We've already had this argument before in this thread: Late-term abortion made LEGAL in NYS I also quoted sections of the actual law on page two of this thread: New York legalizes really late term Abortion and celebrates like it's the Super Bowl (post #42)
The problem is that @FoxHastings appears to believe that as long as there is SOME sort of reason for abortion, then it is perfectly okay. The reason can simply be that the woman wants one. So then NO abortion will ever need to be granted for no reason, because coming up with a reason is not difficult at all!
I'm simply challenging you on your apparent willingness to believe what you were being told without doing your own research! You said, "thank you for clarifying that disinformation", which means that you BLINDLY accept that what I said was disinformation! Come on! You can do better than that can't you?
Well a human life FORM ls created at conception. Do you agree with that? Do you believe that abortion is a matter of womens' bodily rights and that women have the right to their bodies and therefore abortion is okay?
It's all right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Act Well it's good to see that you are thinking for yourself and not just simply deferring to Roe v Wade. It's quite surprising that you'd be in favour of something which would only be allowed if Roe v Wade was overturned. You say that medical progress has made 22 weeks the earliest viability, because it means that the baby could live apart from its mother with the help of the latest medical technology. So what if medical technology develops to the point where a baby can be developed in some sort of artificial womb all the way from when the sperm meets the egg until birth, with no mother required? Would you then say that abortion should be banned at any point? Somehow I doubt that! Well the general consensus of the pro-life movement is that there should exist no law which prosecutes women for having an abortion, only a law which prosecutes doctors for performing them. Any law should target doctors, not women, Yes, the law doesn't recognise abortion as 'murder' under any circumstance, but I would argue that it in certain circumstances, it is no different to murdering a born person. For example, aborting a child because the woman doesn't feel that she is ready to have a child, is no different to murdering a born person. When it comes to abortion in order to save the life of the woman, it's not murder, but rather the justified killing of a human life. Just like if there was a law introduced via Congress which banned all elective abortion, if Roe v Wade was overturned. You would NOT be "in favor of allowing [that law] to continue; therefore, your personal interpretation suggests you are saying that others should abide by the same standard." Sure, just like you would say, I think that a ban on all elective abortion is wrong, but that's just my opinion, but other people could (legitimately) see it differently. And I would be one of those people. It would be very simple under my system: Roe v Wade is overturned and the states decide what should happen with abortion. And any law should strictly only prosecute doctors who provide illegal abortions, not the women who have them. Just like if your opinion is that the practice should be LEGAL if it was ILLEGAL, "that is de facto saying that others should be compelled (legally) to comport with your opinion." You are saying that a fetus is not a person if it is dependent on the mother. So is a comatose patient not a person if they are dependent on machines?
(Additionally,@chris155au) I followed your link & read your post, including the posted parts of the law, which do NOT back up your interpretation of it. For starters, you said at the bottom of the previous pg., in this thread: But here is what the law, you posted, says: Here's the meat of the law: ยง 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY 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. <end citation> The specific word used, which you emboldened, is PRACTITIONER, which I do not read as merely a, "worker." In fact, the rest of the law makes it clear that the person making this determination is the SAME PERSON who's conducting the abortion. So, though it needn't be a doctor, that doesn't mean that it's some, "low-level," person as you argue. My own, personal, primary care person is not a doctor, but a NURSE-PRACTITIONER, which is a step ABOVE an RN (Registered Nurse) & a Physician's Assistant (PA). So, the word, "PRACTITIONER," in medicine, has a meaning that you failed to attribute to it. My health-care provider can write prescriptions for any medication, & order any test, that a full-fledged doctor can. The state doesn't hand out prescription pads to every low-level worker. While I suspect this was a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts, on your part, I cannot, of course, prove that. And since I've also seen ample evidence of your less-than-enviable comprehension skills, I will chalk this up to your misunderstanding of the words. So NOW you KNOW. From your commentary: "So if a woman wants to get a nose job or a tummy tuck, would that count as a 'health' reason to get an abortion? Under this law it plausibly could." "The wording 'health' just opens up the door to all sorts of flimsy excuses." Again, your poor reading comprehension comes into play, though in this case it seems even less plausible that you would actually believe that a woman wanting, "a nose job or a tummy tuck," would make a certified, licensed health care provider consider a late stage abortion, "NECESSARY to PROTECT the patient's life or HEALTH." (If you think health care providers are so unconcerned with rules & laws, go in to a nurse practitioner and tell her that you twisted your ankle & need some Vicodin). Especially considering that this off-handed approval you speculate would not only endanger the person's medical license but open them up to a criminal charge of murder (also from your post in the other thread): HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES section 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows: section 125.00 Homicide defined. HOMICIDE means conduct which causes the DEATH of a person [or an UNBORN CHILD with which a female has been pregnant for MORE THAN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS.] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally 11 negligent homicide [, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree].<end citation> You have given no basis for your postulated acceptance of, "flimsy excuses," in order to approve late-term abortions. Instead, your depiction of the typical woman-- popping in to the abortion clinic, on her way to her tummy tuck appointment, after the recent death of her pro basketball player boyfriend, & father of the fetus-- is absurdly unreal, ignorant, & rather insulting. And you have demonstrated multiple cases of incompetence in your interpretation of legal statutes, though those in question are written at a lay-person level. I'll finish with one other misreading of yours, along with your misguided comments: 2. EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO BECOMES PREGNANT HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO 37 CHOOSE TO CARRY THE PREGNANCY TO TERM, TO GIVE BIRTH TO A CHILD, OR TO 38 HAVE AN ABORTION, PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.<end citation> kazenatsu said: "This part doesn't seem to have any exceptions. Does that mean a woman at 26 weeks can also get an abortion?" NO, because it says she has the right, "PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE--" translation: in accordance with the rest of the statute, which makes clear that the time-frame is LIMITED TO 24 WEEKS from conception (except in cases of, "absence of fetal viability (miscarriage)," or when, "NECESSARY to protect the (mother's) life or health." To refresh your problemmatic memory: 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY 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...<end citation> Clearly, you are far out of your depth when you try to speculate on how a judge would, "likely interpret," this statute which you, so obviously, misunderstand. kazenatsu said: "Maybe like if she just found out about it and didn't have the opportunity to get an abortion before? A judge would likely interpret the wording of the law as a 'yes' on this point." No rational person would consider your hypothetical a case when late-term (post 24 weeks) abortion is, "necessary to protect the patient's life or health." You should probably stick to speculations about what God must think about Hell; at least there, you can't be shown definitively to be wrong.
I don't have time at the moment to address your lengthy response, seeing as I just made my own long reply to kazenatsu (which I put you on notice about, as well). But I'll quickly address this one point of yours. According to what you laid out, at some point, if medical technology made wombs superfluous for human gestation, there would no longer be any need for abortion, provided the state, or some entity with an interest in seeing every conceived human life come to realization, was willing to pay the bill. Luckily, this is so far off, that I see no point in arguing NOW, about who should be financially responsible.
Funny how you keep continuing to claim I lost in other threads and other arguments, when there is not really any shred of proof that is what happened. Seems like in many of those threads, your arguments are based on highly spurious logic and basically culminate in you screaming "I'm right and you're wrong!" and thinking that actually constitutes an argument.
All one has to do it read the threads...BTW, YOU claiming you made a point or won an argument is NOT you making a point or winning an argument....ya need more than your word to prove something .. LOL
But like I have already explained, the level of certification in several states to perform a late-term abortion is now very low. Does not require the diagnosis of a doctor, and does not require a doctor to be present for the late-term abortion. You're basically having some person who never went to university and may be earning $14 an hour marking on piece of paper that the woman "needed it for health reasons", no further explanation. "certified, licensed health care provider", in this case, implies something that is not actually there. Yeah, basically almost any abortion worker who works in an abortion clinic (that performs late-term abortions, in these states with these laws) is going to give the woman her abortion, for any reason the patient wants.
I don't see why I should have to point this out to you, but if the law says that, "X," is allowed (under certain conditions) to perform an abortion, then X is the only person who can legally do it. In the event your clinic didn't have any Xs-- which is something that stretches credibility, once more-- then your clinic would not be able to use the law. And, devoid of any evidence, your speculation that the clinics WON'T FOLLOW THE LAW is not only completely unfounded, but makes any discussion OF this law, moot. The determining person, according to the law that you posted, is the same person who's overseeing the abortion. Please produce some shred of substantiation of your claim that non-medically trained, non-college educated people are actually performing abortions (or else this assertion, upon which your entire argument seems to be based, can be disregarded).
What the hell? There would no longer be any need for abortion? Surely you can't be serious! Won't women still get pregnant with unwanted babies?
I suggest everyone watch the movie "unplanned" to see just how sick and disgusting planned parent hood really is. Selling baby parts is horrifying. That should be illegal.
It is illegal and didn't happen. If you didn't know it was illegal then maybe studying the subject BEFORE commenting would help. IF you have proof it happened, not "proof" from LIEsitenews or any other Anti-woman site , then show it
I'm only following the logic of YOUR futuristic scenario. Right now, the earliest a fetus could survive, with medical equipment aiding it, is about 22 weeks. You quoted me saying that, & apparently thought it was worthwhile to ask me if I'd feel, then, that no abortions would be justified if medical technology advanced to the point that fetuses could be viable from conception, outside the womb-- do you remember, or do I have to repost that whole conversation? So, if the technology of YOUR speculation existed-- again, you said it would allow fetuses to develop fully to self-sustaining, without the need of a womb-- I said, then, there would be no need for abortions. This is because the fertilized egg/zygote/fetus, regardless of its stage, could merely be TRANSFERRED, from the mother, to this amazing, technological, "womb." Do you not see that? In the future, if you cannot follow the ramifications of your own speculation, please have the good sense, and the courtesy, not to propose it.
@chris155au Now foreseeing another perplexed or confused reply coming my way (from you), I am adding this pre-emptive clarification: the transfer, mentioned in my prior post, would be the equivalent of the woman giving up her baby (though it would not yet be a, "baby,") for ADOPTION. She just wouldn't have to go through a full pregnancy & then give birth in order to do it (per your hypothesized technology). Of course this pre-supposes those so intent, as yourself, on having every fertilized human egg becoming a person, also having a plan for what to do with all these orphans.
If you are comparing our posts, it might be worthwhile to note how much more information I have provided you of my own views than you have openly reciprocated. I have had to infer most of your beliefs, & have only received more definition when I've guessed wrong (as when I thought it seemed you believed all abortions were murder & you said that you didn't believe that-- oh, wait, bad example, I still don't know where, or why, you make your distinction). Though I did, ultimately, get you to surrender the distinction that you don't think women patients should be charged w/ a crime for having an abortion, only doctors. Besides being a largely specious argument-- not the kind that gets a like from me-- since the effect of depriving women of this option, at least a safe version of it, is the same, I think it is a legally sketchy theory; you even seemed to suggest it would be legal, in your view, for a pregnant woman to self-abort (provided she was not a doctor, supposedly). In short, I have had to explain, then re-explain, many facets of my view to you, in the face of mostly just more of your questions (plus the misinformation about the NY law). You haven't given me a whole lot to like. Lastly-- and I am admittedly not well-versed in the use of this internet system of, "likes--" I don't expect you to automatically like my reply just because it is truthful, or even necessarily if you find it to be well-written (one could always pass along that compliment in a contesting reply). That is to say (& this probably applies more broadly to all posters) we probably don't see, "likes," the same way. It is not a simple thing to define, because there is more than one scenario in which one might like a post-- it can be the equivalent of a smile, or of an apology, or an acknowledgement that the other person has made a good point, even if we are unconvinced by it-- but the most common use seems to be an expression of approval, of agreement. This is clearly not the case when you like one of my posts. I have come to take your likes as signs of your appreciation for all the thought & effort that goes into my replies (& I had, initially, thought you appreciated having another perspective to consider). Even by this measure, which of your replies have I been remiss in acknowledging?
Uh, the other poster works at replying to your questions with facts and reason and THIS is all you have to say?
