New York's Late Abortion Law is vile!

[Lamb]

Explainer: What New York’s new abortion law does and doesn’t do

Did you know that 1 of 3 pregnancies in New York end in abortion? An unborn child in that state no longer has worth

 

[Josiah]

Like California, New York is a one party state, with the press in its pocket.

When that happens, things get radical.

We all know that since 1980, the national Democrat party has an agenda: For absolute abortion - for any or no reason at all, AT LEAST up to the moment when the last bit of the toe exists the birth canal (well, who cares if it's just the same day as that happened, close enough). The DNC and the radical pro-abortionists are in bed with each other. And as soon as those pesky Republicans can be rendered irrelevent, they will have their way.




.

 

[tango]

What's remarkable is the sense that an unborn child can be killed with no consequences and little more than filling a form, but a convicted serial killer's life is considered sacred. The Babylon Bee ran a piece on how unborn fetuses were identifying as serial killers to prevent themselves being aborted. Sad to think that satirical news could be the kind of thing that is almost worth taking seriously.

 

[Josiah]

SO much absurdity here....

In California public schools (and any school receiving any funding by the State - and this includes most Catholic schools), it is illegal to give a child an aspirin or any medication without the written consent of a parent and the parent MUST be informed, in writing, that same day, that such was administered. But if a Sixth Grade girls tells any school employee she wants an abortion, they are MANDATED, by law, to take that child that day to an abortion clinic, arrange for all costs, etc., to be paid for the girl, and return her to school. And they are required to not inform the parents (in spite of a medical need for post-abortion care of the child).

And in California, a child may be aborted up to and including the moment the last bit of the toe appears (and there's actually nothing forbidding AFTER that) because the child is just a thing (not even the equal of a dog or cat, even animal cruelity laws don't apply). BUT if someone harms a pregnant woman so that she looses her child, he can be charged with murder. And if both mother and child die, he's up for double murder.


But for the libs, this is practically a political sacrament.




.

 

[tango]

It seems with this there's so much that makes sense in some circumstances and anything but sense in other circumstances.

I often think of a couple of friends who were expecting their first child but found, something like a month before the due date, that there were major problems. They found out when the mother was taken to hospital with some complaint that turned out to be related to the unborn child. They were faced with a choice between terminating the pregnancy, or carrying it to term. Had they carried it to term the chances of the mother living that long were slim and the chances of the baby surviving even if the mother did survive to term were slimmer. Despite longing for that child and having everything as prepared as it's possible to be for its arrival, they very reluctantly decided to take medical advice and terminate the pregnancy. Thankfully it didn't affect the mother's fertility and I believe the couple now has three children, all very much loved.

In a situation like this it seems absurd to have a law that effectively denies medical treatment to a mother whose life is in very real danger if she attempts to carry the pregnancy to term. On the other hand there has to come a point at which we say that a life is a life is a life and it cannot just be terminated for no reason. But the way things are going I wonder how long it will be before nobody is safe because they can be terminated even after birth.

 

[Andrew]

A 9 month old fetus is a living, self aware person. This is a sick law with loopholes, basically mental health "im sad" "i have anxiety" can get you approved for late term abortion as shown in this video
https://youtu.be/WfGoN2kvV-s

 

[Jason76]

Any abortion is vile. I mean, if we're going to abort babies - then isn't that a green light to kill premature babies? Think about it.

 

[Lamb]

Any abortion is vile. I mean, if we're going to abort babies - then isn't that a green light to kill premature babies? Think about it.

That's coming next. Just watch.

 

[Josiah]

That's coming next. Just watch.

The now troubled governor of Virginia suggested that folks be able to "abort" a child AFTER as full term natural birth (he called this "abortion" although by definition, it is not).

Oh, there are ALREADY "pro-choice" advocates arguing not ONLY for abortion right up to the moment the last bit of the toe exits the birth canal - AFTER labor has begun. after contractions are underway, even after the birth has begun... but now, even after that.


The surveys I've seen suggest that many (even most) think abortion should be "permitted" - but when you ask, they are opposed to abortion after the first trimester.... against it as a form of birth control ... as a way of choosing the gender of one's live child.... they want some restrictions. People often favor a "waiting period" and that information being given (an ultrasound for example). They are against the policies advocated by the Democrats, by the Abortion Industry, by the Pro-Choice crowd. I understand that while many countries have legal abortion (it began in Stalinist Russia and Hitler's German.... and for decades was most common in Communist USSR and Red China), nearly all have many restrictions. One of the FEW contries on the planet with laws so liberal on this is North Korea. But even North Korea does not permit what the Democrat Governor of Virginia proposes....