Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[Gingerbeardman]

The ever despicable democrats bringing New York's abortion laws in sync with the Supreme Court's judgement in Roe vs Wade (1973) and the Supreme Courts judgement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Bastards. Apparently providing 3 conditions under which abortions can be performed is the same as trying to remove all abortion controls.

That's not all they did, stop being disingenuous.

 

[C4Cat]

That's not all they did, stop being disingenuous.

What else did they do?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

What else did they do?

Made it legally permissable to murder unborn children so long as they're still in the womb. But of course, so long as you don't call it a "person", it doesn't deserve consideration, amirite?

 

[Cray]

Made it legally permissable to murder unborn children so long as they're still in the womb. But of course, so long as you don't call it a "person", it doesn't deserve consideration, amirite?

Do you support any type of abortion at all?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Do you support any type of abortion at all?

I think it should be legal in cases of rape or where there is an atypical life threatening risk to the mother's life with respect to the pregnancy. I suppose another fair exception could be a birth defect that would obviously prevent the foetus from ever developing into a functioning adult, but I'm undecided on that front. However, I think in the cases of rape, the mother should be encouraged to keep it, perhaps with some sort of state subsidy attached, as it is innocent life after all.

But generally I think value systems that allow one to arbitrarily decide what gets to be considered a person should be rejected with contempt.

 

[C4Cat]

Made it legally permissable to murder unborn children so long as they're still in the womb. But of course, so long as you don't call it a "person", it doesn't deserve consideration, amirite?

As I said, they are bringing New York's abortion laws in sync with the Supreme Court's judgement in Roe vs Wade (1973) and the Supreme Courts judgement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). They specify 3 conditions under which abortion can occur (taken from the Supreme court judgments):
"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy(1), or there is an absence of fetal viability(2), or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health(3)"

 

[Gingerbeardman]

As I said, they are bringing New York's abortion laws in sync with the Supreme Court's judgement in Roe vs Wade (1973) and the Supreme Courts judgement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). They specify 3 conditions under which abortion can occur (taken from the Supreme court judgments):
"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy(1), or there is an absence of fetal viability(2), or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health(3)"

Yeah, no, you're wrong about what the law changes permit.

 

[C4Cat]

Yeah, no, you're wrong about what the law changes permit.

What do you mean? That quote was taken directly from the bill

 

[Gingerbeardman]

What do you mean? That quote was taken directly from the bill

The way that the bill is phrased means that option 3 can be invoked regardless of option 1. So long as the doctor says that he thinks your health would be better served by the abortion, it can go ahead. Since "health" isn't defined, it can be as trivial as "having stretch marks wouldn't be good for your health", meaning that it effectively becomes a recourse for anyone who wants to have an elective abortion.

 

[Cray]

Actually with Gingerbeardman on this, the law seems very vague for such a late term abortion, compare that to SA law..

In South Africa, any woman of any age can get an abortion by simply requesting with no reasons given if she is less than 13 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defect

 

[C4Cat]

The way that the bill is phrased means that option 3 can be invoked regardless of option 1. So long as the doctor says that he thinks your health would be better served by the abortion, it can go ahead. Since "health" isn't defined, it can be as trivial as "having stretch marks wouldn't be good for your health", meaning that it effectively becomes a recourse for anyone who wants to have an elective abortion.

Yes, that is the part where they are bringing the laws in sync with the Supreme Court's judgement in Roe vs Wade (1973) and the Supreme Courts judgement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). These court rulings specify point 3 that the abortion be necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

No, stretch marks do not have anything to do with a persons health and would not be a legitimate reason under this new bill. If that is the kind of thing that concerns you it's just fear mongering. People that are willing to perform abortions for a trivial reason like that would be willing to do it irrespective of the law (aka back street abortions). This bill will not open any floodgates of murdering babies.

 

[C4Cat]

Actually with Gingerbeardman on this, the law seems very vague for such a late term abortion, compare that to SA law..

Sure, but then it's the Supreme Court judgments that need to be overturned, it's not the 'despicable democrats' who just thought this up because they want to kill babies.

 

[Cray]

Sure, but then it's the Supreme Court judgments that need to be overturned, it's not the 'despicable democrats' who just thought this up because they want to kill babies.

Fair point.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Actually with Gingerbeardman on this, the law seems very vague for such a late term abortion, compare that to SA law..

Planned parenthood makes money from the corpses. I have a suspicion that the bigger the baby, the better the price.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Yes, that is the part where they are bringing the laws in sync with the Supreme Court's judgement in Roe vs Wade (1973) and the Supreme Courts judgement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). These court rulings specify point 3 that the abortion be necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

Edit: Actually, they're not bringing the laws in sync with Roe v Wade.

No, stretch marks do not have anything to do with a persons health and would not be a legitimate reason under this new bill.

Says you. Doctors who think that partial birth abortions and the like are totally fine will say "I think it was in the best interests of my patient's health, and this is my good faith assessment", and that's the end of the discussion because "health" hasn't been defined.

If that is the kind of thing that concerns you it's just fear mongering. People that are willing to perform abortions for a trivial reason like that would be willing to do it irrespective of the law (aka back street abortions). This bill will not open any floodgates of murdering babies.

No, people are generally wary of committing crimes that could land them in jail. Otherwise why bother to have laws in the first place? The people that would murder are just going to murder, not so?

 

[Emjay]

The ever despicable democrats bringing New York's abortion laws in sync with the Supreme Court's judgement in Roe vs Wade (1973) and the Supreme Courts judgement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Bastards. Apparently providing 3 conditions under which abortions can be performed is the same as trying to remove all abortion controls.

A women can abort a baby at any stage for "health" reasons. Such health reasons are not defined, and can be for any reasons, such as mental health, financial health, etc. While you think that this is morally acceptable because of Roe v Wade, then that is your opinion. This is highly controversial and is not what was envisioned.

Aborting a baby from 20 weeks is more dangerous for the woman than carrying the baby to term and delivering it. A late abortion is a process which takes a few days because the woman has to be dilated enough so that the baby can be removed. Then the baby is killed (sometimes and not when being sold) with a chemical injection into its heart or brain, then it is cut up inside the womb and removed in pieces. The abortion practitioner then puts it together again as a way to check that all the baby parts have been removed. You want to argue the morality, you go right ahead. I am sure many people believe the woman's choice is far more important.

Sure, but then it's the Supreme Court judgments that need to be overturned, it's not the 'despicable democrats' who just thought this up because they want to kill babies.

They are despicable. The GOP recently tried to pass a bill to curb late term abortions, but it failed. Those that voted against it are just as culpable. Whether they are Republican or Democrat. I would react just the same way if it were a Republican bill.

Greg asked me a few months back what would make me turn my back on Trump and denounce him. If he were the one pushing for this, this would be it.

 

[scudsucker]

To whom, Emjay & Gingerbeardman, may I ask, are these foetuses sold?

And to what end?







And - dare I ask for facts - but where is the evidence that there is a market for aborted foetuses?

 

[Emjay]

To whom, Emjay & Gingerbeardman, may I ask, are these foetuses sold?

And to what end?

And - dare I ask for facts - but where is the evidence that there is a market for aborted foetuses?

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/

I ask that you try watch this without any preconceived opinions and for the actual message. I do warn you. I am not sensitive, but watching this ruined my weekend. It is disturbing. It is safe for work. There is no footage of anything but conversations.

I am going to pre-empt any arguments here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

In 2015, an anti-abortion organization named the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released several videos that had been secretly recorded. Members of the CMP posed as representatives of a biotechnology company in order to gain access to both meetings with abortion providers and abortion facilities. The videos showed how abortion providers made fetal tissue available to researchers, although no problems were found with the legality of the process. All of the videos were alleged to be altered, according to analysis by Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The CMP disputed this finding, attributing the alterations to the editing out of "bathroom breaks and waiting periods." A panel of judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the videos were not deceptively edited.[1]

Oh, look. Fusion GPS. The same guys in the middle of the Steele Dossier controversy. But, moving along.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2019/Press/PP Opinion.pdf

In fact, the record reflects that [the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited.

I am not making an argument to stop abortions because of what is happening here. This is just part of the depravity of this whole debate, and it is interesting that it is not a national main stream media frenzy. The moral implications of selling women's baby tissue are pretty big ones.

When you consider that one in four women will have an abortion in their lives, we have to admit that we are using abortion as a birth control measure, and not try and act like we are doing it for other, more palatable reasons. Politics and religion completely aside, if we are happy with a society that plays so free and fast with things like this, maybe we have lost the plot a little.

 

[scudsucker]

Sold. The word "sold" is somewhat important in my question; as it is fundamental to both your and GGBM's theory that foetuses are sold.

Donating the tissue without parental consent is an issue; but you claimed that abortion practioners *sold* the foetal tissue.

With, of course, the implication that Planned Parenthood makes money out of abortions.

Thanks for your lengthy post; however it does not address my question.

 

[Emjay]

Sold. The word "sold" is somewhat important in my question; as it is fundamental to both your and GGBM's theory that foetuses are sold.

Donating the tissue without parental consent is an issue; but you claimed that abortion practioners *sold* the foetal tissue.

With, of course, the implication that Planned Parenthood makes money out of abortions..

A buyer sought out baby tissue from Planned Parenthood. They offered money in exchange for specific tissue and parts. Please, go watch the videos. Start from the bottom and work your way up. It makes more sense that way.

Or don't. *shrug*