(February 1, 2019 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 4:17 pm)no one Wrote: Will you still stand so strong for that fetus if it turns out to be gay, or even worse, an atheist?

at 9 months during child birth the term is BABY what monster still needs to dehumanize a full developed human baby? Unless it's right to live at that point comes into question. And to answer your question I would let it live even if it were a mix race monster.

^^^^^^ This is what I hate about religion, it teaches you to be judgmental and stick your nose into other people's business where it doesn't belong.

(January 31, 2019 at 8:59 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: All third trimester babies are not considered full term...at the end of that third trimester a baby is considered full term but not at the beginning of the trimester.  But that sure added more shit to your shit show of emotions and extremes.

Just thought I would pick one of the bullshit arguments.

Dumbass.

Dear noob,

The senerio given describes a mid birth, meaning full term, I don't know if you are stupid or so dishonest you could not see any other words I used. but over and over and over again I and the senator who opposed this bill describe a senerio where a full term healthy child being born/woman is full dilated can be aborted if the child causes mental distress to the woman. again why won't you address these parameters? why must you pick one single nit out of the whole thread and discuss it like it were the complete subject matter??

(January 31, 2019 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 12:20 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Gee, IDK...seems like a person ought to be able to elect not to die.  Radical thought, I know.

life threatening pregnancy termination is already a federal allowance. this takes it a step further in that it allows a woman to simply request an abortion even while giving birth.

State law does not trump federal law, if the state law is less specific about the requirements for an abortion, the federal rules apply, in the matter under discussion, that a physician determine that the procedure is medically necessary for the health of the mother or the fetus is dead or not viable. State law on abortion can be more restrictive than federal law up to a point, but it can't allow abortions that are not allowable under federal law.

(February 1, 2019 at 10:24 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(February 1, 2019 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: at 9 months during child birth the term is BABY what monster still needs to dehumanize a full developed human baby? Unless it's right to live at that point comes into question. And to answer your question I would let it live even if it were a mix race monster.

So says the mixed race monster.

that's the joke moron.

(February 1, 2019 at 11:18 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 1, 2019 at 10:24 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: So says the mixed race monster.

that's the joke moron.

Indeed, Your are the joke, moron.

(February 1, 2019 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 1, 2019 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: at 9 months during child birth the term is BABY what monster still needs to dehumanize a full developed human baby? Unless it's right to live at that point comes into question. And to answer your question I would let it live even if it were a mix race monster.

^^^^^^ This is what I hate about religion, it teaches you to be judgmental and stick your nose into other people's business where it doesn't belong.

where in the bible does any of this come up outside of you shall not kill or "if one of you even hurts one of these little ones it will better for you never have been born"?

---

(February 1, 2019 at 11:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: life threatening pregnancy termination is already a federal allowance. this takes it a step further in that it allows a woman to simply request an abortion even while giving birth.

State law does not trump federal law, if the state law is less specific about the requirements for an abortion, the federal rules apply, in the matter under discussion, that a physician determine that the procedure is medically necessary for the health of the mother or the fetus is dead or not viable. State law on abortion can be more restrictive than federal law up to a point, but it can't allow abortions that are not allowable under federal law.

which is why these states are doing this so it gets revisited nationally.

---

(February 1, 2019 at 11:20 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(February 1, 2019 at 11:18 am)Drich Wrote: that's the joke moron.

Indeed, Your are the joke, moron.

(January 31, 2019 at 12:14 pm)Drich Wrote: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-ab...019-01-30/

At a recent committee hearing, Republican state delegate Todd Gilbert asked Tran to clarify exactly how late in a pregnancy doctors would be able to perform abortions. Gilbert asked if a woman who was about to give birth could request an abortion under Tran's proposed bill.
"She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she is so certified? She's dilating," Gilbert said. 
"Mr. Chairman, that would be a, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at this point," Tran responded.
"I understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that," Gilbert posed.
"My bill would allow that, yes," she said.


So when is enough enough for you guys? is it ok to abort a baby durning full term child birth? third trimester full term self sustaining out of the womb who may have anything wrong with it the mother may not like.. Ei physical deformity, wrong sex, wrong color because the bill goes beyond just endangerment to the mother even though that is how it is sold. it also includes problems with the baby or anything that would give the mother great emotional turmoil.. like having 4 white babies and the last one being yellow or black.

can't call it a fetus anymore if enough is exposed through normal child birth to full determine race.

The actual revised bill:
b) 2. The physician certifies and so-enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in the physician's medical opinion, based upon the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

I don’t see how this supports abortions for the scenarios you outlined, like terming a life that late in the trimester because of the gender, or skin color of the baby, etc.

That seems to be a considerable stretch. It requires a sound clinical judgment, that going to term would result in death or impair the mental and physical health of the woman.

(February 1, 2019 at 11:22 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 12:14 pm)Drich Wrote: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-ab...019-01-30/

At a recent committee hearing, Republican state delegate Todd Gilbert asked Tran to clarify exactly how late in a pregnancy doctors would be able to perform abortions. Gilbert asked if a woman who was about to give birth could request an abortion under Tran's proposed bill.
"She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she is so certified? She's dilating," Gilbert said. 
"Mr. Chairman, that would be a, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at this point," Tran responded.
"I understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that," Gilbert posed.
"My bill would allow that, yes," she said.


So when is enough enough for you guys? is it ok to abort a baby durning full term child birth? third trimester full term self sustaining out of the womb who may have anything wrong with it the mother may not like.. Ei physical deformity, wrong sex, wrong color because the bill goes beyond just endangerment to the mother even though that is how it is sold. it also includes problems with the baby or anything that would give the mother great emotional turmoil.. like having 4 white babies and the last one being yellow or black.

can't call it a fetus anymore if enough is exposed through normal child birth to full determine race.

The actual revised bill:
b) 2. The physician certifies and so-enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in the physician's medical opinion, based upon the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

I don’t see how this supports abortions for the scenarios you outlined, like terming a life that late in the trimester because of the gender, or skin color of the baby, etc.

That seems to be a considerable stretch. It requires a sound clinical judgment, that going to term would result in death or impair the mental and physical health of the woman.

I kinda already posted the actual bill left a link for it and went into deeper dicussion on the points you don't understand.

(February 1, 2019 at 11:24 am)Drich Wrote: I kinda already posted the actual bill left a link for it and went into deeper dicussion on the points you don't understand.

I just read through the thread, and don’t see any real justificaction of the actual bill supporting any of the extreme examples you quoted.

The law requires the best clinical judgement, and that it would result in death, or impair the mental and physical health of the woman.

It’s a significant stretch to claim that a mother not liking the babies gender that late into the pregnancy, would fit this requirement.

A doctor and mother looking to do so by interpreting the bill as applicable to such a scenario, would probably have stretched the previous bill to do the same.

Pro-lifers have to invent extreme scenarios that are unlikely to ever play out in real life in order to justify their moral outrage. “You mean a woman can just change her mind mid-labor?! Horrible!”

Yeah...because that happens. 🙄