Grief and pain (Page 9): Kind of like your pictures.

Smedley_buzkill

Bad Bob wrote:

Your statement was stupid.

Kind of like your pictures.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Bad Bob wrote:

Now Lj is playing Doctor?

No, no I’m not playing doctor. I am throwing out a suggestion that seems plausible where the mother can be taking care of medically and the baby can live as well, seems so obvious...

If the mother does not want the child then she can put it up for adoption and there are plenty of people who do want children....

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

debeda wrote:

Not just new York, any late term. This is a dehumanizing and abysmally countwr-instinctual thing.

You get no argument from me!!! Right there with you!!!

Your liberal states will follow NY soon enough and get the same bills past all in anticipation of Roe being overturned which simply is not going to happen!!!ppppffffftttt

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

lindajoy wrote:

No, no I’m not playing doctor. I am throwing out a suggestion that seems plausible where the mother can be taking care of medically and the baby can live as well, seems so obvious...

If the mother does not want the child then she can put it up for adoption and there are plenty of people who do want children....

LJ you don't have a clue what the situation is. What is her age? When was the pregnancy confirmed? What is her health? What is her family support?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Smedley_buzkill

Bad Bob wrote:

LJ you don't have a clue what the situation is. What is her age? When was the pregnancy confirmed? What is her health? What is her family support?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The NY law legalizes a******n of a baby that can live outside the womb. This is not some first trimester argument. The NY law makes the difference between a******n and murder a matter of days, or even minutes. It legalizes a******n just about up to the point where the mother enters labor.
In your case, this might be a desirable outcome, but we are talking population in general.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

The NY law legalizes a******n of a baby that can live outside the womb. This is not some first trimester argument. The NY law makes the difference between a******n and murder a matter of days, or even minutes. It legalizes a******n just about up to the point where the mother enters labor.
In your case, this might be a desirable outcome, but we are talking population in general.

Bull s**t

Smedley_buzkill

Bad Bob wrote:

Bull s**t

The law legalizes a******n after 24 weeks if the mother's health may be at risk or the fetus may be unviable. The definitions of these terms leave a lot of wiggle room.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

The law legalizes a******n after 24 weeks if the mother's health may be at risk or the fetus may be unviable. The definitions of these terms leave a lot of wiggle room.

Agreed~< This should go before the SC on a******n after their defined 24 week gestation~< Also this would likely become at issue since there is no clear definition on health of the mother, Eminent danger etc.~~

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "A******ns are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Then its which life do you save??? A horrific issue at best...And a very dangerous one depending on the ruling, most likel why the SC may not even hear it leaving it to the states..