Just sayin'. Can we come together on this issue?

Good luck talking to the left Sydney, it's straight up murder. They use the anecdotal to fit their narrative.

Thanks, sir.

Pretty sure both sides of the scene do this. That’s the major issue.

Pretty sure?

Yes, I have an open mind enough to change. Do you?

To democrat, no, to abortion, no, to drugs, yes, to big government, no. Still I haven't seen huge amount of anecdotal usage for bad policy from the right, usually from the left.

If you don't have an open mind, then you can't consider your opponents position. If you cannot consider your opponents position, you're unlikely to reach a mutual compromise. If mutual compromise is not your goal, then you're not likely to comprehend the whole point of politics. Which makes debating your opponents not only a waste of their time, but more importantly yours as well.

No I did. I use to be a lefty in my 20s. I had an open mind until this bill in NY was passed. That's not compromise. I no longer feel the need to debate on forums such as these. I wouldn't mind a chat room. But forums like these help no one. And I do vote on some left policies, but 9/10 they poorly implement it.

I actually agree about poorly implemented policies. The ACA was not perfect. And I would even go as far as to say that people were even lied to about how it worked. Even the term "Free Healthcare" seemed to constantly be passed around so much that I had to remind my more left-leaning, but still admirably respectable intelligent friends, that the healthcare bill was not exactly, by any means, free. Someone was going to pay for it, and it wasn't just going to be the super rich or their employers. We all were.

I would prefer a minimalist and widly interpretated law that allows case by case bases to a law that is filled with detailed provisions or parameters that must be met to determine where everyone fits in the grand scheme of things. This is where my conservative values kick in and I would remind those conservatives who are for heavily regulated abortion that those laws can severely hinder people who are in desperate situations where a rigidly defined law with no room for interpretation might let these overlooked people fall through the cracks.

This is litterally why conservatives don't like big government. Government shouldn't be telling the individual how to live their lives and forcing people into potentially life threatening positions by letting politics decide medical situations with a broad blanket law of "killing of any kind is bad"

When your law lumps serial killers in with rape victims and people with severe medical issues then I have a problem with it.

We are not so different.

Even before this law was passed, 98% of abortions nationwide were entirely elective and NOT related to the health of the mother or baby OR rape.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

How is this any different than your claim that conservatives ignore all the good reasons for abortion in favor of focusing on one thing we completely disagree with? The left ignores that 98% of abortions are done for reasons of convenience and harp on about health and rape, which are such a small proportion of abortions they're almost not even worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things. It really does come down to killing is bad, because the left hasn't accepted any overtures towards limiting abortion to ONLY cases of rape or to save lives. ANY restriction at all is completely unacceptable to the left, and given the circumstances.. they completely give up any moral high ground they may have had simply by ignoring the majority of cases.

How many of that 98% had abortions that were post second trimester? Completely irrelevant to my argument that women who are **ped, people who are physically at risk, or suffering because of a pregnancy gone wrong should still be allowed to have abortions.

You're right though, it is ridiculous that people are fighting laws that uphold such things because abortion is LEGAL. Maybe if the Republicans didn't over regulate abortion, we wouldn't need laws that return those rights to the individual. Just a thought.

Also, you really don't want to go down that road that killing is bad. Killing is perfectly acceptable in the name of self-defense. Which is kind of what I'm advocating here. In real life, sometimes there aren't any obvious villains in a story like there might be in a book. Life is more like a complicated equation that doesn't always have a perfect sum. As for morality, it is a human construct and can always be shaped by whoever holds the majority.

Sure!

I am actually against Abortion past 21 weeks barring any medical concerns for the Mother.

Which, according to the Virginia's new law, is exactly what it says.

What's a 'medical concern'? What does that cover?

If the Mother's health is at risk? Yes. If it isn't? No. Mental Health? I would need to have a think on that. Personally, it should be up to the doctor and the Mother. Not voters, lawyers, politicians, and strangers on the internet. Myself included.

Also, I'm technically I'm not a leftist... but you conservatives are so far up your own right-sided buttocks that I guess I count as one. Still, I'm all for chuckles and tomfoolery... but if it's a discussion you be wanting... I'm more than happy to play the devil's advocate. If the Leftists would pardon the expression of me calling them the Devil, but I think most Righties on here would call that an apt description.

But how can the mother's life be at risk after birth? But the politicians are the ones making such a drastic change, to effectively infanticide. If the child has a bad deformation, you'd see that before dilation. I understand the argument pro choicers make but this isn't some unconscious fetus.
With events like this, is it any wonder people are being pushed further right?
Please do, it'll push me into looking into it more.

Except they aren't? Dilation isn't after birth but during. And complications can arise during birth. The Mother should, in my personal opinion, be able to decide between her life and her child's.

You don't realize the law doesn't say 'complications' it says 'at the discretion of the physician." You seriously have no qualms about killing a viable baby after birth? Have you read these quotes? imgflip.com/i/2shri4

Except in his example, he calls the baby non-viable. I definitely have qualms about the definition of non-viable. To me, this would be a child that cannot survive on it's own without additional or constant surgery. This wouldn't be a simple, they are deaf, have some mundane deformity, or were born without eyes, testicles, tongues, or ears. This would have to mean they be at high-risk of dying without constant medical care that the family may be either unwilling or unable to afford. In those cases, yes, I can see such termination being between parent and physician.

But the law doesn't specify that. Most major abnormalities are detectable long before birth. I'm talking about the other cases. Where the child is viable. Killing a pregnant woman will no longer add the fetus's murder to the list of charges.

Then may be we should be arguing about the law specifying that and not shouting about INFANTICIDE! Just a suggestion.

I did misread that part. My apologies.

But the law that is trying to be passed covers both. Killing a baby after birth is INFANTICIDE, regardless if it's deaf. Do you see what I'm talking about?

I see a side that is hellbent to overturn Roe v Wade and make Abortion illegal and using propaganda to delegitimize an entire bill over one point that they ENTIRELY disagree with. In that, yes, I do see what you're talking about.

I also see you're incapable of listening. The words used against you were non-viable, yet you claim the child is viable in your argument and I agreed with you. I told you that being deaf isn't good enough to terminate a child with severe health conditions. Yet you only heard that a deaf child is elligble for termination. I see you ignoring all the reasons why a child could possibly be CONSIDERED for termination and just trying to push your own agenda. You're not considering anything except that people who support legislation that is pro-abortion have nefarious agendas behind them either because you're incapable of understanding all the possibilities or willfully ignoring them to again push your own agenda.

You're talking about extreme and rare cases to prove your point that the law is unjust. Instead of fighting to change the legislature, you're more interesting in fighting to throw it all out.

Good luck, that's all I can say.

Look, i understand that when a child may cause death to the mother or the child is so deformed that it's life would be hell, that is one thing. But all i'm pointing out that for a mother to decide during dilation, that the 'mental stress' will be too much, and then have the child killed or have it delivered and then kill it later, is immoral and ghoulish. That's all i'm saying. And you agreed with that, but i worry it won't be just rare examples.
https://relevantmagazine.com/current/obama-in-2008-on-late-term-abortion-mental-distress-shouldnt-be-a-determining-factor/
I'm not saying there are no republicans that wouldn't want to overturn RvW.

Apology accepted. I apologize as well.

Your worries are valid. I am not saying I share them but I get where you're coming from.

Wow. Turning it down and having it changed would 'throw it all out'. What proof do you have that RvW is being attacked in a hellbent way. How can you say what will be 'rare' cases, when it's at the physician's 'discretion'? Anyways, thanks but this is going in circles.

Dude, come on. Don't sit there and act like Roe v Wade isn't the end goal of Republicans getting more than a majority on the Supreme Court.

I do agree it is going in circles because, again, you don't listen.

5 months? You're a sick f**k.

No, I’m quite well but thank you for your concern.

Sticks and stones and all that... now do you wanna talk like an adult or continue to argue like a child?

Also, I'm technically I'm not a leftist... but you conservatives are so far up your own right-sided buttocks that I guess I count as one. Still, I'm all for chuckles and tomfoolery... but if it's a discussion you be wanting... I'm more than happy to play the devil's advocate. If the Leftists would pardon the expression of me calling them the Devil, but I think most Righties on here would call that an apt description.

If the Mother's health is at risk? Yes. If it isn't? No. Mental Health? I would need to have a think on that. Personally, it should be up to the doctor and the Mother. Not voters, lawyers, politicians, and strangers on the internet. Myself included.

Thanks. You do disavow issues you disagree with here more than most I've seen. I just find it really sick. There's alot of people that are desperate to adopt.

that's because there aren't that many IMGflip leftists as there are liberals

Just going over my unfeatured memes. Had one with 71 ups, a good thread for discussion. Thought the comment at the very bottom with me and ev was kind of interesting. imgflip.com/i/27trlz