New York just made it legal to abort a fetus "at any time" of the pregnancy

i mean, two weeks, or 30 weeks, you either believe life begins at conception or once they hit daylight. What makes people more comfortable or what is more palatable or easy to mentally compartmentalize is irrelevant imo. Legally, any time you couch something in vague language about welfare or health of mother, it’s open season. It’s like medical necessity and marijuana. You have the money and want it, they’re going to find a medical reason. Not comparing the morality of the two which is a million miles apart, simply the mechanism by which you acquire what you seek.

I mean, if you say to the doctor I’m going to kill myself if I have a baby, that would probably end up in a 72 hour hold and an abortion. 72 hours or 18 years. You’ll be able to get it done .

Why was Scott Peterson convicted of double murder if fetus' are big nothing burgers? anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

i mean, two weeks, or 30 weeks, you either believe life begins at conception or once they hit daylight.What makes people more comfortable or what is more palatable or easy to mentally compartmentalize is irrelevant imo. Legally, any time you couch something in vague language about welfare or health of mother, it’s open season. It’s like medical necessity and marijuana. You have the money and want it, they’re going to find a medical reason. Not comparing the morality of the two which is a million miles apart, simply the mechanism by which you acquire what you seek.

I mean, if you say to the doctor I’m going to kill myself if I have a baby, that would probably end up in a 72 hour hold and an abortion. 72 hours or 18 years. You’ll be able to get it done .

---

The moral issue has never been “when does life begin”, but, as laid out in the Roe v. Wade ruling, it is “when does life *independent* of the mother’s become viable”. Because the underlying issue of one of competing rights: that of the fetus versus that of the mother. The court decided that before that point of viability, at the time 26 weeks, the mother’s rights superceded the fetus’ rights, but after that point, the fetus’ rights superceded the mother’s.

That being said, I agree that adding the phrase “and health” versus just “life” is too vague to legally viable. For example, it’s well known that a woman is more likely to develop vericose veins, as well as back pain, fatigue, and possibly post-partum depression if the baby is carried to term. Are those health concerns legitimate to legally allow a late-stage abortion?

I’ve always found it funny that republicans say the government should stay out of people lives but here they are asking for the government to intervene in people lives. All the moral high ground about abortion but funding is cut across the board for social services and helping people that are actually alive and struggling. Abortion is a choice between the father and a women not the government and not everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drawingdead

I’ve always found it funny that republicans say the government should stay out of people lives but here they are asking for the government to intervene in people lives. All the moral high ground about abortion but funding is cut across the board for social services and helping people that are actually alive and struggling. Abortion is a choice between the father and a women not the government and not everyone else.

---

The problem is that it involves a separate life, so it's not just the choice between the parents.

Would you advocate parents killing a newborn because they couldn't afford to take care of it? I'm sure you wouldn't.

What about killing a baby the day before it was about to be born? Again, I'm sure you wouldn't.

So when does it become "okay" to kill a developing baby in the womb?

Regarding social services, I feel the government should have services in place to help people who can't care for themselves, and some very minimal services to help people who are just down-and-out. However, you have to take care to where people don't simply choose to have the government take care of them, rather than working and being productive. Once the free handouts approach the standard of living one would have from a minimum wage job, there becomes no incentive to work. I don't even blame these people. If I were in that spot, I would totally take the free handouts rather than work a crappy job, just for a similar standard of living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

The moral issue has never been “when does life begin”, but, as laid out in the Roe v. Wade ruling, it is “when does life *independent* of the mother’s become viable”. Because the underlying issue of one of competing rights: that of the fetus versus that of the mother. The court decided that before that point of viability, at the time 26 weeks, the mother’s rights superceded the fetus’ rights, but after that point, the fetus’ rights superceded the mother’s.

That being said, I agree that adding the phrase “and health” versus just “life” is too vague to legally viable. For example, it’s well known that a woman is more likely to develop vericose veins, as well as back pain, fatigue, and possibly post-partum depression if the baby is carried to term. Are those health concerns legitimate to legally allow a late-stage abortion?

---

That is all fine and dandy. But it is still murder if you believe that life begins at conception (which is a very reasonable belief). The Supreme Court can rule all they want that the sky is orange, and that would make it the law of the land, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

That is all fine and dandy. But it is still murder if you believe that life begins at conception (which is a very reasonable belief). The Supreme Court can rule all they want that the sky is orange, and that would make it the law of the land, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

---

It is also murder when someone is not given life-saving medical treatment because they can’t afford it if you beleibe that a life is more valuable than mere excess material resources.

What if Martin Carrico (Jewdonk) got some hooker pregnant?

I'm sure that Druff would support aborting the child then.

But fortunately Thai tranny hookers can't get pregnant.


https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/at...8&d=1528609166

Those hands could crush a watermelon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drawingdead

I’ve always found it funny that republicans say the government should stay out of people lives but here they are asking for the government to intervene in people lives. All the moral high ground about abortion but funding is cut across the board for social services and helping people that are actually alive and struggling. Abortion is a choice between the father and a women not the government and not everyone else.

---

I agree to the premise that it’s a mother/father choice and not Uncle Sam..... up until the the point that the fluids become an actual person. At that point Uncle Sam has a say.

What makes the issue so volitle to discuss is reasonable people can disagree as to what point between ejaculation and 9 months later as to when cells become a being. As a country we have kind of used 3 months as a bench mark that most people can agree on (most, not all). This law just potentially moved the goalposts back quite a bit.

I’m pro choice but I can say I’m against an abortion at month 8. I don’t think that makes me unreasonable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azqKAZr7rwA

To be fair, American foeti aren’t viable until they graduate high school

On my Facebook, I have a friend who is an SJW but she doesn't mind that I argue back and forth with her leftist/SJW friends.

So every debate I have there is like 10-on-1 or worse, though occasionally someone jumps in and backs my view before being run off.

I realize this, but still enjoy it because it actually makes me think, and it's an interesting view into the other side and how THEY think.

Anyway, with like one exception, ALL of them are totally in favor of these laws legalizing the late term abortions up until the date of birth.

Why?

Because it's important to "give a woman and her doctors the choice to make an intelligent decision".

And what of doctors and mothers who might abuse this to commit legalized murder of ready-to-be-born babies which they no longer want?

They're all denying that's ever going to happen. And the few who concede that it might happen feel that it's an acceptable price to pay for the "freedom" of allowing a woman and her doctor to choose what to do.

Amazing.

(By the way, what little research exists on late term abortions shows that a fairly large percentage of women seeking them are NOT doing it for medical reasons!)

But even if the 90% of the women seeking late term abortion were doing so for valid reasons, even that would be unacceptable, as the other 10% would be getting away with legalized murder.

Anyway, this is going to be a straight up killer for Democrats in 2020 if late term abortion becomes part of the Democratic Party platform. Like, if they don't separate themselves from this immediately, or at least make a distinction that they only support more sensible late term laws, this is going to be a huge rallying point for Republicans.

Late term abortions are VERY unpopular with the general public -- something like 80/20 to 85/15 against.

Democrats are super out of touch with this one. They're so obsessed with their usual "old white men keep their laws off a woman's body" rhetoric that they're totally missing the gigantic flaws in what they're advocating -- both morally and politically.

I could totally see swing voters ticking the box for Trump again, saying, "Well, he's an asshole and I didn't care for his first term, but at least he doesn't support killing babies like [the Democratic candidate]!"

Seriously.

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge tactical mistake here to be pushing it this far, less than 2 years away from the election.

The other political mistake with what the Democrats are doing with late term abortion is that they took a highly divided issue (abortion in general), and somehow made themselves exactly into the ridiculous caricature painted of them by pro-lifers years ago.

Pro-life advocates were screaming for years that it was a slippery slope, and that soon enough the left would want full rights to abortion at any time of the pregnancy.

You dismissed these people as crazy church weirdos, and then lo and behold, the Democrats have become exactly what that crazy church guy said they would.

So this actually has the power to turn early-term pro-choicers and people on the fence into solid pro-lifers, if it appears that the pro-choice side has gone this batshit crazy.

I'm still in disbelief this is happening. I realize that this has been happening at the state level, but you'd think some prominent Democrats would speak up and at least distance the party in general from this, but it's not happening.

Republicans were looking for something to grab onto in order to make Democrats appear to be out of touch loons, and I think they've got it.

your President is an out of touch loon, but he won

OK now I'm really pissed off! Not one of you guys along with the media have even mentioned the alternative that exists here. If you are even considering infanticide at a late stage why not go to term and give the kid up for adoption. What am I missing here? I think there should be an adoption official required at every abortion clinic and hospital to try and convince the mother to have the child rather than kill it. This is just so obviously wrong. Have we as a free society (we think we are) really gone that far off the rails? I worry a lot about the type of world my grandkids will grow up in. In my mind this is the one issue that should and could swing elections at all levels. Rant over--flame away. Adoption is the only option imho.

people have been worrying about the world their grandchildren will grow up in for centuries. it's all been nice and progressive. don't worry about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

On my Facebook, I have a friend who is an SJW but she doesn't mind that I argue back and forth with her leftist/SJW friends.

So every debate I have there is like 10-on-1 or worse, though occasionally someone jumps in and backs my view before being run off.

I realize this, but still enjoy it because it actually makes me think, and it's an interesting view into the other side and how THEY think.

Anyway, with like one exception, ALL of them are totally in favor of these laws legalizing the late term abortions up until the date of birth.

Why?

Because it's important to "give a woman and her doctors the choice to make an intelligent decision".

...

I could totally see swing voters ticking the box for Trump again, saying, "Well, he's an asshole and I didn't care for his first term, but at least he doesn't support killing babies like [the Democratic candidate]!"

Seriously.

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge tactical mistake here to be pushing it this far, less than 2 years away from the election.

---

Druff, your understanding of how such an issue would affect the outcome of future elections is woefully amateurisg. Because it’s not an issue of how this might affect “swing voters”; their voting decisions are overwhelminhly dominated by their own personal economic and safety concerns, not the welfare of others. But it WILL affect fundraising from ideological bases, which can be capitalized upon immediately by both sides, and later *turnout* of each side’s base at primary and general election time.

Abortion is murder in my opinion, the difference is only half the country cares, the other half are the killers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

On my Facebook, I have a friend who is an SJW but she doesn't mind that I argue back and forth with her leftist/SJW friends.

So every debate I have there is like 10-on-1 or worse, though occasionally someone jumps in and backs my view before being run off.

I realize this, but still enjoy it because it actually makes me think, and it's an interesting view into the other side and how THEY think.

Anyway, with like one exception, ALL of them are totally in favor of these laws legalizing the late term abortions up until the date of birth.

Why?

Because it's important to "give a woman and her doctors the choice to make an intelligent decision".

And what of doctors and mothers who might abuse this to commit legalized murder of ready-to-be-born babies which they no longer want?

They're all denying that's ever going to happen. And the few who concede that it might happen feel that it's an acceptable price to pay for the "freedom" of allowing a woman and her doctor to choose what to do.

Amazing.

(By the way, what little research exists on late term abortions shows that a fairly large percentage of women seeking them are NOT doing it for medical reasons!)

But even if the 90% of the women seeking late term abortion were doing so for valid reasons, even that would be unacceptable, as the other 10% would be getting away with legalized murder.

Anyway, this is going to be a straight up killer for Democrats in 2020 if late term abortion becomes part of the Democratic Party platform. Like, if they don't separate themselves from this immediately, or at least make a distinction that they only support more sensible late term laws, this is going to be a huge rallying point for Republicans.

Late term abortions are VERY unpopular with the general public -- something like 80/20 to 85/15 against.

Democrats are super out of touch with this one. They're so obsessed with their usual "old white men keep their laws off a woman's body" rhetoric that they're totally missing the gigantic flaws in what they're advocating -- both morally and politically.

I could totally see swing voters ticking the box for Trump again, saying, "Well, he's an asshole and I didn't care for his first term, but at least he doesn't support killing babies like [the Democratic candidate]!"

Seriously.

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge tactical mistake here to be pushing it this far, less than 2 years away from the election.

---

So how does this work out with the legalized murder in death sentences? Do we just flip every point you made and hope no one noticed?

Not that any of this matters too long. We're about two generations away from more active "population control" methods.

if there was no child labour laws.... every woman would be forced to have at least two, you know, for the sake of industry.



seriously though adoption is a thing

Conservotards (and well-meaning-but-misinformed people): Time to untwist your knickers over this issue.

Before judging 'late-term abortion,' understand what it means, doctors say
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/hea...ner/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Conservotards (and well-meaning-but-misinformed people): Time to untwist your knickers over this issue.

Before judging 'late-term abortion,' understand what it means, doctors say
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/hea...ner/index.html

---

imagine being old and shilling FOR abortion. why would the thought even cross ur mind unless ur banging fertile women at least? u worried about ur 25 year old gf tying u down? or u pay for some before or what. so ur either just a very easily manipulated drone having an opinion on whatever the MSM tells u to, or ur exposing urself as an easily manipulated drone that has paid for abortions, which is it

Number of times this will personally effect you: 0.

Who fucking cares?

pretty sure this thread exists because druff made a huge public argument that abortion rights are a sacred cow and that electing trump wouldnt impact them, so its time to polarize the issue as much as possible in order to present the pending dismantling of roe v wade as 'just good old fashioned conservative common sense'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

pretty sure this thread exists because druff made a huge public argument that abortion rights are a sacred cow and that electing trump wouldnt impact them, so its time to polarize the issue as much as possible in order to present the pending dismantling of roe v wade as 'just good old fashioned conservative common sense'.

---

Trump isn't the one attempting to disrupt the original spirit of the Roe v Wade decision.

The left has graduated from "pro-choice" to "women can do whatever the fuck they want with the fetus inside them, even if it means killing the child just days before birth".

It's no longer the "clump of cells" argument. Now we're at the point where the left wants to be able to kill a human baby because it's technically still in the mother's womb, so it makes murder okay or something. Really disturbing shit.

This is a far cry from the days of reasoning that a 16-year-old girl who gets pregnant by her boyfriend should be able to abort a clump of cells at the 4-week mark in order to prevent it from ruining her future. This has become straight up murder.

Imagine if Bill Clinton's "Spiritual Healer" was banging 13 year old girls, getting them pregnant and then selling the babies for $50K each.

Oh wait, that actually did happen.


(pizzagate is fake, goys)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

pretty sure this thread exists because druff made a huge public argument that abortion rights are a sacred cow and that electing trump wouldnt impact them, so its time to polarize the issue as much as possible in order to present the pending dismantling of roe v wade as 'just good old fashioned conservative common sense'.

---

Trump isn't the one attempting to disrupt the original spirit of the Roe v Wade decision.

The left has graduated from "pro-choice" to "women can do whatever the fuck they want with the fetus inside them, even if it means killing the child just days before birth".

It's no longer the "clump of cells" argument. Now we're at the point where the left wants to be able to kill a human baby because it's technically still in the mother's womb, so it makes murder okay or something. Really disturbing shit.

This is a far cry from the days of reasoning that a 16-year-old girl who gets pregnant by her boyfriend should be able to abort a clump of cells at the 4-week mark in order to prevent it from ruining her future. This has become straight up murder.

---

Druff your "there might be crooked doctors that abuse this" argument is so lame I don't even know where to start. It really kinda disappoints me. There's always people that abuse the system, so fucking what? Do you really think thousands and thousands of extra abortions will come from this? Is this argument any different from the "why punish rich people who don't use loopholes" counter argument you made in the discussion about raising taxes? Why punish women because you're afraid there's some doctor rubbing his hands together from the minimal amount of money he will make performng 3 extra abortions in a year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Conservotards (and well-meaning-but-misinformed people): Time to untwist your knickers over this issue.

Before judging 'late-term abortion,' understand what it means, doctors say
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/hea...ner/index.html

---

Mumbles, do you really believe any of these answers?

I thought you pride yourself upon thinking critically and trying to see through the rhetoric and BS.

These doctors (who are undoubtedly both on the left and stand to make more money if abortion rules are lightened) are engaging in the same dishonest lies-by-omission that I see leftists on my Facebook doing in order to defend this.

Conservatives say, "Late term abortion is murder if there's not a really important and justified reason for it. How do you explain that women in certain states can get a late term abortion up until the date of birth, with only minor health problems or mental health claims as justification?"

Liberals answer back, "Abortion is a complicated matter. Women don't do it late in the pregnancy without carefully considering it, and most of the time it's because of life threatening conditions or severe, incurable health issues for the fetus."

Conservatives reply, "Yeah, fine, but what about the cases where the woman just changes her mind and says the baby is causing her mental health issues. She can get an abortion then, right?"

Liberals answer back, "Again, women never do this unless they really consider all of the options, and late term abortion is really only done to handle severe problems for the mother or child."

Conservatives reply, "You're not answering the question. Does this open the door to abortion of a fully formed child when the mother simply changes her mind and simply claims mental health issues or back pain?"

Liberals avoid answering that. They don't want to answer. They will just keep repeating that women would never do that (lol) and that doctors would never do that (bigger lol).

Basically we're just supposed to trust in humanity that these laws will never be abused by doctors for profit or distraught women whose boyfriends just left them in the 7th month of pregnancy.

They also don't want to talk about the fact that women can get abortions up to 24 weeks in New York and some other states, for ANY reason, despite the fact that many babies are actually developed enough to be VIABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB at 24 weeks. As I mentioned before, 80% of babies born at 26 weeks survive long term.

Well-written law is very important, because in cases where the law isn't specific, the broad interpretation must be used.

You can't just pass laws allowing doctors and pregnant women to determine what defines the term "health', or it will be abused by both opportunistic doctors and women looking to get out of a pregnancy due to changed life circumstance.

Show me a broadly written law, and I'll show you lots of cases where people manipulate the system to abuse it.

The left's response to all of this has pretty much been, "Yeah, this COULD happen, but we totally trust everyone in the country to not abuse the law for committing legalized murder."

Just trust everyone not to murder. Got it.

Druff: I'm ok with loopholes that save rich people money, but not ok with loopholes that allows other women to survive life threatening situations.

Again, this will never be relevant to you personally in any context ever, so why do you care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Druff: I'm ok with loopholes that save rich people money, but not ok with loopholes that allows other women to survive life threatening situations.

Again, this will never be relevant to you personally in any context ever, so why do you care?

---

Who said this is about life threatening situations?

Almost all conservatives SUPPORT abortion rights for women whose lives are in danger.'

That's not what this is about, and you know it.

This is about a huge expansion of abortion "rights", moving from the already-controversial (but now generally accepted) "abort a clump of cells" to the actual murder of viable babies, and allowing it for virtually any reason.

As Steven Crowder said, "This is like the medical marijuana situation, except this one is for killing babies."

Why do I care?

Because I don't like seeing people murdered?

Also, how can you say it won't affect me? What if in 20 years, Benjamin and his girlfriend break up when she's 7.5 months pregnant, and she legally aborts the kid? You don't think that would affect the grandparents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Druff: I'm ok with loopholes that save rich people money, but not ok with loopholes that allows other women to survive life threatening situations.

Again, this will never be relevant to you personally in any context ever, so why do you care?

---

Who said this is about life threatening situations?

Almost all conservatives SUPPORT abortion rights for women whose lives are in danger.'

That's not what this is about, and you know it.

This is about a huge expansion of abortion "rights", moving from the already-controversial (but now generally accepted) "abort a clump of cells" to the actual murder of viable babies, and allowing it for virtually any reason.

As Steven Crowder said, "This is like the medical marijuana situation, except this one is for killing babies."

Why do I care?

Because I don't like seeing people murdered?

Also, how can you say it won't affect me? What if in 20 years, Benjamin and his girlfriend break up when she's 7.5 months pregnant, and she legally aborts the kid? You don't think that would affect the grandparents?

---

Sounds like we got ourselves a social justice warrior right here. Yeeehaw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Conservotards (and well-meaning-but-misinformed people): Time to untwist your knickers over this issue.

Before judging 'late-term abortion,' understand what it means, doctors say
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/hea...ner/index.html

---

If this doesn't hit you in the gut........watch the whole thing


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcUJq5UIA7w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Druff: I'm ok with loopholes that save rich people money, but not ok with loopholes that allows other women to survive life threatening situations.

Again, this will never be relevant to you personally in any context ever, so why do you care?

---

Who said this is about life threatening situations?

Almost all conservatives SUPPORT abortion rights for women whose lives are in danger.'

That's not what this is about, and you know it.

This is about a huge expansion of abortion "rights", moving from the already-controversial (but now generally accepted) "abort a clump of cells" to the actual murder of viable babies, and allowing it for virtually any reason.

As Steven Crowder said, "This is like the medical marijuana situation, except this one is for killing babies."

Why do I care?

Because I don't like seeing people murdered?

Also, how can you say it won't affect me? What if in 20 years, Benjamin and his girlfriend break up when she's 7.5 months pregnant, and she legally aborts the kid? You don't think that would affect the grandparents?

---

The problem is you think there's some liberal woman out there right now fingering herself to the thought of aborting a kid at 25 weeks. Do you seriously think for a minute that people want to have to abort a child that late? If you do, you really need to go out more and stop being so cynical.

You still also haven't addressed why it's ok to support loopholes for rich tax payers by not just raising the tax on all of them but it's ok to go against this because you know a loop hole that maybe, MAYBE, 1 in 10000000 pregnancies will use.

Edit:. Lol at the Benjamin comment. You need a reality check, because that's a reality that just isn't going to happen. That scenario is so extremely far-fetched it deserves tin foil hats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Who said this is about life threatening situations?

Almost all conservatives SUPPORT abortion rights for women whose lives are in danger.'

That's not what this is about, and you know it.

This is about a huge expansion of abortion "rights", moving from the already-controversial (but now generally accepted) "abort a clump of cells" to the actual murder of viable babies, and allowing it for virtually any reason.

As Steven Crowder said, "This is like the medical marijuana situation, except this one is for killing babies."

Why do I care?

Because I don't like seeing people murdered?

Also, how can you say it won't affect me? What if in 20 years, Benjamin and his girlfriend break up when she's 7.5 months pregnant, and she legally aborts the kid? You don't think that would affect the grandparents?

---

The problem is you think there's some liberal woman out there right now fingering herself to the thought of aborting a kid at 25 weeks. Do you seriously think for a minute that people want to have to abort a child that late? If you do, you really need to go out more and stop being so cynical.

You still also haven't addressed why it's ok to support loopholes for rich tax payers by not just raising the tax on all of them but it's ok to go against this because you know a loop hole that maybe, MAYBE, 1 in 10000000 pregnancies will use.

Edit:. Lol at the Benjamin comment. You need a reality check, because that's a reality that just isn't going to happen. That scenario is so extremely far-fetched it deserves tin foil hats.

---

I've stayed out of these fights, but you seriously look like such a moron comparing abortions to taxes. Just stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FR1GHT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

The problem is you think there's some liberal woman out there right now fingering herself to the thought of aborting a kid at 25 weeks. Do you seriously think for a minute that people want to have to abort a child that late? If you do, you really need to go out more and stop being so cynical.

You still also haven't addressed why it's ok to support loopholes for rich tax payers by not just raising the tax on all of them but it's ok to go against this because you know a loop hole that maybe, MAYBE, 1 in 10000000 pregnancies will use.

Edit:. Lol at the Benjamin comment. You need a reality check, because that's a reality that just isn't going to happen. That scenario is so extremely far-fetched it deserves tin foil hats.

---

I've stayed out of these fights, but you seriously look like such a moron comparing abortions to taxes. Just stop.

---

Serious suggestion then...stay out of it, because you're obviously not reading everything or lack the ability of basic reading comprehension. The question here is why he can the same excuse in regards to this as he uses as a reason we can't do something else. It's a completely flawed argument and I'm sorry you can't see it.

It's honestly disgusting that a bunch of over the hill conservatives sit here and pretend like they actually care and are offended by something that kills women because they think they're IQ 1000 finding a "loophole" that no one is probably even going to use.

But but but conservatives are worried about women who die from pregnancy!

Then fucking do something about it instead of fighting with everyone about every suggestion because you found some lame ass loophole that no one gives a shit about.

TypicAL overreaching big government zealot thread. Give me a fucking break. World is beyond blatantly obvioisly overpopulated.

this bullshit moralizing, who is it aimed at?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FR1GHT

I've stayed out of these fights, but you seriously look like such a moron comparing abortions to taxes. Just stop.

---

Serious suggestion then...stay out of it, because you're obviously not reading everything or lack the ability of basic reading comprehension. The question here is why he can the same excuse in regards to this as he uses as a reason we can't do something else. It's a completely flawed argument and I'm sorry you can't see it.

It's honestly disgusting that a bunch of over the hill conservatives sit here and pretend like they actually care and are offended by something that kills women because they think they're IQ 1000 finding a "loophole" that no one is probably even going to use.

But but but conservatives are worried about women who die from pregnancy!

Then fucking do something about it instead of fighting with everyone about every suggestion because you found some lame ass loophole that no one gives a shit about.

---

Druff’s assumption that doctors will give countless late-stage abortions just because a woman doesn’t want to have a baby when there is no significant health risk/consequences to the woman *is* ludicrous. Medical practices are regulated also by local medical boards. If a doctor is found to be doing that, he/she would would lose their medical license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Serious suggestion then...stay out of it, because you're obviously not reading everything or lack the ability of basic reading comprehension. The question here is why he can the same excuse in regards to this as he uses as a reason we can't do something else. It's a completely flawed argument and I'm sorry you can't see it.

It's honestly disgusting that a bunch of over the hill conservatives sit here and pretend like they actually care and are offended by something that kills women because they think they're IQ 1000 finding a "loophole" that no one is probably even going to use.

But but but conservatives are worried about women who die from pregnancy!

Then fucking do something about it instead of fighting with everyone about every suggestion because you found some lame ass loophole that no one gives a shit about.

---

Druff’s assumption that doctors will give countless late-stage abortions just because a woman doesn’t want to have a baby when there is no significant health risk/consequences to the woman *is* ludicrous. Medical practices are regulated also by local medical boards. If a doctor is found to be doing that, he/she would would lose their medical license.

---

If a doctor is "found to be doing that"?

Doing what?

If a woman comes in with mental health complaints and wants an abortion at the 8.5 month mark, performing this abortion would be legal under New York law!

You cannot revoke someone's license for performing legal abortions.

It's the same reason "pot doctors" were able to exist in medical marijuana states. Sure, we all knew it was a sham, and almost all of the customers were faking pain in order to get pot, but the medical marijuana laws were broad enough to where nothing could be done.

Customer would come in, doctor would ask, "Do you have any pain for which you need marijuana to reduce the symptoms?"

Customer would respond, "Uhh.... yeah... ummm... oh, yeah my back kinda hurts."

Doctor would answer, "Back pain... yes, marijuana could be helpful for that. Approved! Go pick up your card in the front."

There will be similar late term abortion doctors who will operate the same way.

Why? Because there will be money in doing so, and there's no shortage of unethical doctors who will do anything quasi-legal for a quick buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FR1GHT

I've stayed out of these fights, but you seriously look like such a moron comparing abortions to taxes. Just stop.

---

Serious suggestion then...stay out of it, because you're obviously not reading everything or lack the ability of basic reading comprehension. The question here is why he can the same excuse in regards to this as he uses as a reason we can't do something else. It's a completely flawed argument and I'm sorry you can't see it.

It's honestly disgusting that a bunch of over the hill conservatives sit here and pretend like they actually care and are offended by something that kills women because they think they're IQ 1000 finding a "loophole" that no one is probably even going to use.

But but but conservatives are worried about women who die from pregnancy!

Then fucking do something about it instead of fighting with everyone about every suggestion because you found some lame ass loophole that no one gives a shit about.

---

Why do you think "nobody is going to use" this loophole?

Do you not realize that doctors get requests from women all the time for late term abortions, simply because women changed their minds (usually due to an abrupt change in life circumstance)?

There aren't many studies about reasons for late term abortions, but the few that exist show that a substantial number are requested for reasons OTHER than serious health issues of the mom or unborn child. Did you watch the Crowder video I posted where he actually shows one of those studies (from a left-wing publication, no less)?

So since we have women who will definitely want to terminate late term pregnancies for totally immoral reasons, the only safeguard against it would be the doctors, and as I explained in the last post, it's not difficult to find a doctor who will do anything unethical if it's technically legal.

This is not old conservative scaremongering.

Under this new law, late term abortions for flimsy/unethical reasons WILL happen.

Even if just 10% of all late term abortions are unjustified, that number is way too high, and extremely tragic.

For those saying, "The population is way too high, so it's fine", that never justifies murder. If you think human beings should be killed for population control, why not just shoot yourself? Serious question.

It is appalling that there are people who support this law, or even abortions at 24 weeks "for any reason", for that matter.

Have some fucking decency and respect for human life.