NY Expands Abortion Law

[Roustabout]

I don't know how else to state it. I don't disagree that human development starts with fertilization. Please stop attributing that position to me and please stop saying I have a burden here. I'm not refuting this.

You are equating the start of human development with the start of human life. That is absolutely not a biological fact. That is not a philosophical fact, that is not an ethical fact, that is not a religious fact. That burden absolutely, 100%, is yours...if that is your claim.

Actually it is, because in the sense you seem to be using the term there is no reason to differentiate. Either provide a definition of how you are defining life or there is nothing to discuss.

Also, do I need to go back and find the quotes where you were absolutely disagreeing that fertilization was the beginning of human development? Every sperm is sacred.....

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That is a really bad example and completely misses the point. The only way to accurately measure the atrocity of their behavior is against the truth that human life has value. Are you saying that those humans, when children, would not be worth raising with value?

I’d say there is a good chance that they turned out this way because they were treated without value and then acted as such. It’s a self defeating proposition. How would they know to treat Newsome and Christian with value?

I’ve worked in inner city ministry and we deal with the effects of childhood trauma and how it manifest later in life.

You are a much more forgiving person than I. I would hang them with a rusty piano wire. Actually, since I am sure they have found Jesus in prison now that they face the death penalty in another 25 years, I would crucify them.

However, I answered your question.. As far as I am concerned, (and I will bet you $1,000,000.00 that I am not alone in this) the lives of those killers has zero value. You moved the goalposts on the issue.

 

[rjd970]

Actually it is, because in the sense you seem to be using the term there is no reason to differentiate. Either provide a definition of how you are defining life or there is nothing to discuss.

Also, do I need to go back and find the quotes where you were absolutely disagreeing that fertilization was the beginning of human development? Every sperm is sacred.....

My whole point has been, all along, is there is no consensus when life begins in human development. There is general consensus on when human development begins. I have never disagreed with that.

A heartbeat, brain wave, and breathing all are markers of human life. A clump of genetic material does not exhibit any of that.

By all means, please go find my quote disagreeing with fertilization being the beginning of human development. While your at it, find me this documentation of the "biological fact" that human life begins at conception.

My disagreement has centered around when life begins and the potentiality arguments. That has not changed one bit in this entire discussion. If something isn't alive, it can't be killed.

 

[Matt2496]

These people are sick to the core

https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/30/virginia-democrats-propose-bill-allowing-abortions-birth/

 

[BeecherVol]

Personally, I’m pro-choice to a point. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it worthless to argue the same points over and over again. Nobody is changing anybody else’s mind no matter how much anyone of us considers our arguments rock solid. There seems to be two sides to this debate that cling to their sides and then a portion that see both sides of the issue.

It would be interesting to me to see who all really believes aborting a baby at nine months isn’t murder and who all believes at the moment of conception there is a third person in the room. If I had to guess I would bet the majority fall somewhere in the middle, but what do I know.

Agreed. Im pro life, but I can also see or understand the idea of why someone wants the choice under certain circumstances. It won't sway my general opinion of the idea, but I can understand it. The easy line for me is when it is being used as an eraser for a poor choice that was already made. I don't think those are as prevalent in late term decisions but I can't begin to understand why it would be right if that was the case.

 

[Wafflestomper]

1st is conjecture, 2nd is fact.

I only slightly modified what Roust said about war. My point was that it isn't clear why war is okay based on this, but abortion is not.

 

[82_VOL_83]

These people are sick to the core

https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/30/virginia-democrats-propose-bill-allowing-abortions-birth/

Death is not a good enough punishment for this.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I only slightly modified what Roust said about war. My point was that it isn't clear why war is okay based on this, but abortion is not.

comparing war to abortion isn't even in the same family......not fruit to fruit, it's like fruit to meat. We are talking about literally a baby. Period. I'm not getting into the whole number of weeks BS. I am talking about an abortion of a living breathing baby whose only need from the mother is to ****ing push. Anyone that doesn't see this as murder better not have a beer with me and let me know who you are, it might just be the last one you drink.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Franklin Graham Urges Cardinal Dolan to Excommunicate Andrew Cuomo

Celebrated evangelical pastor Franklin Graham has urged Cardinal Timothy Dolan to take a strong moral stand against Governor Andrew Cuomo for his recent expansion of abortion in New York in the face of calls for the governor’s excommunication.

Rev. Franklin Graham Urges Cardinal Dolan to Excommunicate Cuomo

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

And not a single penny went to abortions. Planned Parenthood does more than what you see on Fox News.

Yes and I don't want my tax money going to any Democrat campaigns either.

Here's Virginia's POS Governor just today saying this.




https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/30...esuscitated-if-thats-what-the-mother-desired/

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam not only has defended a new bill in the state legislature that would legalize abortions up to birth – even if the mother is dilated — he defended infanticide during a radio show today.

Northam apparently thinks it’s okay to kill a baby once the infant is fully delivered.

“If a mother is in labor…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 mother,” he said.

During his campaign for governor, Northam raised nearly $11 million for his campaign, including huge contributions from the abortion industry. The abortion business Planned Parenthood said it planned to spend $3 million to back Northam and it now is apparently getting it’s kickback.

 

[rjd970]

comparing war to abortion isn't even in the same family......not fruit to fruit, it's like fruit to meat. We are talking about literally a baby. Period. I'm not getting into the whole number of weeks BS. I am talking about an abortion of a living breathing baby whose only need from the mother is to ****ing push. Anyone that doesn't see this as murder better not have a beer with me and let me know who you are, it might just be the last one you drink.

Who is comparing war and abortion as the same thing?

 

[MercyPercy]

comparing war to abortion isn't even in the same family......not fruit to fruit, it's like fruit to meat. We are talking about literally a baby. Period. I'm not getting into the whole number of weeks BS. I am talking about an abortion of a living breathing baby whose only need from the mother is to ****ing push. Anyone that doesn't see this as murder better not have a beer with me and let me know who you are, it might just be the last one you drink.

I don't entirely disagree, but can we drop the internet tough guy act? You keep this up, and you can meet me at waffle house, baw.

 

[VolStrom]

Yes and I don't want my tax money going to any Democrat campaigns either.

Here's Virginia's POS Governor just today saying this.




https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/30...esuscitated-if-thats-what-the-mother-desired/

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam not only has defended a new bill in the state legislature that would legalize abortions up to birth – even if the mother is dilated — he defended infanticide during a radio show today.

Northam apparently thinks it’s okay to kill a baby once the infant is fully delivered.

“If a mother is in labor…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 mother,” he said.

During his campaign for governor, Northam raised nearly $11 million for his campaign, including huge contributions from the abortion industry. The abortion business Planned Parenthood said it planned to spend $3 million to back Northam and it now is apparently getting it’s kickback.

What are they thinking? I'll tell you what I'm thinking is that the first time a doctor kills a baby that is viable close to the due date, he's going to jail for murder.
These progressive idiots have lost their effing minds and this kind of thing has to stop.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I’m willing to discuss that.
I agree and have stated this in my argument before. If my facts are wrong then I would be forcing a women to have and raise a child that could have be tremendous burden. That would be wrong. If I’m right, then abortion is murder.

No idea what facts you're referring to. The difficulty stems from your unwillingness to address something I brought up earlier: whether all life has the same value and whether all life has a minimum value such that ending it is always unjustified. So far it's unclear to me how you justify killing for war.

I don’t think it’s hard to figure out which one is more egregious. By your own admission the pregnant female is a mother. How do we determine a good mother?

What would you say of a women who smoke, drank and did drugs during pregnancy, knowing the harm it could cause? Good or bad? Any sane person would say this is a bad mother and this is reprehensible. But, if she wants to have that developing child destroyed then she’s suddenly doing nothing wrong. Now, facts aside, anyone can see the complete hypocrisy and contradiction.
Yet, many will suppress this truth to hold on to an untenable position.

One of my best friends just adopted a child born addicted and is fostering another at this moment. Why didn’t they let the birth mother keep the child?

It's not clear what any of this has to do with the point I'm making.

Even if I said that war was justifiable, at best it would mean I’m inconsistent. It wouldn’t change the facts I’ve presented.

Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with contradicting a fundamental claim that you use in your argument against abortion?

 

[Roustabout]

No idea what facts you're referring to. The difficulty stems from your unwillingness to address something I brought up earlier: whether all life has the same value and whether all life has a minimum value such that ending it is always unjustified. So far it's unclear to me how you justify killing for war.

That is a complete misrepresentation. I'm perfectly willing. Why would i need to justify killing for war? Why are you trying to force me to defend something? I've not fought in any wars nor made any claims that any war is justified. I've never declared war on anyone. I've speculated and admitted that i struggle with these questions. You've yet to demonstrate that war dictates that human life doesn't have value. Again, it appears you are shifting the location of the argument. That is a debate tactic.

It's not clear what any of this has to do with the point I'm making.

So, when I explain something, you simply say your not clear. I've been honest about the possible injustice if I'm wrong. I don't think it's hard to admit that if I'm right, abortion is murder.

Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with contradicting a fundamental claim that you use in your argument against abortion?

It would be hypocritical or inconsistent on my part (potentially), but it wouldn't have anything to due with whether the facts are true or not.

 

[Roustabout]

My whole point has been, all along, is there is no consensus when life begins in human development. There is general consensus on when human development begins. I have never disagreed with that.

A heartbeat, brain wave, and breathing all are markers of human life. A clump of genetic material does not exhibit any of that.

By all means, please go find my quote disagreeing with fertilization being the beginning of human development. While your at it, find me this documentation of the "biological fact" that human life begins at conception.

My disagreement has centered around when life begins and the potentiality arguments. That has not changed one bit in this entire discussion. If something isn't alive, it can't be killed.

And again, you are not attacking my argument, but a strawman. My position has NOTHING to do with those things. You are simply using a term that can be equivocated (life) and using it to muddy the water. The facts are facts. And you just manipulated the question. You'll not get any argument from me that early human development is different from later stages. Just as you won't get an argument that adolescence is different than adulthood. You were a clump of cells. You just fulfilled the potential of your LIFE.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

What are they thinking? I'll tell you what I'm thinking is that the first time a doctor kills a baby that is viable close to the due date, he's going to jail for murder.
These progressive idiots have lost their effing minds and this kind of thing has to stop.

I see SCOTUS stepping in shortly.

But back to the money they need all taxpaying money cut from their budget. Taxpaying money doesn't need to go to abortions nor does the money need to go to somebodys campaign.

 

[Roustabout]

You are a much more forgiving person than I. I would hang them with a rusty piano wire. Actually, since I am sure they have found Jesus in prison now that they face the death penalty in another 25 years, I would crucify them.

However, I answered your question.. As far as I am concerned, (and I will bet you $1,000,000.00 that I am not alone in this) the lives of those killers has zero value. You moved the goalposts on the issue.

There has been no goal post moved. My point is human life has value. I'm just able to separate my personal disdain for their actions. You didn't answer the question. Did these criminals deserve to be raised and treated with value? Of course they did. Your post is little more than angry rhetoric and emotional pleading.

You might even say that what they did was inhumane, and their actions where crimes against humanity. I never said that WHAT they did has value. In fact what they did was inhumane and speaks to the point I'm making. In fact, it might be argued that their actions were in violation of their own humanity and in a way they revoked their own value by committing them.

 

[Wafflestomper]

That is a complete misrepresentation. I'm perfectly willing. Why would i need to justify killing for war? Why are you trying to force me to defend something? I've not fought in any wars nor made any claims that any war is justified. I've never declared war on anyone. I've speculated and admitted that i struggle with these questions. You've yet to demonstrate that war dictates that human life doesn't have value. Again, it appears you are shifting the location of the argument. That is a debate tactic.

Lol. Yet again you've avoided addressing what I've asked you about, so it seems that you are unwilling. I don't really GAF whether the taking of life occurs in war or any other circumstance. If you think that killing is never justified then say so; it would make this much easier.

So, when I explain something, you simply say your not clear. I've been honest about the possible injustice if I'm wrong. I don't think it's hard to admit that if I'm right, abortion is murder.

I meant that what you said was irrelevant to my point.

It would be hypocritical or inconsistent on my part (potentially), but it wouldn't have anything to due with whether the facts are true or not.

What facts?

It would mean that you don't really believe that all life has some minimum value that precludes justifiably ending it.

 

[Roustabout]

Lol. Yet again you've avoided addressing what I've asked you about, so it seems that you are unwilling. I don't really GAF whether the taking of life occurs in war or any other circumstance. If you think that killing is never justified then say so; it would make this much easier.

If you're going to act like a dick and expect me to concede something I don't agree with, then buzz off. i didn't say killing was never justified. You failed to provide any specifics and you've yet to convince me this isn't a rabbit trail. If you don't GAF, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

I meant that what you said was irrelevant to my point.

And I disagree.

It would mean that you don't really believe that all life has some minimum value that precludes justifiably ending it.

No, it wouldn't. If someone breaks into my home and I kill them defending my family, it doesn't mean that i don't think their life has some minimum value.
It means that I personally place a higher value on my family and their safety, and in fact, have an obligation to defend them. I'd say those same things could apply in war, but you'd have to be more specific. As I said, it would make a great discussion. But, forgive me for questioning your sincerity. I think you are simply trying to shift the argument to a place where you think you have the upper hand. To put it bluntly, I don't trust you.

 

[Roustabout]

Agreed. Im pro life, but I can also see or understand the idea of why someone wants the choice under certain circumstances. It won't sway my general opinion of the idea, but I can understand it. The easy line for me is when it is being used as an eraser for a poor choice that was already made. I don't think those are as prevalent in late term decisions but I can't begin to understand why it would be right if that was the case.

What would you view as the best scenario where abortion is justified?

 

[05_never_again]

I've always found it interesting when pro-choice people talk about their desire for abortion to be "rare." Safe, legal, and rare. The inclusion of rare in that phrase is interesting to me, and perhaps unintentionally reveals something about their thinking.

If there's no moral hang-up about abortion, and it is just a medical procedure, then why care how rare it is? I mean, if you have gall stones, you definitely wouldn't want surgery to remove to the gall stones to be a "rare" occurrence. Or take some elective surgery, like a nose job. Should nose jobs be rare too? By their logic, it's just a medical procedure just like an abortion - if someone wants one, why do you want for it to be rare?

It's almost as if they know something "feels" wrong about it, it seems like an icky thing to be in support of, especially if it is completely elective, but they support a right to it anyway.

 

[rjd970]

And again, you are not attacking my argument, but a strawman. My position has NOTHING to do with those things. You are simply using a term that can be equivocated (life) and using it to muddy the water. The facts are facts. And you just manipulated the question. You'll not get any argument from me that early human development is different from later stages. Just as you won't get an argument that adolescence is different than adulthood. You were a clump of cells. You just fulfilled the potential of your LIFE.

I don’t think a clump if cells is a human life. I think that human life starts manifests somewhere else along the development process. You disagree, and that’s fine. Your potential argument is not compelling in the least to me unless you can concede that the potential starting point is arbitrary. I say you are the end potential of your parents doing the dirty. It is what it is.

I’m still waiting for you to find my quotes about fertilization and biological facts. Or have you moved on from that? I find it ironic you attack others for strawmans and not addressing your argument yet that’s what I’ve had to do this whole time. At the very least an admittance of misstating my position, continually, would be nice. If not, then find those quotes.

 

[BeecherVol]

What would you view as the best scenario where abortion is justified?

My comments were directed toward understanding why someone views it different than me. Not that I agree with it or would make accepttions for justification. I ll stay away from that idea.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don't entirely disagree, but can we drop the internet tough guy act? You keep this up, and you can meet me at waffle house, baw.

Buddy, if you believe in abortion when all that's required is to push one more time, you better buckle up cause it isn't any internet tough guy involved. And you being the self agrandized big swinging d**k FL fanboy means nothing on this subject.