Do Liberals support third trimester abortions?

[Ravi]

They won't.

Were you aware that the bulk of abortions occurr for non-dire reasons?

That is debatable...but not third trimester abortions.

 

[manifold]

I guess we can put Ravi down as supporting a woman's right to legally terminate the life of a fetus that's been gestating for say, 8 1/2 months, simply because it's not likely to happen very often.

That's some rock solid rationalizing right there.

 

[xotoxi]

I do not support third trimester abortions.

If it takes you more than 6 months to decide that you don't want to give birth, then you deserve the pain of labor.

 

[Bern80]

They won't.

Were you aware that the bulk of abortions occurr for non-dire reasons?

That is debatable...but not third trimester abortions.

No it is probably not debatable.....

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

 

[JBeukema]

Why Women Have Abortions


Abortion as birth control is fact:

47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).

It's largely to avoid responsibility and get back to partying:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does that mean it's a crazy question because the answer is obviously yes or obviously no?

No, it means you are obsessed with other people's opinions.

Just asking a question.

Feel free not to answer it if you're ashamed of your opinion.

My opinion is that the Roe v. Wade decision was brilliant, but probably not strictly defensible from a strict interpretation of the constitution.

But, surprise, surprise, I believe that a strict interpretation of the constitution would have given a woman the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy, not just the first trimester,

because nothing in the Constitution gives the unborn civil rights. You have to invent constitutional rights for the unborn in order to give them constitutional protection.

 

[Ravi]

Were you aware that the bulk of abortions occurr for non-dire reasons?

That is debatable...but not third trimester abortions.

No it is probably not debatable.....

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

The reason I said it is debatable is because the word dire is so subjective. Not being able to afford another child without making the ones you already have might not seem dire to you but it may seem dire to another.

 

[Ravi]

I guess we can put Ravi down as supporting a woman's right to legally terminate the life of a fetus that's been gestating for say, 8 1/2 months, simply because it's not likely to happen very often.

That's some rock solid rationalizing right there.

Makes sense to me. But then again, I was also against the Patriot Act.

 

[Bern80]

No, it means you are obsessed with other people's opinions.

Just asking a question.

Feel free not to answer it if you're ashamed of your opinion.

My opinion is that the Roe v. Wade decision was brilliant, but probably not strictly defensible from a strict interpretation of the constitution.

But, surprise, surprise, I believe that a strict interpretation of the constitution would have given a woman the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy, not just the first trimester,

because nothing in the Constitution gives the unborn civil rights. You have to invent constitutional rights for the unborn in order to give them constitutional protection.

No, you simply have to categorize the unborn as something other than a human being, which the constitution does not define one way or the other.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just curious. For the extremos, any restrictions on a woman's right to choose are anti liberal.

It's my impression that not all liberals hold the same opinions, unlike RW fringers who seem to lack any ability to think for themselves.
Frankly, it's easy to be a RW fringer, they simply need to listen to Rush Limbaugh or one of his sychophants (McConnell, Boehner, or anyone in their respective caucus'); no thinking necessary.
I suppose trolling with abortion is the number way to get attention, wedge issues all come with talking points and are a sure tool for the divisive.

 

[Bern80]

That is debatable...but not third trimester abortions.

No it is probably not debatable.....

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

The reason I said it is debatable is because the word dire is so subjective. Not being able to afford another child without making the ones you already have might not seem dire to you but it may seem dire to another.

I accept that. The point would be that the bulk of these pregnancies were the result of irresponsible behavior.

 

[Bern80]

Just curious. For the extremos, any restrictions on a woman's right to choose are anti liberal.

It's my impression that not all liberals hold the same opinions, unlike RW fringers who seem to lack any ability to think for themselves.
Frankly, it's easy to be a RW fringer, they simply need to listen to Rush Limbaugh or one of his sychophants (McConnell, Boehner, or anyone in their respective caucus'); no thinking necessary.
I suppose trolling with abortion is the number way to get attention, wedge issues all come with talking points and are a sure tool for the divisive.

It is also just as easy to presume/require positions of others for the convenience of your argument.

 

[Ravi]

Just curious. For the extremos, any restrictions on a woman's right to choose are anti liberal.

It's my impression that not all liberals hold the same opinions, unlike RW fringers who seem to lack any ability to think for themselves.
Frankly, it's easy to be a RW fringer, they simply need to listen to Rush Limbaugh or one of his sychophants (McConnell, Boehner, or anyone in their respective caucus'); no thinking necessary.
I suppose trolling with abortion is the number way to get attention, wedge issues all come with talking points and are a sure tool for the divisive.

Yep.

 

[Ravi]

No it is probably not debatable.....

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

The reason I said it is debatable is because the word dire is so subjective. Not being able to afford another child without making the ones you already have might not seem dire to you but it may seem dire to another.

I accept that. The point would be that the bulk of these pregnancies were the result of irresponsible behavior.

Or failed birth control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just curious. For the extremos, any restrictions on a woman's right to choose are anti liberal.

It's my impression that not all liberals hold the same opinions, unlike RW fringers who seem to lack any ability to think for themselves.
Frankly, it's easy to be a RW fringer, they simply need to listen to Rush Limbaugh or one of his sychophants (McConnell, Boehner, or anyone in their respective caucus'); no thinking necessary.
I suppose trolling with abortion is the number way to get attention, wedge issues all come with talking points and are a sure tool for the divisive.

It is also just as easy to presume/require positions of others for the convenience of your argument.

I did not offer an argument, I posted an opinion.

 

[Bern80]

It's my impression that not all liberals hold the same opinions, unlike RW fringers who seem to lack any ability to think for themselves.
Frankly, it's easy to be a RW fringer, they simply need to listen to Rush Limbaugh or one of his sychophants (McConnell, Boehner, or anyone in their respective caucus'); no thinking necessary.
I suppose trolling with abortion is the number way to get attention, wedge issues all come with talking points and are a sure tool for the divisive.

It is also just as easy to presume/require positions of others for the convenience of your argument.

I did not offer an argument, I posted an opinion.

Then you need to go back to english class because above you are making a statement as to what the characteristics of the right are, not what you think they are.

 

[Bern80]

The reason I said it is debatable is because the word dire is so subjective. Not being able to afford another child without making the ones you already have might not seem dire to you but it may seem dire to another.

I accept that. The point would be that the bulk of these pregnancies were the result of irresponsible behavior.

Or failed birth control.

Yes a whopping a 5% ( I think I'm being generous there).

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is also just as easy to presume/require positions of others for the convenience of your argument.

I did not offer an argument, I posted an opinion.

Then you need to go back to english class because above you are making a statement as to what the characteristics of the right are, not what you think they are.

My English is fine, and my opinion is based on evidence - the idiotgrams posted by RWers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just asking a question.

Feel free not to answer it if you're ashamed of your opinion.

My opinion is that the Roe v. Wade decision was brilliant, but probably not strictly defensible from a strict interpretation of the constitution.

But, surprise, surprise, I believe that a strict interpretation of the constitution would have given a woman the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy, not just the first trimester,

because nothing in the Constitution gives the unborn civil rights. You have to invent constitutional rights for the unborn in order to give them constitutional protection.

No, you simply have to categorize the unborn as something other than a human being, which the constitution does not define one way or the other.

The constitution gives no rights to the unborn, but it does give rights to the born, so logically when real rights of the born conflict with imaginary rights of the unborn, it isn't hard to see what side the constitution falls on.

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade took away a woman's rights after the first trimester.

 

[manifold]

I guess we can put Ravi down as supporting a woman's right to legally terminate the life of a fetus that's been gestating for say, 8 1/2 months, simply because it's not likely to happen very often.

That's some rock solid rationalizing right there.

Makes sense to me. But then again, I was also against the Patriot Act.

Non-sequitur fail.


PS: I was and still am against the Patriot Act. What changed your mind?