I am going to tell you that passing a law that allows termination of a pregnancy up until the due date of the baby is BARBARIC! THAT IS so FUCKED UP!
I am utterly disgusted with Governor Como and to have the audacity to light up the Freedom Tower in Baby Pink to celebrate the passing of the law is just a sign of some fucked up twisted minds.
:scream: :rage: :down: :broken:

Where the f is the outrage??????? :brow:

You do know that this is only if the woman's life is in danger or if the fetus isn't viable, yeah?

You link to the right wing propaganda / con artist Jay Sekulow:

"Sekulow "approved plans to push poor and jobless people to donate money to his Christian nonprofit, which since 2000 has steered more than $60m to Sekulow, his family and their businesses", and that attorneys general in New York and North Carolina opened investigations of Jay Sekulow's group Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (CASE) for possibly using pressure tactics in telemarketer calls to raise money which was allegedly misdirected to Sekulow and his family."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Sekulow

Maybe that's why you're so outraged compared to others. It's his job to make people outraged and then make money from it. (I'm not taking a position on the law here but just pointing out that your source is a con artist.)

I am going to tell you that passing a law that allows termination of a pregnancy up until the due date of the baby is BARBARIC! THAT IS so FUCKED UP!

..

Where the f is the outrage??????? :brow: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong law, but the text of this bill says:

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, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

So termination up to the due date is only permissible if the mother's life or health is at risk or if the foetus isn't viable. In ordinary cases abortion is only allowed up to 24 weeks.

I suspect that the ACLJ isn't a reliable source of news.

I suspect that the ACLJ isn't a reliable source of news. — Michael

It's not a coincidence that the first thing you see when you click on that link is a big green "donate" button. Creating outrage on false premises and then using it to suck money out of the outraged is the modus operandi of creeps like Sekulow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-attorney-jay-sekulows-family-has-been-paid-millions-from-charities-they-control/2017/06/27/6428d988-5852-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.0831a955a97a

https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-hot-topic/donor-alert-39-aclj-39-is-two-charities-dominated-by-one-family/74

Probably all you need to know is:

"Since 1998, ACLJ And Another Charity Have Paid More Than $33 Million To Members OF Jay Sekulow’s Family. "

https://www.hrc.org/resources/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-american-center-for-law-and-justice

The value of life. Is one more valuable than another? What makes someone alive? The world is absurd.

Virginia's governor, Democrat Ralph Northam, "When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there any be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."
Being kept comfortable? By the way, there are MANY men that would want to at least be able to give HIS opinion about what is going to happen to THEIR baby
ONE country, The Netherlands has a compassionate law that with three doctors okay an infant has a right to die with dignity, essentially euthanizing the infant. BUT it is based on the health and prospect of the child in ADDITION to the woman AND it MUST be performed by a Doctor. Seems logical doesn't it? Here in the USA we have a place for such infants that are likely not viable but are born and that place is called "Hospice". My Mom worked Hospice and their facility had Pediatric Hospice certification as well. In the 15 yrs she was there, they had one infant, a little girl named Rosemary, who was born to a woman about my age, but the infant had an incomplete brainstem. The infant didn't make any sounds but could cry and open her eyes. It was absolutely tragic but it was what my Mom was trained in. That baby was never put down. Every shift, there was someone always holding her. Not because they weren't equipped with a crib and such but because how could anyone put down such a short life? The parents were able to bring the older brother to Hospice to see his sister and understand what is happening and to understand what happened to his long awaited sister? Would it happen to Mommy again? Heavy shit but Hospice made it as easy as possible. So until we catch up with the Netherlands, it is the best we can offer. Education, prenatal testing, prenatal health and a Doctor at the helm.

The proposed law in Virginia was to allow third term abortions to be performed by others not just Doctors. My guess is because DOCTORS especially OB/Gyn's that ACTIVELY deliver babies refuse to perform abortions because it breaks the Oath to do no harm. After my second child was born my OB/Gyn made it clear that I shouldn't have any more children as he didn't think my mental stress could handle it, seeing as my Post Partum Depression had worsened. I agreed and asked "In the event of my getting pregnant again, would I come to him for an abortion?" He said "No, you wouldn't come to me" to which I asked who would I go to? He said he couldn't refer me to anyone but that there are "clinics" out there where abortions are performed.
Okay, as we move through this we are finding out that more states are passing similar laws which didn't make it through Virginia but did in NY which is what I talking about in my post. I didn't have the time to cite it to @Baden satisfaction because of his obvious issue with Jay but anyway here is my citation for the NY law that did pass and what is not being covered is "the health of the mother" can be not just physically unable and choose to abort UP UNTIL the due date and in the Virginia proposal, the baby can be aborted WHILE the woman is dilatated for emotional or mental stabilities as well.
A little info on having babies: WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY and it is NOT NEW to determine MOST of the reasons a woman would consider abortion in the FIRST TRIMESTER which is the first 12 weeks.
To wait until the THIRD trimester is BULLSHIT! The only reason for a third trimester abortion is if the life of the mother is endangered like Eclampsia or like in my first son's birth a RAPID blood loss because his cord was not connected like it normally is and had my water broken on it's own, there was a really good chance that neither of us would have survived and IF it happened in delivery, I WOULD have bled out before they would be able to surgically save me but they would have been able to save my child.

The value of life. Is one more valuable than another? What makes someone alive? The world is absurd. — Waya

The value is YOU and we are all valuable, in our own ways.
This world is absurd when you look at it closely..... :eyes:

I didn't have the time to cite it to Baden satisfaction because of his obvious issue with Jay but anyway here is my citation for the NY law — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That one at least does specify that "[the law] allows for abortions up to the point of birth if the life or health of the mother is deemed at risk or the baby is not viable."

The proposed law in Virginia was to allow third term abortions to be performed by others not just Doctors. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The bill states:

§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester

In fact it still requires a doctor for the second trimester:

§ 18.2-73. When abortion lawful during second trimester of pregnancy.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of § 18.2-72, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy

I believe the only way someone other than a doctor (but still a health care practitioner) can perform an abortion is by administering an abortion pill, which is only given within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

I like how your sources are from CBN News (a Christian publication), Fox News, and an Op-Ed from USA Today, the writer of which is a Senior Fellow from The Catholic Association. Nothing is your post is contrary to what I said anyway. Women having abortions in the third trimesters isn't an arbitrary decision and there are specific medical reasons for why a Doctor would approve an abortion during this period.

Check out this interview with a women who had an abortion at 32 weeks, conducted by the always wonderful Jia Tolentino, outlining the somber reality for why women seek abortion in the third trimester.

Seems silly, valued just because of existence?

Does this include mental health? and where does the line stand exactly? Does this mean that if the doctor and the patient deem the child a risk to the mother in terms of depression etc? Or is it talking strictly in the sense of physical risks? The term 'health' is very vague. I guess thats where the controversy probably lies. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

It doesn't specify. But it does seem to just be codifying the ruling in Roe v. Wade which includes this section:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation

This is just entering such weird vague and dangerous territory. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Is it more dangerous than not allowing a woman whose health is at risk from getting an abortion (after the second trimester)?

Our options are:

1. Abortion after the second trimester is not allowed
2. Abortion after the second trimester is only allowed if the mother's life is at risk
3. Abortion after the second trimester is only allowed if the mother's life or health is at risk

You seem to think that 1) or 2) are preferable because the "or health" part might be used when it shouldn't whereas others think that 3) is preferable because the "or health" part will be used when it should.

When people are encompassed with fear they can make terrible decisions. Thinking that people will only make the decision to terminate the life of a child because of a purely rational approach is naive. This is inviting trouble. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The decision has to be approved by a physician who should be unbiased and guided by his medical expertise.

There may be risk, but it is never 100%, we don't have access to the future, and cannot know how things will turn out. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Why should we require certainty? Medicine always involves educated predictions. Should we refuse all dangerous surgeries because we can’t be sure they won’t make things worse?

The more people make these kind of decisions the more fractured society will become, and you will have a set of people horrified that the society they live in allows infanticide, which they consider a terribly moral wrong and no arguments will convince them otherwise, and the other set of people horrified that someone would try dictate their freedom and tell them what they can and can't do with their body. These are logs for a fire of violence. Civil war is coming to America. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Is this somehow a defence of making abortion illegal?

If I'm honest I'm probably starting to lean more towards 1. And I'd say its troubling bills like this that push me further in that direction. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

So you care more about the life of the foetus than you do about the life and health of the pregnant woman. Others are the reverse.

How are we to determine who is right (if there even is a right thing to favour)?

Where is the father in all of this? Why does a complete stranger (the doctor), have more of a say on the fate of the child than one of the parents of the child? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I wonder if you have ever been in the position of fatherhood? To have the responsibility of another, a helpless infant, fall upon one's shoulders is not something that anyone is qualified for, let alone entitled to. It is a heavy burden, even if it is a welcome one.

And part of that burden of responsibility is necessarily towards the mother. So speaking personally, I can say where I think the father should be, at least the father who does not favour abortion. And that is to be a support to the mother. The mother must be prepared to give up her health, her career, her freedom, her whole foreseeable future to a child, and a father likewise to the mother and child. Are you prepared for a drunken fumble with a woman you care nothing for to dominate your life from here on out? If you can say yes, then you will be there and you will have your say, and you will listen to the doctor and agonise with your woman.

Downs Syndrome folks are among the most loving and wonderful people; they bring so much joy. But make no mistake, their care will fill your life - your whole life and your care must even spread further than your whole life to who will support them when you are dead.

I wish this whole debate could be closer to the reality of people's lives, and not conducted as if there are monsters that like to eat babies that must be defeated and criminalised.

Nobody is in favour of abortion, nobody is against motherhood or apple pie. Well almost nobody. But people like to make rules for lives they do not have to live, and I think there should be a law against that.

Dude, I'm not attacking you, don't panic. I'm suggesting that talk about legal rights is rather unimportant. You have a relationship with your wife that is bigger than her rights and your rights, and the rights of any hypothetical foetus. The last comment was somewhat facetious, and my main point in relation to fathers is that 'where they are' is not one place. some fathers deserve consideration that they do not get, and some fathers get consideration that they do not deserve, and the law is unlikely to be better able to distinguish them than the mother.

And we don't either know where the mother is, or where the foetus is, except that they are stuck with each other, and only the mother can express an opinion about that. So perhaps a responsible pro-life man or woman, whether father, grandfather, neighbour or stranger, will be prepared to put their own life on the line, to do whatever it takes to support mother-and-foetus, which is a whole other thing to demanding laws and asserting rights.

I am not that responsible, so I do not claim to be pro-life. I am close enough to the bottom to know that bearing the responsibility for a child while being deprived of the social support and opportunity to fulfil that responsibility is an intolerable situation that many in our civilised caring society find themselves in, and while that is so, the law is just another weapon used against them, to keep them there and pass the blame on to the victims.

I am against coercing women to continue a pregnancy, but all for bribing them to do so.