New York State's New Abortion Law

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

  1. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Well ShAArk the leftists point out if the lenghty appeals process frees one innocent person then it is worth the millions spent.
    So if Leftists would be honest this same appeals process might save one innocent baby.
    Yea I know.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Eh...what does he know?
     
    • Hot Hot x 1
  3. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts



    Ironically, Ohio has passed a law to criminalize abortions where the fetus has a discernible heartbeat.
     
  4. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Clean?
    The one Kascich vetoed?
     
  5. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    How weird that Progressives are now using Libertarian self-ownership and private property arguments for abortion.

    I could maybe respect it if they were consistent. But then they would have to be for gun ownership freedom, right to defend yourself, and walls on the border.

    It seems like the only consistent thing they are FOR is the suffering of innocents and the protection of criminals/aggressors. They are turning into the violence & crime party.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  6. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Just think of this. In the 20th and 21st Centuries 2 groups are responsible for the most deaths in the world. Governments and mothers. Sick and sad at the same time.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Women who kill a child they are carrying cannot be called "mothers" in the maternal sense. Mother f'ers, yes.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    • Like Like x 2
  9. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    Seems more than a little hypocritical that libs raised such a huge stink over illegal alien parents and children being kept separately down on the border, but support this barbaric new law whole heartedly, or as least the politicians of New Yorkers do.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Kasich is a POS on par with McCain.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    They are for being able to have sex without any type of consequences whatsoever.

    I am all for having sex too, but even as a teenager I recognized there were always some form of consequences attached to it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  12. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    So I read the bill, and though I'm going to try to give a fair analysis, I must admit to my bias. I hate abortion. Even if I can be reasonable on it, no issue sickens me like it does. I think it's the biggest moral stain on this country, and I think that in time, history will judge us harshly for permitting it so broadly and so flippantly particularly in light of what we now know about fetal development.

    Having said that, here's my take on the bill's impact, and I'm trying to give it a fair reading. It's fairly similar to NJ's, but I think he somewhat glosses over part of it that I think is pretty significant. His description of the different standards for each trimester is accurate. The law permits abortions up to the point of birth to protect the life or health of the mother while giving the absolute right to abort up to 24 weeks. Obviously, the key word is the completely undefined and unqualified term "health." It could be physical health, mental health, or hell, even financial health. It's a catch-all term that could be easily applied to justify any abortion.

    Not every description from the Right has been accurate. I don't see any evidence that children born alive during botched abortions can be killed after they're born. Nothing in the law allows doctors to kill someone who was already born alive. In fact, the term "person" is still defined as, "a human being who has been born and is alive," so your Kermit Gosnells can still be charged for murdering a baby who was born alive during a botched abortion. Would a state that is so rabidly pro-abortion actually investigate and charge a guy like Gosnell? I doubt it, but they could.

    I do think NJ glosses over the criminal changes. He recognizes that homicide charges cannot be brought incident to an abortion, so even if a prosecutor could prove that a doctor performed a late-term abortion that didn't protect a woman's life or health (never gonna happen anyway, but let's pretend for a moment), the doctor could face no criminal charges for it.

    However, the bill goes further than that. It strikes previous language in the definition of "homicide" that had made it a crime to kill a fetus beyond 24 weeks outside the abortion realm. In other words, if someone assaults a woman and kills her 30-week fetus, he won't get completely off the hook, but his punishment will be much lighter. He'll get charged with some form of assault on the woman. Before, he could have been charged with murder for the dead baby. This shows the true radicalism and ideological nuttiness of the bill. They were willing to weaken the potential criminal liability associated with doing physical harm to a woman just to maintain the ideological purity of dehumanizing the fetus. That is truly sick and deranged.

    To put it into perspective, Texas has a different stance when it comes to the fetus. Back in 2003, the Legislature passed the Prenatal Protection Act. It doesn't impact abortion. However, it makes it a crime for someone other than a doctor or the mother to kill a fetus at any stage, and it allows a wrongful death civil action to be brought against the responsible person. (Strangely but not surprisingly, it prohibits any civil or criminal action to be brought against a doctor who kills a fetus, even if he's not performing an abortion.)

    Now here's the tough part as a staunch pro-lifer. We have the right to criticize the State of New York for its rank barbarism and depravity. However, we don't have the right to have a federal court invalidate their new law. They have the right to be sick. It doesn't violate the Constitution. The remedy for pro-lifers is to make their case directly to the people of New York. Educated minds and changed hearts fix this sort of evil. Abusive court rulings do not.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2019
  13. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Well Mr D I understand what your point is but it is still sad.
    Can the people vote to overturn it?
     
  14. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    thanks Deez ... Nice review.

    I agree .. .it's a State Issue and if the people of NY think that's the thing to do, it's a sad, but Constitutional decision ... and still reflects very badly upon us and what we've become.

    exchange the truth for a lie.

    checked in triplicate (for you millennials, we used to have carbon copies ... and two carbon sheets would yield 3 signatures. It was really cool stuff! LOL)
     
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Nope. The New York legislature would have to amend it.
     
  16. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    Also agreed this is a state's right issue, and if we don't want damyankees telling us how to live and what laws to pass, we have no place doing that to them in this circumstance.

    However, my wife and I will pray that the people of New York will vote in legislators who will amend this horrible and disturbing law.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    SN
    Yes I agree as painful as it is.
    I wonder how many of the average NY citizens outside of NYC really support this?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. nashhorn

    nashhorn 2,500+ Posts

    DIS..GUS..TING
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I am fine with federal courts not imposing their judgment over the NY abortion law.

    However, I am for cities in NY state to nullify the state law if they so desire. Rule it evil, immoral, or any other justification, then don't abide it. Pass and enforce your own city law and fight this awful law.

    Decentralism is our friend.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    No. There is no limitation on how permissive a state can be with abortion.
     
  22. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    The issue is when does a fetus become human enough to acquire the right to life? Iowa and Ohio say when it has a heartbeat. NY says when it’s born. The Catholic Church says at conception.

    The Supreme Court has refused to define when life begins in the past. Justice Blackmun wrote in Roe v Wade:

    “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

    Lots of little lives are at stake.
     
  23. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    yes ... that was a cop-out by the justices in RvW. Capitulation to political pressure.

    I'm not Catholic, but I recognize their definition is accurate. The others are in error. That's not my opinion. To disagree with that is to disagree with reality ... and many do. I have! (not THIS reality, but others)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  24. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    This replenishes your credibility loss from the Starbucks thread.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Viabiliity is ~22-24 weeks per medical science. I'm ok with outlawing after viability except in the instance the baby has died or mother"s life is at risk.
     
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    As you can see, the Court superficially avoided the issue of when life begins, but they do effectively decide when it doesn't begin by prohibiting states from banning abortion prior to viability. Once there is viability, the Court at least acknowledges the "potentiality of human life" (whatever that means) and lets them restrict it subject to the life and health of the mother.

    And of course, none of this has anything to do with the actual written law that's supposed to be applied. If you read the opinion, there's almost no real legal analysis at all. It is pure policy making. The rule of law is completely irrelevant.
     
  27. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    SH
    I actually agree with you . What would be your standard for the mother's life at risk? Physically or mentally
    But at the late dates why not deliver the child and let it LIVE and be adopted?
     
  28. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    but the question shouldn't be about viability, it's about whether it's a human life. Clearly, it is. Viability is introduced for the convenience factor's point of discussion.

    Our bodies mature until early-mid 20s for crying out loud ... what's the real difference between a zygote and an adult ... physically ... if the not-yet-matured-human body is left alone? (ie, not killed)

    Time.

    I, too, support room in the law for those TRULY difficult circumstances which can materialize at anytime in the pregnancy .. but statistically that's not worth a lot of discussion because those are that rare. Not immaterial, because for those folks it's everything during that period. We talking what The law should allow and for that decision in those relatively rare circumstances the Law should should allow. For the rest, the VAST majority of our current abortion victims (both unborn child and mother ... and father, too) the law needs to defend the defenseless and honor the sanctity of innocent human life.

    But we are suffering from a seared conscious ... to exalt SELF. Period. We've convinced ourselves and try mightily to convince others of the "dignity" in choice. But the problem is ... again in the referenced group of abortions for convenience ... the choice was already made.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    OBTW .... evidently the NY legislature also allows for "free" college tuition to illegal aliens in this same session. I know it's a bit off topic, but NY Legislature action this week ...

    so how does that work? is the entire state of NY now a sanctuary?

    How does one prove eligibility for this "free" program? Is there an illegal alien gold card cache just this side of the border one receives for successfully violating Fed immigration law???

    Travesty (abortion law) and lunacy ... courtesy of New York. Sigh.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    A blue wave in this last election has given N.Y. Democrats carte blanche to do whatever they want for the next two years, and what a radical,left-wing bunch they are! From Gov. Cuomo and Congresswoman AOC on down to the state legislators. Even moderate Dems were swept aside.

    As with other blue states, it was the huge urban vote that won the day. Cuomo lost 47 of 62 counties to his opponent. Obviously people outside NYC are more conservative than the city dwellers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page