New York State Senate Passes Bill Permitting Abortions up to Birth

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Did you happen to visit the link I posted above?  Did you see what the next goal is, now that the RHA is in effect?

 

• NO LIMITS: there should be no gestational limits restricting access to abortion care

• NO REASONS: why a person seeks an abortion, at any point, is none of our business, and should not be the basis for a restriction

• NO PROSECUTIONS: we must ensure no person is prosecuted for the outcome of their pregnancy

• NO PARENTS: minors need access to abortion care without parental consent

 

   I wasn't able to earlier but I have looked. I think that site is a private group. I don't see the legislature trying to pass any of that. Late term abortion for any reason could not pass. Roe v Wade already made that decision. The prosecution part, I think NY has got rid of that. I know we discussed it earlier looking at the penal code in NY, but several articles I have come across now have said that part is gone too. I would hope the part with minors wouldn't pass either, unless they are already emancpated and able to make their own legal decisions.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Well, all we can do is sit back and watch.  And thank our lucky stars it will never affect you more I directly.  Personally, I think it will happen.  Maybe not while I am alive, but it will be chipped away at until it becomes the norm.

 

And before you poo-pooh my opinion, bear in mind that prior to the 70s, there were only two genders...

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

Well, all we can do is sit back and watch.  And thank our lucky stars it will never affect you more I directly.  Personally, I think it will happen.  Maybe not while I am alive, but it will be chipped away at until it becomes the norm.

 

And before you poo-pooh my opinion, bear in mind that prior to the 70s, there were only two genders...

 

   I never poo-pooh anyones opinion. Sometimes I question the logic that gets them there. I think we focused on areas that we disagree on, but despite that, I agree with you on much of this. I wouldn't really want to predict where this could lead, and I'm not certain that they haven't left avenues open where the law could be abused. It would only take one unscrupulous doctor, and there is certainly more than one of those out there.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

there are still only 2 genders, you are male or female at birth, I could accept a 3rd of neutral, whether that designation is correct or not depends on whether you hold the physical or emotional aspects of gender (not sexuality) as paramount. 

I can be male (gender) and homosexual (sexuality) or bisexual (sexuality) or heterosexual (sexuality), no matter how I identify sexually I am as Popeye says what I am 

[Lemonslice 4,798]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

there are still only 2 genders, you are male or female at birth, I could accept a 3rd of neutral, whether that designation is correct or not depends on whether you hold the physical or emotional aspects of gender (not sexuality) as paramount. 

I can be male (gender) and homosexual (sexuality) or bisexual (sexuality) or heterosexual (sexuality), no matter how I identify sexually I am as Popeye says what I am 

What do you do of a baby born with ambiguous genitalia? 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

18 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

What do you do of a baby born with ambiguous genitalia? 

that is why i proffered a possible third of neutral (or both or neither) to satisfy the minimal percent that actually aren't covered by two 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

there are still only 2 genders, you are male or female at birth, I could accept a 3rd of neutral, whether that designation is correct or not depends on whether you hold the physical or emotional aspects of gender (not sexuality) as paramount. 

I can be male (gender) and homosexual (sexuality) or bisexual (sexuality) or heterosexual (sexuality), no matter how I identify sexually I am as Popeye says what I am 

You might be AMAB, but you certainly have been living under a rock!

 

https://apath.org/63-genders/ 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I never poo-pooh anyones opinion. Sometimes I question the logic that gets them there. I think we focused on areas that we disagree on, but despite that, I agree with you on much of this. I wouldn't really want to predict where this could lead, and I'm not certain that they haven't left avenues open where the law could be abused. It would only take one unscrupulous doctor, and there is certainly more than one of those out there.

I would be the happiest person to come back to this in 10 to 15 years and say “boy, was I wrong!”  My faith in humanity causes me to doubt that circumstances will cause me to be very far off base.  Guess we shall see.  I wish more in that arena had your morals, to be sure!

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

11 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

You might be AMAB, but you certainly have been living under a rock!

 

https://apath.org/63-genders/ 

Because I do not agree with a variety of alternative definitions you claim I live under a rock, I am cool with that. Why stop at 63 genders, as long as they are just made up anyway, why limit them to such a pedestrian number, scoff at my ignorance if you like, I feel similarly entitled to do so with yours

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

Because I do not agree with a variety of alternative definitions you claim I live under a rock, I am cool with that. Why stop at 63 genders, as long as they are just made up anyway, why limit them to such a pedestrian number, scoff at my ignorance if you like, I feel similarly entitled to do so with yours

LOL, you obviously have forgotten who you are talking to.  And I forgot to use sarcasm font.  In my world, there are precisely 2 genders.  Maybe that third you mentioned. 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

52 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

LOL, you obviously have forgotten who you are talking to.  And I forgot to use sarcasm font.  In my world, there are precisely 2 genders.  Maybe that third you mentioned. 

I thought you turned tothe dark side

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

I thought you turned tothe dark side

Oh yeah.  I forgot I was Dark Underlord.  Bear with me, the transition has been tricky.  But I am afraid that even though I am a converted liberal, some parts of my brain just won’t let me try and defy logic nor Mother Nature.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

totally understand. I went from the middle to slightly right. the struggle is real 

[TBoneTX 45,076]

10 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

some parts of my brain just won’t let me try and defy logic nor Mother Nature.

Careful not to end up with an Occasional Cortex.

[Daisy.Chain 317]

I have a brother debating this in college classes right now. He said that there are a LOT of studebts in his class that argue for the "right" to murder babies even AFTER they are born!

 

Babies are babies are babies. From the moment they are conceived until they are born (and after for a while!)

 

In my lifetime the media has been changing the "pro-life" label to "anti-abortion". I noticed that the "pro-choice" label has not been changed to "anti-life" though.

 

This talk (and sadly, the actions) of abortion remind me of the biblical counts of peoples throwing their children into the fire. 😢😩