your religious "beliefs" onto the Law of the Land by denying the rights to abortions and gay marriage.
My position is clear because it is based upon the Law.
Your obfuscation is unclear because it is based upon your religious "beliefs".
Then why try to blow smoke up someone's ass, and simply state that you don't care to state what your personal belief is. What's the point of simply restating what everyone already knows as fact, i.e. law? It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Is your position against murder what it is simply because it is based upon the law? You would be okay with it if it were legal, i.e. you have no moral judgment because you have no religion? Is that how you should be viewed?
I'm against abortion because it is horrific and immoral, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. Take your 'religious beliefs' dogma and shove them up your ass, you have no idea why I would or wouldn't support something.
