The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    113,068
    149
    Southside Indy
    Apparently I was wrong. this article says it was signed into law by Cuomo. It doesn't give a lot of details, though:

    New York Has Finally Updated Its Archaic Abortion Law
    From the article: "It also expands the pool of medical professionals who are authorized to perform abortions and permits abortions after 24 weeks when the fetus is not viable or a woman’s health is at risk."

    That's not full term. Not by a long stretch. Says nothing about a live-born baby being eligible to be killed. Just sayin'...
     

    hoosierdoc

    Freed prisoner
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 27, 2011
    25,987
    149
    Galt's Gulch
    From the article: "It also expands the pool of medical professionals who are authorized to perform abortions and permits abortions after 24 weeks when the fetus is not viable or a woman’s health is at risk."

    That's not full term. Not by a long stretch. Says nothing about a live-born baby being eligible to be killed. Just sayin'...


    Way it says is no limit on gestation if the baby is dead or a woman’s health is “at risk”. Wth does that mean? Intentionally vague. Does mental health count? Pain of delivery? Do you seriously think NYPD is going to storm the abortion clinic and start arresting people for aborting a 40w kid who mom claimed and the abortion doc agreed that delivering a live baby would put her health at risk?

    don’t be naive.

    there is literally no condition in medicine where a mom’s health is improved by first killing a 24w child and then removing it. Even more egregious at full term. This is horse****. Infantacide. Legalized murder.
     

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    6,117
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    From the article: "It also expands the pool of medical professionals who are authorized to perform abortions and permits abortions after 24 weeks when the fetus is not viable or a woman’s health is at risk."

    That's not full term. Not by a long stretch. Says nothing about a live-born baby being eligible to be killed. Just sayin'...

    I will find the info in question, but it'll probably be tomorrow.

    .
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    113,068
    149
    Southside Indy
    Way it says is no limit on gestation if the baby is dead or a woman’s health is “at risk”. Wth does that mean? Intentionally vague. Does mental health count? Pain of delivery? Do you seriously think NYPD is going to storm the abortion clinic and start arresting people for aborting a 40w kid who mom claimed and the abortion doc agreed that delivering a live baby would put her health at risk?

    don’t be naive.

    there is literally no condition in medicine where a mom’s health is improved by first killing a 24w child and then removing it. Even more egregious at full term. This is horse****. Infantacide. Legalized murder.

    I agree about that wording. And now that I think about it, I would have said, "But surely they wouldn't do that, would they?" But my eyes have been opened about just how vile some people can be. So maybe I have been naive, but not anymore.

    ETA: In all fairness, they said a 24w viable child (I'm presuming that non-viable would be an already dead baby, or one whose survival rate could accurately be determined by ultrasound, or whatever).
     

    hoosierdoc

    Freed prisoner
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 27, 2011
    25,987
    149
    Galt's Gulch
    "A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health," the legislation states.

    what does “protect the health” mean?

    Imagine that was the legal wording for self defense using deadly force

    the categories that are legal:

    1) any baby under 24 weeks
    2) any baby over 24 weeks that:
    A) is already dead
    B) by being alive might “harm mom’s life or health”

    there is literally zero medical situations where to protect mom you have to kill a viable baby and then remove it. Killing the baby is not necessary.

    just look at the reaction from leftists to see what law means to them.

    http://dlvr.it/QxQZDm
     
    Last edited:

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    A TV news reporter was fired for wearing a MAGA hat. Could you imagine if all reporters were fired for showing any political bias?

    https://www.wsbradio.com/news/natio...-covering-trump-rally/54IfL7UFDhDTR7DWJHLW4L/

    Wasn't on his personal time, but while he was working? Station had a "no political clothing" policy while on assignment? Sounds like that reporter was either really dumb, or looking to get fired. In either case, no sympathy.

    And before someone goes, "if it had been..."


    [FONT=&amp]Longtime Metro Detroit radio reporter Karen Dinkins has been fired after wearing a pro-Barack Obama T-shirt while covering a rally for the presidential candidate Sunday at the Detroit Public Library.[/FONT]
    https://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/reporter-fired-for-wearing-obama-t-shirt/
     

    Mongo59

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Jul 30, 2018
    4,622
    113
    Purgatory
    I agree about that wording. And now that I think about it, I would have said, "But surely they wouldn't do that, would they?" But my eyes have been opened about just how vile some people can be. So maybe I have been naive, but not anymore.

    ETA: In all fairness, they said a 24w viable child (I'm presuming that non-viable would be an already dead baby, or one whose survival rate could accurately be determined by ultrasound, or whatever).

    My 10yo grandson was a 24w premie. It was touch and go for 3 months in the nicu, we lost his twin brother, but I still have my shooting buddy. To think he could have been taken away as a matter of choice... there are no words for it...
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    It kinda feels like Roger Stone should have his own thread. I mean, he's truly in a unique position IMHO.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    :) I don't think they're related.

    If they are, I'm sure that's been the root of many an awkward family reunion.
     

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    what does “protect the health” mean?

    Imagine that was the legal wording for self defense using deadly force

    the categories that are legal:

    1) any baby under 24 weeks
    2) any baby over 24 weeks that:
    A) is already dead
    B) by being alive might “harm mom’s life or health”

    there is literally zero medical situations where to protect mom you have to kill a viable baby and then remove it. Killing the baby is not necessary.

    just look at the reaction from leftists to see what law means to them.

    http://dlvr.it/QxQZDm

    It's a dumb law. When we lost our daughter at 30 weeks, we didn't have to "abort" her. My wife was induced and she was still born. So, that part doesn't even need to be included, which gives you an idea as to the level of intelligence that drafted this legislation.

    When the mother's health is really at risk, the body will go into spontaneous labor all by itself. No medical intervention necessary. (My experience anyway, as our son was born at 36 weeks).

    The question I have is that most states have a law that says, "any child born after XX weeks of gestation must be interred as they are not considered medical waste." paraphrasing...

    So, how do they square aborting a child, but still having to burry him/her as a person?
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    95,380
    113
    Merrillville
    th
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom