New York State's New Abortion Law

[Horn6721]

Clean
Exactly. I have many friends in upstate NY. They are just like normal people between the coasts who understand and value smaller government and more personal responsibility.

If the electoral college is done away with we are doomed.

 

[Joe Fan]

And the great state of NY was not done

 

[Horn6721]

I just read the procedure for late term abortion.How could anyone vote fo alliw that.?
The same psople who think that is ok are outraged at lethal injection for convicted killers?

 

[Seattle Husker]

but the question shouldn't be about viability, it's about whether it's a human life. Clearly, it is. Viability is introduced for the convenience factor's point of discussion.

It will become a human life but there is a reason we have different names for development stages. What happens when a zygote or embryo is "born"? You may mourn a human life but were it my child I'd mourn what it might have become.

 

[Horn6721]

Will NY outlaw in utero procedures now done that have saved lives?N

SH
Peculiar revealing phrasing, "If it were my child" for someone who does not believe an unborn infant is human.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Peculiar revealing phrasing, "If it were my child" for someone who does not believe an unborn infant is human

I just said I didn't. Call it a typo, whatever. Viability is the key point to me. I can't make my viewpoint any more clear.

 

[Horn6721]

SH
You made it clear even if you did not mean to.
A child IS a human,

Why would you mourn someone you deliberately destroyed?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Why would you mourn someone you deliberately destroyed?

Don't be dense, 6271. Husker is talking about what happens if a "pre-viable" fetus is no longer in the mother's body. It dies, and there is nothing medical science can to to prevent it. The reasons for this happening (intentional, accidental, miscarriage, etc) are not germane to his point.

Husker's point is, if the fetus is at a developmental stage that cannot survive outside the mother's womb, that is a stage at which he is OK with the decision to abort.
(Husker, please correct me if I have this wrong.)

I disagree with Husker, but I can respect his point of view here. I'm confident he didn't arrive at this outlook without a fair amount of thoughtful consideration. I have arrived at my viewpoint, that a separate life begins when a complete and unique genetic code is created at conception, the same way - via much thought and consideration.

To me, the fact that the new life is 100% dependent on it's mother for 22 weeks or so is immaterial. It is still a new life and should be respected as such. Husker finds the factor of utter dependence to be more material. Both viewpoints have their own strengths and weaknesses when being argued.

 

[BevoJoe]

I've read conflicting things about it. I'll have to read the statute rather than the articles.

I gotta do the same.

 

[Horn6721]

Sangre
How did you get that from his post in a thread on NY new abortion laws?This is a thread on abortion being allowed well past viability to birth He did not say he was talking about a miscarriage although now I am sure he will use that as an excuse.

The point of the thread is that NY will now allow infants to be injected with poison to kill them so they cant live when born.

 

[BevoJoe]

Why would you mourn someone you deliberately destroyed?

Man, that's harsh.

I agree with Sangre for the most part, and I believe that if the fetus is viable, then no abortion should be allowed once in the third trimester unless, the mother's life is in peril, the fetus has expired within the uterus or some other dire emergency or consequence, for instance septicemia, or serious birth defect such as anencephaly.

 

[Horn6721]

BevoJoe
Then do you agree NY's New York's new law is harsh?

Edit to add
The question on what happens if a baby is born alive during an abortion.
"The law Gov. Cuomo signed repealed section 4164 of NY’s Public Health Law, which mandated medical care for any baby born alive during an abortion.

“When an abortion is to be performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy, a physician other than the physician performing the abortion shall be in attendance to take control of and to provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion,” the former law reads.

This was Obama's position when he voted against giving babies born alive during abortion protections.
I do not know if he used the words zygote or embyro when he voted it down giving aborted born alive babies protection

 

[ShAArk92]

How did you get that from his post in a thread on NY new abortion laws?T

@Seattle Husker has made his position clear ... but it's a bit askew of the issue at hand in defining when does the baby become human life. Unless I'm misunderstanding and he's saying "viability" is the point at which the developing baby becomes human life.

It will become a human life but there is a reason we have different names for development stages

we have different names for the stages of development to identify the stage. That's all. No different than pre-adolescent/pubescent ... infant, toddler, child, teenager, young adult. A zygote is no less human than a teenager. Just a different stage of development.

I think you're trying to apply a standard to something which doesn't need a standard, but makes the pressured position appear to be reasonable without answering the base question of decision making and effects.

The only real question is ... do you honor and value the sanctity of innocent human life? If yes ... abortion cannot be a legitimate position to hold for public policy, aka the law save for VERY restricted and acknowledged as TRULY difficult circumstances of which "don't want to" is not a legitimate answer.

If no ... well, then I suppose you can throw a dart every morning to determine your "line in the sand" for what you'd support and what you'd oppose.

 

[ShAArk92]

I agree with Sangre for the most part, and I believe that if the fetus is viable, then no abortion should be allowed

I think you mean to agree with SeattleHusker ... If I understand correctly, Sangre honors the sanctity of innocent human life and holds a much greater restriction than "viability"

 

[Horn6721]

New York did not appear to have a onerous law on abortion prior to changing the law.

Abortion Percentage (2015): 28.2%
In 2015, 28.2% of pregnancies in New York ended in abortion. This number does not take into account miscarriages. It was arrived at by dividing the state abortion ratio by the sum of the abortion ratio plus 1,000. The abortion ratio is the number of abortions that occurred per 1,000 lives births. The table below compares New York abortion percentages by year.

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
New York 28.2% 21.3% 29.3% 30% 32% 32% 33% 33% 34% 34%
United States* 15.8% 15.7% 16.7% 17% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%

 

[BevoJoe]

I do not know if he used the words zygote or embyro when he voted it down giving aborted born alive babies protection

I believe the zygote is the fertilized cell which develops into an embryo, if I remember correctly from the genetics and mammalian biology classes from 45+ years back. It would hardly be recognized as a "small teenager" when formed shortly after fertilization occurs as no identifiable parts, organs etc. have as yet been developed. If removed from the human host, it would most likely perish within a short time.

I find some parts of the NY law, so far as I've looked at it, rather harsh but I want to understand what the rationale might be. It could be (small probability) that they are attempting to force the federal government to act and banish all abortions in the US regardless of the situation. Who knows. But, I have not completed an analysis of the new NY statute and supporting data to opine.

 

[BevoJoe]

I think you mean to agree with SeattleHusker ... If I understand correctly, Sangre honors the sanctity of innocent human life and holds a much greater restriction than "viability"

Yeah, I probably got that ***-backards.

 

[ShAArk92]

It would hardly be recognized as a "small teenager"

that's true ... but what's the difference in the zygote and the teenager? ... physically.

Time.

This video is a year old/so ... when the tragedy of Planned Parenthood selling aborted fetus body parts broke. OK Senator (UT Grad, btw) James Lankford.

Sadly James' floor address is STILL relevant.

 

[bystander]

The gloating we saw in New York makes me absolutely sick. But at the same time, I don't believe I'd advocate making abortion illegal (implying those that do are criminals). I'm a bit worn down by the idea that they will happen regardless. I support laws that protect a viable baby. I don't know about this health of the mother stuff. A C-section is not exactly healthy. How will that be defined?

I guess if a mother chooses her own life over a late third trimester baby then she's not exactly the fall on the grenade to save my buddies type is she? But if she has other children then I can understand the turmoil in her mind.

One thought I've always had; right-wing Christians (white people) seem to have the aura of being racist. Would a racist support more black children than less? It seems to me a true racist would be setting up and funding go fund me pages to help those poor black women pay for abortions.

 

[ShAArk92]

But at the same time, I don't believe I'd advocate making abortion illegal (implying those that do are criminals

The law should provide for a defense. We have separate assault charges for those who attack the elderly or the handicapped. Those folks are less able to defend/flee from an attack so it's logical those crimes are more egregious than a bar fight.

How much more, then, does an unborn child need protection in the law?

The extent to which "back alley" abortions are conducted and those women electing the abortion as well as the persons performing the abortion are criminal is proper. Defend innocent life ... again, with the aforementioned exceptions ... FEW.
The law shouldn't allow abortion just because the baby carrier wants to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[bystander]

The law should provide for a defense. We have separate assault charges for those who attack the elderly or the handicapped. Those folks are less able to defend/flee from an attack so it's logical those crimes are more egregious than a bar fight.

How much more, then, does an unborn child need protection in the law?

The extent to which "back alley" abortions are conducted and those women electing the abortion as well as the persons performing the abortion are criminal is proper. Defend innocent life ... again, with the aforementioned exceptions ... FEW.
The law shouldn't allow abortion just because the baby carrier wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Well those are certainly the arguments one would make. I get it... I haven't read your exception list; do you believe life begins at conception?

 

[BevoJoe]

but what's the difference in the zygote and the teenager? ... physically.

Time.

Is time a physical trait? Or are physical traits dependent on time and also other conditions? Are the overall health of the mother, viability of the developing embryo or other extenuating circumstances inconsequential and thus null and void?

I can understand opposition to abortions based on religious reasons or personal preferences so that such a choice could be considered anathema to the individual. But, it is a choice to be made individually and that person has to bare the "guilt" or the lack thereof, not society as a whole.

In short, I want to look at this further; however, the NY law I have read so far which isn't much, appears to be a radical departure from the norm in the US.

 

[Monahorns]

Is a 2 year old viable without a mother? How about a 5 year old?

Leave your 5 year old in your house for a year. What happens? Is that murder?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I can understand opposition to abortions based on religious reasons or personal preferences so that such a choice could be considered anathema to the individual.

I don't understand this assumption. If I was an atheist I would actually be more against abortion, because I would believe that this life is all there is. That would make the decision to kill the unborn far more consequential.

 

[BevoJoe]

I don't understand this assumption. If I was an atheist I would actually be more against abortion, because I would believe that this life is all there is. That would make the decision to kill the unborn far more consequential.

Good point! Most of the folks I’ve encountered vehemently opposed to abortion I’ve encountered or observed have been those with strong religious convictions. However, I understand your position and find it very interesting.

 

[NJlonghorn]

However, the bill goes further than that. It strikes previous language in the definition of "homicide" that had made it a crime to kill a fetus beyond 24 weeks outside the abortion realm. In other words, if someone assaults a woman and kills her 30-week fetus, he won't get completely off the hook, but his punishment will be much lighter. He'll get charged with some form of assault on the woman. Before, he could have been charged with murder for the dead baby.

Fair points. I hadn't thought about that aspect, and I find it quite troubling.

The issue is when does a fetus become human enough to acquire the right to life? Iowa and Ohio say when it has a heartbeat. NY says when it’s born. The Catholic Church says at conception.

That is indeed the issue. If there were an easy resolution to this issue, the entire abortion debate would be much simpler.

The Supreme Court has refused to define when life begins in the past. Justice Blackmun wrote in Roe v Wade:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

I don't agree with Roe v. Wade overall, but I do think Justice Blackmun was right that we cannot know the instant at which life begins. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that there is no magic instant at which a cell or clump of cells goes from "not life" to "life". Even before the point of conception, a sperm and an egg have some life-like characteristics. Conception creates more such characteristics, and is the first moment at which a full blueprint for a life-to-be exists in one place. As the egg grows into a zygote then an embryo then a fetus, the extent to which a "life" exists grows steadily. At some debatable point, the life-to-be becomes a full-fledged life.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any defensible way to discern the exact point when a life comes to be. Thus, I can't get around the fact that abortion law is inherently arbitrary to some extent, necessitating a balance between competing rights and policy goals. I know many of you find this untenable, but I'm okay with it.

In 2015, 28.2% of pregnancies in New York ended in abortion. This number does not take into account miscarriages. It was arrived at by dividing the state abortion ratio by the sum of the abortion ratio plus 1,000. The abortion ratio is the number of abortions that occurred per 1,000 lives births. The table below compares New York abortion percentages by year.

Before Roe v. Wade, there was a large "abortion tourism" industry in New York, with 100k+ abortions per year performed on out-of-state women. I only searched briefly, but didn't find anything about this in modern times. But if that is still a thing, it would distort the numbers significantly.

 

[nashhorn]

defend the defenseless and honor the sanctity of innocent human life.

This, and when I see the 28% figure I am aghast.

 

[ShAArk92]

do you believe life begins at conception?

life DOES begin at conception. My belief/thought is irrelevant. That others try to claim otherwise only underscores the effort to drive the discussion to a preconceived/agenda’d end.

 

[ShAArk92]

Is time a physical trait? Or are physical traits dependent on time and also other conditions? Are the overall health of the mother, viability of the developing embryo or other extenuating circumstances inconsequential and thus null and void?

No, but it’s required for the body to mature.

health of the mother ... that’s the point of contention, right? What health? That her body will change, too? Of course that will happen ... or will she, in a specific preganancy, actually have a real risk of losing her life? The latter is a case used to justify the macro, by the exceptional.

I’ve already stated the law can and should have room for TRULY difficult circumstances like this ... I support restoring integrity to our Law, who’s first purpose is to provide a defense particularly for the defenseless.

 

[ShAArk92]

This, and when I see the 28% figure I am aghast.

And evidently that’s actually an improvement from a few recent years ... 30+%!!!!???