New York Legalizes Abortion Until Day Of Birth

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Death Penalty: Illegal in New York
Causing a Woman to Miscarriage: Murder
Being Able to Abort on the Due Date: Celebration Worthy?


I'm pro choice (to a degree) but I find this pretty F'ing crazy. I also think the mental health debate in this thread is reasonable (and no, I don't listen to Rush) because it's to protect "paitent's life OR health." (Emphasis mine)

If it was just to protect her physical health, I feel like it would stay at life. Adding in both life or health makes me think it's a lot more sweeping... at least until it happens and gets challenged.


- - - - - - - - - - -

Also, they celebrated being able to abort children up to birth by lighting the new World Trade Center pink. Meanwhile the World Trade Center Memorial lists all the victims names and includes 11 unborn children.

Mixed message there.

[fredtoast]

At this point it is unclear if "health" includes "mental health". That may be decided by a court, but I don't really see it as being a big issue. Women that want abortions don't sit around pregnant getting fat and miserable for months before having it done. So I don't think this law will increase the number of abortions much at all. I think it will only come into play when complications arise later in the pregnancy.

[fredtoast]

(01-24-2019, 07:48 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If it was just to protect her physical health, I feel like it would stay at life.

No.  There are many serious complications that can damage a woman's health but not kill her.

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2019, 08:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  There are many serious complications that can damage a woman's health but not kill her.

I heard abortion is pretty hard on the kid too. 

[GMDino]

From the article I posted earlier:

Quote:In 2016, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 82,189 abortions were performed in the state. Ninety-one percent were performed in settings other than a hospital. Fifty-seven percent of those were for women between the ages of 20 and 29. Just over 1,700, or 2.3 percent, were conducted when fetuses were at or after 20 weeks old. Just over 2,800 abortions were performed in Erie and Niagara counties that year, according to state Health Department data.

I don't know if the have the percentage broken down by weeks or not.  

[fredtoast]

(01-24-2019, 08:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I heard abortion is pretty hard on the kid too. 

I am sure you are proud of your research, but everyone here already knew this.

[*Nately120*]

(01-24-2019, 06:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Where'd you hear that?

Actually, though, I also just found found this article:


So what do you have?  

Thanks for calling me like I was bluffing because it actually required me to go find it in print 
When did I go "ape"?

Empty rhetoric weakens your argument to anyone that's paying attention.

As you'll see above, I just provided a link.  

Nope.  It was on a big news station.  As you'll see above, though, I found where it's true.

Empty?  My rhetoric is as empty as a New York abortion clinic, good sir!  

[BFritz21]

(01-24-2019, 06:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Where'd you hear that?

Actually, though, I also just found found this article:


So what do you have?  

Thanks for calling me like I was bluffing because it actually required me to go find it in print 
When did I go "ape"?

Empty rhetoric weakens your argument to anyone that's paying attention.

As you'll see above, I just provided a link.  

Nope.  It was on a big news station.  As you'll see above, though, I found where it's true.

(01-24-2019, 07:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: At this point it is unclear if "health" includes "mental health".  That may be decided by a court, but I don't really see it as being a big issue.  Women that want abortions don't sit around pregnant getting fat and miserable for months before having it done.  So I don't think this law will increase the number of abortions much at all.  I think it will only come into play when complications arise later in the pregnancy.

Unclear?  Did you just ignore my post above or do you think that the Senator is wrong?

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2019, 07:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: At this point it is unclear if "health" includes "mental health".  That may be decided by a court, but I don't really see it as being a big issue.  Women that want abortions don't sit around pregnant getting fat and miserable for months before having it done.  So I don't think this law will increase the number of abortions much at all.  I think it will only come into play when complications arise later in the pregnancy.

I think we can all agree that the best type of legislation to be passed it that which is unclear. 

[fredtoast]

(01-24-2019, 11:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Unclear?  Did you just ignore my post above or do you think that the Senator is wrong?

The senator is just giving his opinion.  It means nothing becuase the issue will have to be decided by a court.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2019, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think we can all agree that the best type of legislation to be passed it that which is unclear. 

Who is "we"?

I think most people prefer legislation that is clear and concise.

[BFritz21]

(01-25-2019, 03:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The senator is just giving his opinion.  It means nothing becuase the issue will have to be decided by a court.

It doesn't state that it's his opinion.  He states it as a fact.  Since he was involved in the process of voting and everything for it, I feel pretty confident in his word.

[treee]

(01-25-2019, 04:49 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It doesn't state that it's his opinion.  He states it as a fact.  Since he was involved in the process of voting and everything for it, I feel pretty confident in his word.

Well he does not get to interpret the law because he is not a judge. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-25-2019, 05:24 AM)treee Wrote: Well he does not get to interpret the law because he is not a judge. 

Yep, simply voting on it doesn't give him the power to declare the intent or meaning of it. If he's the author or a sponsor, I'd give his words some weight, but ultimately the Courts will tell us what it "means". 

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2019, 04:49 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:   Since he was involved in the process of voting and everything for it, I feel pretty confident in his word.

Since he has been a long time opponent of abortion I feel pretty confident that he was just trying to make the law sound as bad as possible.

[BFritz21]

(01-25-2019, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since he has been a long time opponent of abortion I feel pretty confident that he was just trying to make the law sound as bad as possible.

Right, because being on the other side means that he can't be being objective and pointing out facts, correct?

[treee]

(01-25-2019, 06:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Right, because being on the other side means that he can't be being objective and pointing out facts, correct?

I agree. Democrats are objective and point out facts all the time.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2019, 03:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Who is "we"?

I think most people prefer legislation that is clear and concise.

Let's find out:

Do you like this legislation? 

Pat has already said You cannot have a problem with how it is written.

But of course I was being factious; not surprised you missed it. 

[*bfine32*]

I've heard California is trying to out liberal NY. They are working on legislation that will make abortion legal the day after birth if the mother has 2nd thoughts.

[GMDino]

(01-25-2019, 07:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've heard California is trying to out liberal NY. They are working on legislation that will make abortion legal the day after birth if the mother has 2nd thoughts.

Oh.  Baby killing humor from the pro-life crowd.

Huckabee would be proud.