Bullshit that happened

[Tgo01]

Hysteria and paranoia aside...

When looking at laws, or rules, you have to take into account the "intent" of the law or rule. Why is it a law or rule? Then you can look at how it applies to a situation.

The intent of the recent law is to protect the woman's health, not to allow people to attack pregnant women to kill their unborn baby and get away with it without repercussion.

I understand your fear of what you think this law may legally allow, and extreme circumstances should be taken into account and the law changed if necessary, but no one is advocating for the murder of babies.

You're not understanding, this isn't my "fear" of what may legally be allowed, it's written into the law that someone killing a baby in the womb will NOT be held accountable for any crime. At least one person has already had charges dropped for murdering a baby in the womb.

This is why the far left is pathetic, you're so afraid to call out an obviously bad law for fear you might be kicked out of the club for supposedly not caring about women's rights. Might be time to rethink your entire life if you think "fighting for a woman's right to choose" also includes protecting a third party for murdering a woman's unborn child.

[Tgo01]

That's all they have left at this point, don't take that away from them too.

It's never a good sign when Androidpk is the first to come to your rescue, Back. Seriously have a hard long look at your political beliefs, because they are apparently shared by Androidpk.

[Methais]

I know, I know... it's my job to factcheck you because you are entirely too busy picking coins out of the couch you're currently residing on...

Let's be real, any change that might have been in that couch was picked clean within the first hour on day 1.

[Androidpk]

It's never a good sign when Androidpk is the first to come to your rescue, Back. Seriously have a hard long look at your political beliefs, because they are apparently shared by Androidpk.

This coming from the troll scum that defended a MAGA father who said he'd murder his own children if they were gay.

[Neveragain]

It's funny you think this is about choice. There has already been one case in NY where a man murdered a pregnant woman and was charged with not only her murder but the murder of the unborn baby, but now the murder charges against the baby have been dropped because this law no longer makes it a crime to harm a baby in the womb, no matter who is the one doing harm.

So much for a woman's choice huh? Even if the woman wants to give birth to the baby a random man can come up and hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat and face no charges for harming the baby.

Face it, Back, this law is about the most evil law in recent memory, but you're all too happy to defend it because as cwolff would say; it's all about "us" vs "them" for you.

Just the simple law of statistics would suggest that half the children being murdered are female.

Democrats:

May I choose to not have health insurance?

Dem: No!

May I choose to own a gun?

Dem: No!

May I choose to invest my own money for retirement?

Dem: No!

May I kill my babies?

Dem: YES!!!!!!!!!!

[Methais]

Show us on the doll where the bipartisan touched you. In my case, the doll is time4fun, and she touched me here: *points toward gaping wrecked anus*

This is correct.

[Back]

You're not understanding, this isn't my "fear" of what may legally be allowed, it's written into the law that someone killing a baby in the womb will NOT be held accountable for any crime. At least one person has already had charges dropped for murdering a baby in the womb.

This is why the far left is pathetic, you're so afraid to call out an obviously bad law for fear you might be kicked out of the club for supposedly not caring about women's rights. Might be time to rethink your entire life if you think "fighting for a woman's right to choose" also includes protecting a third party for murdering a woman's unborn child.

You are cherry-picking. I said if the law needs changing to prevent something unintended from happening it should be changed.

I'm not convinced your interpretation is accurate. What part of the law do you think allows people to attack pregnant women and get away without repercussion? What part of the law do you think says you can kill a baby moments before it is born?

[RichardCranium]

You are cherry-picking. I said if the law needs changing to prevent something unintended from happening it should be changed.

I'm not convinced your interpretation is accurate. What part of the law do you think allows people to attack pregnant women and get away without repercussion? What part of the law do you think says you can kill a baby moments before it is born?

No one is killing babies full term out of inconvenience with this law. There does seem to be an unintended side-effect when it comes to pregnant women being attacked that needs to be addressed.

[Tgo01]

You are cherry-picking. I said if the law needs changing to prevent something unintended from happening it should be changed.

You're STILL not getting it. The law was written like that on purpose to cement the Democrat position that life begins at birth.

I'm not convinced your interpretation is accurate. What part of the law do you think allows people to attack pregnant women and get away without repercussion? What part of the law do you think says you can kill a baby moments before it is born?

It is literally written in plain text in the bill.

https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_...&Memo=Y&Text=Y

Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally negligent homicide
"Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.

As far as killing a baby moments before born I direct you yet again to the text of the law I linked to:

Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.

Right there in black in white. None of this is even remotely ambiguous.

[Back]

You're STILL not getting it. The law was written like that on purpose to cement the Democrat position that life begins at birth.

It is literally written in plain text in the bill.

https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_...&Memo=Y&Text=Y

I think you're being conspiratorial. Read the intent of the law. This is all about protecting women and their health.

As far as killing a baby moments before born I direct you yet again to the text of the law I linked to:

Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-

43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.

Right there in black in white. None of this is even remotely ambiguous.

24 weeks isn't "moments before birth".

At this point I'd like to point out there are other conditions to this law that in no way allow people to murder babies the moment before they are born. Notably...

• the requirements of the health care practitioner
• the good faith and reasonable judgment of said practitioner
• the procedure being done in the specific case of reducing possible risk to the patient's health
• in the case that the fetus is not viable.