Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the new law ... those statistics will change. Because the parameters are much more flexible. Do you not understand that?
Emotional health? Is an allowable criteria for killing a full term infant that has not yet been born.
The scenario I presented would be allowed under the NEW law. Will you approve of that killing when it inevitably happens?
It won't inevitably happen. It's stupidity to think it will. Women who get to the third trimester WANT their babies. That's why they went through pregnancy for seven, eight, nine months. Pregnancy is difficult. It's hard on a woman's body. Women who WANT their babies make it through to the third trimester. And no doctor is going to kill a viable fetus at that point. If for some reason some circumstance has occurred where the woman cannot have the baby, but the fetus is viable, then a doctor will do everything possible to save the woman and the child.
I understand that written legislation can't cover every possible scenario, and it could "tie doctor's hands" if written too narrowly. But still it does seem quite vague, especially if it has been interpreted (as someone here claimed) to include emotional health. I have no doubt the vast, vast majority of doctors and patients would not abuse the vagueness of the language. As some have said, most women would not willy-nilly decide to terminate a pregnancy at 7 or 8 or 9 months. But one must admit the possibility exists with such vaguely written legislation, and even though I am pro-choice, that vagueness concerns me.
It seems like the wording could somehow be tightened up to require (not just assume) that every possible measure would be taken to save the life of the viable fetus, even while putting the life and health of the mother first.
It's only vague if you believe that a woman, after being pregnant for seven, eight, or nine months, wakes up and says, hey, I don't want this baby. I know, I could give it up for abortion, but really, I don't want to wait. I've got $30,000 sitting around doing nothing, and even more if necessary, because I'm going to have to dedicate myself to finding a doctor who will perform an abortion this late in the pregnancy and kill the fetus, rather than just deliver it. Because that makes so much sense.
It won't inevitably happen. It's stupidity to think it will. Women who get to the third trimester WANT their babies. That's why they went through pregnancy for seven, eight, nine months. Pregnancy is difficult. It's hard on a woman's body. Women who WANT their babies make it through to the third trimester. And no doctor is going to kill a viable fetus at that point. If for some reason some circumstance has occurred where the woman cannot have the baby, but the fetus is viable, then a doctor will do everything possible to save the woman and the child.
Again, I am pro-choice, but I think that line of arguing is naive. Would *most* or even *many* women decide to abort at 8 months? No, of course not. But sadly, some women kill or abuse their own children, so there's nothing magical about making it through 8 months of pregnancy that *guarantees* no woman ever would make a bad decision.
I watched this video, and if what they are saying is true, it is horrific. This video said they didn't name the doctor or the clinic because of "the ongoing criminal investigation," although that seemed odd to me. At any rate, this video is from 2013. By now the name has certainly been released. GuyNTexas, do you have that information, and do you know what happened with this doctor?
No, I do not. But you raise another important point, relative to the New York bill. That NY bill decriminalizes abortion, so there will be no criminal investigations of abortion practices in New York. Any suspected violations will face administrative review, not criminal investigation. In other words, should the practitioners engage in these types of ghoulish, cold blooded acts, they cannot be prosecuted criminally. Isn’t that special? Can you imagine the results of this? If this is occurring in states where criminal prosecution can occur, what the hell will happen in New York where such behavior faces no threat of criminal consequences.
You can bet that California will soon be pursuing similar legislation, if not happening already. And you just watch how blue state after blue state will begin following the lead.
It’s mind boggling. And no society can legitimately claim to be civilized, when such dastardly deeds become legal.
It's only vague if you believe that a woman, after being pregnant for seven, eight, or nine months, wakes up and says, hey, I don't want this baby. I know, I could give it up for abortion, but really, I don't want to wait. I've got $30,000 sitting around doing nothing, and even more if necessary, because I'm going to have to dedicate myself to finding a doctor who will perform an abortion this late in the pregnancy and kill the fetus, rather than just deliver it. Because that makes so much sense.
Your opinion that something will never happen? Is irrelevant.
Come back and post when the 1st publicized baby killing happens. Because it *will* be publicized as a "look how much we care about the woman," look how much better her life is" .... while they bury the infant that they just murdered.
They will convince people like you that it's a really, really good thing. Will you fall for the propaganda?
Or will you realize it's outright murder for the sake of convenience?
I understand that written legislation can't cover every possible scenario, and it could "tie doctor's hands" if written too narrowly. But still it does seem quite vague, especially if it has been interpreted (as someone here claimed) to include emotional health. I have no doubt the vast, vast majority of doctors and patients would not abuse the vagueness of the language. As some have said, most women would not willy-nilly decide to terminate a pregnancy at 7 or 8 or 9 months. But one must admit the possibility exists with such vaguely written legislation, and even though I am pro-choice, that vagueness concerns me.
It seems like the wording could somehow be tightened up to require (not just assume) that every possible measure would be taken to save the life of the viable fetus, even while putting the life and health of the mother first.
The RHA does not change medical standards. The determination of risk and medical evaluation/judgement of a physician is not going to suddenly change to accept depression or non threatening emotional health as a risk factor in late term abortions.
So knowing that and the fact that abortions past 24 weeks are 1%, decreasing steadily for every month after do you really think the possibility of a woman and physician agreeing to terminate due to a temporary depression or even psychotic or suicidal episode is a concern. A concern that would justify opposition to the bill granting women the right to terminate in cases of risk to life?
The RHA does not change medical standards. The determination of risk and medical evaluation/judgement of a physician is not going to suddenly change to accept depression or non threatening emotional health as a risk factor in late term abortions.
So knowing that and the fact that abortions past 24 weeks are 1%, decreasing steadily for every month after do you really think the possibility of a woman and physician agreeing to terminate due to a temporary depression or even psychotic or suicidal episode is a concern. A concern that would justify opposition to the bill granting women the right to terminate in cases of risk to life?
If the mother's life is in danger and the treatment's available will terminate the baby's life, that is a terrible tragedy.
Again: if the treatment's given to save the mother's life result in the death of the baby, that is a terrible tragedy.
And it is allowed under the law.
The difference -- that is being fantastically underplayed btw -- is that the NYS law includes "health."
Depression? Falls under "health." Not life-threatening. But would allow for an abortion.
And if the mother is suicidal? She should be under 24-hr care for her own safety and the baby should be delivered and then placed in appropriate care. BOTH mother and baby should receive care.
And you verified the authenticity of these claims, right? I mean, no one would ever make them on a rando YouTube video purely as propaganda, that would NEVER happen.
I'm more pro-life but I also expected it to be a propaganda film. However, those three women were very believable, their terminology and explanations seemed very real.
And it doesn't surprise me that there could be unethical doctors out there doing late abortions for cash that good doctors won't do. Hasn't that always been true? I know my college roommate in the late 70's waited too long for her abortion and had to go out of state to some doctor who would do the procedure at 6 months.
Again, I am pro-choice, but I think that line of arguing is naive. Would *most* or even *many* women decide to abort at 8 months? No, of course not. But sadly, some women kill or abuse their own children, so there's nothing magical about making it through 8 months of pregnancy that *guarantees* no woman ever would make a bad decision.
Once again, your argument is stupid. Why would a woman who decides in the eighth month of pregnancy that she doesn't want to have this child opt for abortion (late-term abortions are hideously expensive), rather than just to give it up for adoption? And if she opted for a late-term abortion, you believe that one of the four doctors in the United States is going to do that. It's ridiculous to believe this is possible. And I am in no way naive.
Once again, your argument is stupid. Why would a woman who decides in the eighth month of pregnancy that she doesn't want to have this child opt for abortion (late-term abortions are hideously expensive), rather than just to give it up for adoption? And if she opted for a late-term abortion, you believe that one of the four doctors in the United States is going to do that. It's ridiculous to believe this is possible. And I am in no way naive.
You are naive, and I don't say that as an insult.
The wording is INTENTIONALLY vague. Door open.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
