[FONT="]The Bible contains the heart-breaking tale of child sacrifice practiced in the name of [/FONT]Molech[FONT="] (also spelled Moloch or Molek), a god of the [/FONT]Ammonites[FONT="]. Molech worship was practiced by the Ammonites and Canaanites, who revered Molech as a protecting father figure. Images of Molech were made of bronze, and their outstretched arms were heated red-hot. Living children were then placed into the idol’s hands and died there or were rolled into a fire pit below. Some sources indicate a child might also be “passed through the fire” prior to the actual sacrifice in order to purify or baptize the child. Molech worship occurred in the Hinnom Valley near Jerusalem. Because of this, the valley became associated with the idea of Tophet, or hell (Isaiah 30:33; Jeremiah 19:12; Mark 9:45).[/FONT]
[FONT="]God prohibited Israel from child sacrifice in general and Molech worship in particular. Leviticus 20:2-5 states, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.’” Many other Old Testament passages affirm God’s zero-tolerance for child sacrifice.[/FONT]
[FONT="]God prohibited Israel from child sacrifice in general and Molech worship in particular. Leviticus 20:2-5 states, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.’” Many other Old Testament passages affirm God’s zero-tolerance for child sacrifice.[/FONT]
assuming it is a combo of the NY rule (no longer has anything to do with life of the mother at stake...) and the bill that the VA democrat delegate Kathy Tran put forward, HB2491
in a moment of pure comedy platinum, Ms Tran is surprised at the backlash she's been getting
... her bill, like the NY one, would allow abortion if deemed to MENTALLY or PHYSICALLY affect the mother, putting in a whole new grey area context that takes the doctor pretty much out of the equation. Currently 3 doctors must agree that a mother is physically in danger before allowing 3rd trimester abortion...has nothing to do with if a mommy might be sad or depressed or whatever mentally would end up meaning. Her bill would need no doctor consensus just one person to agree that the woman might be mentally uncomfortable never understood the libs position. the vast majority (63ish percent) of abortions are non-white which is a huge democrat voter base and a decent majority of the 37ish percent whites are poor which is another great liberal voting base so they keep wanting to kill off future voters? yeah, that makes sense
committee with Tran:
“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?” GOP Delegate and committee chairman Todd Gilbert asked Tran.
“Through the third trimester,” Tran responded. “The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks. … I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.”
Gilbert then pressed her: “Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth – she has physical signs that she's about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion? … She's dilating.”
“My bill would allow that. Yes,” Tran answered.
You are allowed to make a point without mocking those who might not share your point of view.
I am not familiar with the specifics of the legislation, but if your statement is correct then that's fucked up. I would love to hear the rationale supporting this practice. What threshold needs to be met for mental health to be threatened. Too much ambiguity in my mind, but perhaps the legislation explains more?
Otherwise I take no issue with terminating a pregnancy at any stage if the physical health of the mother is threatened.
Rolltide can you please provide a source for what you posted?
[video]https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJakeMHoffman%2Fvideos%2F2745280835697566%2F&show_text=0&width=476" width="476" height="476" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>[/video]
Don't think this link is working but I saw it on FB and it's a doctor describing the ugliness of an abortion during 2nd-3rd trimester.
Friggin disturbing
Don't think this link is working but I saw it on FB and it's a doctor describing the ugliness of an abortion during 2nd-3rd trimester.
Friggin disturbing
PatsFanatic, yes I get it that a late term abortion sounds horrific. My opinion is that if the LIFE of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy, she can end that pregnancy at any time.
Based on my limited understanding of this new law (which your video is unrelated to), the law is too vague and that "women's health" can (and has) been interpreted to mean 'mental health'.
Legislation on such a serious subject should be crystal clear and not subject to interpretation. People have a right to be outraged. Either clean up the language of the bill or throw it out.
Source: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/01/30/new-york-abortion-law-3/
Based on my limited understanding of this new law (which your video is unrelated to), the law is too vague and that "women's health" can (and has) been interpreted to mean 'mental health'.
Legislation on such a serious subject should be crystal clear and not subject to interpretation. People have a right to be outraged. Either clean up the language of the bill or throw it out.
Source: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/01/30/new-york-abortion-law-3/
you can also read the specific language at:
let’s look at the bill text itself. Thanks to the strike-feature on the Virginia website, you can see exactly how the bill would change current law:
The bill reduces the number of doctors required to certify the alleged medical need for an abortion from three to one, and — critically — eliminates any required showing of severity before the doctor and mother can determine that the birth would impair her physical or mental health. Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements. Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of post-partum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant. This bill functionally renders third-trimester abortions generally legal. It takes nothing more than the agreement of a mother and doctor that there is any degree of even mental impairment to kill a child.
let’s look at the bill text itself. Thanks to the strike-feature on the Virginia website, you can see exactly how the bill would change current law:
The bill reduces the number of doctors required to certify the alleged medical need for an abortion from three to one, and — critically — eliminates any required showing of severity before the doctor and mother can determine that the birth would impair her physical or mental health. Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements. Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of post-partum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant. This bill functionally renders third-trimester abortions generally legal. It takes nothing more than the agreement of a mother and doctor that there is any degree of even mental impairment to kill a child.
Because Democrats are The Satan Party.
**********************************************************************************************************
The House Committee on Natural Resources is reportedly seeking to have the words "so help you God" removed from the oath recited by witnesses who testify before the panel, according to a proposal obtained by Fox News.
The rules proposal states that witnesses appearing in hearings before the committee would be administered the following oath: “Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth[, so help you God]?”
According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is written in brackets in red in the draft which indicates the words are slated for removal.
The committee will reportedly vote on the decision to remove the religious phrasing from the rules this week. The change would be enacted immediately if passed.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/427513-key-house-committee-proposes-to-have-so-help-me-god-removed-from-oath
