Do you support the proposed abortion legislation in NY?

[Lutherf]

Full text of the legislation here:

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/A21

It removes any time limitation on when an abortion can be performed.
It removes abortion from the definition of homicide.
It allows practitioners to perform abortions at any moment of pregnancy as long as they use "good faith" in why they're doing it ("life and health" of the mother). No, they don't define what "health" of the mother is so that's up to the practitioner's interpretation.

What say you? Should the 24 week limit on abortions be erased and be allowed at any moment in the pregnancy as long as the practitioner is acting in "good faith"?

From the sound of things, if a woman is in her 42nd week of pregnancy and she and the "health care practitioner" decide that the pregnancy has gone on too long and that the woman's life might be negatively impacted they can terminate the pregnancy without any legal repercussions.

Frankly, that sounds a bit barbaric to me.

 

[sangha]

From the sound of things, if a woman is in her 42nd week of pregnancy and she and the "health care practitioner" decide that the pregnancy has gone on too long and that the woman's life might be negatively impacted they can terminate the pregnancy without any legal repercussions.

Frankly, that sounds a bit barbaric to me.

The dont have one.

 

[Lursa]

From the sound of things, if a woman is in her 42nd week of pregnancy and she and the "health care practitioner" decide that the pregnancy has gone on too long and that the woman's life might be negatively impacted they can terminate the pregnancy without any legal repercussions.

Frankly, that sounds a bit barbaric to me.

So you think that govt force (of law or otherwise) to endanger the woman would be more appropriate?

(I hope to get an answer before I point out the actual realities of the situation. Maybe you'll realize them on your own and change your view on 'barbarism'.)

 

[Josie]

So you think that govt force (of law or otherwise) to endanger the woman would be more appropriate?

(I hope to get an answer before I point out the actual realities of the situation. Maybe you'll realize them on your own and change your view on 'barbarism'.)

Can you give me an instance where a full-term baby would need to be killed in order to keep the mother out of danger?

 

[Josie]

There's no need for any term limits on abortion, no elective abortions take place even near viability.
.

They don’t? So what were the hundreds of women going to Gosnell for?

 

[Lursa]

Can you give me an instance where a full-term baby would need to be killed in order to keep the mother out of danger?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Dont give it away!

 

[Josie]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Dont give it away!

Except there are evil people in the world who would kill a full-term baby. Therefore, it should remain illegal to do so.

 

[Lursa]

They don’t? So what were the hundreds of women going to Gosnell for?

Hundreds of women/charges werent all for elective/late term abortions. Some were even regarding basic consent.

The man was a full-blown criminal, a monster, no more representative of a medical professional than a father or mother who kills their own child. Such monsters exist, rarely, everywhere.

 

[Lursa]

Except there are evil people in the world who would kill a full-term baby. Therefore, it should remain illegal to do so.

And the law would stop them? :doh

Again, the entire country of Canada and many US states have no such limits and no such full term abortions occur. Drs wont perform them. Gosnell was a monster.

Not to mention that an abortion for a full term baby (any later term abortion) is more dangerous and painful for the woman than delivery and at that point she might as well have it and offer it for adoption for about $20,000.

They dont occur.

 

[sangha]

Can you give me an instance where a full-term baby would need to be killed in order to keep the mother out of danger?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

Read the story about Darla

 

[eohrnberger]

If you are that hell bent on aborting you baby, at least go and get sterilized in the same procedure and be done with it.
Then you can go and have the hedonistic, sexually promiscuous lifestyle you believe will lead to happiness in life.
:shrug:

 

[Josie]

Hundreds of women/charges werent all for elective/late term abortions. Some were even regarding basic consent.

The man was a full-blown criminal, a monster, no more representative of a medical professional than a father or mother who kills their own child. Such monsters exist, rarely, everywhere.

I didn't say they ALL went there to get late-term abortions. I was countering your statements that....

no elective abortions take place even near viability.

Nobody is killing any babies.

And nobody is aborting any late term fetuses by choice.

Except --- he did. For many, many years no one said a word. Do you think he's really the ONLY person in the country that's monstrous like that? And, with this law, he could've performed late term abortions with no consequence as long as he acted in "good faith" -- which we all know is completely arbitrary. Any abortions -- at any moment in pregnancy -- will be legal under this law. If you KNOW aborting a full-term, healthy baby is wrong, why would you want it to be legal?

 

[sangha]

If you are that hell bent on aborting you baby, at least go and get sterilized in the same procedure and be done with it.
Then you can go and have the hedonistic, sexually promiscuous lifestyle you believe will lead to happiness in life.
:shrug:

Why would a woman who wants to have a child someday have herself sterilized?

 

[Josie]

And the law would stop them? :doh

Um....yes. That's why we have laws. :doh It stopped Gosnell and he would've been stopped sooner if someone had actually said something.

Again, the entire country of Canada and many US states have no such limits and no such full term abortions occur. Drs wont perform them. Gosnell was a monster.

Gosnell WAS a doctor.

Not to mention that an abortion for a full term baby (any later term abortion) is more dangerous and painful for the woman than delivery and at that point she might as well have it and offer it for adoption for about $20,000.

They dont occur.

That's why Gosnell forced the women into labor and then snipped the spines of the babies. Again --- you're saying it never happens, yet you're also agreeing that it did happen. ??

 

[Lursa]

I didn't say they ALL went there to get late-term abortions. I was countering your statements that....





Except --- he did. For many, many years no one said a word. Do you think he's really the ONLY person in the country that's monstrous like that? And, with this law, he could've performed late term abortions with no consequence as long as he acted in "good faith" -- which we all know is completely arbitrary. Any abortions -- at any moment in pregnancy -- will be legal under this law. If you KNOW aborting a full-term, healthy baby is wrong, why would you want it to be legal?

Yes, it's exceedingly rare.

They dont occur...I explained why.

And I am completely against useless, feel-good legislation.

All such a law would do is force additional horrific investigation and questioning by authorities of parents that were hoping and planning on a new family member and now find out that it is terminally defective or nearly so. It would compound their tragedy.

 

[Josie]

Yes, it's exceedingly rare.

They dont occur...I explained why.

And I am completely against useless, feel-good legislation.

All such a law would do is force additional horrific investigation and questioning by authorities of parents that were hoping and planning on a new family member and now find out that it is terminally defective or nearly so. It would compound their tragedy.

It's rare? So is raping a woman with a knife, but it still should be illegal. It's not a "feel-good" legislation. It protects women and babies from monsters like Gosnell.

I'm truly baffled how you (or anyone) could understand what Gosnell did, but still not want it to be illegal because "it's rare". :shock:

 

[Josie]

I won't be responding again. The whole thing is just evil to me and I have no interest arguing with people who are okay with it not being illegal.

 

[sangha]

I didn't say they ALL went there to get late-term abortions. I was countering your statements that....





Except --- he did. For many, many years no one said a word. Do you think he's really the ONLY person in the country that's monstrous like that? And, with this law, he could've performed late term abortions with no consequence as long as he acted in "good faith" -- which we all know is completely arbitrary. Any abortions -- at any moment in pregnancy -- will be legal under this law. If you KNOW aborting a full-term, healthy baby is wrong, why would you want it to be legal?

Why are you lying?

Under this proposed law, doctors will still have to adhere to the regulations concerning abortions, which means that the illegal acts which Gosnell engaged in -- not getting consent, killing babies after they had been born, etc-- will continue to be illegal.

 

[Lursa]

Um....yes. That's why we have laws. :doh It stopped Gosnell and he would've been stopped sooner if someone had actually said something.

Gosnell WAS a doctor.

That's why Gosnell forced the women into labor and then snipped the spines of the babies. Again --- you're saying it never happens, yet you're also agreeing that it did happen. ??

The laws didnt stop Gosnell. They didnt even enable his punishment. His main charges were for killing babies born alive, not for abortions. Others were misdemeanors regarding consent.

And I know he was a doctor. A parent who murders their kid was still a parent. Labels dont prevent crime.

He operated over a long period of time, and desperate or poorly advised women went to him. Many would have been legitimate medically necessary abortions that he performed unethically.

If access to abortion was not limited to one single facility in a very large state (such as N. Dakota, or Mississippi) then women with less means would not have to take desperate measures or would have more options for drs.

If such abortions take place out of desperation now...no law would affect that.

Women do not get such late term elective abortions. For reasons I described.

 

[Lursa]

It's rare? So is raping a woman with a knife, but it still should be illegal. It's not a "feel-good" legislation. It protects women and babies from monsters like Gosnell.

I'm truly baffled how you (or anyone) could understand what Gosnell did, but still not want it to be illegal because "it's rare". :shock:

No, it protects...STOPS...nothing. It can only punish after the fact.

And it's been explained to you why. I agree, dont respond anymore...just re-read it til you understand.

 

[JMR]

From the sound of things, if a woman is in her 42nd week of pregnancy and she and the "health care practitioner" decide that the pregnancy has gone on too long and that the woman's life might be negatively impacted they can terminate the pregnancy without any legal repercussions.

Frankly, that sounds a bit barbaric to me.

Why do you think so little of women and doctor's that you even imagine this scenario?

 

[Lutherf]

Why do you think so little of women and doctor's that you even imagine this scenario?

First, I'd note that the law doesn't say "doctor", it says "health care professional". Second, every time I think I've heard the worst thing a person can do someone else comes along to prove me wrong.

 

[Lursa]

I won't be responding again. The whole thing is just evil to me and I have no interest arguing with people who are okay with it not being illegal.

This is what would be evil and the only thing to come of such legislation:

All such a law would do is force additional horrific investigation and questioning by authorities of parents that were hoping and planning on a new family member and now find out that it is terminally defective or nearly so. It would compound their tragedy.

 

[Lutherf]

So you think that govt force (of law or otherwise) to endanger the woman would be more appropriate?

(I hope to get an answer before I point out the actual realities of the situation. Maybe you'll realize them on your own and change your view on 'barbarism'.)

If the woman and the baby can both be saved by induced labor, surgery or some other method then it's entirely inhuman to abort the baby.

 

[JMR]

I didn't say they ALL went there to get late-term abortions. I was countering your statements that....





Except --- he did. For many, many years no one said a word. Do you think he's really the ONLY person in the country that's monstrous like that? And, with this law, he could've performed late term abortions with no consequence as long as he acted in "good faith" -- which we all know is completely arbitrary. Any abortions -- at any moment in pregnancy -- will be legal under this law. If you KNOW aborting a full-term, healthy baby is wrong, why would you want it to be legal?

Good faith is as arbitrary as political legislation. And again....this is NOT A LAW. The action taken in NY is to remove abortion from the criminal code. The opposite of a Law.