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

[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 .

[DJ_Chaps]

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

[MumblesBadly]

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 The court decided that before that point of viability, at the time 26 weeks, the mother’s rights superceded the fetus’ rights, but after that point, the fetus’ rights superceded the mother’s.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?

[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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[ErickAA]

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.

[MumblesBadly]

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.

[TheXFactor]

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.

[OSA]

Those hands could crush a watermelon

[Daly]

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.

[Dan Druff]

[MrTickle]

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

[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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[MrTickle]

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

[IamGreek]

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.

[MrTickle]

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

[MumblesBadly]

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.

[DonaldTrumpsHairPiece]

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

[gimmick]

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.