New York legalizes infanticide

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 291
Topic's author
#91
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
As I understand it the law already allowed late term abortion if the mothers life was in jeopardy. The new law permits abortion up to the moment of birth for “health” reasons. In the context of abortion (see Doe v. Bolton) health is defined as ““all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” It is a very extreme bill which is why it took a democratic wave for it to get passed in New York, one of the most liberal states in the country. 

So it is essentially abortion on demand up to the moment of birth. Read about late term abortion and how it’s done. They inject lethal drugs into the skull of a viable child that can feel pain, ensuring that it comes out dead. Are you really okay with that?
#92
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I can get on board with making it illegal for pregnant women to drink.

Every single cell in the human body has a full genome. Except for egg and sperm. Each contributes half of the genetic code.

#93
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
In the same way, you can choose to allow a tourist into your country without granting them citizenship.
If you are agreeing to let a tourist stay in your country for 9 months, then the tourist has the right to stay in the country for 9 months.

Whether or not a guest will die when they are deported is immaterial.  Deportees often fear for their lives but this is not considered a reason to allow them to stay.

International law states that if a person is fleeing for their life, you have to let them stay in your country.  

If you want tourists but don't want them to become citizens, then you should attach ankle bracelets to them so they can be quickly and easily located and deported.
I don't think this makes sense.  Attaching an ankle to someone is not the same as preventing that person from being in your country by not offering a plane ticket.


#94
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
This shows a picture of an aborted baby at 14 weeks:


#95
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
As far as I am aware, and correct me if I’m wrong - the limits this law spells out are identical to roe and doe. While the update of the law from 1970 had the minor impact of replacing “health at risk” with “life at risk”, the idea that this leads to abortion at 9months on demand is primarily the manufactured hyperbolae from hysterical right wingers.

In reality, this part of the law is there for what it says - to protect mothers when their health and life is genuinely at risk, and provides for the option if medically necessary.

While I’m sure the slippery slope and “omg ambiguity!” Teeth gnashing may sound relevant, and compelling - when you start thinking about the human practicalities of such, it’s clear not something thats going to happen, it clearly isn’t the intent of the law, and the idea that the abortion fairy is going to start killing the babies of women in labour is largely a product of manufactured outrage - not reality.


In reality, I am fine with unviable fetuses and those with significant defects and abnormalities being aborted, and in cases where the mothers life is at risk, or in cases where the mothers health is at risk, in the non-conservative-hyperpobale sense of the word: aren’t you?



Topic's author
#96
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
As far as I am aware, and correct me if I’m wrong - the limits this law spells out are identical to roe and doe. While the update of the law from 1970 had the minor impact of replacing “health at risk” with “life at risk”, the idea that this leads to abortion at 9months on demand is primarily the manufactured hyperbolae from hysterical right wingers.

Yes, and Roe v. Wade created the most extreme abortion policy in the Western world, which is why the courts have consistently allowed it to be walked back. I will repeat the guidelines on what constitute "health" in the context of an abortion: “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”

It is late term abortion on demand. There's a reason it wouldn't pass in *New York* before a Democratic wave.

In reality, I am fine with unviable fetuses and those with significant defects and abnormalities being aborted, and in cases where the mothers life is at risk, or in cases where the mothers health is at risk, in the non-conservative-hyperpobale sense of the word: aren’t you?
That isn't the question. 
Topic's author
#97
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
If the Catholic Church had any moral courage at all (spoiler: it doesn't), Cuomo would be excommunicated 
#98
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
The only people who consider the health clause to mean pretty much abortion on demand is pro lifers. That’s the crux of my point, it’s nothing short of hysteria.

I’m fine with you manufacturing your own hyperbolae, but don’t pretend as if thats the intent or meaning of the law.
Topic's author
#99
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You can read the criteria for yourself, which I have listed twice now. Those criteria are incredibly vague and could be used to justify anything. 

I dont know why why you’re making fun of me when the evidence is right in front of you. 
#100
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
He is trolling you.
#101
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
As I’ve said, a couple of times now, the overly broad interpretation of these rules to constitute abortion on demand, is an interpretation that is only shared by pro lifers trying to stir their own outrage. In the real world, with real humans, your interpretation is not shared by anyone real people, and while I can think of innumerable valid scenarios where the new rules will genuinely help, as I mentioned, I can think of no plausible actual scenario where anything like you’re interpretstion could or would ever be applied.


#102
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #22

Clearly not, as shown by your repeated nonsense posts that have early ##22 bullshit points, you appear to be the only one here who resorts to idiotic trolling because they are unable to provide an intelligent defense of their position.
Topic's author
#103
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
I am going to repeat this for a third time. Late term abortion is now permissible for “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” 

what does “all factors”, including emotional and psychological, mean to you? Are you simply being obtuse because you’re embarrassed by your original post?
#104
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
And for the Nth time - the only people who view these specific rules as broad and as all encompassing as you do - to the point they allow for abortion on demand - are pro life people like yourself - reasonable interpretation of these rules doesn’t let you draw such hyperbolic conclusions, and as I pointed out theee is literally no practical or plausible chain of events that would lead real humans to do what you’re suggestinf even if they were. This is a case of convincing yourself that this is the result of baby murdering psychopaths - by interpreting the rules, and required actions of individuals as if written and interpreted by, and acted upon by baby murdering psychopaths. That’s not how this works. This is not how any of this works.

The “health at risk” clauses means just that. Minor ailments with fairly limited impacts would not count as putting health at risk. While you may consider having a stubbed toe, or chance of a hangnail as putting “health at risk”, the implication of the law would be that it requires substantial potential risk and harm : otherwise the original ruling would have been Carte Blanche - or would have been challenged next like alllll the other provisions you’ve said.

The most likely application of this specific law would be relating to unborn babies that were either inviable in themselves or were not expected to live long due to substantial deformities. In this case the potential emotional harm to the mother could be substantial - depending on the scenario and the individual - over simply carrying the pregnancy to term.

What real world scenarios with real people could you imagine this actually being abused?





Topic's author
#105
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
The previous law allowed late term abortion if the mothers life was at risk. The new law specifically amends that to a broader definition of “health” which I have pointed out to you multiple times. Of course this will lead to more late term abortions—thats the entire purpose of the law.

Fourth time: Late term abortion is now permissible for “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”

#106
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
Okay, you’re just being deliberately obtuse now.

1.) No reasonable people, or reasonable court applies the “health risk” clause to mean things that aren’t real health risks, and aren’t substantial. The only people who beleive this clause applies so broadly as to allow any abortion for any reason are pro life people like you. Simply repeating that this clause will be interpreted to mean what you say, doesn’t make it true. You are interpreting this clause to mean what you say, not because of any genuine legal treatise or justification, but because you want to believe people are baby murderers. 

1.a) On what legal, ethical, and logical grounds do you base your opinion that the definition of “risk to a woman’s health” encompasses things that no reasonable person would consider “risks to a woman’s health?”

1.b) As I pointed out, the law and doe exemptions CLEARLY arent intended to be as broad as you are accusing, as it would render the very ruling that listed them completely unnecessary in the first place. Silence.

2.) You asked for an example of how this law would apply, I gave one. I could also think of many examples including rape and abuse that could also be allowed under this clause that would not be unreasonable. Silence.

3.) I asked you three times now to produce a reasonable real world example where it would be applied by real world humans. Silence.




#107
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Alec
In the same way, you can choose to allow a tourist into your country without granting them citizenship.
If you are agreeing to let a tourist stay in your country for 9 months, then the tourist has the right to stay in the country for 9 months.
What if you simply granted them a one day pass?

Whether or not a guest will die when they are deported is immaterial.  Deportees often fear for their lives but this is not considered a reason to allow them to stay.
International law states that if a person is fleeing for their life, you have to let them stay in your country.  
IFF that is the case, Why are Syrian refugees rejected?

If you want tourists but don't want them to become citizens, then you should attach ankle bracelets to them so they can be quickly and easily located and deported.
I don't think this makes sense.  Attaching an ankle to someone is not the same as preventing that person from being in your country by not offering a plane ticket.
You seem to be missing the point.  A tourist visa is not a de facto green card or certificate of citizenship.
Topic's author
#108
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
No reasonable people, or reasonable court applies the “health risk” clause to mean things that aren’t real health risks, and aren’t substantial.

The previous law allowed for late term abortion if the woman's life was at risk. Why do you think the statute was amended to permit late term abortion in broader circumstances? 

On what legal, ethical, and logical grounds do you base your opinion that the definition of “risk to a woman’s health” encompasses things that no reasonable person would consider “risks to a woman’s health?”
On the grounds that it's not justified to give a lethal injection to a viable fetus on account of the "psychological, emotional, or familial" harm that the birth of the child would have on the woman. 

As I pointed out, the law and doe exemptions CLEARLY arent intended to be as broad as you are accusing, as it would render the very ruling that listed them completely unnecessary in the first place. Silence.

Lol, what? The ruling in Doe v. Bolton overturned a Georgia law that prohibited abortion outside of a recommendation from a panel of physicians.

Verbatim: 

"The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of 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.



Fifth time: Late term abortion is now permissible for “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
#109
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
Good lord, again. For the 6th time - you are just pulling an over generalized interpretation and applicarion of the law out of your ass so you can be made at people.


Simply repeating the same assertion doesn’t make it true. You’ve also dodged each one of my questions.

1.) For you to interpret this as abortion on demand, the definition of “risk to a mothers health” must include things that no reasonable person Would consider risk to a mothers health. You have no legal or rational backing for that definition. 

While your reply where you assumed your own conclusion on this count is nice, it also didn’t answer the question.

2.) If risk to a mothers health was so broad that it would support abortion on demand: then the ruling that “in some cases” post viability abortions are accepted would be moot: as if the courts decision would be that the “some cases” where late term abortions would be permissible are all cases. That makes no sense. It’s pretty clear that the court defining what “risk to a woman’s health” in this case doesn’t mean the same thing as you do. Again you didn’t answer the question.

3.) I provided a specific, reasonable example, where a late term abortion would not be supported by the current law, but would now. Silence

4.) I asked you to come up with a plausible real world scenario with real human beings where this would plausibility be used as an “abortion on demand” again silence. I’ve askes multiple times now.

As I have said many times, and have been ignored each time:

Any rational person, doctor, lawyer or judge would interpret the “Risk to mothers health” to mean that there is risk of substantial harm to the mother - short of death - that will be realized by the birth of the baby that can’t be mitigated other than through abortion. It’s literally only pro lifers that interpret “risk to a mothers health” to mean general, lower grade, or minor issues or problems that imply abortion on demand.

Again, in reality, this would mean major impacts or major problems (as I gave an example), it cannot be meaningfully interpreted as some arbitrary justification unless you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Your position, and this pro life “abortion on demand” nonsense, requires women who have been pregnant for over 6 months - to suddenly decide they don’t want the baby, for arbitrary reasons, and for healthcare providers to decide that even though there is obviously no risk to the mothers health, that there is a risk to the mothers health. Not only is that not reflective of the real world - the idea that such people wouldn’t already be doing this by misrepresenting a risk to the woman’s life - such as being shicidal about the pregnancy - is laughable.


But please, go ahead and continue to ignore this point, and bask in your own outrage.
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
I can get on board with making it illegal for pregnant women to drink.
But not an official registry of conception?  If you believe that conception is equivalent to birth, and every human embryo is a citizen, then I can't imagine why you wouldn't support an official registry.  This would of course mean that every lost embryo would be a potential murder or wrongful death case.

Every single cell in the human body has a full genome. Except for egg and sperm. Each contributes half of the genetic code. 
There are a few exceptions to your blanket statement regarding the "full genome". [LINK]

  1. Mature red blood cells which contain no DNA
  2. The sperm and the egg that have half the amount of DNA
  3. B cells in which some of the DNA has been rearranged to make antibodies.
The hair follicle at the base of human hairs contains cellular material rich in DNA. In order to be used for DNA analysis, the hair must have been pulled from the body -- hairs that have been broken off do not contain DNA. [LINK]
#111
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@thett3

The previous law allowed late term abortion if the mothers life was at risk
I am not sure that is correct.  Previousy NY law defined homicide as "conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks." with no mention of any mitigating factors regardig the mothers health in the cases of abortions afer 24 weeks.
Topic's author
#112
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
 The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.


#113
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@thett3
Late term abortions are rather uncommon. It's a low-impact policy issue that the right cares too much about. If the left was wise it would let the right set policy for late term abortions in exchange for the left setting policy on issues that really do matter, like tax policy or health care.
Topic's author
#114
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Death23
It's a low-impact policy issue 

Tell that to the infant that receives a lethal injection to the skull 
#115
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
Tell that to the infant that receives a lethal injection to the skull 
Prenatal life has no value.
Topic's author
#116
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Death23
fuck you
#117
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@thett3
fuck you
Haha this is exactly what I was looking for. You're so easy.
Topic's author
#118
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Death23
okay virgin

#119
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@thett3
IANAL!   However it looks to me that thett is correct that the change broadens the conditions under which an abortion is non-criminal from only where the mother's life is threatened to a more general consideration of her health and well-being.

My own view is that 'life threatening risk only' is too restrictive, but I have grave doubts about late term abortions in principle.  I'm fine with early abortion, but I think it is hard to justify very late term abortions but not post-natal killing.  

My criterion is the Benthamite one:  

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but rather, 'Can they suffer?"  

I would err on the side of assuming a late-term foetiscan suffer.  I would support making carrying to term mandatory after, say, 28 or 30 weeks, but there must be provision for the baby to be cared for by te state if abortion is denied.

However that might be too expensive or there may be other problems I cannot foresee, and I reluctantly judge that late abortion may be the lesser of two evils compared to forcing a woman to bear and care for a child she does not want.   There is clearly no 'good' option - the least bad is all one can hope for.
 

#120
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Argue all you want this boils down to a woman walking into an office, saying I just can't be a mom two days before birth, not wanting to give the kid away and letting someone pull the head out enough to kill the child. It's not the same as a regular abortion and saying it is makes you an evil prick. Funny in other conversations the evil pricks would say their is no evil or morality. So there you go. It's like arguing with a pedophile that a three year old wasn't asking for it. They can't see they are evil.