More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

[drjekyllus]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

Whats this? The country is supposed to be moving to the left and abandoning Republican issues. At least thats what the media would have you believe. How do we explain this little anomaly? It must be bad data.

Bad data. Bad, bad data. Behave yourself.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from drjekyllus:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

Whats this? The country is supposed to be moving to the left and abandoning Republican issues. At least thats what the media would have you believe. How do we explain this little anomaly? It must be bad data.

Bad data. Bad, bad data. Behave yourself.

Recently there was a poll that americans are less religious than ever.

So it is either americans don't know what they want or the poll you gave is wrong.

Pro life crap goes hand in hand with "life begins at conception" .

 

[Mercor]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Recently there was a poll that americans are less religious than ever.

So it is either americans don't know what they want or the poll you gave is wrong.

Pro life crap goes hand in hand with "life begins at conception" .

You're over estimating the connection between religon and protecting the rights of the pre-born.

Most of this issue falls in the secular world. At what point is a human givin its right to Due Process.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from Mercor:

You're over estimating the connection between religon and protecting the rights of the pre-born.

Most of this issue falls in the secular world. At what point is a human givin its right to Due Process.

Bullshit. Plain and simple. The most ardent supporters of pro life have always been religious freaks.

A collection of cells is not a human. Roe v Wade is perfection.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Bullshit. Plain and simple. The most ardent supporters of pro life have always been religious freaks.

A collection of cells is not a human. Roe v Wade is perfection.

There is your collection of cells. It does not resemble anything to me. They are completely random. Absolutely no rights can be afforded to this collection of cells, can they?

 

[drjekyllus]

If you think Roe vs. Wade was perfect you have a serious problem. There is no way in hell that this should be legal.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from drjekyllus:

If you think Roe vs. Wade was perfect you have a serious problem. There is no way in hell that this should be legal.

You don't seem to be knowledgeable about anything. Roe v Wade specifies abortion on demand for any reason DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER. Second trimester you need state approval and third trimester is only for life or health of the mother. The touching pictures you showed don't show the first trimester do they?

"The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother"

now get lost.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

You don't seem to be knowledgeable about anything. Roe v Wade specifies abortion on demand for any reason DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER. Second trimester you need state approval and third trimester is only for life or health of the mother. The touching pictures you showed don't show the first trimester do they?

"The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother"

now get lost.

Nicely done, Publix, you show yourself to be a bigger idiot every single day. It is great to see that YOU KNOW NOTHING of issue.

The picture was at 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the woman can have an abortion as long as HER life and well being are not in jeapordy from the operation. Did you even bother to read your own citation.
the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health",
What part of that do you not understand? If the abortion does not present a threat to the woman, she can have an abortion for any reason in the 2nd trimester and it is protected by Roe V Wade.

"The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statutes on abortion were unconstitutional and that a woman did have the right to terminate her pregnancy. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “The right of privacy…whether it is to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty…or…in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Justice Blackmun recognized that a woman's right to an abortion could be limited by “a compelling state interest” to protect her health and life. Based on medical evidence, Justice Blackmun concluded that during the “second trimester” of a woman's pregnancy (months 4 to 6), the state might intervene to regulate abortion to protect the mother's well-being. And the state could regulate or prohibit abortion during the third tri-mester (months 7 to 9). However, during the first trimester (months 1 to 3) of a pregnancy, it seemed unlikely that there would be “a compelling state interest” to restrict abortion rights to protect the health and life of the mother."

http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade


Read it and weep Publix, because you just got completely smoked. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Now you get lost.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Dipshit I just thought a bit deeper. Anytime you attach clauses to a situation, your rights become qualified. During first trimester the woman has a right to do whatever she wants with a fetus. During the second trimester state comes in. even though the original decision specified in matters concerning mothers health one should not be so naive to think that would the end of it. Roe v Wade provided "hooks" that materialized in the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision. Essentially what that decision did was uphold the right of states to mess with a woman's rights to abortion during the SECOND trimester.

"Reading between the lines" is a skill you will never have.

Quote from drjekyllus:

Nicely done, Publix, you show yourself to be a bigger idiot every single day. It is great to see that YOU KNOW NOTHING of issue.

The picture was at 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the woman can have an abortion as long as HER life and well being are not in jeapordy from the operation. Did you even bother to read your own citation.
the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health",
What part of that do you not understand? If the abortion does not present a threat to the woman, she can have an abortion for any reason in the 2nd trimester and it is protected by Roe V Wade.

"The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statutes on abortion were unconstitutional and that a woman did have the right to terminate her pregnancy. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “The right of privacy…whether it is to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty…or…in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Justice Blackmun recognized that a woman's right to an abortion could be limited by “a compelling state interest” to protect her health and life. Based on medical evidence, Justice Blackmun concluded that during the “second trimester” of a woman's pregnancy (months 4 to 6), the state might intervene to regulate abortion to protect the mother's well-being. And the state could regulate or prohibit abortion during the third tri-mester (months 7 to 9). However, during the first trimester (months 1 to 3) of a pregnancy, it seemed unlikely that there would be “a compelling state interest” to restrict abortion rights to protect the health and life of the mother."

http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade


Read it and weep Publix, because you just got completely smoked. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Now you get lost.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

You don't seem to be knowledgeable about anything. Roe v Wade specifies abortion on demand for any reason DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER. Second trimester you need state approval and third trimester is only for life or health of the mother. The touching pictures you showed don't show the first trimester do they?

Why does a woman lose her right to privacy after 90 days?
What happens at 91 days that the state now has the power to intervene.

How can that be fair to the right of a woman to choose?
As long as that baby is in the womb it is the property of the woman and she should be able to do what she wants up to the last day before delivery.

Unless for some reason you are giving the pre-born baby some rights of its own.