Ray Jay wrote:Ricky, I appreciate your weighing in. The Democratic party is fighting to preserve an abortion option after 24 weeks, so you can comment on that.

But I wanted Freeman to comment on the article that he posted. It argues for an 8 week standard. Although most abortions are before 12 weeks, I don't know how many are before the 8 week marker. In any case, I want Freeman to comment on why he vociferously supports the Democratic Party which vociferously fights for abortion right up through 24 weeks, and even after that under certain circumstances. It seems like cognitive dissonance to me.

Hillary Clinton has expressed opposition to legal limits on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

John Dickerson, CBS's host of Face the Nation, asked Clinton during an interview on Sunday: "The Senate's going to vote to impose a ban on late-term abortions. Do you support a federal limit on abortion at any stage of pregnancy?"

"I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity, and therefore I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision," Clinton replied. "This gets back to whether you respect a woman's right to choose or not, and I think that's what this whole argument is about."

Clinton's claim that all late-term abortions are performed because of "medical necessity" is simply false:

According to Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL, elective late-term abortions never occur. "No woman carries their child to six, seven, eight months and then one day decides they don’t want to become a parent,” Hogue told the New York Times. That sounds plausible. Who would do such a thing?

But a recent study contradicts Hogue's claim. "Diana Greene Foster, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology and the University of California, San Francisco, co-authored a forthcoming paper looking at more than 200 women who had abortions after 20 weeks for nonmedical reasons," wrote Michelle Goldberg in the Daily Beast. "According to Foster, two thirds of them were delayed while they tried to raise money to pay for a termination. Twelve percent were teenagers, some of whom went months without realizing they were pregnant." The fact that one professor could find a sample of 200 women who had late-term abortions for "nonmedical reasons" indicates that the total number of elective late-term abortions is quite large.

Foster looked at what happened to women who had wanted a late-term abortion but missed their clinic's self-imposed or state-imposed deadlines. "About 5 percent of the women, after they have had the baby, still wish they hadn’t. And the rest of them adjust," she told the New York Times.

So late-term abortions do occur in the United States for no medical reason at all. One prominent late-term abortionist in Maryland admitted on camera that he will perform "purely elective" abortions through 28 weeks of pregnancy. Several states and the District of Columbia have no laws prohibiting abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. And the late-term abortion ban in Congress explicitly includes an exception for when a physical health issue--"excluding psychological or emotional conditions"--endangers the life of the mother.

Gallup polls have found that 80 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal during the last three months of pregnancy, while only 14 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal during the last three months of pregnancy:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Without such definitions, I can't even begin to deal with your assertion. With them, and with some real data, I may be forced to accept it. But then again, perhaps you fear that you just made it as a snarky throwaway comment and it may end up being false...?

Nope, not going to play your game. If you believe Italy will still be Italy and Germany will still be Germany after their populations become increasingly Islamic and Middle Eastern, that's fine. Believe what you like.

Not a "game".

After three tries to get you to even explain what it actually means, and all you can do is hide behind sophistry and trying to "second guess" my intent, I will confirm what I said.

You made an assertion. I don't believe it is true, but wanted you to clarify what you meant or provide some evidence. You are evading that clarification, and as I said, this tells me it is BS. Or at least you only have prejudice to substantiate it.

"I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity, and therefore I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision," Clinton replied. "This gets back to whether you respect a woman's right to choose or not, and I think that's what this whole argument is about."

rickyp wrote:Fate here's what Clinton said:

"I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity, and therefore I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision," Clinton replied. "This gets back to whether you respect a woman's right to choose or not, and I think that's what this whole argument is about."

We've already established that only around 1,032 late term abortions occur in the US annually.
What portion of them is medical necessity? What portion are not?

The fact that one professor could find a sample of 200 women who had late-term abortions for "nonmedical reasons" indicates that the total number of elective late-term abortions is quite large.

Foster looked at what happened to women who had wanted a late-term abortion but missed their clinic's self-imposed or state-imposed deadlines. "About 5 percent of the women, after they have had the baby, still wish they hadn’t. And the rest of them adjust," she told the New York Times.

So late-term abortions do occur in the United States for no medical reason at all. One prominent late-term abortionist in Maryland admitted on camera that he will perform "purely elective" abortions through 28 weeks of pregnancy. Several states and the District of Columbia have no laws prohibiting abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. And the late-term abortion ban in Congress explicitly includes an exception for when a physical health issue--"excluding psychological or emotional conditions"--endangers the life of the mother.

rickyp wrote:Would you stop a doctor from saving a woman's life if a late term abortion were all that was going to save her?

Right now, the medical community won't do late term abortions upon request...

But in the event of a medical calamity, don't you trust these doctors and their patients to make that horrible choice on their own or do you need the government to intervene in that decision?

You would have the government involved in EVERY aspect of medical treatment and now you want to pretend that abortion is somehow of another category

I guess you skipped my last post. An article I quoted

women who had abortions after 20 weeks for nonmedical reasons,

rickyp wrote:fate

You would have the government involved in EVERY aspect of medical treatment and now you want to pretend that abortion is somehow of another category

I take it that this is because you believe that national health insurance results in a Big Brother situation. It doesn't.
But don't let the experience of millions of people around the world in nations with national health insurance change your perception.
And yes I would be very upset of the government got involved in a personal medical decision.

I guess you skipped my last post. An article I quoted

women who had abortions after 20 weeks for nonmedical reasons,

late term is not 20 weeks. Its after 22 to 24 weeks.

The focus should be on preventing unwanted pregnancy. That isn't accomplished with attempts to criminalize women who choose abortion.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Without such definitions, I can't even begin to deal with your assertion. With them, and with some real data, I may be forced to accept it. But then again, perhaps you fear that you just made it as a snarky throwaway comment and it may end up being false...?

Nope, not going to play your game. If you believe Italy will still be Italy and Germany will still be Germany after their populations become increasingly Islamic and Middle Eastern, that's fine. Believe what you like.

Not a "game".

After three tries to get you to even explain what it actually means, and all you can do is hide behind sophistry and trying to "second guess" my intent, I will confirm what I said.

You made an assertion. I don't believe it is true, but wanted you to clarify what you meant or provide some evidence. You are evading that clarification, and as I said, this tells me it is BS. Or at least you only have prejudice to substantiate it.

It is a game. You want me to spend hours running down every complaint or concern you might have. I'm not going to do it. Believe what you want.

danivon wrote:Which was:

that most "socialist countries" (whatever they are), the "native population" (which could be those born there alone, but I wonder if you count the children of immigrants in that) is "nose-diving".

In most socialist countries, the native population is nose-diving. So, there are few pregnancies of any kind.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Which was:

that most "socialist countries" (whatever they are), the "native population" (which could be those born there alone, but I wonder if you count the children of immigrants in that) is "nose-diving".

It is a "game."

You can't even be bothered to quote me. You want to re-interpret what I said.

that most "socialist countries" (whatever they are), the "native population" (which could be those born there alone, but I wonder if you count the children of immigrants in that) is "nose-diving".

In most socialist countries, the native population is nose-diving.

This is what I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

You can do as you wish. My intent was clear to me when I wrote it. I know, for example that Italy's is something like 1.1 and a country needs 2.2 to maintain the same population European famiiles are not having many (if any) children. Immigrant families are.

I know a family that lived in Germany. They have seven kids. People looked at them as if they were seeing an exhibit in a zoo.

danivon wrote:Look, you said that the native "population" was nose-diving. Based on the true definition of "native" (2born there"), I have found it to be false for two countries now. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by "native" if not "born there":

Do both parents have to also be native?
Could one be native if the other is not?

As of 2010, about 48% of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.[3] Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, and many others.

danivon wrote:So why not just admit that when you wrote what you did, it was not what you meant?

You call others dishonest, and yet when I quote your exact words at you you accuse me of having misquoted you.

Doctor Fate wrote:In most socialist countries, the native population is nose-diving. So, there are few pregnancies of any kind.

Why should anyone believe a word you say?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So why not just admit that when you wrote what you did, it was not what you meant?

You call others dishonest, and yet when I quote your exact words at you you accuse me of having misquoted you.

Meh, look at the context:

Doctor Fate wrote:In most socialist countries, the native population is nose-diving. So, there are few pregnancies of any kind.

Putting the accent on the SECOND sentence, my meaning is (arguably) more plain.

Why should anyone believe a word you say?

You edited what I said. If you had chosen the second sentence rather than the first, I don't think it would be so controversial for you. Even better, if I'd have written, "Genetically European women are simply not having children at the rate needed to replace themselves" we never would have been on this rabbit trail.

Now, take your nitro pills and calm down.