New York has Struck off Section of Public Health Law Meant to Save Newborns Whom Survive Abortion.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: carewemust

A purely bureaucratic decision; nothing racial about it.

Yeah...just coincidence. Like Planned non-Parenthood telling Black mothers-to-be that it's SAFER for them to kill their baby, than to give birth to him/her.

a reply to: ketsuko

If you send 100 people back and you know full wall that at least 10% of them are likely to be murdered; but you don't know witch 10; all you know is that 10 people you are sending back are going to be murdered... do you send all 100 back; or do you keep them all to save the 10?

a reply to: DanDanDat

heck, why don'[t we expand from your point of view?... Why should we punish murderers, and rapists?... Why should murderers and rapists suffer the moral responsibility of other people to live?... The government shouldn't get involved in people's lives and decisions, even if those decisions include murder and rape...

Heck, what am I thinking... The pro-abortion crowd already make excuses for murderers and rapists but want to immediately punish the one person whom most of the time is the only victim...

a reply to: DanDanDat

Do we know that or are you just staging a hypothetical?

Again, abortion is almost certainly a 100% death sentence.

a reply to: carewemust

Can that be proven or disproven successfully?

It shouldn't be hard to find the safety statistics on "killing your baby" and "giving birth to your baby".

They are neither completely safe; but we should be able to tell which is safer than the other; than we can know if your Planned non-Parenthood story was coincidence or just factual.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DanDanDat

Do we know that or are you just staging a hypothetical?

Again, abortion is almost certainly a 100% death sentence.

It's just a hypothetical; do you pull the trigger on 10 people or do let 100 people stay in the country as refugees?

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: ketsuko

If you send 100 people back and you know full wall that at least 10% of them are likely to be murdered; but you don't know witch 10; all you know is that 10 people you are sending back are going to be murdered... do you send all 100 back; or do you keep them all to save the 10?

First of all that is not true, and not a good analogy since in abortions the unborn, and newborns are being left to die 100% of the time. A few do survive the attempted abortions. In returning illegal immigrants back to their countries most of the time those sent back are not killed, but they keep trying to enter illegally into the U.S.

If people really have a chance at being murdered in their own country there are laws in place that allows them to seek asylum... The problem is, the majority of asylum seekers LIE about why they come here. Although we have had a few who have admitted why they are coming, including to get pardoned for murder they committed in their country, or want to skirt the law in their country because of some other crime... The fact is a majority of illegal immigrants want to illegally enter the U.S. mostly for economic reasons, or to join their illegal families in the U.S., which are NOT reasons to seek for asylum.

Not to mention the fact that the people of Mexico voted recently that they don't feel safe anymore because of illegal immigration, and because crimes have increased because of illegal immigration...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DBCowboy I'll own that I'm for letting others make the choice for themselves. I don't agree with it being used as a form of birth control. I also do not agree with late term abortions. In certain situations however I can understand a person choosing to have an abortion.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: DanDanDat

heck, why don'[t we expand from your point of view?... Why should we punish murderers, and rapists?

To protect ourselves; just like the mother is protecting herself from the unwanted baby and the life she would have to endure as its mother.

Why should murderers and rapists suffer the moral responsibility of other people to live?

They shouldn't. They should do all the raping and killing that their morals tell them is ok. We should than punish them to protect ourselves from them.

The government shouldn't get involved in people's lives and decisions, even if those decisions include murder and rape...

I don't think the government is around at the time when people make the decision to murder and-than/or rape someone; so it really can't get involved in the decision even if it wanted to.

Heck, what am I thinking... The pro-abortion crowd already make excuses for murderers and rapists but want to immediately punish the one person whom most of the time is the only victim...

Ok

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

100 people come to this country illegally and seek asylum.
90 lie about why they want asylum and say its because they fear for their life but when in fact it is purely for economic reasons. 10 really have a chance at being murdered and state that as the reasons for seeking asylum. You have a statistic that says 90% of those people lied on their asylum application.

You send 100 people back and you know full wall that at least 10% of them are likely to be murdered; but you don't know witch 10; all you know is that 10 people you are sending back are going to be murdered... do you send all 100 back; or do you keep them all to save the 10?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I guess I'll never understand the abortion issue because I view all life as equal.

Humans are quick to step on a spider rather than catch it and take it outside. Why does the spider have less rights to life than a human?

Life is life. Either you respect life, or you don't. If you've ever killed an insect for being a pest rather than trying to move it outside, you don't respect life.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
To protect ourselves; just like the mother is protecting herself from the unwanted baby and the life she would have to endure as its mother.

That's an absurd argument... The unborn, or newborns are NOT the same as freaking murderers and rapists...

Ironic how the "pro-abortion crowd" began by claiming this was not true, and now you make the most absurd of excuses to allow for infanticide...

originally posted by: DanDanDat
They shouldn't. They should do all the raping and killing that their morals tell them is ok. We should than punish them to protect ourselves from them.

What?... There is something seriously wrong with you... Murderers and rapists shouldn't be allowed to do all the murdering and raping they want... The laws are there not only to punish, but to try to stop such crimes...

originally posted by: DanDanDat
I don't think the government is around at the time when people make the decision to murder and-than/or rape someone; so it really can't get involved in the decision even if it wanted to.

There have been cases that people who wanted to murder or rape, kidnap, etc, have been stopped by our LEOs...

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Ok

Ok what? it is the truth. The left have shifted the blame from criminals, murderers and rapist and always ask for clemency for such people, but when it comes to the most innocent of humans who have done NO HARM to anyone, none of you in the "pro-abortion crowd" want to even bat an eyelid to try to protect the most innocent HUMAN BEINGS...

edited to stop going off topic.

How about we discuss the topic instead of trying to derail it?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I always thought the pro-abortionists were just uneducated and naïve, maybe a little stupid with no education towards the sciences.

Now this says they are deliberately evil.

Maybe they are just taking Eugenics to it's logical conclusion.

By getting rid of themselves.

After all, it's not like they are a net gain to civilization..

edited to stop going off topic.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
At what age are they allowed to terminate them in this new bill, do you know?

Just asking.

Many babys survive abortions.

And some of the unwanted may be called organ donors, though in more fancy a speech. A heart is one million dollars, and even livers are about 500k. Though a heart develops in weeks and months, a liver can take up or over two years to fully develop. Thems the maths.

Abortions. A tricky subject. For more then the reasons given. But like in everything else that has ever existed concerning things involving people. Follow the money, and it will lead you to the truth of things.

Can we kill each other in peace?

I'm tired of the arguments. Either kill me for trying to kill a baby, because you kill killers, or leave me the f alone and let me kill babies.

Stop arguing about it. Honestly I'm not pro choice or pro abortion. I'm pro "can we stop having these fking arguments" is this not a stance? If it's not an accepted third stance, I hearby nominate pro stop having these daft arguments as a possible stance to have, on abortion.

a reply to: Archivalist

Here we go again. In case you didn't notice you joined a forum in which people discuss topics and present arguments and counter-arguments... This isn't a silent forum where we all play "silent Bob" and try to read each other's minds...

nysalm.org...

care to show me just where a doctor is required to be present in case the baby has problems right after a home birth.
I looked around quite a bit, and it seems that the midwife is trained to care for both the mother and the child and a midwife is not a doctor..
and an abortion clinic just might be more suited to handle a medical emergency (regardless of weather it's the mother or a fetus that survived an abortion) that what a midwife could carry into someone's house.

and, well, there is probably a better chance of a fetus having problems during a homebirth than a viable fetus surviving an abortion since the objective of a homebirth is a living fetus while a doctor aborting a viable fetus would be looking to make sure there was no heartbeat before the fetus was extracted.

the reason why the laws have been loosened up to allow such things as nurse practitioners and midwifes to take over roles that were commonly filled by doctors a few decades ago is because in rural and poorer areas there are a lack of doctors. so while the doctors chose to go for the money, well, the less fortunate is left with having to deal with nurse practitioners and the like. it's not just restricted to abortions, it's in all areas of care providers, including pediatrics. used to be that they had to at least work under a doctor's supervision but by what I have read, I don't think that they have to do that anymore after they have gained a certain amount of experience.

federal law clearly states that an infant is an infant regardless of how it comes into the world. once they are born, they are all entitled to the same quality of care. if a baby can be born at home under the care of a trained midwife with no doctor present, then a nurse practitioner (who had to chose a specialty when she began that training and really don't believe that abortion was one of the specialties, more than likely it was ob/gyn.. labor and delivery... been awhile since I checked out what the specialities were and what the training entailed for them..
but, care to justify why you think that the baby that survived abortion that needs medical intervention should be treated differently than one that was born during a home birth that needs the intervention?

Save Newborns Whom Survive Abortion.

So, are they newborns, or aborted fetuses? Because newborns aren't aborted, they are born, and fetuses who are aborted...aren't newborns.

But nice hyperbole.