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

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

I know you're new at this communication thing but you probably shouldn't take lessons from Joe Biden. As your opponent, you are my best witness. 

I like you pretending to be a lawyer.  It’s adorable.  
 

what’s your job anyways, let’s discuss how it perfectly align with you morals.  No?  Didn’t think so

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

I’m sure it was an oversight, but indulge me a bit further.  You’ve acknowledged being willing to end the life of a child just before birth assuming you earned market rate with an “on demand” approach....but did not answer the question regarding terminating the life of the child once that child had been born.  Would you be willing to proceed and end the life of that child, obviously assuming you were compensated accordingly?  Assuming the answer is yes, would you place limits on the timing?  An hour, two, 24? 

@Crayola64  just following up on this question from yesterday. Any thoughts on this? 

[Numark3]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@Crayola64  just following up on this question from yesterday. Any thoughts on this? 

asking if I would murder a child after it was born?  No, and that is irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

 

no bill or law has ever permitted that, that is an extremely misleading right-wing scare tactic.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Crayola64

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@Crayola64  just following up on this question from yesterday. Any thoughts on this? 

You might want to take anything he now says with a grain of salt since he posted this just above:

 

"also, while I haven’t said it, I would also do stuff for money I didn’t agree with." 

[Numark3]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

You might want to take anything he now says with a grain of salt since he posted this just above:

 

"also, while I haven’t said it, I would also do stuff for money I didn’t agree with." 

why do you refuse to share your line of work, while ridiculing other’s?

 

and take a poll, plenty of people would take a paycheck for things they don’t morally agree with.  Great great discovery (that i freely admit lol)

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

You are saying that a person who could tolerate some early abortion but puts their foot down and says a big fvcking no to late term and partial birth abortions is somehow capitulating to their base? This describes me and I can tell you without a doubt that if I capitulated to anything, it was to my conscience and not some         so-called base.  

You're acting like all Democrats are for late term abortions when it actually had more support in the late 90's.  I'm pointing out that the issue of abortion is not completely divided along party lines on this issue. There is a sizable bloc of Republicans (not the majority obviously) who support abortion rights in most instances. There is a smaller (but not insignificant) group of Democrats who oppose abortion rights.  These voices aren't heard because of the increasing vigor and power of conservative Christians in the Republican party and women rights activists in the Democratic party.  That's led to politicians on both sides to either capitulate to those bases in risk of being primaried or being replaced by somebody who's more in line with their views.  That was my only point.

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

My point is that for people who are pro-life, propaganda is unnecessary.  There is little doubt that the abortion industry is just that—an industry.   Many people benefit from it, and the reality is that some would cringe in horror at the thought of the Chinese harvesting organs, while calling pro-life supporters lunatics for speaking out against organ harvesting.  

I never called you lunatics as fetal tissue research has always been controversial.  However, I don't equate a billion dollar industry forced Chinese organ harvesting where they kill people and sell their organs to US women voluntarily making their aborted fetus available to research labs in hope of studying fetal tissue to lead to medical breakthroughs that will save lives.

[Deranged Rhino]

He can't escape his own words: he'd murder a child for enough money. He's dishonest, has no values, and brags about both.

 

Ignore him and he'll be back with a new screen name yet again. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

asking if I would murder a child after it was born?  No, and that is irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

 

no bill or law has ever permitted that, that is an extremely misleading right-wing scare tactic.

Don't go getting all mushy on the issue, we both know it's a relevant topic for discussion.  You may find it unsavory to discuss, but it's been part of the discourse and rightly so.  As for scare tactics...what's with all the labels?  Who exactly would be 'scared'?  You've indicated that you've taken refuge in the crowd of the majority of Americans who believe in abortion/murder until the first breath of a child, who's left to be scared?  The pro-life crowd?  They hate it all, no need for propaganda or made up stories.  

 

I wonder about these things.  I struggle with how someone like you could terminate the life of a child at that stage of the child's life, with total regard for how much money you would make, and no regard for the life of a baby where the only difference between abortion and murder is a cervix and a few minutes of pushing.  It seems to me there is a certain class of citizen who simply needs the crowd to give it's approval, for the compensation to make it worth their while, and next thing you know the moral line in the sand gets pushed back to perhaps birth +24 hours.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Numark3]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Don't go getting all mushy on the issue, we both know it's a relevant topic for discussion.  You may find it unsavory to discuss, but it's been part of the discourse and rightly so.  As for scare tactics...what's with all the labels?  Who exactly would be 'scared'?  You've indicated that you've taken refuge in the crowd of the majority of Americans who believe in abortion/murder until the first breath of a child, who's left to be scared?  The pro-life crowd?  They hate it all, no need for propaganda or made up stories.  

 

I wonder about these things.  I struggle with how someone like you could terminate the life of a child at that stage of the child's life, with total regard for how much money you would make, and no regard for the life of a baby where the only difference between abortion and murder is a cervix and a few minutes of pushing.  It seems to me there is a certain class of citizen who simply needs the crowd to give it's approval, for the compensation to make it worth their while, and next thing you know the moral line in the sand gets pushed back to perhaps birth +24 hours.  

 

 

 

 

 

Ohhhhhh, you are a nutjob.

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

He can't escape his own words: he'd murder a child for enough money. He's dishonest, has no values, and brags about both.

 

Ignore him and he'll be back with a new screen name yet again. 

lol making up stuff again

[Deranged Rhino]

A "scare tactic". 

 

 

 

 

Dishonest people make dishonest arguments -- while bragging they don't have values, morals, and would kill a child for enough money. 

 

And not making anything up. His own words:

23 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Well, I'd abort fetuses for it.

 

23 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Not any paycheck DR, a large one.  I know you don't understand that concept

 

 

He's truly an awful person. And he brags about being one. 

[Numark3]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

A "scare tactic". 

 

 

 

 

Dishonest people make dishonest arguments -- while bragging they don't have values, morals, and would kill a child for enough money. 

 

And not making anything up. His own words:

 

 

 

He's truly an awful person. And he brags about being one. 

You already lost his argument before. These bills did not allow abortion after birth.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

You're acting like all Democrats are for late term abortions when it actually had more support in the late 90's.  I'm pointing out that the issue of abortion is not completely divided along party lines on this issue. There is a sizable bloc of Republicans (not the majority obviously) who support abortion rights in most instances. There is a smaller (but not insignificant) group of Democrats who oppose abortion rights.  These voices aren't heard because of the increasing vigor and power of conservative Christians in the Republican party and women rights activists in the Democratic party.  That's led to politicians on both sides to either capitulate to those bases in risk of being primaried or being replaced by somebody who's more in line with their views.  That was my only point.

I never called you lunatics as fetal tissue research has always been controversial.  However, I don't equate a billion dollar industry forced Chinese organ harvesting where they kill people and sell their organs to US women voluntarily making their aborted fetus available to research labs in hope of studying fetal tissue to lead to medical breakthroughs that will save lives.

I was speaking from the perspective of the fetus. As for forced organ harvesting, again, the fetus and child aborted at 6, 7 8+ certainly is no less forced to relinquish their skull, liver, heart etc than anyone else in the world. 

 

I do agree that the abortion issue is not split down party lines.  

12 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

Ohhhhhh, you are a nutjob.

 

As expected.  Those shouting the loudest generally crack the quickest.  

[Numark3]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I was speaking from the perspective of the fetus. As for forced organ harvesting, again, the fetus and child aborted at 6, 7 8+ certainly is no less forced to relinquish their skull, liver, heart etc than anyone else in the world. 

 

I do agree that the abortion issue is not split down party lines.  

As expected.  Those shouting the loudest generally crack the quickest.  

no, because no bill or law permits it.  It’s not relevant.  There is a clear line between post and pre birth.  It’s a very dumb and ignorant argument.

 

i posted in depth explanations previously about why those bills patently don’t permit it.  

Edited March 22, 2020 by Crayola64

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

A "scare tactic". 

 

 

 

 

Dishonest people make dishonest arguments -- while bragging they don't have values, morals, and would kill a child for enough money. 

 

And not making anything up. His own words:

 

 

 

He's truly an awful person. And he brags about being one. 

Just another poser.  It happens on these issues.

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

why do you refuse to share your line of work, while ridiculing other’s?

 

and take a poll, plenty of people would take a paycheck for things they don’t morally agree with.  Great great discovery (that i freely admit lol)

I don't refuse to share my line of work for any reason other than it is not germane to this subject. I have freely mentioned my life experiences here when it was pertinent to the subject. You initially made the point of posting here that you were a very successful attorney. Big fvcking deal. When you started acting like a prick attorney then you were widely panned here. Make no mistake about it, I've not ridiculed your line of work per se but you as a person. 

[Numark3]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't refuse to share my line of work for any reason other than it is not germane to this subject. I have freely mentioned my life experiences here when it was pertinent to the subject. You initially made the point of posting here that you were a very successful attorney. Big fvcking deal. When you started acting like a prick attorney then you were widely panned here. Make no mistake about it, I've not ridiculed your line of work per se but you as a person. 

nope, you have done nothing but make up stuff about my job lol.  All of it very false.

 

and we both know why you won’t share it.  What you do for money is very relevant to someone saying they won’t accept money for anything they don’t morally agree with.  Learn what relevancy means idiot.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

no, because no bill or law permits it.  It’s not relevant.  There is a clear line between post and pre birth.  It’s a very dumb and ignorant argument.

 

i posted in depth explanations previously about why those bills patently don’t permit it.  

Don't get yourself worked up in a lather over previous posts that may or may not deal with these issues.  I agree with you that the NY Law allows for late term abortions at will, with doctor's approval.  I understand that had your chosen field been medicine, you could have a nice little cottage industry thing going between the late term abortions and sale of the remains of the children you aborted.  

 

[Numark3]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't refuse to share my line of work for any reason other than it is not germane to this subject. I have freely mentioned my life experiences here when it was pertinent to the subject. You initially made the point of posting here that you were a very successful attorney. Big fvcking deal. When you started acting like a prick attorney then you were widely panned here. Make no mistake about it, I've not ridiculed your line of work per se but you as a person. 

I shared my job one time when the topic was law.  Posters like you insulted me and said I must not be successful.  So I shared that I was successful.  I have never once brought up I was lawyer since with the exception of you obsessing over it and insulting it.

 

Your job is directly relevant to you rambling about not taking paychecks for things you are morally opposed to.  So share it clown 

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Don't get yourself worked up in a lather over previous posts that may or may not deal with these issues.  I agree with you that the NY Law allows for late term abortions at will, with doctor's approval.  I understand that had your chosen field been medicine, you could have a nice little cottage industry thing going between the late term abortions and sale of the remains of the children you aborted.  

 

cool, still nothing relevant to killing children after birth.  That’s when I stopped answering your questions

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

nope, you have done nothing but make up stuff about my job lol.  All of it very false.

 

and we both know why you won’t share it.  What you do for money is very relevant to someone saying they won’t accept money for anything they don’t morally agree with.  Learn what relevancy means idiot.  

As an attorney, I know it's important for you to "win" and that can be the only reason why you are continuing this nonsense. You are floundering badly and just making more and more of a fool of yourself. You've already lost this discussion and you are not helping yourself here.

[Numark3]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

As an attorney, I know it's important for you to "win" and that can be the only reason why you are continuing this nonsense. You are floundering badly and just making more and more of a fool of yourself. You've already lost this discussion and you are not helping yourself here.

 

"I DONT SHARE MY JOB BECAUSE ITS NOT RELEVANT"

 

...the topic is what you accept to do for paychecks, your job is the most relevant thing.

 

"DERRR U LOST"

 

 

 

what is your job, I won't ridicule you like you do.  I just want to see if it aligns with your morales

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

I shared my job one time when the topic was law.  Posters like you insulted me and said I must not be successful.  So I shared that I was successful.  I have never once brought up I was lawyer since with the exception of you obsessing over it and insulting it.

 

Your job is directly relevant to you rambling about not taking paychecks for things you are morally opposed to.  So share it clown 

cool, still nothing relevant to killing children after birth.  That’s when I stopped answering your questions

You know when the ridicule really started? When you attacked DR for what you claimed was his poor writing skills and then mentioned that you taught writing at a local school. 

 

I have never posted anything here about me taking paychecks for doing something I was morally opposed to. Quit making stuff up. 

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

You know when the ridicule really started? When you attacked DR for what you claimed was his poor writing skills and then mentioned that you taught writing at a local school. 

 

I have never posted anything here about me taking paychecks for doing something I was morally opposed to. Quit making stuff up. 

 

It is the very topic we are discussing.  You want to criticize me for accepting money for stuff i morally oppose?  Then let's see what you get paychecks for and see if you are being a hypocrite.  It is relevant, stop lying.  We know the actual reason you won't share it.  It is not for relevancy.  

 

And I never said local school, stop making it up.  It is a top 20 law school, you made up that it was a community college.  (example 100 of you lying about my job)

Edited March 22, 2020 by Crayola64

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

I shared my job one time when the topic was law.  Posters like you insulted me and said I must not be successful.  So I shared that I was successful.  I have never once brought up I was lawyer since with the exception of you obsessing over it and insulting it.

 

Your job is directly relevant to you rambling about not taking paychecks for things you are morally opposed to.  So share it clown 

cool, still nothing relevant to killing children after birth.  That’s when I stopped answering your questions

I simply asked a question, and you lost your composure.  There are people who believe that it's their role to end the life of a child born where the woman carrying that child wanted the child aborted.  For all your bluster, DR's video of the gov of Virginia reveals exactly that.  The story of Kermit Gosnell is another example.  

 

My only question to you, after you spoke about a willingness to perform late term abortions was if you fell into the Northam/Gosnell category or not.  

[Numark3]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I simply asked a question, and you lost your composure.  There are people who believe that it's their role to end the life of a child born where the woman carrying that child wanted the child aborted.  For all your bluster, DR's video of the gov of Virginia reveals exactly that.  The story of Kermit Gosnell is another example.  

 

My only question to you, after you spoke about a willingness to perform late term abortions was if you fell into the Northam/Gosnell category or not.  

 

lol lost my composure.  ?

 

No bill permits it.  No law permits it.  no proposed law permits it.  laws forbid it.  Extremely rare examples of people breaking the law, and idiots saying stuff, does not make it relevant to the abortion debate.  The fact it is a talking point for you is embarrassing  

 

*************************

 

@3rdnlng

 

"You accept money for stuff you morally oppose"

 

Yes, what do you get paychecks for and see how it aligns with your morales...

 

"NOT RELVANTTTT"

Edited March 22, 2020 by Crayola64

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

23 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

lol lost my composure.  ?

 

No bill permits it.  No law permits it.  no proposed law permits it.  laws forbid it.  Extremely rare examples of people breaking the law, and idiots saying stuff, does not make it relevant to the abortion debate.  The fact it is a talking point for you is embarrassing  

 

*************************

 

@3rdnlng

 

"You accept money for stuff you morally oppose"

 

Yes, what do you get paychecks for and see how it aligns with your morales...

 

"NOT RELVANTTTT"

Look, we're getting nowhere fast here Perry Mason.  We've covered the same ground and you're hyper-fixated on something we already agreed on.  I never asked if you would violate THE law, I never suggested that you have, I just asked a question.  From there, you lost your composure and lobbed insults my way, which is fine, but it reveals a weakness in your character in my opinion. True, I already feel there is a weakness in your character given that you would boast about a willingness to end the life of a child at full term, but acknowledge you would be able to do so legally under the law.  

 

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Look, we're getting nowhere fast here Perry Mason.  We've covered the same ground and you're hyper-fixated on something we already agreed on.  I never asked if you would violate THE law, I never suggested that you have, I just asked a question.  From there, you lost your composure and lobbed insults my way, which is fine, but it reveals a weakness in your character in my opinion. True, I already feel there is a weakness in your character given that you would boast about a willingness to end the life of a child at full term, but acknowledge you would be able to do so legally under the law.  

 

 

 

its because I value the choice of a family over the life of an unborn child.  

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

 

It is the very topic we are discussing.  You want to criticize me for accepting money for stuff i morally oppose?  Then let's see what you get paychecks for and see if you are being a hypocrite.  It is relevant, stop lying.  We know the actual reason you won't share it.  It is not for relevancy.  

 

And I never said local school, stop making it up.  It is a top 20 law school, you made up that it was a community college.  (example 100 of you lying about my job)

You might have posted your dilemma in a different way than you did to avoid this kind of discussion if you simply stated that you hated representing guilty clients or some such thing it would be understandable but we know you're not a defense lawyer so there goes that. You chose to say you wouldn't perform abortions unless you got paid enough to do them. That tells me you are for sale. 

 

As far as I go, I have stated here before when it was pertinent to the topic at hand, that I had a career in manufacturing management and then a 2nd one in real estate development. I am now retired and have a part-time job of about 10 hours a week servicing former actresses and beauty queens. It's a fun job and I provide a needed service, plus you should see the Christmas and Birthday gifts I receive. 

[Numark3]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

You might have posted your dilemma in a different way than you did to avoid this kind of discussion if you simply stated that you hated representing guilty clients or some such thing it would be understandable but we know you're not a defense lawyer so there goes that. You chose to say you wouldn't perform abortions unless you got paid enough to do them. That tells me you are for sale. 

 

As far as I go, I have stated here before when it was pertinent to the topic at hand, that I had a career in manufacturing management and then a 2nd one in real estate development. I am now retired and have a part-time job of about 10 hours a week servicing former actresses and beauty queens. It's a fun job and I provide a needed service, plus you should see the Christmas and Birthday gifts I receive. 

 

hey, I only defend manufacturers.  

[3rdnlng]

28 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

lol lost my composure.  ?

 

No bill permits it.  No law permits it.  no proposed law permits it.  laws forbid it.  Extremely rare examples of people breaking the law, and idiots saying stuff, does not make it relevant to the abortion debate.  The fact it is a talking point for you is embarrassing  

 

*************************

 

@3rdnlng

 

"You accept money for stuff you morally oppose"

 

Yes, what do you get paychecks for and see how it aligns with your morales...

 

"NOT RELVANTTTT"

Really?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

its because I value the choice of a family over the life of an unborn child.  

You didn't approach the question from a perspective of the choice of family v unborn child, you approached it boasting of your willingness to do the down and dirty work so long as you got paid.  Were you bluffing then, or now?  

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Crayola64 said:

 

"I DONT SHARE MY JOB BECAUSE ITS NOT RELEVANT"

 

...the topic is what you accept to do for paychecks, your job is the most relevant thing.

 

"DERRR U LOST"

 

 

 

what is your job, I won't ridicule you like you do.  I just want to see if it aligns with your morales

If you don't feel your job is relevant you should probably seek a new one.  I'd first suggest taking a deeper look at what you do because most, if not all jobs are relevant in at least some way.  You may not want to start down a new path until you're sure your current one is truly irrelevant.

[B-Man]

 

 

Ohio abortion clinics say they will still offer services, despite order from state attorney general

https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-abortion-clinics-still-offer-051800966.html

 

Only the correct people are allowed to break the law without consequence.

 

 

 

 

.

[jrober38]

It'll be interesting to see how the COVID-19 pandemic develops over the next two weeks.

 

I feel like there's a decent chance that Republicans begin pushing to reopen the economy even though it will mean the loss of dramatically more life than if things had been kept shut. Keeping things shut will likely result in an economic collapse though, with the trade off being fewer hospitals overwhelmed and more lives saved. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

On 3/22/2020 at 5:09 PM, Crayola64 said:

 

its because I value the choice of a family over the life of an unborn child.  

 

So, if a majority decided retroactive abortion was moral, you'd have no problem being aborted? Great! 

[jrober38]

18 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

It'll be interesting to see how the COVID-19 pandemic develops over the next two weeks.

 

I feel like there's a decent chance that Republicans begin pushing to reopen the economy even though it will mean the loss of dramatically more life than if things had been kept shut. Keeping things shut will likely result in an economic collapse though, with the trade off being fewer hospitals overwhelmed and more lives saved. 

 

There you have it. 

 

15 days of shutdown and then Trump and the GOP will begin opening things back up. 

 

Who cares how many people die. Saving the stock market is more important. 

 

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling. 

[B-Man]

16 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

There you have it. 

 

15 days of shutdown and then Trump and the GOP will begin opening things back up. 

 

Who cares how many people die. Saving the stock market is more important. 

 

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling. 

 

There you have it. 
 

The false comparison of the Trump administration stating that they will revaluate how things are going in two weeks and wether or not some changes can be made to help out with the economics of ALL Americans big and small,

 

with the ripping of a baby out of its womb. 
 

 

Hypocrite is not a strong enough word for you jrober38. 
 

Stick to the liberal excuse threads !

 

 

 

 

 .

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by B-Man

[jrober38]

46 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

There you have it. 
 

The false comparison of the Trump administration stating that they will revaluate how things are going in two weeks and wether or not some changes can be made to help out with the economics of ALL Americans big and small,

 

with the ripping of a baby out of its womb. 
 

 

Hypocrite is not a strong enough word for you jrober38. 
 

Stick to the liberal excuse threads !

 

 

 

 

 .

 

 

Honestly I don't have a problem with either. 

 

I have no issue with abortion, and I have no issue with the government trying to save the economy if it means hundreds of thousands more people dying than is necessary. 

 

I don't care. 

 

I just think the lack of awareness to realize that BOTH decisions are almost entirely based on economic consequences is hysterical. 

CHOOSING to let more people die than is necessary so that you're not economically inconvenienced is the same damn reason most people get an abortion. 

[B-Man]

16 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

CHOOSING to let more people die than is necessary so that you're not economically inconvenienced is the same damn reason most people get an abortion. 

Except that is NOT what is happening,

 

except in your fevered head. 
 

It way too complicated a situation than your 

 

“both sides are bad BS” can cover. 
 

Possibly having the virus infect more is 

NOT the same as actually killing an infant. 
 

 

 

 

.

[jrober38]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Except that is NOT what is happening,

 

except in your fevered head. 
 

It way too complicated a situation than your 

 

“both sides are bad BS” can cover. 
 

Possibly having the virus infect more is 

NOT the same as actually killing an infant. 
 

 

 

 

.

 

Wait and see. Trump will reopen the economy in two weeks and he'll accept that the consequences of doing so will mean more people will die.

 

They'll be making a choice, and it will involve choosing to kill more people than is necessary just to save the stock market. 

Edited March 24, 2020 by jrober38

[3rdnlng]

Maybe Trump decides to get back to the new normal that includes taking more precautions while we work, and that prevents a lot more deaths from suicide and poverty than we will have from the virus.