Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 67

Thread: Cuomo going full tilt with extreme abortion bill

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    does not the rape victim have rights? either to abort or conceive? A involuntary act against ones person.
    Does she have the right to go out and kill her attacker? No. Maybe she should, but she doesn't. Two victims doesn't make less crime.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Does she have the right to go out and kill her attacker? No. Maybe she should, but she doesn't.
    In a civilized society, she most certainly should NOT have that right.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Why does anybody *need* an abortion?
    In spite of what Ron Paul has said, there are legitimate medical reasons to have them. That said, those circumstances are relatively rare.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by paulbot24 View Post
    A couple of months ago I was reading more Bloomberg gasbagging out loud to my wife and she replied, "Enough about the mayor of New York City. Who is the Governor of New York? Where is he all the time? Shining Bloomberg's shoes?" It was funny at the time. I can't stand Bloomberg, but after reading Cuomo's "ideas" lately, I wish Cuomo would go back to being Bloomberg's shoe-shine boy. Hearing both of them spewing their dreck together is a sickness equivalent to having diarrhea and puking into the tub at the same time.
    Best. Analogy. Ever.
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
    —Charles Mackay

    "god i fucking wanna rip his balls off and offer them to the gods"
    -Anonymous

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by paulbot24 View Post
    A couple of months ago I was reading more Bloomberg gasbagging out loud to my wife and she replied, "Enough about the mayor of New York City. Who is the Governor of New York? Where is he all the time? Shining Bloomberg's shoes?" It was funny at the time. I can't stand Bloomberg, but after reading Cuomo's "ideas" lately, I wish Cuomo would go back to being Bloomberg's shoe-shine boy. Hearing both of them spewing their dreck together is a sickness equivalent to having diarrhea and puking into the tub at the same time.
    Bloomberg to Cuomo:


  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    I still don't understand. With all the methods of birth control why is abortion even done. But as I said, I can see it in the case of rape or involuntary incest.
    my first was conceived on the pill. Number two by all rights should have had an IUD sticking out of his head. Three and four? Stopped trying to prevent it.
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
    —Charles Mackay

    "god i fucking wanna rip his balls off and offer them to the gods"
    -Anonymous

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by kathy88 View Post
    my first was conceived on the pill. Number two by all rights should have had an IUD sticking out of his head. Three and four? Stopped trying to prevent it.
    Oh, thanks for the personal information. Much appreciated.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    Exactly, with all the different methods of birth control from vasectomy to condoms, to tubal ligation and depo shots. I can think of two exceptions, rape and/or incest. Other than that why the $#@! does anyone need an abortion? Seems more like consequenses of sexual irresponisbility.
    Morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the universally medically accepted definition of conception (implantation) and can prevent even fertilization (sometimes sperm doesn't reach the egg until a day or so later).

    That said, in every pregnancy there is the possibility of the woman coming down with some disease like cancer where the prescribed treatment could very well kill the fetus. If she's made it to late term a c-section can be performed, but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the universally medically accepted definition of conception (implantation) and can prevent even fertilization (sometimes sperm doesn't reach the egg until a day or so later).

    That said, in every pregnancy there is the possibility of the woman coming down with some disease like cancer where the prescribed treatment could very well kill the fetus. If she's made it to late term a c-section can be performed, but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.
    Correct, and these also exist:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy Without an abortion that can prove fatal to the mother.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by KingNothing View Post
    Correct, and these also exist:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy Without an abortion that can prove fatal to the mother.
    And in 99% of cases result in the death of the child.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.
    No, it's not. There is never a 'legitimate' reason for an abortion. Killing another human being is only justifiable in self defense. In the case of a pregnancy the child is always innocent and killing him or her is always wrong.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by KingNothing View Post
    Correct, and these also exist:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy Without an abortion that can prove fatal to the mother.
    Even the Catholic Church differentiates these, because it is simply not, in the real sense, a pregnancy. It is a fertilized egg that is developing outside the womb.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    And in 99% of cases result in the death of the child.
    The difference here is that this isn't a real pregnancy - it's a medical condition. Even if the mother opted to sacrifice her life, the child would never develop, because there's no nutrition from the womb.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Even the Catholic Church differentiates these, because it is simply not, in the real sense, a pregnancy. It is a fertilized egg that is developing outside the womb.
    Sort of.

    Direct abortion is never acceptable. Abortion is always murder. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the baby. The Church teaches abortion is *always and everywhere* wrong. It is murder.

    In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.

    The second method is the adminstration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong.

  18. #45
    How would "late-term abortion" be defined? What is the current limit as far as when a pregnant "mother" can abort?

    Also, if I murder a pregnant woman, I can only be charged with one count of murder, right?
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    How would "late-term abortion" be defined? What is the current limit as far as when a pregnant "mother" can abort?
    I believe it's in the third trimester to be called a 'late-term abortion.' At this point the child is already 'viable.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    Also, if I murder a pregnant woman, I can only be charged with one count of murder, right?
    No, you can be charged with two counts of murder.

    The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."
    In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender"
    Last edited by Confederate; 01-23-2013 at 11:31 AM.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    I believe it's in the third trimester to be called a 'later-term abortion.' At this point the child is already 'viable.'
    So, would having an abortion a day before the expected due date be acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    No, you can be charged with two counts of murder.
    What if one could prove in court that the parasite's victim (i.e. mother) had intended to abort the parasite? Could that potentially sway the court in favor of lessening the charge to one count of murder?
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    How would "late-term abortion" be defined? What is the current limit as far as when a pregnant "mother" can abort?

    Also, if I murder a pregnant woman, I can only be charged with one count of murder, right?
    That depends on which state you're in. In Florida, you can be charged with 2.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    So, would having an abortion a day before the expected due date be acceptable?
    Barack Obama thinks that. In Canada abortion is completely legal until the child is born. You can be 2 weeks late (in the 42nd week of pregnancy) and legally murder your child.



    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    What if one could prove in court that the parasite's victim (i.e. mother) had intended to abort the parasite? Could that potentially sway the court in favor of lessening the charge to one count of murder?
    I don't know. To me it wouldn't matter. Murdering 1 person or 2 I think you should still get the death penalty.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    That depends on which state you're in. In Florida, you can be charged with 2.
    All I ask for is consistency in the law.
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    All I ask for is consistency in the law.
    You don't believe in state's rights?

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    You don't believe in state's rights?
    I don't believe a state has the right to determine who is and who is not a person. A state has no just authority to deprive an innocent person of the right to life. A state has no right to legalize the murder of the unborn.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    You don't believe in state's rights?
    I was referring to logical consistency of the law. If the law, within a state, is that a late-term abortion is legal, then one who murders a pregnant woman should only have one count of murder, and perhaps one count of property damage.
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    No, it's not. There is never a 'legitimate' reason for an abortion. Killing another human being is only justifiable in self defense. In the case of a pregnancy the child is always innocent and killing him or her is always wrong.
    Ummmm....you didn't carefully read what I wrote or you wouldn't have said what you did. Or maybe you don't understand self defense. Self defense isn't limited to where the other person is not "innocent". Case in point. Someone has been told that if they don't kill you someone else will kill their children. In certain jurisdictions that person may be found innocent of murder because of a duress defense. Or you're shipwrecked and in shark invested waters and someone who is bleeding to death is attracting sharks. If you push him away from the raft, hastening his death, most jurisdictions would allow you to raise the necessity defense.

    In the case that I'm talking about, it really isn't even abortion per se. The chemicals being used to treat the mother have the unwanted effect of killing the child. That's not murder no matter how you slice it. Don't let Catholic sensibilities blind you to obvious truth.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    Sort of.

    Direct abortion is never acceptable. Abortion is always murder. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the baby. The Church teaches abortion is *always and everywhere* wrong. It is murder.

    In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.

    The second method is the adminstration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong.
    And that's why I'm glad I'm not part of the Catholic church because it subjects you to backwards logic. In both instances the result is the same. If the procedure is successful, the baby is dead and the mother is alive. It would be one thing if procedure A gave the baby a fighting chance or if procedure A caused less pain to the baby at death or any other real reason to accept procedure A over procedure B except "the church calls one an abortion".
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #56
    Save the children from assault weapons by carving them out of the womb with a coat hanger in a seedy motel bathtub beforehand. Yay, Democracy.
    Dishonest money makes for dishonest people.

    Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel. FOX News Liberty Infiltrators.


    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    Dr. Paul is living rent-free in the minds of the neocons, and for a fiscal conservative, free rent is always a good thing
    NOBP ≠ ABO



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Ummmm....you didn't carefully read what I wrote or you wouldn't have said what you did. Or maybe you don't understand self defense. Self defense isn't limited to where the other person is not "innocent". Case in point. Someone has been told that if they don't kill you someone else will kill their children. In certain jurisdictions that person may be found innocent of murder because of a duress defense. Or you're shipwrecked and in shark invested waters and someone who is bleeding to death is attracting sharks. If you push him away from the raft, hastening his death, most jurisdictions would allow you to raise the necessity defense.
    In the case of the second example, hastening death has been ruled as murder. I can't remember the case name, but it was established under English common law that killing someone, even though they were already dying, in order to survive (in this case it was on a lifeboat after weeks at sea and they actually ended up eating the guy who they killed) is still murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    In the case that I'm talking about, it really isn't even abortion per se. The chemicals being used to treat the mother have the unwanted effect of killing the child. That's not murder no matter how you slice it.
    No, the point of the drugs is specifically to kill the child. It is a direct abortion and is unjustifiable. Removing the tube is a true medical procedure which unfortunately results in the death of the child because we have no way of saving him or her.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Don't let Catholic sensibilities blind you to obvious truth.
    The only truth here is that your Protestantism has led to moral relativism where claim that sometimes abortion (the murder of an innocent child) is morally permissible.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    In the case of the second example, hastening death has been ruled as murder. I can't remember the case name, but it was established under English common law that killing someone, even though they were already dying, in order to survive (in this case it was on a lifeboat after weeks at sea and they actually ended up eating the guy who they killed) is still murder.
    A) They received a suspended sentence. (No jail time).
    B) They actually killed and ate another human being.

    So actually that case undermines rather than supports your argument. And we aren't talking about killing a fetus and using it for body parts (the equivalent of what happened in the case you cited). We are talking about whether someone bleeds to death sooner rather than later.

    No, the point of the drugs is specifically to kill the child. It is a direct abortion and is unjustifiable. Removing the tube is a true medical procedure which unfortunately results in the death of the child because we have no way of saving him or her.
    The point is that you are being a slave to someone else's warped sense of justice. Administering drugs is a true medical procedure. And the common abortion procedure of dialation and cutterage is the medically accepted procedure for dealing with babies who have already died in utero.

    The only truth here is that your Protestantism has led to moral relativism where claim that sometimes abortion (the murder of an innocent child) is morally permissible.
    It's the Catholic position that is being morally relativistic, which is saying that one way to kill a baby is acceptable and the other is not because the Catholic church says so. Look at it another way. Was what happened to Terri Schiavo more "morally acceptable" because she was starved to death? No? Then your Catholic logic makes no sense. The "tissue" being removed in your "medically acceptable" version includes a baby. And no effort is made to save said baby. It's just thrown in the trash along with other abortions. You're calling something that is clearly an abortion not an abortion so you can come up with a way to allow it while not allowing abortion. It's silly.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 01-23-2013 at 12:22 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    A) They received a suspended sentence. (No jail time).
    B) They actually killed and ate another human being.

    So actually that case undermines rather than supports your argument. And we aren't talking about killing a fetus and using it for body parts (the equivalent of what happened in the case you cited). We are talking about whether someone bleeds to death sooner rather than later.
    Actually no, they were sentenced to death. Their sentence was alter commuted.

    The judges found there was no common law defense of necessity to a charge of murder, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality, which is what you're arguing.

  35. #60
    Progs are such cruel, violent, murderous ghouls.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-11-2015, 10:54 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-09-2013, 09:38 PM
  3. BREAKING!/FAIL! -- U.S. Govt Charges Full Tilt with Ponzi Scheme
    By Jake Ralston in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-22-2011, 12:31 AM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-21-2011, 03:57 PM
  5. Captain America's Full Tilt Boogie 070110
    By Captain America in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 12:46 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •