Fake news of the day: “Moderate” Dem Virginia governor: Our new late-term abortion bill would allow babies to be killed … after they’re born https://t.co/9VMRccXBdj
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) January 30, 2019
January 30, 2019
Fake news.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
164 comments:
Are you feminists happy yet?
I listened. How is it fake?
I'm just curious as to whether Governor Cuomo in New York, which has already passed this abort-up-to-birth abomination, has officially changed his name to Governor Herod yet?
Bright line. You're human when you can clean up your own room.
A one year moratorium on live births should go into effect to allow time for the planet to heal from too many humans stripping the world of resources. That means forced abortions if you recklessly get pregnant. The penalty for the guy involved is castration so it doesn't happen again. Harsh, but necessary.
I generally try to avoid the abortion discussion at every chance. I consider abortion to be a highly complicated and problematic topic, and honestly I am ambivalent about its legalization. Partial-birth abortion is grotesque, and in the course of my professional life, I have known women who have used abortion on demand as birth control, and I've heard it referred to with such callousness that is has turned my stomach. On the other hand, I am not sure I would support a total ban on abortion. Some kind of practical compromise that keeps it legal in the first trimester but illegal afterwards is probably what I would most comfortably support.
Wonder if the New York law is being challenged by Right to Lifers as it seems clearly counter to the 14th amendment. Unless you accept that babies are not persons until they exit the birth canal.
For what God-awful reason are the Dems wading into this moral swamp as things gear up for the 2020 election? So that they can give their opponents a whole armamentum of horrible moral questions with which to besiege their candidates? I mean, was that really an issue, that not enough women were having late term abortions on demand?
Sorry, Dems. This is not a winner. Public opinion is solidly against late term abortions, and has been since Roe V. Wade. Even the minority communities that have the majority of these abortions see them as a moral evil, if sometimes the least awful option.
It's really strange how the Left can't wrap it's mind around a very simple moral principle, one that every Christian understands: Just because I do something, sometimes things I do often, doesn't mean I think that those actions are therefore moral. We all sin. We all sin a lot
you could start the trend Trumpit!
What is fake about it?
"At a recent committee hearing, Republican state delegate Todd Gilbert asked Tran to clarify exactly how late in a pregnancy doctors would be able to perform abortions. Gilbert asked if a woman who was about to give birth could request an abortion under Tran's proposed bill.
"She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she is so certified? She's dilating," Gilbert said.
"Mr. Chairman, that would be a, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at this point," Tran responded.
"I understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that," Gilbert posed.
"My bill would allow that, yes," she said."
The only thing fake about it is that most liberals would support killing infants up to six months old.
That's next on the agenda.
a very simple moral principle, one that every Trumpit understands: Just because We do something, sometimes things We do often, means We think that those actions are therefore moral. We NEVER sin. They all sin a lot
fixed it for ya!
@rcocean,
The only thing fake about it is that most liberals would support killing infants up to six months old.
Peter Singer's okay with it. Of course, who ever listens to Peter Singer? I mean, he just happens to have a position in an endowed chair in Moral Philosophy at Princeton University. People like that never have any influence on our upcoming betters, do they?
I tuned into Rush was five minutes and he was going off on this. I'm not sure why.
The Catholic Bishops haven't said Boo about it. Or anything about Cuomo's "Hurrah for Abortion" NY Government.
However, they sure did go after the Covington Boys hard. If all abortion stuff is OK with the Catholic Church, who am I to get upset?
What is fake about it?
Killing a living human because a no longer pregnant and healthy mother decides she no longer wants the human around doesn't sound like a moderate position to me.
Abortion is ghoulish to begin with. Ds bring it to a high sacrament.
What's shameful is that - even if fake - it's believable. Yet another shift in the Overton Window - unbelievable to believable...unbelievable.
I support gilbar's suggestion regarding leading by example.
@rcocean.
The Catholic Bishops haven't said Boo about it.
Not True:
Earlier today, New York City’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan did not mince words, saying that the abortion bill Cuomo signed into law is “ghoulish, grisly, and gruesome.”…
“Any thinking human being that would want a baby, allow a baby, to be aborted right up to the moment of birth…anybody who thinks that a baby who survives a gruesome abortion procedure and that a doctor is no longer required to attempt to save that baby’s life – you don’t have to be a Catholic to abhor those types of things,” continued Dolan.
"Peter Singer's okay with it."
LOL. He's just another Left-wing clown who writes all these "oh so serious" books justifying his left-wing clown beliefs.
For example: When writing in 2017 on Trump's denial of climate change and plans to withdraw from the Paris accords, Singer advocated a boycott of all consumer goods from the United States to pressure the Trump administration to change its environmental policies.
Only a dumbo would care what he says.
I think the 'fake' part is characterizing the VA governor as 'moderate'.
Joseph Severs said...
I think the 'fake' part is characterizing the VA governor as 'moderate'.
---------
I think that's it.
Thanks YoungHegelian - I stand corrected.
However, I'm still shocked that Cuomo is still in good standing with the Catholic Church since he makes a big deal about (1) saying abortion is the greatest thing ever, ever, and (2)being a Catholic.
No Democrat these days is a "Moderate".
Its all a snow job.
"The only thing fake about it is that most liberals would support killing infants up to six months old."
I'd like to hear the argument why that would not follow from this? The reason you want to abort your full term child is probably still there 6 months later. You might even be more wanting to kill him or her, and of course the elderly are just bigger children and still a hassle to have around.
@Trumpit
What, no hysterectomies? Why stop there too? You could get a two-fer by just killing the child AND THE MOTHER AT THE SAME TIME!!! BONUS!!!
Methinks Kampala Adams has confused his readers.
Imagine your own mother being one of those cheering this. You are just the cockroach that got away.
I doubt the full story will lessen the outrage based on FAKE news. More outrage over this than when thousands of children were taken from their parents who crossed a border seeking refuge. You people are worse than deplorable.
https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/virginia-governor-abortion-ralph-northam-video/
“There was a very contentious committee hearing yesterday when Fairfax County delegate Kathy Tran made her case for lifting restrictions on third-trimester abortions as well as other restrictions now in place. And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill would permit an abortion even as a woman is essentially dilating ready to give birth, and she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support her measure and explain her answer?”
The governor responded:
I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for delegate Tran. But I will tell you that, one, the first thing I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So, in this particular example if the mother is in labor. I can tell you exactly what would happen. 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. So, I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why, Julie, legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should or shouldn’t be doing with her body.
The host asked, “Do you think multiple physicians should have to weigh in? She’s trying to lift that requirement.”
The governor said, “Well, I think it’s always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision because these decisions shouldn’t be taken lightly. I would certainly support more than one provider.”
Here’s the governor’s full statement, released after controversy erupted.
Statement from Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) spokesman Ofirah Yheskel on his abortion remarks:
"The governor's comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman [facing nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities] went into labor." pic.twitter.com/7FHeRbkobF
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) January 30, 2019
Check me. I think the law states that a baby that survives, and is alive after the abortion, can be euthanized
How is it fake?
I dunno, Adams has a non-quote about "after they're born", but in a rambling obscurant way the guy seemed to say that "non-viable" kids would be kept comfortable; does their lack of viability result from disease, etc, or from the fact that their mommy doesn't like them?
Scott's notion is that the Governor is referring to removing care from the child. It is an idea that infant isn't viable, and therefore care can be withdrawn. And that's the context the Governor meant because the Governor is also a Pediatrician.
I get Scott's point, but I don't agree with Scott or the Governor that the description of his comments is out of context. The question was what to do with a failed abortion in which the child is born. All infants will die if you provide no care. That's why bus drivers pull over when they see a toddler walking around in freezing weather. It is not clear that a child becomes unviable because an attempt to kill it in the womb failed.
The Governor might not like the portrayal of his words; but it is hardly "Fake News" considering the Bill provides for and the Governor is suggesting that a newborn infant may be left for dead by the hospital if that's what the mother wants to do. We are discussing at this point a child post birth. If a premature baby is in NICU and later doctors and a mother decide the withdraw care; consent can't be done by the mother alone unless she has sole legal custody. The father gets consent because the baby is alive. The Bill in question only removes barriers to abortion. I don't recall it creating new law severing a Father's legal rights of a child.
thousands of children were taken from their parents who crossed a border
Don't worry, they were all kept safely wrapped in foil.
Abortion is ghoulish to begin with. Ds bring it to a high sacrament.
Sacrificing to Molech. Nothing new here. Same old evil.
"The governor's comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman [facing nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities] went into labor."
Except the governor said "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." That's not labor. That is birth. So "nonviable pregnancy" (which is in block quotes, so who is adding that; the governor, spokesperson, Inga?) is no longer a discussion. Further, are we now calling born infants, fetal? It's like these proclaimed medical professionals don't actually know the meanings of the medical terms they are using.
“Ofirah Yheskel, Northam's communications director, issued a statement looking to clarify the governor's comments.
"Republicans in Virginia and across the country are trying to play politics with women's health, and that is exactly why these decisions belong between a woman and her physician, not legislators, most of whom are men," the statement reads. "No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor's comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor."
Yheskel added: "Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions."”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-abortion-bill-proposed-by-kathy-tran-third-trimester-today-2019-01-30/
The Left is a death cult.
What's to understand?
The decision should be between a woman and her pediatrician.
After this is in place for a few years, I wonder if the Dems will move the age up a bit to cover any young kid they don't like. Then maybe we can all agree that teenagers should be aborted- perhaps around the age of 15. If they can just keep this up, they'll be able to purge everyone they don't like out of their populace, thereby allowing women all the freedom they need to...to...
Well...there may be a few women purged in this process, but hell- we're already doing that with the babies. Anyway- as some great Socialist said, somewhere, at some point- Let's just kill a few thousand of them at a time, and keep doing it until the remaining are so afraid they'll say nothing and do nothing without our permission.
Nice party.
“Check me. I think the law states that a baby that survives, and is alive after the abortion, can be euthanized”
What law?
Inga's defending Moloch worship, as is normal for her.
Most people have problems with killing babies that are alive, and have been born. Not Democrats like Inga and Governor Northam!
Inga's frantically posting quotes, but there's not one word in any of them that says "I Governor Northam am unequivocally opposed to killing or allowing newborn babies to die or to be killed."
That's a simple thing to say. He's not saying it. Inga's not saying it. None of the left are saying it. They are tossing up word salads about "Right to choose" and "Playing politics with women's health!" Really? Saying "You shouldn't be killing newborn babies!" is playing politics with a woman's right to choose?
--Vance
@Inga,
No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities
Bullshit. Absolute Bullshit.
The majority of late term abortions performed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell and Dr. George Tiller did not fit that description. I use these two doctors because they were two practices that had their medical records exposed to public scrutiny, unlike most abortion practices. If a public official wants to say something like that in public, she better have the numbers to back it it.
This is the sweet lie that the Left tells itself about abortion, that women are always moral agents, and seek the best moral outcome, as opposed to being selfish, immoral assholes like the rest of us. It's as bald-face of a lie as "Women don't lie about rape".
Oh and Althouse: Isn't that the law in Illinois? It's one of the laws Obama eagerly supported as a state legislator before running for President, I believe. He was very keen on "if a baby survives an abortion attempt, then it's not illegal to leave it on a counter until it dies and then throw it out."
It was one of Obama's signature laws, as I recall.
--Vance
Looking forward to the Slate article subhed: "Governor Northam didn't say what the far right thinks he said. But now that we're talking about it..."
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Abortion Surveillance—Findings and Reports
Abortion Surveillance 2015
In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13).
No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities
Perhaps Virginia should then consider the abortion laws passed by Texas over Wendy Davis attempt to block such moderate laws? I mean, if no woman seeks such an abortion except in those circumstances, then Texas passed the right laws in relation to what all women want.
The rightist model of a soul picked out to go in each fertilized egg is powerless against this law. That's the penalty paid for dogmatizing your point of view.
It tried to beat the bright line slippery slope by putting being a human at conception; so there's nothing special about birth.
Actually there is something special about birth - society takes in interest in the baby. You could push this line back into pregnancy by showing cuteness, sonograms and so forth; back further until people no longer actually take an interest, not cute enough. That's the political settlement line.
it was one of the few that he didn't just vote 'present' on
Inga's quotes of the nauseating rationalization from the Governor and his partisan propagandist lay out, once again, in the full glare of public scrutiny the lunacy that we Americans have wandered into.
Here's the most perfidious assertion: "But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions." It's OK for the government to be involved in all sorts of ways the Left approves of in order to achieve its utopian socialist workers' paradise, but when it comes to death of the unborn, not so much.
Is it difficult to ascertain the strategic aims of this kind of amorality? Only for fully vested true believers like Inga, and alas, there's too many of them around these days.
Goebbels is glowing with envy from the bowels of hell.
The Twilighters are playing with wealth, pleasure, leisure, taxes, and democratic leverage.
Evolution of a human life from conception. A coherent nervous system from around one month. Pro-Choice is an areligious/amoral philosophy that includes selective-child or life deemed unworthy for sociopolitical progress.
I wonder how many post birth abortions are reported to authorities?
Fake News? What am I missing? The proposed law as described to the Governor and as discussed by him, seems to allow any Va. woman to decide to have an "abortion" right up to and including a fully-dilated ordinary full term delivery. If the child is delivered live, she and the doctor then can have a "discussion" whether to allow the child to remain alive.
Even the Governor's PR clarification implicitly concedes this, simply asserts that women will only decide to do this in "tragic and difficult circumstances" such as nonviabilty or sever fetal abnormalities. But, of course "tragic and difficult" is entirely left up to the woman, and may include "I decided to break up with the father" or "I just don't want the hassle."
@Inga,
Why the statistics? How does the fact that late terms are relatively rare affect the judgement on whether those relatively rare abortions are moral or not?
Also, where are those stats coming from? Late term abortions are seen even among medical providers as an especially morally dubious procedure. Do you expect providers to be honest with canvassers about actions that are considered morally dubious among their peers?
Do you honestly think Gosnell & Tiller kept the medical authorities up to date on their activities?
Killing a living human because a no longer pregnant and healthy mother decides she no longer wants the human around doesn't sound like a moderate position to me.
WTF happened to the idea of adoption? No let's kill the kid instead of giving another family who wants a child the gift of a baby to raise and a child the gift of a full life ahead. Just kill the living child. (gross and evil)
The big quandary that I can see with a live birth is when the child is so damaged/defective/ill that it would either take heroic and very expensive measures to keep the baby alive or do you just drown it like an unwanted puppy?
In that case I can see a point for doing nothing; letting nature take its course. OR if the parents chose the heroic course. Those should all be up to the parents.
I would hope to God to never have to make that sort of decision for a newborn child. It was bad enough to have to make that decision for my Mother when she was severely injured (brain damaged) in her second such accident. At least she had a full life behind her and we know she would not have wanted to live in a vegetative state. A newborn with an entire life ahead. Murder.
However, to just kill a healthy newborn because..???? is straight up murder.
No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances...
She meant to say "No true Scotswoman..."
"No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor's comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor."
That is absolutely not true, and everybody knows it. It's an extension of what we used to hear, that no woman would choose to have an abortion unless she were desperate. Or that no woman uses abortion as a form of birth control.
But Inga, a few short years ago you were very close to saying you thought abortion should be illegal, or at least abortion after the first trimester should be. Have you changed your mind, or are you just defending the governor for argument's sake.
“The big quandary that I can see with a live birth is when the child is so damaged/defective/ill that it would either take heroic and very expensive measures to keep the baby alive or do you just drown it like an unwanted puppy?
In that case I can see a point for doing nothing; letting nature take its course. OR if the parents chose the heroic course. Those should all be up to the parents.”
Exactly my own opinion too, thanks for being an honest contributor.
Wasn't Tiller adored by the left (and even got a public comment from President Obama upon his death) specifically because he was willing to do late term abortions?
Cardinal Timothy Dolan did not mince words, saying that the abortion bill Cuomo signed into law is “ghoulish, grisly, and gruesome."
And unconstitutional, too. Elective abortion a.k.a. Pro-Choice a.k.a. planned parenthood is both a summary judgment and a cruel and unusual punishment of what is a wholly innocent human life, that is aided and abetted by the State under the Twilight Amendment to The Constitution.
One-child was more honest in motive, method, and character than the wicked solution or selective-child, recycled-child.
Yheskel added: "Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions."”
That really is just saying if a woman can find a Gosnell or a Tiller, the government shouldn't get involved.
I want to hear who here agrees with that.
“But Inga, a few short years ago you were very close to saying you thought abortion should be illegal, or at least abortion after the first trimester should be. Have you changed your mind, or are you just defending the governor for argument's sake.”
Oh no, never illegal. How does government have the right to force a woman to carry a child and give birth? Talk about BIG government. I’m on record here for many years as limiting abortion to 20 weeks with exceptions for the health of the mother or child.
I’m on record here for many years as limiting abortion to 20 weeks with exceptions for the health of the mother or child.
how is that never illegal? That is sometimes illegal.
If this bill passes, Gosnell would have been fine in Virginia. Would be fine in NY.
“how is that never illegal? That is sometimes illegal.”
And just how is that illegal? The doctor and clinic/ hospital must follow the laws on the books regarding late term abortion exceptions.
And just how is that illegal?
If you make a law saying you can only have abortion after a certain gestation, and the only exceptions would be health of the mother or child....it would then be illegal to have an abortion for any other reason.
“If this bill passes, Gosnell would have been fine in Virginia. Would be fine in NY.”
Nonsense. Those babies aborted by Gosnell were not unviable. The great majority were healthy. This law would not allow what Gosnell did.
“....it would then be illegal to have an abortion for any other reason.”
I think we may be crosstalking at each other. First of all my comment “never illegal” referred to my opinion that ALL abortion should never be illegal. There are people who want ALL abortion to be illegal, I think you realize this.
How does government have the right to force a woman to carry a child and give birth?
There's two reasons:
a) To protect the life of the child. one of the fundamental purposes of government.
b) The same way it has a right to give a man a gun and force him to fight a war.
Or even c) The same way the government can force a man to pay 18 years of child support for a child that isn't his.
Lets look again at Inga's transcript:
Interviewer: "And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill would permit an abortion even as a woman is essentially dilating ready to give birth, and she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support her measure and explain her answer?”
This is extreme late term abortion. If the mother's life is at jeopardy; I'm struggling to understand how abortion at this late stage saves her life. I could understand the Governor/Pediatrician saying something like "if the mother [and father, which he does mention the father to his credit] request all effort be made to save the life of the mother; I don't think the government should be involved in questioning the parents or their doctors in focusing on the life of the mother over the child." That's a pretty difficult thing to argue that the mother should be left for dead rather than the child. Some would argue, but I would agree, had the Governor spoke such words as I described, that government should stay out of such situations.
But these are the sentences the Governor used to "explained her answer": "So, in this particular example if the mother is in labor. I can tell you exactly what would happen. 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. So, I think this was really blown out of proportion."
Unless he means what he just said blows the legislator's comments out of proportion (which I would agree they do); he otherwise changed the situation from abortion to save the mother to a live birth with a healthy mother able to discuss what to do next with another living breathing human being.
I remember our resident dullard saying she was "100% in agreement in Roe V Wade" but saying she was against abortion for reasons of determining the sex. I mean how fucking stupid is that. Of course their is no causal denial of abortion, and no way to read someone's mind.
Now this dtupidity: "Oh no, never illegal. How does government have the right to force a woman to carry a child and give birth? Talk about BIG government. I’m on record here for many years as limiting abortion to 20 weeks with exceptions for the health of the mother or child."
I guess she wants to make abortion after 20 weeks "frowned upon."
“a) To protect the life of the child. one of the fundamental purposes of government.”
What about the autonomy of a woman over her own body? But of course I know your answer after all these years of abortion and women’s rights discussions.
@Inga, I think what Gosnell did could be legal under this law if "health of the mother" includes her mental health. Who is to decide that a woman can't claim, "I can't cope! This will make me crazy! I'm so depressed at the idea of raising a child! I'll kill myself!"
Therefore, this law makes it possible for a woman to have a late term abortion legally.
Abortion should only be legal when carrying the child to term would kill the mother. Any other argument is specious.
"This is extreme late term abortion. If the mother's life is at jeopardy; I'm struggling to understand how abortion at this late stage saves her life."
There is NO medical condition that would require termination of the baby's life at that stage to save the mother's life. None.
@Inga,
This law would not allow what Gosnell did.
Oh, that's the story. In theory. But, in practice, especially in blue states, abortion practices are rarely regulated or inspected. No one wants to know too much about what goes on there.
There had been multiple complaints by patients about Gosnell. The relevant authorities never followed up. The same for Tiller. He had a partner who was the rubber-stamping "second physician" for whatever Tiller wanted to do. As part of the investigation following from the murder of Tiller, Tiller's practice partner lost her medical license, so egregious were her abuses of medical standards.
Laws exist only if they are enforced. Blue state abortion proponents work diligently to make sure that such laws as govern abortion procedures are never enforced.
I think we may be crosstalking at each other. First of all my comment “never illegal” referred to my opinion that ALL abortion should never be illegal. There are people who want ALL abortion to be illegal, I think you realize this.
I do realize this, but I didn't understand your answer. Thank you for clarifying.
I don't believe the law in VA (or in NY) is limited to unviable babies. Even the spokeswoman you quoted had to state people don't just *choose* to have late-term abortions. She didn't say, this law makes it illegal to just choose to have a late term abortion.
Someone explain to me why Tiller was so beloved by the left if not for the late-term abortions he deemed were for the mental health of the mother. Someone on the left maybe can tell me.
“I guess she wants to make abortion after 20 weeks "frowned upon."”
I was referring to some of you extremists who would want ALL abortion to be illegal. Your’re too stupid to have understood that and just blindly followed Maybee’s misunderstanding of my comment. THIS sort of idiocy is exactly what is happening now with the Governor. Extremist rightists all to eager to make a mountain out of a molehill to further their agenda, or just beacuse they are retarded followers like Dumb George.
I'm in favor of legal post-natal abortions of the child up to age 18. That'll keep those teenagers in line. Male children only, of course.
Let's analyze this and a woman's right to autonomy over her own body.
What right does a man have in these scenarios? If he doesn't want to pay child support, he cannot force an abortion. No, his only choice is to never actually have the sex. Once a man has sex with a woman, his choice is done--he pays child support; he cannot get out of it.
So why should a woman get more choice, really? If a man's right to choose ends after having sex, why shouldn't a woman's right to choose end after having sex? There are of course the exceptions of rape and serious medical conditions that truly threaten the life of the mother, but save those vanishingly rare occasions, why should a woman get more rights to kill a child than a man does?
Right now, we cut off her rights to kill a child some point before birth anyway, (at least until Inga's friends and party fully legalize murdering children at any age), so why do we allow a woman 3 more months, six more months, or now in Virginia 40 weeks to decide to kill a baby when the male gets no such choice?
--Vance
“I do realize this, but I didn't understand your answer. Thank you for clarifying.”
You’re welcome, maybe now you can straighten out Dumb George, as he followed your lead in misunderstanding my meaning.
Remember when we were told there was no slippery slope?
Yeah.
Fuck the people who want to kill babies.
Democrats are awful.
As I understand it, this bill does not refer to a specific medical finding as justification for the abortion, which means it can be done simply for the "emotional well-being" of the mother.
THIS sort of idiocy is exactly what is happening now with the Governor. Extremist rightists all to eager to make a mountain out of a molehill to further their agenda, or just beacuse they are retarded followers like Dumb George.
Actually, I don't think the law has the kind of limits you say you support.
“Fuck the people who want to kill babies.
Democrats are awful.”
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“The big quandary that I can see with a live birth is when the child is so damaged/defective/ill that it would either take heroic and very expensive measures to keep the baby alive or do you just drown it like an unwanted puppy?
In that case I can see a point for doing nothing; letting nature take its course. OR if the parents chose the heroic course. Those should all be up to the parents.”
Inga said...
“Exactly my own opinion too, thanks for being an honest contributor.”
So, when did DBQ become a Democrat??
This bill is explicitly removing all the protections for the baby.... including all of the "late term abortion only in dire need" protections. That's the entire point of the conversation with the Democrat legislator who introduced the bill: that it makes late term abortion legal for any reason, up to and including going into labor. You can still kill the baby while you are in labor with it, and the governor is saying, well, if you meant to kill your baby while you were in labor, this law will allow you to finish the job once the baby is born and breathing on its own.
Inga's just upset some people don't see the "wisdom" and "progressiveness" in allowing Obama's signature issue: leaving babies to die on a counter, to become law in more states.
--Vance
“As I understand it, this bill does not refer to a specific medical finding as justification for the abortion, which means it can be done simply for the "emotional well-being" of the mother.”
Please link it, I’d love to see the language used.
(eaglebeak)
Northam--and Kathy Tran, for that matter--are proposing that it's okay to murder a born-alive baby too, after mother and doctor "consult."
THAT is the crime of murder.
Also, according to the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion outfit), very few women who seek third-trimester abortions do so for medical reasons.
So the quote Inga offers from the Governor is basically bilge:
"No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy..." --but if it's non-viable, the question of born-alive probably doesn't arise. No need to discuss whether to keep or kill. So Northam is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is a very stupid man.
But I had no idea he was this bloody-minded.
As far as autonomy over one's own body, two things:
1. Autonomy implies responsibility. Don't want a kid? Don't get pregnant.
2 Autonomy for the mother flouts the infant's right to autonomy over its body. In a day and age when we want to give rights to trees and lakes, how do we justify denying rights to newborn humans?
You can laugh at the hypothetical of an artificial womb (where removing the gestating fetus would be no more risky to the health of a woman than an abortion) but it's a good tool for determining whether the right to an abortion is only the right of a woman to protect her bodily autonomy or whether it's that PLUS the right to not be responsible for raising a child.
We already know that the father's desire to not raise a child does not outweigh the woman's right to have the child if she wants (and does not absolve him of his responsibility for that child). Abortion rights proponents will usually argue that all they're for is protecting women's bodily autonomy. Absent an artificial womb that allows them to argue that any abortion pre-viability does that, and only that. With medical science pushing viability further and further back this has become a bit of a problem...but it's "dealt with" largely by ignoring it and citing the fact that late-term abortion is relatively rare (nevermind things like incest and pregnancy from rape also being, thankfully, relatively rare but widely cited by those same people).
But if post-birth abortion is legal and comports with their morality then they can't argue the right to abortion is ONLY the right to protect bodily autonomy. Her body is no longer under "assault" nor subject to the unwanted "invasion" of the baby. It's being delivered or it's already been delivered. On what basis would "she and her doctor" have any rights at all that would outweigh or supersede the rights of the the now-born baby to life and the full protection of the State??
I want to think that nice smart centrist people would find the argument for abortion during or just after delivery to be monstrous and repulsive, but I have a real fear they don't.
Inga can read the text here: Text
Noticeable things: the standard for these late term abortions was that mental health of the mother be substantially harmed... the word substantially is stricken. Now the standard is if having the baby will inflict harm on the mother's mental health... any harm at all. With only one doctor's signature, not the three it previously required.
Abortions no longer required to be performed by a doctor, or in a hospital. Anyone can do one now, in any place they want, under this bill.
Might as well have called this the "Gosnell legalization and promotion" bill. Gosnell was a doctor, so he would indeed have been legal under this new bill.
--Vance
So, when did DBQ become a Democrat??
I'm not. I'm something you probably don't understand.
A Free Thinker
I don't adhere to a party line on issues or mouth the latest talking points. My thoughts are my own. I often disagree with everyone, sometimes agree with others and rarely with everyone.
I have also been known to change my position when new facts come to light that contradict or alter what I thought I used to know.
Inga,
With what rationale do you use to put a limit on aboortion at 20 weeks? What are the key delimiters that make it ok to abort on day 139 but not on 140 (or 138, 137,...,3,2,1)?
I also wonder about the argument force a woman to carry.. Except in the handmaids tale, no one forced the woman to carry a child. That happened through other circumstances. Her autonomy existed all the way up to the point of conception. However, the government might choose to prevent a woman from stopping a process that she started on her own. In a sense, we could argue that the woman took on an obligation through her own actions and is not permitted to renege on that obligation. While the obligation is more onerous than some other obligations, it is not an obligation that was foist upon her. We all enter into obligations whether willingly or unwillingly. We might crash into a building without intending to, but we cannot simply abrogate our obligation to pay for the damages we inflicted simply because it is inconvenient or onerous such as many hours or years of labor to financially make up the payments, or even a forced incarceration if the damage included injury or death to another person. And while the woman's obligation is significant, the impact of failing in that obligation is also significant. As much as one might say a parent neglecting their children. The parent is obligated and severely punished for failure to do so.
On the other hand, as argued above, a man obligated to kill and risk his life has incurred an obligation through no direct action of his own through conscription.
It appears to me that both sides are talking past each other. The governor said that the abortion would usually be done on a fetus with severe deformity or one which is non-viable. It appears that he is presenting the worst case scenario for the fetus to try to defend the legislation. He did not say that there is anything in the legislation that limits the late term abortions to non-viable or severely deformed infants. Logically, if that limitation were there he would probably have mentioned it since he is trying to pretend that the abortion law is moral.
As I understand medical ethics, babies which are not viable are not really a moral issue. Keep them comfortable. That is all that should be expected.
The first category, the fetus with severe deformity but who is viable is an entirely different issue. To deliver a baby who is viable but severely deformed and then somehow terminate it's life because the mother wants that is murder.
No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities
Gosnell just didn't exist, huh? The audacity of people to just wish reality away and DEMAND that the rest of us agree with their false version of reality is something!
The point isn't that late-term abortion is common. Thankfully it's not. It's also true that the vast majority of late-term abortions are in tragic cases as described. That's not the point. The point is under these laws--and in comportment with the moral code "pro-choice" people espouse--it would be completely legal for a woman with an otherwise healthy baby to abort it at any time, for any reason (including her "mental health"), including during and just after she actually gave birth.
How many such occurrences would you be ok with happening, legally, before you decided there was a problem with the law? 10? 20? Murdering infants is ok and should be legal if it's relatively rare--just a few each year--is that it??
After the age of viability there is no reason to kill a baby, even for the health of the mother. That baby can be taken from the mother alive with the same resultant effect as taking it dead.
“With what rationale do you use to put a limit on aboortion at 20 weeks?”
The development of the baby. I agree with the former Governor Walker about the criteria of the baby’s ability to feel pain, but he is actually misinformed. Plus with modern technology babies born at 20 weeks can survive, that is huge.
“I think most people in this state understand that when an unborn child can feel pain, that more than ever is an appropriate time to protect the unborn child,” Walker said at the bill signing at Fox Valley Technical College in Oshkosh, arguing a fetus can feel pain after five months.
However, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Journal of the American Medical Association have concluded that evidence shows fetuses begin to feel pain during the third trimester — which begins at 27 weeks.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-signs--week-abortion-ban/article_6fce18eb-33f1-5cfb-b9af-0256d3579fbf.html
Thank you Vance.
Shorter Inga:
The Democrats are creating a massive loophole that any reasonable person can foresee will be used to murder children but I'm going to pretend that's not going to happen.
“a) To protect the life of the child. one of the fundamental purposes of government.”
What about the autonomy of a woman over her own body?
How sick do you have to be to believe that a woman's autonomy over her own body" is more important than the life of a child?
The woman's right to choose, her autonomy, ends exactly when a man's does, when the decision is made to have sex.
Reminds me of one of those Clancy novels, perhaps: "Dragon and the Bear. A Chinese Dr is about to abort a baby when the babe is rude enough to pop out and becomes a new Chinese citizen deserving of care.
We apparently are headed for a world where babies are delivered and then Mom gets to decide whether she wants the child to live.
“I'm not.”
Indeed, that is what I was pointing out to Birkel. Go argue with him, he thinks you’re a baby killer.
“With what rationale do you use to put a limit on aboortion at 20 weeks?”
The development of the baby. I agree with the former Governor Walker about the criteria of the baby’s ability to feel pain, but he is actually misinformed. Plus with modern technology babies born at 20 weeks can survive, that is huge.
I guess I needed to be more clear. Why would you deny a woman her autonomy based on the gestational age of the child? Why condemn her to another 20 weeks of enslavement? Is it, as it seems, based entirely on when we choose to confer value on the child? And if that is the criteria, why not simply birth the child at 20 months if the mother does not wish to carry to term?
"My right to swing my fist ends one inch before your nose!" Standard legal principle.
Women have the right to autonomy over their body.... but that right ends when it hurts another. It has to be that way, of course... otherwise, why can't women use their body to pull that trigger and kill that bank teller? We call that "Murder." And the vast majority of people agree (again, some leftists do not).
The only way abortion is allowed is by defining a human as not a human, so it's not murder. If a fetus was human, abortion is murder, and we all know it. So the fight is over whether a fetus is human or not.
The left is pushing for that line of "human/not human" to ever be older and older... now it's one second before birth. And many say you aren't a human with rights until you can keep yourself alive... at least 5, maybe 18 or 26 with the way some teenagers are. Old folks? Termininally ill? Handicapped? Not human anymore either.... so why not kill them too, right?
Pretty soon it will be classes of people: Jews, Christians, people who don't vote Democrat are no longer people at all.... Off for "delousing" in the camp showers!
--Vance
I've always been pro-choice. I would like to see common sense regulations of abortions like in Europe or what Inga is talking about.
But this issue makes me very angry. The fact we are even skating up to infanticide makes me sick.
Why not boycott Virgina and New York? Why should red States allow the government money to be spent in states that are swinging open the door to elective late term and post-partum abortions.
Everyone was ok with boycotting some state because they made it illegal for men to use a women's restroom.
This is way more important.
In Doe v. Wade and later decisions and denials of cert., the Supreme Court has tried to avoid deciding: Don't make us decide when you can and cannot kill your unborn child; you decide! On what Constitutional priciple can you say that it's OK to abort a 10-week fetus but not OK to abort/kill a 9-monther about to be born?
The Court f*cked up. They should have left it to the States. Many States, like New York, will get it wrong and allow viable children to be killed. Other States will do better. If you are a soul about to be born, pray that your mother doesn't live in New York.
her bill would permit an abortion even as a woman is essentially dilating ready to give birth, and she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support her measure and explain her answer?”
So women have power of life and death, but they need Northam to mansplain for them?
I guess I needed to be more clear. Why would you deny a woman her autonomy based on the gestational age of the child? Why condemn her to another 20 weeks of enslavement? Is it, as it seems, based entirely on when we choose to confer value on the child? And if that is the criteria, why not simply birth the child at 20 months if the mother does not wish to carry to term?”
I guess I didn’t make myself clear.
Viability of the baby. It would be medical malpractice to induce a woman in her 20th week for non medical reasons.
“Condemn her to another 20 weeks of enslavement?” Such language! Who uses such language, not one liberal woman I know, and most of them have several children and even grandchildren. I have four children and five grandchildren. I never considered abortion for myself, but I would never prohibit other women from exercising their right to privacy as is granted to us in the Constitution. I think forcing women who don’t love their babies enough not to kill them, to carry them and give birth to them, is a very bad idea.
And I think I again need to say legal abortion with its limitations. It would be a massive increase in government to outlaw all abortion, try being rational, if you still have that capacity.
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
I've always been pro-choice. I would like to see common sense regulations of abortions like in Europe or what Inga is talking about.
But this issue makes me very angry. The fact we are even skating up to infanticide makes me sick.
Why not boycott Virgina and New York? Why should red States allow the government money to be spent in states that are swinging open the door to elective late term and post-partum abortions.
Everyone was ok with boycotting some state because they made it illegal for men to use a women's restroom.
This is way more important.
Agree.
Not fake news.
Sick even in context.
In my humble (ok..maybe not that) opinion
Abortion is horrible a horrible act. Personally abhorrent, morally repugnant and a sin against life.
Up until viability: However, IF it MUST be legal then only up until the time of viability for the baby. Up until a certain point, the fetus is not able to live outside of the womb. Most miscarriages happen during those times.
Often a woman will have a miscarriage in the earliest weeks and not really know that is what it was. Nature's way of ensuring that the species will survive by not burdening the human animals with defective children.
After viability (and that is still a nebulous time frame) abortion should not be legal except for extreme medical reasons. The life of the mother is in danger. Not her fee-fees are hurt, or she changed her mind. LIFE real DANGER. OR...the fetus has so many defects, anomalies that it would not be viable.
By defects I mean things that threaten life and not inconvenient things like Down's Syndrome or other handicaps that can be lived with. Sorry your child isn't perfect. Live with it or adopt your child to someone who will.
If the mother decides she doesn't want to be a mother and baring the medical issues....tough titty. This is a human life. A child with a brain. A soul. And to decided to terminate the child is murder. So...adopt your child to someone else.
Women's Autonomy argument Unless the woman has been kidnapped, kept in a box, raped, or otherwise forced against her will there might also be a case for abortion in the non viability period.
I don't mean raped in that she had bad or uncomfortable sex and now regrets it. I mean REAL rape. Women have the autonomy to say no. To mean it and more importantly avoid situations where they get pregnant. BIRTH CONTROL has taken that argument off the table.
Of course, my opinions are about as good as a bucket of warm spit when it comes to the slippery slope of laws that are putting us into the territory of legal infanticide and murder.
“Condemn her to another 20 weeks of enslavement?” Such language! Who uses such language, not one liberal woman I know,
Maybe I am over hyperbolizing (I mnght be making up words here) your position, but when you talk about autonomy, that is how it boils down. Either it is a violation of their personhood and autonomy to be prevented from terminating a pregnancy or it is not. What is the key right here? You say privacy. But privacy is not the issue. If the unborn child is a human, no woman's right to privacy trumps life. If the unborn is not a human, then there is no argument against abortion at any stage. In a sense, I believe that the folks in Virginia have the more rational position. The child either has rights or s/he does not. If there are no rights, then all abortions are permitted. If rights are conditional, then we need to set under what conditions rights are conferred. So, back to the point of 20 weeks, if it is a burden, and the impetus for whether a baby is carried to term is based on the Mother's rights, then 20 weeks is arbitrary, and limiting abortion at that point is just as arbitrary as any other point. If the basis is on viability of the child is it because that viability confers rights to the child or is it for some other basis?
I am off to an event with my kids, so I am done for tonight. Don't let my silence indicate disinterest or capitulation. The issue of primary rights and when life and rights are conferred is a huge interest to me. I can find no rational position to justify any arbitrary point for the termination of a life, and I think abortion is the worst possible solution to the issue of unwanted pregnancies. It is a sad commentary on our values. I would wish all children could be wanted, and I know more children are wanted than are adopted (I have 6 Special needs adoptees myself, and would have more save the significant costs involved in adoption.) I would think we could find a way to find families for a lot more kids than we do, but that would undermine one of the primary arguments for abortion.
Inga: "Such language! Who uses such language, not one liberal woman I know, and most of them have several children and even grandchildren."
LOL
The classic Inga "ignorance ploy"!
Feminists call pregnancy slavery? Never heard of it!
Womens March Leaders are rabid anti-semites? I've never heard of such a thing!
Leftists institute hate speech laws on campus? I've never heard that!
Its a classic lefty tactic employed to avoid confronting what is actually happening so the lefty can move on to accusations against the other side.
This first became noticeable during the Clinton admin which was spin-central.
I think DBQ is one of the most well-reasoned commenters on the blog.
Pro-Choice is two choices too late. It is a religious/moral doctrine intended to justify sociopolitical progress that normalizes selective-child, and associated recycled-child, that relieves women of "the burden", while denying human evolution, women's faculty, and a woman's control of her body.
" it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So, in this particular example if the mother is in labor. I can tell you exactly what would happen. 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."
--
"may"
And then...?
He began by saying he would explain "exactly" how that would go.
So..if further life of the "infant" loses that vote, then what?
Exactly.
Infanticide is the inevitable and unavoidable consequence of leftist philosophy and policy reality and was always, ALWAYS, the end result intended by feminist leaders.
In the same way that pure socialism is now also on the Dem/LLR menu.
In the same way that wide open borders is clearly the Dem/LLR desire.
Frau Merkel, after decades of Brussels-based Euro-leftist lying to the contrary, openly saying that the EU will require nations to literally lose their sovereignty to serve the greater leftist vision.
It's all coming out now.
A 16 year old Catholic conservative school boy simply stands there and smiles?
Leftists literally call for his death and the destruction of his family.
Openly.
Proudly.
This is what the left has in store for anyone who does go along with their program. 100 Million dead are a testament to this and we should never forget them.
I haven't read the comments. I just saw on television the Governor describe delivering a child, setting it aside (making it comfortable) and then discussing with the mother whether the baby will be allowed to live. Am I misunderstanding what he said?
Original Mike: "I haven't read the comments. I just saw on television the Governor describe delivering a child, setting it aside (making it comfortable) and then discussing with the mother whether the baby will be allowed to live. Am I misunderstanding what he said?"
Not in the slightest.
And this is nowhere near the beginning of this conversation by the insane left, which is the regular left, which is half the liberals, and at least 10% of the "moderates" (liberal/leftists by another name):
https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html
https://www.lightupthedarkness.net/peter-singer-the-ethics-of-infanticide/
The left/LLR's were always heading here.
Always.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“a) To protect the life of the child. one of the fundamental purposes of government.”
"What about the autonomy of a woman over her own body? But of course I know your answer after all these years of abortion and women’s rights discussions."
Does that autonomy include some form of contraception? Self control is what seperates us from the beasts.
The Cardinal in New York refuses to excommunicate abortion extremist Andrew Cuomo who pretends to be a Catholic. Of course he was quick to attack the Covington Kids and has nothing to say about the homosexual priests who molest young boys that he protects and shields from prosecution.
He claims it is only the “right wing” that wants action against Cuomo and other politicians who legitimize infanticide.
He is a disgrace and one of the reasons that the church is losing millions of members every year.
DBQ @ 6:21- Your opinion is more than just your opinion, it's the opinion of many. Probably most.
I would only add that a rape produced child is still an innocent child.
and the left trot out the rape/abortion issue before all elections and then the issue vanishes after. Anyway, rape/pregnancy -- It's not that common. But still - should be noted that a child of rape is still a child.
They are willing to kill babies able to live out of the womb and aren’t even trying by to hide it any more.
Just as happened with gay rights the progressives will push it even more. If they are in charge arbortion will be mandatory for certain groups.
I can see AOC or Maxine Waters or some of those new Muslim cunts in Congress passing a law just like China mandating that whites can only have one child per family to insure diversity. You will be prosecuted if you refuse to participate in abortions just the way they prosecute and try to destroy you if you do or participate in gay marriages.
It’s coming.
What is actually happening is Democrats are pushing the envelope to withdraw any and all protections from undelivered babies.
And some delivered babies might be killed and nobody will be able to object.
Let's slippery slope our asses to the ovens.
Leftist Collectivists are evil.
Two things, the Catholic leadership will not act against Democrats, period. So, quit beating that dead horse. The Church is headed for another schism because of the willful disobedience of the tenets of the Catholic faith by the church leadership.
Secondly, when do I as a 54 year old with cardiac disease, thyroid malfunction and borderline obesity become non-viable? Because, this is where we are headed as a nation. The on demand killing of our most vulnerable will come full circle and it soon won’t be fetuses they’ll be terminating. And our elites will be exempt, of course.
The progressive left are the real Nazi’s and their policy on arbortion is a prime example. Doctor Mengele would approve.
The most reed of the unborn is a true holocaust.
Just like the Nazi holocaust the leaders of the Church refuse to fight the politicians who facilitate death of the innocents.
Pope Pius would be proud.
Logically very little of this sudden late-term abortion push makes sense. Babies at 20 weeks and older can survive outside the womb, so if the goal is to remove the baby because a woman doesn't want it, what is the reason for removing the baby dead rather than alive? If the goal is to avoid responsibility for raising the baby, it is a simple matter to make such a baby a ward of the state and allow them to be adopted by someone else.
The law in New York and the proposed law in Virginia are expressly designed to promote death where death is not required to relieve a woman of either the burden of pregnancy or the burden of raising a child at that late term of a pregnancy. What good reason is there to promote death instead of a chance at life? Why after decades of being "concerned" for women's health are such laws basically allowing something like the cheap back alley abortionist to make a return? It sounds more like the dogma of a Babylonian baby-sacrificing cult than sensible public policy.
If the Governor wants to walk back his position, such that it is "Fake News" as Scott Adams would have it; then perhaps he shouldn't be rationalizing something as extreme as the "Repeal Act" to remove all barriers to abortion. A good consensus has come to accept the 20 week argument, which is clearly moderate. The argument that 20 weeks isn't good enough is an extreme. If the Governor doesn't want the extremist label; stay away from the extreme. Otherwise, it is a fair label for the position he is taking.
Yikes! Though it does seem to be the logical conclusion to considering the woman's, and only the woman's, interest in the matter.
Northam--and Kathy Tran, for that matter--are proposing that it's okay to murder a born-alive baby too, after mother and doctor "consult."
THAT is the crime of murder.
No, that is the crime of COLLUSION. Liberals and leftists, there's your favorite word. Go for it.
The murder is done AFTER the collusion.
THEOLDMAN
It does reframe it from "right to control their own body"
"What is actually happening is Democrats are pushing the envelope to withdraw any and all protections from undelivered babies."
They are just drawing the logical inference from the basic Althousian rationale for abortion: the fetus has invaded a woman's body; the woman's body is sovereign territory; the woman gets to decide what happens in her sovereign territory, and no on else (as the Constitution itself clearly states in -- oh, well, forget it); therefore, any woman should be able to kill any fetus up to delivery.
Now, post-delivery killing is pushing it, even for Dems.
If only we were mor3 like Europe. I thought that was the goal.
Trumpit said...
A one year moratorium on live births should go into effect to allow time for the planet to heal from too many humans stripping the world of resources. That means forced abortions if you recklessly get pregnant. The penalty for the guy involved is castration so it doesn't happen again. Harsh, but necessary.
***********************************
You utter fuckwit. If humans are "stripping the world" of resources, then why isn't there rampant inflation everywhere. Why are formerly poor countries now NEVER dealing with famine? Why are their lifespans increasing?
Where is my bottle of Troll-B-Gone!!!
Meade: cleanup on Aisle 2.
Slogan of Spanish fascists in the 1930's:
'LONG LIVE DEATH'!!!
Slogan of American Democrats in 2019:
'LONG LIVE DEATH'!!!
It was ultimately voted down, one step too far.
Btw, the actual bill did not specify unviable babies. So that lefty/LLR walkback is precisely what you knew it was: a lie.
"'LONG LIVE DEATH'!!!"
"Viva la Muerte"
The slogan that drove Unamuno around the bend.
"Viva la Muerte" was not used by the Fascist militias or the Carlist requetes (Catholic-extremist militias), and certainly not by the Moors. That was not a Fascist slogan, or a political slogan at all.
It was a the creation of one man, a true "son of Mars", an "engineer of mens souls".
It was a slogan of the Spanish Legion, the creation of José Millán Astray.
It is a very specific thing, a unique thing. You could perhaps call it a cult.
The Spanish Legion - "La Legión", or the Spanish Foreign Legion in some readings, was and still is a unique organization. It explicitly copied the French original, but went to the next level in its ideology of total dedication to the unit, in its spiritual core, and to its purpose, which was explicitly to fight and die for Spain. P.C. Wren's ("Beau Geste", and others) protagonists knew they were cannon fodder, but Millán Astray's knew they were human sacrifices.
It, at least ostensibly, recruited the lost and the hopeless, giving them a purpose and, perhaps, a sense of nobility. Indeed, Millán Astray studied Japanese Bushido, wrote a book on it, and incorporated aspects of it with Catholic traditionalism, especially the idea of knightly orders, of military monks, which were always a more significant factor in Spain than anywhere else.
"Death is lighter than a feather" met the Knights Templar, and applied it not to an upper class but to hopeless (or romantic) members of the proletariat. A dispossessed peasant could join it and become a "caballero legionario" - a knight-legionnaire - at the cost of signing away his life of course.
Its theme song was and is "El Novio De La Muerte" - "The Bridegroom of Death", a cabaret song re-purposed into a slow march, in which the protagonist dedicates himself to Death - to bind himself to such a loyal companion.
soy un novio de la muerte
que va a unirse en lazo fuerte
con tal leal compañera.
The Legion annually carries Christ crucified in procession during Holy Week, singing "Novio de la Muerte" - the symbolism is obvious and intensely Spanish - they are promising their lives, to die as Christ did.
Semana Santa de Málaga 2016
The political relevance was that they were the hard core of the military uprising against the Spanish Republic, the part of the Army of Africa that was utterly reliable, the backbone behind the ferocious but sometimes flighty Moors. Without the Legion there was no hope for the Nationalist cause, especially in the early days. But the Legion itself, other than its dedication to Spain and its own peculiar traditionalism, was not an ideological movement or a political ideal.
@inga “What about the autonomy of a woman over her own body?”
It has its own DNA. Its own organs which function independently from mom’s. Its own nervous system. In no way is the fetus part of a woman’s body. It is in the woman’s body, but a completely unique and irreplaceable ... what, inga? What is it?
Let me reiterate that after viability it doesn't make one IOTA of difference to the life of the mother whether that baby is taken alive or dead. Not one.
I just don't understand why this argument isn't made in every single late-term abortion discussion.
You know they realize how terrible this is when they have to lie about what they really want and believe.
At least for one shining moment, this Governor was honest about his desire for infanticide.
I feel bad for Scott, he got this so wrong, as Drago explained.
The midwit medical shool grad governor thought he was talking to people who believed the lie that abortion is all about a woman's choice.
Scott went along with the Colonel Klink interpretation of the poor evil governor, which is even worse than the Sergeant Schulz interpretation,
The "baby who was being kept comfortable" (Colenel Klink), but only a POTENTIAL murder victim
the baby was the
POTENTIAL MURDER VICTIM (but we know nothing of that - the Sergeant Schulz version)
Scott missed that part of the equation.
It is a bad day when someone as smart as Scott Adams makes Klink and Schulz look honest by comparison - stupid and evil of course, but honest by comparison,
Oh well, everyone I admire is wrong about something.
Trump went on the Stern show once and was polite, that was a mistake, you don't treat a creature like Stern with politeness, you call him out on his wickedness, as the ghost of Dana Plato would recommend.
Poor Taleb went all chess club on some crusade against people who work with, humbly, trying to figure out if some people have more gifts at numbers or collected memories or basic intuition of semi-complicated ideas than others. And beclouded himself with his phony ridiculous little math-major midwit pride.
Like I said, Scott, who I guess is a multi-millionaire and who could care less what someone like me, even though I am right, says about his foolishness - Scott messed up, and he said something that is not true,
So much for being a hypnotist or someone who understands other people. Like I said, Scott beclouded himself.
And yes I can see both "movie screens" on one of them Scott is stupid on the other he is a liar.
heyboom
you understand
it is about power
and violence
and the death of innocents.
To normal people like you and me, the death of innocents is unmistakably bad.
But there are a lot of people to whom the death of innocents marks their own value. And they love themselves. They are "life" and those they harm are something less than "life", because .....
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“a) To protect the life of the child. one of the fundamental purposes of government.”
"What about the autonomy of a woman over her own body? But of course I know your answer after all these years of abortion and women’s rights discussions."
My response is that you may be able to make the moral argument for abortions during the first trimester and a bit that the autonomy of the mother over her body should be the most important criteria. But fetuses are mostly viable these days by the third trimester. This means that they are munutes, via an emergency caesarean, away from full personhood in every state except maybe NY. So, you are faced with arguing that killing a third trimester fetus, a quarter inch or so of maternal flesh away from being born (via caesarean) is not murder, but on the other side of that quarter inch, it is. At that point, after say 5 months or so of gestation, you have maternal discomfort and temporary loss of body autonomy on the one hand, to be balanced by the death of the fetus/ baby (depending on which side of the 1/4 inch of flesh it is located). The woman had those 4-5 months to abort the fetus before it became viable. She was the one to have had choices, and to have made them, even if her choice was to do nothing. The fetus doesn’t have those choices. Having unprotected sex is a choice. Not aborting during the first trimester was also a choice the mother made. The consequence of getting pregnant and then not deciding to abort prior to viability morally should estop her from changing her mind later, and obtaining a third trimester abortion. Short version - the place where a majority of the country sits, is that if a woman wants to abort her fetus, she should do it first trimester, before it becomes viable, and thus deserving of having their life put above the convenience of their mother and her body autonomy, when balancing the equities.
If Northam wants to claim that such events would only occur in non-viable situations, then, by all means, let him define those events with specificity so that we do have penalties for when it isn't the case.
This idea that you just leave it up to the discretion of doctors and the mothers is morally reprehensible. You are basically condoning any such abortion where the baby can live a fulfilling life, but is euthanized anyway by a decision that cannot be gainsaid by the law against murder.
What part is the fake news, Governor Northam's original words or his subsequent "clarification"?
Inga wrote: What about the autonomy of a woman over her own body?
Indeed, what about it? When a woman can expel a tumor by asserting her autonomy over her own body you may use that phase without implied comedic effect.
Society needs abortion. There's no way we want girls like Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham or Bill Maher to have children. If we could, we would pass a law mandating lefties to abort.
If the left can deny the right to life to, as Caroline says, a new, complete sovereign person, they can deny the right to life to anyone. From that comes the denying of liberty and the right to persue our own best interests. They really are fascists.
the place where a majority of the country sits, is that if a woman wants to abort her fetus, she should do it first trimester, before it becomes viable,
I think that is the law in European countries. We now have the most extreme circumstances outside China.
From Wikipedia:
"The Pre-persons" is a science fiction short story by American writer Philip K. Dick. It was first published in Fantasy and Science Fiction magazine, October 1974.
The story was a pro-life response to Roe v. Wade. Dick imagines a future where the United States Congress has decided that abortion is legal until the soul enters the body. The specific instant is defined by the administration, at present the moment a person has the ability to perform simple algebraic calculations (around the age of 12).
The main protester — a former Stanford mathematics major — demands to be taken to the abortion center, since he claims to have forgotten all his algebra.
---
Dick got a lot of push-back for that story.
I would call third trimester abortion "Toxic Femininity"
Inga- did you ever comment once the text of the bill was linked, about how it actually doesn't say the baby has to be non-viable to be aborted in the third term?
Gosnell and Tiller would be legal under this law. Honestly, is that ok with you? I'm pro-choice, and this is not ok with me.
VA Repeal Act Bill co-sponsor backs out of sponsorship upon learning what the Repeal Act would allow to happen. Specifically, she didn't support partial-birth abortion as explained by the Repeal Act's author Kathy Tran. The co-sponsor backing out shows just how extreme the Governor's position is.
heyboom said...
Let me reiterate that after viability it doesn't make one IOTA of difference to the life of the mother whether that baby is taken alive or dead. Not one.
That's the first time I've seen this. Surprised I never thought of it.
And it is 100% absolutely true. And pretty much true throughout the entire 3rd trimester.
Post a Comment