Sam Lowry said:

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

New York didn't let non-physicians perform abortions before the new law passed.

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Good job demeaning women who disagree with you as "naive" simply because they are women.

I actually think this is a smart political decision because it essentially legalizes something the decent public finds so repugnant that first trimester abortions all of a sudden seem a whole lot more reasonable than they used to. And that's how you move the pendulum.

I don't get the argument that it's about what a woman does with her body. It's what she's doing to somebody else's body. But even if you were to accept that a fetus is a mere organ or unwanted virus, since when have women been free to do whatever they want with their bodies? Prostitution is illegal. Putting meth inside your body is illegal. If Democrats have their way, soon vaping will be no longer be a choice for a woman to make to her body. So, that argument is trite and irrational.

The other thing I don't get is how this policy assists the Democrats in transforming this country into one-party rule. The whole point of the open borders thing is to get immigrants in here to have babies who will be American citizens and will hopefully tow the party line in 18 years, thus eventually breeding out the prior majority. Well, abortion ultimately works against that goal because you could argue that more future Democrats are being aborted than future Republicans. I guess the Dems feel that they have the numbers to establish a permanent elite ruling class in America regardless.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

Oh yeah God and children "So a guy named Eliseus was traveling to Bethel when a bunch of kids popped up and made fun of him for being bald. That had to suck, and you can't blame Eliseus for being pissed and cursing them to God. But God had Eliseus' back, by which I mean he sent two bears to maul 42 of these kids to death. For making fun of a bald dude. I have to think Eliseus was looking for something along the lines of a spanking, or maybe the poetic justice of having the kids go bald, but nope, God went straight for the bear murder. But on the plus side, that pile of 40+ children's corpses never made fun of anybody again. (4 Kings 2:23-24)"

"God is obviously good at big picture dickishness, but he also took the time to be a dick on a more personal level. Abraham was another devout man who God decided to **** with, apparently because he knew he could. God ordered him to sacrifice his son to God (God was a fan of human sacrifice at the time). We know Abraham loved his son, so he was probably kind of upset with this, but hey, God's God, right? So Abraham tricked his unsuspecting son up a mountain onto a sacrificial altar and prepared to murder him. This story actually has a happy ending, in that right before Abraham drove a knife into his son's throat, God yelled "Psyche!" and told him it was only a test. And then Abraham received some blessings after that for being willing to kill his own child at God's whim. And all it took was the dread of being forced to kill his own child on behalf of his angry deity and, presumably, a ****-ton of awkward family dinners for the rest of his life. Abraham got off better than Jephthah, who had to follow through with murdering his daughter (burning her alive, specifically) in order to get on God's good side before battling the Ammonites. (Genesis 22:1-12)"

"In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" God ordered similar things when the Israelites were invading the promised land (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 20:16-18). Why would God have the Israelites exterminate an entire group of people, women and children included?"

Did God form Eygptian babies in the womb? Let's be completely up front: The Egyptians and the Jews did not get along. According to the Bible, the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, but the Jews had God on their side, if you kind of ignore God letting his people be enslaved in the first place. Rather getting his worshippers the hell out of there, God wanted to show those damned Egyptians what for, releasing 10 plagues that began with turning the river Nile into pure blood, and ending with the slaughter of the first-born of every single Egyptian man and animal. Now, I suppose it's possible that some, or even most of these first-born were adults who were ****ty to the Israelites. But some of them had to be babies who didn't even have the time to persecute the Jews yet. And what the hell did the animals do to the Jews to get caught up in this nightmare? Were there proto-Nazi cows running around who needed to be punished for their transgressions against the chosen people? And you realize there were cats in Egypt, right? Cats who had first-born? God killed kittens. (Numbers 16:41-49)

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

Every time you shout "Baby Killer!" at me you might remember this God who gave the order about Amalakites? It ain't straight forward.

Waco1947 said:

---

Every time you shout "Baby Killer!" at me you might remember this God who gave the order about Amalakites? It ain't straight forward.

---

No where have I shouted "Baby Killer"

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Every time you shout "Baby Killer!" at me you might remember this God who gave the order about Amalakites? It ain't straight forward.

---

No where have I shouted "Baby Killer"

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

---

Good luck.

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

New York didn't let non-physicians perform abortions before the new law passed.

---

I think that's true. I've just been focusing on the life vs. health issue.

Waco1947 said:

---

Did God form Eygptian babies in the womb? Let's be completely up front: The Egyptians and the Jews did not get along. According to the Bible, the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, but the Jews had God on their side, if you kind of ignore God letting his people be enslaved in the first place. Rather getting his worshippers the hell out of there, God wanted to show those damned Egyptians what for, releasing 10 plagues that began with turning the river Nile into pure blood, and ending with the slaughter of the first-born of every single Egyptian man and animal. Now, I suppose it's possible that some, or even most of these first-born were adults who were ****ty to the Israelites. But some of them had to be babies who didn't even have the time to persecute the Jews yet. And what the hell did the animals do to the Jews to get caught up in this nightmare? Were there proto-Nazi cows running around who needed to be punished for their transgressions against the chosen people? And you realize there were cats in Egypt, right? Cats who had first-born? God killed kittens. (Numbers 16:41-49)

---

God kills everyone...or didn't you notice? See Genesis 3:19. Would you argue that makes all murder acceptable?

Even Adolph Hitler subscribed to the theology that the inconvenient should die.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

---

I know you wouldn't make such a statement without knowing specific examples.

Please share a few.

Yogi said:

---

Even Adolph Hitler subscribed to the theology that the inconvenient should die.

---

He wanted them to die because they were Jewish or impure.

We're talking about women you want to force to give birth to their dead fetuses.

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

---

Murder is a bigger offense than being forced to term.

Murder is worse than forced to term unless both lives are at stake or your health is at stake which is less than 1% of all abortions. There could be an exception for that.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

---

I know you wouldn't make such a statement without knowing specific examples.

Please share a few.

---

Any abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted to include economic and psychological factors, etc.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

---

I know you wouldn't make such a statement without knowing specific examples.

Please share a few.

---

Any abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted to include economic and psychological factors, etc.

---

Yep. Broadened to include feelings.

https://www.lifeissues.org/2019/02/they-need-our-prayers/

Martha is not an exception and her life/health was not at risk 7 times.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

---

Murder is a bigger offense than being forced to term.

Murder is worse than forced to term unless both lives are at stake or your health is at stake which is less than 1% of all abortions. There could be an exception for that.

---

Not according to the Constitution. A woman's privacy is none of your business.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

---

Murder is a bigger offense than being forced to term.

Murder is worse than forced to term unless both lives are at stake or your health is at stake which is less than 1% of all abortions. There could be an exception for that.

---

Not according to the Constitution. A woman's privacy is none of your business.

---

If babies could grow outside the womb but the mother decides all of a sudden that she no longer wants it...is abortion still ok?

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

---

The government forces people to not kill others on a regular basis. The government has the right to protect the unborn human offspring before his or her birth in the same way that the government has the right to protect him or her after her or she is born.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

---

The government forces people to not kill others on a regular basis. The government has the right to protect the unborn human offspring before his or her birth in the same way that the government has the right to protect him or her after her or she is born.

---

O the government does not. Site your source.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

---

I know you wouldn't make such a statement without knowing specific examples.

Please share a few.

---

Any abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted to include economic and psychological factors, etc.

---

Please name a specific incident. I would like to hear it. I'm tired to death of people casting aspersions as truth.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

---

The government forces people to not kill others on a regular basis. The government has the right to protect the unborn human offspring before his or her birth in the same way that the government has the right to protect him or her after her or she is born.

---

Like it does for Lethal Injection?