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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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.

---

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.

---

So, with all of this demanding “fucking decency and respect for human life” are you fully in support for Medicare-for-all? And expanding Medicaid to those who wouldn’t be able to afford Medicare-for-all premiums? Or do those lives not count as much as the fetuses you are trying to save?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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

---

I couldn’t stomach listening him to find the specific “left-wing publication” you referred to. And it’s not detailed in the description for this vid. Please find that reference and post it here. Thanks in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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.

---

So, with all of this demanding “fucking decency and respect for human life” are you fully in support for Medicare-for-all? And expanding Medicaid to those who wouldn’t be able to afford Medicare-for-all premiums? Or do those lives not count as much as the fetuses you are trying to save?

---

Another go-to left wing response to late term abortion criticism.

I also would have accepted, "OMG OMG you want to protect babies in the womb but don't care about them once they're born poor! Heartless Republican!"

I still love how the left basically concedes that these laws open the door to murder, but we should feel totally secure because no woman or doctor would ever actually kill a late term baby without a good reason.

Trust us, guys.

They really won't. Not ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

So, with all of this demanding “fucking decency and respect for human life” are you fully in support for Medicare-for-all? And expanding Medicaid to those who wouldn’t be able to afford Medicare-for-all premiums? Or do those lives not count as much as the fetuses you are trying to save?

---

Another go-to left wing response to late term abortion criticism.

I also would have accepted, "OMG OMG you want to protect babies in the womb but don't care about them once they're born poor! Heartless Republican!"

---

The criticism is valid because it highlights the hypocrisy of such conservatives regarding their supposed concern for human life. Wake up to the inconsistent morality you express regarding the sanctity of human life, Druff.

P.S. BTW, I support moving the needle of abortions rights to a fewer number weeks given the advancements in medical tech since Roe V. Wade, as that would consistent with the balance-of-rights and independent viability that that Supreme Court ruling is based on.

There's a difference between an 8 month old baby in the womb and a 40 year old obese welfare person. That's such a stupid argument, why are you on here making stupid arguments, do you think we're all stupid?

Women care 0.0 what you men think about this issue. No matter the law, where there is a will, there is a way.

personally i cant wait for the thread when a woman has an abortion at 8 months and then starts a gofundme saying she had a miscarriage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

On my Facebook,

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.

---

Interesting point. Things are going to change not too far down the road.

And Druff do you have to politicize every issue known to man? And enough with your anecdotal evidence.
This goes beyond being left or right. Trying to gain political points with it
is sad

Quote:

---

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.

---

You can if they are found in violation of ethics

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes because pot is the same as, by your definition, "murder" or by my definition, aborting an unborn fetus.

Quote:

---

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

---

Because I'm not a cynical fear mongering senile old man? Again, do I need to paint the scenario playing in your head for everyone again? You have this thought that a bunch of liberal women and men are touching themselves at the fact at aborting a child at 25 weeks. Let me rephrase my previous statement for you: NO ONE, that is in their right mind, for reasons other than life threatening situations would abort a child that late. If they do, and it's not for that reason they're sick. If you really think that people are just going to do this for funsies then you are sick too my friend.

Quote:

---

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)?

---

1. I need a better citation on that question than the one you provided, but I'll get to that citation in a minute. There are about 152 million women in the US, if you seriously think that any more than maybe 2% of those are looking into this and more than 0.1% are seriously going through with it, you're off your rocker.

2. Citing a self proclaimed comedian as a scientific authority on the matter and using his conclusion, instead of the papers, is easily the punchline in this whole entire joke of an argument. Also, you state a few other studies, citations please.

3. "Left-wing publication" - This research was published in National Center for Biotechnology Information. It was published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health and a dozen other publications. You're going to need to be more specific about "Left-wing publication". Give me a link to whatever publication you're referring to and give me a link to whatever independent review of said publisher showing that it has left-wing tendences.

4. Now lets break down this publication and see what it says now.

Quote:

---

As part of a larger study, 272 women who received an abortion at or after 20 weeks' gestation and 169 who received first-trimester abortions at 16 facilities across the country in 2008-2010 were interviewed one week after the procedure. Mixed effect logistic regression analyses were used to determine the characteristics associated with later abortion (i.e., at 20 weeks or later). Causes of delay in obtaining abortion were assessed in open- and closed-ended questions; profiles of women who received later abortions were identified through factor analysis.

---

4a. 272 women of fucking 151 million, IN 2008-2010. Lets take a closer look at this as well should we. 2008 had 14 births per 1000 people, 2009 13.5, 2010 13. Assuming an even split through the years of the study lets say 90 each year.
2008 population 304100000 / 1000 = 304100, then assuming 90 people that's 0.03% of the population represented
2009 population 306800000 / 1000 = 306800 / 90, then assuming 90 people that's also 0.03%
2010 population 309300000 / 1000 = 309300 / 90, and what a surprise 0.03%

Quote:

---

Women aged 20-24 were more likely than those aged 25-34 to have a later abortion (odds ratio, 2.7), and women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks' gestation were less likely than others to do so (0.1). Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.

CONCLUSION:
Bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources.

---

This is the conclusion from the paper, not "everyone is baby killers" like you're fear mongering.

Also, this is about 20 weeks! It's not even about 24 weeks which is the limit almost everywhere. If you go on to read the full paper they estimate 1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later. This is after stating 7% at 14-20 weeks. You can only assume there's some kind of downward trend relationship. At 24 weeks It's probably around 0.2%, and then after that there's going to be even more of a drop after the legislation.

This Crowder statement where he basically says the study is saying they kill babies for no reason but to kill babies is ludicrous. Only 32% of the people who performed a 20 week or later abortion even knew they were pregnant before 8 weeks, compared to earlier abortions which were at 88%. While only 44% of these were for chronic health reasons, you can't really just look at that and then go "Wowzer Crowder you were right". Crowder literally posted one line from the paper which wasn't even the papers own conclusion, it was a reference to other papers in the fucking literature review.

94% of those women who were studied to have a 20 week or later abortion had barriers whether it was socio-economic or health related that prevented them from getting an abortion before then. Respectively, 65 and 44% of the women reported they couldn't do because they didn't have the money or because insurance would not cover it, but fuck it lets just cut funding to planned parenthood anyway, then there will be less abortions. LOL, you can't stop abortions by making them more expensive and less accessible, all it does is provide later term abortions and have you yelling "baby killers" at people who may not even had known the week before they were pregnant.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Immoral is your word and opinion, and is not rooted in fact. See the above response in regards to the paper. Also, definitely is not a word you can use here because you've yet to provide actual evidence that this is the case.

Quote:

---

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

---

So let 90% of the women in this situation die because 10% of them are as you would say "baby killers"? Hmm....who is the real murderer here? This is like the fucking train track problem and you're telling me you're going to kill the 5 people instead of flipping the switch and killing 1? Whatever, it's philosophical opinion and doesn't really contribute to the facts we have at hand anyway.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Druff please, you really need to chill out on this hyperbole. No one that is sane in this discussion is arguing that and if you're sane you already know this.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It is appalling that you switch back and forth between "caring for the mother's life" and saying "fuck you you're sick". Either bring a better alternative to the table, or sit the fuck back down. This national discussion doesn't need people that sit there and point out flaws without bringing a viable working solution. Which, anyone here sitting here with a rational mind can clearly see you do not have.

Quote:

---

Another go-to left wing response to late term abortion criticism.

I also would have accepted, "OMG OMG you want to protect babies in the womb but don't care about them once they're born poor! Heartless Republican!"

---

You completely ignored his question, you've also completely ignored my question in regards to your opinion on tax law reform. Both of these questions are valid questions and have valid arguments that lead into this discussion, and all you can do is ignore them or try to red hering it. Your own paper that you cite as evidence concludes that the women that are most vulnerable to 20 week or later abortion are financially disadvantaged women, but you want to red hering the discussion about providing better medical support for them?

Quote:

---

I still love how the left basically concedes that these laws open the door to murder, but we should feel totally secure because no woman or doctor would ever actually kill a late term baby without a good reason.

---

More red hering with a twist of hyperbole. Murder is your word, not mine, and I'd venture to say not the words of quite a lot of people. To me murder is is telling a woman at 25 weeks pregnancy that she's going to die in a couple months because whats inside her is going to destroy her and you're just going to watch her die because you're afraid of some 1 in 10000000 chance that someone will have a late term abortion for the lulz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFFtBsl5ps

do we not have moderators no more.
I threw up in my mouth when this poster posted
then realized it wasn't pumpkins
but still

then there's this
right
a whole album of easy listening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3i9OSONwmA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splitthis

Women care 0.0 what you men think about this issue. No matter the law, where there is a will, there is a way.

---

Funny, when I was briefly pro-choice in my teens, this was my go-to argument against pro-lifers.

"If you make abortion illegal, women will travel to Mexico or find some other way to get it done, and there will be no way to prove it."

Indeed, that would still be a problem if abortion were to be made completely illegal.

However, that doesn't apply at all to the late-term situation.

The excuse of, "Ummm... I had a miscarriage and the remainder of the pregnancy is now down the toilet" wouldn't work when there's an actual life-sized human which would have to be accounted for. So a woman couldn't just get a secret abortion at 8 months and say "lol miscarriage" and get away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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.

---

You can if they are found in violation of ethics.

---

:wrong

There are no provable "ethics" violation if doctors are operating within legal parameters.

Let's say Dr. Greedy Greg, MD wants to set up a late-term abortion practice in New York.

First off, Greg performs abortions up to 24 weeks without question. This is permitted under New York law, and he could perform an unlimited number of these abortions without facing any kind of ethics violation.

But Greg also does abortions after 24 weeks. For those, Greg does need to question the patient and find a "reason" for the abortion, in order to comply with the law. In order to do this, Greg has the patient fill out a questionnaire. "Do you have back pain?", "Have you felt depressed during the pregnancy?", "Have you had frequent flu-like symptoms during the pregnancy?", etc. If the woman answers "yes" (which many honestly could), Greg then informs them, "Under New York state law, we can terminate the pregnancy due to the health conditions you cited having. Are you sure you wish to do this?" The woman, who came there for the abortion in the first place, will obviously say yes. Greg murders the late-term baby, and removes it. The woman leaves and goes on with her life.

The above can and WILL happen, and there are no "ethics" violations which can be brought!

We saw the exact same thing play out with medical marijuana, except in this case the consequences (a dead baby versus someone smoking pot legally) are far more dire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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

---

Because I'm not a cynical fear mongering senile old man? Again, do I need to paint the scenario playing in your head for everyone again? You have this thought that a bunch of liberal women and men are touching themselves at the fact at aborting a child at 25 weeks. Let me rephrase my previous statement for you: NO ONE, that is in their right mind, for reasons other than life threatening situations would abort a child that late. If they do, and it's not for that reason they're sick. If you really think that people are just going to do this for funsies then you are sick too my friend.

---

Lolz... nice straw man argument and inserting words in my mouth.

When did I say that "a bunch of liberal women are touching themselves at the fact at aborting a child at 25 weeks"?

When did I say that people are aborting kids for "funsies"?

You are assuming that I am imagining a scenario where liberal women enjoy late term abortions, and where women choose to get them frequently and on a whim.

So you're trying to explain to me, the "cynical fear mongering senile old man" (???), that women don't actually think like this.

Except there's nothing to explain. I have no doubt that most women getting a late term abortion are not happy about it, and probably put a lot of thought into their decision.

However, I'm stating that their decision is both wrong and murderous, and should not be theirs to make, unless their own life is threatened (or unless there are severe problems with the child). Why not? Because a second life is now involved.

It's the same reason it's not my "choice" to kill someone I dislike.

To be clear, yes I believe that some late-term abortions will take place for justified reasons, and I don't have any issue with those.

However, a very common reason for desired late term abortion is change in life circumstance. For example, a 23-year-old woman with very little money gets pregnant, but has a supportive partner who promises they'll get though it together. Seven months later, the dude decides this isn't the life he wanted, and he bounces. Now she's alone, broke, and 7 months pregnant. This type of woman will sometimes seek an abortion at this point. It will make her sad. It will be a tough decision. But she will justify it in her mind that she's not prepared, financially or emotionally, to raise a child at the moment, so she will ultimately decide to do it. This won't be the path of all women in this spot, but a healthy percentage definitely will go this route if available. If you don't believe this, you're incredibly naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

here are about 152 million women in the US, if you seriously think that any more than maybe 2% of those are looking into this and more than 0.1% are seriously going through with it, you're off your rocker.

---

See, this is the type of shit which made me want to completely ignore your post.

152 million adult women in the US, right? And how many are of childbearing age? How many of those are sexually active? How many of those would be glad to proceed with any pregnancy (such as married women)?

Answer those questions, and suddenly the "152 million" number becomes FAR less.

You purposely throw out the 152 million figure, so then your subsequent abortion percentages can seem lower.

If you were a complete idiot, I'd excuse this, but I know that you're not, so clearly you're doing this in order to manipulate the numbers, and that just shows you're not interested in debating this from an honest standpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Now lets break down this publication and see what it says now.

Quote:

---

Women aged 20-24 were more likely than those aged 25-34 to have a later abortion (odds ratio, 2.7), and women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks' gestation were less likely than others to do so (0.1). Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.

CONCLUSION:
Bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources.

---

This is the conclusion from the paper, not "everyone is baby killers" like you're fear mongering.

---

Again, nice straw man. When did I say "everyone are baby killers"?

I don't understand that point you're trying to make above. Yes, younger and poorer women will seek out late term abortions more often. I agree with that.

So?

I don't understand how that makes late term abortions any less murderous or more justified.

It's like saying, "Violent crime is most often committed by young men and poorer men." Also true. But that doesn't justify the committing murder, right?

Those are just observational statistics.

Young women are more likely to seek out (unjustified) late term abortions because they are more likely to find themselves alone and broke when late in the pregnancy. A pregnant 36-year-old is probably married, and if she isn't, there's a good chance she has enough money to support the kid, anyway. Also, the older woman is more likely to be mature enough to make any abortion decision early, whereas a younger woman is more likely to be wishy-washy about it.

All of this doesn't matter. Economic distress does not justify killing a viable, developed child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Also, this is about 20 weeks! It's not even about 24 weeks which is the limit almost everywhere. If you go on to read the full paper they estimate 1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later. This is after stating 7% at 14-20 weeks. You can only assume there's some kind of downward trend relationship. At 24 weeks It's probably around 0.2%, and then after that there's going to be even more of a drop after the legislation.

---

There you go with your percentages again.

The problem is that this isn't a statistical argument. It's an argument of right versus wrong -- of permitted versus prohibited.

I will admit that late term abortions are only a very small percentage of abortions performed. However, are those small percentage of aborted babies not human beings? Do they not deserve to live? Is it okay to kill them, as long as they're not being killed in mass numbers? Would the Holocaust have been okay if only 6000 Jews were killed instead of 6 million?

The lack of humanity being displayed here is astounding.

If the law permits even one viable, healthy baby to be killed when the mother's life is not in danger, then the law has failed, and has permitted legalized murder. Period. There's no way around that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

This Crowder statement where he basically says the study is saying they kill babies for no reason but to kill babies is ludicrous. Only 32% of the people who performed a 20 week or later abortion even knew they were pregnant before 8 weeks, compared to earlier abortions which were at 88%. While only 44% of these were for chronic health reasons, you can't really just look at that and then go "Wowzer Crowder you were right". Crowder literally posted one line from the paper which wasn't even the papers own conclusion, it was a reference to other papers in the fucking literature review.

94% of those women who were studied to have a 20 week or later abortion had barriers whether it was socio-economic or health related that prevented them from getting an abortion before then. Respectively, 65 and 44% of the women reported they couldn't do because they didn't have the money or because insurance would not cover it, but fuck it lets just cut funding to planned parenthood anyway, then there will be less abortions. LOL, you can't stop abortions by making them more expensive and less accessible, all it does is provide later term abortions and have you yelling "baby killers" at people who may not even had known the week before they were pregnant.

---

I see, so what you're saying is that a woman SHOULD be able to abort a baby late-term if she didn't have the money for it earlier in the pregnancy.

Hey, why not extend this until after the baby is born? If you don't have the money to take care of the kid when it's 4 days old, why not just kill it, right?

I'm not being dramatic here. Seriously, explain the difference to me.

If it's permissible to kill a developed, viable baby in womb due to economic reasons, why shouldn't it be permissible to murder newborns for the same reason?

See the problem here?

Oh wait... was this just a rant about Planned Parenthood funding, meant to distract from the gruesome issue of late-term abortion? Ah, another left-wing go-to response when they can't justify the murder of the almost-born!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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.

---

Immoral is your word and opinion, and is not rooted in fact. See the above response in regards to the paper. Also, definitely is not a word you can use here because you've yet to provide actual evidence that this is the case.

---

Immoral is indeed an opinion, but there's a wide range of immorality. There are some kinds of immorality which are obvious, while others are marginal.

Examples:

- Slavery is definitely immoral

- Hiring someone and underpaying them because they don't know what they're worth is marginally immoral

- Breaking into a random person's home and stealing things is definitely immoral

- Cheating in poker is definitely immoral

- Keeping quiet when a casino overpays you in a blackjack hand is marginally immoral

- Cheating on your spouse is definitely immoral

- Fucking a stranger's wife, knowing that she's married, is marginally immoral

I would venture to say that killing viable, developed babies close to birth is DEFINITELY IMMORAL, unless you have a DAMN GOOD REASON to do so. And by "damn good reason", I mean the mother's life is in imminent danger OR the baby has such severe health issues that it will have zero quality of life.

It is DEFINITELY IMMORAL to kill babies because you're broke, your partner left you, you feel depressed, your back hurts, or any other frustrating-but-not-life-threatening issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff"

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

---

So let 90% of the women in this situation die because 10% of them are as you would say "baby killers"? Hmm....who is the real murderer here? This is like the fucking train track problem and you're telling me you're going to kill the 5 people instead of flipping the switch and killing 1? Whatever, it's philosophical opinion and doesn't really contribute to the facts we have at hand anyway.

---

How many times have I said that I do support late term abortion when the mother's life is at stake.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

Oh, I forgot... because that's the only way you can argue this back without sounding like you advocate the murder of children for convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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.

---

It is appalling that you switch back and forth between "caring for the mother's life" and saying "fuck you you're sick". Either bring a better alternative to the table, or sit the fuck back down. This national discussion doesn't need people that sit there and point out flaws without bringing a viable working solution. Which, anyone here sitting here with a rational mind can clearly see you do not have.

---

It is appalling that we are even having this discussion.

As I said, I was pro-choice in my teens. While I'm no longer pro-choice, I can still understand the argument for legal, early-term abortions enough to where I don't feel Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

For decades, abortion has saddened me, but I realized that the "babies" being aborted had not developed very far, nor could they likely feel pain.

I thought that the "other side" -- the pro-choice folks -- at least understood that aborting viable babies was equivalent to murder, and that doing so should only occur in extreme, ultra-necessary circumstances. I realized that there were a few freak extremists who supported abortion-til-birth, but I don't let the opinions of a few extremists worry me.

But now it's no longer just extremists. Abortion is now legal for any reason up to 24 weeks. 24 weeks!!! For any reason!

And now it's gotten worse, with the extremely broad "health" reason, allowing women to get abortions all the way up until the date of birth, using extremely flimsy reasons to legally justify it.

I'm seriously in disbelief that this is being supported by mainstream Democrats now.

I believe that this country has become so polarized that people are now mentally trained to reflexively support any talking point which even somewhat resembles their party's platform.

Isn't that what Sascha Baron Cohen basically just did to certain idiots on the right? For example, he knew that the right supports gun ownership, so he got an idiot to agree that arming 5-year-olds in school was the right move.

When Cohen's film came out, I criticized that he didn't do the same to the left, but posted that he could easily have found the same type of outrageous shit, such as interviewing a leftist and pretending to support abortion 'til birth. (Seriously, I posted that, well BEFORE this current abortion controversy... go look!)

Well, guess what? Looks like we don't need Cohen to dress up in a funny outfit to get dumb leftists to say this. It's now become part of the platform of mainstream Democrats.

And like the idiots on the right who want to arm 5-year-olds because "it's our right to have guns", we now have idiots on the left who want to legalize super-late abortions because "a woman should always have a right to choose".

It's reflexive thinking without any kind of real consideration as to what you're really advocating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I still love how the left basically concedes that these laws open the door to murder, but we should feel totally secure because no woman or doctor would ever actually kill a late term baby without a good reason.

---

More red hering with a twist of hyperbole. Murder is your word, not mine, and I'd venture to say not the words of quite a lot of people. To me murder is is telling a woman at 25 weeks pregnancy that she's going to die in a couple months because whats inside her is going to destroy her and you're just going to watch her die because you're afraid of some 1 in 10000000 chance that someone will have a late term abortion for the lulz.

---

There you go again with claiming that I think women should die instead of getting a late term abortion.

For the 100th time, no I don't think that, nor does Steven Crowder, nor does any conservative that I know.

The fact that you ended your post with that shows that YOU are actually the one who prefers the straw men and the hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

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.

---

So, with all of this demanding “fucking decency and respect for human life” are you fully in support for Medicare-for-all? And expanding Medicaid to those who wouldn’t be able to afford Medicare-for-all premiums? Or do those lives not count as much as the fetuses you are trying to save?

---

Killing of any child viable to survive out of its mothers body is unacceptable in my eyes. Are they’re legit reasons to terminate a pregnancy sometimes yes. Very unfortunate but it does happen. But killing a child because you acted like a whore and chose not to use protection is no justification for this. You were supposedly adult enough to do the act that caused it well newsflash sometimes actions have consequences especially if you willfully took zero precautions. Also again if a pregnancy is viable outside the mother then it’s murder. I mean everybody’s all up in arms when a pregnant mother is killed and demanding two murder charges yet somehow it’s ok if that mother rips a living being from her body actually capable of surviving outside the mothers womb. Just doesn’t compute. This law in NY exceeds and acceptable standard and includes literally carte Blanche to murder a child through active or passive means if it’s born alive despite a very specific lawful definition that says even within normal definitions a child is a person once it leaves the mothers body and breathes on its own that’s a federal standard and should be even acceptable to the most militant pro choicers out there but apparently nope NY and such decided that if a baby is born alive despite legitimate attempts at murder it’s ok to snuff it out. I don’t understand how ANYBODY with a moral compass of any remote sensibility can be ok with that happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I still love how the left basically concedes that these laws open the door to murder, but we should feel totally secure because no woman or doctor would ever actually kill a late term baby without a good reason.

Trust us, guys.

They really won't. Not ever.

---

Look no further then this sick POS for all the proof y’all need

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I still love how the left basically concedes that these laws open the door to murder, but we should feel totally secure because no woman or doctor would ever actually kill a late term baby without a good reason.

Trust us, guys.

They really won't. Not ever.

---

Look no further then this sick POS for all the proof y’all need

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

---

But he was convicted of murder. Druff is claiming that many abortion doctors will be performing at-choice late term abortions with no risk of legal consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Look no further then this sick POS for all the proof y’all need

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

---

But he was convicted of murder. Druff is claiming that many abortion doctors will be performing at-choice late term abortions with no risk of legal consequences.

---

No, I'm claiming that these new laws allow abortion doctors to perform at-choice late term abortions within the parameters of the law, thus preventing any kind of legal consequences.

As I mentioned, it will be done the same way as medical marijuana doctors did. These doctors were essentially handing out licenses to buy marijuana legally to use recreationally, but they were doing so via a very broad interpretation of "medicinal", and thus there was nothing legal which could be done to stop them. As long as the patient claimed to have some health problem, the doctor had a legal right to give them a medical marijuana card.

Same thing here, except the consequences will be far, far more dire.

As long as the woman can claim a "health" problem, the doctor can legally perform a late term abortion all the way up until birth.

Amazingly, the left's only defense to this is, "Doctors won't do this" and "Women won't do this", which is an incredibly naive and dangerous way to legislate.

Greedy, unethical doctors have been around ever since the dawn of medicine, and selflish/irrational women have been around since the beginning of human history. That's not to say most doctors or unethical, or that most women are selfish/irrational, but to legislate with the belief that neither will exist is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Besides, it's just really, really bad law in general.

Laws always need to be written with as many specifics as possible, or they will ultimately get abused.

Unfortunately, the left has become so obsessed with a "woman's right to choose" that they are now wearing blinders regarding where that "right" should end. At some point, there is definitely a human life which these women are ending. We crossed that point a long time ago, but amazingly the bar keeps moving toward later and later abortions for increasingly flimsy reasons.

Responses of, "Well what about Planned Parenthood funding?" do no answer the question as to why they feel murder of the almost-born for anything bt a dire need is anything short of reprehensible.

BTW I read an article on CNN yesterday from a left-winger who, despite being pro-late-term abortion rights and pro-Green New Deal, is afraid that the left is stupidly handing Trump the blueprint on how to get reelected.

The author was concerned with the 13% support for non-life-threatening late term abortions, stating that it's basically perfect for a Trump soundbyte to paint the left as baby killers. The author lamented that, even though he felt the new abortion law in New York was fine, it was too complicated to explain to the average voter, and thus it would be hard to counter Trump's attacks.

He also felt that the Green New Deal would come off as too radical to the average swing voter, and would again be easy to create opposition sound bytes which make it sound terrible and out-of-touch.

While I don't agree with the author's assessment of both of those issues, I fully agree with his assessment of how it will affect the election.

That's how Trump won the first time.

The left basically told the swing voter, "We know what's best for you. We're smarter than you. Just shut up and vote for us, and you'll see we were right."

Trump told the swing voter, "I understand you, and I'm sick of the government telling you that your concerns don't matter. I'm going to do things the way you want, not the way the coastal elites want."

It's no shocker that many of them voted for Trump despite voting for Obama both times.

I know Mumbles and others have stated, "Voters are selfish, they vote their own interests", and that's true to some extent, but the abortion thing is a huge gift to Repubicans, who can now paint Democrats as so out-of-touch with reality that it borders upon evil and heartlessness.

Nobody wants to vote for a baby killer.

Even the most Christian of pro-life advocates sees a silver lining in all of this, as they feel this matter has finally "woken up" the public to the horrors of abortion, and might finally be the catalyst to change the entire public sentiment about abortion rights. They may not be wrong.

I mean, how stupid is the left here?

We're just starting to enter the Presidential election cycle, where the incumbent has all kinds of problems and has a very good chance of losing.

What do they do?

The take an issue which was a longtime moderate strength, as most swing-voters support early-term abortion and don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and turned it into a glaring weakness.

They took something where they were with the majority of Americans AND were able to use scare tactics against conservative candidates ("He'll work to get Roe v Wade overturned!"), and instead flipped it to support of a baby-killing law which only 13% of Americans support. 13%!!!!

It's pretty much following the blueprint of, "What NOT to do when you're gearing up to try to take back the White House."

This is what happens when you let "progressives" take over the party, and their entire concern seems to be who can out-progressive the other, rather than taking a realistic look at the electorate and asking yourself if you might be hurting the party by those actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I mean, how stupid is the left here?

We're just starting to enter the Presidential election cycle, where the incumbent has all kinds of problems and has a very good chance of losing.

What do they do?

The take an issue which was a longtime moderate strength, as most swing-voters support early-term abortion and don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and turned it into a glaring weakness.

They took something where they were with the majority of Americans AND were able to use scare tactics against conservative candidates ("He'll work to get Roe v Wade overturned!"), and instead flipped it to support of a baby-killing law which only 13% of Americans support. 13%!!!!

It's pretty much following the blueprint of, "What NOT to do when you're gearing up to try to take back the White House."

This is what happens when you let "progressives" take over the party, and their entire concern seems to be who can out-progressive the other, rather than taking a realistic look at the electorate and asking yourself if you might be hurting the party by those actions.

---

Druff, the most respected politician in America today, and has been since 2016, is Bernie Sanders. And the policies he advocates are progressive. Establishment Dems who are making their first cracks at getting the party nomination for Prez, such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, are aware of this and have modulated their stated positions to motivate more progressives to the polls in 2020 who stayed home in 2016 given the shady way Team Hillary won the nomination.

If anything, it sounds like you are hoping that the Dems self-implode with swing voters by out-progressivizing themselves over key policy issues. Heck! Any day now, Kamala Harris is going to announce a plan to increase the top marginal tax rate to 90% to out-progressive AOC on the matter, following shortly afterwards by Cory Booker calling for it to raised to 99% as a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of Elizabeth Warren doing so before him. Right?