If babies could be grown in a lab outside the womb...would you still allow abortion?Waco1947 said:And you have no answer. You sir barbaric.Oldbear83 said:Vice versa - you cannot defend your blood lust on any level.Waco1947 said:Canada2017 said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
You are completely unhinged.
No one is executing the mother .
But the baby certainly is being put to death .
So you have no answer for your barbaric law.
Abortion up until Birth passed by NY Dems
96,046 Views |
837 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Edmond Bear
I have answered you, just as many have, You simply ignore your guilt, in hopes God is not real and politics will somehow redeem your malicious soul.Waco1947 said:And you have no answer. You sir barbaric.Oldbear83 said:Vice versa - you cannot defend your blood lust on any level.Waco1947 said:Canada2017 said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
You are completely unhinged.
No one is executing the mother .
But the baby certainly is being put to death .
So you have no answer for your barbaric law.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
It is no more "barbaric" than expecting her to refrain from drowning her infant in a bathtub six months after birth.Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?
Yes or no please?
^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???
And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?Florda_mike said:Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?
Yes or no please?
^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???
Waco1947 ,la
Waco1947 said:And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?Florda_mike said:Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?
Yes or no please?
^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???
Waco, you're being dishonest
You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it
Now answer my question please
You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?
Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
I believe this is your quote: "No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion."Oldbear83 said:
Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.
Man up.
TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."
Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.
I'm saying there most certainly can be an ethical argument supporting an abortion.
Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
TexasScientist said:I believe this is your quote: "No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion."Oldbear83 said:
Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.
Man up.
TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."
Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.
I'm saying there most certainly can be an ethical argument supporting an abortion.
Yes. Ethics doesn't equal moral. Someone's getting confused.
Ethics are agreed-upon standards -usually in professional standards.
Morals are usually derived from culture informed by dominant religions.
** sigh **TexasScientist said:I believe this is your quote: "No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion."Oldbear83 said:
Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.
Man up.
TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."
Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.
I'm saying there most certainly can be an ethical argument supporting an abortion.
OK, I will highlight the part you missed:
"No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion"
The whole statement must be considered, not cherry-picked so you can pretend something else was said.
Now, care to try again?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
Waco1947 said:Canada2017 said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
You are completely unhinged.
No one is executing the mother .
But the baby certainly is being put to death .
So you have no answer for your barbaric law.
The answer is you are completely unhinged .
An old man running around claiming to be a Christian 'minister' while irrationally claiming the murder of babies is somehow a noble act while giving birth is potentially barbaric.
Realized long ago you have an insatiable desire for attention....even negative attention . There are far less destructive ways to garner the attention you crave.
Try one
Osodecentx said:Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.
How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.
But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.
BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth.
^^^ It's hard to get the truth from someone that uses these 2 sentences together
Wow
Although there is some distinction they are often regarded as synonymous.BrooksBearLives said:TexasScientist said:I believe this is your quote: "No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion."Oldbear83 said:
Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.
Man up.
TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."
Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.
I'm saying there most certainly can be an ethical argument supporting an abortion.
Yes. Ethics doesn't equal moral. Someone's getting confused.
Ethics are agreed-upon standards -usually in professional standards.
Morals are usually derived from culture informed by dominant religions.
Webster Definition of Ethics:
1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
Yes, there can be an ethical argument for an abortion or abortion.Oldbear83 said:** sigh **TexasScientist said:I believe this is your quote: "No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion."Oldbear83 said:
Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.
Man up.
TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."
Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.
I'm saying there most certainly can be an ethical argument supporting an abortion.
OK, I will highlight the part you missed:
"No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion"
The whole statement must be considered, not cherry-picked so you can pretend something else was said.
Now, care to try again?
Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.
How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.
But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.
Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.
End of story.
Doc Holliday said:Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.
How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.
But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.
Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.
End of story.
Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.
You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.
You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.
Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?
Answer the question.
What facts? Not your opinion, just factsBrooksBearLives said:
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
Women indicate that you are simply stupid and barbaric to think you can deny a civil right and demand a woman carry to term. I'll go with the women on this one some misogynistic and sexist white guy from Florida.Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?Florda_mike said:Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?
Yes or no please?
^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???
Waco, you're being dishonest
You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it
Now answer my question please
Osodecentx said:What facts? Not your opinion, just factsBrooksBearLives said:
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance.
I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.
Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term?
Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger?
Please respond.
OK then. I made it clear that I do not believe there is an argument to make for abortion being virtuous or good in its character. I repeated that point and you continue to say such an argument exists.TexasScientist said:Yes, there can be an ethical argument for an abortion or abortion.Oldbear83 said:** sigh **TexasScientist said:I believe this is your quote: "No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion."Oldbear83 said:
Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.
Man up.
TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."
Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.
I'm saying there most certainly can be an ethical argument supporting an abortion.
OK, I will highlight the part you missed:
"No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion"
The whole statement must be considered, not cherry-picked so you can pretend something else was said.
Now, care to try again?
So please present your argument. Not that abortion is necessary, or acceptable, nor that abortion is about rights .
Please present your argument abortion is a morally good act, valuable to both the individual and society and something which should be encouraged.
I look forward to reading your argument.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
It is a fair question and excellent distinction
Moral argument for abortion in general is probably not possible except the one that treads on a woman's right to her own health decisions
For binary thinkers there might be a moral argument for "an" abortion - that is a special case abortion such as rape.
Moral argument for abortion in general is probably not possible except the one that treads on a woman's right to her own health decisions
For binary thinkers there might be a moral argument for "an" abortion - that is a special case abortion such as rape.
Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?Waco1947 said:Women indicate that you are simply stupid and barbaric to think you can deny a civil right and demand a woman carry to term. I'll go with the women on this one some misogynistic and sexist white guy from Florida.Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?Florda_mike said:Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?
Yes or no please?
^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???
Waco, you're being dishonest
You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it
Now answer my question please
Waco1947 said:I'll go with the women on this one some misogynistic and sexist white guy from Florida.Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?Florda_mike said:Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?
Yes or no please?
^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???
Waco, you're being dishonest
You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it
Now answer my question please
Still another racist and sexist comment from the weird old guy who continually claims to be a 'minister'.
Suspect your theology 'degree' requirements were the equivalent of mailing in the coupons of 6 boxes of Post Toasties to DC Comics .
Answered above in BoldBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:What facts? Not your opinion, just factsBrooksBearLives said:
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion
I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.
Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No
Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes
Please respond.
Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.
Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?
Please respond
If the baby in fetus form is dead or is expected to die it's not an abortion, it's essentially a miscarriage.BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.
How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.
But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.
Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.
End of story.
Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.
You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.
You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.
Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?
Answer the question.
And no I don't think in binary. You just need to admit the truth about yourself and you can't because you are fearful of being judged more by society than not thinking for yourself.
You see, there is no way to spin abortion. You are either fine with destroying a being that will live a full life or not. There is no in between. A rarity between choosing the mothers or the babies life is making a decision on whose is more valuable.
The grey area you think exists is simply your minds way of justification. God doesn't operate in grey. It's his way or the highway.
Your endorsement of abortion along with millions of others will increase abortion.
Let's make a hypothetical scenario: the last woman on earth is pregnant and she wants an abortion...for it or against it?
Killing is not a civil right.Waco1947 said:Women indicate that you are simply stupid and barbaric to think you can deny a civil right and demand a woman carry to term. I'll go with the women on this one some misogynistic and sexist white guy from Florida.Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?Florda_mike said:Florda_mike said:Waco1947 said:
It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.
Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?
Yes or no please?
^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???
Waco, you're being dishonest
You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it
Now answer my question please
Osodecentx said:Answered above in BoldBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:What facts? Not your opinion, just factsBrooksBearLives said:
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion
I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.
Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No
Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes
Please respond.
Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.
Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?
Please respond
5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.
"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."
This isn't difficult to understand.
Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.
Doc Holliday said:If the baby in fetus form is dead or is expected to die it's not an abortion, it's essentially a miscarriage.BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.
How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.
But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.
Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.
End of story.
Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.
You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.
You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.
Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?
Answer the question.
And no I don't think in binary. You just need to admit the truth about yourself and you can't because you are fearful of being judged more by society than not thinking for yourself.
You see, there is no way to spin abortion. You are either fine with destroying a being that will live a full life or not. There is no in between. A rarity between choosing the mothers or the babies life is making a decision on whose is more valuable.
The grey area you think exists is simply your minds way of justification. God doesn't operate in grey. It's his way or the highway.
Your endorsement of abortion along with millions of others will increase abortion.
Let's make a hypothetical scenario: the last woman on earth is pregnant and she wants an abortion...for it or against it?
I am against every abortion. Ever. Every single one is a tragedy. Some may be necessary. Some, I don't know if I can blame someone for not wanting to carry their rapist's child to term. But I am so SO glad that I will never have to make that decision myself and I don't feel comfortable making it for others.
And your point doesn't stand, because if the fetus isn't viable, it's still an abortion. It's not a miscarriage in any sense of the law. Morally speaking? Yes. Agreed. Legally? No. And that's what 99% of late term abortions are. Literally. 99% are nonviable fetuses.
You agree with this law 99% of the time.
Dont bs. The vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. To maintain lifestyle because raising a kid is hard.BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:If the baby in fetus form is dead or is expected to die it's not an abortion, it's essentially a miscarriage.BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Bull ****BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?BrooksBearLives said:You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.Osodecentx said:You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?BrooksBearLives said:
All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.
It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Are you quoting something?
Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"
You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.
I don't agree it is.
That's not what I said.
Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.
That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.
The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!
The other side?Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.Quote:
This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?
Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.
"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.
I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).
You are very pro-abortion
I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.
No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.
Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it
Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.
I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.
How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.
But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.
Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.
End of story.
Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.
You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.
You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.
Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?
Answer the question.
And no I don't think in binary. You just need to admit the truth about yourself and you can't because you are fearful of being judged more by society than not thinking for yourself.
You see, there is no way to spin abortion. You are either fine with destroying a being that will live a full life or not. There is no in between. A rarity between choosing the mothers or the babies life is making a decision on whose is more valuable.
The grey area you think exists is simply your minds way of justification. God doesn't operate in grey. It's his way or the highway.
Your endorsement of abortion along with millions of others will increase abortion.
Let's make a hypothetical scenario: the last woman on earth is pregnant and she wants an abortion...for it or against it?
I am against every abortion. Ever. Every single one is a tragedy. Some may be necessary. Some, I don't know if I can blame someone for not wanting to carry their rapist's child to term. But I am so SO glad that I will never have to make that decision myself and I don't feel comfortable making it for others.
And your point doesn't stand, because if the fetus isn't viable, it's still an abortion. It's not a miscarriage in any sense of the law. Morally speaking? Yes. Agreed. Legally? No. And that's what 99% of late term abortions are. Literally. 99% are nonviable fetuses.
You agree with this law 99% of the time.
And you will vote Democrat and eventually help them pass infantacide after birth which is an intent many have already endorsed.
Your hand is in the cookie jar. You keep telling everyone their stance against abortion is immoral. You're changing minds and helping prevent lives. Let's see what God thinks of your behavior.
Death is not circumstancial to God.
Killing babies is now ok with democrats
Given time they'll be killing those that disagree with them
They're just desensitizing us with babies now
That's how democrats work .... patiently destroying our country with socialism since LBJ and before
They will continue until mission is accomplished or we finally fight back. If I was betting man I'd bet on former
Given time they'll be killing those that disagree with them
They're just desensitizing us with babies now
That's how democrats work .... patiently destroying our country with socialism since LBJ and before
They will continue until mission is accomplished or we finally fight back. If I was betting man I'd bet on former