Sorry, I’m a little confused here. Can you explain how this “saying no to sex” thing works?
5 Likes
Didn’t read it, eh? Do tell.
When someone does something this horrific, there can be no valid excuse. But a stupid, embarrassing excuse? That’s certainly possible.
And it’s probably true.
1 Like
kind of like Pelosi demanding the 1000+ pg Obamacare bill be passed first without needing to read the details.
That Virginia bill is sick sick sick. Guess VA wanted to one-up NY.
This is gross. I can listen to when a fetus becomes a human argument even if I’m not in agreement. But this seems just clear cut wrong. What’s wrong with these people. It’s fucking murder no question killing a born child.
2 Likes
Creepy af.
“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered,” Northam said. “The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Well, a partial birth abortion is when all of the newborn’s body has emerged from the vagina except the head, which is kept inside her so that the newborn’s skull can be broken and its brain can be sucked away. A little dance around being born or not at the time of infanticide.
It’s just medieval. Democrats who accuse N Korea of committing atrocities don’t have a leg to stand on imo.
I can’t believe how these people talk about it if you watch them. It’s like so normal for them. It’s pure evil listening to them talk about it like it’s just some minor medical procedure removing waste. I can’t even kill a fish and just throw them right back and these people are talking about killing a fully grown baby.
Listening to first trimester abortion procedure where they cut the limbs off piece by piece and remove them one at a time is already enough to make me sick. The moral depravity of this is beyond what I could imagined. It’s Stuff like this that pushed me to the other side after being a dem supporter for most candidates for years. This is sick.
1 Like
Or they choose not to talk about it.
Yes, sick and immoral.
It it wasn’t so damn serious that would be funny.
I can’t tell if that woman is slightly retarded or whether she is, as Tucker said, “just being a robot”. She spent the whole interview - such as it was - answering some hypothetical question playing in her head. Is she for real? Please tell me it was just a setup and “Monica Klein” is just an actor?
Props to Carlson for keeping his cool in the face of a tsunami of bullshit.
Never heard of her, but I think she’s for real and not an actor.
I can only hope this bill will force Virginians to realize just what they did by electing Northam (where the governor serves a single term only, and thus doesn’t have to worry about running for re-election) and that this bill dies a quick death in Richmond.
And by extension I hope the conversation finally convinces Democrats to confront head-on the forces that elected Trump, rather than dwelling on Trump’s many personal failings instead.
They’re trying to spin it like it’s not that bad and out of context…wow.
Apparently it just makes it easier with only 1 doctor approval vs the past law where you need 3. And removes the language of “substantial and irremediable” damage to the mothers mental and physical health. So basically it pretty much loosen the interpretation of how much damage it would do to the women’s mental and physical well being. Opens up how much and how to determine how much damage is needed to justify and easier to get it done with only 1 doctor needed to agree with you.
lol.
Kamela Harris and other Dems now calling for him to resign.
I guess he didn’t realize that the past would come back to haunt him after his support to Kill babies AFTER they come out of the womb. Karma a bitch, man.
Bustle article looks like plain common sense and not spin.
The recent articles defending the bill basically all say no it doesn’t allow people to abort the baby before birth if they choose. It just changes the language of the bill allowing only one doctor instead of 3 to determine harm would be done to the mother mentally and/or physically instead of previously say the mother would most likely die. So basically you removed the standard of death to a pretty loose interpretation of harm by a single doctor. What’s mental harm? If the mother was like no I can’t do it and acted distressed? That sounds like if the mom chooses.
Language like oh it’s so rare. Rare compared to what?
Language like It simplifies the process…
And saying the bill doesn’t really change anything as the law already allows 3rd trimester abortion. Yeah the current law Allows it if the monther is likely to die. Not you removed that part which opens up a lot of interpretation of how much harm is accepted.
Yes, there is definitely a strong whiff of spin here.
For example, the article points out that Tran’s bill would allow abortion even if the mother is dilating - which seems to define human life as a physical distance of roughly 10cm. If the baby can travel the 10cm safely, it lives. If the doctor can break its skull while it’s physically inside the mother, however, no harm no foul. Sorry kid.
Northam then went on to imply that Tran’s bill would even do away with the 10cm definition of human life. Northam implied that even if the baby is born and is alive and breathing, the physician and mother can decide together to murder it lawfully.
And as usual, Bustle says that Northam’s “clarification” clears things up … and then goes on to attribute to Northam text that does not clear things up (thanks to WaPo reporter Aaron Blake, whose tweet is linked but not cited by Bustle).
Northam affirmed that a highly at-risk fetus actively being birthed would be delivered, if possible. But shortly after he said that the “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Republicans erupted in anger. Many construed his comments to mean that a severely at-risk fetus which was fully delivered could be left to die in a hospital instead of treated for its medical conditions.
In a statement, Northam’s spokesperson Ofirah Yheskel clarified the governor’s remarks:
No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor.
Yeah, clear as mud. Doc and mother can still decide to murder the baby, it appears. If Northam provided any further clarification, Bustle failed to report it.
They always throw that “except” in. Like no it doesn’t allow you to kill the baby. Except like severe abnormalities. It’s like so it does and what’s severe. I went to a school with a guy born without fingers on one of his hand. Is that severe?
Or babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome. That’s a really sad one. Down’s syndrome humans are physically different and have (to varying degrees) special needs, but they are definitely human and very loving.
It’s a sensible simplification. One doctor should be enough, and one shouldn’t have to dicker over whether their harm is going to be irreparable or what have you. Lurid fantasies about hypothetical scenarios don’t help at all.
For a law that would allow killing somebody. It’s really loose on the circumstances and now only have to have a single doctor agree instead of 3.
1 Like