nonniey

No Excuse's reading comprehension problem is confirmed.

How do you figure? Only if you discount both the Labour and Conservative parties which are certainly ambiguous but officially pro Brexit (The parties themselves split over hard, soft or no Brexit, however the hard and soft Brexit combined make up majorities in each though).

He's referring to another topic where I said Dems were weak on Biology. I guess they are weak on reading comprehension too (or at least one of them is).

Like this guy Fry?

20 Weeks wasn't what was found to be unconstitutional it was the lack of exceptions to that rule. Roe versus Wade does allow states to restrict late term abortions with exceptions when viability of the baby is met (we know viability occurs at 21 weeks). It doesn't mandate restrictions and some states don't have restrictions. Only in 6 other Countries in the world (North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Neatherlands and Canada) is it legal to do what is permitted in the United States (Unrestricted abortion at anytime for any reason). All I want are constitutional protections for late term fetuses within the constraints of Roe versus Wade.

My understanding is that the other Terminator movies are just different timelines not that they never happened. BTW Fury Road was a great reboot with a female lead.

Re: Republicans and Science. Each party has their strengths and weakness - Republicans are weak at environmental science while Dems are weak at biology.

That is a tough nut. How do you define that? An example who is to say someone with Down Syndrome can't have an enjoyable productive life (I've even seen it posted that all Down Syndrome should be aborted heck even euthanized post birth), or someone missing a limb, with cleft lip, a club foot. You start deciding on those issues you are in the same area that Germany was in the late 1930s. Maybe we could stipulate what isn't an acceptable condition for abortion? Oh BTW lets not forget the Vermont law also allows for abortions of perfectly healthy fetuses at anytime for any reason.

That 1-1.5% are thousands. I'm just not good with that, I wouldn't be good with even one when no direct life threatening or crippling health issues are involved.

What was the CDC quote for it basically stated the same time frame I did 1.3% after 5 Months (20-21 weeks).

If you support the Vermont law you can't possibly be pro-life. Lets be clear a woman can be due in an hour and legally abort the child for any reason. Yes most doctors wouldn't perform such an abortion nor would most women chose to do so but do you do you really want it to be a legal option for the exceptions to the rule????

The 1%-1.5% is after 5 months actually. It has also been pointed out that a significant percentage (possibly over half?) of that 1-1.5% (3k-10K a year) are of fetuses that are viable (some perfectly healthy others may have challenges like cleft lips, club feet, Down syndrome, etc) and don't pose a risk to the mother. So you are ok with 3-10 thousand viable fetuses killed a year? And don't forget Gosnell was a doctor with a profit motive for the abortions he performed.

Wow I guess I underestimated (that's two I wasn't tracking). I thought LadySkinFan would be the only one (and maybe BenningRoadSkin) that was for allowing unrestricted abortion at anytime for any reason.

Oh It think there is at least one are at least two and maybe three that wants unrestricted abortion to remain legally permissible in the United States. Was just wondering if there were others. As for totally banned I don't have any candidates.

Which posters who post here want unrestricted abortion at anytime for any reason to remain a legal option for States? Which posters want abortion totally banned?

Vermont didn't change anything they just codefied what they already had (unrestricted abortion at any time) into law.

. Vermont's is nothing new in practice. Courts will allow it. Further Edit. This law just codifies what already existed in Vermont (Unrestricted abortion). They didn't have anything on the books prior to this. H57 "....The legislation draws no distinction between the first and final month of pregnancy. However, supporters of the bill say that physicians can be trusted to only perform procedures when it is medically and ethically appropriate." Can't see how supporters on this bill can say that with a straight face when examples like Gosnell are out there.

Larry the New York law in effect made it easier to abuse the Health of the Mother and viability factors. So in effect yes abortion is legal at any time as long as you can get one doctor (who would almost certainly be the abortion provider) to sign off on the abortion as necessary. And fetuses are viable at 21 weeks anyway so someone wouldn't even need an ethically challenged doctor for 3 weeks during the viability window. The issue is the abuse of the health of the Mother and viability of the fetus waiver.

New York for one. Raised cutoff to 24 weeks before requirement to consult with a Doctor (as in 1 Doctor). And I'll throw Gosnell once again out there as he was a Doctor (many of the charges that were brought against him in Pennsylvania would now be legal in New York). Additionally it again doesn't define what health of the mother is or what viability of the baby means which has allowed for some pretty loose use of health of mother or viability of baby excuses. Additionally penalties for violating law need to be addressed. You mentioned Tiller who had a habit of getting a doctors 2d opinion (that was required in Kansas) from his own employees (a legal violation) however legally he wasn't risking much by doing so as it was only a misdemeanor. All I'm proposing is at 20 weeks a panel of doctors (at least 3 and they can't have skin in the game) have to approve an abortion once it is decided that a set criteria has been met. I'm also saying the criteria has to be quite a bit less nebulous than it currently is.

From my understanding only a very small percent of that 1 percent involves aborting healthy fetuses from healthy mothers. Very small depending on sources only 3-10 thousand a year. Are you ok with 3-10 thousand a year?

This is the extreme position of the pro-choice side that even most pro-choicers wouldn't agree with. This allows for abortions at the last minute (and is currently permitted in some states). Problem is this is the default position taken in the fight. Similar to backing the NRA even though people who support gun rights liking some of the gun control proposals that the NRA automatically opposes.

Not for the type of abortions many of us want banned. (Well unless they go to China or Iceland). Because those are illegal just about everywhere.

Yes but it still needs to be drawn and currently it isn't. The earliest delivery of a baby that survived was 21 weeks and 5 days. I'd think that line should be no later than that and I'd subtract a week and half from that and make it 20 weeks. After 20 weeks abortions by exception should be allowed but stricter restrictions must be emplaced than what currently exists (health of the mother or status of the fetus can and has been used as a fig leaf to abort healthy fetuses from healthy mothers). Dr. Gosnell?

I think this is a good and accurate summation. I guess I fall into the category that at some point a fetus should gain constitutional protections (not at conception for me though), for me that would be when it becomes viable outside the womb. 21 weeks 5 days is the current record for a baby to survive outside the womb, I'd set the cutt-off at 20 weeks for Constitutional protections to kick in.

Yep 1% and yes even among those 1% the vast majority are legitimately done. I think it is only between 3 and 10 thousand abortions per year of viable fetuses that are terminated by (ethically challenged?) abortion providers who are protected by the law they work under. So I take it you are good with that? It is only 3-10 thousand after all. I'm not good with that.