Sickening new abortion law in Vermont

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by Shane3, Feb 22, 2019.

  1. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Vermont House passes sweeping no-limits abortion legislation

    Pro-life group blasts bill as 'unlimited, unrestricted and unregulated abortion-on-demand'

    The Vermont House overwhelmingly passed Thursday a sweeping, no-limits abortion bill that makes terminating a pregnancy a “fundamental right” and ensures access to the procedure at every stage of gestation.

    H.57 was approved by a vote of 106-36 after legislators defeated a dozen proposed amendments offered by Republicans, including provisions requiring a 48-hour waiting period, parental notification for minors and a cut-off at 24 weeks’ gestation except in medical emergencies.
  2. Chigger100

    Chigger100 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Euthanasia for all coming soon and I don't mean the kids in India.
  3. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Usually when I say we need a cleansing fire, I am speaking hyperbolically. Usually. Here, I mean it, though. Lord, send a cleansing fire. This is sickening.

    It's clear what's happening, first in NY, then in VA, now here and elsewhere where similarly expansive abortion bills are on the docket. Democratic states see that Roe v. Wade's days may well soon come to an end, and they know that when that happens the question will return to the state (where it rightfully belongs, politically). This is a political land grab, pure and simple.
    bHero likes this.
  4. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This makes no sense. I read somewhere this would never happen and we are all just overreacting to the NY law. Abortion on demand.
    PearlandHorn likes this.
  5. Horns1960

    Horns1960 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    The abortion industry is flexing its muscles.
  6. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    In a way it's almost refreshing, kind of like when someone you know has been lying to you admits that they were lying. In this case, the lie was that aboriton was only ever intended to be "safe, legal, and rare." Given that abortion always ends in at least one death, it's never been safe. It is legal, but the legality of a thing does not grant it moral clemency. And rare, well, if it's on demand then I suspect it's rarity will soon become a punchline.

    There is no fear of God anymore. Men have forgotten God. That is why this is happening.
  7. Eric Nahlin

    Eric Nahlin Recruiting Editor Staff Member

    “One death is a tragedy, millions is a statistic - Stalin” - 2019 Democrat Party
    bHero, Scipio Tex, Turnbo828 and 9 others like this.
  8. mookieblaylocke

    mookieblaylocke Member Who Talks

    Maybe we should embrace the concept of sex ed, science, reproductive education, and contraception. It would certainly help curtail this "travesty" of women getting pregnant (because they're people, have feelings, and make mistakes) and realizing they aren't in a position to raise a child.

    I'm being intentionally snarky.

    But seriously. Don't embrace "abstinence" as a foundation of health education (while ignoring the fact that we all wanna get some loving) and then preach about mass murder. People gonna ****. It's one of the few things we can all agree on. Sex is awesome. SEX IS AWESOME!!!! We all want it. Our kids want it. And they WILL do it. It doesn't matter how many times, or how many ways we as a society (or parents) try to tell them it's immoral, wrong, ungodly, sinful, etc. Because it isn't immoral or wrong or ungodly or sinful. It's natural. And we have reached an incredible level of intelligence where we can SAFELY indulge. Without this misleading attack on abortion.

    If we educate.

    But it's still an individuals choice, and right, to decide if she wants to have a child, especially in situations where her life is threatened or it was forced upon her.

    A rarely discussed aspect of this issue is the medical perspective when we have to choose between mother and child. Only one can survive. We ALWAYS save mom. Cause she can have another baby. Baby can't have another mom.
  9. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This is not rarely discussed. In fact, this is one of the most loudly yelled points by the pro-abortion side of the debate.
    Such love, to save one's self over another.
    Actually, abortion is a medical trauma, and it takes a toll. Abortion makes it more difficult to conceive again, not less.
    Baby can live a full life, be adopted, and if it's a girl, go on to be a mother and to live by the high moral example her mother set for her.
  10. cctxfan

    cctxfan Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    There are already no abortion restrictions in Vermont so this bill doesn’t do anything other than solidying that stance into state law if Roe v Wade is overturned.

    As stated in another thread, abortions after 21 weeks in VT make up .7% of the total.
  11. Duke Silver

    Duke Silver Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    U.S. Bates and Turnbo828 like this.
  12. RepOfTexas

    RepOfTexas Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    An attack on abortion? As if it's some morally superior institution. God help us.
  13. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    So again, completely unnecessary because: 1: they are only .7% of all abortions and 2: little citizens at that point of pregnancy have a 70% chance a living if they are born and 3: in the case of a womans life in danger it's actually safer for both the mother and child to deliver the child via C-Section than to take the time and create the trauma associated aborting the human being. The argument for is complete BS.

    Now that's its all whenever wherever the numbers will be interesting to follow assuming of course they are willing to accurately report them.
    Halas likes this.
  14. cctxfan

    cctxfan Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Except we don’t know the conditions behind that .7%. You say that a fetus has a 70% of surviving at 21 weeks. I’m sure that’s true, but that’s for a healthy, viable fetus. Research shows that the vast majority of these late term abortions are because of severe, fatal birth defects. Some are due to the mother’s health but I’d be curious about your statement that it’s safer to deliver via C-section than abort at 21-weeks or later.
  15. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    The Vermont Department of Health vital statistics for 2015 (the last year I could find in this format) Statistics Bulletin 2015.pdf
    show that nine children (a tragedy (even if your statement below is absolutely true), no longer just a statistic) of greater than 21 weeks gestation were aborted in the State of Vermont. If nine babies had died when a crazy shot up the preemie ward at a hospital can you imagine the outcry by many of the same people who are okay with these nine deaths committed in abortion clinics. There are more interesting statistics to be mined from these data (they are very pretty comprehensive) and I think some interesting facts and inferences pertinent to this debate could be drawn, and also some inferences made. But I haven't done that. Maybe someone will.

    Perhaps so, but could you please cite a reference regarding the statement that "the vast majority of these late term abortions are because of severe, fatal birth effects"? I'm always leery of non-attributed statements like that, not that I think you are simply making that up or being intentionally misleading, but I like like to see things like source, methodology, context, etc. for such statements (and linked if possible). Maybe it's just my scientific training coming out. "Research shows" can be a very shaky statement, as I'm sure you know. Though I have to admit that, at times, I too am guilty of writing that and making a statement of statistical fact without attribution. Slap me (verbally please) the next time I do that.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2019
    Horns Up in St Louis and Halas like this.
  16. ex94

    ex94 Member Who Talks

    Yes he is. We all know he is.
    Halas likes this.
  17. cctxfan

    cctxfan Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    You’re also making generalizations, and, adding some sensationalism to boot. You say nine children were killed due to abortion but you know nothing about the circumstances around those abortions.

    Listen to these two doctors and you’ll get a better sense of why ‘late-term’ abortions are performed. And that if a fetus is viable they will usually deliver the fetus not abort it, unless there is some medical complication that would prevent it.

    I’m sure I can find more studies that support my point.

    Here’s a typical story from a woman having an abortion at 35 weeks:

    The idea that a woman with a perfectly healthy fetus and no medical problems and an OB/GYN would abort a 30-week pregnancy just because they can is non-sensical and there is no evidence to support this is happening.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2019
  18. ex94

    ex94 Member Who Talks

    Um, that's not a study. Those are anecdotal statements. Not evidence at all. Ask your wife what evidence is if you need some help.

    The Guttmacher Institute did an entire study on this subject. Their findings directly refute your statement.

    " Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2019
  19. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I can't believe we're having this discussion again. Damn you abortion.
  20. cctxfan

    cctxfan Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Let me state very clearly that I oppose late-term abortion, whatever the medically correct term is, if the fetus does not have a severe abnormality or the mother's life is not in some sort of danger that would prevent successful delivery vs. termination. I'm certainly not defending doctors or women who terminate a late pregnancy just because a woman doesn't want the baby, nor laws that would defend the practice.

    My main comments here to were to show even in a state like Vermont which already has no abortion restrictions the practice of abortion after 21 weeks is pretty rare and there can be extenuating circumstances that make delivering a healthy a baby a non-option.
  21. ex94

    ex94 Member Who Talks

    And yet, you failed miserably since one of the largest (if not the largest...not sure on that) study conducted to date directly refutes your assertions.
    Turnbo828 and Halas like this.
  22. Toadvine

    Toadvine Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    One of Master P’s less feted releases.
  23. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    What generalizations? Point one out. edit-- I found one: " 'Research shows' can be a very shaky statement..." As generalizations go, I don't think that's an egregious one, in fact, I think it's a pretty useful and true generalization. Do you not agree?

    Perhaps you're saying that calling fetuses children is sensationalism. The woman in your second link called her daughter a baby, a child, and had given her a name. Given all those factors, I can't, myself, condemn her. But the birth defect and subsequent abortion is still a tragedy, and I think you agree.

    Perhaps more likely, my statement about a crazy killing nine preemies is sensationalism. OK, but we simply do not know how many of those nine abortions after 21 weeks would not have been in that preemie ward. One is too many. I say that again below and defend my opinion.

    In the interview you linked, Conti states: "Nobody arrives at the decision to have an abortion after 24 weeks carelessly. Now there's an opinion, and if it's true, why is there a problem with a few days of waiting period being required? Conti states "Those exceptionally rare cases that happen after 24 weeks are often [bold mine] because a fetus has a condition that cannot be treated and will never be able to survive. "Often" is less than "always" and it also means that some are not for that reason. That's given as "expert opinion", not fact, when facts could be established and cited. So whatever number you want to find to plug in there, you believe that is not always the case and some are not for that reason. But you say it's "pretty rare". OK, fine but again, I say one is too many. That is opinion; but it's sound opinion, I think. I'm sure you're at least passingly familiar with John Donne's poem "No Man is an Island. This pretty much sums up my contention:
    "...any man's death diminishes me,
    because I am involved in mankind.
    And therefore never send to know for whom
    the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

    OK, is it sensationalism if I ask this question? If someone kills someone else, the police, representing society, go to great efforts to determine the specifics...was it justified by self defense, was the person killed threatening to kill other people, was it premeditated, what was the psychological condition of the killer, etc. Should the death of an unborn child not be subjected to scrutiny? Conti states : "If a person needs to end their pregnancy after 24 weeks, there are a limited number of places in the country where they can do that, and the approval process for that procedure is scrupulous." Vermont law makes no reference to any scrutiny whatsoever, scrupulous or even perfunctory. Admittedly, I haven't read the actual law, and if you do, and can contradict me, please do--if I'm wrong, I want to know it.
    TexasPalladin and Halas like this.
  24. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    "Damn you abortion", indeed.

    I admit that arguing with someone whose mind is made up is almost always fruitless, but the subject is kind of a big deal to me, so I continue to tilt at the windmill. And if I'm ever able to influence one person's thinking about abortion, I think that would be a big deal too.

    But if the discussion bothers you, of course you're free to not participate or even read it. You know that so why bother to comment? It's not like we're using up some limited number of electrons we're allotted for this forum.
    TexasPalladin and HornsWin like this.
  25. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Ok, thanks for your input.
  26. cctxfan

    cctxfan Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    No, you're missing my point. I was referring to generalizations and sensationalism as to why these particular nine fetuses/babies were aborted. You don't anything about the particular circumstances. Perhaps they all had severe/fatal defects or the mother's health was so fragile that the fetus couldn't be safely delivered. Maybe all them could have been saved - we just don't know.

    As to the bill itself, again, VT already has no laws that restrict the circumstances when an abortion can happen. My understanding is that this law is really to enforce continuing abortion without restriction should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
  27. cctxfan

    cctxfan Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    My mind being made up, perhaps? It sure seems like yours is, too.

    There is a difference, though. I'm pro-choice but I'm not in favor of zero abortion restrictions. What circumstances, if any, would you allow a woman to have an abortion?
  28. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Well first I don't think I was actually missing the point. I agree, we don't know about Vermont other than there were nine abortions after 24+ weeks gestation....but specific data indicate that it's quite possible not all were due to mitigating factors, since as far as I can tell, there is not scrupulous scrutiny of anything before an abortion is performed in Vermont. And I note, you didn't argue with that.

    What's wrong with requiring some sort of evidence that the unborn child suffers from a severe birth defect (or several) that is extremely likely to prove fatal, or will even lead to a terrible quality of life for the child--let's not go into definitions of that yet. Or requiring some evidence that the mother's life is in danger if the child is carried to term. Or requiring several days of a"cooling off" or waiting period. Or some sort of parental notification (one or both). For that matter, why not at least attempt to identify the father and notify him? Those are the types of restrictions I think are not, in general, unreasonable.

    A personal aside about notification of the father of the child: A woman I was dating and having regular sex with became pregnant and had an early term abortion without telling me. Maybe I wasn't the father, but I'll never know. I could have at least provided child support and given the child my name, and tried to be the best father I could be. I would have taken blood tests, and whether the child was mine or not begged, pleaded, done anything, try to convince her to have that child. I admit, I might have begged and pleaded much harder, and been on firmer ground, if it was my child, but maybe not. But I never even knew until the baby had been discarded. Damn, I guess it's not very manly, or it's being overly emotional, but tears came to my eyes when I thought about that and typed it. Can you understand why?

    I don't have to wonder about what I would have done had that child been born. My only daughter is the genetic daughter of a friend who died months before she was born. I ended up marrying her mother, when my daughter was a year old, and legally adopted her not too long after. She knows the facts, but as she says, I'm the only father she's ever known and to her I am her father, and as good a one as she can imagine, despite her mother and I divorcing when she was four. And to me she is my daughter and I love her more than my own life.

    Of course I paid child support, and I kept up our visitation. Her mother never remarried but that makes no difference (she lives just a couple of houses from my daughter, as I do in the other direction, so I see her all the time, we get along well, but both of us are glad we aren't married to each other (or to anyone else for that matter). I talked to my daughter often when she was growing up. Helped her with schoolwork, went to all the school events, the ballet recitals, etc. I paid her way through college, helped her financially when she worked in New York, helped her financially to establish a business here (unfortunately, like so many small businesses, it didn't make it), and to this day I still help her financially. (And more importantly, we talk almost every day,see each other almost every day, and there are lots of hugs.) I have more than enough money to last just me the rest of my life, so everything I do to save and invest now is for her as my sole heir. So yeah, that baby that was aborted, I know would have done right by that child had it been born.

    Now on to my major point. We require a great deal of investigation if a person kills another person, examining many possibly mitigating factors and extenuating circumstances, as I pointed out

    But more to the specific point, without "sensationalism", if an infant dies suddenly in cases where there is not a readily explainable cause(like the chilld dies in the hospitable from a known cause that has been diagnosed and is possibly, or probably fatal) the specific laws vary from State to State, but all require a fairly thorough investigation. Here's a link to the Guidelines for the Scene Investigator in cases of Sudden, Unexplained Infant Death Investigations, as endorsed by several National Medical and Crime Organizations (American Board of Medicolegal Investigators, National Association of Medical Examiners, National Sheriff's Association). Take a look if you want, the guidelines require extensive investigation. But back to the thread and my specific point, in order to terminate a pregnancy at any stage, evidently Vermont relies solely on the mother's desire for an abortion.

    Do you see my point on that? I'm thinking we may have very little disagreement about New Vermont law being a bad law because, again as far as I know, and no one or anything I've read, has contradicted my contention that it has no restrictions on any abortions.

    Edited.I had a paragraph out of place as a result of shifting the composition around, and I changed a little wording so that I didn't indulge in hyperbole.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2019
    Halas likes this.
  29. Halas

    Halas Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    So you’re JGing all over this thread? Thanks.
    Turnbo828, padrehorn11 and horn78 like this.
  30. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I didn't mean that to sound snarky, but I see now that it did. I apologize.
    Halas likes this.
  31. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Messing with you bro. Messing with you.
    padrehorn11 likes this.
  32. ex94

    ex94 Member Who Talks

    The awesome thing is he is ignoring the primary study on on the subject. Of course, I'm on ignore in his world none of those things matter, just what he wants to believe.
    Halas likes this.
  33. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    OJK. Cool. Hook'em!

    I hate to offend people when I don't mean too, but I end up doing it fairly often.
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  34. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    We all do even if unintentional. I don't sweat message board stuff and once the debate/argument is done well it's done.
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  35. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Yeah, he say's he's pro-choice. I usually don't use that term, it sterilizes and tries to make deciding a literally life and death issue seem like deciding where to eat dinner) but I'm tired of several people here focusing on the fact that I often use the same terms as people who can't or won't make cogent arguments, but simply use derogation by terminology as their main weapon.

    At any rate, he says he's pro-choice but would allow for certain restrictions. I suppose if a woman could be only a little bit pregnant, that might make better sense, but it seems disingenuous to me. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to be against abortion, but willing to allow for rare exceptions? But people aren't always reasonable or logical./

    Also CC tells me my mind is made up. That's true, but I have, in the past been convinced to change my mind. I don't foresee doing that on this issue though, at least not while I try to hold to my version of Christian values. But my stances on many other issues can and have been changed by cogent arguments and the presentation of factual, documented data.
  36. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Well said. With the passage of time and improvement of medicine along with technology I've gone from pro-choice to pro-life. I do, however, get the need for exceptions in certain extenuating circumstances.
    Turnbo828, hager41 and TexasPalladin like this.
  37. TexasPalladin

    TexasPalladin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Both of you hit on the critical crux of the entire debate.
    And that is having the ability to understand that in the rare circumstances where it is a matter of life/death, there needs to be ability to make the decision.
    But as the so called "Pro-Choice" movement has completely abandoned any semblance of "Rare and necessary", the entire debate has shifted to a anytime, anywhere and any reason approach versus none.
    Padre's statement..."Wouldn't it be more reasonable to be against abortion, but willing to allow for rare exceptions?" is the intelligent and common sense compromise. But unfortunately both intelligence and compromise are no longer allowed or utilized when it comes to the abortion debate.

    Semper Fi
  38. 40A

    40A Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    .7% is how many lives?
    Halas likes this.
  39. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I find it funny that people use the its so rare we should allow it as a rationale to support it.
    Halas and 40A like this.
  40. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This is quite right. I can't help but wonder why this bill was passed in the first place. The only thing I can think of is that VT believes the Supreme Court will want to take up the issue and they are laying down their marker. Similarly, we just saw the Court strike down a Louisiana law that they deemed (correctly, I think) was in conflict with a case the Court had already settled regarding a similar law in Texas that was struck down in 2016. Why would Louisiana write a law that looked on paper like it was bound to be overturned? Because a lot has changed on the Court since then.

    Like Calvin, I started out pretty pro-choice. As I've aged and had kids, I've drifted more the other way. But I think even a pro-choice person should be able to say, this VT law is poorly-written and politically suicidal. Just as even a pro-life person should be able to admit that many conservative states' laws regarding abortion are less about protecting women and more about banning the practice by other means.

    When legislatures pass abortion bills on party-line votes, they're doing so more for politics than health reasons, and it serves to only polarize the debate more. And because states can't get their acts together, this entire issue is ultimately is going to have to return to the Supreme Court, in what form or forms I do not yet know.
    scout3dave, Turnbo828, J Galt and 5 others like this.

Share This Page