New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[DC Tom]

14 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

My contention is that every unique genome is evidence of an individual, independent being no matter how small. It's THEIR bodily autonomy that's being violated, not the mother's.

 

Fine...but your contention is unprovable.  So why do you feel you can force others to adopt it?

 

That's always been the major bone of contention to me.  In the absence of objective fact, who has the right to force subjective opinion on another?

[whatdrought]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And thus, we're having this debate.

 

I gotcha. 

 

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Fine...but your contention is unprovable.  So why do you feel you can force others to adopt it?

 

That's always been the major bone of contention to me.  In the absence of objective fact, who has the right to force subjective opinion on another?

 

That’s the whole basis of a republic. We elect those who have opinions that mirror our own in order that they will create legislation that reflects our values. Science abdicates on many important sociatlile issues, it doesn’t mean we don’t legislate on such topics.

Edited May 18, 2019 by whatdrought

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

 

I gotcha. 

 

 

That’s the whole basis of a republic. We elect those who have opinions that mirror our own in order that they will create legislation that reflects our values. Science abdicates on many important sociatlile issues, it doesn’t mean we don’t legislate on such topics.

Science doesn't really abdicate; science provides answers to questions that can be addressed through science.  When life begins is a philosophic question, not a scientific one.  

 

My main objection to the abortion debate is people claiming science has proven their opinion when it has not regardless of the side one takes.

2 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Yep.  You can always tell someone has no argument when they rely on the fringe exceptions to make their point.

 

And then there's all the 'white men deciding blah blah blah women's bodies' nonsense that is once again vomited all over facebook.

 

 

 

If you look at the Alabama law, I believe the senators who voted it in are all white men.  So I can understand the point being made.  May not agree with it but that's what happened.

[whatdrought]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Science doesn't really abdicate; science provides answers to questions that can be addressed through science.  When life begins is a philosophic question, not a scientific one.  

 

My main objection to the abortion debate is people claiming science has proven their opinion when it has not regardless of the side one takes.

If you look at the Alabama law, I believe the senators who voted it in are all white men.  So I can understand the point being made.  May not agree with it but that's what happened.

 

Failure to answer the question ask is more my meaning. Science does this with many things, so turning to science to set policy does not always work. This is further shown when there is legitimate scientific ambiguity on topics. 

 

The science side of things is really irrelevant to the topic anyways, I think, as the left has moved past that and is now simply claiming to failure to allow abortion at any time and any place for any reason is an assault on women's rights. I think the scientific side is all a mirage on this conversation piece. 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

Because we as a society do not advocate murder based on emotional preference... if we agree across the board where the date it becomes life is, then anything after that is murder.

 

Take your point to it’s final conclusion. A woman who was raped and conceived gives birth, raises the child to two years old. When he’s two she sees her rapist at the store, or on the news, whatever, and the sight of him terrorizes her with renewed dreams and flashbacks. Problem is, 2 year old son looks like the bastard. Every time she looks at her son she sees him and she’s taken back to that moment. So one night, when it’s too much to bear, she drowns her toddler in the tub. If she’s allowed to kill that child in the womb because the emotional strain is too much, how is that different?

 

more to the point, cases of rape and ***** (i.e., the abortion lobby’s hobby horse) make up a tiny tiny percentage of abortions. The very high majority are elective. This is just a tactic to muddy the waters. 

I hear the same thing about late term abortions at as they comprise about 1.3% of all abortions.  Isn't that the same tactic used to muddy the waters to play politics?  The extreme pro choice people believe women should have a right to do with their bodies at ALL times which to me is crazy. 

 

With regards to the Alabama law, I get the morally consistent puritan pro life position is to allow no exceptions.  If you're going to make abortion illegal in all cases even for rape victims immediately after conception, my position is you should at least give the rape victim an exception and a small window to make an extremely difficult and emotional choice.  I do think rape victims should be mandated to report it within a week and be offered emergency contraceptions if fearful they will be pregnant.  They then should have to take regular pregnancy tests and as soon as they test positive given a two week window to make their decision.

 

By the way, I say this as somebody who thinks all abortion should be illegal with the exception of the mother will likely die from giving birth after 20 weeks.

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I hear the same thing about late term abortions at as they comprise about 1.3% of all abortions.  Isn't that the same tactic used to muddy the waters to play politics?  The extreme pro choice people believe women should have a right to do with their bodies at ALL times which to me is crazy. 

 

With regards to the Alabama law, I get the morally consistent puritan pro life position is to allow no exceptions.  If you're going to make abortion illegal in all cases even for rape victims immediately after conception, my position is you should at least give the rape victim an exception and a small window to make an extremely difficult and emotional choice.  I do think rape victims should be mandated to report it within a week and be offered emergency contraceptions if fearful they will be pregnant.  They then should have to take regular pregnancy tests and as soon as they test positive given a two week window to make their decision.

 

By the way, I say this as somebody who thinks all abortion should be illegal with the exception of the mother will likely die from giving birth after 20 weeks.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that all abortions should be illegal after 20 weeks with the exception being for the mother's health?

[Doc Brown]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that all abortions should be illegal after 20 weeks with the exception being for the mother's health?

Yes.  As soon as a fetus becomes viable I think abortion is no different than murduring a baby.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

Yes.  As soon as a fetus becomes viable I think abortion is no different than murduring a baby.

So, you are setting the viability cutoff at 20 weeks? To me that's a stretch but by all means not Draconian. This has been a very good discussion here for the last couple of days. A lot of reasoned, philosophical arguments. Even with people like DC Tom who claims he is pro choice but not for himself, only for others. I claim to be pro life, but only for myself. I believe that other people should be able to choose for themselves (with limits) and it's between them and their God. He's pro choice, I'm pro life and I'm willing to bet that there isn't a scintilla of difference between our positions.

[B-Man]

The silenced majority in America's crazed abortion debate

The Week, by Damon Linker

 

Original Article

 

 

 

Abortion is tragic in the strict sense of the term. It's an act that pits fundamentally irreconcilable absolute rights against each other — the pregnant woman's right to determine what happens to her own body without state interference against the right to life of the fetus she carries inside her womb. Anyone who adopts an absolute position on the issue, denying the moral weight of the case for the opposite view, does so through an act of willful, ideologically motivated simplification.

 

In a country where laws reflected this tragic reality, abortion would be safe and legally available early on in pregnancy, while freely available birth control and generous support for pregnant women would contribute to making it as rare as possible. Restrictions on abortion would increase as the fetus approaches viability, with the termination of a pregnancy after viability allowed only in the rarest and most wrenching of cases — when the mother's life is at significant risk and/or doctors learn that the baby will suffer from severe, life-threatening health problems.

 

More at the link:

 

 

.

[reddogblitz]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

If you look at the Alabama law, I believe the senators who voted it in are all white men.  So I can understand the point being made.  May not agree with it but that's what happened.

 

It was signed into a law by a woman.  And the woman held all the power. She doesn't sign it and it doesn't become law.

Edited May 18, 2019 by reddogblitz

[B-Man]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

  So much

 

It was signed into a law by a woman.

 

It was written by a woman also.

 

the minute you here the "white men" phrase...................you know that they are going on feelings instead of facts.

 

 

.

[Doc Brown]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

So, you are setting the viability cutoff at 20 weeks? To me that's a stretch but by all means not Draconian. This has been a very good discussion here for the last couple of days. A lot of reasoned, philosophical arguments. Even with people like DC Tom who claims he is pro choice but not for himself, only for others. I claim to be pro life, but only for myself. I believe that other people should be able to choose for themselves (with limits) and it's between them and their God. He's pro choice, I'm pro life and I'm willing to bet that there isn't a scintilla of difference between our positions.

The most premature surviving baby was born at 21 weeks.  This is her at four years old.

 

 

I always said just throw me in a dumpster as a baby instead of aborting me as there's always the chance I'll be found and live a normal life.  I don't like to chastise people who are pro choice though as they believe they are morally correct in advocating for the rights of a woman to do what they want with their body.

[IDBillzFan]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

AOC never ceases to amaze me, but she’s been so brainwashed with liberal talking points that she serves as an interesting study in many of society’s current debates. She’s like a cartoon case.

 

AOC is the Tibs of the DNC. Nothing she posts comes from her noggin'. It comes from someone else, who either posts it for her or gives it to her to post.

 

She can't peel a potato and garbage disposals are, like, totally amazing to her. That's all you need to know about her. Dumb as a brick. Paid to play.

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

The most premature surviving baby was born at 21 weeks.  This is her at four years old.

 

 

I always said just throw me in a dumpster as a baby instead of aborting me as there's always the chance I'll be found and live a normal life.  I don't like to chastise people who are pro choice though as they believe they are morally correct in advocating for the rights of a woman to do what they want with their body.

It's just not only their body though. Taking that to ridiculous ends then can they also get rid of a 2-year old that is too clingy?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Fine...but your contention is unprovable.  So why do you feel you can force others to adopt it?

 

That's always been the major bone of contention to me.  In the absence of objective fact, who has the right to force subjective opinion on another?

 

Why do you feel I'm obligated to not advocate for laws that reflect my belief when the other side does exactly that? See: the "equality act,"

Edited May 18, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Science doesn't really abdicate; science provides answers to questions that can be addressed through science.  When life begins is a philosophic question, not a scientific one.  

 

My main objection to the abortion debate is people claiming science has proven their opinion when it has not regardless of the side one takes.

If you look at the Alabama law, I believe the senators who voted it in are all white men.  So I can understand the point being made.  May not agree with it but that's what happened.

 

It's the ongoing narrative that's bs.

 

And yes in Alabama the white guys voted for it, but the law was signed by a women.

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It's just not only their body though. Taking that to ridiculous ends then can they also get rid of a 2-year old that is too clingy?

Luckily, that's murder.  It could be worse.  The Spartans form of birth control were soldiers examining the newborn to test its strength and bathing it in wine to see how it would react.  If it was determined weak they'd throw it off a cliff or raised them to be a slave. 

[oldmanfan]

27 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

 

It was signed into a law by a woman.  And the woman held all the power. She doesn't sign it and it doesn't become law.

Good point

[B-Man]

https://twitchy.com/jacobb-38/2019/05/17/whats-the-excuse-for-this-one-another-governor-is-about-to-sign-pro-life-legislation-and-hes-a-democrat/

 

Over the past few weeks, Democrats have been insisting that it’s a bunch of right-wing extremists in Georgia, Alabama, Missouri and other states who have been pushing and have passed pro-life legislation.

 

They might want to check out what is about to happen in Louisiana, where Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards is preparing to sign a pro-life law.

 

 

 

Quote

 

AP South U.S. Region

✔@APSouthRegion

 

Democratic Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards has repeatedly bucked national party leaders on abortion rights and is about to do it again. http://apne.ws/wymN5NU

 

 

 

And to the progressives who claim he just doing this for reelection purposes:

Nearly three decades ago, when Democratic Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards’ wife was 20 weeks pregnant with their first child, a doctor discovered their daughter had spina bifida and encouraged an abortion. The Edwardses refused.

 

Now, daughter Samantha is married and working as a school counselor, and Edwards finds himself an outlier in polarized abortion politics.

“My position hasn’t changed. In eight years in the Legislature, I was a pro-life legislator,” he said. When he ran for governor, his view was the same. “I’m as consistent as I can be on that point.”

 

To add to the destruction he is doing to his party’s talking points, Edwards says he is far from the only pro-life Democrat in the state.

 

 

Melinda Deslatte

✔@MelindaDeslatte

 

Edwards on his opposition to abortion: “I know that for many in the national party, on the national scene, that’s not a good fit.

But I will tell you, here in Louisiana, I speak and meet with Democrats who are pro-life every single day.” #lalege #lagov

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I hear the same thing about late term abortions at as they comprise about 1.3% of all abortions.  Isn't that the same tactic used to muddy the waters to play politics?  The extreme pro choice people believe women should have a right to do with their bodies at ALL times which to me is crazy. 

 

With regards to the Alabama law, I get the morally consistent puritan pro life position is to allow no exceptions.  If you're going to make abortion illegal in all cases even for rape victims immediately after conception, my position is you should at least give the rape victim an exception and a small window to make an extremely difficult and emotional choice.  I do think rape victims should be mandated to report it within a week and be offered emergency contraceptions if fearful they will be pregnant.  They then should have to take regular pregnancy tests and as soon as they test positive given a two week window to make their decision.

 

By the way, I say this as somebody who thinks all abortion should be illegal with the exception of the mother will likely die from giving birth after 20 weeks.

 

Its not a tactic to point to the statistical reality of the position. If pro-abortion proponents were to come to the table and say “no abortions except rape and *****” we could have a different conversation. I would still say no, but at least we’d be operating from honesty. But they hide behind that while trying to push their ultimate agenda (hello NY).

 

The problem with an exception is that you’re excusing something that is wrong. My belief and the belief of other pro-life people is that terminating a pregnancy is an unnatural taking of life. Supposing the life was conceived in rape doesn’t change that- it’s the old standard of two wrongs making no rights. 

 

Another layer in this conversation is that the left is simultaneously off the deep end in trying to re-define rape and sexual assault. Not to even mention the number of women who would lie about the circumstances involved in the conception... how do you prove that?

 

my bottom line is this. Either it’s always fine or it’s always not. That’s why I was slightly pissed at all the pro-life people losing their ***** about the NY law and VA attempted law.. yeah, given our view it’s a travesty, but it doesn’t matter when they’re being killed... they’re being killed.