Democrats bill to allow abortion during labor

Fatal? Then the foetus doesn't survive.

 

Well...I'm currently reading this bill and I already know I hate this garbage.

"( The terms ‘‘woman’’ and ‘‘women’’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services."

Getting pregnant isn't a social construct. Only woman can get pregnant. I hate this idiotic new gender crap.

 

No it doesn’t and that is why late term abortions occur -

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...ying-inside-me-i-could-not-save-her-1.3137930

Heartbreaking story after heartbreaking story - like this story where the woman persisted in the pregnancy hoping against hope that her daughter would survive - but unfortunately the diagnosis was “Triploidy” the baby had 69 chromosomes instead of the usual 49

 

And yet the truth is that gender is not binary but a spectrum. If you feel you have to hold your nose to get past this and look at the impact of the bill.

 

Yes, it is tragic when it occurs. But, dying of natural causes is not the same as murder.

 

So you prefer that this "precious life" die a long lingering painful death rather than be humanely killed just because YOU think it's "murder" (which it is NOT) ?

 

""""""( The terms ‘‘woman’’ and ‘‘women’’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny.""""



SO TRUE!

 

Pregnancy is a biological term for a two gendered species which we are. You are either a man or a woman. That's not a social construct. That's just biological.

Placing bets that whomever the idiot was white wrote this bill has blue hair.

 

"I can't control having sperm pumped into my uterus doctor! Can you help?"

"Just identify as a man and you won't get pregnant!"

That's this bill so far.

 

Yes, that’s my opinion.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you prefer that this "precious life" die a long lingering painful death rather than be humanely killed just because YOU think it's "murder" (which it is NOT) ?

I'm not surprised..... I always knew Anti-Choicers weren't really all about those "precious lives" ...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
""""""( The terms ‘‘woman’’ and ‘‘women’’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny.""""



SO TRUE!

I have no idea what that incoherent rant was about or what it has to do with the post of mine you quoted...

 

Anyone else you plan to humanely kill? Asking for a friend.

 

I am not someone who believes the physical world is all there is. However, I do know that it is impossible for any of us to know anything for certain, about a plane of existence that we cannot access. And I can also recognize a hypocritical argument, when I see it. If the soul exists before birth, then abortion would not, logically, damage that soul. It seems reasonable to guess that it might only return to wherever it had been, initially; that is, according to you, "in the realm of God." So it is hard to see how anything atrocious has occurred.

The argument then, comes down only to a person's belief that, "God," wants every conception to result in a birth. I see no reason to assume that this is true. It is certainly not a provable fact (even less so than that God exists). Still, we are free to believe what we wish; but that implies that the ramifications of any individual's beliefs are not applicable to anyone else, who likewise has the same right, the same freedom, to decide on their own beliefs. This is part of the concepts of freedom of religion, and separation of church & state. And it is the reason why different theories of souls, and what God wants, have no legitimate place in the discussion of the law or practices of a pluralistic, secular society. Europe tried the idea of following a religious, Church authority; it didn't work out very well.

 

I have told over and over, not only Americans, but Australians that that using the court is wrong to make law. That to make law, use the system that includes the house and Senate of Congress.

Roe is a problem for the abortion lovers. It is about privacy. Abortion is not an issue of privacy. It is an issue of law passed by states.
Laws are subject to debate. Laws are subject to change.
A good example is the Dredd Scott decision made by the top court. We have other supreme court rulings also a distant past.
They ruled that in America, incomes can't taxed. So laws were changed and now they get taxed.

 

Yours is a reasonable argument.

 

You do since you called them victims.

I was once posting on a forum where a member, a female, extolled her job as a high priced call girl. She claimed it afforded her a true life of luxury. She compared it to the life led by Biden's wife.

 

Ouch!

 

In many ways, his "I do not know" can be called a reasonable argument.
He does not know a lot of things that are true.
He thinks he knows things that actually are not true.

However this applies to all of we posters.

 

Clear up to the age of 5 that I am aware of. This is a progressive movement. As they move to she can kill her child in the womb, it takes time to also do the bit where she can kill her unwanted child up to the age of 5.

 

How is it "reasonable"? "I know what God wants, because, well, things and stuff" is not a reason-based assertion.

 

Here is the meat of the argument; that is, these very late term abortions (or even, not providing certain newborns with the extraordinary care necessary for their survival) have to do, exclusively, with cases of severe birth defects (@Darthcervantes -- it is dishonest to try to present this as "liberalizing," of abortion, in general, issue). So that is, more properly, the focus of this thread: is it acceptable to end the life of a child, even shortly after birth, who is found to have some serious developmental disabilities, which had not previously been known? I think that is a fair thing to debate, about which people can have differing opinions. But I think that the main argument against this is likely to always come down to a religious one. That is, the argument that God doesn't want us to do it. Since we do not live in a theocracy, I should not need explain that none of our laws can be based on what any particular group thinks that God wants, since our society recognizes that no one can authoritatively know and thereby mandate for everyone else to abide by, what God wants. In the U.S., one is not compelled to even believe in a God, much less raise a severely handicapped child because that is supposedly God's will.

 

It took a long time to change laws on slavery in our country too, and that change was driven by Christian activists.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you prefer that this "precious life" die a long lingering painful death rather than be humanely killed just because YOU think it's "murder" (which it is NOT) ?





I'm not surprised..... I always knew Anti-Choicers weren't really all about those "precious lives" ...


Do you ever plan on addressing posts rather than ducking the issue every time? Asking for a friend...

 

So, I’ll take that as a yes, you are planning to humanely kill others. It’s a natural progression for eugenicists.