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

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

early term abortion is safer than birth, and for some reason, african american women seem to have significantly more risk when it comes to child birth than white women...
and maternal deaths have been steadily increasing lately, so well...
instead of griping because you don't like the truth, how about supporting something that would lower that risk like, oh I don't know... decent healthcare for all!!!




posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

an infant is an infant once they are born alive federal laws prohibits treating them differently after birth.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

They're human #ing beings.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This place isn't a forum, it's an echo chamber.

Here's an idea though, forego the idea of a soul, in legislation.

Make these laws protect sentient self aware beings with the ability to express themselves, explicitly, or set a test with an easily determined IQ minimum.

If the fetus can read and write, I'm game for saving it.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Archivalist

Nice. You've just described killing your way to perfection.

When you make statements that sound like a eugenicist nazi the forum tends to sound like an echo chamber.
edit on 7 6 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor

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.
who the hell is just pro-abortion? It's called pro-choice because we believe in the mothers right to choose rather than some #ty government telling us what to do. I personally think anything late term is disgusting. But maybe I should get educated enough to tell others what to do with their bodies. Or maybe just some religious indoctrination will do.
We don’t even need religion to know what is wrong and right.... isn’t that what the secular humanists have been telling us?



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This place isn't a forum, it's an echo chamber.

Here's an idea though, forego the idea of a soul, in legislation.

Make these laws protect sentient self aware beings with the ability to express themselves, explicitly, or set a test with an easily determined IQ minimum.

If the fetus can read and write, I'm game for saving it.
How ridiculous .... people cannot read and write till
at least 5 or 6 or 7 depending on the influences around them. The same with the viability thing of surviving outside the womb.. we all know a baby won’t survive long without being fed and kept warm. You apparently do not understand the basic concept of motherhood.
edit on 8-6-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

If you try and Pretzel Logic the Title in Progressive/Speak , it comes out to these obviously Demented Individuals as ...


" They're just Biological Meat Machines ". Soul ? there is No PROOF the Meat Machines have them ...........



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Gee I don't know after I had my kid they all spent a lot of time in the nursery. Sure they were brought back to me for feedings but my oldest had to stay longer in the hospital then me and while I did spend time at the hospital during feeding time I wasn't the only one feeding him.
None of them died since there were others capable of caring for them.
When you talk about viability you are talking about at what stage a fetus can survive outside of the womb even with the best care providers providing the best care available



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

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.


First of all, it is "progressives/the left whom agree with these murderous laws" whom still call it abortion when talking about this portion of New Murder York law... People with common sense know that a baby whom survives abortion is in fact a newborn... But like always those in the left whom agree with these murder laws try to make it sound like they are talking about a fetus, and not a baby/newborn... Similar to the idiotic argument made by many in the left that "newborns are nothing but a clump of cells, or a virus, or bacteria, etc, etc." These are attempts at "dehumanizing human beings" to make their murder more...palatable for "left-wingers who agree with these murderous ideas..."

BTW "progressives" have been making an argument for many years now to make legal "after birth abortions," aka the murder of newborns...


...
Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we callafter-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

I have also shown how "progressives/those in the left who agree with this barbaric idea" have been making an argument to legalize the murder of newborns, aka infanticide for a long time.

Famous "progressives" like Peter Singer for example have made this argument for years before this idea caught the attention of news sites.


Infanticide Should Be Legalized

The United States should allow the use of infanticide in the case of infants with severe medical complications. This policy should be adopted because euthanizing infants in some scenarios can be a valid moral option since certain infants can be born with absolutely terrible life prospects. For example, there are a number of instances where infants can have terminal ailments that cause them to suffer immensely after birth before killing them shortly thereafter. In these situations, infanticide should be an option available to the parents of infants with these conditions. Additionally, there are strong grounds that can justify infanticide in a broader context since infants are not rational and self-conscious agents. Because infants cannot hold a conscious desire to continue living – and have never held a conscious desire to continue living - they can't be given the same rights as persons. Therefore, painlessly killing an infant cannot be wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong. Of course, there would have to be parameters set around the practice of killing infants. And such technical matters are, indeed, important. But, for now, it is sufficient to recognize that there are certain situations in which intentionally killing infants can be justified.
...

Infanticide Should Be Legalized

If you don't know who this insane person known as Peter Singer is, here.

BTW, like "certain people before him" he has also written about "animal liberalization and people becoming vegans for the good of everyone including animals..."


Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book Animal Liberation (1975), in which he argues in favour of veganism, and his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", in which he argues in favour of donating to help the global poor. For most of his career, he was a preference utilitarian, but he stated in The Point of View of the Universe (2014), coauthored with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, that he had become a hedonistic utilitarian.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Like those "certain beasts/people" Liberals/progressives/left-wingers like Peter Singer give more value to animals than to actual humans... Or at least those humans whom he wants to claim do not deserve to live...

One more thing, even Peter Singer has admitted that abortion and the arguments in favor for infanticide can also be used to "legalize genocide of adults" just like "the nazis did..."

For example. Many in the left, whom agree with these murderous laws, claim that "the unborn need their mother and they can't live without their mother or without medical equipment," so since they can't live without their mother, or without medical equipment it is okay to murder them..." But what many in the left either don't know, or full well know is that there are adults who also can't live without medical equipment such as oxygen tanks...





edit on 8-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
None of them died since there were others capable of caring for them.
When you talk about viability you are talking about at what stage a fetus can survive outside of the womb even with the best care providers providing the best care available


Do tell us "dawnstar," you have no idea that "premature babies" do survive with the help of medical equipment?...

BTW, what about those children who are born with a medical condition, such as my little sister who was born with a bad heart and died because in Cuba most Cubans don't have the "right" to the best medical help... Are those "newborns" also not human to you?...



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I do believe that a viable fetus that is born early is a premature baby, isnt it? If it for some reason is born before It has developed to the point where it can' survive outside the womb even with medical intervention its not viable and it's considered a miscarriage? That New York state law that you are griping about I do believe doesn't allow abortions after the point of viability unless certain conditions are met. Ya know, life and health of the mother, rape or incest, or a nonviable pregnancy (which isn't the same as a nonviable fetus).
And why are you going all the way to Cuba looking for babies that aren't getting the best medical care when you can probably find them in your own city? You are griping that New York allows nurse practitioners to do abortions with no doctor present just in case the baby is born alive when midwives and nurse practitioners are delivering babies and providing pediatric care to them. I had one try to send me home with my son years ago. It turned out the kid had a collasped lung. I argued with her a good ten minutes before she relented and went to find a doctor to give me a second opinion. Are you saying that those "newborns " that somehow manage to survive abortion in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy are more "human" than my six year old son was?
Like I told you one of the other times you were griping about this law new York has decided to give nurses the opportunity to obtain the extra training to take on responsibilities that used to be in the domain of doctors. They did this because there was a shortage of doctors in rural areas and doctors willing to serve the poorer communities.
But according to your rational, I guess they were trying to kill my five year old by not providing him with a standard of care you find acceptable.



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I do believe that a viable fetus that is born early is a premature baby, isnt it? If it for some reason is born before It has developed to the point where it can' survive outside the womb even with medical intervention its not viable and it's considered a miscarriage?


What are you talking about? Plenty of premature babies do survive even when they do need incubators to survive and grow up to be very healthy babies and adults...



originally posted by: dawnstar
That New York state law that you are griping about I do believe doesn't allow abortions after the point of viability unless certain conditions are met. Ya know, life and health of the mother, rape or incest, or a nonviable pregnancy (which isn't the same as a nonviable fetus).


What the heck?... Are you insane?... Read the damn law, The New Murder York law DOES ALLOW abortions not only up to the due date for ANY REASON which includes a lot more than what you mention, but it also allows the murder of newborns who survive abortions and are born alive...


originally posted by: dawnstar
And why are you going all the way to Cuba looking for babies that aren't getting the best medical care when you can probably find them in your own city?


Because that's a case I am very familiar with...


originally posted by: dawnstar
You are griping that New York allows nurse practitioners to do abortions with no doctor present just in case the baby is born alive when midwives and nurse practitioners are delivering babies and providing pediatric care to them. I had one try to send me home with my son years ago. It turned out the kid had a collasped lung. I argued with her a good ten minutes before she relented and went to find a doctor to give me a second opinion. Are you saying that those "newborns " that somehow manage to survive abortion in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy are more "human" than my six year old son was?


New York REPEALED THE LAW that was meant to be there to save newborns whom survive abortions... And your "favorite demonrats" have even blocked at least a couple of times laws that Republicans were trying to pass to help save newborns whom survive abortions...



originally posted by: dawnstar
Like I told you one of the other times you were griping about this law new York has decided to give nurses the opportunity to obtain the extra training to take on responsibilities that used to be in the domain of doctors. They did this because there was a shortage of doctors in rural areas and doctors willing to serve the poorer communities.
But according to your rational, I guess they were trying to kill my five year old by not providing him with a standard of care you find acceptable.


How about you point out where in the new laws in New York it states that the "deathcare practitioners" have to not only learn on how to take care of a newborn which survived abortion, but that they have to do everything in their power to save them... Stop making absurd excuses and present evidence corroborating your claims...

All you keep showing is either you can't understand what you are reading, or you are trolling because I presented clear evidence corroborating my argument, and even put in bold what has been done to the law in New Murder York...




edit on 9-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wouldn't an incubator be medical intervention? If a baby is born early but is developed enough to be able to survive with such medical intervention then it is viable. You can have a difference of opinion as to what point that occurs but I believe new York put at at 24 weeks. And you read the law. It's just like I claimed abortion is not allowed after that point unless certain conditions are met, like a non-viable pregnancy, risks for the mother.

There is a federal law that says that once an Infant is born there is no distinction as to how it came into the world. An infant is an infant entitled to the same legal protections and under the same healthcare guidelines regardless. I imagine that this was a Republican backed bill. Maybe not but I have a hunch that it was. Is a midwife required to have a doctor hanging around the patients home just in case something goes wrong? Is she required to even have a second midwife or an assistant that is equally trained?
Both the midwife and any nurse practitioners (if she has followed through the ob/gyn speciality) that might happen to be doing abortions in the state get some training for caring for the infant. But I doubt if either would have the training that the pediatrician that was notified and "available" when I went into labor with my kids. And I don't remember seeing her in the labor room. Seems to me that you ain't happy with the standard of care infants are getting and want to wipe out the federal law that the pro-life folks backed so some infants can have a higher standard of care.
As for your murder hype. Both my father and my mother had the machines turned off when it became evident that they wouldn't wake up. My mother made that decision in my father's case and we kids made it in my mother's. There is no doubt in my mind that it's what they would have wanted. Well parents sometimes have to make that decision for their newborns and the same laws that gave us the right to decide in my parents case gives those parents that right if their newborn will never be able to survive without those machines. A premature baby will eventually developed to the point where they can leave that incubator and go on to live pretty much a normal life. A baby with severe brain disorders who is seizing every couple of minutes, who will never be able to swallow, who has no chance of getting any better, will not only end up on machines the rest of their lives but will probably have to be resuscitated quite a few times a day. An infant is an infant. The law granting the parents the right to decide when to turn off those machines and allow the infant to die in peace cannot be conditional depending on how it came into the world.



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Please stop writing nonsense and excerpt where in the changed New York law does it state all you claimed which I mentioned before... Don't write your own conclusions, which you always make up as you go along, excerpt it from the New Murder York law...

And AGAIN... The health law that was there to protect newborns that survive abortions and are born alive WAS REPEALED... There is no other law in New York that protects newborns that survive abortions and are born alive... This is why Republicans tried to pass a bill to protect newborns whom survive abortions, which demonrats have blocked at least twice now...

A Republican-backed bill to protect “abortion survivors” just failed. It still matters.

But demonrats have been blocking similar bills, and this bill for a long while now...

House Democrats Block 19 Times Vote on Bill to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortion







edit on 9-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and links



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This place isn't a forum, it's an echo chamber.

Here's an idea though, forego the idea of a soul, in legislation.

Make these laws protect sentient self aware beings with the ability to express themselves, explicitly, or set a test with an easily determined IQ minimum.

If the fetus can read and write, I'm game for saving it.


WOW...there are plenty of grown ups that don't know how to read or write... Heck, we have plenty of Liberals in these forums who can't understand what they read... I guess you are in favor for murdering all these people too... Freaking nazis...



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
then there is no law in new york that protects any newborns, is that what you are saying??? because A NEWBORN IS A NEWBORN NO MATTER HOW IT CAME INTO THE WORLD. Federal law.
it's you that is spouting nonsense!!



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




Any health care practitioner that is licensed or authorized under Title Eight of the Education Law (Section 6500, et seq.) may perform an abortion, if it is within the scope of their practice. In addition to M.D.s, this could also include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives.

statelaws.findlaw.com...


oh my god the midwives are doing abortions in NY!!! just like the ob/gyns, the nurse practitioners, and physician assistants!! and the midwives and ob/gyns are also delivering babies, as well as the nurse practitioners. I left you links to information as to the qualifications of each and what is entailed in their training before I do believe, don't think I will be wasting my time this time.




After the First 24 Weeks, With Exceptions

Abortions are illegal if they're performed after the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, unless the fetus isn't viable or the abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health. One of the justifications for this requirement is that it's a balance between the safety of the mother and giving her time to consider an abortion. Arguably, a mother could be able to make the decision to have an abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. After that amount of time, nearly the end of the second trimester, the risk of harm to the mother increases greatly. New York repealed all penal code statutes for aborting a fetus and thus there are no criminal penalties for abortion.

same source


as you can see, they ain't letting just anyone abortion a baby up till the time of birth like you claim...
after the 24th week they have the usual exceptions and only those who fit them are allowed to have an abortion



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Like i wrote earlier, you can't even comprehend what you read... From your same source...


...
New York repealed all penal code statutes for aborting a fetus and thus there are no criminal penalties for abortion.
...

statelaws.findlaw.com...

New York REPEALED also the law meant to protect newborns whom survive abortions. I made it clear in the very first post in this thread, even included excerpts from the law and what was repealed. But apparently you can't understand what this means, or like i wrote earlier you are simply trolling...

BTW, I have already shown in another threat that "health of the mother" can be any of several excuses... From "I don't have money for a baby, to "my family is too big", to "I don't want my body to have any scars", to "it is easier to have an abortion than to have the baby," etc, etc...

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

One more thing, stop trying to be cute/smarta$$ with me if you don't want me to embarrass you and your inability to understand what you read...


originally posted by: dawnstar

as you can see, they ain't letting just anyone abortion a baby up till the time of birth like you claim...
after the 24th week they have the usual exceptions and only those who fit them are allowed to have an abortion



Could you excerpt from my comments here where did I state "anyone can perform abortions"?... I call them "deathcare practitioner" not "healthcare practitioners" because that's what they do now with the blessings on demonrats/democrats/liberals in New York.





edit on 9-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments and link.



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Below you can see/read that the new law in New Murder York repealed section 4164 of public health law...


...
§ 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.
...

nyassembly.gov...

Here is a screenshot of that part of the new New Murder York law...



Here is what Section 4164 of formerly New York public health law stated...


New York Consolidated Laws, Public Health Law - PBH § 4164. Induced viable births



1. When an abortion is to be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy it shall be performed only in a hospital and only on an in-patient basis.  When an abortion is to be performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy, a physician other than the physician performing the abortion shall be in attendance to take control of and to provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion.  The commissioner of health is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to insure the health and safety of the mother and the viable child, in such instances.

2. Such child shall be accorded immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York, including but not limited to applicable provisions of the social services law, article five of the civil rights law and the penal law.

3. The medical records of all life-sustaining efforts put forth for such a live aborted birth, their failure or success, shall be kept by attending physician.  All other vital statistics requirements in the public health law shall be complied with in regard to such aborted child.

4. In the event of the subsequent death of the aborted child, the disposal of the dead body shall be in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

codes.findlaw.com...

...







 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join