I expect the same laws that say a woman can't kill her rapist 9 months later can't kill the innocent child she's carrying either.

Ashton Kutcher gets it.

(01-31-2019 07:04 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I notice that Tiger Green and the rest of the libs have gone silent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

people with any kind of moral conscience can't justify making infanticide legal.

No one celebrates these things. You guys just don’t have a clue and that’s a good thing. These late term abortions aren’t contraceptives. These families were given horrible news.

New York lit up the WTC. Save the no one celebrates bs.

(01-31-2019 07:07 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Look at this unbelievable segment from Tucker Carlson last night. This disgusting woman sounded like a nazi. She refused to comment or even knowledge the questions about the late term and even post birth murder situations. What a piece of human trash this woman is.

That chick's IQ isn't even pushing 70.

(01-31-2019 05:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 08:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:05 PM)Oman Wrote:  OK Tom.... fair enough.

Read it, then be man enough to either come back and condemn the horror that this is, or support your fellow leftist.

I certainly will...it just won't be today or maybe even tomorrow. I've got too many work commitments right now.

I'll have something by Friday.

That being said, I will remind you again that my basic position on abortion is none after 20 weeks (or so) unless the health of the mother/baby (as determined by certified medical personnel) is at stake or in the cases or rape or incest. Full stop.

Don't think it takes 20 weeks to figure out if you have been raped or got knocked up by your pops. 99.9% of Americans agree the day after drug should be administered in those instances. That has always been the most lame excuse for abortion since its beginning. Fewer than one percent of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest. Pandora's Box has been opened.

Let's say a woman who "qualifies" under the rape/incest exception says no abortion for 8 months. Then in the 9th month changes her mind.

Is that allowable in your eyes RWT

I think I pretty clearly stated that I'd prefer the decision be made within 20 weeks, but that should be decided by each state. My preference in that case would be for the baby to be born and given up for adoption.

And to be clear, I never intimated that rape and incest were any huge percentage of abortion cases, but it is an area where I am fine with exceptions. Women who suffered this trauma get some leeway to figure things out as far as I'm concerned.

Your preference...so you would not oppose a 9th month abortion of a viable baby due to circumstances

Seriously, regardless of your politics, please name me any other profession where you can sign your name to something, have it soundly rejected as being flawed, claim "gross negligence" in not even reading the work to which you signed your name, and face no repercussions for your actions?

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/31/...-it-719579

Tran and Adams sponsor legislation that sickens the majority of the population, actually allowing abortion of a viable baby during the birthing process. And Northam, a pediatrician, actually supported delivering a child and then "having a conversation with the mother and doctor" as to whether this "4th trimester" child is allowed to live or not.

I can debate and understand differences in opinion the timeline of when a fetus has a soul. Sitting on a table, post-birth, and still without the right to live is not on that timeline.

(01-31-2019 09:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one celebrates these things. You guys just don’t have a clue and that’s a good thing. These late term abortions aren’t contraceptives. These families were given horrible news.

Like in Virginia, when they want to abort after the birth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oddly, this was two Sundays ago's sermon by a lawyer who will represent one of the people that outed Planned Parenthood and now is being sued by the AG of California. How fitting that the actions of New York and the sermon almost coincide...or maybe it's not but that's my thinking.

I know at least Ericsrevenge will find it informative and hopefully others not in that camp (against abortion) will too. It's not long.

https://subsplash.com/cielovista/lb/mi/+j3zvtrq

(01-31-2019 05:41 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 05:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:05 PM)Oman Wrote:  OK Tom.... fair enough.

Read it, then be man enough to either come back and condemn the horror that this is, or support your fellow leftist.

I certainly will...it just won't be today or maybe even tomorrow. I've got too many work commitments right now.

I'll have something by Friday.

That being said, I will remind you again that my basic position on abortion is none after 20 weeks (or so) unless the health of the mother/baby (as determined by certified medical personnel) is at stake or in the cases or rape or incest. Full stop.

Don't think it takes 20 weeks to figure out if you have been raped or got knocked up by your pops. 99.9% of Americans agree the day after drug should be administered in those instances. That has always been the most lame excuse for abortion since its beginning. Fewer than one percent of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest. Pandora's Box has been opened.

Well of course not, but don't sit there behind your comfy keyboard and pretend like you know what mental issues a woman goes through carrying the child that was the product of a rape and expect her to make a decision on your or some bureaucrats time line.

That is one of the most absurd statements you have ever made. I'm pretty sure there are big "mental issues" when getting raped and 100% of women who get raped do not want to have a child by the rapist and it wouldn't take them over 5 months of carrying the baby to decide that. But keep arguing for late term abortions with ridiculous arguments like rape and incest for a reason.

Where did I argue that I ever want an abortion to take place? Nowhere dude. But I'm a guy, I'm not a doctor or mental health specialist and certainly not the traumatized woman carrying the baby. Excuse me for not thinking it's my place to make decisions for them. But I'm glad to know that you're comfortable behind your keyboard determining and diagnosing that women should not need over 5 months to overcome the trauma of rape when making decisions on the child they're carrying.

Again, so we're clear, I (and everyone I know who supports choice) prefers that there are no unwanted pregnancies or abortions to begin with and that in these cases, the baby be delivered and be given up for adoption.

(01-31-2019 10:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 05:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 08:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I certainly will...it just won't be today or maybe even tomorrow. I've got too many work commitments right now.

I'll have something by Friday.

That being said, I will remind you again that my basic position on abortion is none after 20 weeks (or so) unless the health of the mother/baby (as determined by certified medical personnel) is at stake or in the cases or rape or incest. Full stop.

Don't think it takes 20 weeks to figure out if you have been raped or got knocked up by your pops. 99.9% of Americans agree the day after drug should be administered in those instances. That has always been the most lame excuse for abortion since its beginning. Fewer than one percent of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest. Pandora's Box has been opened.

Let's say a woman who "qualifies" under the rape/incest exception says no abortion for 8 months. Then in the 9th month changes her mind.

Is that allowable in your eyes RWT

I think I pretty clearly stated that I'd prefer the decision be made within 20 weeks, but that should be decided by each state. My preference in that case would be for the baby to be born and given up for adoption.

And to be clear, I never intimated that rape and incest were any huge percentage of abortion cases, but it is an area where I am fine with exceptions. Women who suffered this trauma get some leeway to figure things out as far as I'm concerned.

Your preference...so you would not oppose a 9th month abortion of a viable baby due to circumstances

Of course I would oppose it if there's nothing wrong with the baby and the health of the mother is not in danger, but it's not my decision to make.

(01-31-2019 11:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one celebrates these things. You guys just don’t have a clue and that’s a good thing. These late term abortions aren’t contraceptives. These families were given horrible news.

Like in Virginia, when they want to abort after the birth.

This is just plain ignorant and in no way represents what the law in Virginia was trying to cover. What part of not viable or not able to survive after birth do you not understand?

This pretty much nails it.

Quote:Yesterday morning, Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia went on a radio show and announced his unequivocal support for a bill that would allow doctors to just straight up murder the perfectly healthy babies of selfish, uncaring, slutty women right after those babies are born. Or, at least, that is what the stupidest people on the entire planet are accusing him of doing.

Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?

(02-01-2019 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 10:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 05:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 08:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 04:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Don't think it takes 20 weeks to figure out if you have been raped or got knocked up by your pops. 99.9% of Americans agree the day after drug should be administered in those instances. That has always been the most lame excuse for abortion since its beginning. Fewer than one percent of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest. Pandora's Box has been opened.

Let's say a woman who "qualifies" under the rape/incest exception says no abortion for 8 months. Then in the 9th month changes her mind.

Is that allowable in your eyes RWT

I think I pretty clearly stated that I'd prefer the decision be made within 20 weeks, but that should be decided by each state. My preference in that case would be for the baby to be born and given up for adoption.

And to be clear, I never intimated that rape and incest were any huge percentage of abortion cases, but it is an area where I am fine with exceptions. Women who suffered this trauma get some leeway to figure things out as far as I'm concerned.

Your preference...so you would not oppose a 9th month abortion of a viable baby due to circumstances

Of course I would oppose it if there's nothing wrong with the baby and the health of the mother is not in danger, but it's not my decision to make.

Define health of the mother. Does this include mental health? If so, where do you draw that line?

You could argue that the health of the mother is always in danger. Any new mother is in danger of postpartum depression, right? Regardless the intent, whatever it may be (and I think the VA gov made his clear), using academic speak and legalese, the passed NY law and the failed VA law would cover me to have an abortion up until the last second no matter what, right?

I assume that means you oppose the laws? Or are you also using academic speak to polish the turd that is a despicable position under the surface?

(02-01-2019 10:30 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 10:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 05:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 08:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Let's say a woman who "qualifies" under the rape/incest exception says no abortion for 8 months. Then in the 9th month changes her mind.

Is that allowable in your eyes RWT

I think I pretty clearly stated that I'd prefer the decision be made within 20 weeks, but that should be decided by each state. My preference in that case would be for the baby to be born and given up for adoption.

And to be clear, I never intimated that rape and incest were any huge percentage of abortion cases, but it is an area where I am fine with exceptions. Women who suffered this trauma get some leeway to figure things out as far as I'm concerned.

Your preference...so you would not oppose a 9th month abortion of a viable baby due to circumstances

Of course I would oppose it if there's nothing wrong with the baby and the health of the mother is not in danger, but it's not my decision to make.

Define health of the mother. Does this include mental health? If so, where do you draw that line?

You could argue that the health of the mother is always in danger. Any new mother is in danger of postpartum depression, right? Regardless the intent, whatever it may be (and I think the VA gov made his clear), using academic speak and legalese, the passed NY law and the failed VA law would cover me to have an abortion up until the last second no matter what, right?

I assume that means you oppose the laws? Or are you also using academic speak to polish the turd that is a despicable position under the surface?

Certified medical professionals (medical doctors and mental health specialists) make that call. Not me or you...and certainly not the government. Full Stop.

And yes, you could always argue that if you want to act like there's some movement to just start killing perfectly healthy babies that women have carried for 8+ months and just for no reason decide they no longer want the baby and do not want to give it up for adoption...you know...that thing that likely never happens that you guys are all so worked up about.

They laws aren't carving out exceptions saying healthy babies being carried by women not in any danger can't kill their's.

(02-01-2019 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:30 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 10:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 05:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think I pretty clearly stated that I'd prefer the decision be made within 20 weeks, but that should be decided by each state. My preference in that case would be for the baby to be born and given up for adoption.

And to be clear, I never intimated that rape and incest were any huge percentage of abortion cases, but it is an area where I am fine with exceptions. Women who suffered this trauma get some leeway to figure things out as far as I'm concerned.

Your preference...so you would not oppose a 9th month abortion of a viable baby due to circumstances

Of course I would oppose it if there's nothing wrong with the baby and the health of the mother is not in danger, but it's not my decision to make.

Define health of the mother. Does this include mental health? If so, where do you draw that line?

You could argue that the health of the mother is always in danger. Any new mother is in danger of postpartum depression, right? Regardless the intent, whatever it may be (and I think the VA gov made his clear), using academic speak and legalese, the passed NY law and the failed VA law would cover me to have an abortion up until the last second no matter what, right?

I assume that means you oppose the laws? Or are you also using academic speak to polish the turd that is a despicable position under the surface?

Certified medical professionals (medical doctors and mental health specialists) make that call. Not me or you...and certainly not the government. Full Stop.

And yes, you could always argue that if you want to act like there's some movement to just start killing perfectly healthy babies that women have carried for 8+ months and just for no reason decide they no longer want the baby and do not want to give it up for adoption...you know...that thing that likely never happens that you guys are all so worked up about.

Its illegal you moron, that's why it hardly ever happens.

And you are darned right we are worked up about keeping it that way. There are hard core pro abortionists that absolutely believe that should be allowed.

(02-01-2019 10:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This pretty much nails it.

Quote:Yesterday morning, Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia went on a radio show and announced his unequivocal support for a bill that would allow doctors to just straight up murder the perfectly healthy babies of selfish, uncaring, slutty women right after those babies are born. Or, at least, that is what the stupidest people on the entire planet are accusing him of doing.

Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?

This shows just what liars and scumbags people are today.

He absolutely advocated the position of possibly killing a baby AFTER its been born if it has heath issues or complications.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is an obvious liar.

(02-01-2019 10:41 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:30 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 10:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Your preference...so you would not oppose a 9th month abortion of a viable baby due to circumstances

Of course I would oppose it if there's nothing wrong with the baby and the health of the mother is not in danger, but it's not my decision to make.

Define health of the mother. Does this include mental health? If so, where do you draw that line?

You could argue that the health of the mother is always in danger. Any new mother is in danger of postpartum depression, right? Regardless the intent, whatever it may be (and I think the VA gov made his clear), using academic speak and legalese, the passed NY law and the failed VA law would cover me to have an abortion up until the last second no matter what, right?

I assume that means you oppose the laws? Or are you also using academic speak to polish the turd that is a despicable position under the surface?

Certified medical professionals (medical doctors and mental health specialists) make that call. Not me or you...and certainly not the government. Full Stop.

And yes, you could always argue that if you want to act like there's some movement to just start killing perfectly healthy babies that women have carried for 8+ months and just for no reason decide they no longer want the baby and do not want to give it up for adoption...you know...that thing that likely never happens that you guys are all so worked up about.

Its illegal you moron, that's why it hardly ever happens.

And you are darned right we are worked up about keeping it that way. There are hard core pro abortionists that absolutely believe that should be allowed.

Spare me your hyperbole. There's no such thing as a pro abortionist.

These laws do not and will not lead to women carrying babies for 8+ months and then ending the pregnancies for no reason other than they don't want the baby.

It's nothing more than the typical right-wing nonsense to assure GOP votes. The abortion issue always has been. The sad part is that you don't even know you're being used.