Rob's House Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Democrats: Smirking at an activist is inexcusable, but killing a baby is cool.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: 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. IF THERE ARE MEDICAL REASONS. What is the scenario where five minutes before birth an abortion is necessary for medical reasons? It doesn't exist. Yes the time limit is extreme, but the contingent medical reasons place the limits you are ignoring. Just like returning a car may have the extreme time limit of one second after purchase, the requirement of new knowledge would place the limits you want. And even if it didn't have the medical reason requirements, just because the time limit is extreme, does not mean it is actually going to happen. WHo is carrying a baby for 9 months and then being like nope, abort it five minutes before pregnancy. That would be beyond rare. Taking a statute to its extremes is the worst way to argue against a statute. Because it ignores the 99% of its substance. And the after-birth stuff is absolutely fake news until someone shows anything in any of the abortion bills that would permit it. 10 minutes ago, 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. 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. I did read the bill, where does it say that? I will gladly admit I am wrong if someone (anyone???) could show me where the bill permits killing a baby after it is born. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I did read the bill, where does it say that? I will gladly admit I am wrong if someone (anyone???) could show me where the bill permits killing a baby after it is born. You used the language yourself earlier. Product of (such) abortion. That includes a live, delivered baby. To put it more cleanly in the Governor's words. Quote “If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother" You can call it extreme, but this is precisely what the bill allows. In fact, WHY delete the words "substantially and irremediably"? They want the ability to kill the baby at any time right up until AFTER birth, and that law gives it to them using vague, easily manipulated language for impairing mental health. Define "impairing mental health." Go ahead. Define it. You can't. Which is one reason so many people are disgusted by the law. In the end, it's kind of clear you're taking a position to take a position so I'll end my effort to convince here. 2
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 some people want to live in a selfish and endless stream of selfishness and raw sewage be my guest, nothing matters but your existence and comfort and demands. don't think for five seconds on how to be a better person and make the world an honestly better place
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 I don't really see how it makes any difference whether it's before or after birth. There is no difference in the nature of the child from labor to delivery. Just because there is a clearly defined demarcation point doesn't make it a meaningful one. 1
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: You used the language yourself earlier. Product of (such) abortion. That includes a live, delivered baby. 1 YES. And the bill says that baby has to be given measures of life support if there is evidence of viability. 6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: To put it more cleanly in the Governor's words. You can call it extreme, but this is precisely what the bill allows. In fact, WHY delete the words "substantially and irremediably"? They want the ability to kill the baby at any time right up until AFTER birth, and that law gives it to them using vague, easily manipulated language for impairing mental health. Define "impairing mental health." Go ahead. Define it. You can't. Which is one reason so many people are disgusted by the law. In the end, it's kind of clear you're taking a position to take a position so I'll end my effort to convince here. Lol, okay I am taking a position to take a position. There is not a single word in that bill that would authorize after-birth abortions. You keep citing stuff not in the bill, like the governor's words. The vagueness of "impairing mental health" would go towards broadening if an abortion can occur. IT DOES NOT GO TO THE TIMING OF AN ABORTION. There is nothing vague in the bill about the timing of the abortion (it is during the "pregnancy"). There is nothing in the bill about after-birth abortions (it does not permit it). The bill clearly permits late-term abortions udner certain reasons, and it clearly does not permit after-birth abortions. And you can gladly stop debating it with me, you are spreading fake news. It is funny this board will continuously be upset with fakenews and media lies, but will further it when it aligns with your belief. 2 minutes ago, Rob's House said: I don't really see how it makes any difference whether it's before or after birth. There is no difference in the nature of the child from labor to delivery. Just because there is a clearly defined demarcation point doesn't make it a meaningful one. It makes a difference because the bill allows abortion before birth, but not after birth. Despite a ton of you claiming otherwise without explaining how the bill would ever permit it. Facts matter people. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
B-Man Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 The folks claiming "no doctor would do a needless abortion on a viable healthy baby and no woman would sign up for that" have never heard of Kermit Gosnell or his many patients P.s. remember how media organizations started tweeting out and posting NRA contributions to Republican politicians to suggest that's why they oppose gun control? Notice none of them are posting Planned Parenthood contributions for Dems backing extreme abortion bills? New York’s New Law Is Abortion’s John C. Calhoun Moment New York’s legislature last week passed a bill that drastically expanded access to late-term abortion in that state. Although ghoulish, it was unsurprising. It fits neatly within the mainstream opinion of the 21st-century Democratic Party. Neither was Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature a surprise, since the governor has followed the well-worn path of fake-Catholic Democrats on the subject. Vermont and Virginia are considering similar laws. The shift has been building for some time. The radical fringe that pushes abortion rights has dropped all pretense that abortion has any downsides. From the “safe, legal, and rare” formulation Hillary Clinton famously pronounced during her husband’s presidency and again offered as recently as 2008, we have somehow arrived at a point where abortion advocates want women to “shout your abortion.” Cuomo decreed that the lights of the state-owned One World Trade Center (née the Freedom Tower) be lit in pink to exclaim the triumph of “women’s rights.” It has become common to compare the fight over abortion to the fight over slavery, and rightly so. Like abortion advocates, slavery supporters based their position on denying the basic human rights of a certain subset of humans. Even when they recognized such people as fully human, they subordinated their human rights to the rights of other, more powerful people. We can learn from the 19th century’s fight for freedom, especially as the fight for life in our own time parallels it in so many ways. More at the link:
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 10 hours ago, LABillzFan said: Hats off to VA lawmaker Dawn Adams for owning up to her mistake. Well done. You know, not for nothing, it is not asking a lot for these lawmakers to simply read the f*cking bills they pass, much less CO-SPONSOR! 1
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: You used the language yourself earlier. Product of (such) abortion. That includes a live, delivered baby. To put it more cleanly in the Governor's words. You can call it extreme, but this is precisely what the bill allows. In fact, WHY delete the words "substantially and irremediably"? They want the ability to kill the baby at any time right up until AFTER birth, and that law gives it to them using vague, easily manipulated language for impairing mental health. Define "impairing mental health." Go ahead. Define it. You can't. Which is one reason so many people are disgusted by the law. In the end, it's kind of clear you're taking a position to take a position so I'll end my effort to convince here. That's the key inquiry. Some are claiming that this is only being proposed for cases of medical necessity, but there is already a procedure in place should that highly unlikely scenario occur. There would be no reason to change the language unless you wanted to expand the right to kill the baby beyond cases of medical necessity. 1
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Rob's House said: That's the key inquiry. Some are claiming that this is only being proposed for cases of medical necessity, but there is already a procedure in place should that highly unlikely scenario occur. There would be no reason to change the language unless you wanted to expand the right to kill the baby beyond cases of medical necessity. It is no doubt broadening the ability to abort babies. This bill would permit abortions in a lot more situations. You are right. One of the situations is NOT after-birth abortions. I am sorry, but this is just plain wrong and is a lie. (I don't believe you are the one of the people saying it allows it. I get that you think both are equally wrong, that is fair!) Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64 1
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 18 minutes ago, Rob's House said: I don't really see how it makes any difference whether it's before or after birth. There is no difference in the nature of the child from labor to delivery. Just because there is a clearly defined demarcation point doesn't make it a meaningful one. their culture is all about selfishness, lack of responsibility for clear consequence from action, death and destruction may it serve them well in this life and the possible next one... 15 minutes ago, Rob's House said: That's the key inquiry. Some are claiming that this is only being proposed for cases of medical necessity, but there is already a procedure in place should that highly unlikely scenario occur. There would be no reason to change the language unless you wanted to expand the right to kill the baby beyond cases of medical necessity. there are clearly grounds for medical necessity, in almost all cases I have known about the mother chose to risk her life in order to preserve her child. that's way too deep a thought for me to even try to comprehend in my bachelorhood.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) The funniest part about all this is the after-birth abortion fakenews originates from a democratic governor. The irony is not lost upon me lol. Of course, because it supports your beliefs, many of you are clinging to a democratic governor's words, wholly unsupported by the text of the bill, as the truth. In ANY other circumstance, you would be pointing to the text as the truth, and the democrats's wrong message as fakenews. Its very disappointing to see a lot of you reverse logic because it is convenient for your beliefs. It is just like the MAGA hat kids debacle. Whatever suits your opinions I guess, who cares about the truth or facts. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Here's the full version: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491 1 1
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Here's the full version: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491 And again, if anyone can point to where it permits after birth abortions, let me know. I'll gladly donate $25 to a pro-life charity.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: 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. 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. 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. I'm using the language from the bill, smarty pants. 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. You're probably right about some pro-life people feeling the way they feel. You would have to talk with them more to figure out what's behind their thought process. I can see the opposite side to a point, and feel pretty comfortable navigating that path and having rational discussions on termination of pregnancies. I pass no judgement on termination of pregnancy when reasonable in spite of my own beliefs. Rather, what judgement I might pass I keep to myself. I admit to being stunned by anyone supporting terminating the life of a child in the last trimester for mental health issues. I always believed that most people are pro-life at some point, save the crazy few who would perform late term abortions for profit. I was mistaken. There are apparently many people who support taking the life of a fully developed child who's only crime is the being om the wrong side of the flesh separating them from the outside world. There are many people who actually celebrate the notion of championing the right of the vessel and the vessels medical surrogates to terminate life once the child is born. As for your perspective, in many cases, I'll listen and try to learn from you. In this case, though, if you see no difference between a fertilized egg and a baby in the third trimester being snuffed, there is no middle ground to find and if you see me as the soulless monster, I can live with it. 1
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 talk to people? libs talk DOWN to everyone who isn't on their lofty plain... or CONDESCEND to the people they fake interest in for voting patterns... any opinion that differs from theirs is due to ignorance or lack of proper education. whatever is in their brain is all you really need to exist perfectly in life. so why are they so bitter and angry all the time?
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're probably right about some pro-life people feeling the way they feel. You would have to talk with them more to figure out what's behind their thought process. I can see the opposite side to a point, and feel pretty comfortable navigating that path and having rational discussions on termination of pregnancies. I pass no judgement on termination of pregnancy when reasonable in spite of my own beliefs. Rather, what judgement I might pass I keep to myself. I admit to being stunned by anyone supporting terminating the life of a child in the last trimester for mental health issues. I always believed that most people are pro-life at some point, save the crazy few who would perform late term abortions for profit. I was mistaken. There are apparently many people who support taking the life of a fully developed child who's only crime is the being om the wrong side of the flesh separating them from the outside world. There are many people who actually celebrate the notion of championing the right of the vessel and the vessels medical surrogates to terminate life once the child is born. As for your perspective, in many cases, I'll listen and try to learn from you. In this case, though, if you see no difference between a fertilized egg and a baby in the third trimester being snuffed, there is no middle ground to find and if you see me as the soulless monster, I can live with it. Good post. I agree there really isn’t middle ground on this topic. I think the best you can do is try to understand each other. But you’re right, from your perspective, some of the pro-Hoover beliefs would be awful. I would disagree, but that’s more than fair. I appreciate the well-thought out reply. I just don’t see my views as soulless! 5 minutes ago, row_33 said: any opinion that differs from theirs is due to ignorance or lack of proper education. Now see, this is actually ignorance. I said ignorance/education has nothing to do with this abortion debate. It’s a difference in beliefs. Plenty of people are having rational conversations. you coming in here and posting this makes you guilty of exactly what you are complaining about. Go ahead and categorize and characterize half the population in you odd post. As if that’s not the definition of ignorance. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
whatdrought Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 10 hours ago, Crayola64 said: I think a line between born and unborn is pretty logical. Once a life is brought into the world, it has rights in my opinion. The line between different time-lengths of an unborn child don't make sense to me. Bold: Who determines who has rights and who doesn't? How is that arbitrary definition determined? In the 1800's it was determined by those in power based on skin color. In the 1930's it was determined by those in power based on religion and ethnic background. How do these rights become determined, and by who? Underlined: I actually agree with this. I understand the anger over these recent developments, but this isn't anything new. They were killing babies anyways.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Explainer: What New York’s new abortion law does and doesn’t do FTA: Does the R.H.A. allow abortion up to the point of birth? The new law allows abortion under any of three conditions: (1) if it is performed earlier than 24 weeks of pregnancy; (2) in an “absence of fetal viability”; or (3) if necessary to “protect the patient’s life or health.” So abortion is allowed without any restrictions during the first and second trimesters. Later than that, the question is how fetal viability and protection of the life and health of the mother are determined. The R.H.A. says that those judgments are to be made according to “the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case”; it does not impose any objective medical standard. Pro-life critics of the law are pointing out that the exception for health, which is not restricted to a physical definition and can be interpreted to cover psychological and emotional health, subject only to the medical judgment of the abortion provider, is broad enough to cover basically any possible late-term abortion. Insofar as the goal of the law was to guarantee access to abortion and remove restrictions on it, this is part and parcel of that goal. The new law does not contain any meaningful restriction that is likely to ever prevent an abortion. Pro-choice advocates point out that one reason for that is that the very small fraction of abortions that are conducted at 21 weeks or later (a little more than 1 percent) are almost always in response to some medical issue. Those issues could include acute risks to the life of the mother or conditions that make the child unable to survive to birth—but they also include situations where the child would face a terminal condition, significant suffering or a severe disability after birth, and where abortion is chosen to “spare” the child such pain. However, some providers have acknowledged that they are willing to perform late-term abortions even absent medical necessity, though it is impossible to estimate how many late-term abortions fall under that description. Does the R.H.A. allow non-physicians to perform abortions? Yes. The law specifies that a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under New York’s medical licensing laws can perform an abortion and make the professional judgments described above. This means that it is possible that licensed nurse practitioners or physician assistants could perform abortions. Does the R.H.A. remove protections for an infant born alive during an abortion? Yes. The R.H.A. repeals section 4164 of New York’s public health law. That section had provided that abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy had to be performed in a hospital, and that for abortions after 20 weeks a separate physician had to be on hand to provide medical care for any infant born alive during the procedure—which is a possibility, even if an unlikely one. The now-repealed section also specified that a child born alive during an abortion procedure immediately enjoyed the protection of New York’s laws, and it required medical records to be kept of the efforts to care for the infant. Without section 4164, the public health law is now silent on the status of an infant born alive during an abortion. More at the Link: https://www.americamagazine.org/rha2019
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: It is no doubt broadening the ability to abort babies. This bill would permit abortions in a lot more situations. You are right. One of the situations is NOT after-birth abortions. I am sorry, but this is just plain wrong and is a lie. (I don't believe you are the one of the people saying it allows it. I get that you think both are equally wrong, that is fair!) Again, you used the words yourself, so you know the part of the law we're talking about. Quote 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability There is no need for life support for the product of an abortion if the abortion was successful. If you are aborting the child, and it arrives alive, "measures for life support...shall be available..." You can kill it or let it die after they're born. And there is no such thing as an after-birth abortion. It's calling killing or letting the baby die. Edited January 31, 2019 by LABillzFan 1
Recommended Posts