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.
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 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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
Irony: A marxist democrat who is a proponent of sucking the brains out of babies with a vacuum claiming the moral high ground.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.
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.
The question was whether YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights, not whether they "have rights administered by the state." Your answer should be one of the following:
A. Yes, I oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights; OR
B. No, I don't oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights.
If you are able to articulate YOUR reason(s) for choosing A or B, that would be welcome (but I am not holding my breath).
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
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.
Just keep replying with senselessness. It does you soooo welll.
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.
The question was whether YOU oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights, not whether they "have rights administered by the state." Your answer should be one of the following:
A. Yes, I oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights; OR
B. No, I don't oppose 3rd semester "unborns" having rights.
If you are able to articulate YOUR reason(s) for choosing A or B, that would be welcome (but I am not holding my breath).
Which part of this 'Yes' answer do you need to have explained to you?
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
Vulgarities? lol
Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.
So you admit that you have no morals?
Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.
And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?
You're seriously fucked up.
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
Vulgarities? lol
Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.
So you admit that you have no morals?
Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.
And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?
You're seriously fucked up.
Ironic!
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
Vulgarities? lol
Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.
So you admit that you have no morals?
Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.
And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?
You're seriously fucked up.
Ironic!
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.
Just keep replying with senselessness. It does you soooo welll.
Irony: A marxist democrat who is a proponent of sucking the brains out of babies with a vacuum claiming the moral high ground.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.
Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.
Which part of this 'Yes' answer do you need to have explained to you?
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
Vulgarities? lol
Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.
So you admit that you have no morals?
Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.
And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?
You're seriously fucked up.
Ironic!
Perhaps a person who thinks an adult American citizen's rights don't end just because she's female....and pregnant.Yeah... odd when defending the lives of babies is considered evil. What kind of person does it take to come to the conclusion that a baby's life is not worth saving.You are one evil POS. You just can't wait to kill babies can you.
what kind of POS would say THAT ^ to conscientious women concerned about this EVIL political trend...?
I don't see how that decision covers what to do when a mother has a DNR. Are we to believe DNR means women have declared DNR even if pregnant, even if the baby is in the third trimester? How about killing a 2year old child if her mother has a DNR? Why only kill the babies in the womb? Why don't the libs just go from home to home killing all first born, you know you want to.In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS
Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
The secular Constitution provides freedom FROM religion.
It is freedom OF religion. And, you have every right to not have a religion, but not to remove our right of.Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
The secular Constitution provides freedom FROM religion.
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.
So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.
What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.
Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.
Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".
Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.
Vulgarities? lol
Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.
So you admit that you have no morals?
Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.
And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?
You're seriously fucked up.
Ironic!
In other words, you have no rebuttal. I didn't think so. lol
You're against abortions? You had me fooled.Irony: A marxist democrat who is a proponent of sucking the brains out of babies with a vacuum claiming the moral high ground.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.
BZZZT Wrong on all counts!
