Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 34 minutes ago, Rob's House said: You don't need religion to understand why it's wrong to kill a child. We're not talking about the first trimester where you can plausibly argue it's not a child (not my view, but I understand how others rationalize it.) Or even the second trimester, for that matter. We're talking about a law that allows for the legal killing of a fully developed, healthy baby for what in practice amounts to any reason. If you're ok with that, what, if anything, are you not ok with? I would classify it as a child too, its just the unborn nature is important to me. I see the loss of an unborn child as an awful event for the family, but if its the family's choice, it just negates it for me. Doesn't bother me. If the husband wanted to have it, but not the wife, that would be awful. 34 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I've always been against abortion for me (actually for mine) but have felt that up to a certain point, it was the particular women or couples choice on whether or not to have an abortion. With that said it was between them and their God. This latest is just plain disgusting. To snuff out a baby's life a few moments before being born or just after it is born is murder. You don't need a religious foundation to be revolted by this, a foundation that includes a smidgeon of decency would suffice. I don't see the logical difference between the first trimester and the day before birth. Why do you think the latter is disgusting and different? It's just further along in the process compared to the first example. Maybe that's the distinction I am not making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I would classify it as a child too, its just the unborn nature is important to me. I see the loss of an unborn child as an awful event for the family, but if its the family's choice, it just negates it for me. Doesn't bother me. If the husband wanted to have it, but not the wife, that would be awful. Just to be clear, if the baby had just been delivered alive and well, and the parents threw it in a woodchipper, would you be ok with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Just to be clear, if the baby had just been delivered alive and well, and the parents threw it in a woodchipper, would you be ok with that? Nope, hence the unborn distinction. I just don't see making the difference between the different stages of the unborn life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Hats off to VA lawmaker Dawn Adams for owning up to her mistake. Well done. Quote “I made a mistake, and all I know to do is to admit it, tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may,” said Adams, a first-term delegate who won a close upset victory in 2017 in her suburban district and could face a competitive re-election campaign this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Nope, hence the unborn distinction. I just don't see making the difference between the different stages of the unborn life. The laws in question remove the "unborn" part of your equation and allow for infanticide - a birthed, healthy baby being killed after being born - without defining the parameters in which this can happen. Its not an abortion law, it's codifying infanticide (for profit). I'm largely pro choice - but if that doesn't bother you then perhaps you need to look at the situation again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 35 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Nope, hence the unborn distinction. I just don't see making the difference between the different stages of the unborn life. How about a woman delivering directly into a wood chipper? That ok? If not, the why is it ok to effectively insert wood chipper through the mom into the baby one second earlier? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 31 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The laws in question remove the "unborn" part of your equation and allow for infanticide - a birthed, healthy baby being killed after being born - without defining the parameters in which this can happen. Its not an abortion law, it's codifying infanticide (for profit). I'm largely pro choice - but if that doesn't bother you then perhaps you need to look at the situation again. I only skimmed the bill, how does it allow the baby being killed after being born? I didn't see anything about that. 2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: How about a woman delivering directly into a wood chipper? That ok? If not, the why is it ok to effectively insert wood chipper through the mom into the baby one second earlier? I think a line between born and unborn is pretty logical. Once a life is brought into the world, it has rights in my opinion. The line between different time-lengths of an unborn child don't make sense to me. Keep going with the woodchipper analogy, it is um, useful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 17 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I think a line between born and unborn is pretty logical. Once a life is brought into the world, it has rights in my opinion. The line between different time-lengths of an unborn child don't make sense to me. The mother's womb is not part of the world? Where is it then? The 43rd dimension? How about this? Mom wants baby, is nine months pregnant and asleep. Intruder inflicts an abortion on the unwanting mother who is physically unharmed. What criminal charges should be filed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: The mother's womb is not part of the world? Where is it then? The 43rd dimension? Yawn 2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: How about this? Mom wants baby, is nine months pregnant and asleep. Intruder inflicts an abortion on the unwanting mother who is physically unharmed. What criminal charges should be filed? Just because the mom is unharmed doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be criminal charges against her that wouldn’t fit. But ignoring that, you seem to be making an argument that because you can abort a baby, then why can’t someone kill the unborn baby outside the scope of the abortion statute and without anyone’s consent. Those aren’t the same things, as you see. me thinking a mom can abort baby, and me thinking someone can’t run up to her and kill the unborn baby aren’t contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: me thinking a mom can abort baby, and me thinking someone can’t run up to her and kill the unborn baby aren’t contradictory. Take that up with Cuomo and his new law that got a standing ovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 31 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I only skimmed the bill, how does it allow the baby being killed after being born? I didn't see anything about that. I think a line between born and unborn is pretty logical. Once a life is brought into the world, it has rights in my opinion. The line between different time-lengths of an unborn child don't make sense to me. It doesn't. The bill if passed would not allow doctors to kill fetuses once it entered the birth canal. There were just some stupid statements made by a couple democrats that the conservatives ran with across social media. It doesn't make sense to the most vehement pro life people either. Some believing a life is formed after conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 10 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Take that up with Cuomo and his new law that got a standing ovation. One, the magical abortion that doesn't injure the sleeping mother at night is beyond dumb, and impossible. Two, I doubt it (i haven't looked at how the NY bill affects criminal statues), but I would be surprised if it had an effect for your scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 55 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: It doesn't. The bill if passed would not allow doctors to kill fetuses once it entered the birth canal. There were just some stupid statements made by a couple democrats that the conservatives ran with across social media. That's not true. The language of the Virginia bill - which was not passed - allowed for this. That's what the governor and the woman who pushed the bill both said. They were not taken out of context. 6 hours ago, B-Man said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not true. The language of the Virginia bill - which was not passed - allowed for this. That's what the governor and the woman who pushed the bill both said. They were not taken out of context. Here's the provision. Unless I'm missing something I don't believe that's correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Doc Brown said: Here's the provision. Unless I'm missing something I don't believe that's correct. Her own words... even if the mother is dilated her bill allows it to happen (or would have, again, it did not pass). The governor doubled down on it saying they'd deliver the baby and keep it comfortable while a discussion was had between the doctor and parents. He's not just a politician, he's a medical doctor who knew what he was saying when he was saying it. Keeping "health" vague would allow them to do anything they wished. Again, I'm pro-choice for the most part... but this is something else. This was a call for brazen infanticide. The giveaway is in the governor's spin post his interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Her own words... even if the mother is dilated her bill allows it to happen (or would have, again, it did not pass). The governor doubled down on it saying they'd deliver the baby and keep it comfortable while a discussion was had between the doctor and parents. He's not just a politician, he's a medical doctor who knew what he was saying when he was saying it. Keeping "health" vague would allow them to do anything they wished. Again, I'm pro-choice for the most part... but this is something else. This was a call for brazen infanticide. The giveaway is in the governor's spin post his interview. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html Tran’s bill wasn’t as salacious as its detractors insist. It would have reduced the number of doctors required to sign off on a third-term abortion from three to one, and it would have allowed that physician to approve a late-term abortion for any medical reason, including harm to a woman’s mental health. This provision would have altered the state’s existing statute, which currently allows a team of three physicians to approve third-term abortions for women whose health would be “substantially and irredeemably” harmed by continuing their pregnancies. The bill would have also allowed second-term abortions to be performed outside licensed hospitals, in facilities like clinics. A House subcommittee rejected the bill, but if it had become law it would not have licensed Virginia physicians to perform abortions as a fetus enters the birth canal. Tran’s bill resembles New York’s Reproductive Health Act in that it expands access to later-term abortions, but partial-birth abortion, or “born-alive abortion,” as GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called in a tweet, is already illegal. RHA didn’t legalize it, and neither would Tran’s bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Crayola64 said: You all are just going to have to get used to a lot of people being okay with this (like me!). I don't see the horrific disgustingness of killing an unborn child. Maybe because I don't have the religious foundation? You're like much of this country. Lacking ANY morals. When I get to a computer I'm going to show you a picture of the people you're advocating murdering for the sake of the mother. Edited January 31, 2019 by Joe in Winslow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 6 hours ago, Crayola64 said: You all are just going to have to get used to a lot of people being okay with this (like me!). I don't see the horrific disgustingness of killing an unborn child. Maybe because I don't have the religious foundation? or a soul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 30 minutes ago, Foxx said: or a soul? Or a conscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 4 hours ago, Doc Brown said: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html Tran’s bill wasn’t as salacious as its detractors insist. It would have reduced the number of doctors required to sign off on a third-term abortion from three to one, and it would have allowed that physician to approve a late-term abortion for any medical reason, including harm to a woman’s mental health. This provision would have altered the state’s existing statute, which currently allows a team of three physicians to approve third-term abortions for women whose health would be “substantially and irredeemably” harmed by continuing their pregnancies. The bill would have also allowed second-term abortions to be performed outside licensed hospitals, in facilities like clinics. A House subcommittee rejected the bill, but if it had become law it would not have licensed Virginia physicians to perform abortions as a fetus enters the birth canal. Tran’s bill resembles New York’s Reproductive Health Act in that it expands access to later-term abortions, but partial-birth abortion, or “born-alive abortion,” as GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called in a tweet, is already illegal. RHA didn’t legalize it, and neither would Tran’s bill. What a load. Just lap up any crap a liberal rag spits out. Please explain how a woman could possibly be "substantially and irredeemably" harmed after 9 months of pregnancy, by 5 more minutes of pregnancy, or better yet by leaving a live baby alive. The measure purposely uses vague language to create unquestioned judgement calls based on things that simply cannot be measured, thus can't ever be proven. What the governor described could not have been more clear in being a live birth. Spinning it otherwise only shows a willingness to flat out lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts