New York State's New Abortion Law

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Jan 23, 2019.

  1. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    I know abortion is wildly controversial, but by any standard, this NY state law borders on infanticide.





     
    • poop poop x 2
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I've read conflicting things about it. I'll have to read the statute rather than the articles.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    @Clean, my poop rating is for the law, not for you.
     
  4. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Sounds like New York has imported a bunch of liberal wingnuts from California...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Reproductive Health = death? Who knew?
     
  6. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Reminds me of this scene. People will applaud anything.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Obviously you aren't woke enough.
     
  8. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    The dems/liberals will ensure Trump’s re-election with their far left push. I haven’t studied the details, but that is a disgusting push to allow murder. The day before birth? Let’s hear it liberal West Mallers, who agrees with this?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    I'll be curious to hear the rationale as well. Part of the possible argument I would imagine in the case of, say, rape, is why should a woman carry the burden of a pregnancy if the goal would be to give it up for adoption. Now, they are saying, carry the burden of the pregnancy, but if you say oops, I changed my mind, just kill it, well, that's perfectly okay I guess. Gee, the day before birth, why not just do adoption?
     
  10. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    From a couple of places that I've read about this, libs rush in here to point out that late-term abortions are a very small percentage of overall abortions. Their argument is that for the most part, this just makes sure to seal off any avenues to limit abortion rights in the event that RvW goes down. So basically, it's "the principle of the thing."

    Now having said that, if you want to defend the argument that "it's my body and if I want to carry this fetus right up until delivery day and then abort it, then I can do it and no one has the right to tell me I can't," then please feel free. My hope is that Gillibrand wins the nominee and someone tells Trump to make her answer whether she thinks abortions at 8 months are morally wrong, or are detrimental to our culture.

    He could even risk alienating hard-line pro-lifers by pointing out "look, I understand that some people believe in the right to abort their child. And I can understand why you might believe that. But the overwhelming majority of this country does not want that procedure done on a child that's ready to be born, and we cannot simply allow someone who is going to actively surround herself and fill the courts with people who care more about "the principle of the thing" than they do defending kids.

    BTW, here's a horrific stat according to the CDC: In New York, 28 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. Let that one sink in a little.
     
  11. chango

    chango 2,500+ Posts

    I'm going to form an unchanging opinion about it anyway - said every American in 2019.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    So do you think it is a good idea or not?
     
  13. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    Here's the operative paragraph of the statute:

    This gives a woman the absolute right to an abortion within the first or second trimester. In the third trimester, abortion is proper only if the fetus is nonviable or the mother's life or health is at risk.

    I think this goes too far. If I were king for a day, I'd permit women to elect to have an abortion in the first trimester (or maybe a bit more -- say, 4.5 months) and in the case of nonviability at any time. For the second trimester, I would make abortion legal if the mother's life or health was at risk. In the third trimester, I'd limit that to situations where the mother's life was at risk. I would also define "at risk" to require something concrete and substantial, to foreclose the argument that even a routine pregnancy carries a risk to the mother's life or health.

    The new NY law also removes illegal abortion from the definition of murder. I'd guess there are some other criminal statutes that would still apply, but I don't know that for certain.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  14. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    I'd vote for you to be king for a day. Your stance seems reasonable.

    Your summary of the law is not what my facebook feed reports. :)
     
  15. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    Although this is actually much more consistent with the pro-choice position than otherwise.

    So basically, you just need to find a practitioner whose willing to always say "oh yeah, health risk" regardless. Will such a person be easy or hard to find? I strongly suspect the former although I could be wrong.
     
  16. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    The issue with this (well... OK I have a lot of issues with it, but the issue from a clarity/consistency of application) is that we've been down this road in other instances, when Democrats have blocked bans on partial-birth abortion - an absolutely barbaric practice that the vast majority of Americans oppose.

    The reason that Obama gave, as I recall, was that banning this procedure didn't protect a mother in terms of her "health." But it's so vague as to include any time of subjective qualification. "Mental health" could simply mean "the doctor sees that she really really doesn't want this child anymore, and it's going to cause her stress to have it."

    Newsweek even admits this is true, although then pulls out the argument I mentioned in an earlier post: "It almost never happens, and we don't really believe that doctors are looking for reasons to perform abortions. (Kermit Gosnell says hi...) And they proceed to rip John McCain's stance on this as a result.

    Abortion: What the 'Health' Exemption Really Means

    "According to Centers for Disease Control statistics, only 1.4 percent of abortions took place after 21 weeks in 2004, the latest year for which data are available. ( Roe protects the right to abortions prior to fetal viability; a woman does not need to demonstrate a health risk if the procedure is prior to then.)"

    BTW, PP does more than 300,000 abortions every year. What's 1.4 percent of that? If airlines had a safety record that was a tenth of that, we'd shut them down.

    As I said earlier, I don't believe this is about people who are excited about the prospect of having kids so they can carry them to term and then have them killed days before they're ready to be born. But we don't leave it up to the supposed good will of anyone else when we write other laws (immigration notwithstanding.) We write laws all the time aimed at curbing activity that the majority of people have no interest in and will never do.

    It is, instead, about people so invested in the idea of abortion as a woman's right that ANY limitation on it, any admission that the child is more than a clump of cells, is viewed as a "war on women." So we can't even ban procedures that the vast majority of us view as morally wrong and harmful to our society.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Again... what abortions would even be illegal at that point?

    That's at least better than what we have now, but it's not an option. Never in a million years would the Dems allow this kind of language. They would counter that a routine risk is still a risk, and that it's the woman's body and she can make that decision at whatever point she chooses.

    This is, in fact, the honest answer and the honest extension of the pro-choice argument. You can't say "I'm pro-choice, but there comes a point when we have to stop it." The fetus is either alive and human or it's not. The woman either "has control over her body" or she doesn't. The pro-choice argument is that the fetus is inhabiting the woman's body and therefore part of her body. Anything else is purely subjective.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    Regardless of you feelings on the matter, the real problem in my mind is the absolute glee and arrogant moral superiority being exhibited.

    You can thank Senator Warren for saying what we all knew they believed: The baby in the womb has the moral equivalence of a tonsil.

    As for a woman's health or life being at risk I think we can conclude the Left will apply that standard very loosely and as liberally as possible. Not exactly a hero at that point eh? Giving up their life for another. But if you are convinced it's not a life then it's no biggie.
     
  19. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    How can a fetus which has a heart, brain, and own blood type be considered a part of the woman's body. It doesn't share the same genetics. It is scientifically different.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    They have largely given up that argument because it's nonsensical on its face. What they now argue is that the woman has the absolute right to decide what is in her body and what should be expelled from it. To them, the fetus has no right to be there, and she can expel it at any time and for any reason. She can even harm it intentionally so long as it's inside.
     
  21. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    These are many of the same people who would argue you have no right to blow someone away with your gun if he is inside, say, your home, and you don't want him there.
     
  22. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    "“Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” the new legislation declares."

    from the law.
    If I understand it the law also does not protect humans born alive.
     
  23. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    Exactly. New York has a "duty to retreat" law whereby, even if someone breaks into your house, it is your duty to run out the back door. Honestly, I could care less what idiots in New York or California believe and do. Just stop trying to force your idiotic laws, disgusting moral beliefs and socialist programs on the rest of us.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  24. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    Not much to study ... we've accepted the right to murder another human being. The only difference is whether that human being is breathing with its own lungs.

    So, presumably, anyone on a breathing machine has surrendered their claim to life if their situation is unpleasant/uncomfortable to those responsible for the patient's care.

    After the first murder ... man had to start tilling the soil. With so many millions of these supremely innocent ... well ... y'all who support it are braver (or stupider) than am I. The punishment for this, in light of THAT?

    Nope!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    I have wanted to have a conversation with libs who say I am hypocritical since I support capitol punishment.
    I am willing to reconsider CP IF Libs will apply the same legal appeals convicted people get to the unborn infant.
     
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    24 weeks

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. AC

    AC 1,000+ Posts

    My daughters are adopted from Russia, both were born into horrible situations. Everyday my wife and I thank God they were not aborted and that Russian adoptions were allowed back then. They are not allowed into the US anymore. Suffice to say I am deeply saddened by this law. Between this and his stance on the wall Trump has already been re-elected. He will win in a landslide.

    I am no millennial but my daughters are and they talk to the other kids in HS about this. All of their friends agree, this law is just shameful! How can people vote in favor of this and justify it? Beyond me.

    Young people are not going to be swayed by the leftists, many are discovering liberty and freedom. I hope this law pushes more youngsters to the right side of this issue.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    that's amazing, AC!

    We showed Longhorns with a family comprised of many adopted children ... 3 or 4 also from Russia.

    Much respect for you folks!
     
  29. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    admirable, 6721, but it's an apples/oranges deal.

    clearly INNOCENCE being the defining/discerning factor. One who is convicted of a capital offense is NOT in the same category as an unborn baby.

    It's a similar distraction when an atheist, for example, seeks to "flip" the 10 Commandments argument about taking another life ... failing to realize ... the command was against MURDER, not kill. takes a little bit of word study, but that's the difference.
     
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 6

Share This Page