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

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You guys at Above Top Secret have enough talent to make something like say , ''baker gets rid of loafs of bread'' and somehow make it sound like there's an ethnic genocide going on in America or something. There are nearly 8 billion human beings in the world, and by 2050 Mankind will have surpassed that number of living human beings on Planet Earth.

Now, how feasible is the long-term survival of the Human Species when there's so many human beings and so little opportunities? Natural resources aren't going to last forever. Drinkable water is already a scarce commodity in several areas of the world.

With the advent of automation, many millions will lose their jobs and many more millions won't ever have a shot at finding a job. Not every baby is born into Upper-middle class American families. In fact, most of the world is poor and underdeveloped and it will be so for a long time.

Considering a baby is born from a woman's body and she's the one who risks her life by giving birth, and she's the one who has to suffer all of the malaises that women suffer from before and even after childbirth, I don't see anything wrong with women deciding to abort.

Just today I saw a kid with cerebral palsy being carried in his wheelchair by his father. You think it's fun for the child to live the rest of his lives like an invalid? And 'forcing' his parents to take care of him for as much as possible?

Think about it. Abortion not only is a right but is also an obligation. How many more men does the world need? Does the world need more potential rapists? Dictators? men who beat up their wives or their kids? do we need more violence?

No.

This is a good thing.

Let's focus less on making more babies and more on making babies who'll become the next Cristiano Ronaldo or Brad Pitt. That's what the world needs and deserves.

You know , All Human Beings on this Planet who Somehow have Absolutely No Qualms about Frivolous Abortions

Frivolous abortions? You believe women take abortion lightly, like they wake up one day, start planning their day and right before heading out the supermarket for that late evening last-pick, they write down,'' ooh, I gotta get an abortion today. I wonder what Jessica is planning for her summer holidays? tehehehee''.

Women don't take abortion lightly. It's a very serious matter for them, and the women who abort do so because they know it's the best course of action to take. There are too many people in the world, and too few opportunites for most of them, and so forth.

OWN Lives , and Fortunately being Born into this World back when the Birth of a Child was Considered a " Blessing " , and a Cherished Gift from their " Creator "

Huh, Human beings are the product of Evolution. There's no such thing as a mythical supernatural being who created me or my parents or the apes from which I descend from, millions of years ago.

. You would Somehow Selfishly DENY Possible Future Generations of Einsteins , Tesla's , Leonardo da Vinci's, and Steven Hawkings being Born into this World for the Sake of Your Own Misguided and Selfish Beliefs ? SHAME On You ! .........

The vast majority of men will never amount to much. They'll lucky if they ever begin to make more than minimum wage. There are very few men who are born to be ''Einstein, Tesla, Da Vinci'' and all that nonsense, but it sure is telling of the arrogance of many who think their genes are worth anything. I'm not going to reproduce. In fact, I had a vasectomy done on me when I was 18(funny how much a 100 dollars get you when you travel to America to India) and I am fully aware that the greatest contribution I can give to Mankind is by not having a child.

But if I was 100% guaranteed to have a Cristiano Ronaldo as my son, if I was to make a baby, then yeah. I'd jump on that faster than you lot jump at abortion clinics decrying how your god doesn't want ''innocent lives'' to be ended before they begin or something.

Quality over quantity.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But, pray tell, why wouldn't the infant who survived an abortion be protected by the multitude of laws, regulations,, AMA guidelines etc. that every other infant born is protected by? Especially since I think the federal law says they have to be.
You seem to be saying those laws are inadequate to protect maybe one or two infants born in the state and I am wondering why we shouldn't be concerned with the multitude of other infants born who are shielded by those same protections.
The repealed law stated that any abortion performed after 20 weeks had to be done in a hospital just in case it resulted in a live birth did it not? So why isnt it reasonable to assume that all births should occur in a hospital? Attended to by two doctors, one tending mom while another tending to the baby. But that would kill the midwives and home births wouldn't it?
And I'm not going into the claim that the mom and her doctors are lying when it comes to the exceptions. If the pro-life folks had their way nine year old victims of sexual abuse and incest would be dying trying to carry a pregnancy to term while the piece of crap who assaulted them walked away with a slap on their wrist.
No law will be upheld by the supreme court without those exceptions or at least none have been upheld up to this point.

Question:

How many of the pro-lifers in this thread also support the death penalty?

If you are one of these, please explain the contradiction there?

a reply to: Kryties

One is a consequence for actions taken by an adult, conscience, individual.

The other is an action taken by an adult against an individual who cannot defend him/herself.

With one, we put a criminal in prison and sentence them to death when they take a life unjustly.

With the other, we reward what the criminal does and sentence the victim to death.

originally posted by: Kryties
Question:

How many of the pro-lifers in this thread also support the death penalty?

If you are one of these, please explain the contradiction there?

How many pro-abortionists in here are against the death penalty against murderers and rapists yet want to allow the murder of not only the unborn up to the day they are to be born, but even newborns whom survive abortions?...

Murderers and rapists commit serious crimes, the unborn and newborn have NEVER committed any crimes against anyone...

a reply to: dawnstar

AGAIN, stop making up crap and point out where in the law in New York are babies whom survive abortions being treated like human beings and are not simply discarded and left to die...

Also excerpt where did I ever mention "anyone can commit abortions." (yes the right word is commit and not perform. You don't perform murder, you commit murder)

a reply to: Ligyron

Abortion is NOT a right... If it is excerpt where in the U.S. Constitution does it states "abortion is a right..." But you know what is actually a right in the U.S. Constitution & in the Declaration of Independence?... The right to LIFE.

Life is a right, murder/abortion is/are not...

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
The repealed law stated that any abortion performed after 20 weeks had to be done in a hospital just in case it resulted in a live birth did it not? So why isnt it reasonable to assume that all births should occur in a hospital? Attended to by two doctors, one tending mom while another tending to the baby. But that would kill the midwives and home births wouldn't it?
And I'm not going into the claim that the mom and her doctors are lying when it comes to the exceptions.

Because the law that was there to protect babies whom survived abortions has been REPEALED...
Do you not understand what the word REPEALED means?...

Let me shine some light in your ignorance.

repeal verb
re·​peal | ri-ˈpēl

repealed; repealing; repeals
Definition of repeal

transitive verb
1 : to rescind or annul by authoritative act especially : to revoke or abrogate by legislative enactment
2 : abandon, renounce
3 obsolete : to summon to return : recall

www.merriam-webster.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
If the pro-life folks had their way nine year old victims of sexual abuse and incest would be dying trying to carry a pregnancy to term while the piece of crap who assaulted them walked away with a slap on their wrist.
No law will be upheld by the supreme court without those exceptions or at least none have been upheld up to this point.

FALSE... Ironic since it has been LEFT-WINGERS whom have demanded for rapists and murderers to be pardoned, and to ban the death penalty against the worst crimes humans can commit...

NO ONE in the pro-life crowd, at least in this thread, have ever stated that a child that has been raped must carry the child to term... But it has been left-wingers who shifted the blame and want to this day to pardon rapists and murderers.
You keep making LIES and FALSE claims meanwhile you ignore the facts...

originally posted by: Ligyron

You guys at Above Top Secret have enough talent to make something like say , ''baker gets rid of loafs of bread'' and somehow make it sound like there's an ethnic genocide going on in America or something.

No one who disagrees with abortion and has posted in this thread has done such a thing. It is in fact YOU, and other pro-abortionists who keep making up BS and LIES meanwhile you ignore facts... I excerpted directly from the New York law that was changed by "progressives/liberals/demonrats," and pointed out exactly what the left in New York repealed. What New York, and other liberal/progressive states, have done, or want to do is infanticide. The murder of newborns whom survive abortions which can be murdered using any whim that the left comes up with.

originally posted by: Ligyron
There are nearly 8 billion human beings in the world, and by 2050 Mankind will have surpassed that number of living human beings on Planet Earth.

So what?... That is no excuse for infanticide... What will be your next excuse for genocide?... Are you going to claim "the elderly that need constant medical attention and medical equipment such as oxygen tanks have to be murdered as well to "help save the planet and mankind"?... These are the sort of arguments the nazis made...

originally posted by: Ligyron
Now, how feasible is the long-term survival of the Human Species when there's so many human beings and so little opportunities? Natural resources aren't going to last forever. Drinkable water is already a scarce commodity in several areas of the world.

As long as we don't sequester atmospheric CO2 en mass, the more atmospheric CO2 there is the more plant life and more harvests we get...

originally posted by: Ligyron
With the advent of automation, many millions will lose their jobs and many more millions won't ever have a shot at finding a job. Not every baby is born into Upper-middle class American families. In fact, most of the world is poor and underdeveloped and it will be so for a long time.

That's yet another excuse made by the left. For many generations poor people were able to have many babies, even 12 in one family, and they survived...

originally posted by: Ligyron
Considering a baby is born from a woman's body and she's the one who risks her life by giving birth, and she's the one who has to suffer all of the malaises that women suffer from before and even after childbirth, I don't see anything wrong with women deciding to abort.

Wrong yet again, the baby/unborn are a completely different human being separate from the mother. They are NOT property like slaves used to be for democrats, and they ARE HUMAN BEINGS, no matter how much left-wingers once again try to claim the contrary...

originally posted by: Ligyron
Just today I saw a kid with cerebral palsy being carried in his wheelchair by his father. You think it's fun for the child to live the rest of his lives like an invalid? And 'forcing' his parents to take care of him for as much as possible?

I wonder whom has made this type of argument in the past?...

“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 Freaking Hitler

www.goodreads.com...

Hitler authorizes killing of disabled

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Probably where is says that infants are to be treated like human beings and not just left in a cold dark closet to die???
What I am finding unbelievable about your claims is the idea that we need a special law to protect those few babies that might survive abortions. As if there is no laws in the state that would protect all infants from such neglect and mistreatment.

And what you've been claiming is that anyone can legally get a late term abortion up to the point that they are in labor. That is false.

And I know what repealed means. Considering that the midwives were doing home births in the state long before the law was repealed just ain't sure why the meaning of the word is relevant to the point I was making.

And sorry but one state has passed what amounts to practically a ban on all abortions and while it was being debated by the legislatures they refused to amend it to make an e exemption for rape and incest. I was listening to the discussion. The fate of preteen victims of sexual abuse was discussed. They would prefer to have children having babies (or dying trying to) than to add a little clause in their law to allow them to have an abortion. You want to claim that New York is murdering babies? Ok then Alabama(???) will soon be murdering little girls if their law is allowed to go into effect.

originally posted by: dawnstar

Probably where is says that infants are to be treated like human beings and not just left in a cold dark closet to die??? ...

You keep not understanding that that entire section of the health law, including the part that says they should be treated like human beings, was REPEALED...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, are you saying that it was legal for a doctor to leave a deformed infant alone in a cold dark closet as long as it wasn't a survivor of abortion?
Because if it wasn't legal to do it to an infant that wasn't born as a result of a botched abortion the laws that prevented that would protect an infant that survived an abortion.
What the heck, you've insulted me quite a few times...

Quit acting so dense!!

a reply to: dawnstar

You are insane... Stop puting words in my mouth and LEARN to comprehend what people tell you. You are unable to understand what you read and you have proven this many times. Stop trying to shift the blame AND PROVE your claims with EVIDENCE, not with your falsities and made up crap... If you cannot present EVIDENCE stop responding with your babbling.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am not skimming through New York statutes and quoting them when just plain old logic will do the trick!
Either there are laws on the books that protect all newborns from murder and neglect in which case the law they repealed wasn't necessary or we have a much bigger problem in ny than just the few infants that may survive abortions being at risk. And I don't see how this could be so hard to understand.

a reply to: dawnstar

Please refrain from responding any longer. I already asked you to present EVIDENCE to your claims, as well as your claims that I wrote things I NEVER DID. All you keep doing is running your mouth claiming I wrote things i never did like an insane person who just came out of a mental asylum. Stop responding, and go back to your little bubble of denial of everything you don't wan to believe, but stop responding since all you are doing is derail the thread with nothing but false claims...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


www.nysenate.gov...

Due to advancements in medical practices, education, and training, modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth. Although it would be highly unlikely, if a baby was born alive, the medical practitioner and medical support staff would provide all necessary care, just as they would in the case of any live birth. The RHA does not change standards of medical practice. Any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.

a reply to: dawnstar

That is not a law... The law was "repealed..." This is a question made to Liz Krueger, and she apparently decided to lie. The "question and answer or "faqs" are not laws... This is similar to all those democrats Senators, including Hillary Clinton, whom have lied claiming for example that Roe vs Wade allows abortion up to the due date when they were/are asked...

The law that protected the lives of newborns whom survived abortions, New York Consolidated Laws, Public Health Law - PBH § 4164 Induced viable births, was "repealed" and democrats have blocked several times a federal bill that was meant to also save the lives of newborns whom survive abortion...

BTW, you can tell that she is lying because she even states "modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth."

Tell that to the women and nurses that state it does happen.



Of course there are certain types of abortions that would not let the unborn live because they are crushed and destroyed inside the mother's womb...