Support for Full term Abortion

[iubud]

I come here at times to read discussions on this board of current events. Since this board leans heavily to the left, I am often interested in the views on certain topics.

I didn't see any discussion on New York's passage of abortions up to delivery. I had a discussion with a nurse and a doctor over the weekend. They confirmed my understanding from the medical side that included what would happen in a medical emergency. There are special cases, but a wreck, fall, or other trauma that put the mother at risk are managed from a medical priority. Pregnancies at risk with a known condition that puts the mother at risk are most often identified long before the baby is full term. This allows doctors to deliver a baby early or in some cases abort the pregnancy long before the fetus could live on its own. Last minute issues and emergencies don't change the requirement that a full term baby will have to be delivered. Aborting a full term baby doesn't eliminate risk to the mother. The difference is a live birth vs still born birth.

I would like to understand the excitement for this law. I see no reason for the celebrations regardless of your views on abortion.

 

[Thyrsis]

Since this board leans heavily to the left, I am often interested in the views on certain topics.

It does?

 

[zeke4ahs]

I come here at times to read discussions on this board of current events. Since this board leans heavily to the left, I am often interested in the views on certain topics.

I didn't see any discussion on New York's passage of abortions up to delivery. I had a discussion with a nurse and a doctor over the weekend. They confirmed my understanding from the medical side that included what would happen in a medical emergency. There are special cases, but a wreck, fall, or other trauma that put the mother at risk are managed from a medical priority. Pregnancies at risk with a known condition that puts the mother at risk are most often identified long before the baby is full term. This allows doctors to deliver a baby early or in some cases abort the pregnancy long before the fetus could live on its own. Last minute issues and emergencies don't change the requirement that a full term baby will have to be delivered. Aborting a full term baby doesn't eliminate risk to the mother. The difference is a live birth vs still born birth.

I would like to understand the excitement for this law. I see no reason for the celebrations regardless of your views on abortion.

Who is celebrating?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Who is celebrating?

The N.Y. Democrats celebrated. They cheered on the floor of the legislature, they cheered the signing, and they turned pink lights on 1 WTC. Oh, the gov wore a pink tie when he signed the law.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Who is celebrating?

The N.Y. Democrats celebrated. They cheered on the floor of the legislature, they cheered the signing, and they turned pink lights on 1 WTC. Oh, the gov wore a pink tie when he signed the law.

Celebrating the law, not the abortion. Celebrating the right for a woman, her doctor and her family, should they have to make the decision on which life to save.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I come here at times to read discussions on this board of current events. Since this board leans heavily to the left, I am often interested in the views on certain topics.

I didn't see any discussion on New York's passage of abortions up to delivery. I had a discussion with a nurse and a doctor over the weekend. They confirmed my understanding from the medical side that included what would happen in a medical emergency. There are special cases, but a wreck, fall, or other trauma that put the mother at risk are managed from a medical priority. Pregnancies at risk with a known condition that puts the mother at risk are most often identified long before the baby is full term. This allows doctors to deliver a baby early or in some cases abort the pregnancy long before the fetus could live on its own. Last minute issues and emergencies don't change the requirement that a full term baby will have to be delivered. Aborting a full term baby doesn't eliminate risk to the mother. The difference is a live birth vs still born birth.

I would like to understand the excitement for this law. I see no reason for the celebrations regardless of your views on abortion.

Do you think a woman would carry a baby to term and then suddenly decide at 8 months she doesn’t want it? These cases are very very rare and I can’t imagine having the family have to make a decision on which life to save.

 

[iuwclurker]

Do you think a woman would carry a baby to term and then suddenly decide at 8 months she doesn’t want it? These cases are very very rare and I can’t imagine having the family have to make a decision on which life to save.

When the debate is pro-life versus abortion, the proponents needn't think.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Do you think a woman would carry a baby to term and then suddenly decide at 8 months she doesn’t want it? These cases are very very rare and I can’t imagine having the family have to make a decision on which life to save.

I don't know much about the language, but why would you need an abortion vs. induction after 24 weeks if the fetus is viable?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Celebrating the law, not the abortion. Celebrating the right for a woman, her doctor and her family, should they have to make the decision on which life to save.

CO missed the nuance.

 

[Fro]

I don't know much about the language, but why would you need an abortion vs. induction after 24 weeks if the fetus is viable?

I'd assume there's some rare cases where a baby can't be delivered even by c-section without harming the mother severely.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Do you think a woman would carry a baby to term and then suddenly decide at 8 months she doesn’t want it? These cases are very very rare and I can’t imagine having the family have to make a decision on which life to save.

I don't know much about the language, but why would you need an abortion vs. induction after 24 weeks if the fetus is viable?

I don’t know, in most cases I’d think you wouldn’t. I am just often reading about the rare exceptions.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Celebrating the law, not the abortion. Celebrating the right for a woman, her doctor and her family, should they have to make the decision on which life to save.

Try again. We don’t need a new law for a “which life” choice. Those cases have been dealt with since way before Roe v. Wade.

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

Do you think a woman would carry a baby to term and then suddenly decide at 8 months she doesn’t want it? These cases are very very rare and I can’t imagine having the family have to make a decision on which life to save.

You are Clueless! Still!

 

[IUCrazy2]

Celebrating the law, not the abortion. Celebrating the right for a woman, her doctor and her family, should they have to make the decision on which life to save.

Copout. I am not celebrating the fact that a a full term baby can be aborted, no that is terrible. I am celebrating that a woman can choose to do that if she finds a doctor sadistic enough to actually do it.

And no, it was not celebrated, we only lit up the tallest ****ing building in the city the color pink to announce the bill was passed. You know, like we do for every other bill we pass.

New York Democrats are part of a death cult. Sick, sick people.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don’t know, in most cases I’d think you wouldn’t. I am just often reading about the rare exceptions.

List them. If there are rare exceptions, go find a medical article that spells them out. Everything I have heard is that there is ZERO reason to let it go that late.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Sure guys! Yep that’s women . Evil evil beings that just LOVE having abortions at 8 months.

 

[zeke4ahs]

https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395
And now I’ll opt out of this conversation and let all you gentlemen discuss the pros and cons of abortion rights.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

The N.Y. Democrats celebrated. They cheered on the floor of the legislature, they cheered the signing, and they turned pink lights on 1 WTC. Oh, the gov wore a pink tie when he signed the law.

Is that the same WTC where unborn babies are listed on the memorial, along with 3,000 other victims?

I am celebrating that a woman can choose to do that if she finds a doctor sadistic enough to actually do it.

Actually the law now allows non-doctors--LPNs, midwives, and physician assistants--to also perform abortions. Proponents say that will improve abortion access in rural areas.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395
And now I’ll opt out of this conversation and let all you gentlemen discuss the pros and cons of abortion rights.

Miscarriages? A baby that had no chance of surviving? Really Zeke? Is this what you think the debate about the N.Y. law is about?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Is that the same WTC where unborn babies are listed on the memorial, along with 3,000 other victims?


Actually the law now allows non-doctors--LPNs, midwives, and physician assistants--to also perform abortions. Proponents say that will improve abortion access in rural areas.

Yeah, midwives always deal with placental abruptions.

 

[iu_a_att]

https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395
And now I’ll opt out of this conversation and let all you gentlemen discuss the pros and cons of abortion rights.

A truly amazing story, thanks for posting it.

 

[iu_a_att]

The OP should have had a link to the story. I don't see one in the entire thread so here is one.

 

[Ladoga]

Sure guys! Yep that’s women . Evil evil beings that just LOVE having abortions at 8 months.

How many babies killed beyond viability are enough for you? 1000 per day? A million. How many would you see killed and say its a good thing?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

New York Democrats are part of a death cult. Sick, sick people.

That’s hilarious coming from the everyone-can-own-every-gun-they-want party.

 

[Lucy01]

That’s hilarious coming from the everyone-can-own-every-gun-they-want party.

The hospital is looking for you!

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Can someone who is outraged about this law explain why? I don't get it.

 

[Standard Issue]

Can someone who is outraged about this law explain why? I don't get it.

Hiliary's emails?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Can someone who is outraged about this law explain why? I don't get it.

I don’t have any evidence, but I’m guessing some dumbass made a Facebook post, or posted something on some other form of social media, and then a bunch of even dumber dumbasses read it.

 

[iu_a_att]

Can someone who is outraged about this law explain why? I don't get it.

Here you go.
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-value...-cuomo-to-be-excommunicated-for-abortion-bill

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

How many babies killed beyond viability are enough for you? 1000 per day? A million. How many would you see killed and say its a good thing?

 

[ribbont]

Can someone who is outraged about this law explain why? I don't get it.

Many are concerned it will be abused and some doctors will stretch the meaning of "health" of the mother, not just life, to include anything.

And before anyone thinks that will never happen should google Kermit Gosnell.

There is no reason, none, for health. Life? Maybe in some traumatic instance as the OP listed.

And if this procedure is ok, then why not birth the baby, not cut the cord, then perform the abortion? If that is proven to be a safer abortion practice for the mother, should it be allowed?

I know that sounds crazy, but not long ago, so did abortions this late in the pregnancy.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Many are concerned it will be abused and some doctors will stretch the meaning of "health" of the mother, not just life, to include anything.

And before anyone thinks that will never happen should google Kermit Gosnell.

There is no reason, none, for health. Life? Maybe in some traumatic instance as the OP listed.

And if this procedure is ok, then why not birth the baby, not cut the cord, then perform the abortion? If that is proven to be a safer abortion practice for the mother, should it be allowed?

I know that sounds crazy, but not long ago, so did abortions this late in the pregnancy.

But it was already law that health was a necessary exception for a late term abortion ban. All New York did was bring its law in line with current jurisprudence.

 

[ribbont]

But it was already law that health was a necessary exception for a late term abortion ban. All New York did was bring its law in line with current jurisprudence.

Oh, so I am supposed to be ok with it because everyone else does it?

And I will ask again: if it were proven that a safer for the mother procedure is to birth the baby, then abort it, would you be okay with that?

 

[iu_a_att]

But it was already law that health was a necessary exception for a late term abortion ban. All New York did was bring its law in line with current jurisprudence.

Not to get in the way of your discussion but Zeke's article describes a case of a woman in New York who had to travel to Colorado to get the procedure...the implication was that New York law prevented the woman from getting care in NY...at least that seemed to be the case...That is, I think the law will make a real difference for women in NY.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not to get in the way of your discussion but Zeke's article describes a case of a woman in New York who had to travel to Colorado to get the procedure...the implication was that New York law prevented the woman from getting care in NY...at least that seemed to be the case...That is, I think the law will make a real difference for women in NY.

Fair enough. Please note though that this benefit is probably because of other provisions in the law, not the single provision that had everyone riled up.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh, so I am supposed to be ok with it because everyone else does it?

And I will ask again: if it were proven that a safer for the mother procedure is to birth the baby, then abort it, would you be okay with that?

No, but I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I'm asking what about this particular law is so problematic for people.

 

[Sope Creek]

Try again. We don’t need a new law for a “which life” choice. Those cases have been dealt with since way before Roe v. Wade.

And here I thought you had advocated a state's right to determine its own policy regarding abortion.

BTW, my sense is that the New York abortion law is a response to Kavanaugh's elevation to SCOTUS, and represents an assurance that abortions will be available if Roe is overturned. And once Roe is overturned, all those cases you're referring to will just gather dust . . . .

 

[ribbont]

No, but I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I'm asking what about this particular law is so problematic for people.

And I told you. This law and ones like it.

Now I read the article Zeke posted. And I was empathetic, not just sympathic. I'll leave it at that.

But her story was one with many medical issues along the way. If we are going to allow these late term abortions, I would leave it up to the parents. BUT, I would like to see these types of cases to go before a review board to agree that the health or life of the mother is at risk, as in Elizabeths case.

That way, we as a society, don't allow these barbaric procedures to become common, or the health reason abused.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And here I thought you had advocated a state's right to determine its own policy regarding abortion.

BTW, my sense is that the New York abortion law is a response to Kavanaugh's elevation to SCOTUS, and represents an assurance that abortions will be available if Roe is overturned. And once Roe is overturned, all those cases you're referring to will just gather dust . . . .

I don't know what you think your post adds to the discussion. More importantly, and since you brought it up, the law is silly and useless on its face. Passing a statute saying that certain conduct is not a crime is not a law, it's a fashion statement. This law has all the usefulness of a law which says it isn't a crime to give your neighbor the finger. No conduct is a crime unless the criminal code says it's a crime--including abortion.

If R. v. W. were overruled tomorrow, abortion would not be a crime without a state statute saying its a crime. A state statute that says it isn't a crime is a nothingburger.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And I told you. This law and ones like it.

Now I read the article Zeke posted. And I was empathetic, not just sympathic. I'll leave it at that.

But her story was one with many medical issues along the way. If we are going to allow these late term abortions, I would leave it up to the parents. BUT, I would like to see these types of cases to go before a review board to agree that the health or life of the mother is at risk, as in Elizabeths case.

That way, we as a society, don't allow these barbaric procedures to become common, or the health reason abused.

I guess what I'm saying is this: since it's already legal for a woman to procure a late term abortion for the reason that it poses a risk to her health, I don't think there's any reason to worry it will be abused, or it already would have been. On this point, the New York law simply takes something that was already promulgated by SCOTUS, and enshrines it in state statute.

I think Sope is probably right; this law was really about making sure that the current status holds in New York, even if Roe is overturned (which I personally don't think will happen).

Other provisions, such as moving the entire abortion procedure from the criminal code and making it a regulatory matter, probably will make abortions more accessible in New York, as att pointed out above, but no one seems to be complaining about that. They are complaining that the law somehow means that it is suddenly legal to abort a viable fetus, and that's the complaint I don't get, since, at least in the context imagined by the New York law, those abortions already were legal.