Are you liberals sure you want to ride this train?

Amen. I’m stealing this and giving you no credit, Joe Biden style.

Side note: I’m now in favor of post-deliver full term abortion. Let’s start with Biden/Harris.

"I’m now in favor of post-deliver full term abortion"

There is no such thing

You might want to read Calif AB-2223 which allows for no prosecution for perinatal deaths, especially Section1(f).

Perinatal: Pertaining to the period immediately before and after birth. The perinatal period is defined in diverse ways. Depending on the definition, it starts at the 20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth.

https://www.lifenews.com/2022/04/05/california-assembly-committee-passes-bill-that-would-legalize-infanticide/

It's a non-issue. They clarified the perinatal term and removed it from the AB-2223 for the very concerns you and many others have raised.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2223

The bill is basically an anti-criminalization of abortion; much in the same vein as the criminalizing abortion bills being passed in several southern states.

It does not support infantcide at all, but rather protects mothers who've experienced a pregnancy loss for further persecution.

Believe it or not, if you want women to not worry LESS about having MORE babies; maybe don't legislate the possibility that they could go to jail if they're the one in five who have a child as a result of stillborn pregnancies.

"They clarified the perinatal term and removed it from the AB-2223 for the very concerns you and many others have raised."

Actually, they did not remove the term perinatal, they changed it from any "perinatal death" to now read "perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause."

The question is what if that "pregnancy-related cause" is that the woman is depressed due to the pregnancy (Post-partum depression). Does that mean she can kill the baby up to 28 days after birth and not be charged?

What happens if after giving birth the woman is now financially in trouble due to the costs related to the pregnancy and birth. Can she kill the baby after birth because she can't afford to keep it?

All reference to the term perinatal needs to be totally removed from the bill.

Since the intent of the law relates to still-birth or physiological complications; rather than mental or financial status; it's unlikely to be interpreted that way as it is still illegal to murder a baby regardless.

The law only makes it difficult to press charges on the mother without direct evidence to support it.

In other words, you need more than just a dead baby and a depressed Mom to press charges.

"Since the intent of the law"

The intent of a law is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the legislators meant when they wrote a law, what matters today is what a judge decides the law is. This is nothing to stop a judge from ruling that depression is justification for drowning a child up to 28 days after birth. This is why laws need to be very clear. This law is not.

We are seeing this more and more with courts "interpreting" the constitution in ways that were never envisioned by the authors.

"The law only makes it difficult to press charges on the mother without direct evidence to support it."

This is how it always was, innocent till proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt.

However, this law limits the ability to report and investigate these occurrences to find the evidence.

“"Just as criminalizing drugs increases illegal drug trade, criminalizing abortion increases illegal abortions"

Same with guns.”

Then I win.

Thanks for admitting you are wrong to support dumb liberal laws that forfeit people’s freedom.

I do not.

“"The law only makes it difficult to press charges on the mother without direct evidence to support it."

This is how it always was, innocent till proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt.

However, this law limits the ability to report and investigate these occurrences to find the evidence. “

Unfortunately no.

The new abortion laws compel private citizens to sue mothers of failed pregnancy regardless legality, if any. As well as compel the medical community to not withhold any personal information regarding the patient to authorities, regardless of any actual wrongdoing, (which is a violation of HIPAA) with the threat of also being held criminally accountable.

You want to remove laws like this? Start with the ones these laws are actively trying to prevent being made and let the courts do their job in determining things on a case by case basis rather than a cookie cutter one-size fits all.

Again, criminalizing Abortion while also criminalizing potentially any failed pregnancy will only cause birth numbers to go down.

" criminalizing Abortion while also criminalizing potentially any failed pregnancy will only cause birth numbers to go down."

Isn't that what the left wants, fewer births?

I am sure that the 600,000 children killed each year by abortion will increase the overall numbers if we outlaw all abortions.

You mean the 600,000 number that fell from 800,000 fifteen years ago? And before these radical and liberally-right leaning abortion laws, has started to see an increase?

The abortion regulations that were for protecting women’s health were working! But because Republican’s and Pro-Life politicians got nervous or needy for a drastic measure, mostly just for votes, they swung away from protecting mothers to this ludicrous notion of protecting the unborn.

Regardless of your noble goals, self-righteous though they may be, they are not getting the results you so desperately want.

Just as criminalizing drugs increases illegal drug trade, criminalizing abortion increases illegal abortions… making them harder to track, risking women’s health, and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to bring the US birthrate, which is still at a record low, UP.

"Just as criminalizing drugs increases illegal drug trade, criminalizing abortion increases illegal abortions"

Same with guns.

Assuming for the sake of argument that that's even accurate, that's still not "post delivery abortion". That's an oxymoron.

Did you even read the law or are you just bloviating?

Your right, it is not post-delivery abortion, it is just killing children, just like pre-delivery abortion. That is just how Calif. Democrats swing, before, after, who cares.

"Did you even read the law or are you just bloviating?"

I read up on it on a website that debunked the conservative claim

"Your right, it is not post-delivery abortion, it is just killing children, just like pre-delivery abortion"

Infanticide is killing a child, abortion isn't

"Infanticide is killing a child, abortion isn't"

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read on ImgFlip. What a perfect example of selective ignorance and twisting facts to promote an agenda. Choose life... Your Mom did.

Explain how it's dumb

"Choose life... Your Mom did"

So if someone does something, that means I should? That's illogical.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone who has ever had a child did so because they wanted one. Many people had children because they didn't have access to abortion or contraception.

"I read up on it on a website that debunked the conservative claim"

Instead of being told what to think by some liberal website, why don't you read the law yourself and make your own decisions?

I know critical thinking is hard, but do give it a try. It may help get you out of your echo chamber.

You are right about one thing, though. I should read the bill for myself.

How so?

That is a great statement, and I am glad you agree with it. You should try it.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of being in an echo chamber when I listen to conservative Christian radio every single day for hours at a time.

How is it living in an echo chamber when I spend much of my day listening to people with opposing viewpoints? Please explain how that is supposed to make sense.

Why would anyone listen to conservative Christian radio every day for hours at a time? Even conservative Christians don't do that.

"You're correct, almost as bad as watching CNN or The View"

If that's ALL someone watches, then yes

Now that is an echo chamber

You're correct, almost as bad as watching CNN or The View.

Many do. I've heard people call in to the station and say they have it on in their house every waking moment, literally

How pathetic.

That is how “men” can become pregnant. People seem to overlook transmen and mistake that transwomen are the ones who are delusional of their abilities. It’s not them making those demands.

It’s not a difficult concept to understand yet it’s constantly overlooked in the usually strawman against trans.

Bingo

Transmen are still females, otherwise, you won't need the prefix trans to explain that they are not real men.

Yes, but no one is saying transwomen should have abortion rights. That's still a strawman. Even if identifies as a legitimate argument.

So any word suffixed with -man means the person isn't a "real" man? So I guess a congressman isn't a real man. Or a mailman, serviceman, etc

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_words_suffixed_with_-man

Again, another false analogy for which you are famous.

Congressman, mailman, serviceman, etc. are describing a person's occupation. By definition, a congressman is a man who is a member of congrees.

The prefix Trans is not an occupation. Transman describes a person who is not a man. A more accurate term would be fauxman.

Well either we can identify as women or we as men can get pregnant, so I guess the answers yes and we even have options! Yay!

If a man had a embryo surgically placed inside his ball sack and was forced to deliver it would he? Even if he didn't want to would he?

Not biologically possible.