(01-24-2019 04:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 04:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:54 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Doctors have their own oath they must uphold and the bulk of the bill simply moves legislation that addresses abortion from the criminal code to the health and safety code, where it belongs. The paragraph of the bill that has been grossly misrepresented clearly states that anything beyond 24 weeks must be because either the fetus died or the woman’s life or health are at risk. It also states the doctor must use good faith and professional judgment based on the facts of a particular case, as we hope they always would, according to their oath.

Abortion is a medical procedure. The more restrictive laws in some states include non-viable fetuses who cannot survive outside of the womb, because they are missing lungs, or the head did not develop. In those states - where everyone knows the fetus is not viable, women who thought they would be mothers are required to carry to term. This also includes instances where the fetus has died, and women are not permitted to have an "abortion" to remove the fetus where a miscarriage has not naturally happened.

When women reside in those states that restrict "abortion" to include the actual medical procedure instead of specific circumstances regarding viable pregnancies, those women either just have to wait (usually creating a situation that endangers their health, where one did not exist), or travel somewhere so that they can get the medical treatment (usually prescriptions or a shot) to induce the abortion. Any way you look at it, it's a horrible situation for these women to be put in.

Just within my own circle, there is a woman (in TN) who found out the fetus had died at 8 months (no heartbeat or other activity) in utero. Because they were past a certain week in the pregnancy, could not get an elective abortion in TN and had to wait, carrying around a dead fetus inside them, hoping their bodies would spontaneously abort. I cannot imagine the horror, trauma, and sadness they experienced, and would not wish it upon anyone.

The "celebration" is that women do not have to suffer like that in the state of NY.

2 Things

1. Kermit Gosnell took an oath as a doctor and he was a murdering criminal. Just because someone is a doctor does not mean they are infallible. This law now provides legal cover for a corrupt doctor to profit off deeming any abortion "medically necessary." Like Gosnell, word will spread about the doctor being the place to go if you need an abortion no one else will approve

2. I can not imagine the trauma your friend must have suffered. If the baby has died before birth, I do not think remove him/her from the womb would be considered an abortion. If the legal code did state that, why couldn't that narrow change have been made using different terminology?

Wait, does anyone actually consider that abortion?

Again, as I stated above, "abortion" is a medical procedure - the process to extract a fetus from the uterus prior to labor (whether induced or otherwise) is abortion, whether or not the fetus has a heartbeat of its own or not. Even a miscarriage is sometimes medically referred to as a "spontaneous abortion."

(01-24-2019 03:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious, how many pregnant women who carry a baby for 8+ months just decide at the last moment, "Ya know...I no longer want this baby, so I'll just abort it for no other reason than that."

Why does that even matter? If only one does such a thing it's a travesty.

...agreed, but this new law doesn't change any of that. The law is to protect women who have a medical need to have the procedure done because the baby is already dead in utero, or will be damaging the mother's health by continuing.

Surely we can all agree that it's also a travesty to have to carry around your dead baby if you can't afford to travel to another state just so you don't get charged with a felony?

Still borns happen frequently and have nothing to do with abortions.

Technically yes, it does. If a woman miscarries on her own and the fetus is expelled, it's a "spontaneous abortion" according to some medical jargon.

Many times a woman has labor induced to deliver. After either situation, a D&C (dilation & curettage) is done to clear out any remaining tissue. All of these are medical terms for procedures - "abortion" the word carries such weight with it that many times the fact that it applies to many different situations gets lost, IMO.

(01-24-2019 04:14 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  ...agreed, but this new law doesn't change any of that. The law is to protect women who have a medical need to have the procedure done because the baby is already dead in utero, or will be damaging the mother's health by continuing.

WHaa... Where did we get this claim from?

Nothing I've seen in the review of this law even implicates that this is what it's for!

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

(01-24-2019 04:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:54 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Doctors have their own oath they must uphold and the bulk of the bill simply moves legislation that addresses abortion from the criminal code to the health and safety code, where it belongs. The paragraph of the bill that has been grossly misrepresented clearly states that anything beyond 24 weeks must be because either the fetus died or the woman’s life or health are at risk. It also states the doctor must use good faith and professional judgment based on the facts of a particular case, as we hope they always would, according to their oath.

Abortion is a medical procedure. The more restrictive laws in some states include non-viable fetuses who cannot survive outside of the womb, because they are missing lungs, or the head did not develop. In those states - where everyone knows the fetus is not viable, women who thought they would be mothers are required to carry to term. This also includes instances where the fetus has died, and women are not permitted to have an "abortion" to remove the fetus where a miscarriage has not naturally happened.

When women reside in those states that restrict "abortion" to include the actual medical procedure instead of specific circumstances regarding viable pregnancies, those women either just have to wait (usually creating a situation that endangers their health, where one did not exist), or travel somewhere so that they can get the medical treatment (usually prescriptions or a shot) to induce the abortion. Any way you look at it, it's a horrible situation for these women to be put in.

Just within my own circle, there is a woman (in TN) who found out the fetus had died at 8 months (no heartbeat or other activity) in utero. Because they were past a certain week in the pregnancy, could not get an elective abortion in TN and had to wait, carrying around a dead fetus inside them, hoping their bodies would spontaneously abort. I cannot imagine the horror, trauma, and sadness they experienced, and would not wish it upon anyone.

The "celebration" is that women do not have to suffer like that in the state of NY.

2 Things

1. Kermit Gosnell took an oath as a doctor and he was a murdering criminal. Just because someone is a doctor does not mean they are infallible. This law now provides legal cover for a corrupt doctor to profit off deeming any abortion "medically necessary." Like Gosnell, word will spread about the doctor being the place to go if you need an abortion no one else will approve

2. I can not imagine the trauma your friend must have suffered. If the baby has died before birth, I do not think remove him/her from the womb would be considered an abortion. If the legal code did state that, why couldn't that narrow change have been made using different terminology?

It also removed the possibility of her being charged with a felony, since abortion after 24 weeks was under criminal code. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't make sense to do one without the other.

Add to it that there's also language to protect women in NY even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, and I don't think it's as simple as just changing wording.

...and I get what you're saying about doctors who might not be honorable, but making the law to where upstanding medical professionals won't get in trouble for helping women who medically need these procedures isn't going to change what the shady ones do or don't do.

(01-24-2019 02:57 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious, how many pregnant women who carry a baby for 8+ months just decide at the last moment, "Ya know...I no longer want this baby, so I'll just abort it for no other reason than that."

Why does that even matter? If only one does such a thing it's a travesty.

Because it hardly ever happens! So the "outrage" being expressed here is really not warranted. Nearly all abortions in these instances are made on the advice of doctors and are related to the health of the baby and the mother.

The death penalty does not stop murders, abortion bans won't stop abortions.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are OK with the NY law. Even though it is uncommon, it is now OK. Your due date is on Saturday? You can kill your baby on Friday. Common? No. Legal? Yes.

There is a problem with that.

AGAIN, you don't seem to have a clue what my position on abortion even is. Secondly, I'm a male and I don't live in New York, so their laws don't apply to me and don't matter to me one iota. Lastly, as I said, this notion that floodgates will open and women will suddenly just decide to abort perfectly fine babies in the last month of pregnancy for no reason other than they don't want the baby is just plain ridiculous.

(01-24-2019 04:14 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  ...agreed, but this new law doesn't change any of that. The law is to protect women who have a medical need to have the procedure done because the baby is already dead in utero, or will be damaging the mother's health by continuing.

WHaa... Where did we get this claim from?

Nothing I've seen in the review of this law even implicates that this is what it's for!

Tiger, we had this happen with our first son. This is NOT abortion. This is still birth.

(01-24-2019 05:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 02:57 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious, how many pregnant women who carry a baby for 8+ months just decide at the last moment, "Ya know...I no longer want this baby, so I'll just abort it for no other reason than that."

Why does that even matter? If only one does such a thing it's a travesty.

Because it hardly ever happens! So the "outrage" being expressed here is really not warranted. Nearly all abortions in these instances are made on the advice of doctors and are related to the health of the baby and the mother.

The death penalty does not stop murders, abortion bans won't stop abortions.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are OK with the NY law. Even though it is uncommon, it is now OK. Your due date is on Saturday? You can kill your baby on Friday. Common? No. Legal? Yes.

There is a problem with that.

AGAIN, you don't seem to have a clue what my position on abortion even is. Secondly, I'm a male and I don't live in New York, so their laws don't apply to me and don't matter to me one iota. Lastly, as I said, this notion that floodgates will open and women will suddenly just decide to abort perfectly fine babies in the last month of pregnancy for no reason other than they don't want the baby is just plain ridiculous.

Then why pass the law? Hmm? It sure as hell isn't for deceased fetuses. Doctors may induce labor for that. The only possible motives are simply two.

1. So third trimester fetuses may be aborted.

2. To cover Dr.'s who perform late abortions.

Either way RWT, somebody is having them. Maybe there's a third reason. There's the question of harvesting as well. Somewhere behind this law is a profit or a reduction in liability. There is no other reason, unless of course it is to have last trimester abortions.

(01-24-2019 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 02:57 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Why does that even matter? If only one does such a thing it's a travesty.

Because it hardly ever happens! So the "outrage" being expressed here is really not warranted. Nearly all abortions in these instances are made on the advice of doctors and are related to the health of the baby and the mother.

The death penalty does not stop murders, abortion bans won't stop abortions.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are OK with the NY law. Even though it is uncommon, it is now OK. Your due date is on Saturday? You can kill your baby on Friday. Common? No. Legal? Yes.

There is a problem with that.

AGAIN, you don't seem to have a clue what my position on abortion even is. Secondly, I'm a male and I don't live in New York, so their laws don't apply to me and don't matter to me one iota. Lastly, as I said, this notion that floodgates will open and women will suddenly just decide to abort perfectly fine babies in the last month of pregnancy for no reason other than they don't want the baby is just plain ridiculous.

Then why pass the law? Hmm? It sure as hell isn't for deceased fetuses. Doctors may induce labor for that. The only possible motives are simply two.

1. So third trimester fetuses may be aborted.

2. To cover Dr.'s who perform late abortions.

Either way RWT, somebody is having them. Maybe there's a third reason. There's the question of harvesting as well. Somewhere behind this law is a profit or a reduction in liability. There is no other reason, unless of course it is to have last trimester abortions.

(01-24-2019 05:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 02:57 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious, how many pregnant women who carry a baby for 8+ months just decide at the last moment, "Ya know...I no longer want this baby, so I'll just abort it for no other reason than that."

Why does that even matter? If only one does such a thing it's a travesty.

Because it hardly ever happens! So the "outrage" being expressed here is really not warranted. Nearly all abortions in these instances are made on the advice of doctors and are related to the health of the baby and the mother.

The death penalty does not stop murders, abortion bans won't stop abortions.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are OK with the NY law. Even though it is uncommon, it is now OK. Your due date is on Saturday? You can kill your baby on Friday. Common? No. Legal? Yes.

There is a problem with that.

AGAIN, you don't seem to have a clue what my position on abortion even is. Secondly, I'm a male and I don't live in New York, so their laws don't apply to me and don't matter to me one iota. Lastly, as I said, this notion that floodgates will open and women will suddenly just decide to abort perfectly fine babies in the last month of pregnancy for no reason other than they don't want the baby is just plain ridiculous.

Probably more common than you think considering they needed a law to allow it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The church of Liberalism has just enhanced their sacrament, more abortion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I can't imagine a single person believes a woman should have to carry a dead child. Peoples problem with abortion is the snuffing out of a life. Can't murder the dead. Who has a problem with removing a dead baby.

Where are people prosecuted for removing a dead child from it's mothers womb?

(01-24-2019 08:35 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I can't imagine a single person believes a woman should have to carry a dead child. Peoples problem with abortion is the snuffing out of a life. Can't murder the dead. Who has a problem with removing a dead baby.

Where are You prosecuted for removing a dead child from it's mothers womb?

This. Removing a dead baby is not an abortion.

(01-24-2019 03:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:54 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  There is so much misinformation and inflammatory articles going around regarding this it’s unreal.

The reality is that "late term abortions" are NOT what the mother wants to happen. 99% of elective abortions are prior to 24 weeks. No one is "celebrating" that a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy, who randomly wakes up at 40 weeks, goes to the hospital for delivery but instead decides to terminate her pregnancy.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017...veCJD3D0gk

Doctors have their own oath they must uphold and the bulk of the bill simply moves legislation that addresses abortion from the criminal code to the health and safety code, where it belongs. The paragraph of the bill that has been grossly misrepresented clearly states that anything beyond 24 weeks must be because either the fetus died or the woman’s life or health are at risk. It also states the doctor must use good faith and professional judgment based on the facts of a particular case, as we hope they always would, according to their oath.

Abortion is a medical procedure. The more restrictive laws in some states include non-viable fetuses who cannot survive outside of the womb, because they are missing lungs, or the head did not develop. In those states - where everyone knows the fetus is not viable, women who thought they would be mothers are required to carry to term. This also includes instances where the fetus has died, and women are not permitted to have an "abortion" to remove the fetus where a miscarriage has not naturally happened.

When women reside in those states that restrict "abortion" to include the actual medical procedure instead of specific circumstances regarding viable pregnancies, those women either just have to wait (usually creating a situation that endangers their health, where one did not exist), or travel somewhere so that they can get the medical treatment (usually prescriptions or a shot) to induce the abortion. Any way you look at it, it's a horrible situation for these women to be put in.

Just within my own circle, there is a woman (in TN) who found out the fetus had died at 8 months (no heartbeat or other activity) in utero. Because they were past a certain week in the pregnancy, could not get an elective abortion in TN and had to wait, carrying around a dead fetus inside them, hoping their bodies would spontaneously abort. I cannot imagine the horror, trauma, and sadness they experienced, and would not wish it upon anyone.

The "celebration" is that women do not have to suffer like that in the state of NY.

New York already allowed abortions after 24 weeks to protect the mother. Also, this law allows mid-wives and physician assistants to perform some abortions. So it can only be assumed if someone murders a pregnant woman the murderer will no longer be charged with multiple counts.

Not sure what someone murdering the mother has to do with the discussion...

Midwives, PA's, etc., are still licensed professionals. If, God forbid, a woman has to do this late-term and she wants to be at home instead of at a hospital, she should be able to do so.

And NY did NOT allow them post 24 weeks until after Tuesday. Up until then, the law required a mother to carry a non viable fetus full term. Meaning if a mother's baby died after 24 weeks, she could not have the abortion procedure without committing a felony.

Abortion was considered a felony prior to Tuesday - hence the change from the criminal code to the health & safety code.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/sto...643065002/

New York legalized abortion three years prior to the landmark Roe v. Wade case, but New York still kept abortion in its criminal code, making it a felony to perform late-term abortions.

The 1970 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."

The new law will allow a licensed "health-care practitioner" acting under their scope of practice to perform an abortion when:

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

So the measure will make late-term abortions legal at the discretion of a health-care practitioner based on the viability of the fetus or if the woman's life or health is in jeopardy.

And the act will codify Roe v. Wade protections into state law if the case were to be overturned by the Supreme Court, which Cuomo cited as the main reason for needing the new state law.

So you are making it sound like the abortion doctors lobbied (through donations) to get their liability removed. So the legislators should have lit the towers Green$$?

(01-24-2019 05:11 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious, how many pregnant women who carry a baby for 8+ months just decide at the last moment, "Ya know...I no longer want this baby, so I'll just abort it for no other reason than that."

Why does that even matter? If only one does such a thing it's a travesty.

...agreed, but this new law doesn't change any of that. The law is to protect women who have a medical need to have the procedure done because the baby is already dead in utero, or will be damaging the mother's health by continuing.

Surely we can all agree that it's also a travesty to have to carry around your dead baby if you can't afford to travel to another state just so you don't get charged with a felony?

Still borns happen frequently and have nothing to do with abortions.

Technically yes, it does. If a woman miscarries on her own and the fetus is expelled, it's a "spontaneous abortion" according to some medical jargon.

Many times a woman has labor induced to deliver. After either situation, a D&C (dilation & curettage) is done to clear out any remaining tissue. All of these are medical terms for procedures - "abortion" the word carries such weight with it that many times the fact that it applies to many different situations gets lost, IMO.

It is often called that. And I've been told that 30 to 50% of first pregnancies do just that, usually early in the pregnancy.

Example # 674625874591863512 that today's liberalism is a mental deficiency.

(01-24-2019 09:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:11 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:48 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Why does that even matter? If only one does such a thing it's a travesty.

...agreed, but this new law doesn't change any of that. The law is to protect women who have a medical need to have the procedure done because the baby is already dead in utero, or will be damaging the mother's health by continuing.

Surely we can all agree that it's also a travesty to have to carry around your dead baby if you can't afford to travel to another state just so you don't get charged with a felony?

Still borns happen frequently and have nothing to do with abortions.

Technically yes, it does. If a woman miscarries on her own and the fetus is expelled, it's a "spontaneous abortion" according to some medical jargon.

Many times a woman has labor induced to deliver. After either situation, a D&C (dilation & curettage) is done to clear out any remaining tissue. All of these are medical terms for procedures - "abortion" the word carries such weight with it that many times the fact that it applies to many different situations gets lost, IMO.

It is often called that. And I've been told that 30 to 50% of first pregnancies do just that, usually early in the pregnancy.

Medical terminology and legal definition are not always one in the same.

I just cannot.imagine anyone being prosecuted for removing from the womb a baby that died naturally.

(01-24-2019 08:35 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I can't imagine a single person believes a woman should have to carry a dead child. Peoples problem with abortion is the snuffing out of a life. Can't murder the dead. Who has a problem with removing a dead baby.

Where are people prosecuted for removing a dead child from it's mothers womb?

My wife is a nurse that worked labor and delivery for quite a while. No mother is forced to carry a dead unborn child to term. Labor is chemically induced and it is done expressly for the well-being and health of the mother.

My wife is very upset over this. She's a former labor and delivery nurse, has also worked ER where they had to deliver extremely early in the case of car accidents or mothers who over-dosed and passed, and shes currently 25 weeks pregnant. She's been feeling our daughter move and kick since week 20. She isn't so focused on the small handful of women that might choose to abort at 7 or 8 months, so much as she is the women who struggle with the decision and end up opting for an abortion shortly after the previous 24 week limit. Doctors will be much more likely to perform an abortion under the cover of the mother's health be it physical or mental in weeks 24-28, then 28-30, and so on.

Yeah, did a little searching earlier and found most are chemically induced with a small number being surgical. Didn't find anything about women being forced to carry because it was a crime to remove. Seems those claims were utter bs.

(01-25-2019 08:58 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Yeah, did a little searching earlier and found most are chemically induced with a small number being surgical. Didn't find anything about women being forced to carry because it was a crime to remove. Seems those claims were utter bs.

I can assure you they are not, and I'll leave it at that.

So I'm gonna stick with bs then.