It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New York legislature votes to legalize abortion up to birth, let non-doctors commit abortions

page: 12
32
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470




For me its not really a "passion for life" as you put it. It's more a disgust at the act of ending a life for no purpose besides you just don't feel like feeding and taking care of it.


oh, we're talking about later term abortion here, usually, there is more going on than the mother just deciding she doesn't want to bother feeding and taking care of it... those abortions happen earlier than the 24 week when it's less dangerous and much cheaper!! this low doesn't nothing to change these earlier abortions one way or the other.

with just an exemption for the life of the mother, it means that if the pregnancy is causing health issues, the pregnancy cannot be terminated until those complications escalate to the point where the mother is in a health crisis and her life is at risk. which could possibly lead to extended hospitalization for the mother even though there is no way that a living bady is gonna be a result. maybe that mother has additional kids at home, maybe dad managed to get a little time off to tend to kids, maybe they have a little money set aside for a sitter for those kids, but maybe dad needs to get back to work and the money for the sitter isn't gonna last long enough for that extended hospital stay. maybe, just maybe, mom has more to consider than just weather or not she wants an extra mouth to feed and take care of!!!
you have a far bigger chance of having some far right lunatic killing you than you do an illegal immigrant that has crossed that border illegally!! and, you have some women in this country with a far greater chance of having very negative health effects from their pregnancy! doesn't the women have the same right to defend herself as the nation does to protect themselves from the evil terrorists living in the caves of afghanistan, or those families trying to escape the chaos of their own country so much that they are willing to walk across a danged continent to get here? even your average, ordinary, pregnancy presents more of a risk to a women than any of that does to you!!

but when it comes to the abortions this late in pregnancy, after the 24th week, the majority of them are because there is severe fetal abnormalities present. of which prolife groups often present as the down syndrome babies, and yes, they are included.. and yes, some can have decent lives. but then I have to consider, what kind of lives would they have without all the special resources they are provided.... and gee didn't the conservatives in congress want to cut funding to all those services? what kind of life would they have without them? but, then there are other fetal abnormalities, babies with brains and spinal cords developed outside of the body, babies with no mouths, no orifices of any kind. and yes, the jellyfish babies with no bone structure. some of these defects would be very expensive to repair, others probably can't be repaired. so, I imagine you have no problem with that couple I mentioned before being financially ruined in the hopes of saving such babies and having them lead a even a semi normal life? mom and dad should just exhaust themselves on this one special needs kid at expense of their others? or maybe the state should just take on their care, have special understaffed out of site, out of mind orphanages for them where overworked nurses and doctors can get frustrated because they are not equipped and able to care for them. I'm sure you and the other taxpayers won't mind footing the bill, or wait, you probably would which is why these orphanages would be understaffed and struggling!

and all along, those that you seem to want to portray them all as being, just selfish, irresponsible sluts, well, they will be allowed to carry on, because NYs old law would still permit those abortions!!




Abortion has enabled the entire hookup culture to persist.


abortion rates have been falling steadily since the 1980s and is at the lowest level since roe was passed!!!
it's not what enabled the "hookup culture" and it hasn't resulted in the lower population rate. BIRTH CONTROL has!! so, guess we should get rid of the birth control next??




posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

maybe that mother has additional kids at home, maybe dad managed to get a little time off to tend to kids, maybe they have a little money set aside for a sitter for those kids, but maybe dad needs to get back to work and the money for the sitter isn't gonna last long enough for that extended hospital stay. maybe, just maybe, mom has more to consider than just weather or not she wants an extra mouth to feed and take care of!!!


You seem to be saying you are fine with a mother ending the life of another human being for convenience in the last few weeks of pregnancy, even if the child is perfect and would live.

You do understand that pro-life is not a negative position to take and in particular, in the last few weeks of pregnancy? Why anyone tries to portray a profound respect for human life as negative is beyond understanding.

To me it's premeditated infanticide.

I mentioned earlier I've discussed this with two MD's I know, who candidly gave me their opinion on the mothers health issue. Both told me the same thing. There is never a case where a partial birth abortion is safer for the mother than a C-section. Which means there is literally no reason to kill the child other than for convenience. It is infanticide, which is why only a handful of MD's in the entire US will do it and they must be sociopaths. Harvard psychologist Dr. Martha Stout says 4% of us are sociopaths.

You do understand we are talking about late term abortion here and not an abortion in the first few months, right?

Being pro-life is not being anti-women. That's is a myth. The child is completely separate human being from the mother. It also does not mean we are opposed to birth control and in my case the opposite is true. Birth control is the rational, moral way to prevent unwanted births.

81% of the country is opposed to late term abortions. You'll find the source of that earlier in this thread. It's not a religious thing, it's a respect for human life thing. Yes there are religious fanatics opposed to birth control, but that's not why most are pro-life. To say otherwise is simply false. To lump all pro-life people together with the fanatics is dishonest and again false. It's just another form of overt bigotry.

Now with morning after solutions available, the only reason to have unwanted pregnancy's is illiteracy. Of course there are exceptions to that as with all things in life, but in general unwanted pregnancies can be avoided entirely if the person cares.

Another issue I see is people who don't want children ever, don't bother to have a medical procedure to make them infertile. Free in most area's so there is no excuse for that.
edit on 1/26/2019 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   
My saying fits this more perfectly than ever before. The difference between abortion and murder, is TIME. This is wholesale killing without consequences, and I simply can not believe we allow this in what many consider to be a civilized society.

Fred..



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: dawnstar

maybe that mother has additional kids at home, maybe dad managed to get a little time off to tend to kids, maybe they have a little money set aside for a sitter for those kids, but maybe dad needs to get back to work and the money for the sitter isn't gonna last long enough for that extended hospital stay. maybe, just maybe, mom has more to consider than just weather or not she wants an extra mouth to feed and take care of!!!


You seem to be saying you are fine with a mother ending the life of another human being for convenience in the last few weeks of pregnancy, even if the child is perfect and would live.

You do understand that pro-life is not a negative position to take and in particular, in the last few weeks of pregnancy? Why anyone tries to portray a profound respect for human life as negative is beyond understanding.

To me it's premeditated infanticide.

I mentioned earlier I've discussed this with two MD's I know, who candidly gave me their opinion on the mothers health issue. Both told me the same thing. There is never a case where a partial birth abortion is safer for the mother than a C-section. Which means there is literally no reason to kill the child other than for convenience. It is infanticide, which is why only a handful of MD's in the entire US will do it and they must be sociopaths. Harvard psychologist Dr. Martha Stout says 4% of us are sociopaths.

You do understand we are talking about late term abortion here and not an abortion in the first few months, right?

Being pro-life is not being anti-women. That's is a myth. The child is completely separate human being from the mother. It also does not mean we are opposed to birth control and in my case the opposite is true. Birth control is the rational, moral way to prevent unwanted births.

81% of the country is opposed to late term abortions. You'll find the source of that earlier in this thread. It's not a religious thing, it's a respect for human life thing. Yes there are religious fanatics opposed to birth control, but that's not why most are pro-life. To say otherwise is simply false. To lump all pro-life people together with the fanatics is dishonest and again false. It's just another form of overt bigotry.

Now with morning after solutions available, the only reason to have unwanted pregnancy's is illiteracy. Of course there are exceptions to that as with all things in life, but in general unwanted pregnancies can be avoided entirely if the person cares.

Another issue I see is people who don't want children ever, don't bother to have a medical procedure to make them infertile. Free in most area's so there is no excuse for that.


Why don't you get that the mother cannot end the pregnancy at late stage due to convenience. That is not what the law says.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
My saying fits this more perfectly than ever before. The difference between abortion and murder, is TIME. This is wholesale killing without consequences, and I simply can not believe we allow this in what many consider to be a civilized society.

Fred..


We have to fight the good fight and not go silent.

I believe a generation from now, society will look back and be appalled that this went on, just like we now do regarding slavery. We will count the number of possible Einsteins and Mozarts and just Good People that may have been annihilated in the womb and shake our heads at the inhumanity of it all. We will ask, "how did otherwise normal intelligent people decide this was okay?"
edit on 26-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

You don't seem to understand people lie to get what they want. By simply convincing a doctor they are suffering emotionally for some reason over the impending birth, they can get around that easily.

The only real protection against that is that the MD's themselves won't do it. That law will allow it.

Also since a C-section is the safest for the mother, it's completely unnecessary. It is infanticide.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's not true. You got it wrong.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

You don't seem to understand people lie to get what they want. By simply convincing a doctor they are suffering emotionally for some reason over the impending birth, they can get around that easily.

The only real protection against that is that the MD's themselves won't do it. That law will allow it.

Also since a C-section is the safest for the mother, it's completely unnecessary. It is infanticide.


That's why they are now allowing licensed "health care practitioners" to perform the abortions. Money. They will do it for money, and most likely that payment will come from State and Federal taxpayers.

I bet within 3-5 years, you will see abortion centers pop up in NY run by a consortium of HCP's making money off of late term abortions.

You have a "health" issue pertaining to an emotional or psychological or familial or economic trauma?

The baby daddy just walked out on you, and you hate carrying his child anymore?

You lost your job and you feel emotionally unprepared to carry this responsibility to term? (Yeah...those women are out there, believe it or not.)


Just walk in to an abortion-on-demand facility and voila! A quick "evaluation" and another dead (possibly...that's what they told you anyway) baby. Of course, there will be a side business pertaining to the "dead" infant (don't even want to imagine what!).



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Flagged to read through later.
There must be some mistake here - no way something this evil could be allowed. Are you sure you are reading the bill right?


He's not.

The bill allows it only if the fetus is not viable or is already dead. Prevents situations (as has happened) where baby lives only a few minutes and dies in agony or where a mother is forced to carry and deliver a stillborn baby



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Can you point to that section in the bill?



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd
From the new law.


or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.


On the meaning of health.

So what exactly is a "health exception" in abortion legislation, and is it the "extreme pro-abortion position" described by McCain? Obama's position is basically aligned with that of the Supreme Court. In Roe v. Wade , the court ruled that with postfetal viability--when the fetus's critical organs can sustain independent life--the state "may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." And in Doe v. Bolton , a companion case issued the same day as Roe , the court provided further guidance on what preserving the "health of the mother" entailed. "Medical judgment may be exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age--relevant to the wellbeing of the patient," the court wrote. "All these factors may relate to health."


"Health" is not defined, so I'd think it logical to assume the Supreme Court decision would be the guiding principal. It's perfectly logical to think so.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

so, the mother, 24 or 25 weeks pregnant, who is sickened because of the complications involved in the pregnancy, should have no say as to weather she or not she is to remain hospitalized, possibly for months? gee, should she also be willing to sacrifice her kidneys also?
the point I am making, and since your post seemed to be including pregnancy at any stage, so wasn't my response, was that the women often can have other considerations than her "selfish desires". and, well, speaking from experience, it's not fun going through a pregnancy that is hindering your ability to perform what you need to get done, having a doctor yelling at you for picking up you young kids as if you have a choice in the matter as your two year old is running towards the road or you six month old is crying in the crib and there is no one around but you to take care of thing!!
no, after that, I made danged sure it was my last pregnancy!!!
if I had to have been hospitalized, that "convenience" as you would put it would be just a matter of keeping my living breathing kids out of the danged foster care system!!

and... partial birth abortions are outlawed in the US!!! late term abortions are really quite rare, and I doubt if any are occurring a few weeks before their delivery date. and of all of the abortions that occur, I would venture to guess that it are these that more than likely fit into the category of meeting the criteria of being necessary for a women's life or health or because of severe fetal abnormalities. so, excuse me for treating the post I responding to as being relevant to all abortions more than just the late term ones because it ranted on about the selfish women not wanting to feed or care for the kids they conceive while whoring around!!



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

All you keep doing is trying to make excuses for what is infanticide...

You should stop trying to make excuses and listen to yourself out loud...

You know who also argued that "it is more humane to kill the unborn, and babies as well, if there was any possibility that they would have some genetic disorder/deformity?...


Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject. Adolf Hitler

www.goodreads.com...


...
The Birth Control Review frequently highlighted the mission of its parent organization: “The American Birth Control League. Its Aim: To promote eugenic birth selection throughout the United States so that there may be more well‑born and fewer ill‑born children ― a stronger, healthier and more intelligent race.”[iii] Sanger neatly summarized the intimate relationship between the eugenics and birth control movements:

Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. … Birth control of itself, by freeing the reproductive instinct from its present chains, will make a better race … Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.[iv]
..


www.hli.org...

The above, in parenthesis, was written by Sanger "[vii] Margaret Sanger.Birth Control and Womens Health.” Birth Control Review, Volume I, Number 12 (December 1917), page 7."


...
The German social insurance and health care system began in the 1880s under Bismarck. Ironically, it was part of Bismarcksanti-socialistlegislation, adopted under the theory that a little socialism would prevent the rise of a more virulent socialism.
...
Where traditional individual ethics and Christian charity had once stood, the reformers posited a collective ethic for the benefit of the general population. Private charity and welfare were nationalized. The mentally ill, for example, having been literally released from their chains in the nineteenth century and placed in local communities and boarding houses in regular contact with others (the so-called “moral therapy”), were returned to state institutions to become the ultimate victims of statesolutions.
...
Life Unworthy of Living

Following World War I there had been concern among some in Germany that the war had decimated the ranks of the qualified and strong while weak, unqualified, and inferior people had been spared. Many felt that scant resources should not be wasted on the sick and suffering. The philosophy of the unimportance of the individual in favor of the people (das Volk) led to the belief that individuals who had becomeworthless, defective partshad to besacrificed or discarded.
...

fee.org...


edit on 26-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add excerpt and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Should a mother of a young child be able to kill that child if motherhood his causing depression and ill health?
Your argument suggests so.
edit on 26/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

which means that that is the standard that is in effect in the State of NY as well as the rest of the country now, doesn't it?
the state only revised the state law because of concerns that roe could be overturned in which case the outdated state law would be the rule. what doesn't seem that logical to me is thinking that the Doe v. Bolton would stand if the Roe decision was overturned. NY would be free to issue it's own guidance as to what "health" means. Maybe they'd pick up the same definition, maybe not.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

He's not.

The bill allows it only if the fetus is not viable or is already dead. Prevents situations (as has happened) where baby lives only a few minutes and dies in agony or where a mother is forced to carry and deliver a stillborn baby


So you are also completely unaware as to how the word "OR" is used in a sentence in the English language? When the word "OR" is used in a sentence, or paragraph, anything written before the word "OR" doesn't apply to what follows after the word "OR."

The following is an excerpt from the bill.



...
§ 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.
...

nyassembly.gov...

Do you still don't understand?

There is a reason why at the end of the last sentence above they included "or health." That is the part that allows ANY excuse to be used to abort at any time during the pregnancy, even after the 24 weeks.


edit on 26-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add excerpt and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I'm not sure its logical to assume Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It's highly unlikely in fact.

With abortion being legal up to the day of birth, it's reasonable to assume it will be abused.

My participation here is about late term abortions.

I'm on the fence currently on first term abortions and accept the laws in regards to that. I don't think I'm rare at all among pro-life people. I have no issue at all with the morning after concept, again something I think the silent majority of pro-life people likely agree with.

This whole debate has been clouded over with partisan garbage and it being a wedge issue to keep us divided. We are not anti-women. That's a partisan inspired lie perpetuated by activists.

81% being opposed to third trimester abortions clearly shows that to be true.

You assume Roe v. Wade will be shot down because it's a partisan talking point. Does not make it true. People assume if you are pro-life, you are also against birth control or anti-women which is absurd on it's face.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: dawnstar

Should a mother of a young child be able to kill that child if motherhood his causing depression and ill health?
Your argument suggests so.


Has the Supreme Court yet defined when the "life" inside the womb is a human, and therefore killing it would be murder?



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Blaine91555

which means that that is the standard that is in effect in the State of NY as well as the rest of the country now, doesn't it?
the state only revised the state law because of concerns that roe could be overturned in which case the outdated state law would be the rule. what doesn't seem that logical to me is thinking that the Doe v. Bolton would stand if the Roe decision was overturned. NY would be free to issue it's own guidance as to what "health" means. Maybe they'd pick up the same definition, maybe not.


Doe v. Bolton is another case. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, which is unlikely, other cases like Doe v. Bolton would not be affected by the decision made about Roe v. Wade.

New York democrats/liberals didn't write that bill "in case the word health is redefined again." That bill was written with the knowledge that the case Doe v. Bolton did redefine the meaning of the word health to allow ANY excuse to be used to perform abortions. Whats more, the New York bill, which is now a law, even allows abortion after the 24 weeks of pregnancy, and up to the date the baby is due.

The bill also abolishes homicide charges against anyone who kills/murders the unborn, even if the mother wanted to have the child.

The bill also abolishes the law, in New York, by which a doctor had to be present during the abortion in case the unborn survives and is born. Now, in New York, all the healthcare professional, which doesn't have to be a doctor, has to do if the unborn survives and is born is to leave the "newborn" to die.

Even before those democrats/liberals who are in favor of "after birth abortion" started arguing for it, the changes in the New York law allows and makes it completely legal to murder newborns. After all, if the unborn survives the abortion and is born alive that makes them "newborn."


edit on 26-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth
it's not the same thing...
a mother can separate from the kid, temporarily or permanently without killing the kid, can she not?
the pregnant women cannot, not without undergoing a c-section or having labor induced, which quite possibly would kill the premature child am I right?

there was one women here in the states that started to miscarry, she made three trips to the hospital each time a little sicker, a little more in paid. on the third visit, the hospital was about to send her home again, they were under the catholic umbrella and operated much the same way as some are suggesting all hospitals should run. unless the mother's life is in danger, you do nothing that will cause the death of the fetus! well, as they were preparing to release her and send her back home, she collapsed on the floor. by then she had a fever from the infection that developed from them not intervening previously. they knew after examining her the first that she was miscarrying, they knew there was no hope of the child's survival but not only did they not do anything more than tell her to take an over the counter pain reliever and send her home, they didn't bother cluing her into those facts and suggest maybe she go visit another hospital. she ended up losing the baby and having an expended hospital stay while they treated her for sepsis. she was in her 17th week of pregnancy..
so, I am sorry if I don't buy your idea that women are being given abortions weeks before their due date because they are "sad and depressed" but the US now has the worst rate when it comes to maternal deaths in the developed world and coincidentally it seems that it started increasing about the same time as our non-religiously run hospitals started falling into the hands of those being run by companies with ties to the catholic churches!
would it be more pleasing to you if women were allowed to opt to have labor induced prematurely if her doctors and her decide that the toll it's having on her health warrants the pregnancy to be terminate on the 26th week? and like I pointed out in a previous post, many of those late term abortions are because the fetus will never become viable! they will never be equipped to life outside the womb and sometimes, the condition of that fetus will have negative effects on the women also. so, should she have to endure those negative side effects for months knowing that it's all in vain in the end? should she have to wait for labor to come naturally, since well, inducing labor will itself cause the death of the fetus since it will not be able to life without the life support that mom is providing. and what if her body is like mine was with my first child, even after the water broke in the 10th month, labor still didn't come and they had to induce? what about then?
and just how much in effort and funds do you wish to invest in prolonging the life of these babies? because, once they are born, it's not only our moral obligation to provide care and try to preserve their lives, it's a legal obligation. the marshall islands, viet nam, and iraq... our weapons of war not only caused some pretty horrible deformities in the babies, but it caused genetic mutations that are gonna be passed down from generation to generation. go do some research and see for yourself, what kind of mutations we have caused, and well, how well they are cared for!! marshall islanders have been known to have babies so horribly deformed, they are referred to as monsters, they die quickly after birth and are quickly buried before their mothers can see them! considering that in each of these countries our own servicemen also were exposed to these harmful radiations and chemicals, it wouldn't surprise me if we have our own monsters, only here, they are detected early in pregnancy and humanly aborted. maybe it would be a good thing if they weren't, we could have first hand knowledge of just what our country has done in our name to so many people all over the world!!!
in any case, a society who can justify screwing up generations of unborn kids like that should really just stf up about the women who decides that abortion the best option when faced with a complicated pregnancy!!!




top topics



 
32
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join