Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 On 1/23/2019 at 6:37 PM, Binghamton Beast said: https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/andrew-cuomo-signs-bill-updating-new-yorks-abortion-law/ Disgusting. Vile. And those low life’s are on stage grinning about signing it into law. I think y'all should get pregnant and find out at 24 weeks you're carrying a baby with some birth defect that won't survive. Have fun while everyone points you out as a vile disgusting low life. Unlike you gemstones, I actually know two families who went through that. "The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive. Previously, abortions after that point were permitted only to preserve a mother’s life."
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 10 hours ago, bilzfancy said: 1st trimester abortion is one thing, (which I'm against ) but late term abortion is completely different, it's murdering a viable human Except no one hands them out on demand. No one. No medical professional.
Joe Miner Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I think y'all should get pregnant and find out at 24 weeks you're carrying a baby with some birth defect that won't survive. Have fun while everyone points you out as a vile disgusting low life. Unlike you gemstones, I actually know two families who went through that. "The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive. Previously, abortions after that point were permitted only to preserve a mother’s life." I do to. And while the baby only lived for a couple of hours after birth, the parents wouldn't trade those 2 hours for anything. Killing a person to spare yourself pain seems a bit... Selfish at best. Some lifetimes last minutes, others decades. There's value in both.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Joe Miner said: I do to. And while the baby only lived for a couple of hours after birth, the parents wouldn't trade those 2 hours for anything. Killing a person to spare yourself pain seems a bit... Selfish at best. Some lifetimes last minutes, others decades. There's value in both. It depends, Joe. What if the particular diagnosis means the baby will suffer - will be struggling to breathe, maybe in pain? Still want those two hours? I'm glad they were good ones for your friends parents, but I would have given anything - ANYTHING - to be able to spare my late mother in law her last week of pain dying of cancer. I don't think that's selfish, that's love. When I brought my dogs in to be euthanized because they were in pain? Love again. I think there's value in letting people and their physicians make decisions that seem best to them and not going all tabloid-media judgy. But that could just be me.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I think there's value in letting people and their physicians make decisions that seem best to them and not going all tabloid-media judgy. But that could just be me. Actually, I'd guess that roughly a third of the people who are pro-choice are so precisely because of that reasoning, and because they have the humility to admit that "when life begins" is not a question without a hard, factual answer.
Joe Miner Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: It depends, Joe. What if the particular diagnosis means the baby will suffer - will be struggling to breathe, maybe in pain? Still want those two hours? I'm glad they were good ones for your friends parents, but I would have given anything - ANYTHING - to be able to spare my late mother in law her last week of pain dying of cancer. I don't think that's selfish, that's love. When I brought my dogs in to be euthanized because they were in pain? Love again. I think there's value in letting people and their physicians make decisions that seem best to them and not going all tabloid-media judgy. But that could just be me. Having an elderly person that has made their wishes clear beforehand or that is able to tell you their wishes while suffering is one thing. Making the decision for an infant is another. And yes, young or old, pain is a part of life.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, Joe Miner said: Having an elderly person that has made their wishes clear beforehand or that is able to tell you their wishes while suffering is one thing. Making the decision for an infant is another. And yes, young or old, pain is a part of life. If you're going to discuss it, be specific. "Infant" is anywhere from a newborn to 1 year old. No one aborts "infants," and saying so is an attempt to redefine the language to suit your preconceptions...and if you're going to adopt liberal tactics in retconning words, you may as well just vote Ocasia-Cortez next election.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, Joe Miner said: Having an elderly person that has made their wishes clear beforehand or that is able to tell you their wishes while suffering is one thing. Making the decision for an infant is another. And yes, young or old, pain is a part of life. OK, that's your belief. You have a right to it. But maybe someone else should have the right to see it differently. 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Actually, I'd guess that roughly a third of the people who are pro-choice are so precisely because of that reasoning, and because they have the humility to admit that "when life begins" is not a question without a hard, factual answer. I'd say I'd be happy to understand what your hard, factual answer to the question "when does life begin" might be, but I'd probably be fibbing. The only fact is, different people have different answers to that question, and have ever since the joke where the priest says "life begins at conception", the rabbi says "life begins at birth" and the father says "life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies"
Joe Miner Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said: OK, that's your belief. You have a right to it. But maybe someone else should have the right to see it differently. I'd say I'd be happy to understand what your hard, factual answer to the question "when does life begin" might be, but I'd probably be fibbing. The only fact is, different people have different answers to that question, and have ever since the joke where the priest says "life begins at conception", the rabbi says "life begins at birth" and the father says "life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies" Please don't assume I believe everyone should share my opinion and not have their own. I don't hate you because we disagree. Thought we had a polite exchange of opinions there.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said: OK, that's your belief. You have a right to it. But maybe someone else should have the right to see it differently. I'd say I'd be happy to understand what that hard, factual answer to the question "when does life begin" might be, but I'd probably be fibbing. The only fact is, different people have different answers to that question, and have ever since the joke where the priest says "life begins at conception", the rabbi says "life begins at birth" and the father says "life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies" All I know for certain is that life definitely begins at birth or earlier, and definitely doesn't begin when the sperm fertilizes the ovum, and any action before implantation is contraception, not abortion. Other than that, I'm not willing to dictate my moral beliefs to others. Which is where TYTT usually pops in with a complaint about moral relativism that goes something like "Then you're not willing to convict murders, as the definition of murder is an individual moral choice." Which is a logical fallacy, shifting the discussion from the moral determination of "when life begins" to an argument about "when life should be taken away." (JSP also pops in and says that, but I chose TYTT because he's smart enough to see the logical fallacy of substituting an inequal term into the discussion and should know better, whereas JSP is an idiot who thinks a logical fallacy is "Mr. Spock getting oral sex.") 5 minutes ago, Joe Miner said: I don't hate you because we disagree. Oh, get the ***** out of here. What is this, ***** Sesame Street? It's PPP. Hate him, ya *****. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: It depends, Joe. What if the particular diagnosis means the baby will suffer - will be struggling to breathe, maybe in pain? Still want those two hours? I'm glad they were good ones for your friends parents, but I would have given anything - ANYTHING - to be able to spare my late mother in law her last week of pain dying of cancer. I don't think that's selfish, that's love. When I brought my dogs in to be euthanized because they were in pain? Love again. I think there's value in letting people and their physicians make decisions that seem best to them and not going all tabloid-media judgy. But that could just be me. Well, the world is all judgy to begin with, that's why we have laws that regulate behavior. Speaking only for me, your assumptions are flawed, but you're entitled to your visceral response just like everyone else. If you're a supporter of euthanasia in general, so be it. In my case, relieving the suffering of a person I would have given my life for would have been a blessing, but not including terminating their life. I also think you are being naive when assuming the law will be used only in situations similar to what you described, and that medical professionals are the end all and be all of integrity. Where there are rules to manipulate and money to be made, people will manipulate the rules to their advantage. It happens now with abortion, and it will happen again.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Well, the world is all judgy to begin with, that's why we have laws that regulate behavior. Speaking only for me, your assumptions are flawed, but you're entitled to your visceral response just like everyone else. If you're a supporter of euthanasia in general, so be it. In my case, relieving the suffering of a person I would have given my life for would have been a blessing, but not including terminating their life. I also think you are being naive when assuming the law will be used only in situations similar to what you described, and that medical professionals are the end all and be all of integrity. Where there are rules to manipulate and money to be made, people will manipulate the rules to their advantage. It happens now with abortion, and it will happen again. I agree. I would have liked to ease my grandmother's pain and suffering towards the end, but the law wouldn't let me euthanize my mom... 1 1
whatdrought Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 26 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I think y'all should get pregnant and find out at 24 weeks you're carrying a baby with some birth defect that won't survive. Have fun while everyone points you out as a vile disgusting low life. Unlike you gemstones, I actually know two families who went through that. "The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive. Previously, abortions after that point were permitted only to preserve a mother’s life." What about cases where the doctors get diagnoses wrong? Don't say it can't happen cause I've seen it with my own eyes. People who were told to abort because the fetus wasn't "viable." only to have a strong and healthy baby born. I've also seen people that were met with that choice. I've seen their pain, and I've seen their tears. Having to bury their infant because she didn't survive. I know what they went through, and they chose life. The problem is that a life is a life. Outside of the emotion of this conversation comes the very real fact that we, whether aided by the medical industry or not, are not an all knowing deity that can control pain and suffering. We are not the holders of life and death. That much is clear from our very existence as mortal beings. I don't at all mean to belittle your friends pain because, as I said, I've been there. But pain is not a sufficient reason to dictate who lives and who dies. Saying that the taking of an innocent life is right and just because it spares anyone pain and suffering is the act of playing god, and it is wrong. We can disagree on that, but really, the truth matters more than the emotion.
boyst Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 29 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I think y'all should get pregnant and find out at 24 weeks you're carrying a baby with some birth defect that won't survive. Have fun while everyone points you out as a vile disgusting low life. Unlike you gemstones, I actually know two families who went through that. "The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive. Previously, abortions after that point were permitted only to preserve a mother’s life." The law erases the truth of what is at stake for the mother and allows for cases beyond what is reasonable for her health. A doctor is also not required to perform nor oversee the procedure or even be involved, not that it matters because some docs are flexible. Disirregardless, there is no virtue to being a woman and having a child. It's a choice. Further, I respect the fact that as of current medical opportunities I will never have that chance and have always been pro choice. But, to pretend this is anything less than an opportunity to walk all over the Legalities of killing babies because ??♂️ is silly. Sure, the argument is likely that of the 100 women seeking a late term abortion are doing it for non-health reasons. I learned today from a friend that a woman had an abortion at 2 mos. Because her husband was killed and she did not want to raise the child alone. Her choice, I reckon, but that's not at all an acceptable and responsible choice.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: The law erases the truth of what is at stake for the mother and allows for cases beyond what is reasonable for her health. A doctor is also not required to perform nor oversee the procedure or even be involved, not that it matters because some docs are flexible. Disirregardless, there is no virtue to being a woman and having a child. It's a choice. Further, I respect the fact that as of current medical opportunities I will never have that chance and have always been pro choice. But, to pretend this is anything less than an opportunity to walk all over the Legalities of killing babies because ??♂️ is silly. Sure, the argument is likely that of the 100 women seeking a late term abortion are doing it for non-health reasons. I learned today from a friend that a woman had an abortion at 2 mos. Because her husband was killed and she did not want to raise the child alone. Her choice, I reckon, but that's not at all an acceptable and responsible choice. To you. It was to her.
boyst Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: To you. It was to her. To the child? I see your point, I saw it before you said it. Hell, I'd probably make the same choice in her shoes. But I'm an ####### with the morale fibre of something pourous and weak
whatdrought Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, DC Tom said: All I know for certain is that life definitely begins at birth or earlier, and definitely doesn't begin when the sperm fertilizes the ovum, and any action before implantation is contraception, not abortion. Other than that, I'm not willing to dictate my moral beliefs to others. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm Quote A single sperm and the mother's egg cell meet in the fallopian tube. When the single sperm enters the egg, conception occurs. The combined sperm and egg is called a zygote. The zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby. Half the DNA comes from the mother's egg and half from the father's sperm. The creation of new genetic material and information. That, to me, is the beginning of life. If left to it's own devices, unless catastrophe happens (such as a miscarriage), this zygote becomes a human. Not to push my opinion, but for me it's pretty clear that that's the creation of life right there. Also, I have definitely struggled with my understanding of abortion and freedom/not dictating moral beliefs. For me (not that my opinion is worth much) the distinction is the effect on other peoples lives. Personal freedom, 100% of the way, until it negatively affects someone else. 4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: To the child? I see your point, I saw it before you said it. Hell, I'd probably make the same choice in her shoes. But I'm an ####### with the morale fibre of something pourous and weak Who lives in a pineapple under the sea.... 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: To you. It was to her. On the flip side of that, would we consider it an acceptable and responsible choice for a father to just abandon his child and completely reject responsibility. I'm not picking a fight here, it really just dawned on me that we judge men for abandoning their children, and then we force them to pay, but with abortion its different. It's an interesting thought. Edited January 25, 2019 by whatdrought
Doc Brown Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm The creation of new genetic material and information. That, to me, is the beginning of life. If left to it's own devices, unless catastrophe happens (such as a miscarriage), this zygote becomes a human. Not to push my opinion, but for me it's pretty clear that that's the creation of life right there. Also, I have definitely struggled with my understanding of abortion and freedom/not dictating moral beliefs. For me (not that my opinion is worth much) the distinction is the effect on other peoples lives. Personal freedom, 100% of the way, until it negatively affects someone else. Mine is when you hear a heartbeat, but many women don't even know they're pregnant at that point which is why I'm against the proposed Ohio "heartbeat law." I think after 26 weeks is the right cut off point.
whatdrought Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: Mine is when you hear a heartbeat, but many women don't even know they're pregnant at that point which is why I'm against the proposed Ohio "heartbeat law." I think after 26 weeks is the right cut off point. You can see a heartbeat on the sonogram at 5 weeks gestational age.
Recommended Posts