NYC Leftists Ready to Legalize FULL MURDER!!!!!!!!

Started by cdtm17 pages

EI, my position isn't about justice. Not really.

It's more akin to "If that was me."

You can laugh if you want.

I DO understand the pro choice side. Pregnancy is a huge investment, a tremendous risk, and forcing a someone to conceive is a horrible violation on a person.

That doesn't change how I feel, because no matter what, it is what it is.

I also admit to a heavily cynical side that wonders about "unsaid" motivations. For example, most people don't want to pay for someone elses kid. No one would admit to valuing their personal wealth over someone elses life, but... people do. People allow others to die, all the time, for personal gain.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Life is precious, Nibedicus, not sacred. The latter assumes some sort of divinity or higher purpose. I know you have some degree of religious belief. I don't. Let's leave it at that.

It's fine if you find that notion abhorrent, and I realize it sounds much colder than I intended it to be. Property rights are hotly debated in the US, and I think one's body is one of the most important things one could have. I didn't want to make the comparison at first, because it seems to devalue life, but I felt it was important in order to make my point.

Men don't have to worry about an unwanted human being growing inside of them, and I think that's why it's easy for you and others to apply the principle of justice and claim that all life is sacred and has equal value. Women, for most of human history, did not have a choice. Having sex, willingly or forced, resulted in pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. Now, thanks to advances in sexual technology, medicine, and medical procedures, they now have a choice, and we should respect that.

This thread is about late-term abortions to save the lives of expectant women. To be perfectly frank, it doesn't make a difference to me if it's to save her life or if she simply doesn't want it. You could go on about the potential of the unborn, but that goes both ways.

Today is my 35th birthday. I've had a good life, my parents care about me, and have no regrets about having me, but then again, I was wanted even if unplanned. Suppose that wasn't the case. I would be gutted if I knew they had given up their life ambitions or were put through a major financial or health crisis because of me, or worse if my mother had died giving birth to me. I would rather I had not been born than to have had them go through that, especially if they felt even a bit resentful toward me for it. Sure, I wouldn't have experienced the life I have, but I wouldn't have given a **** as I never would have known I ever existed.

Maybe this view seems ****ed up, but I think it is a more grounded approach to the matter than naively going on about the sanctity of life.

My best friend and mentor is an atheist, he still uses the word “sacred” to describe life. But if you wish to be pedantic with your preferred semantics, be my guest. But “precious” is hardly a word I would use as I feel that it wholly understates the actual value a human life has.

One cannot have “ownership” of human life beyond your own. Let’s establish that first as that’s the thing that really what caught my attention. An unborn child isn’t a “clump of cells” (we’re ALL “clumps” of cells so that logic is silly) or “biological property”. That logic is abhorrent and can lead to some pretty inhumane things like the Holocaust and slavery. Doing horrible things like ripping an unborn child apart piece by piece in the womb gets easier if you don’t see them as actual human beings. So is whipping that “piece of property” harvesting your cotton. The sooner you can get that notion out of your head, the better. Funny thing is, all the arbitrary rationalizations I’ve heard on this line of thought falls apart at the slightest scrutiny.

See? This is why I don’t trust your intentions here. You go about “saving a woman’s life it if it is at risk” (acceptable) then go on a tirade about her choice being an absolute because men “don’t know what it’s like”. Sorry, but another human being’s life should not be based on the whims of another. Never. If the choice needs to be made and no good (or even less bad) choice exists, maybe I can get behind that. But we should all agree that a child’s life should never be taken on a whim or for convenience or economy. And the law should be written so as to prevent abuses that will lead to such.

Your preferences on how you would want things to turn out in for you in your hypothetical are from the lens of someone who was born and lived. Things an aborted child does not have. So basically, that’s all meaningless.

We are not machines, human life should not be treated as a commodity so being “grounded” has little to do with it. We don’t use cold logic, as there are things like compassion and empathy (we don’t suddenly start killing off sick ppl so we don’t spread a disease for example).This is not “naive” thinking, this is humane thinking.

Reality: This new law has the provision that a woman can late-term terminate if her life is at risk due to complications. Previously in NY the law only allowed up to 24 weeks if the mother's life was at risk.

It goes beyond that:

Another Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, says "health" refers to "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being of the patient" when it comes to an abortion.

So it isn't just about the welfare of the mother as it relates to giving birth but other factors as described above as "health." Which allows a hugely wide array of reasons.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It goes beyond that:

So it isn't just about the welfare of the mother as it relates to giving birth but other factors as described above as "health." Which allows a hugely wide array of reasons.

Bingo.

Also update on the Virginia Governor: now he's saying it's not him in the photo lol. Keep in mind he previously admitted it was him.

It's a shame cuz he's lying and he's showing he has no backbone and he'll most likely end up resigning anyways.

Originally posted by cdtm
EI, my position isn't about justice. Not really.

It's more akin to "If that was me."

You can laugh if you want.

I DO understand the pro choice side. Pregnancy is a huge investment, a tremendous risk, and forcing a someone to conceive is a horrible violation on a person.

That doesn't change how I feel, because no matter what, it is what it is.

I also admit to a heavily cynical side that wonders about "unsaid" motivations. For example, most people don't want to pay for someone elses kid. No one would admit to valuing their personal wealth over someone elses life, but... people do. People allow others to die, all the time, for personal gain.


Isn't it about justice from an ethical standpoint, though?

You seem to enjoy your life, and hate to think about having missed out on it had you been aborted. Therefore, you think it would be unfair to abort a child and deprive it of the same opportunity afforded to you.

I wouldn't laugh at you for thinking that, nor would I ever expect to change your mind or anyone else's about your strongly-held beliefs, as much as I could hope to. We just value different things, and even still, we may not even have the same perspectives on values we do share.

And you're right about the unsaid element. Many of the same people who will argue against abortion are also against funding assistance programs like Planned Parenthood, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and universal health care, which would undoubtedly benefit many of the children and their families. This past November, an amendment to establish tax brackets and raise taxes to fund education was voted down, along with two vastly different propositions to fund infrastructure projects and maintenance, even though the roads get completely ****ed up after winter.

I think George Carlin said it best:

"If you're pre-born, you're fine; but if you're preschool, you're ****ed."

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
And you're right about the unsaid element. Many of the same people who will argue against abortion are also against funding assistance programs like Planned Parenthood, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and universal health care, which would undoubtedly benefit many of the children and their families. This past November, an amendment to establish tax brackets and raise taxes to fund education was voted down, along with two vastly different propositions to fund infrastructure projects and maintenance, even though the roads get completely ****ed up after winter.

I think George Carlin said it best:

"If you're pre-born, you're fine; but if you're preschool, you're ****ed."


Ummmm... of course those of us who are against abortion are against funding the largest provider of abortions in the US.

Oh I see, so I'm a hypocrite if I'm against abortion but don't support the government redistributing people's wealth?

I must've missed the logic that suggests, for example, that if I don't support a redistribution of wealth or housing as a basic right, then I'm a hypocrite for suggesting it should be illegal to murder homeless people. That seems utterly inane.

I guess if I don't support UHC or SNAP, but I also think murdering preschoolers should be illegal, then that makes me a hypocrite doesn't it?

But no, the pro-life position is pretty consistent regardless of whether or not you support those programs, because even the people who don't believe it should be illegal to kill preschoolers

What amazes me is Planned Parenthood is given money from tax payers and yet also allowed to make political donations.

Originally posted by Surtur
What amazes me is Planned Parenthood is given money from tax payers and yet also allowed to make political donations.

Yeah that's also absurd. But the left doesn't have any problems with that even though the abortion lobby is roughly the same size as the EEEVVVVIIIILLL gun lobby that's supposedly buying our politicians.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]How is this Thread Title Misleading? [/B]

It's inaccurate, click-baity shite. Or rather simply, just plain lies.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's inaccurate, click-baity shite. Or rather simply, just plain lies.

Click baity, defiinitely.

Lies? We ARE talking about a topic where a governor claimed a late term abortion would include post delivery terminations. This was also reinforced by a question to legislators as to whether the law would allow such a scenerio.

Granted, in a different state, but modeled after New Yorks law.

Originally posted by cdtm
Click baity, defiinitely.

Lies? We ARE talking about a topic where a governor claimed a late term abortion would include post delivery terminations. This was also reinforced by a question to legislators as to whether the law would allow such a scenerio.

Granted, in a different state, but modeled after New Yorks law.

That's that the discussion in the thread is for. Not titles.

You don't title a thread about religion "The Imaginary Friends of the World", even though you know a bunch of people are going to claim as such. Or at least, you shouldn't.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's inaccurate, click-baity shite. Or rather simply, just plain lies.

Would like to get your take on this Pr. I remember us having a very healthy discussion about abortions in the last thread. Now they are including up to birth, where a child can easily feel pain/fear and is by all definition just about as sentient and as much a person as any newborn.

The inclusion of “health” makes it a very broad and quite possibly subjective reasoning for abortion as well.

Originally posted by -Pr-
That's that the discussion in the thread is for. Not titles.

You don't title a thread about religion "The Imaginary Friends of the World", even though you know a bunch of people are going to claim as such. Or at least, you shouldn't.

A decent portion of the threads in this forum have click-baity titles.

Originally posted by Silent Master
A decent portion of the threads in this forum have click-baity titles.

Bingo.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Would like to get your take on this Pr. I remember us having a very healthy discussion about abortions in the last thread. Now they are including up to birth, where a child can easily feel pain/fear and is by all definition just about as sentient and as much a person as any newborn.

The inclusion of “health” makes it a very broad and quite possibly subjective reasoning for abortion as well.

TLDR: I'm generally, in really, broad terms, pro-choice.

Long version: I'm largely pro-choice, so when it comes down to it, in the broadest terms I really don't feel it's my place to open my mouth when it comes to telling a woman what to do with a pregnancy. Even if it's my baby, I can give my opinion, but I'm not going to put a gun to anyone's head.

In general though, no, I don't agree that abortion in general should be allowed up until birth. While I don't know what the line is for certain, I feel like there is a line somewhere when the foetus becomes a baby, and at eight months, yeah, the life inside her is more a baby than just a clump of cells.

That said, if you can prove that carrying to term is a danger to the mother, which this law seems to be talking about from what I've read, then I feel like that's a reasonable exception. Yes, even at eight months and twenty-nine/thirty days. If the danger is that severe.

Now, in that nightmare scenario I'm sure most men my age have thought about, if a doctor came to me and said "your wife's labour is going badly. If we try to deliver, we could lose them both. You have to pick one to save", I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that I'm going to choose my wife/gf/partner every time.

In broader terms, I also can't forget that this isn't just about the foetus. Human reproduction is ****ed up enough that you can't have this discussion without bringing in to account the fact that there is a fully-formed, fully-grown Human being carrying the child. If someone wants to tell me that the needs of what they believe is a child need to be considered, you can't turn around and discount the woman carrying the child either.

Originally posted by Silent Master
A decent portion of the threads in this forum have click-baity titles.

Which is literally why I spoke about threads plural, not just this one.

Anyways, what I would like to have a leftist explain is why Northam's apparent racism from the 1980s is unforgivable, but Obama's bigotry from the early 2000's(he was against gay marriage) was forgivable?

Originally posted by -Pr-
TLDR: I'm generally, in really, broad terms, pro-choice.

Long version: I'm largely pro-choice, so when it comes down to it, in the broadest terms I really don't feel it's my place to open my mouth when it comes to telling a woman what to do with a pregnancy. Even if it's my baby, I can give my opinion, but I'm not going to put a gun to anyone's head.

In general though, no, I don't agree that abortion in general should be allowed up until birth. While I don't know what the line is for certain, I feel like there is a line somewhere when the foetus becomes a baby, and at eight months, yeah, the life inside her is more a baby than just a clump of cells.

That said, if you can prove that carrying to term is a danger to the mother, which this law seems to be talking about from what I've read, then I feel like that's a reasonable exception. Yes, even at eight months and twenty-nine/thirty days. If the danger is that severe.

Now, in that nightmare scenario I'm sure most men my age have thought about, if a doctor came to me and said "your wife's labour is going badly. If we try to deliver, we could lose them both. You have to pick one to save", I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that I'm going to choose my wife/gf/partner every time.

In broader terms, I also can't forget that this isn't just about the foetus. Human reproduction is ****ed up enough that you can't have this discussion without bringing in to account the fact that there is a fully-formed, fully-grown Human being carrying the child. If someone wants to tell me that the needs of what they believe is a child need to be considered, you can't turn around and discount the woman carrying the child either.

When my wife was about to give birth, she looked in the eye and made me swear that if it came down to a choice, I have to pick the baby no matter what. It made my heart sink like you wouldn’t believe and the relief I felt after my baby and her were both healthy at the end is indescribable.

We don’t disagree when the mother’s life is in danger. I will not ask a mother or another person for that matter to sacrifice their life for another. But the wording of the law:

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

1) Mentions “medical practictioner” w/c is not necessarily a doctor. Could be a nurse of a psychologist. And it is based on their opinion.

2) Includes “health” and as with the Doe V. Bolton case (as mentioned by snowdragon):

“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.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

With that the law makes it that you can terminate unborn child at any time (even right before conception) as long as you can have anyone from a nurse to a psychologist agree that this could be detrimental within a range of subjective reasons.

I think we can agree that a child 2 days before birth is a fully developed human being. I think we can also agree that abortion would be killing this human child and that it has become legal for reasons as relatively inconsequential as “it might have a detrimental impact to my emotional well being”.

Where is the line? How far will it have to move until you’ve decided that it’s gone too far for you?

Which makes it almost entirely subjective and can be easily skirted thru by lawyers.

Not trying to guilt you or trap you anything. I honestly want to know how far a pro-choice person like yourself would consider far enough.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
When my wife was about to give birth, she looked in the eye and made me swear that if it came down to a choice, I have to pick the baby no matter what. It made my heart sink like you wouldn’t believe and the relief I felt after my baby and her were both healthy at the end is indescribable.

We don’t disagree when the mother’s life is in danger. I will not ask a mother or another person for that matter to sacrifice their life for another. But the wording of the law:

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

1) Mentions “medical practictioner” w/c is not necessarily a doctor. Could be a nurse of a psychologist. And it is based on their opinion.

2) Includes “health” and as with the Doe V. Bolton case (as mentioned by snowdragon):

“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.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

With that the law makes it that you can terminate unborn child at any time (even right before conception) as long as you can have anyone from a nurse to a psychologist agree that this could be detrimental within a range of subjective reasons.

I think we can agree that a child 2 days before birth is a fully developed human being. I think we can also agree that abortion would be killing this human child and that it has become legal for reasons as relatively inconsequential as “it might have a detrimental impact to my emotional well being”.

Where is the line? How far will it have to move until you’ve decided that it’s gone too far for you?

Which makes it almost entirely subjective and can be easily skirted thru by lawyers.

Not trying to guilt you or trap you anything. I honestly want to know how far a pro-choice person like yourself would consider far enough.

Congrats on the healthy delivery, first of all. I don't want to imagine what it's like to be either of you in that scenario.

On the one hand, yeah, that's pretty vague. I would imagine that what's best for everyone is that the most qualified person possible make the call as to whether the mother's mental state is one that's vulnerable enough to be (or continue to be) severely damaged by carrying to term.

I'm also of the belief that mental health should definitely be a factor; if we start limiting it to just physical ailments, I think it would only lessen the seriousness with which mental health is treated, and that's a bad thing for me. Like with a rape baby, for example. I don't believe any woman should be forced to deliver a child forced upon her by that kind of violation.

It's a multifaceted problem, because in an ideal society, women (and men) would be educated enough about sex and pregnancy to be able to make informed decisions. And sensible enough too. But they largely aren't. Even in the most developed countries, you can find really, really bad sex instances of sex education. The kind of irresponsible woman that would only "decide" at eight months that she doesn't want to have the baby after all, is most likely the same kind of woman that wasn't educated about things like foetal-alcohol syndrome or even just basic protection. A woman who can access trusted mental-health professionals isn't going to wait until seven months in to want a termination, because that shit would have been sorted out months ago.

Not trying to get off-topic or anything; I genuinely think it all feeds together.

I am, generally, not opposed to a "no questions asked" period during which you can have an abortion. Ireland recently brought in legislation that allows such terminations before twelve weeks. I did some reading on how much a foetus has developed by then, and it seems like a reasonable period of time to me.

Would I extend that period to eight months? Seven months, even? I don't know. Probably not. That's the problem with trying to legislate for something like this: It affects far too many people in too many different ways. Just because I might prioritise my partner over the baby she's carrying, doesn't mean someone else would.

Until we figure out as a society the point at which a bundle of cells becomes a Human being with all the rights and privileges that are supposed to come with such a thing, then we're never going to get anywhere.

And I'm still deeply troubled by the idea that anyone could seriously advocate for forcing a woman (or any Human for that matter) to do something with their own body that she doesn't want to.

It isn't like, say, vaccinations, which everyone should do anyway.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Congrats on the healthy delivery, first of all. I don't want to imagine what it's like to be either of you in that scenario.

On the one hand, yeah, that's pretty vague. I would imagine that what's best for everyone is that the most qualified person possible make the call as to whether the mother's mental state is one that's vulnerable enough to be (or continue to be) severely damaged by carrying to term.

I'm also of the belief that mental health should definitely be a factor; if we start limiting it to just physical ailments, I think it would only lessen the seriousness with which mental health is treated, and that's a bad thing for me. Like with a rape baby, for example. I don't believe any woman should be forced to deliver a child forced upon her by that kind of violation.

It's a multifaceted problem, because in an ideal society, women (and men) would be educated enough about sex and pregnancy to be able to make informed decisions. And sensible enough too. But they largely aren't. Even in the most developed countries, you can find really, really bad sex instances of sex education. The kind of irresponsible woman that would only "decide" at eight months that she doesn't want to have the baby after all, is most likely the same kind of woman that wasn't educated about things like foetal-alcohol syndrome or even just basic protection. A woman who can access trusted mental-health professionals isn't going to wait until seven months in to want a termination, because that shit would have been sorted out months ago.

Not trying to get off-topic or anything; I genuinely think it all feeds together.

I am, generally, not opposed to a "no questions asked" period during which you can have an abortion. Ireland recently brought in legislation that allows such terminations before twelve weeks. I did some reading on how much a foetus has developed by then, and it seems like a reasonable period of time to me.

Would I extend that period to eight months? Seven months, even? I don't know. Probably not. That's the problem with trying to legislate for something like this: It affects far too many people in too many different ways. Just because I might prioritise my partner over the baby she's carrying, doesn't mean someone else would.

Until we figure out as a society the point at which a bundle of cells becomes a Human being with all the rights and privileges that are supposed to come with such a thing, then we're never going to get anywhere.

And I'm still deeply troubled by the idea that anyone could seriously advocate for forcing a woman (or any Human for that matter) to do something with their own body that she doesn't want to.

It isn't like, say, vaccinations, which everyone should do anyway.

Thanks man. That was five years ago. 🙂 my daughter is a bundle of energy and a little too smart for my own good. Has her mom’s spunk, too.

Anyway, but if you look deeper into the definition of “health”, it can go further than just rape and incest. One of the purposes of law is to prevent abuse. And as such the law should be worded to prevent abuse, not welcome it. I’m not a lawyer but I feel that law is so broad that just about anything can be package to fall into it.

There are always extreme cases. Rape and incest are a few reasons regarding what may constitute a “mental health risk” but the wording of “mental/emotional/familial health risk” is vague and can easily be abused. It would have been easier to just define specifically the extreme cases rather than create a very vague terminology when human life is at stake. Even you have to agree that the current abortion laws are pretty loose already and women have gotten abortions for very selfish reasons and that this law has simply extended this discretion up to birth.

That child is not her body, it is dependent on her but she does not own it. And that law covers the killing up to an undoubtably fully formed person. Someone who can feel pain and fear and can even listen to music and react to it. The child is not her property that she can simply dispose of, he’/she’s a person. The whole “it’s my body” argument at this point is BS to me at this point, tbh. It is no longer about “not life” vs “my body”, it the factually the life of a human being vs the idea of choice being absolute. Sooner or later we have to decide w/c is more important.

Can a doctor opt out of saving a patient’s life if they don’t want to? It’s their body after all, so it’s choice, isn’t it? And she could always opt out by delivering the baby early. Not a great solution, I agree but I feel that it’s still better than outright murder.

Question, if you were dangling off a cliff and you grabbed onto my arm to save yourself, and we got stuck in that position for a few hours (let’s say there’s a danger to me, but it isn’t that much) is it ok for me to punch you off my arm? What if I took my gun and shot you in the head so my arm is freed? Is that legal (seriously, I don’t know)?

There should already be no question whether a child an hour away from delivery vs a child just delivered are different or not. Those are the same living human beings. There is literally no difference other than their location.

I still have to ask again though: Is there a limit to this “choice” position of yours? At one point is too much? What about post-birth? Can you at least agree that NOW, NOW this is basically the legalized killing of human beings?