Total posts: 2,178
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
”literally any restriction on what you’re allowed to do with your body makes you a slave” 1000 IQ argument
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Let me guess, you think taxation is theft as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what a stupid argument. People aren’t “sovereign” in the sense that a state is sovereign, a baby isn’t a foreign invader, and abortion isn’t a deportation, it’s an execution
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What does that even mean? What does late term abortion have to do with immigration?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Could I just get a simple yes or no, do you support abortion on demand up to the moment of birth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Do you support abortion on demand up to the moment of birth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What I wrote was a verbatim quote from the video.
You asserting that I’m mischaracterizing or misreading something does not make it so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
I’ll say this as gently as possible because I don’t think you meant it to be so, but the attitude expressed in your post (that life isn’t worth living if you’re poor) is very, very dehumanizing to people in poverty
Created:
Posted in:
Don’t have time to do a full response to everyone now, but for some additional context here is an almost identical bill being debated in Virginia. Follow this link to see one of the co sponsors argue that it would permit abortion all the way until the moment of birth (even if the woman is currently in labor) for “mental health” reasons: https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/1090379242771165184?s=21
Here is the governor of Virginia advocating for infanticide: “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he continued. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Created:
Posted in:
Yea boi, right wing populism https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=43.3&d=29.3&g=27.7&s=32.3
Created:
Posted in:
No opinion on any of the others but a strong no on question 3. Obviously stuff like doxxing or anything illegal (such as a death threat) should be deleted but everything else should be left up
Created:
Posted in:
Let no man say I don’t create controversial topics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I hope you’re right. YYW and I had a long private conversation about this. I still believe I’m right about the law but it’s possible that my knee jerk reaction was wrong, and I really really hope it was
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The criteria is "necessary" to protect a patient's health. That means that the abortion must be performed in order to avoid a risk to health; because there are no non-abortive alternatives.
And the definition of health is "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age"
So if a woman makes it very clear that having a live baby and giving it up for adoption would harm her mental health, by the standards you yourself laid out the abortion would be permitted. The entire point of the bill was to liberalize the abortion law.
What is an example of a late term abortion that would be morally justified but that was not allowed by the previous law? If you cannot think of any, what was the point of the new law if not to increase access to abortion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Generally, what it means to be "necessary" to protect a patient's health requires at the very least: (a) an identifiable medical (not psychiatric or psychological) condition; (b) that places a woman's physical health in danger; (c) in ways that would result in irreversible harm; (d) if the pregnancy were allowed to be carried to term.
This is the only relevant portion in your wall of text. As I've said repeatedly, our rulers on the Supreme Court have made it clear that "health" in the context of abortion means the following: "All factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." It says nothing about your interpretation about what constitutes medical necessity.
Give me an example of a case where late term abortion would be morally justified that was prohibited by the previous bill. The entire point of this legislation was to increase access to late term abortion, don't really see why everyone is arguing against that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
and I asked you about 5 times to provide a plausible and realistic example of how you feel it [would] be abused - and silence.
Sure, here is how it would be abused: any late term abortion being allowed for one of the following: all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is an excellent point as well. It seems obvious to me that the point of the bill was to make a late term abortion easier to get and it's really weird to me that people are disagreeing with that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
can you give me an example of where this kind of abortion would be morally justified that wasn't allowed under the previous law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Consider for example a risk to life: using your obtusely poor logic, abortion is already “on demand”, because continuation of any pregnancy at any time broadly introduces some “risk to life” of “life is in danger”
Don't be obtuse. The new law obviously opened up more avenues where a woman could legally get a late term abortion--including circumstances where it isn't absolutely critical. This is why it's so barbaric. Other than a direct risk to the life of the mother there is absolutely no justification for injecting lethal drugs into the skull of a viable child to ensure that the woman delivers a dead baby.
Again you keep claiming it wouldn't open up access to late term abortion BUT THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE BILL! It modified pre existing legislation to make late term abortions easier to get! I don't understand how this is controversial!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
yea, and to lawyer up immediately. Doesn’t matter if you’re innocent and how you think it would look. The fact is that probably >90% of the people the police arrest are guilty, and they can’t help but assume everyone is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
you shouldn’t talk to the FBI, period. You would be appalled by some of the “lies” people have been prosecuted for
Created:
Posted in:
That goes for any interaction with the federal government as well as any interaction with the police beyond something really minor like a traffic citation. You gain nothing but risk by talking, and they are allowed to lie to you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
see my above post, i forgot to @ you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
lol, you have no idea what you’re talking about. There is absolutely zero reason to EVER talk to the FBI. I have a vague memory of you not being American (sorry if that’s wrong) but if for some reason you’re ever in a situation involving someone from the FBI don’t say a word besides “I invoke my fifth amendment right against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question”
Created:
Posted in:
all I did was list what constitutes health in the context of abortion, which is the word used by the legislation. You keep saying “oh there’s no way abortion would be allowed in such and such circumstance” but the entire point of the law was to increase access to late term abortion and the rhetoric surrounding it was all the “trust women’s choices” stuff. My interpretation is a lot more sound than yours
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.
"Health" in the context of abortion encompasses: "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient."
The entire point of the law was to increase access to late term abortion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
It seems that the late-term abortion can only be used when the women in question is in danger. I don't know if this is the law that you are referring to, but if you ask me, it seems more justifiable than what you just described.
I will say this for probably the 10th time in this thread. In the context of abortion, here is what “health” means: “all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient.“ No, if is not “more than justifiable” to inject the skull of a viable fetus with lethal drugs on account of the “emotional or psychological” damage that a live birth would have on the woman.
The old law permitted late term abortion if the woman’s life was in danger. This new law was passed specifically to broaden access to late term abortion, and passed with rhetoric like “trust women” and “support women’s choices.” The ENTIRE point of the bill was to increase access to late term abortion, and anyone capable of reading past a fifth grade level can see how the definition of health set in Doe v. Bolton allows for abortion on demand (again that was the ENTIRE POINT.)
blamonkey, you’re a good guy and the reason you’re bending over backwards to explain why this bill is acceptable is because deep down you know that it isn’t
Created:
Posted in:
This is the only acceptable way to testify before c*ngress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPIQ_gyiHag
Created:
Posted in:
but for real, I hope this is a lesson to everyone: never, in ANY circumstance, say ANYTHING to anyone involved with the federal government other than "I assert my fifth amendment right against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question"
Created:
Posted in:
Lying to c*ngress shouldn't be a crime because c*ngress is gay
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
he MUST be found not guilty, it's the only way to save Nixon's soul from purgatory
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
It's a low-impact policy issue
Tell that to the infant that receives a lethal injection to the skull
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No reasonable people, or reasonable court applies the “health risk” clause to mean things that aren’t real health risks, and aren’t substantial.
The previous law allowed for late term abortion if the woman's life was at risk. Why do you think the statute was amended to permit late term abortion in broader circumstances?
On what legal, ethical, and logical grounds do you base your opinion that the definition of “risk to a woman’s health” encompasses things that no reasonable person would consider “risks to a woman’s health?”
On the grounds that it's not justified to give a lethal injection to a viable fetus on account of the "psychological, emotional, or familial" harm that the birth of the child would have on the woman.
As I pointed out, the law and doe exemptions CLEARLY arent intended to be as broad as you are accusing, as it would render the very ruling that listed them completely unnecessary in the first place. Silence.
Lol, what? The ruling in Doe v. Bolton overturned a Georgia law that prohibited abortion outside of a recommendation from a panel of physicians.
Verbatim:
"The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
Fifth time: Late term abortion is now permissible for “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The previous law allowed late term abortion if the mothers life was at risk. The new law specifically amends that to a broader definition of “health” which I have pointed out to you multiple times. Of course this will lead to more late term abortions—thats the entire purpose of the law.
Fourth time: Late term abortion is now permissible for “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I am going to repeat this for a third time. Late term abortion is now permissible for “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
what does “all factors”, including emotional and psychological, mean to you? Are you simply being obtuse because you’re embarrassed by your original post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You can read the criteria for yourself, which I have listed twice now. Those criteria are incredibly vague and could be used to justify anything.
I dont know why why you’re making fun of me when the evidence is right in front of you.
Created:
Posted in:
If the Catholic Church had any moral courage at all (spoiler: it doesn't), Cuomo would be excommunicated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
As far as I am aware, and correct me if I’m wrong - the limits this law spells out are identical to roe and doe. While the update of the law from 1970 had the minor impact of replacing “health at risk” with “life at risk”, the idea that this leads to abortion at 9months on demand is primarily the manufactured hyperbolae from hysterical right wingers.
Yes, and Roe v. Wade created the most extreme abortion policy in the Western world, which is why the courts have consistently allowed it to be walked back. I will repeat the guidelines on what constitute "health" in the context of an abortion: “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
It is late term abortion on demand. There's a reason it wouldn't pass in *New York* before a Democratic wave.
In reality, I am fine with unviable fetuses and those with significant defects and abnormalities being aborted, and in cases where the mothers life is at risk, or in cases where the mothers health is at risk, in the non-conservative-hyperpobale sense of the word: aren’t you?
That isn't the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
As I understand it the law already allowed late term abortion if the mothers life was in jeopardy. The new law permits abortion up to the moment of birth for “health” reasons. In the context of abortion (see Doe v. Bolton) health is defined as ““all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” It is a very extreme bill which is why it took a democratic wave for it to get passed in New York, one of the most liberal states in the country.
So it is essentially abortion on demand up to the moment of birth. Read about late term abortion and how it’s done. They inject lethal drugs into the skull of a viable child that can feel pain, ensuring that it comes out dead. Are you really okay with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Tax payers contribute to all sorts of non-critical infrastructure and services. I shouldn't have to pay property taxes if I don't have kids. I shouldn't have to pay city sales taxes if I don't go to the brand new football stadium. I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund roads because I don't own a car. I shouldn't pay for other people to go to federally funded colleges. I shouldn't pay for hospitals if I never get sick. I shouldn't pay for firefighters if my house never burns down. I shouldn't have to pay for prisons if I don't commit any crimes.
*snap*
Yep, this ones going in my retarded compilation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The late term abortion bill did pass. Just google "New York abortion" and you can read about it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health — the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth. The RHA will also decriminalize abortion, moving it from the state’s criminal code to the public-health code.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How is abortion the equivalent of a sovereign state having a border lmao. Answer the question, I assume you adhere to the NAP or some other kind of idiotic libertarian morality. What obligations does a mother have to her children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
yeah I’ll come out and say that there is no medical or moral justification for administering a lethal injection to a viable baby and then inducing labor to give birth to a corpse instead of just inducing labor and giving the baby up for adoption
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would leaving a living baby to die be immoral in your book? Surely the mother has no obligation to feed it if she decides not to, right? Since it’s her body and all
Hint: if you have to bend over backwards to justify your own moral philosophy to yourself, it’s probably really dumb and you’ll look back on it in five years and cringe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
thanks for the brilliant insight, Rothbard
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health — the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth. The RHA will also decriminalize abortion, moving it from the state’s criminal code to the public-health code.
Further, what is the medical reason to ensure that a fetus capable of surviving outside of the womb is killed before the woman goes into labor?
Created: