cinque said:

---

So, does the law allow for the termination of a pregnancy the day before the scheduled delivery as the thread title suggests?

---

Yes.

Doc Holliday said:

---

cinque said:

---

So, does the law allow for the termination of a pregnancy the day before the scheduled delivery as the thread title suggests?

---

Yes.

---

It doesn't say that in the text provided.

cinque said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cinque said:

---

So, does the law allow for the termination of a pregnancy the day before the scheduled delivery as the thread title suggests?

---

Yes.

---

It doesn't say that in the text provided.

---

Seems to state the abortion can happen anytime if the fetus is not viable or to protect the mothers health.

Wwbear said:

---

cinque said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cinque said:

---

So, does the law allow for the termination of a pregnancy the day before the scheduled delivery as the thread title suggests?

---

Yes.

---

It doesn't say that in the text provided.

---

Seems to state the abortion can happen anytime if the fetus is not viable or to protect the mothers health.

---

Why did you leave out to protect the mother's life part? And why would you include the clear, explicit circumstances under which late term abortions can lawfully be performed? Why lie about it?

cinque said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cinque said:

---

So, does the law allow for the termination of a pregnancy the day before the scheduled delivery as the thread title suggests?

---

Yes.

---

It doesn't say that in the text provided.

---

Buddy you don't understand law at all.

The legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother's life or health the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as "all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the wellbeing of the patient." In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth. The RHA will also decriminalize abortion, moving it from the state's criminal code to the public-health code.

There are conditions that belie your thread title and you know it. Health practitioners in NY state cannot on a whim just decide they want to abort a baby the day before a scheduled delivery. Isn't that true?

I'm not going to read the entire bill carefully in hopes of finding what some claim to be in it. If it is, feel free to point it out to me. I gave you a head start with a link to the actual bill.

What this clearly does is provide a right to an abortion (under certain terms) under New York law should Roe and Casey be overturned. Several states have had such laws on the books, just in case. Now New York has joined.

Not sure why this has some all lathered up.

cinque said:

---

Wwbear said:

---

cinque said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cinque said:

---

So, does the law allow for the termination of a pregnancy the day before the scheduled delivery as the thread title suggests?

---

Yes.

---

It doesn't say that in the text provided.

---

Seems to state the abortion can happen anytime if the fetus is not viable or to protect the mothers health.

---

Why did you leave out to protect the mother's life part? And why would you include the clear, explicit circumstances under which late term abortions can lawfully be performed? Why lie about it?

---

Lazy I guess.

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

---

Is there a moment in the pregnancy when the rights of the fetus/child takes precedence over the rights of the mother?

One minute before birth? One minute after birth?

---

Here's the converse to that question: At what point should the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother to self-determination? After that point--whether it's the instant the egg is fertilized or at some point during the pregnancy--who is empowered to make decisions on the fetus's behalf, since the women's decision-making power about the pregnancy has been eliminated by the state? The state? The father? The doctor? A church? And how will those decisions be enforced? What other decisions may the state (or whoever else) make on her behalf?

I'm not trying to be snide. But we've debated this issue re: drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, in discussions of whether to prosecute them for the harm they do to their unborn children. And we don't have a good or consistent policy solution.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

---

Is there a moment in the pregnancy when the rights of the fetus/child takes precedence over the rights of the mother?

One minute before birth? One minute after birth?

---

Here's the converse to that question: At what point should the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother to self-determination? After that point--whether it's the instant the egg is fertilized or at some point during the pregnancy--who is empowered to make decisions on the fetus's behalf, since the women's decision-making power about the pregnancy has been eliminated by the state? The state? The father? The doctor? A church? And how will those decisions be enforced? What other decisions may the state (or whoever else) make on her behalf?

I'm not trying to be snide. But we've debated this issue re: drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, in discussions of whether to prosecute them for the harm they do to their unborn children. And we don't have a good or consistent policy solution.

---

The state. When the child is born the state can make the decision. The day before birth I believe the state can intervene.

I would not prosecute the mother. However, I'm looking for someone on the pro-choice side to say "wait, we never meant that a child cannot be killed one day before birth. Can you say that?

Can we agree that the right of the child prevails after birth?

Jinx 2 said:

---

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

---

Interesting how a few years ago liberals were going nuts (and still are) because of restrictions Texas were attempting to place on abortions. Now that the Supreme Court doesn't look as favorable (I'm not with HER) it's all about states rights.

For the record, I am fine with states rights. But the law NY is passing is egregiously cruel, unreasonable and hateful.

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

---

Is there a moment in the pregnancy when the rights of the fetus/child takes precedence over the rights of the mother?

One minute before birth? One minute after birth?

---

Here's the converse to that question: At what point should the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother to self-determination? After that point--whether it's the instant the egg is fertilized or at some point during the pregnancy--who is empowered to make decisions on the fetus's behalf, since the women's decision-making power about the pregnancy has been eliminated by the state? The state? The father? The doctor? A church? And how will those decisions be enforced? What other decisions may the state (or whoever else) make on her behalf?

I'm not trying to be snide. But we've debated this issue re: drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, in discussions of whether to prosecute them for the harm they do to their unborn children. And we don't have a good or consistent policy solution.

---

The state. When the child is born the state can make the decision. The day before birth I believe the state can intervene.

I would not prosecute the mother. However, I'm looking for someone on the pro-choice side to say "wait, we never meant that a child cannot be killed one day before birth. Can you say that?

Can we agree that the right of the child prevails after birth?

---

I haven't said that because it's a silly argument. Abortion isn't really an option after 24 weeks. What happens after that is either premature birth, a miscarriage or a full-term birth. The only instances where abortion might occur would be instances where there's a birth defect and the baby will die soon after birth; I think such decisions about what to do if such a personal tragedy occurs should be up to the mother and her doctor, not the government. I don't consider induction of a fetus that has died in the womb an abortion.

Antiabortion activists know this, because the crisis pregnancy centers they run try to keep women pregnant long enough that abortion is no longer an option. One such center got bad publicity recently because its director made a presentation about how to "cut off" pregnant women once they were past the point where they could easily get a legal abortion. If you're looking for a point when the fetus becomes a legal "person," that might start when survival outside the womb is possible. But what happens if the mother develops a complication that requires induction to ensure her survival as well as the baby's. Being born premature isn't good for babies. Should be mother be required by law to carry the baby as long as possible even if that puts her at greater risk of death before, during or after birth? If a fertilized egg's right to life supercedes the rights of the woman carrying it to opt out, whose life is more valuable? For a long time, society opted in favor of the women. The "not under any circumstanaces" arm of the antiabortion movement appears to assign greater value to the fetus.

One result of a really hard-line position on abortion, IMO, will be more women opting out of childbirth altogether, because they don't want their self-determination handed over to the state, even temporarily. If a woman becomes pregnant because of a rape, the idea that the state could and would force her to carry and bear the child of her rapist is abhorent.

If the state can intervene for force a woman to remain pregnant starting at conception, can and should it also intervene to force a woman to stop activites that might harm the fetus, like doing drugs, drinking, eating a poor diet? Could it force a woman to quit a job that is likely to cause a miscarriage?

Finally, I'm not sure what "When the child is born the state can make the decision" means. The decision about what?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

---

Is there a moment in the pregnancy when the rights of the fetus/child takes precedence over the rights of the mother?

One minute before birth? One minute after birth?

---

Here's the converse to that question: At what point should the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother to self-determination? After that point--whether it's the instant the egg is fertilized or at some point during the pregnancy--who is empowered to make decisions on the fetus's behalf, since the women's decision-making power about the pregnancy has been eliminated by the state? The state? The father? The doctor? A church? And how will those decisions be enforced? What other decisions may the state (or whoever else) make on her behalf?

I'm not trying to be snide. But we've debated this issue re: drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, in discussions of whether to prosecute them for the harm they do to their unborn children. And we don't have a good or consistent policy solution.

---

The state. When the child is born the state can make the decision. The day before birth I believe the state can intervene.

I would not prosecute the mother. However, I'm looking for someone on the pro-choice side to say "wait, we never meant that a child cannot be killed one day before birth. Can you say that?

Can we agree that the right of the child prevails after birth?

---

I haven't said that because it's a silly argument. Abortion isn't really an option after 24 weeks. What happens after that is either premature birth, a miscarriage or a full-term birth. The only instances where abortion might occur would be instances where there's a birth defect and the baby will die soon after birth; I think such decisions about what to do if such a personal tragedy occurs should be up to the mother and her doctor, not the government. I don't consider induction of a fetus that has died in the womb an abortion.

If the state can intervene for force a woman to remain pregnant starting at conception, can and should it also intervene to force a woman to stop activites that might harm the fetus, like doing drugs, drinking, eating a poor diet? Could it force a woman to quit a job that is likely to cause a miscarriage?

Finally, I'm not sure what "When the child is born the state can make the decision" means. The decision about what?

---

I note you still haven't said that the right of a child prevails after birth. I'm not sure why. If it is a silly argument then rebut it or say you agree. If you agree with the 24 week rule with exceptions, I might agree if I knew what your exceptions were. For me it would have to be more than 'the mother changed her mind'. I can see medical reasons for late term abortions.

I'm willing to talk about the issues you raise in the second paragraph above, but I'm not familiar with any law mandating the woman's forced retirement. Is there such a law somewhere in the USA?

The state should be able to intervene after a child is born, out of the womb, alive, prevent the abortionist from smothering the child or otherwise killing it.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

---

Is there a moment in the pregnancy when the rights of the fetus/child takes precedence over the rights of the mother?

One minute before birth? One minute after birth?

---

Here's the converse to that question: At what point should the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother to self-determination? After that point--whether it's the instant the egg is fertilized or at some point during the pregnancy--who is empowered to make decisions on the fetus's behalf, since the women's decision-making power about the pregnancy has been eliminated by the state? The state? The father? The doctor? A church? And how will those decisions be enforced? What other decisions may the state (or whoever else) make on her behalf?

I'm not trying to be snide. But we've debated this issue re: drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, in discussions of whether to prosecute them for the harm they do to their unborn children. And we don't have a good or consistent policy solution.

---

The state. When the child is born the state can make the decision. The day before birth I believe the state can intervene.

I would not prosecute the mother. However, I'm looking for someone on the pro-choice side to say "wait, we never meant that a child cannot be killed one day before birth. Can you say that?

Can we agree that the right of the child prevails after birth?

---

I haven't said that because it's a silly argument. Abortion isn't really an option after 24 weeks. What happens after that is either premature birth, a miscarriage or a full-term birth. The only instances where abortion might occur would be instances where there's a birth defect and the baby will die soon after birth; I think such decisions about what to do if such a personal tragedy occurs should be up to the mother and her doctor, not the government. I don't consider induction of a fetus that has died in the womb an abortion.

Antiabortion activists know this, because the crisis pregnancy centers they run try to keep women pregnant long enough that abortion is no longer an option. One such center got bad publicity recently because its director made a presentation about how to "cut off" pregnant women once they were past the point where they could easily get a legal abortion. If you're looking for a point when the fetus becomes a legal "person," that might start when survival outside the womb is possible. But what happens if the mother develops a complication that requires induction to ensure her survival as well as the baby's. Being born premature isn't good for babies. Should be mother be required by law to carry the baby as long as possible even if that puts her at greater risk of death before, during or after birth? If a fertilized egg's right to life supercedes the rights of the woman carrying it to opt out, whose life is more valuable? For a long time, society opted in favor of the women. The "not under any circumstanaces" arm of the antiabortion movement appears to assign greater value to the fetus.

One result of a really hard-line position on abortion, IMO, will be more women opting out of childbirth altogether, because they don't want their self-determination handed over to the state, even temporarily. If a woman becomes pregnant because of a rape, the idea that the state could and would force her to carry and bear the child of her rapist is abhorent.

If the state can intervene for force a woman to remain pregnant starting at conception, can and should it also intervene to force a woman to stop activites that might harm the fetus, like doing drugs, drinking, eating a poor diet? Could it force a woman to quit a job that is likely to cause a miscarriage?

Finally, I'm not sure what "When the child is born the state can make the decision" means. The decision about what?

---

and under Title 8 of the Education Law, a mother could confer with her social worker that her baby may die soon after birth due to the mother's mental facets or the child's lack of food, and the child could be terminated prior to birth because of it.

pruritus_ani said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Notice no lefties have checked in here. They know what this is.

---

From the Buffalo News:

" The bill maintains abortions as legal within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy "or at any time when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.'' Late-term abortions had previously been authorized under state law if they meant saving the life of a woman."

This is hardly "up until. Why do you cons do this?

---

Now, read the bill honestly without twisting it. Afterwards, go wash the blood off your hands!

---

Your first sentence sounds fair to me. Here is the relevant text:

SECTION 2599-AA. ABORTION.
2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

I cannot find the other stuff claimed here to be in the bill, but I didn't read it all very carefully. Perhaps someone can show me. Here is a link to the bill:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2796

---

While I saw a handful of definitions in the law, I did not find one defining "health". I would think that is the key word.

Any attorneys here want to tell me where it is or what I'm missing?

pruritus_ani said:

---

I'm not going to read the entire bill carefully in hopes of finding what some claim to be in it. If it is, feel free to point it out to me. I gave you a head start with a link to the actual bill.

What this clearly does is provide a right to an abortion (under certain terms) under New York law should Roe and Casey be overturned. Several states have had such laws on the books, just in case. Now New York has joined.

Not sure why this has some all lathered up.

---

Because sucking the brain out of a child is still sucking the brain out of a child.

Do you not have children?

BaylorOkie said:

---

---

classic

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

If I'm reading the story below right, the New York Law will leave decisions re: abortion to a women and her doctor, not to politicians.

This bill also anticipates SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

If the GOP strategy was to return governance to states, why would they be surprised that some states will move to affirm or even expand rights and access. In a democracy where 58% of people believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances and 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances? It stands to reason that--in about 2/3 of states, abortion will remain legal.

This is also happening in New York. I can't see such a bill passing in the state of Texas.

https://www.syracuse.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/7a5d56a87eac4/historic-ny-abortion-vote-how-law-will-change-what-it-means-for-women.html

---

Is there a moment in the pregnancy when the rights of the fetus/child takes precedence over the rights of the mother?

One minute before birth? One minute after birth?

---

Here's the converse to that question: At what point should the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother to self-determination? After that point--whether it's the instant the egg is fertilized or at some point during the pregnancy--who is empowered to make decisions on the fetus's behalf, since the women's decision-making power about the pregnancy has been eliminated by the state? The state? The father? The doctor? A church? And how will those decisions be enforced? What other decisions may the state (or whoever else) make on her behalf?

I'm not trying to be snide. But we've debated this issue re: drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, in discussions of whether to prosecute them for the harm they do to their unborn children. And we don't have a good or consistent policy solution.

---

So what do you think of babies who are born alive at abortion clinics being left to die?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/she-was-alive-and-crying-abortion-nurse-quits-after-baby-born-alive-left-to

What I think is creepy is how the left celebrates abortion. The tower in pink. The marches. Cheering for women's "reproductive" rights. So creepy.

Bishop Schafenberger says today on Fox that Gov. Cuomo could be excommunicated and likely will be excluded from communion. I wonder if he will spend more time in Purgatory for signing this bill?

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.

I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.

I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.

---

"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."

Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?

Pretty sobering

Canada2017 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Pretty sobering

---

That comparison truly saddens me.

---

it's a melancholy morning...

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.

I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.

---

"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."

Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?

---

Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.

corncob pipe said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Pretty sobering

---

That comparison truly saddens me.

---

it's a melancholy morning...

---

Yeah....it's sad to watch the self destruction of a great culture.

Oh well......time to plan another road trip.

Canada2017 said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Pretty sobering

---

That comparison truly saddens me.

---

it's a melancholy morning...

---

Yeah....it's sad to watch the self destruction of a great culture.

Oh well......time to plan another road trip.

---

The "culture" of old white people can't die fast enough. Jesus. Bye.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.

I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.

---

"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."

Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?

---

Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.

---

That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.

I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.