Numark3

This means a healthy, viable baby could be killed at 8 months, thirty days gestation. It means the abortion could be delayed or done in a manner to permit organ harvesting. It means that a fetus whose brain was sufficiently developed to experience pain could be torn slowly apart in the womb in the most agonizing manner. It would also allow sex-selection abortion and, if it were ever possible to determine, termination to prevent a gay baby from being born. And what are we to make of this provision? At the very least, it would fully authorize the horrible fetal-part selling practices in which Planned Parenthood was caught engaging (the videos about which have now been validated by a federal court). It could also permit odious practices beyond abortion, for example creating a free space for germ-line genetic engineering, as recently done in China. And what would prevent fetuses from being maintained in an artificial womb for purposes of experimentation — since they would have no rights, recognized human dignity, or legal status? Don’t scoff. Experimentation was conducted in the late 60s on living fetuses. One 1968 study — on a 26-week aborted fetus kept alive for five hours in an artificial environment — even received the Foundation Prize Award from the American Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Also note that there are no residency requirements. Since almost every jurisdiction in the world places restrictions on late terminations, Vermont could well become the viable-fetus abortion capital of the world. The 91 authors of this bill — think about that — want Vermont’s public policy to state explicitly that unborn human life has no value or moral worth that any born person is bound to respect. What are we becoming? https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/vermont-bill-pushes-abortion-without-limit/ Do you not see the difference between the two bills. Or in your opinion, are they the same in practice

What about a fetus that isn’t viable at 25 weeks. Could that be a scenario where it’s medically necessary for an abortion to occur? Sincere question.

No, this law sounds reasonable to me. It allows abortions for any reason for the first 24 week’s (I think). And then it only allows abortions if the fetus is not viable for life, or if it’s medically necessity. of course we all might disagree on whether an abortion should be done in the first 24 weeks for whatever reason. I 100 percent respect your opinions on abortion, religious, moral, or ethical. I think it’s ok, but I understand why many are against abortions in the first 24 weeks. i personally would be devastated if a woman got an abortion for no reason early on.

What do do you mean hide behind it? It’s the exception that permits late term abortions. If it’s not met, and the fetus is viable for life, a late term abortion still can’t occur. this is the first time anyone’s told me to stop hiding behind what a law plainly says when you are defending the law. It’s a sign, no offense, that you don’t actually have an argument against it.

There’s really nothing to argue about then. The statute is clear on the two exceptions. Your argument against it is essentially “you really think doctors are going to abide by it lol?” My answer is yes, because I trust doctors to do exactly that, and in my experience, they do follow the law and act with integrity. I strongly disagree, and I hope your irrational distrust of doctors only goes as far as where it conveniently fits a political narrative of yours. Because they do act with integrity, and not having a law based on the assumption they won’t follow it is not a valid reason to attack a law.

This is no worse than the lies in the Covington nonsense. It’s not an exception, it’s factors a doctor can look at when decided if it’s neccesaary for the woman’s health. It is trusting a doctor to make a medical judgment, something we allow them to do. It is not “on demand.” That is nonsensical and a lie. how many examples of late term abortions can you show that fall within “on demand” or were not really for a woman’s health. How common is it? you can disagree with abortion, but don’t post lies. This only allows late term abortions when the fetus is not viable or if it’s neccesary for health reasons (in in practice, probably both). You can disagree with those two exceptions on a philosophical, moral, or ethical level...but stop twisting facts regarding what the exceptions actually are. also, posting a 1 sentence excerpt of a judicial desision is almost universally misleading. A pet peeve of mine.

Neither can I (though I can make one up: what about a non-viable fetus that would endanger the mother’s health if carried to full term. Wouldn’t this fall under the definition of permitting late-term abortions under either scenario) Are you doctor? If so, is that the consensus of the medical field? I cant think of a reason why a lot of medical complications might occur...because I’m not a doctor. Doesn’t mean they aren’t true.

Yea that’s unreasonable. It is a conspiracy-level distrust if doctors. Your problem isn’t with the law, it’s thinking doctors won’t be ethical and comply with it.

Yes, as they relate to health (but certainly not financial, that was where my annoyance came from, that is ridiculous). Oh and really, you have seen a late-term abortion determination made based on the financial health of a woman (let's not pull the experience card on this issue, when it really doesn't get to the point at all. I too have experience working with doctors, and specifically as to their medical judgments)? I am naive for thinking that is ridiculous, and even if it happened, would be beyond rare and an anomaly... Sorry, but this law requires a medical determination that it is necessary for the woman's life (or a lack of viability of the fetus). There is nothing inherently ridiculous about that. If you think there are doctors who will allow late term abortions based on financial concerns, then that's on you. In my opinion, that's near a conspiracy level.

This is false. One, health would never be defined in any context like this when it comes to a practitioner making medical decisions. Two, it cannot be used for a woman to "get an abortion for any reason at any time," It requires a medical practitioner to determine the abortion is neccessary to protect her life or health. A practitioner would never do that based on emotional/financial health, give me a break. When we make laws like this in the united states, we trust that our doctors will comply with thier rules. It is a self-regulated profession. When your argument against a law is, essentially, that doctor will not comply with it, then you are complaining about doctors, not the actual law. Um you have to cite this. You are essentially saying that a doctor can never make the medical determination that an abortion is needed to protect a woman's life or health. EDIT: Something else I will note is that these two scenarios likely go hand-in-hand: a fetus is not going to be viable, and carrying it to term will be a danger to a mother's life. If you're angry at the second scenario, it's just the other side of the coin.

No no no. You are conflating the two scenarios. First, a late-term abortion can be done for if "there is an absence of fetal viability," as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment." Two, a late-term abortion can be done if it is to protect the patient's life or health, as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment." So a practitioner must determine, in the professional judgment, if one of those scenarios apply. And of course it is subjective, nor would health ever be defined in this context. We let doctors make these determinations, we do not let legislators define what these two scenarios are. If you are contesting that a late-term abortion can never be done to protect the health of the patient, then you are suggesting a medical practitioner could never find scenario 2 applicable. But, no offense, I am going to trust a doctor's judgment on that, not yours...? The suggestion that a healthy fetus can be killed minutes before birth, at the whim of the woman, is false.

Here is the actual text: So I only skimmed this and I don't get the outrage. It strips criminal punishments for abortion-related stuff, okay that's fine. That's not what you all are chirping about. But now it adds late-term abortions based on the viability of the fetus or the health of the woman. Where are you getting it that they can now kill a baby right before delivery for no reason...? Now an abortion can be done late term, but under only two scenarios. Unless I am missing something, which please tell me! EDIT: I get that if you are pro-life you would be upset at this, but there isn't anything ghoulish or radical about this law.

Doesnt make a difference to my point. I don’t mind some extremists in Congress, sometimes they have tolerable ideas. It’s the two parties catering to extremists that’s obnoxious. A lot of my conservative friends are socially progressive. I’m a liberal but fairly conservative economically. It’s a disappointment how little the parties represent me or my friends.

I think it’s good to for some extremists on both sides to have representation in the House. We already have right wing religious extremists. Hate the ideas but diversity of ideas is good.

Its over 9000! sorry.

Can’t hate (or relate!)

You calling for violence on the forum is like waiting to see if the sun comes out.

It’s silly, but I don’t get the hate for lawyers at all

It isn't at the top of my list of places I want to move (hello Austin), and no arguing about its financial state. But from the outside, their goofiness can be a good thing. Also, their bad goofiness really helps me have work!

I think it is all of the La Croix I am drinking

I think laughing at their silliness and disagreeing with their ideas is fine, but their progressiveness is definitely a trailblazer for the country and the court system. The ideas they get right can be trendsetters. That's my only point haha No I don't live there (though I do enjoy my time there!), but I do a lot of work there.

Eh, I don't agree with this thread. Does California do a lot of goofy things? Of course. A ton in fact. But they also drive a lot of progressive ideas in our court system, historically and currently. Their views are pretty crucial to our legal system, and it is one of the more important states when it comes to this.

Oh boy. I don't know where you are coming from ever, I don't think you attacked my ideas or character. I think you constantly trying to argue things I am not talking about. The reason my post about my beliefs was simply and vague was because it wasn't anything I was interested in arguing, it was only explained because you couldn't understand what someone means when they say "an opposite view of trump." Look, my first post that you responded to was that I have the opposite stance on immigration that trump. Easy to understand, right? Here is your response: "And if your stance is the opposite of the President's, does that mean you believe unfettered human slavery, the heroin trade, child molesting and rape, and a lack of national sovereignty are good things?" That is such a ridiculous response and will not lead to a discussion, hence why I am not interested in discussion with you. Either you genuinely thought that, or you were being snide. Either way, whatever. It isn't the way to start a discussion because, obviously, I don't think that. Next time you want to have a conversation, trying coming off less dickish. No it just means most people are on here are conservative, so it is nice to have fair discussions with conservatives, when the opposite may be true sometimes when you are on a message board with people that have different beliefs. It is the only forum I am a member of.

Yea I’m on board with both being ridiculous, just curious what others thought!

I agree, I just think the conservative media is doing the same. There’s some good journalist on both sides, but I wouldn’t trust either. I guess I’ve noticed more out right lies lately from the liberal media, as opposed to catering to your audience and funneling information from the conservative media. But that makes sense with a conservative president. I remember some ridiculous assertions from when Obama was president. Yea it’s gottenn way worse now, but I think that’s just the trend.