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

a reply to: ClovenSky

what would be the ultimate reward from the females perspective for keeping the baby

That kind of question does not compute for me.

a reply to: dawnstar

I mean, use some common sense, why would a women go 8 months pregnant just to decide that she doesn't want the child when it's much cheaper if it's done much earler and doesn't include a trip across the country to get??

Plus, there’s a danger to any mother to abort at that stage. It wouldn’t even be as easy as it would to be incubatored and/ or adopted. It turns what would be a birth, into a more major operation, likely with uterine injuries. That’s why it’s reserved for emergencies such as lives in danger.
And being pregnant isn’t a cake walk. It’s not comfortable...

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dawnstar
all it does is update's NY state laws to be closer to the Roe v. Wade decision...
like many states, NY is preparing, just in case Roe is overturned and it reverts back to state law. federal laws that prohibit or limit late term abortions would still be in effect, so I don't really believe that it would make it legal to abort babies that close to birth.

static1.squarespace.com...

Federal law is supreme to state law, no?

Not at all. State law is to be more or less restrictive than federal law.

How would you interpret the supremacy clause in article VI of the Constitution?
Wouldn't it suggest that the state Judiciary is bound by Federal law in areas of conflict?

a reply to: research100

Heartbreaking. In those cases where the baby would suffer from irreparable deformities, I would sympathize. Those are the types of cases perhaps when a late stage abortion could be justified. That clarification should be included in the law's wording. But, as the NY law stands now, a perfectly healthy baby could be eliminated because of a woman's psychological, familial, or social well-being. Not cool.

a reply to: queenofswords

there is another reason women get late term abortions that no one has mentioned......when they are abused by a male family member and the family hides the pregnancy and or the girl is too afraid to say anything...these pregnancies don't come to light until they are far along unfortunately....


the link I posted before...those were much wanted pregnancies......all heartbreaking....one of the couples had to pay $20,000.00 the wifes parents had to dig into their retirement fund (her brother offered to help but he only had $5000.00)

posters are posting like hordes of women are just going to go willy nilly and have really late term abortions......

91% of abortions occur in the first trimester a few in the 2nd.......only 1.3% are done in the 3rd

www.ourbodiesourselves.org...

a reply to: queenofswords

I wish your reaction was the rule, forming no comprehension of having a child for any other reason than compassion and love.

I wish I shared your idealism on this one. Unfortunately I have seen the opposite.

originally posted by: paraphi
...
I think the vast majority of doctors or medical professionals, regardless of their political colours, would find the OPs proposition an affront to their profession, and against their core principles as carers.

Most doctors that lean to the right in politics don't believe in abortion like left-wing doctors do. That is a fact. Of course there are going to be some exceptions. But you are wrong in your claim that "most doctors would find my op an affront to their profession, and against their core principles as careers." More so when this new "update" by the left in New York completely strips the unborn, up to the day they are to be born, of any rights whatsoever.

The claim that "a human fetus is part of a woman's body, hence women should be able to kill their fetus at any time they want" makes no sense whatsoever. The unborn are a new HUMAN life form that is beginning it's journey in life. The unborn need the mother to survive in the womb, but that doesn't equal to "the unborn are part of a woman's body." Women don't have two heads, two brains, 4 arms, 4 legs, and 2 of every other organ, except kidneys since for the most part we all have two of those.

edited for double post.

a reply to: Xtrozero
that's a partial birth abortion...
guess what... it's illegal...federal law.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: dothedew
No, it doesn't. This is somewhere between legitimate concern and fake news.

The bill (if you read it) still has language regarding 24 weeks. Mothers have always had the ability to abort if their life is threatened (right-wing fear mongering).

The only thing that has changed is the addition of "Health" reasons; as this word is not clearly defined within the bill, it must be challenged to clarify. Sorry, but apocalyptic analysis of what the "health exemption really means doesn't do anything but stir the pot and add more misinformation into the mix.

Are you then claiming that "far left-wing news media are fake news"?... Because even they are admitting that this allows abortion PAST 24 weeks and up to the due date for the baby.

Why is it that some people just read the title of a thread, and do not bother to read all the evidence provided?...

Go back and read the info given, i have even re-posted the info several times because others were doing the same thing you are doing.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero
that's a partial birth abortion...
guess what... it's illegal...federal law.

en.wikipedia.org...

From that same wiki page:

Clinical response[edit]
In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fetal demise before beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle.[30][31] This is often done by providers who do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures (as well as by those who do) because they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them "to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused."[32]

So, they just kill them first. They call it "inducing fetal demise".

How can a mother use the "it's my body" excuse to kill an unborn human being?

a reply to: queenofswords
not without a doctor qualified and willing to do it,
and I don't believe there is one in NY. I mean, there's only like 2 in the entire country, and one is out in colorado, not sure where the other is. of course, if it's an emergency, then ya, some of the doctors I imagine would give it a go before they would risk losing mother and child... let's face it, in the ninth month of pregnancy, it's a child.
in some very rare case, maybe a mother would need to abort a child that far along in her pregnancy.. but I imagine it is very rare and quite frankly, it would be easier on her body to just go ahead and induce labor and deliver the child. mostly it would involve pregnancies with severe problems with the fetus that results in them having very little chance of living once birthed and even less of having any type of life afterward.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Commit? Since when do you commit abortion?
I believe the correct term is perform...

Now the real question..... it aint your body why do you care?

Because it is another human life... Why do you care for other human life?... Or you don't care at all for "other human life"?...

Not to mention the fact, as explained in the op, that this "new update" will be used to strengthen the argument that "because the unborn, at the date they are due, are no different than newborns it should be legal to murder newborns because neither one are a person in the minds of the left."

I gave a direct link to the "after birth abortion: why should the baby live," in which this argument is made. It was also provided an excerpt to Peter Singer's debate on "legalizing infanticide."

Here are the links and excerpts again.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

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 call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

jme.bmj.com...

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.
...

www.debate.org...


Peter Singer, and the authors of the article about "after birth abortion: why should the baby live," are not the only professionals in the left making these arguments. Now, because New York has made it legal to murder the unborn up to the day they are to be born, this has made it much easier for the left-wing argument that "newborns are the same as the unborn on the due date, hence neither one has any rights and parents should be able to murder newborns in all cases abortion is allowed..."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Edited for double post.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

edited for double post.

originally posted by: research100
...
posters are posting like hordes of women are just going to go willy nilly and have really late term abortions......

91% of abortions occur in the first trimester a few in the 2nd.......only 1.3% are done in the 3rd

www.ourbodiesourselves.org...

First of all, the small number of abortions done past 24 weeks occur only because until this law passed in New York there were only some circumstances in which such abortions were allowed. Now it has changed, and it will increase the number of abortions done past 24 weeks. Not to mention the fact that there are other sources, INCLUDING nurses who have worked for PP and other abortion providers, who say a different thing to what you and that website claim...

The law, in New York, now allows any excuse to have abortions past 24 weeks. Other "democrat/liberal" states will follow suit just like New York has.

And again... this change in the law has made it easier for making it legal to commit infanticide on newborns, and it will become legal at least in some states, just like it is now legal in New York to make up any claim and have an abortion past 24 weeks.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: research100

Heartbreaking. In those cases where the baby would suffer from irreparable deformities, I would sympathize. Those are the types of cases perhaps when a late stage abortion could be justified. That clarification should be included in the law's wording. But, as the NY law stands now, a perfectly healthy baby could be eliminated because of a woman's psychological, familial, or social well-being. Not cool.

Economic reasons can also be used to have abortions past 24 weeks.

originally posted by: dawnstar
all it does is update's NY state laws to be closer to the Roe v. Wade decision...
like many states, NY is preparing, just in case Roe is overturned and it reverts back to state law. federal laws that prohibit or limit late term abortions would still be in effect, so I don't really believe that it would make it legal to abort babies that close to birth.

static1.squarespace.com...

Wrong... Roe v Wade does not agree with this change in the law... In Roe v Wade it is argued that on the third trimester the state can intervene because life is viable...

You are sounding like Hillary Clinton, making ignorant claims without any factual evidence supporting your claim.

Instead of "going to a left-wing site" read Roe v Wade...

Roe v Wade, in regards to the third trimester of pregnancy, whose right to abort
The state has acquired a compelling interest which would override the woman's right to privacy & justify stringent regulation even to the extent of prohibiting Abortions.
...

Legal Aspects- Chapter 14 Abortion

For those who still can't understand what the law in New York now states.

...
§ 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...

A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding the "or" for "and." When the law states: "...or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health." That's the part that allows for abortion past 24 weeks. I have already posted several times what "health of the mother" means.

...
The Doe v. Bolton case defined the “health of the mother” in such a way that any abortion for any reason could be protected by the language of the decision. Its definition of health includes “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. ALL these factors may relate to health.”
...

www.all.org...

United States Supreme Court
DOE v. BOLTON(1973)
No. 70-40
Argued: December 13, 1971 Decided: January 22, 1973

...
Appellants then argue that the statutes do not adequately protect the woman's right. This is so because it would be physically and emotionally damaging to Doe to bring a child into her poor, "fatherless" 10 family, and because advances in medicine and medical techniques have made it safer for a woman to have a medically induced abortion than for her to bear a child. Thus, "a statute that requires a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term infringes not only on a fundamental right of privacy but on the right to life itself." Brief 27.
...

DOE v. BOLTON