The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

LeVeL said:
Correct me if I'm wrong @prizrak but under the current law a mother can just decide that she doesn't want the baby anymore and abort it during the 3rd trimester, no? That's rare, sure, but legal, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Not from what I read about it. Far as I can work out from all the different sources I seen is that the issue is largely due to vague language around what is considered "mother's well being". Theoretically (and I don't know if this ever happened or ever will), one could claim just about any discomfort from pregnancy as being an impact on a mother's well being and have an unwarranted late term abortion.

This is a difficult problem, I personally know at least one couple who had a kid when they really shouldn't have and it is heart breaking what the kid is going through. On the other hand having seen ultrasounds of both my kids, and feeling them kick and move around it is a hard sell that it's "just a bundle of cells"
 
LeVeL said:
Well that's exactly it, at what point does abortion become murder? It's a subjective question. For me it's at the end of the 2nd trimester, simply because that's approximately when the viability outside the womb gets over 50% on average.
Click to expand...
That's going to be a moving goal post though, as medical science advances more babies survive being premature.
 
Interrobang said:
What I meant was that I didn't mean to call you an idiot that time. I called a hypothetical person an idiot. But yeah, if those are your positions - then by conclusion of course you are an idiot.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something from a Vox article. You do realize that without exploring ideas, you can't possibly know if they are stupid or not. But since you want to position yourself as the Leading Authority on all Things (Tm), it behooves you to learn/understand where someone of a differing opinion is coming from, before waving your Majestic Wand of Judgement (Tm)

As you were.

Poppycock, by the way.

This bill would not need introducing were it not for the now increased prospect of infanticide.

The state of New York, as I had already mentioned, already had the most liberal of abortion laws in the union prior to the new legislation. Elective up to 24 weeks, and induced delivery up to and any time after that, if the mother's life was in danger. The medical community fully understood what that meant: that abortion was a very real possibility, but when the mother's life hangs in the balance, primum non nocere dictated protecting the mother at all costs.

HOWEVER, that did not mean leave the newly delivered baby to die. Once a baby is born, care of that baby is transferred to a pediatrician. OB/GYN's role remains with the mother. Pediatricians would immediately take all necessary measures to stabilize the baby. There would never be a discussion at that moment with the parents if they want to remove life saving measures... it would be highly unethical, not to mention immoral, to deny care to a newborn for which prognosis can still very much remain dynamic. Act first, talk later.

Find me a newly minted parent, mother OR father, who would agree to refusing care to just-born child upon hearing it will likely die due to a fatal condition. You won't.

Find me a physician (and I'm speaking from authority here) who would dare interrupt the mother (or the father) possibly receiving her own life saving therapy, or even soon after stabilization, about removing all life supports from her newborn You won't. There are too many ethical/moral quandaries there as well, including the physicians not having enough information to be certain, and the parents not being in the proper frame of mind to consider the ramifications.

There is a time and a place to discuss goals of care and comfort vs supportive measures, even for babies. It's not in the delivery room.

Northram's contemptible comments, followed by the changes to law in New York (which, among the other points discussed, also allow for abortions by non-physicians), raised valid concerns about these once fully understood agreements among medical professionals. Clarification was warranted. The left's refusal to consider it is horrifying.

Interrobang said:
That was already back in the 2016 campaign when Trump tried to make that shit stick back then. It was as baseless then as it is now. Trying to make "they want to kill already born babies" stick on the political opponent is just vile.
Click to expand...
There's nothing more vile than taking an innocent life. Whatever Trump's comments were in 2016 (I don't doubt you), Viriginia and New York have just given statements more validity.

FYI, that doctor's tweet is disingenuous. 1) she's in the business of abortion, so she's protecting her self interest. 2) If third/full term abortions do not/will not occur, why not change the language in the bill so it discusses third/full term induced labour, which by the way, was already in the books and therefore did not need updating?

Interrobang said:
No, I am not a "debater" like you. I care about these issues. I don't care about debating. This is not some theoretical issue and I'm not trying to score a meaningless point in a debate challange. This is not a game to me.
Click to expand...
I'm in the profession of looking after the ill. I have, quite literally, put my career in jeopardy to protect the people I have sworn to protect, from administrative interference that would prefer it cover its own ass rather than uphold its sworn duty.

You say this isn't a game to you. Then don't behave like a child.

Political discussion is debate. If you can't handle it, you're free to bloviate elsewhere.

Interrobang said:
This is about treating termanilly ill babies and their parents with dignity, respect and not villifiying the doctors that have to do things no doctor wants to do.
Click to expand...
There is nothing, nothing, in the legislation about how to deal with terminally ill babies. As per the new state legislation, it's only about abortion, in case "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman."

The strikethroughs are in the original, by the way. So now it's legal to abort a full term baby not only if the mother's life is in jeopardy (very clear language), but if her mental or physical health could be "impaired" (incredibly vague).

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491

Or, in the official FAQ for the passed New York state bill:

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/2019/liz-krueger/faqs-about-reproductive-health-act

I can't copy/paste everything salient as it would more than double the post. But the language is murky when it comes to refuting concerns about termination of late term babies for mental health (their answer is simply, "the bill will not permit abortions for frivolous reasons" rather than declare mental health as off limits to the decision). Again, nothing here is about the care or respect of a sick neonate/newborn. It's all about the abortion, and the language itself keeps declaring the justification for abortion in late term, NOT justification for induced labour.

Interrobang said:
And this is the opposite of this. Anyone who pushes this false and hurting narrative about "late term abortions" or "infanticide" like you are doing is hurting the people that have to deal with termanilly ill babies and moving further and further away from a real discussions on this topic or others. To me, It's just unbelieveably evil to do this. To go in and kick the people who are suffering because they lost a baby or had to be the doctor to perform these kind of treatments. Just to score a point with some voters who are stupid enough to look behind the facts. This is just just inexcusable to defend.
Click to expand...
What's inexcusable is telling someone who has had very difficult conversations about impending deaths to hundreds of patients and their families, that trying to clarify new legislation that opens the doors for full term abortion for vague reasons, a.k.a. infanticide, is evil. There's nothing in calling infanticide infanticide that demeans the parents who have terminally ill children. Again, the legislation is about abortion, not terminally ill infants.

Interrobang said:
I made a snarky comment about it and you think that indicates what? That I try humor from time to time and fail? Oh, no - you assume I take everything by it's word.
Click to expand...
It highlights hypocrisy at calling my positions stupid when you can't bother to fact check anything.

TL DR: before you call anyone's opinions stupid, develop the skill to read nuance (you twisting my earlier comments to imply I don't care if politicians lie being a clear indicator you don't possess this yet), and don't make presumptions about what the person you are speaking to does or does not know. This is the internet/written word here. Literal translation is the order of the day.

prizrak said:
To be fair, NY always allowed late term abortions for certain narrow reasons (like mother's life being in danger) new law expanded the reasons somewhat. One thing to keep in mind is that these late term abortions are extremely rare, it's usually serious medical conditions not because the mother decides that they don't want to.

I don't want babies aborted, but sometimes it is necessary and in some cases certain major issues are simply not obvious until later in gestation period. As medical science progresses it will become less and less necessary but for now it is a sad reality.
Click to expand...
No. As I said earlier, prev NY law allowed for late term inducement of labour for the reasons you mentioned, not (as it is now written) abortion. Abortion is never necessary to save the mother.... spontaneous delivery, however, can be.
 
Last edited:
JimCorrigan said:
he state of New York, as I had already mentioned, already had the most liberal of abortion laws in the union prior to the new legislation.
Click to expand...
This is a rather minor point but is inaccurate, CA had the most liberal laws, essentially they've had what NY has for a while now. CO is a close second IIRC.
JimCorrigan said:
Find me a newly minted parent, mother OR father, who would agree to refusing care to just-born child upon hearing it will likely die due to a fatal condition. You won't.
Click to expand...
I would be late term aborting the doctor that suggested that had it been one of my kids.
JimCorrigan said:
No. As I said earlier, prev NY law allowed for late term inducement of labour for the reasons you mentioned, not (as it is now written) abortion. Abortion is never necessary to save the mother.... spontaneous delivery, however, can be.
Click to expand...
So just to understand, in case of a life threatening condition for the mother baby would be delivered and given care and then it's basically up to w/e higher power one may believe in whether they survive?

P.S. One of my cousins was a 7mo premie because of some serious medical issues that were harmful to both her and her mom, she is a happy and healthy young girl now.
 
prizrak said:
So just to understand, in case of a life threatening condition for the mother baby would be delivered and given care and then it's basically up to w/e higher power one may believe in whether they survive?
Click to expand...
No, the new legislation does not explicitly prevent care of the newborn. However, as I said above, the wording has become (seemingly) deliberate vague (compared to the previous wording) in regards to what justifies an abortion, as opposed to just induced labour. Ben Sasse’s proposal was to insure that these babies were guaranteed full care upon being delivered live after a failed abortion attempt, but it was shot down.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone notice that Trump no longer approves of releasing the Mueller report? Not that it is a big surprise In any way, but is par for the inconsistency that is Trump.

He also says he is still under audit and is not happy that the House has asked for his tax returns for the last 6 years.
 
Congress: "We want Trump's tax returns."

Trump: "I'm under audit!"

Congress: "Who asked you?"
 
LeVeL said:
Not Congress. Just Cortez, the complete moron.
Click to expand...
Then Trump's lawyer was legally outmaneuvered by a complete moron.
 
prizrak said:
Far as I understand he is not required to provide his tax returns to Congress correct?
Click to expand...

He may not be required to give them to Congress, but they can get them from the IRS directly.
 
prizrak said:
Fairly certain they need a subpoena for that.
Click to expand...
The House Ways and Means Committee has the power to request the tax returns on any entity who files taxes, no subpoena needed. Unlike what Level claims, this is an act of Congress, not just Cortez. The chairman of Ways and Means has already requested the documents; Trump has zero say in the matter, regardless of whether he's "inclined" to comply or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top