Virginia governor faces backlash over comments supporting late-term abortion bill

[Hicup]

I strongly suspect this full-court press for abortion up until and during birth is to get it to SCOTUS. Perhaps get it there while RBG is still on the bench? Another reason? Not sure what, but am certain there's a bigger play here.

Agreed.. They want to make it an issue by arguing strawmen, like we are already seeing in this thread. Unfortunately, many people fall for it, and I don't know why? Maybe people really are that stupid, who knows? I know that the political elite think we all are, republicans and democrats alike, but I have faith in humanity, even if it is slightly misplaced.


The problem the republicans have had for decades on this issue, is not framing it correctly. Allowing the lefty left to control the narrative. It's never been about medically necessary late term abortions, its about lying about making laws to make medically necessary abortion more widely available, and oh yeah, the medically unnecessary ones too..


Tim-

 

[Felis Leo]

If abortions are outlawed, there will be more, not less, Gosnells.

How do you figure, j brown's body? What data are you going off of to make such a statement?

 

[VanceMack]

It was so much easier when they could live in denial and call babies, "clumps of cells". Science and medicine have brought us so far past this now.

Now what they are doing is trying to throw in other variables to take away from the FACTS regarding the bill that was signed. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not the baby is viable or deformed. It comes down to simply the word of the mother that having the baby might be mentally challenging to her.

These suck ****s are defending the murder of fully viable babies. Yes...thats how ****ing sick they have become. And you are right. No more hiding behind scientific terms like 'zygote' or dehumanizing a life by calling it a clump of cells. They are cheering on the murder of babies...and the Vermont Bill that is being considered will take it to the next level.

 

[VanceMack]

Do they have an advanced directive?

DOnt fall for their bull**** tactic. They are trying to redefine the argument where it is more palatable. This legislation LITERALLY says nothing about the viability of the child. The ONLY time that is considered is if they attempt to and botch the job when butchering the baby before it is fully delivered.

 

[j brown's body]

How do you figure, j brown's body? What data are you going off of to make such a statement?

Abortions will be completely unregulated.

 

[Acadia]

Now what they are doing is trying to throw in other variables to take away from the FACTS regarding the bill that was signed. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not the baby is viable or deformed. It comes down to simply the word of the mother that having the baby might be mentally challenging to her.

These suck ****s are defending the murder of fully viable babies. Yes...thats how ****ing sick they have become. And you are right. No more hiding behind scientific terms like 'zygote' or dehumanizing a life by calling it a clump of cells. They are cheering on the murder of babies...and the Vermont Bill that is being considered will take it to the next level.

Vermont is worse? Jeebus, how can it get worse?:shock:

 

[Hicup]

Actually, it is you providing the straw man as you did not answer the questions. Your side fights very hard to eliminate such laws and to make such procedures difficult if not impossible.

So please don't dodge the question. Just be honest.

I did answer your question, with facts, and I don't think I could be any more honest than I already am? Why do you think I'm being dishonest about this issue?


Tim-

 

[Jezcoe]

View attachment 67249323

The Virginia baby murder bill says absolutely NOTHING about the viability of the baby. It is based SOLELY on the decision of the mom that having the fully viable baby might be mentally challenging to her. It takes nothing more than the mother to declare that for the state to sanction the murder of a fully viable healthy baby.

You should read the text that you posted because it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[j brown's body]

I did answer your question, with facts, and I don't think I could be any more honest than I already am? Why do you think I'm being dishonest about this issue?


Tim-

No, you didn't. And I gather you won't. I suspect its too unconformable for you.

 

[Jezcoe]

Do they have an advanced directive?

Does a child have to have an advanced directive?

Is taking a terminally ill person off of life support murder?

 

[VanceMack]

Vermont is worse? Jeebus, how can it get worse?:shock:

Vermonts proposed bill requires nothing. The baby has absolutely no rights, not even after a failed abortion attempt. There are no constraints. There is no need to claim physical or mental duress. Kill at will.

 

[VanceMack]

You should read the text that you posted because it doesn't say what you think it says.

It absolutely does. There is no mention of the baby. The only requirement to murder the baby is for the mom to declare it might be mentally challenging.

I have to wonder if you even know the depths of the despicable act you are endorsing or if you are like so many others doing the head bob because you 'have' to.

 

[Hicup]

No, you didn't. And I gather you won't. I suspect its too unconformable for you.

I did, and it's not uncomfortable at all. I said, that your arguments about asking whether it's ok to ask a women to carry to term a baby 8 months (or whatever other scenario you used in your post) in that has some terminal disease or whatever are strawmen, because (now pay attention) these situations are already care for in the existing laws. They are medically confirmed, and medically confirmed unviability is provided for. What you tried to do, as most of you often do, is tack the medically unviability of a late term pregnancy to now extending it to the medically viable. That's what you and people like you do to try and justify your opinions on the matter. It's projecting, by definition, an innate uneasy feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you hear about this, so you can feel better when sitting at the diner table tonight, that's all.

So to recap, (And you should feel appreciated since I almost never answer the same question twice) laws are already in place for the aborting of unviable pregnancies at any stage. What this law does, is make it so medically viable pregnancies can also be aborted at any stage! Now do you get it?


Tim-

 

[Jezcoe]

It absolutely does. There is no mention of the baby. The only requirement to murder the baby is for the mom to declare it might be mentally challenging.

I have to wonder if you even know the depths of the despicable act you are endorsing or if you are like so many others doing the head bob because you 'have' to.

So when reading section 2 and it is about things like "physician's best clinical judgement"... that is meaningless I guess.

Making dishonest arguments about this issue doesn't help.

 

[VanceMack]

So when reading section 2 and it is about things like "physician's best clinical judgement"... that is meaningless I guess.

Making dishonest arguments about this issue doesn't help.

:lamo

Talk about dishonest. The physician wont be making the decision on if it impacts the mental health of the woman. The woman will.

 

[Jezcoe]

:lamo

Talk about dishonest. The physician wont be making the decision on if it impacts the mental health of the woman. The woman will.

You honestly believe that is how this all works.

I will keep saying this until it sinks through.

The vast vast vast majority of late term abortions are performed for women who want to have the baby... but can't.

This is dealing with tragedy and to attach some sort of sociopathy to women making these hard choices is monstrous.

 

[j brown's body]

I did, and it's not uncomfortable at all. I said, that your arguments about asking whether it's ok to ask a women to carry to term a baby 8 months (or whatever other scenario you used in your post) in that has some terminal disease or whatever are strawmen, because (now pay attention) these situations are already care for in the existing laws. They are medically confirmed, and medically confirmed unviability is provided for. What you tried to do, as most of you often do, is tack the medically unviability of a late term pregnancy to now extending it to the medically viable. That's what you and people like you do to try and justify your opinions on the matter. It's projecting, by definition, an innate uneasy feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you hear about this, so you can feel better when sitting at the diner table tonight, that's all.

So to recap, (And you should feel appreciated since I almost never answer the same question twice) laws are already in place for the aborting of unviable pregnancies at any stage. What this law does, is make it so medically viable pregnancies can also be aborted at any stage! Now do you get it?


Tim-

I asked if you supported those things and you declined to answer. You still decline to answer - once!

 

[VanceMack]

You honestly believe that is how this all works.

I will keep saying this until it sinks through.

The vast vast vast majority of late term abortions are performed for women who want to have the baby... but can't.

This is dealing with tragedy and to attach some sort of sociopathy to women making these hard choices is monstrous.

:lamo

You really dont know.

These abortions are abortion on demand...the butchering of fully viable babies because mom decides she doesnt want them. The Vermont bill is worse.
The General Assembly intends this act to safeguard the right to abortion in Vermont by ensuring that right is not denied, restricted, or infringed by a governmental entity.
Sec. 2. 18 V.S.A. Chapter 223 is added to read:
CHAPTER 223: REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Subchapter 1. Freedom of Choice Act 11
§ 9493. INDIVIDUAL REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 12
(a) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization.
(b) Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.
(c) A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.

You are endorsing and cheering on the butchering at will of fully viable babies.

 

[Hicup]

I asked if you supported those things and you declined to answer. You still decline to answer - once!

Do I support the aborting of medically unviable humans? Yes, I do.


Tim-

 

[j brown's body]

:lamo

Talk about dishonest. The physician wont be making the decision on if it impacts the mental health of the woman. The woman will.

Ultimately, you are correct. A woman may see one doctor who says she should have an abortion, and then may see another doctor who says she doesn't. Whose decision is it? The woman's.

Who else could it be?

 

[Jezcoe]

:lamo

You really dont know.

These abortions are abortion on demand...the butchering of fully viable babies because mom decides she doesnt want them. The Vermont bill is worse.
The General Assembly intends this act to safeguard the right to abortion in Vermont by ensuring that right is not denied, restricted, or infringed by a governmental entity.
Sec. 2. 18 V.S.A. Chapter 223 is added to read:
CHAPTER 223: REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Subchapter 1. Freedom of Choice Act 11
§ 9493. INDIVIDUAL REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 12
(a) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization.
(b) Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.
(c) A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.

You are endorsing and cheering on the butchering at will of fully viable babies.

So... when one cannot respond to what is being put forth in the Virginia Law... one must bring up a separate law?

Yeah... that is one way to feel that one is making a point I guess.

BTW... I don't support the Vermont law. I think that there should be restrictions on Late Term Abortions and the VA and NY bills line up closest with my opinion on this. Vermont though.... not so much.

Good try though

 

[j brown's body]

Do I support the aborting of medically unviable humans? Yes, I do.


Tim-

And if it suggested the fetus will be alive and viable, but live a very brief and painful life? If bringing the fetus to term threatens the health or life of the mother?

 

[Hicup]

And if it suggested the fetus will be alive and viable

I do not support killing a viable human, no.

but live a very brief and painful life?

That would mean that it is unviable.

If bringing the fetus to term threatens the health or life of the mother?

I do support those provisions in the current law, however, those provisions are medically reached not psychologically reached, of which the latter I do not support. I don't care if Mom suddenly doesn't want the baby after 24 weeks, tough ****, the baby has rights.



Tim-

 

[VanceMack]

Ultimately, you are correct. A woman may see one doctor who says she should have an abortion, and then may see another doctor who says she doesn't. Whose decision is it? The woman's.

Who else could it be?

I give you props for at least being honest.

 

[vesper]

I strongly suspect this full-court press for abortion up until and during birth is to get it to SCOTUS. Perhaps get it there while RBG is still on the bench? Another reason? Not sure what, but am certain there's a bigger play here.

I am sure it will reach the SC on the protection of fundamental human rights.