-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Most of these late term abortions are black babies, so you won't see a tear from the racist left.
New York legalizes infanticide
Posts
Total:
291
-->
@3RU7AL
1. Citizenship shall not be given until birth, legal protection is to be given from conception. If a woman did not know she was pregnant and drank, she would not be in violation of the law.
2. My point is that sperm and eggs are not beings. None of what you said changes my point.
-->
@Mharman
1. Citizenship shall not be given until birth, legal protection is to be given from conception. If a woman did not know she was pregnant and drank, she would not be in violation of the law.
If someone unknowingly takes a human life it is manslaughter. If that woman had sex, she should be responsible for determining if she is pregnant or not before she engages in activities that could potentially endanger her unborn child.
The law demands coherence. You can't say "human life begins at conception" without following all of the logical consequences.
2. My point is that sperm and eggs are not beings. None of what you said changes my point.
I never claimed they are "beings" (or not "beings" for that matter). I merely said they were "alive".
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
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.
These two parts, and especially the latter do not consistute “a risk to the mothers health” in any meaningful way, or way that could be reasonably interpreted by pretty much anyone. As a result, the example you just gave would almost certainly not be considered legal under these circumstances.
I think, as with Thett, that your conclusion that evil baby killers will abort babies based upon this law even in cases where there is no risk to the mothers health is based on your assumption that there is a queue of evil, unethical baby killers willing to use laws contrary to their obvious meaning an intent.
Either way, that’s not a specific issue with the law itself, as much as the fictional group of people you believe exist.
-->
@Ramshutu
I have no issue with abortion up until viability. This risk is also listed as psychological. This makes my statement legit. If the mother is at risk birth would be the issue not the live baby. Your unwillingness to address the issue is on you and your evil is on you.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Firstly no: what you’re stating is not an example of a mothers health being out at risk, the insane example is simply a pregnant woman saying she didn’t want to be a mother; there is no actual or inferred psychological health problems.
Secondly, no: the second boldes part of your statement is not an example of a mothers health being at risk, how on earth is can you explain “not wanting to give a child away” being something that is a risk to a mothers health.
it appears that you’re deliberately trying to select things that aren’t risks to the mothers health and wouldn’t be assumed as such by any meaningful person, assert that they will be used as justifications as to why the mothers health is at risk, then tell us that as a result the law will be used to abort babies even when the women’s health isn’t really at risk. Its nice that your creating fictional examples with fictional women, fictional healthcare providers, and fictional behaviours that no one would follow and fictional justifications no one would use and fewer physicians would accept, and then tell us all it constitutes a real issue with the law.
No.
-->
@Ramshutu
Again if her health is at risk, birth will be risky. Killing the baby doesn't have anything to do with that. A c section would.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Again if her health is at risk, birth will be risky. Killing the baby doesn't have anything to do with that. A c section would.
And you just answered your own argument....
If you believe that any regular or rational human being would consider “not wanting a baby” and “not wanting to give the baby away” to be a genuine risk to the mothers health that warranted an abortion, you're smoking crack.
You, Thett and many other pro lifers are manufacturing a fictional scenario that would never happen based on a completely nonsensical interpretation of the law, and using that as a reason to be outraged.
its ridiculous.
-->
@Ramshutu
Keep lying about me and what is being discussed. Evil prick.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Keep lying about me and what is being discussed. Evil prick.
What an excellent, compelling and rationally explained argument. Plato, Socrates and Lincoln would be astounded by your reasoning ability and compelling prose...
No, I’m not lying about what is being discussed. You, and others are literally being literallt incoherent and hysterical.
Why on earth would you think ANY rational human being, or health practitioner would consider a women coming to them two days before giving birth not wanting to have a child, nor wanting to give birth and then give them away for adoption would constitute a “risk to the mothers health”. It’s literally not happening?
No person on earth that is any sort of command of their brains and bowels soildnever consider this lunacy as compliant with the law. It’s a retarded and nonsensical straw man.
-->
@Ramshutu
Pulled out retard. Well done. Thanks for living up to the evil standard you set for yourself.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The evil standard of asking you how you can possibly justify your incoherent assertions that any reasonable person would consider anything you just said as “a risk to a mothers health?”
I may as well be Hitler!
On a completely unrelated note: having a melt down, and resorting to calling people evil with literally no argument, and after ignoring every objection to my point is pretty much proving my point that this is just hysteria used to manufacture your own rage.
-->
@Ramshutu
If you think that is cute.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So you think that not wanting to be a mother is something that “puts someone’s health at risk”.
If so, walk me through that logic.
-->
@Ramshutu
Whatever makes you feel better lying prick.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yeah, calling people names, and not actually trying to justify your position makes you look like you have a super valid position.
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to think that any law made would follow in the footsteps of other laws. That is not the case. All it means is that if she was unknowing of her pregnancy, she would be innocent. That's the law I would write up.
-->
@3RU7AL
This is true
-->
@thett3
Generally, I don't care to give any analysis on such loaded, emotionally laden topics. However, are you referring to this provision as summarized by the Associated Press?
Known as the Reproductive Health Act, the measure replaces a 1970 state abortion law that was passed three years before Roe legalized abortion nationwide. It codifies many abortion rights laid out in Roe and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman’s health is endangered. The previous law, which was in conflict with Roe and other subsequent abortion rulings, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman’s life was at risk. (1)
It seems that the late-term abortion can only be used when the women in question is in danger. I don't know if this is the law that you are referring to, but if you ask me, it seems more justifiable than what you just described.
Upon further reading, this is what the bill specifically states:
Abortion, which states that an abortion may be performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health.
The issue does not seem to be with the bill, then, but with the broad definition of health set by the SCOTUS precedent. On its own, the bill seems relatively tame for the backlash that it created. At least, that is what seems to be the case after reading what the court decided. Now, if the bill went to court because someone was denied an abortion when it was "necessary to protect someone's life," then the precedent could be altered.
As far as I am concerned though, this bill seems tame. Yes, it has some components that could impact abortion recipients and providers, but if a case went to the SCOTUS right now with the people that Trump selected, then the past definition would probably not be adhered to, and could be completely altered.
This is not to say that you have no reason to be upset if you are pro-life and consider abortion to be murder.
2. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s240 (You can open as a PDF as well) (Warning, the text can hurt your eyes)
-->
@blamonkey
It seems that the late-term abortion can only be used when the women in question is in danger. I don't know if this is the law that you are referring to, but if you ask me, it seems more justifiable than what you just described.
I will say this for probably the 10th time in this thread. In the context of abortion, here is what “health” means: “all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient.“ No, if is not “more than justifiable” to inject the skull of a viable fetus with lethal drugs on account of the “emotional or psychological” damage that a live birth would have on the woman.
The old law permitted late term abortion if the woman’s life was in danger. This new law was passed specifically to broaden access to late term abortion, and passed with rhetoric like “trust women” and “support women’s choices.” The ENTIRE point of the bill was to increase access to late term abortion, and anyone capable of reading past a fifth grade level can see how the definition of health set in Doe v. Bolton allows for abortion on demand (again that was the ENTIRE POINT.)
blamonkey, you’re a good guy and the reason you’re bending over backwards to explain why this bill is acceptable is because deep down you know that it isn’t
-->
@thett3
Show me the law. I am almost positive you are wrong.
-->
@coal
The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. 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.
"Health" in the context of abortion encompasses: "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient."
The entire point of the law was to increase access to late term abortion
-->
@thett3
As a non-liberal progressive who truly understands what left-wing policy is for and the aims of it, I will agree with your wing on this law being immoral.
This is not protecting the vulnerable more than it is hurting the vulnerable and thus is more conservative than progressive.
-->
@coal
I wouldn’t bother.
She’s doing what many pro life people do -,assuming that “risk to health” applies to examples that would not be considered a ‘a risk to health’ by any rational human being, doctor, lawyer or judge.
Sure, the area which could be considered part of “health” is broad, but her implication that almost any scenario would constitute a risk to health is nonsensical, and a view that’s only really shared by other pro lifers.
all I did was list what constitutes health in the context of abortion, which is the word used by the legislation. You keep saying “oh there’s no way abortion would be allowed in such and such circumstance” but the entire point of the law was to increase access to late term abortion and the rhetoric surrounding it was all the “trust women’s choices” stuff. My interpretation is a lot more sound than yours
-->
@Ramshutu
see my above post, i forgot to @ you
-->
@thett3
Like I’ve said, and you’ve ignored (including again), your repeated error is what constitutes a “risk”, not the broad categories where such a “risk” should be considered.
Your faulty logic is to assume that minor impacts would constitute risks - which is ridiculous and nonsensical; and isn’t a position actually shared by normal regular people.
Consider for example a risk to life: using your obtusely poor logic, abortion is already “on demand”, because continuation of any pregnancy at any time broadly introduces some “risk to life” of “life is in danger”
The reason it’s not used that way, is for the same reason that “risk to health”, has not and won’t be used that way either - because it’s not applied to tenuous risks and dangers in the way you claim.
At this point, after you have repeatedly, repeatedly ignored this point, and all others it seems that you’re being deliberately dishonest rather than simply misinformed.
As for the purpose of this law - it is to codify the current constitutional law relating to roenvs wade and doe in case they are overturned. They were pretty clear about that.
If a health issue that late develops then giving birth would be the issue not whether the baby is alive or dead. This is specifically so women can at the last minute say, I don't want to do this and I don't want to put it up for adoption. This health crap is just that, crap. The Governor basically said this was done to counter Pence endorsed restrictions on abortion.
-->
@Ramshutu
Consider for example a risk to life: using your obtusely poor logic, abortion is already “on demand”, because continuation of any pregnancy at any time broadly introduces some “risk to life” of “life is in danger”
Don't be obtuse. The new law obviously opened up more avenues where a woman could legally get a late term abortion--including circumstances where it isn't absolutely critical. This is why it's so barbaric. Other than a direct risk to the life of the mother there is absolutely no justification for injecting lethal drugs into the skull of a viable child to ensure that the woman delivers a dead baby.
Again you keep claiming it wouldn't open up access to late term abortion BUT THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE BILL! It modified pre existing legislation to make late term abortions easier to get! I don't understand how this is controversial!
-->
@Ramshutu
can you give me an example of where this kind of abortion would be morally justified that wasn't allowed under the previous law?