Blood-thirsty Democrats CHEER as NY Senate passes horrifying new bill legalizing infanticide

Slick, elven defenses, imo.

 

There is no such thing as a "woman" who is under the age of 15. Women are adults. 15 year olds are NOT adults, even if they are having sex.

 

Thank you. If the law that was just passed was very specific in what conditions warranted termination of a late term fetus who's live birth threatened the life of the mother and if a panel of experts compiled this list I would have no problem with it. Unfortunately the law as written is far more open ended than that and "risk to the mother's health" far to open to interpretation and rife for abuse from unscrupulous individuals. We are dealing with the lives of human beings here and a law permitting infanticide needs to be tightly written with no wiggle room.

 

dems do not believe in forcing rape victims to have their rapists babies.....

 

should we force children to be parents?

 

You said you read the law, can't you cite/link to the actual law?

 

Why do I have to do all of your work for you? Can't you use a search engine.

https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A01748&term=2017&Summary=Y&Text=Y

 

Some abortions. I doubt that is late term.

 

Because I'm not real concerned.
You seem to be concerned enough to make the point. All I'm asking is to verify your claim.
But it really doesn't matter to me.

 

Why not address what I posted?

Why such a specious question? I have no such obligation. Are you willing to kill yourself for all the babies killed in an abortion? Are you willing to kill yourself for all the women who die from an abortion?

 

Human beings? Not yet born doesn't describe that definition.
But, the old argument is, why are RW concerned about the fetus, more than when the child is born. For after they're born, most care less what happens to them if the mother can't feed and or clothe.

There are many other circumstances where the RW has little care for actual human beings, especially if they don't work.
So why the hubub about a not yet born future human being?

 

It is a new law so the specifics of how it plays out remain to be seen. Once the baby is halfway out or maybe 9/10s out I can see a liberal midwife stabbing it in the head with a sharp instrument.

 

oh so you Conservatives now oppose leaving abortion to the States?

LOL!!!!

 

And Iceland claims it has rid itself of Downs-Syndrome by killing all these babies

 

How does that translate into we cannot voice our opinions of what a state does? Does this mean all you liberals believe it should be left up to the states?

 

But yet you comment on the law without reading the law.

 

A mostly white nation eradicating fetuses with any hint of "problems". Be CAREFUL what they wish for Personally, its not worth the risk if the test put us in that situation. But it won't be too long, once people are growing designer babies like puppies. Then its all over for anyone not rich...Its funny because Liberals like diversity, but will probably welcome the new master race with open arms. Most probably all white, beautiful & geniuses. How ironic considering how much they HATE rich people and those not starting on an even playing field. Will be quite the show to watch the hypocrites.

 

Oh my.

 

I comment on those who seem to be afraid of something, as you said, is so new, no one knows how it will play out.
Then we have some who think some midwife is going to stab a baby that is 9/10th of the way out. I mean, really?

 

Human beings? Not yet born doesn't describe that definition.
But, the old argument is, why are RW concerned about the fetus, more than when the child is born. For after they're born, most care less what happens to them if the mother can't feed and or clothe.

There are many other circumstances where the RW has little care for actual human beings, especially if they don't work.

 

It most certainly does but then you on the pro-abortion side have a need to change our common language to make abortion more palatable.

And this old canard to try and justify killing them instead.

 

Then, what does?

I never understood this question because it really does not make any sense at all. Not only is itna complete misinterpretation of the "Right Wing argument (as if Left Wingers cannot be "Pro Life"), but also is it nothing but a snarky, eye-rolling teenage girl kind of "argument".

The point is that someone who cannot feed or clothe a baby should not make one in the first place and doing that is incredibly easy.

Such as?

It is not about the "non-born", it is about the headless and careless sex.

 

Well, to be fair, 'The Left' is notorious for its support of eugenics, so it is not really surprising that they defend abortion with the argument of "exterminating DS".

 

I just use common dictionary definitions. So it is not I, who changes the common language.

 

Fetus is the most common term

It pertains to those who want no social safety nets to feed/clothe/house poor people

So easy, it's never been accomplished in the history of mankind.

The one's who like the term so called welfare queens. As if it applies to everyone who is poor.

Who says it's headless and careless?
Abstinence is the only 100% pregnancy proof sex act. And human nature fights that act at every turn.[/QUOTE]