The slippery slope


Which is why one would reasonably expect the governor of Virginia and the media to rule out such hypotheticals by using very clear language in reports that are also very, very clear.

Did not happen in the Bustle article, which seems to have been written to cover Northam’s backside.


I can understand the ethical question of either saving the mother or the baby. I can understand maybe that’s a decision that should be made individually without gov interference. But when you removed that specific circumstance and open it up to just any interpretation of mental and physical harm by one doctor. It’s a big change and they’re trying to down play it. It feels completely sneaky and looks exactly like how a slippery slope would work.


Wow, I didn’t know he was one of the people posing. I’m guessing he was the kkk member If they didn’t specify which one.


Very slippery slope.

Democrats have been emboldened by the 2018 elections to begin now to argue in favor of very late term abortions. The problem with very late term abortions (third trimester and later) is that logically the definition of when human life begins is distorted purely for reasons to justify murder. Removing the approval of 2 other doctors makes it easier for the doctor and mother to say whatever they want about the viability of the baby’s life postpartum. I’m not saying that will happen, I am saying that it increases the likelihood of situations where healthy babies are destroyed who are literally centimeters from birth - for the financial, mental, and emotional health of the mother, say.

It’s not lurid to extrapolate that further distortions of the definition of human life are possible. Like, for a few hours after the baby is born it can still be lawfully murdered - that’s what Northam implies (and does not deny).

If that’s the case, then how long before a kindergartner can be murdered lawfully? If Tran’s bill becomes law and is signed by Northam, what mechanisms are in place to halt sliding down the slippery slope to “all murder is legal?”


y’all realize we protect bald eagles’ eggs better than human embryos? kinda pathetic

The bald eagle will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act even though it has been delisted under the Endangered Species Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit.
“Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb… imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization. Rewards are provided for information leading to arrest and conviction for violation of the Act.


I don’t think there will be doctors abusing it, why would they? How many people are going to wait until the third trimester and decide to have an abortion for personal reasons, and then somehow find a shady doctor who will sign off on it? It’s contrived.


Then why leave the door open with such a loose and undefined requirement?

Many structural abnormalities are only detectable 2nd trimester and beyond.

And there are plenty of people who genuinely believe a women should be able to abort the baby up to the point of birth for any reason and some even beyond. It would no longer be a shady doctor.


I agree that it’s incredibly unlikely; very few people would opt for such a procedure for no good reason (if “procedure” is even the right word). But if that’s the case, then why even allow for the possibility? I’m one of those people who would be called “pro-choice”, but I can see no practical reason for such a law.

Sometimes I think it’s better if there are grey areas in the law that can be filled in by the people on the spot. For example, it sometimes happens that a baby is disastrously braindamaged due to oxygen starvation during birth. Or born with life-threatening defects that were undetected. In those cases, doctors might historically have contrived to have the baby … fail to survive. And frankly that’s probably best for all concerned. If there’s an actual law that’s only a stone’s throw away from saying: “it’s OK to kill a baby under certain circumstances”, I suspect that detracts from the enormity of this kind of decision. It’s better than all concerned know that it’s Wrong with a capital W, but perhaps marginally less Wrong than the alternative.


It simplifies things for women who would be harmed by carrying a baby to term. I’m not seeing the negatives


A fully grown child who can feel pain will be killed in a disgusting way. I don’t mind the morality question of the life of the child vs the life of the mother. But to ignore the life of the child is what’s wrong with this.


like a bad dentist appointment…I’m willing to hear some moral issues of mother’s life and child/fetus life or even for things like rape…but wow…


Willing lol. Pro-choice


You don’t think I’m willing to think about the morality of abortion when it jeopardizes a mother’s life?


No, I just think it’s funny that you’re willing to grant that, like you’re the king or something.


It’s a legal and societal issue is it not? Or do I not get a say on it in your belief? I would not be willing to hear killing a 2 year old because someone didn’t want it like most people…doesn;t make me a king, just a normal person.


One lesson here is that everyone’s empathy has limits.

Another is that nobody is going to accept someone else’s notions of morality just because.

In the end, it all comes down to what you can enforce. That’s why the US had a Civil War. You can shout “slavery is wrong” until you’re blue in the face but it makes no difference at all unless you win the war.

Oh, and… winning a war involves killing a lot of people.

By the way, this is precisely why socialist governments always devolve into corruption and tyranny. “Equality” is just a word. It’s not even an ideal. It’s just a word.


They don’t.


I guess you are thinking Nordic Countries, TG ? They do not follow many Socialist ideals, more like compassionate capitalism, which is not Socialism.


I doubt that rowland meant communist countries, or that he will agree with you.


Just that Scandinavia is always brought up at an example of Socialist success, but the word itself means different things to different people. You , by default, require huge Government intervention to make it work. State Control, Minimum wages , so many things. By that meter , I have to agree, that in it’s true form , Socialism does not work . Have a look at this article…just out of interest. You and I, should not be getting stressed :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: