Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daffodil

Executing babies!?!

Recommended Posts

I've been on the fence on abortion for the most part because it is such a nuanced issue, but this is terrifying!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extremists on the left are becoming more and more bizarre with each passing day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Investigate it yourself. Read the actual bill. Remember, we;re ramping up another election cycle and there is lots of false and inflammatory information about the "enemy" headed our way from both sides. For example:  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortion-poison/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the video of that man saying they would "make the infant comfortable" before deciding its fate was fake news?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats and liberals really keep getting lower and lower. This is just downright sick murder. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, florduh said:

Investigate it yourself. Read the actual bill. Remember, we;re ramping up another election cycle and there is lots of false and inflammatory information about the "enemy" headed our way from both sides. For example:  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortion-poison/

 

 

Goes to show yet again that Snopes is a partisan site and will distract from the primary issue when it serves their political interests.

 

The main issue here isn't some random alleged method of abortion. Yet that's all what Snopes has fact-checked. Just like they fact-checked something minor about the Covington Catholic while the obviously more critical facts (like which party initiated the iconic confrontation between the smirking MAGA hat boy and the Native American drummer) was never something Snopes was interested in setting straight.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Website A is secretly partisan, it's a party you oppose, therefore the information is dubious.

Website B is openly partisan, it's a party you align with, therefore the information is trustworthy.

 

Maybe all information sites ought to be considered untrustworthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, midniterider said:

Website A is secretly partisan, it's a party you oppose, therefore the information is dubious.

Website B is openly partisan, it's a party you align with, therefore the information is trustworthy.

 

Maybe all information sites ought to be considered untrustworthy. 

Where did you get this information?  😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Where did you get this information?  😎

 

Or better:

 

Website A says Website B is partisan and untrustworthy. However, Website A is trustworthy because Website A says so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, midniterider said:

 

Or better:

 

Website A says Website B is partisan and untrustworthy. However, Website A is trustworthy because Website A says so.

Is Website A the bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Is Website A the bible?

 

Might as well be in either case to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Here's a quick take from the BBC.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 7:06 PM, florduh said:

 

Why would anyone need a website to draw a conclusion on what was clearly said in the video? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If guns abortions are outlawed only outlaws will have guns abortions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LifeCycle said:

Why would anyone need a website to draw a conclusion on what was clearly said in the video? 

 

I'm glad Tim from Timcast said "It's NAZI level shit." Sweet. His video was an opinion piece with a side order of appeal to emotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What fills me up with absolute fury here is that, most of the time, these same people are instructing us to stand up to anyone who is oppressing the weak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I'm glad Tim from Timcast said "It's NAZI level shit." Sweet. His video was an opinion piece with a side order of appeal to emotion.

Godwins law - the longer a discussion goes the more likely Nazis are mentioned. Trumps are NAZIS, Democrats are Nazis... everyone is a Nazi... if you disagree and wish to label them with something horrific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important thing to remember before knotting up your britches - it's another election season! That means the bullshit is flying at maximum volume. Argue with facts rather than emotions, it's a lot more enlightening and productive.  https://wokesloth.com/viral-thread-obliterates-conservative-lies-late-term-abortions/lindseyweedston/?fbclid=IwAR2MGqIEUxpP5uMfqiZ9Ee8R6Ic2o8fmQ93-zdnteJE5k2Scd8zKf99y-us

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

What whinybots keep forgetting is that in politics, which this is, perception is reality.  And the perception, whether it would be true or not, is that it is infanticide.  Type that it isn't all you want, unless you can spin it on a mass scale, you gonna lose! ;) 

Yes, the truth often loses to lies. Now more than ever, it seems. I guess "whinybots" are those who value substance over spin and truth over lies. I accept your childish insult with honor. Honor - look it up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's give him the benefit of the doubt.  It does sound as if he was referring to a situation where the infant is in such bad shape that it is likely to die within a short period of time anyway.  So what is there to "discuss"?  I would presume the natural response would be to either A) perform some extreme life-sustaining procedures which would likely be useless but would give the parents the feeling that at least they tried or  B)let it die naturally.  If that is what he was getting at, he should have made that a bit clearer.  I'm not sure that's what he meant, though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Daffodil said:

Ok, let's give him the benefit of the doubt.  It does sound as if he was referring to a situation where the infant is in such bad shape that it is likely to die within a short period of time anyway.  So what is there to "discuss"?  I would presume the natural response would be to either A) perform some extreme life-sustaining procedures which would likely be useless but would give the parents the feeling that at least they tried or  B)let it die naturally.  If that is what he was getting at, he should have made that a bit clearer.  I'm not sure that's what he meant, though.  

 

I'm not sure such benefit of doubt is relevant now.

 

They're trying to downplay the proposed legislation when it's already been admitted that, in some cases, the 'abortion' would actually be performed after birth. That's something that really needs to be openly on the table. Also, they admitted one legitimate reason for such 'abortions' is that the baby is a threat to the mother's mental health. Can't forgive trying to brush that under the carpet either.

 

If the representatives I voted for used such shady methods, I'd be fucking furious. I mean it'd reflect badly upon me as well if I'd ever publicly advocated for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image below shows the proposed changes to the law

Repeal-Act.png

 source of the image above

 

I googled the significance for the change of 'must' to 'shall' in the last clause (3.) and it seems that in legalese, 'shall' means 'may'.

 

Many mainstream news articles seem to contest the use of the word "infanticide", calling it fake news, but that clause makes me wonder if they can say that only because the delivered baby in this case would not be classified as an infant but as 'product of such abortion' as per clause 3. Therefore, euthanizing the baby would not be infanticide, but, in legal fact, abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

Defense of murder....

 

So sad. 

 

:(

 

Trolling. So sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ToHellWithMe said:

The image below shows the proposed changes to the law

Repeal-Act.png

 source of the image above

 

I googled the significance for the change of 'must' to 'shall' in the last clause (3.) and it seems that in legalese, 'shall' means 'may'.

 

Many mainstream news articles seem to contest the use of the word "infanticide", calling it fake news, but that clause makes me wonder if they can say that only because the delivered baby in this case would not be classified as an infant but as 'product of such abortion' as per clause 3. Therefore, euthanizing the baby would not be infanticide, but, in legal fact, abortion.

 

Both of my kids were adopted from birth.  In both cases we met the birth moms about a month before they delivered.  In one case, the BM has seen her BC since and it is a positive beneficial relationship for both.  In the other, because of the circumstances surrounding the conception (not rape or incest, just complicated), she has not seen her BC since we took him home.  He does, however, have a relationship with his birth father.  The birth mother CAN have a relationship with her BC if she wants to but does not HAVE to have one.  I can think of no reason under the sun why any woman would “need” to have a pregnancy terminated at the very end!  I know there are rare occurrences when a woman does not know she is pregnant until she goes into labor, but again, she doesn’t have to keep the baby, so WHY!?!?!?!!  What is really going on here?  Are these people secretly looking for a way to control population?  I just don’t get it.  Newborns are the most sought after children for adoption. We were told it could take up to two years before we would get called, and we put no limitations on sex or race.  We were lucky and only waited one year each time.  

 

I really have no issue with abortion when done in the first trimester, but after that, I just can’t fathom it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, florduh said:

The most important thing to remember before knotting up your britches - it's another election season! That means the bullshit is flying at maximum volume. Argue with facts rather than emotions, it's a lot more enlightening and productive.  https://wokesloth.com/viral-thread-obliterates-conservative-lies-late-term-abortions/lindseyweedston/?fbclid=IwAR2MGqIEUxpP5uMfqiZ9Ee8R6Ic2o8fmQ93-zdnteJE5k2Scd8zKf99y-us

 

 

Ok, this does clarify things a bit and as I am ok with first trimester abortion, it makes sense that if a woman is not allowed to do it early, she’s left with doing it later, but here’s the thing.  There are plenty of laws that people don’t like, but they have to obey them because they are laws.  Yes this is extra hardship on the woman, but she can still give up the baby to loving parents at the end and never see that baby again if she doesn't want to.  It would have been far far easier on both of my kids’ BCs if they had chosen to abort than go on with the pregnancy.  And they both could have gotten abortions if they wanted to.  

 

And as to infants who are so deformed as to die during or shortly after birth, how is killing them in the womb a better option? The fetus doesn’t magically disappear - the woman still has to deliver the corpse, so what is the benefit?

 

Rather than introduce a law that is abhorrent no matter how you look at it, how about doubling down on making sure abortion in the first trimester stays available.  There will always be rare occurrences, but those should be dealt with exactly as they are - rare occurrences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.