New York legalizes really late term Abortion and celebrates like it's the Super Bowl

You quoted the "ressucitated if that's what the mother and father desire".

Again, this bill creates a new definition of death - one not supported in other contexts.

Canada has NO restrictions on abortion and they have fewer abortions. Other nations do better than we do, too.

The thing you are missing is that laws against women is not the only approach to this problem. Plus, this approach of writing laws against women isn't even known to be as effective as other approaches.

What I see about the direction of laws against women is NOT one law, but an approach of constant assault through law after law after law. This is NOT about one law.

There is no possibility of negotiation on this point, as those who accept the approach of writing laws against women can not possibly agree when to stop.

So, we get laws allowing harrasssment, laws raising arbitrary and ridiculous barriers (such as admittiing rights), laws that ignore the health of the woman, laws redefining death, etc., etc. etc.

It's high time we just eliminated this whole direction of laws against women.

There are just too many Americans for whom this methodology can not be rationally handled.

 

And if the mother doesn't want it resuscitated it isn't.....what's wrong with that ?

And NO the doctor doesn't kill it , they just Do Not Resuscitate it.

 

I would argue the killing took place when they separated the umbilical cord then.

However, separation of the umbilical cord before they knew the baby could survive on its own, combined with subsequent refusal to make any attempt to try to keep it alive, is killing.

 

COMPLETE , NON cherry picked HONEST quote:
""""And if the mother doesn't want it resuscitated it isn't.....what's wrong with that ?

And NO the doctor doesn't kill it , they just Do Not Resuscitate it."""

You aren't there. You OBVIOUSLY don't know every situation is different.

And even if you were there
YOU aren't a doctor or an expert.

And NO the doctor doesn't kill it , they just Do Not Resuscitate it.

 

And that involves being able to have an abortion, right?

 

Do you argue for women to have the same rights as their fetus?

 

We don't have that many after birth abortions. Its not the numbers that count. As one would be to many.

Oh and his whole quote isn't about resuscitation. Nor is it focused on the woman.

 

And if the mother whos hormones are into full rage mode and she is in depression. What then. She can't take back any decision that just killed her baby.

Uhm you heard what he said.....to keep the baby comfortable. Doing that isn't, they just do not resuscitate it.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I argue FOR women having the same rights YOU, and everyone else, have

Gee, what a brilliant observation....

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I argue FOR women having the same rights YOU, and everyone else, have..,..why do you argue against that ??

No, that would be stupid since the fetus has no rights.....


But Anti-Choicers want the fetus to have more rights than anyone...weird , isn't it..

 

Yes, you just can;t trust women to make a sound decision.

You can't even trust them with the care of their own bodies!

Thank god there are old white men around to form governments to ensuure that women's decisions get reviewed by the only people we can trust with such decisions as a women might make!!

LOL!!

 

That's the Pro-Choice rallying call: "Trust women"

She should be trusted with the care of her own body.

The problem is she wasn't careful and now there are two bodies.

 

You have NO IDEA how "careful" any woman was.

This is just more old white guy logic.

 

True, but we have a pretty good idea how "careful" women in general have been.

 

Given the number of abortions compared to millions of times that couples have sex every year - we can say that women are "careful" about 97% of the time.
And given that there about 60,000 sexual assaults in the US each year and that only about 40% of all assaults are reported, that number may be skewed.

And I notice you never say that the men weren't careful. Telling, isn't it.

 

No, you don't.


How would you?


EXPLAIN how you have total knowledge of every woman's sex life?



NOW the FACT remains that women DO NOT HAVE TO BE CAREFUL....WHERE TF did you get the bizarre weird insane idea that women have an obligation to be "careful".

 

AHA! SO THAT'S your problem....LOL!

Do you think all women are evil and manipulating and you just can't trust them ?

Women aren't trustworthy?

All women lie?



So, ya sure, Anti-Choicers say they're all about caring about the fetus and not about punishing women, those untrustworthy women....but obviously that's not true



(Some people can't be trusted to answer questions even when they started the thread....)

 

Never once seen an anti-abortionist lead with the statement, "men are irresponsible ...". They always place the entirety of responsibility on the woman. It's all about control and ancient bias.

 

If anti-choicers cared about kids, they'd be at the forefront of fighting for a health care system that provides kids and mothers with decent health care, doesn't discriminate against pre-existing conditions (like being born with birth defects), and expands Medicaid expansion instead of RESTRICTING it.

Because it's not about the kids or mothers at all, of course. It's about control. Never forget it when you're dealing with these wackos.

 

I see that as total nonsense, too. You don't know how careful women have been.

Besides, that's irrelevant.

You don't want laws against some sort of average behavior of more than half our population.

You want laws that target individual women - which is one of the problems with that direction.

Plus, your solution entirely ignores the reasons men and women choose abortion while you focus on targeting women.

 

.

 

Exactly, so you argue FOR abortion!

 

Okay, but isn't that clouding the issue, to some extent?

I mean, we don't say it's okay to go out there and kill newborn babies in poverty-stricken parts of Africa where they don't have any healthcare.
Even if there's a good chance the child is going to starve to death, that doesn't mean we can go in there and preemptively harvest organs while the child still has any use to us.

What your argument basically is saying is that society does not value these children and so therefore it's okay for me to do to them whatever I want.
That's how it seems to me.

 

Who is talking about killing new-born babies except you?

 

Is it that different if they're being killed a couple weeks before?