VA Governor goes to bat for infanticide

[fried-chicken]

OK- but that has nothing to do with your prior stance that abortion should only be legal up to 20 weeks, which is distinctly different than what you support now.

And as the OB/GYN that I quoted said, who testified on this matter last year, he has never once had an instance where an abortion was required in the third trimester for anything related to the mother's health. If required the baby is BORN, not aborted.

And then there's the matter of the VA Governor insisting that there is a right to kill still implied even after the baby is lying there on the delivery table.

It's ok if you say you disagree with NY and VA laws if that's what you think.

No my prior stance was that elective abortion should be an option until 20 weeks. None of these bills are elective abortion so I think that's where you are struggling.

Non elective abortion should be as flexible as possible because every family has different situation and the decisions are deeply personal.

Imagine a widowed mother who has 3 kids and she finds out her current 23 week pregnancy is unlikely to survive and puts her at risk. Knowing she is already a mother to 3 kids and has a responsibility to them her decision might be different than someone else.

Maintaining maximum flexibility in non- elective abortions is important.

 

[UCFKnight85]

No my prior stance was that elective abortion should be an option until 20 weeks. None of these bills are elective abortion so I think that's where you are struggling.

Non elective abortion should be as flexible as possible because every family has different situation and the decisions are deeply personal.

Imagine a widowed mother who has 3 kids and she finds out her current 23 week pregnancy is unlikely to survive and puts her at risk. Knowing she is already a mother to 3 kids and has a responsibility to them her decision might be different than someone else.

Maintaining maximum flexibility in non- elective abortions is important.

Well let's just stop and respond to your first sentence since it's factually wrong yet again. There is NOTHING in these bills preventing an elective abortion in the 3rd trimester. Why? Because by including "health" as a reasoning for having an abortion, it is literally a catch all that allows for abortion for any reason.

I've already laid this out for you earlier in this thread which you apparently skimmed over.

As I also already laid out for you, the actual OB/GYNs who have spoken on this subject matter tell us that IF a mother's life is at risk in the 3rd trimester, abortion are the last thing they'd recommend. If it's dire and urgent then they deliver the baby early and end the pregnancy. He said that he's literally undertaken ZERO abortions in the 3rd trimester to ever address threats to the mother's life.

Look, it's clear you've read nothing on either of these bills aside from recoiling in support of them when the D's pushing these looked so horrendous. But read and come back.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Jonah Goldberg spent the last 3 days reading the bills top to bottom and had this to say today. Ouch.

If you don’t think late-term, post-viability abortions are morally troubling, you might want to ask yourself why we are one of only seven countries in the world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks. It’s unclear how many countries allow abortion at 40 weeks, mid-delivery, but it’s possible that the U.S. and North Korea would be the only members of that club.

 

[fried-chicken]

Medically required abortions aren't elective for ****s sake.

 

[UCFWayne]

Medically required abortions aren't elective for ****s sake.

babies can be delivered via c-section at the 3rd trimester if there is a medical reason for the mother to get the baby out of her. at 37 weeks the baby is full term. why not make that the deadline instead of until you can see a head coming out?

i get that because your wife had cancer and it was a tough call between her or your baby but that doesnt change certain facts. im a big on pro-choice but stop pretending that aborting a baby well into the 3rd trimester isnt murder. for someone who likes to claim moral superiority, id think youd understand that.

 

[fried-chicken]

babies can be delivered via c-section at the 3rd trimester if there is a medical reason for the mother to get the baby out of her. at 37 weeks the baby is full term. why not make that the deadline instead of until you can see a head coming out?

i get that because your wife had cancer and it was a tough call between her or your baby but that doesnt change certain facts. im a big on pro-choice but stop pretending that aborting a baby well into the 3rd trimester isnt murder. for someone who likes to claim moral superiority, id think youd understand that.

Why not leave it to the doctors? They take an oath.

 

[UCFWayne]

Why not leave it to the doctors? They take an oath.

37 weeks is leaving it to the doctors, its called full term. i would think a guy that has two kids of his own would understand that definition. any abortion after that is pure murder. you are a sick person if you advocate for that.

 

[Crazyhole]

Why not leave it to the doctors? They take an oath.

Because of people like gosnell and sanger.

 

[fried-chicken]

babies can be delivered via c-section at the 3rd trimester if there is a medical reason for the mother to get the baby out of her. at 37 weeks the baby is full term. why not make that the deadline instead of until you can see a head coming out?

i get that because your wife had cancer and it was a tough call between her or your baby but that doesnt change certain facts. im a big on pro-choice but stop pretending that aborting a baby well into the 3rd trimester isnt murder. for someone who likes to claim moral superiority, id think youd understand that.

Medically required abortions in the 3rd trimester should never be taken lightly because it is a serious ethical issue no doubt. You have 2 human lives at that point. Where you prioritize when one is putting the other at risk is the issue and there is no solution to that.

To me the 37 weeks you bring up is no different than 30 weeks. My son was born at 30 weeks and was healthy and strong. It really comes down to the thousands and thousands of variable issues that can take place in a pregnancy. You can't legislate that complex of a situation broadly. Doctors need to uphold their oaths and families need the flexibility to make decisions on their situation.

My problem is that you are taking the decision away from families in extreme circumstances. Elective abortions are a whole seperate issue.

 

[fried-chicken]

Because of people like gosnell and sanger.

I get it. But you can't strip rights away from people because a few abuse those rights...

 

[UCFWayne]

Medically required abortions in the 3rd trimester should never be taken lightly because it is a serious ethical issue no doubt. You have 2 human lives at that point. Where you prioritize when one is putting the other at risk is the issue and there is no solution to that.

To me the 37 weeks you bring up is no different than 30 weeks. My son was born at 30 weeks and was healthy and strong. It really comes down to the thousands and thousands of variable issues that can take place in a pregnancy. You can't legislate that complex of a situation broadly. Doctors need to uphold their oaths and families need the flexibility to make decisions on their situation.

My problem is that you are taking the decision away from families in extreme circumstances. Elective abortions are a whole seperate issue.

im glad it workd out for your family.

that said, you should take your own advice from earlier. leave it to the doctors. you clearly dont know what the term "full term" means. before making another stupid comment, you should actually look it up.

im not a red hat prolifer on this issue, im very much prochoice. again, anything after 37 weeks is murder. there is a fully developed human in the womp at that point. the only thing that happens in the following weeks is weight gain. an argument can be made before that because of medical technology today, but otherwise the science has literally be settled.

you dont know what you are talking about. educate yourself.

 

[UCFBS]

No, its nothing like guns. There are other uses for guns besides killing people. There is only one use for abortion, to kill people. Its a false narrative that you are pushing when trying to equate the 2 in an attempt to seek the higher ground.

Next he's going to start insisting that Late Term Abortion is just like a corporate tax rate debate.
Muh Libertarians!!!!!!

i believe a baby is fully developed at 35 weeks and only gains more weight until berth around 40 weeks. so i think 35 weeks you could draw the line.
however we all know medical technology has advanced so far and can help a baby outside the mother much earlier than that. i think that changes peoples view on this.
I really dont know the current laws. where do we currently draw the line? for me i draw the line at the 3rd trimester.

Why stop there? Why not go to brain waves or heart beat? Why not bring it down from 35 weeks to 17 weeks to even just 17 days.

^ This is exactly why the arguments Conservatives make on abortion is exactly like arguments Progressives make on guns.

You want the state to outlaw all abortions. So you put restrictions here, restrictions there ... "Oh, they could survive on their own. Oh, they could still grow in an incubator. Oh, they could survive in another. Oh, they have brain waves or heartbeat!" That "common sense argument against murder!"

Admit it ... you want all abortions outlawed. So you're not going to "be happy" until you get it. And every time you say, "Oh, we just need to ban late term abortions. That's all I want," only to come back with more limitations.

This is a 100% Civics Argument, not a debate over what constitutes "murder." Why? Because a supermajority of Americans are Pro-Choice, so you keep using these "common sense" arguments to push more and more "limitations." That's how you advocate circumventing the US Constitution and Civil Rights, instead of getting a Constitutional Amendment passed that overturns Roe v. Wade.

It's that simple! You literally do not respect Constitutional reality, and are hypocrites.

You are so programmed by right-wing media to believe it's different than guns, when 100% Constitutional-wise, it's 100% exact like the Democratic gun outlaw strategy.

Again, here's the simple question ... the litmus test, and I ask Progressives the same about guns ...

"Are you ever going to be satisfied until the right of a woman to choose for her body is taken away?"

Yes or no. It's that simple. Because if you won't be satisfied with late term abortion bans, like most of you guys were much were not before these new, state bills, it doesn't matter. You disrespect Constitutional reality.

I'm objective. I worship the Constitution and the realities of the supermajority of the people, because that's what we all agreed to. You guy say, "I believe ..." and other junk.

Although at least you're not screaming "science" and "facts" like the Progressives on things they don't understand, and blindly believe the US media and politicians on. I'll give you that.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Medically required abortions aren't elective for ****s sake.

I like how you either read what I write and instantly ignore it or choose to respond to something you clearly didn't read.

ffs

 

[fried-chicken]

im glad it workd out for your family.

that said, you should take your own advice from earlier. leave it to the doctors. you clearly dont know what the term "full term" means. before making another stupid comment, you should actually look it up.

im not a red hat prolifer on this issue, im very much prochoice. again, anything after 37 weeks is murder. there is a fully developed human in the womp at that point. the only thing that happens in the following weeks is weight gain. an argument can be made before that because of medical technology today, but otherwise the science has literally be settled.

you dont know what you are talking about. educate yourself.

I get it. I agree. If there is a safe way to remove a baby from a woman's body that should always be the first choice and doctors will 99.9% of the time go that route. Keep in mind at this time frame an elective abortion is illegal. So a doctor would need to have a medical reason to terminate pregnancy and then would have an ethical obligation to do it in a way that was safest for the mother.

I don't want to legislate that doctors decision away and effectively take it away from them

 

[Crazyhole]

I get it. But you can't strip rights away from people because a few abuse those rights...

Quite the dichotomy there. What about the right of the child to life?

 

[fried-chicken]

I like how you either read what I write and instantly ignore it or choose to respond to something you clearly didn't read.

ffs

No, your dumb ass claim of "people will just lie about needing an abortion" isn't worth responding to. Doctors have to uphold an ethical standard and you cannot get them to do shit like you're suggesting easily.

 

[fried-chicken]

Quite the dichotomy there. What about the right of the child to life?

That's the issue isn't it? Value the mother or the baby. You have to choose to prioritize one or another. But we don't need Congress to make that decision for us. We need the families to make that decision.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Quite the dichotomy there. What about the right of the child to life?

That's the sick thing here. The real intention of these bills, which DO allow for elective late term abortions, is that it essentially totally destroys any remaining concern for the life of that baby. These people at least used to pay lip service to that childs' worth when they claimed to oppose late term abortions.

Now they're all in. To fully support elective abortions up to birth, it requires you to have not a single regard for the life of that child.

We've come along way from liberals yelling things like "viability!" and "loose collection of cells!"

 

[UCFWayne]

I get it. I agree. If there is a safe way to remove a baby from a woman's body that should always be the first choice and doctors will 99.9% of the time go that route. Keep in mind at this time frame an elective abortion is illegal. So a doctor would need to have a medical reason to terminate pregnancy and then would have an ethical obligation to do it in a way that was safest for the mother.

I don't want to legislate that doctors decision away and effectively take it away from them

if you are advocating for elective abortion after 37 weeks you are literally advocating for murder. stop pretending otherwise. you are a sick person and there is something very wrong with you.

 

[UCFKnight85]

That's the issue isn't it? Value the mother or the baby. You have to choose to prioritize one or another. But we don't need Congress to make that decision for us. We need the families to make that decision.

I guess it's a good thing that the actual doctors have already said that in the 3rd trimester, the procedure to potentially save a mother is by delivering the baby, huh?

Your attempts to lie your way out of this aren't going to work.

 

[UCFWayne]

Quite the dichotomy there. What about the right of the child to life?

also funny how he doesnt apply that exact same logic to other things. like the guns he put in his response. lol

 

[UCFKnight85]

I will again post this testimony from this actual doctor that totally refutes all of the BS that FC is trying to assert here.

In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke.

This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well.

This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero

 

[fried-chicken]

if you are advocating for elective abortion after 37 weeks you are literally advocating for murder. stop pretending otherwise. you are a sick person and there is something very wrong with you.

I'm not I have no idea how you got there.

 

[fried-chicken]

also funny how he doesnt apply that exact same logic to other things. like the guns he put in his response. lol

I put the guns there on purpose bub. Keep up.

 

[UCFWayne]

I'm not I have no idea how you got there.

you have said you are in support of elective abortion up until seconds from birth. full term is 37 weeks, well short of the 40-42 weeks that is typical.

stop pretending you arent advocating for murder after 37 weeks.

 

[fried-chicken]

My stance on abortion is easy to understand

1-20 Elective
20-40 Medically necessary with doctors discretion on options based on individual cases.

What I don't want.
Elective abortions past the halfway point
Fraud
Bad ethics
Disregard for baby
Disregard for mother
Congress making difficult personal and complex decisionsfor families.

 

[fried-chicken]

you have said you are in support of elective abortion up until seconds from birth.

Cite this

 

[Crazyhole]

I will again post this testimony from this actual doctor that totally refutes all of the BS that FC is trying to assert here.

In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke.

This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well.

This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero

So basically what he is saying is that the only real rationale for late term abortion is convenience, not the safety of the mother

 

[fried-chicken]

I guess it's a good thing that the actual doctors have already said that in the 3rd trimester, the procedure to potentially save a mother is by delivering the baby, huh?

Your attempts to lie your way out of this aren't going to work.

If that's what the doctors say then that's what the doctors should do and will do. We don't need to legislate away the options for the rare case that may not fit into your box.

 

[fried-chicken]

So basically what he is saying is that the only real rationale for late term abortion is convenience, not the safety of the mother

Cite

 

[Crazyhole]

If that's what the doctors say then that's what the doctors should do and will do. We don't need to legislate away the options for the rare case that may not fit into your box.

When exactly was a bill introduced to ban abortion in the situation of a mothers health being at risk?

 

[Crazyhole]

Cite

Did you not read 85s post? The doctor said he never had to kill a baby to save the life of the mother

 

[fried-chicken]

When exactly was a bill introduced to ban abortion in the situation of a mothers health being at risk?

85's rage cum is still dripping down his screen about this bill that allows medically necessary abortions through full term.

 

[UCFWayne]

Cite this

My stance on abortion is easy to understand

1-20 Elective
20-40 Medically necessary with doctors discretion on options based on individual cases.

again, after 37 weeks its a full blown human. anything after that, you are advocating for murder.

you truly are human garbage.

 

[fried-chicken]

Did you not read 85s post? The doctor said he never had to kill a baby to save the life of the mother

If I can be assured that is is impossible and there will never ever be a situation that could ever occur in any circumstance of pregnancy that an abortion might be medically required after 20 weeks then I'm fine with that being law. Until I get a 100% I am in favor or families having options should disaster hit them.

 

[fried-chicken]

again, after 37 weeks its a full blown human. anything after that, you are advocating for murder.

you truly are human garbage.

Yeah so you're a dumbass I guess because you said I was for elective 37 week abortions then you quoted me saying I'm for elective abortions to 20 weeks and bolded me saying 21-40 for medical only. I don't know at this point if you understand the words we are using in this conversation so take a few min and Google some vocab so you can participate in this thread without outing yourself as a blithering tit.

 

[UCFBS]

I like how you either read what I write and instantly ignore it or choose to respond to something you clearly didn't read.
ffs

Quite the dichotomy there. What about the right of the child to life?

I'm talking about the Constitution of the United States.
I'm talking about the fact that a supermajority of Americans are Pro-Choice, Pro-2nd Amendment.

You guys keep going ... "But ... but ... but ... it's murder!"

So it does not matter if it's 35 weeks ... 17 weeks ... or 17 days. You're going to be against it.
This is what it is all about ... yes, I'm ignoring your arguments, because you're ignoring mine!

Because, and it's this simple ...

You guys canNOT get enough Americans to agree to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, so you're going to argue for constant, incremental 'limitations' until it's basically impossible for a woman to get an abortion.
That is trying, purposefully, to circumvent the US Constitution, instead of modifying it.

And until you admit that, and how you want to bypass Civics and respect for Constitutional Process, you're hypocrites for arguing for the 2nd Amendment.
Just like Progressives are for Roe v. Wade, but limiting legal ownership to the point everyone with a gun is a felon ... whether by action or inaction.

That's why both of your sets of arguments will result in all rights being taken away.
Start respecting the US Constitution and how it must be modified, not circumvented.


And for the last time ...

I personally do think killing an unborn child is murder!
But until a supermajority of Americans agree it should be illegal, this is Constitutional reality.


Stop shredding the Constitution with this "incremental limitations" strategy.
This is why I hate Conservatives almost as much as Progressives.

If Conservatives start throwing reporters in jail, then they will equal Progressives.
Until then, Democrats have a long history of doing that far more ... and not just in recent times either.

 

[Crazyhole]

If I can be assured that is is impossible and there will never ever be a situation that could ever occur in any circumstance of pregnancy that an abortion might be medically required after 20 weeks then I'm fine with that being law. Until I get a 100% I am in favor or families having options should disaster hit them.

Can you give an example of when a pregnant woman in the 3rd trimester wouldn't survive without an abortion?

 

[fried-chicken]

Can you give an example of when a pregnant woman in the 3rd trimester wouldn't survive without an abortion?

There are thousands and thousands of complications that can happen in a pregnancy. Body types, weight, height, family history, ever disease, baby location and hundreds of others can happen individually or in conjunction with any of the other thousand circumstances.

Can you assure me that it will never happen and that a woman will never be forced to surrender her life because she doesn't have access to an abortion in the 3rd trimester?

 

[UCFWayne]

Yeah so you're a dumbass I guess because you said I was for elective 37 week abortions then you quoted me saying I'm for elective abortions to 20 weeks and bolded me saying 21-40 for medical only. I don't know at this point if you understand the words we are using in this conversation so take a few min and Google some vocab so you can participate in this thread without outing yourself as a blithering tit.

why not change your stance from 40 weeks to 37 knowing that is full term? the answer, you are ok with murder.