DC Tom Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html Tran’s bill wasn’t as salacious as its detractors insist. It would have reduced the number of doctors required to sign off on a third-term abortion from three to one, and it would have allowed that physician to approve a late-term abortion for any medical reason, including harm to a woman’s mental health. This provision would have altered the state’s existing statute, which currently allows a team of three physicians to approve third-term abortions for women whose health would be “substantially and irredeemably” harmed by continuing their pregnancies. The bill would have also allowed second-term abortions to be performed outside licensed hospitals, in facilities like clinics. A House subcommittee rejected the bill, but if it had become law it would not have licensed Virginia physicians to perform abortions as a fetus enters the birth canal. Tran’s bill resembles New York’s Reproductive Health Act in that it expands access to later-term abortions, but partial-birth abortion, or “born-alive abortion,” as GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called in a tweet, is already illegal. RHA didn’t legalize it, and neither would Tran’s bill. The governor's statement, however, is exactly as salacious as being reported. 1
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Her own words... even if the mother is dilated her bill allows it to happen (or would have, again, it did not pass). The governor doubled down on it saying they'd deliver the baby and keep it comfortable while a discussion was had between the doctor and parents. He's not just a politician, he's a medical doctor who knew what he was saying when he was saying it. Keeping "health" vague would allow them to do anything they wished. Again, I'm pro-choice for the most part... but this is something else. This was a call for brazen infanticide. The giveaway is in the governor's spin post his interview. Nothing in the bill would permit that, and whatever the governor says is not the law. It clearly says abortion during pregnancy, any vagueness of health does not go towards what you are mentioning. That goes to whether the abortion can occur, not the timing. In fact, the bill says medical support for the product of the abortion shall be utilized if it shows signs of life. Nothing permits them killing a born child. It looks like a stupid misstatement by the governor. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
boyst Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 9 hours ago, Crayola64 said: I would classify it as a child too, its just the unborn nature is important to me. I see the loss of an unborn child as an awful event for the family, but if its the family's choice, it just negates it for me. Doesn't bother me. If the husband wanted to have it, but not the wife, that would be awful. I don't see the logical difference between the first trimester and the day before birth. Why do you think the latter is disgusting and different? It's just further along in the process compared to the first example. Maybe that's the distinction I am not making. Yano, I'm athiest, have zero empathy, damn near sociopathic and a tremendous ####### who has the moral fiber likened to that of Al dente spaghetti, think only idiots proclaim you don't understand because you don't have children and has killed about 21 animals this year - a few predator birds, two cattle euthanized, 9 to harvest, a few dogs, and a bunch of vermin... And I can't understand how anyone can justify killing a sustainable lifeform. I never feel satisfied or find full justification to remove an animal from existence unless it was euthanasia. Basically, I have no soul and think this is a gross violation of ethics that our species must sustain. I mean, think about it - what species out there actively jjust kills their offspring because they don't need it/want it?
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 3 hours ago, Foxx said: or a soul? 4 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said: You're like much of this country. Lacking ANY morals. When I get to a computer I'm going to show you a picture of the people you're advocating murdering for the sake of the mother. You know, the sooner you all stop demonizing the opposing side, the sooner we might start giving any value to your opinion. Yes yes yes, the libs are immortal and if only I saw a picture of a unborn child I’d be enlightened. 9 hours ago, LABillzFan said: Or maybe because you don't have a child. Here's what I suggest you to get a better grasp. Make a purposeful point to see a newborn. There must be someone, somewhere, who can help you with this. Have a friend in the hospital who just delivered? Or maybe just came home with a newborn? Have a friend who's a nurse or doctor? Go visit a newborn. Some may not want you to hold the baby too soon, but you don't need to hold it. See a baby born just a day or two ago. You just need to see it. Watch it. Listen to it. Watch it instinctively react to light and sound and learn within minutes how to feed off a breast. I've read your posts. You're not a completely ideological bozo. You have common sense. You know that the difference between the newborn you see today and the baby it was in the womb 48 hours earlier is nominal. Now while you're looking at that baby, ask yourself what it would take for someone to forcibly kill that baby and slice it up just two days earlier. Three days earlier. Five days earlier. Look at the baby and let us know what you think about killing it two days early because someone thought the baby might cause the mother a bit of emotional trauma. !@#$, man, the last thing I wanted in this world was a baby, but I loved my son the moment I saw his heartbeat and I bawled like a baby when my wife bled out and he was delivered a month early. A WHOLE FREAKING MONTH! And they want to kill it right up to dilation. You're not stupid. You just haven't experienced it yet. I hope to be having a child soon in my life! But Iv been around plenty, and I think you are mistaken in thinking my opinion comes from a lack of emotion or empathy. I know there is a lot of love and attachment that goes towards an unborn child, from the minute pregnancy starts. I’m not coming from a place of “it’s not life yet” or anything like that. I just value the family’s choice to terminate an unborn child more.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: You know, the sooner you all stop demonizing the opposing side, the sooner we might start giving any value to your opinion. Yes yes yes, the libs are immortal and if only I saw a picture of a unborn child I’d be enlightened. trust me when I say I harbor NO illusions that amoral progressives give any value to my opinion. it's WHY I demonize them.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Yano, I'm athiest, have zero empathy, damn near sociopathic and a tremendous ####### who has the moral fiber likened to that of Al dente spaghetti, think only idiots proclaim you don't understand because you don't have children and has killed about 21 animals this year - a few predator birds, two cattle euthanized, 9 to harvest, a few dogs, and a bunch of vermin... Im liking this build up! 3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: And I can't understand how anyone can justify killing a sustainable lifeform. I never feel satisfied or find full justification to remove an animal from existence unless it was euthanasia. Basically, I have no soul and think this is a gross violation of ethics that our species must sustain. I mean, think about it - what species out there actively jjust kills their offspring because they don't need it/want it? Well the bill would only have allowed it for medical reasons, not based on want/need. But even if it didn’t, I just dont place much ethical concern on killing an unborn child. Though I definitely see the argument and your point of view. I mean figuring that out isn’t hard (it is killing something near birth). I respect it, but don’t agree. 1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said: trust me when I say I harbor NO illusions that amoral progressives give any value to my opinion. it's WHY I demonize them. Thats your right. At a certain point I have started to try and understand opposing views, even those I think are ignorant/uneducated or wrong. i actually don’t think pro-life views are ignorant, I just disagree with it.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Quick reminder: On 1/25/2019 at 9:32 AM, B-Man said: Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA @OmarHamada Jan 23 I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no. .
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Im liking this build up! Well the bill would only have allowed it for medical reasons, not based on want/need. But even if it didn’t, I just dont place much ethical concern on killing an unborn child. Though I definitely see the argument and your point of view. I mean figuring that out isn’t hard (it is killing something near birth). I respect it, but don’t agree. Thats your right. At a certain point I have started to try and understand opposing views, even those I think are ignorant/uneducated or wrong. i actually don’t think pro-life views are ignorant, I just disagree with it. How do you judge that someone else is ignorant/uneducated or wrong
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I hope to be having a child soon in my life! But Iv been around plenty, and I think you are mistaken in thinking my opinion comes from a lack of emotion or empathy. I know there is a lot of love and attachment that goes towards an unborn child, from the minute pregnancy starts. I’m not coming from a place of “it’s not life yet” or anything like that. I just value the family’s choice to terminate an unborn child more. Part of me feels like you're just taking a position for the sake of taking a position, but if you have a baby, we'll know soon enough. When you're in the delivery room, and you either push the baby out of you or cut their cord, as you hold that baby for the first time, take a moment to ask yourself if only moments earlier you would be okay with the doctor killing that baby because you were afraid the baby's mother might be stressed about having a newborn. Or think for a moment about handing that baby to a doctor because you suddenly decided you didn't want it because maybe a hand was deformed, and they take the baby to another room to kill it. That's the law we're talking about. That's the law you are okay with. 1
4merper4mer Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 39 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Nothing in the bill would permit that, and whatever the governor says is not the law. It clearly says abortion during pregnancy, any vagueness of health does not go towards what you are mentioning. That goes to whether the abortion can occur, not the timing. In fact, the bill says medical support for the product of the abortion shall be utilized if it shows signs of life. Nothing permits them killing a born child. It looks like a stupid misstatement by the governor. "Product of the abortion"? Do you mean baby? 1
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 6 hours ago, Doc Brown said: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html Tran’s bill wasn’t as salacious as its detractors insist. It would have reduced the number of doctors required to sign off on a third-term abortion from three to one, and it would have allowed that physician to approve a late-term abortion for any medical reason, including harm to a woman’s mental health. This provision would have altered the state’s existing statute, which currently allows a team of three physicians to approve third-term abortions for women whose health would be “substantially and irredeemably” harmed by continuing their pregnancies. The bill would have also allowed second-term abortions to be performed outside licensed hospitals, in facilities like clinics. A House subcommittee rejected the bill, but if it had become law it would not have licensed Virginia physicians to perform abortions as a fetus enters the birth canal. Tran’s bill resembles New York’s Reproductive Health Act in that it expands access to later-term abortions, but partial-birth abortion, or “born-alive abortion,” as GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called in a tweet, is already illegal. RHA didn’t legalize it, and neither would Tran’s bill. The practical effect is to legalize the killing of a fully developed, viable, living baby, on demand, for any reason whatsoever. It is not difficult to find a doctor who shares the radical pro-abortion platform to sign off on this. The modified language makes the threshold requirement so low that it's hard to conceive of a situation that couldn't qualify.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Crayola64 said: I would classify it as a child too, its just the unborn nature is important to me. I see the loss of an unborn child as an awful event for the family, but if its the family's choice, it just negates it for me. Doesn't bother me. If the husband wanted to have it, but not the wife, that would be awful. I don't see the logical difference between the first trimester and the day before birth. Why do you think the latter is disgusting and different? It's just further along in the process compared to the first example. Maybe that's the distinction I am I think in this case you show sociopathic tendencies. More importantly, the governor and the delegate revealed their thinking on the subject, and it's pretty clear that they stand in favor of terminating the life of a child born alive at the end of a pregnancy. It seems clear they feel it's good for their brand to follow their own deeply held personal convictions. Others need to follow thiers. I just watched the delegates professionally crafted Twitter response defiantly stating she stands for the rights of the women of Virginia (once they have navigated the mental health woes of the vessel that carried them, survived delivery, and navigated the treacherous waters of delivery room doctors and other medical professionals intent on ending their lives). She did not address the underlying issues that caused such outrage, apparently she still riding with killing the children if they make it out. Edited January 31, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Quick reminder: And we are taking his word as gospel because....it backs up your view? The guy that loves to go on fox news and say his schtick. You know, there are actual studies and credible medical sources we can cite to, not a tweet. 56 minutes ago, row_33 said: How do you judge that someone else is ignorant/uneducated or wrong The same as anything else. Ignorance/uneducated exists, and you can spot them. Not sure what you are asking. If someone says building a wall will stop all illegal immigration, and they have never looked into it before, that would be an ignorant/uneducated opinion. 43 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Part of me feels like you're just taking a position for the sake of taking a position, but if you have a baby, we'll know soon enough. When you're in the delivery room, and you either push the baby out of you or cut their cord, as you hold that baby for the first time, take a moment to ask yourself if only moments earlier you would be okay with the doctor killing that baby because you were afraid the baby's mother might be stressed about having a newborn. Or think for a moment about handing that baby to a doctor because you suddenly decided you didn't want it because maybe a hand was deformed, and they take the baby to another room to kill it. That's the law we're talking about. That's the law you are okay with. Two things. First, no offense, but your take on gaining knowledge on abortion based on having children is dumb. Its thinking pro-choice people are ignorant because of their lack of contact with children, or having a child. Which simply isn't true. You are making an emotional argument, when that's not how I think. Could someone's views on abortion change after giving birth, sure. Could someone's views on immigration change after having their family murdered by an immigrant change sure? Could someone's views on a minority change after a minority rapes their daughter? Sure. Yes, personal experiences can change views. No, the fact personal experiences can change someone's opinions is not relevant to my views. Plenty of people that are okay with this law, have children. Two, these bills would not permit handing over a living baby to a doctor to kill. That is no longer abortion, it is outside the scope of pregnancy, and is just plain wrong. Sorry. Its fakenews. 43 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: "Product of the abortion"? Do you mean baby? I'm using the language from the bill, smarty pants. 23 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I think in this case you show sociopathic tendencies. More importantly, the governor and the delegate revealed their thinking on the subject, and it's pretty clear that they stand in favor of terminating the life of a child born alive at the end of a pregnancy. It seems clear they feel it's good for their brand to follow their own deeply held personal convictions. Others need to follow thiers. I think a lot of trouble pro-life people have is being unable to see the views of someone pro-choice, and they chalk it up to disgusting, immoral, soulless, or sociopathic. In reality, its just you not seeing where the opposing side is coming from, and what you are left with is lack of understanding so you demonize it. In reality, its just placing the rights of a mother and family over that of an unborn child. I get the pro-life arguments, I don't see you as a soulless monster who is forcing women to have babies against their will. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
bilzfancy Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 To me, it's pretty simple, if you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant, there are a lot of birth control options 1
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 19 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: The same as anything else. Ignorance/uneducated exists, and you can spot them. Not sure what you are asking. If someone says building a wall will stop all illegal education, and they have never looked into it before, that would be an ignorant/uneducated opinion. You are kidding right? Your idiosyncracies, superstitions and willful blindness lets you judge others? Okay............ :( How do you KNOW someone hasn't looked into matters? Sounds like a typical liberal rush to judgement, with ZERO COLOUR OF RIGHT!!!
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: Please explain how a woman could possibly be "substantially and irredeemably" harmed after 9 months of pregnancy, by 5 more minutes of pregnancy, or better yet by leaving a live baby alive. The measure purposely uses vague language to create unquestioned judgement calls based on things that simply cannot be measured, thus can't ever be proven. 1 I also think taking the statute to its extreme is a misunderstanding of statutes. For example, let's say there is a law that allows you to return cars six weeks after purchase IF you learn something wrong with the car you did not know about at the time of purchase. Seems clear, right? You can return a car if you learn something is wrong with it anytime within six weeks of purchase. You saying "how can anything occur five minutes before birth that warrants an abortion for medical reason exist" is equivalent to someone saying "how can anyone learn something brand new about the car, that they didn't know at the time of purchase, 10 seconds after they purchased the car?" You saying "now people will be aborting babies 5 minutes before birth for no reason" is the equivalent of someone saying "now people will return cars five minutes after they purchase it for no reason." Taking a statute to its extreme in time limit, and then saying this is what is going to happen all the time, is silly talk. These are the same arguments you all are making, by taking the time limits to an extreme. Guess what, this hypothetical where there is a baby that is not harming the mother in any way, and one minute after birth she is like "oh look, time to abort the baby" is not based in reality. It doesn't happen. 1 minute ago, row_33 said: You are kidding right? Your idiosyncracies, superstitions and willful blindness lets you judge others? Okay............ How do you KNOW someone hasn't looked into matters? Sounds like a typical liberal rush to judgement, with ZERO COLOUR OF RIGHT!!! I have no idea what you are talking about (maybe you are joking). There are ignorant and uneducated opinions out there. We can all point them out... (also I meant to say illegal immigration, not education lol) I think I explicitly said pro-life is not ignorant.
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Two, these bills would not permit handing over a living baby to a doctor to kill. That is no longer abortion, it is outside the scope of pregnancy, and is just plain wrong. Sorry. Its fakenews. Watch the video. Read the bill. It ABSOLUTELY permitted the killing of a live baby out of the womb. The Governor was very specific. They would keep the baby comfortable until a decision was made. It all depended on the mother's health, emotional or otherwise. THAT is the law he tried to pass. A law so vile that even one of the co-sponsors pulled out after she realized she signed onto a bill that promoted infanticide. It's a lot of things, but fake news is not one of them. 1
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, LABillzFan said: Watch the video. Read the bill. It ABSOLUTELY permitted the killing of a live baby out of the womb. The Governor was very specific. They would keep the baby comfortable until a decision was made. It all depended on the mother's health, emotional or otherwise. Or her income.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Or her income. *sigh*
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: These are the same arguments you all are making, by taking the time limits to an extreme. Guess what, this hypothetical where there is a baby that is not harming the mother in any way, and one minute after birth she is like "oh look, time to abort the baby" is not based in reality. It doesn't happen. You're damn right it's an extreme time limit. That's why so many people find the law vile. It PERMITS killing the baby moments before birth, and even AFTER birth. For intentionally vague reasons. We're not making this up. THIS is the law they tried to pass.
Recommended Posts