Mass Gov Signs Law - Abortion Until Moment of Birth

Show me the babies. If full-term abortions are supposedly happening routinely, where are the actual cases, doctors, hospitals and statistics?

A third-trimester abortion isn't a woman casually changing her mind at 39 weeks. These are extraordinarily unusual, medically complex pregnancies.
 
That article is doing exactly this: taking a legitimate change in the law and turning it into a lurid imaginary scenario about “field executions.” There's a huge leap between the law and the claimed reality.

A few facts make the argument especially easy to dismantle:

The previous Massachusetts law already allowed abortions after 24 weeks in specific circumstances—including threats to the pregnant patient's life/health and lethal or grave fetal diagnoses. ([Massachusetts Government][1])
Massachusetts actually collects gestational-age and procedure data on abortions. ([Massachusetts Government][2])
In the state's 2023 data, there were 84 abortions at 24+ weeks out of 24,355 total**—about **0.35%**. That is not evidence of a population casually terminating healthy, full-term pregnancies. ([Massachusetts Government][3])
* The law's language concerns **abortion**, not permission to kill a baby after it has been born. Massachusetts law separately provides protections concerning live birth following an abortion. ([Massachusetts Government][4])



“Field execution” is not a medical term. It's propaganda designed to make you picture something that isn't actually happening.**

You read “no gestational limit” and somehow hallucinated “drive-through baby executions.” That's quite a leap.

The law says doctors can provide abortion care. It doesn't say doctors can murder newborns. Learn the difference between abortion and infanticide.

If healthy 39-week babies are routinely being aborted, show us the actual cases. Not memes. Not hypotheticals. Cases.

“What if Mom doesn't like the baby's looks?” is not an argument. It's fan fiction.

“What if she changes her mind 48 hours before birth?” Congratulations—you've invented a scenario that isn't evidence of anything.



Your entire argument is ‘What if someone does something horrible that the law doesn't actually say they can do?’ What if we discussed what the law actually says instead?

The "one of only 8 countries” claim is also worth challenging. That's a particularly misleading statistic because abortion laws differ enormously in how they define gestational limits, exceptions, health indications, and legal grounds; reducing all of that to “8 countries allow abortion at any point” is not a meaningful description of abortion practice. I wouldn't let them use that number without asking **exactly what source and definition produced it**.

Do you have evidence that Massachusetts doctors are performing elective abortions on healthy, viable fetuses at or immediately before birth—or are you just assuming that because the law doesn't specify a maximum week?

That's the distinction they desperately want to avoid.

[1]: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c112-ss-12n?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mass. General Laws c.112 § 12N | Mass.gov"
[2]: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c112-ss-12q?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mass. General Laws c.112 § 12Q | Mass.gov"
[3]: https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachuse...ancy-2023-pdf/download?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Table 1"
[4]: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-abortion?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Massachusetts law about abortion | Mass.gov"
 
Aww the Oozy 9mm peckerboy is upset.

Fact:
It was obvious that the building was a school from satellite footage. Imagery of an outdoor play area was visible since August 2017. And they hit it 3 times, waiting until medics arrived to strike again, just to make sure they also killed medical staff.
Your president that you voted for is a CHILD MURDERER.
 
JDs Couch said:
And? Surely you're not positing the fiction that the war is for the liberation of Iran's womenfolk are you?
Click to expand...
If it were up to me it would be the liberation of ALL Iranians.


In any event it's funny how the left will align with ANYONE who opposes whatever current person or thing they are opposing in their bid for power. What happened to women's rights ? You only care about that in the absence of transgender women or Islam.
 
Floyd Eye said:
If it were up to me it would be the liberation of ALL Iranians.


In any event it's funny how the left will align with ANYONE who opposes whatever current person or thing they are opposing in their bid for power. What happened to women's rights ? You only care about that in the absence of transgender women or Islam.
Click to expand...
I LOVE how you guys are all "MUH RIGHTS" when vaccines are involved and "you can't tell me what's good for me" but you're all "we gotta tell the Iranians how to live".

Hypocrite much?

What do you say when your neighbor tells you how to raise your kids. "Hey Floyd I think you let your kids watch too much TV, I'm gonna come over and take away the remote".
 
JamesTiberiusKirk said:
I LOVE how you guys are all "MUH RIGHTS" when vaccines are involved
Click to expand...
I love how you guys are all "it's a woman's body" then wanna jam a needle in everyone's arm using force of law. The reality is it's a woman's body and she has no right to destroy the life of another person. Abortion IS the destruction of life. There have been more than 63 million abortions in the US since roe v wade. Makes the holocaust look like nothing but to those on the left the holocaust is a great evil and 63 million abortions is some sort of social virtue. The left has no actual morals.
 
JamesTiberiusKirk said:
I LOVE how you guys are all "MUH RIGHTS" when vaccines are involved and "you can't tell me what's good for me" but you're all "we gotta tell the Iranians how to live".

Hypocrite much?

What do you say when your neighbor tells you how to raise your kids. "Hey Floyd I think you let your kids watch too much TV, I'm gonna come over and take away the remote".
Click to expand...
This is from AI but It's accurate enough to post so I don't have to type it all out from memory...

Yes, holding conflicting ideas—or more specifically, the cognitive capacity to entertain, comprehend, and navigate contradictory concepts without immediately needing to resolve them—is widely recognized by psychologists and cognitive scientists as a sign of high cognitive complexity and intelligence.

Key Psychological Concepts​

  • Negative Capability: Coined by poet John Keats in 1817 and later adopted in psychology, this is the ability to exist in a state of uncertainties, mysteries, and doubts without any irritable reaching after fact and reason. In psychological terms, it reflects high emotional and cognitive maturity.
  • Dialectical Thinking: This is the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and integrate seemingly opposing viewpoints or truths. Research shows that dialectical thinkers are better at navigating complex, real-world problems where simple "black-and-white" answers do not apply.
  • Cognitive Complexity: Psychologists use this term to describe how elaborately a person can perceive and categorize information. People with high cognitive complexity can hold multiple, nuanced, and even contradictory rules or frameworks in mind simultaneously.

The F. Scott Fitzgerald Observation​

The author F. Scott Fitzgerald famously captured this idea in his 1936 essay The Crack-Up:
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
Click to expand...
While Fitzgerald was speaking observationally rather than clinically, modern psychology largely supports his intuition.

Intelligence vs. Cognitive Dissonance​

It is important to distinguish between comfortable intellectual paradox and psychological distress:
  • Cognitive Dissonance: When a person holds two contradictory beliefs and experiences mental stress, discomfort, or anxiety as a result. People naturally try to resolve this tension quickly, sometimes by blindly rejecting new evidence or doubling down on flawed beliefs (motivated reasoning).
  • Productive Paradox: Highly intelligent or intellectually flexible individuals are often better at tolerating the discomfort of dissonance. Instead of rushing to a premature conclusion, they can examine why two conflicting ideas might both contain elements of truth depending on context, scale, or perspective.

Real-World Examples​

Holding conflicting ideas is often essential in advanced fields:
  • Physics: A physicist must hold the concepts of light as both a wave and a particle in mind simultaneously (wave-particle duality), even though intuitively they seem mutually exclusive.
  • Leadership & Strategy: A great leader must be fiercely optimistic about the long-term vision while remaining paranoid and hyper-realistic about immediate threats and failures.
  • Interpersonal Relations: Recognizing someone's deep flaws while simultaneously loving and appreciating their virtues requires holding contradictory emotional and logical assessments at the same time.
 
And a follow up to the above...

When someone becomes upset by another person holding conflicting ideas, it is rarely just a disagreement over facts. Instead, it usually triggers deep psychological, social, and neurological defense mechanisms.

1. The Threat to Shared Reality and Trust​

Humans are ultra-social creatures who rely on a shared understanding of the world to cooperate, predict behavior, and build trust. When someone holds a fundamentally contradictory view, it can subconsciously signal:
  • "We do not live in the same reality."
  • "I cannot reliably predict how this person will act."
    This creates a baseline sense of unpredictability, which the human brain interprets as a low-level social threat.

2. Cognitive Dissonance is Contagious and Uncomfortable​

As noted previously, holding conflicting ideas causes mental friction (cognitive dissonance). When you encounter someone who casually embraces paradox or contradicts what you consider absolute truth, it forces your own brain to do uncomfortable work.
  • To protect itself from that mental strain, the brain often shortcuts the discomfort by labeling the other person as stubborn, irrational, or dangerous, rather than doing the heavy lifting of examining the paradox.

3. Moralization of Beliefs​

In modern psychology, beliefs—especially political, cultural, and social ones—tend to become "moralized." When an idea is tied to a person's core moral identity (what they consider good versus evil):
  • A differing or conflicting idea is no longer seen as just an alternative viewpoint.
  • It is perceived as a direct attack on their character and morality.
    If you disagree with a moralized belief, you aren't just wrong; to them, you are threatening the social or moral order.

4. Identity Threat and Group Belonging​

Humans derive a massive amount of self-esteem and safety from group identity (tribalism). Accepting or tolerating conflicting ideas can feel like a betrayal of the group.
  • People often react with anger to ambiguity because ambiguity threatens ideological purity.
  • In many groups, demanding absolute alignment on ideas is a way of policing loyalty. If someone tolerates or holds conflicting ideas, it disrupts the "us versus them" boundary that keeps the group cohesive.

5. Intolerance of Ambiguity (Need for Closure)​

Psychologists measure a trait called the Need for Cognitive Closure. People who score high on this trait have a strong aversion to ambiguity, nuance, and unresolved questions. They want clear answers, categorization, and finality.
  • For a high-closure mindset, holding conflicting ideas looks like chaos, indecision, or dishonesty.
  • Their frustration stems from a genuine psychological distress at seeing a problem left open-ended or unresolved.
 
JamesTiberiusKirk said:
I LOVE how you guys are all "MUH RIGHTS" when vaccines are involved and "you can't tell me what's good for me" but you're all "we gotta tell the Iranians how to live".

Hypocrite much?

What do you say when your neighbor tells you how to raise your kids. "Hey Floyd I think you let your kids watch too much TV, I'm gonna come over and take away the remote".
Click to expand...
So you think it’s alright to subjugate women and treat them as property. Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Uzi Nein Millimetah
Starmer's Secret - Over 250,000 White British Girls Raped by Rape Gangs with Impunity
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
3K
Robostyle
R
ccn
Democrats To Create Sanctuary State for Kids To Get Abortions and Sex Changes Without Parental Consent.
Replies
14
Views
2K
Inbred Beta Redneck
Inbred Beta Redneck
Back
Top