Killing babies at 9 months

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1090675061617508363

[catastrophe]

So after being asked about the bill he just describes what the current law is? Or am I to understand the current law prevents parents from taking their children off life support?

[chum1]

Here's a couple of women offering a different perspective.

https://twitter.com/djlavoie/status/1091338395853426688

[catastrophe]

That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).

Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.

[Spracne]

That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).

Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.

Da fuq? That would be unconstitutional af.

[420seriouscat69]

I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.

Very few people think abortion is great, wacky. That is different from thinking it should be illegal.

[catastrophe]

That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).

Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.

Da fuq? That would be unconstitutional af.

I believe it, I just don’t know what the basis would be.

[420seriouscat69]

I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.

Very few people think abortion is great, wacky. That is different from thinking it should be illegal.

When they're getting to the point of 9 months, the party has lost their crap on the issue.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.

Very few people think abortion is great, wacky. That is different from thinking it should be illegal.

When they're getting to the point of 9 months, the party has lost their crap on the issue.

It's 9 months for nonviable babies. I can actually see and understand the argument for being against most abortions, but people who think a woman should be forced to carry a dead fetus to term are just mumped in the head, imo.

[catastrophe]

At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.

[420seriouscat69]

I think what wacky is trying to say is that the term “health” is vague.

[Rage Against the McKee]

At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.

Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.

[catastrophe]

At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.

Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.

First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.

Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?

[star seed 7]

Many municipalities have stopped prosecuting marijuana offences under a certain amount. I would still support a law actually making possession legal despite people not currently being charged.

[Spracne]

That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).

Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.

Da fuq? That would be unconstitutional af.

I believe it, I just don’t know what the basis would be.

No matter what you think about fundamental rights jurisprudence, if ever there was a fundamental right protected by the substantive element of 14th Amendment due process, surely the right not to be arbitrarily killed would be it. There, now I've tee'd up your next argument nicely!

[Rage Against the McKee]

At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.

Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.

First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.

Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?

Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.

[catastrophe]

Well yeah but who has a right to life is the whole debate so need not go there. (@spracne)

[catastrophe]

At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.

Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.

First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.

Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?

Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.

Do you believe that is all the law does?

[Spracne]

Well yeah but who has a right to life is the whole debate so need not go there. (@spracne)

Oh come on...

[Rage Against the McKee]

At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.

Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.

First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.

Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?

Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.

Do you believe that is all the law does?

No, it also gives a woman whose life is put in danger by being pregnant the ability to choose to end the pregnancy.

[catastrophe]

At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.

Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.

First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.

Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?

Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.

Do you believe that is all the law does?

No, it also gives a woman whose life is put in danger by being pregnant the ability to choose to end the pregnancy.

Aaaand?

[Rage Against the McKee]

It also allows for early term abortion, but from what I can tell, that is not the part of the law that is pissing people off.

[catastrophe]

Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed in 3 cases: (1) the fetus is not viable, (2) to protect the mother’s life, and (3) to protect the mother’s health. You seem to be intentionally ignoring #3.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed in 3 cases: (1) the fetus is not viable, (2) to protect the mother’s life, and (3) to protect the mother’s health. You seem to be intentionally ignoring #3.

No, I support that, too. People shouldn't be forced to go through with something that will give them a debilitating health condition.