New York Legalizes Human Baby Sacrifices

New York Legalizes Human Baby Sacrifices

  • Discussion
  • The party of Secular Derangement is the one you constantly support at the WC.

    NY and Cal are at the "leading edge" of Destructive Derangement.

    And you just had the Femen for Fetucide march in DC glorifying it and demanding more.

    So why the shock?

    This post was edited by MAK90 9 months ago

  • MAK90 said... (original post)

    The party of Secular Derangement is the one you constantly support at the WC.

    NY and Cal are at the "leading edge" of Destructive Derangement.

    And you just had the Femen for Fetucide march in DC glorifying it and demanding more.

    So why the shock?

    Tell me Carmac... what party do I support on the WC?

  • Uh, NR mischaracterized the law.

    "In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth."

    Unless women in New York are in some way different from women in the rest of the world, 24 weeks is not "up to the point of birth".

    Why would anyone be surprised NR would do such a thing?

    Having said that, I support banning abortion after the first 12-16 weeks(that's 3-4 months for the NR impaired).

  • Let's read what the legislation says:
    “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”
    The legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health

    So what it does is allow abortion up to 24 weeks (the fetus is not viable at that time), in the absence of fetal viability at any point (the fetus is non viable, ie-stillborn, has no brain, etc) or at any point in the pregnancy to protect the mother's life or health. I realize this last one is a value judgement but it puts a value on the mother's life > the unborn fetus at any point in the pregnancy. Suppose the mother has eclampsia and is going to die if the fetus is not immediately removed from her uterus. Now if one woman wishes to die (the fetus will likely not survive anyway in that event) rather than terminate the pregnancy then she can do so but society does not have the right to condemn another woman with a different opinion on the matter to die in favor of a fetus.

    Men need to stay out of abortion debate. This is something women should decide.

  • OleBamaDude said... (original post)

    Tell me Carmac... what party do I support on the WC?

    Well let's say it this way. All your occasional drives by's are pot shots in some way at the people in the US who oppose the Deranged Left.

    It's the actions versus words thing.

  • BoDontKnow said... (original post)

    Let's read what the legislation says:

    “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

    The legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health

    So what it does is allow abortion up to 24 weeks (the fetus is not viable at that time), in the absence of fetal viability at any point (the fetus is non viable, ie-stillborn, has no brain, etc) or at any point in the pregnancy to protect the mother's life or health. I realize this last one is a value judgement but it puts a value on the mother's life > the unborn fetus at any point in the pregnancy. Suppose the mother has eclampsia and is going to die if the fetus is not immediately removed from her uterus. Now if one woman wishes to die (the fetus will likely not survive anyway in that event) rather than terminate the pregnancy then she can do so but society does not have the right to condemn another woman with a different opinion on the matter to die in favor of a fetus.

    Men need to stay out of abortion debate. This is something women should decide.

    Not if the fetus is half them or theirs. And not if they are opposed to homicide.

  • toojeep said... (original post)

    Uh, NR mischaracterized the law.

    "In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth."

    Unless women in New York are in some way different from women in the rest of the world, 24 weeks is not "up to the point of birth".

    Why would anyone be surprised NR would do such a thing?

    Having said that, I support banning abortion after the first 12-16 weeks(that's 3-4 months for the NR impaired).

    They have expanded it to late term beyond 24 wks if it is an issue of the woman's "health". Former wording was if the life of the mother was in danger. The woman's health isn't just physical.. it includes mental and emotional... so all a woman has to do is claim her emotional health will be damaged if she gives birth and then she would be a candidate to received an abortion late in term of a viable baby.

  • BoDontKnow said... (original post)

    Let's read what the legislation says:
    Men need to stay out of abortion debate. This is something women should decide.

    So men can't be advocates for innocent children who have no voice of their own? The most passionate advocates I know for the safety of the unborn children are women... you think they should shut up too?

  • MAK90 said... (original post)

    Not if the fetus is half them or theirs. And not if they are opposed to homicide.
    __________________________________

    The Nancies don't care. They were feminized years ago. Only a real man of honor believes killing a defenseless unborn child on a whim is murder.

    This post was edited by parfaitsang 9 months ago

  • OleBamaDude said... (original post)

    They have expanded it to late term beyond 24 wks if it is an issue of the woman's "health". Former wording was if the life of the mother was in danger. The woman's health isn't just physical.. it includes mental and emotional... so all a woman has to do is claim her emotional health will be damaged if she gives birth and then she would be a candidate to received an abortion late in term of a viable baby.

    Well, I guess if a live born child(aka anyone that's been born)can kill another live born human being "in self defense" and walk away without consequence by just saying the magic 5 words(I feared for my life)like in "Stand your ground" Bama or Florida, why shouldn't a woman get an abortion by saying "I feared for my health"?

    I mean if fear is a reasonable justification for killing unarmed citizens. And if fear is reasonable justification for building a wall. And if fear is a reasonable justification for allowing 80 year old grandmothers to be "patted down" in airports. And if fear is a reasonable justification for spending trillions of dollars for weapons and invading sovereign countries. Then why so squeamish about abortion?

  • toojeep said... (original post)

    Well, I guess if a live born child(aka anyone that's been born)can kill another live born human being "in self defense" and walk away without consequence by just saying the magic 5 words(I feared for my life)like in "Stand your ground" Bama or Florida, why shouldn't a woman get an abortion by saying "I feared for my health"?

    I mean if fear is a reasonable justification for killing unarmed citizens. And if fear is reasonable justification for building a wall. And if fear is a reasonable justification for allowing 80 year old grandmothers to be "patted down" in airports. And if fear is a reasonable justification for spending trillions of dollars for weapons and invading sovereign countries. Then why so squeamish about abortion?
    __________________________________

    That's a lot of "IFs."

    I wonder "IF" the fetus being ripped apart in the womb is concerned with all those other "IFs."

    This post was edited by parfaitsang 9 months ago

  • parfaitsang said... (original post)

    I doubt it. And neither are the ones whose body is being ripped apart by bombs and bullets.

    The point is we justify all sorts of violence for all sorts of reasons, most of which involve fear. More specifically, fear of death. So if a woman fears for her life or future health and wants an abortion, what's the big deal?

  • toojeep said... (original post)

    I doubt it. And neither are the ones whose body is being ripped apart by bombs and bullets.

    The point is we justify all sorts of violence for all sorts of reasons, most of which involve fear. More specifically, fear of death. So if a woman fears for her life or future health and wants an abortion, what's the big deal?
    _______________________________

    Now you're adjusting your stance. Abortions due to medical and rape are beside the point and much more widely accepted.

    All the rest is apples and oranges. Once again.....you can't justify allowing the murder of an unborn child by comparing it to other issues where "fear" is involved. Each one of the issues you're citing are separate and as such should be dealt with by society in different ways. Just the same as abortions on a whim are different than those due to rape and medical reasons.

    This post was edited by parfaitsang 9 months ago

  • The law states that a health care professional must determine that continuing the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother after 24 weeks so it is not just the woman deciding. And I would respect the opinions of opponents of abortion more if they made no exception for rape or incest. Aren't those cases also about fetuses being "ripped apart in the womb"? Lastly, no, men don't have an equal say in the matter. The fetus develops inside the body of the woman for 9 months as an essential parasite. It drains her of nutrients and in some cases puts her life/health at risk. There are times/places in human history where the risk of maternal death in pregnancy/delivery was 1/4. There are spots today in the world where it is greater than 1/100. And we aren't even talking about having to raise a child, usually without a father, frequently in poverty, etc. This is a decision for women to make. Men and the rest of society need to stay out of it.

  • BoDontKnow said... (original post)

    The law states that a health care professional must determine that continuing the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother after 24 weeks so it is not just the woman deciding. And I would respect the opinions of opponents of abortion more if they made no exception for rape or incest. Aren't those cases also about fetuses being "ripped apart in the womb"? Lastly, no, men don't have an equal say in the matter. The fetus develops inside the body of the woman for 9 months as an essential parasite. It drains her of nutrients and in some cases puts her life/health at risk. There are times/places in human history where the risk of maternal death in pregnancy/delivery was 1/4. There are spots today in the world where it is greater than 1/100. And we aren't even talking about having to raise a child, usually without a father, frequently in poverty, etc. This is a decision for women to make. Men and the rest of society need to stay out of it.
    __________________________________
    Hell people like you are confused as to which bathroom to use in Target and you want to lecture others about their morals and beliefs.

    You say a baby is a "parasite"..okay..you're officially a real dip $#!+.

    This post was edited by parfaitsang 9 months ago

  • By the technical definition you are correct. A parasite is "an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. The "another species" part is the key. Although you should give me credit for calling it an "essential parasite". I try to be precise.

  • BoDontKnow said... (original post)

    By the technical definition you are correct. A parasite is "an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. The "another species" part is the key. Although you should give me credit for calling it an "essential parasite". I try to be precise.
    __________________________________

    Duly noted....

    However, when describing a "parasite" you just gave the very definition of EVERY illegal immigrant in this country. As in we Americans are the "host."

  • parfaitsang said... (original post)

    Yet we are all homo sapiens.

  • BoDontKnow said... (original post)

    Yet we are all homo sapiens. We're just "gender confused."

  • parfaitsang said... (original post)

    So abortion is not murder under specific circumstances? Circumstances you approve of and accept? But abortion under other circumstances is murder, because you don't approve or accept those circumstances as justified. Yet in the end, the result is the same - a dead fetus.

    So if a woman(like one I know of)whose husband was mentally, emotionally abusive, so much so she divorced him, but then found out she was pregnant by him, she must carry the unborn to term and give birth? Even though doing so means she must allow the abusive a&&hole to remain in her life and her child's life and even have certain "rights" and help raise the child, possibly to be an abusive a&&hole just like him? Easy for you to say.

    Or how about another woman I once knew who was drug and alcohol addicted, who was told there was a good chance her unborn child would be born an addict and possibly deformed so opted to have an abortion, then went into rehab and cleaned herself up and eventually got married to a good guy and had two kids? You think it was unacceptable of her to have that abortion? She should have had the child and tried to raise it in her condition? How do you think that would have turned out?

    Or how about another woman who got pregnant despite being on birth control? A woman who was married and already had 4 kids but didn't want a 5th because they were barely making it by financially and a 5th kid may have pushed them into bankruptcy?
    A woman who told me there wasn't a day that went by she didn't cry over having to do that but felt she had no other choice.

    Again, easy for you to judge, you're not them.

  • The "moral logic" of the Left

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/42538/walsh-you-cant-give-lethal-injection-criminals-new-matt-walsh

    You Can't Give A Lethal Injection To Criminals In New York But You Can Give It To Infants

  • toojeep said... (original post)

    So abortion is not murder under specific circumstances? Circumstances you approve of and accept? But abortion under other circumstances is murder, because you don't approve or accept those circumstances as justified. Yet in the end, the result is the same - a dead fetus.

    So if a woman(like one I know of)whose husband was mentally, emotionally abusive, so much so she divorced him, but then found out she was pregnant by him, she must carry the unborn to term and give birth? Even though doing so means she must allow the abusive a&&hole to remain in her life and her child's life and even have certain "rights" and help raise the child, possibly to be an abusive a&&hole just like him? Easy for you to say.

    Or how about another woman I once knew who was drug and alcohol addicted, who was told there was a good chance her unborn child would be born an addict and possibly deformed so opted to have an abortion, then went into rehab and cleaned herself up and eventually got married to a good guy and had two kids? You think it was unacceptable of her to have that abortion? She should have had the child and tried to raise it in her condition? How do you think that would have turned out?

    Or how about another woman who got pregnant despite being on birth control? A woman who was married and already had 4 kids but didn't want a 5th because they were barely making it by financially and a 5th kid may have pushed them into bankruptcy?

    A woman who told me there wasn't a day that went by she didn't cry over having to do that but felt she had no other choice.

    Again, easy for you to judge, you're not them.
    __________________________________

    I never said I advocated abortion at all. I said that murder and rape issues are viewed differently by many than just having an abortion on a whim. And I could care less about your sob stories. If they don't want kids use birth control. It is the 21st century and O Blah Blah Care gives it away for free at ALL taxpayers expense.

  • parfaitsang said... (original post)

    I just gave you an example of a woman, a married woman, who used birth control and got pregnant anyway. And LOL at "having an abortion on a whim". Sure, some women get pregnant just for the "joy" of having an abortion or just all of sudden one day say to themselves, "You know, I think I'll go have an abortion."

    That's the problem with a lot of anti-abortion people, they have no idea what they're talking about. They think whatever abortion horror story they're told or read about is standard operating procedure or commonplace when in fact, it's the exception, not the rule.

    At least your were honest for a change about one thing - you don't give a damn about a woman or what circumstances she may find herself in. It's just a "sob story". You're the alpha male and therefore, whatever you think goes.

  • toojeep said... (original post)

    I just gave you an example of a woman, a married woman, who used birth control and got pregnant anyway. And LOL at "having an abortion on a whim". Sure, some women get pregnant just for the "joy" of having an abortion or just all of sudden one day say to themselves, "You know, I think I'll go have an abortion."

    That's the problem with a lot of anti-abortion people, they have no idea what they're talking about. They think whatever abortion horror story they're told or read about is standard operating procedure or commonplace when in fact, it's the exception, not the rule.

    At least your were honest for a change about one thing - you don't give a damn about a woman or what circumstances she may find herself in. It's just a "sob story". You're the alpha male and therefore, whatever you think goes.

    He is literally stupid. Indeed his response of "just use birth control" to an example of a woman who got pregnant despite using birth control seems conclusive in that regard. As I have said, this is something that should be decided by women, not men.

  • toojeep said... (original post)

    I just gave you an example of a woman, a married woman, who used birth control and got pregnant anyway. And LOL at "having an abortion on a whim". Sure, some women get pregnant just for the "joy" of having an abortion or just all of sudden one day say to themselves, "You know, I think I'll go have an abortion."

    That's the problem with a lot of anti-abortion people, they have no idea what they're talking about. They think whatever abortion horror story they're told or read about is standard operating procedure or commonplace when in fact, it's the exception, not the rule.

    At least your were honest for a change about one thing - you don't give a damn about a woman or what circumstances she may find herself in. It's just a "sob story". You're the alpha male and therefore, whatever you think goes.
    __________________________________
    In your example why would someone that wanted "no" more kids go on birth control? If she didn't want kids why didnt she have her tubes tied? Why didn't her husband have a vasectomy? Which is also covered by any insurance as well as O Blah Blah Care. I know a multitude of men and women who did just that. If the birth control pill is used properly the chance of getting pregnant is almost non-existence. I know that to be a fact.

    There are millions of sob stories that resulted in abortions just like the ones you described. Every abortion was a sob story just like the way you presented it.

    Right.......

    Since you can't rationalize and you already back tracked and tried to put words in my mouth. It's time for you to take a timeout.

    You've sipped WAY too much kool-aid today.