Jump to content

ANDY'S NEW ABORTION LAW


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Elmo said:

This is the one part I'm confused on.  It states that now, nurse practitioners and even mid-wives can now perform abortions and it's legal after 24 weeks if the fetus isn't viable.  How does a mid-wife make such a determination?

As for doctors who would sign off on it.  My brother who served several tours at one point was deem unfit to return to duty due to PTSD.  He was ordered to take some time off while his bros went.  Three psychiatrist wouldn't sign off on it.  He was vacationing in the Caribbean when one of his buddies called him and told him they found a psychiatrist that was willing to sign off on him.  He ended his vacation early, flew back to the states, got the signature, and went off to Afghanistan.  You don't think you can find a doctor that is willing to deem a fetus unviable?  When for the most part, I would imagine after the abortion is conducted, the evidence would most likely be destroyed anyway.

If the fetus isn't viable, why not then just let nature take it's course?   If the fetus shown no signs of life, then you can deal with it's removal from the mother.  How is anyone to know for certain, be it a doctor or just a mid-wife what the outcome will be for a fetus that they "think" is not viable?  How many times have fetus' been written off by doctors while inside the mother, yet were born alive and kept on living?

I tell you, many of us are blaming Cuomo for signing this law, and rightfully so, but I just couldn't imagine being a doctor, nurse practioner, midwife or whomever performing something as ghastly as a late term abortion.  How they could live with their conscience after doing such a thing is something I will never be able to understand.  I sure as hell couldn't!  I don't know the statistics on late term abortions and sure hope not many get performed, but just the thought of it is enough to make one sick.  And now for the state to sign off and legalize it all as if it were just a simple medical procedure is even more of a tragedy.  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Elmo said:

This is the one part I'm confused on.  It states that now, nurse practitioners and even mid-wives can now perform abortions and it's legal after 24 weeks if the fetus isn't viable.  How does a mid-wife make such a determination?

As for doctors who would sign off on it.  My brother who served several tours at one point was deem unfit to return to duty due to PTSD.  He was ordered to take some time off while his bros went.  Three psychiatrist wouldn't sign off on it.  He was vacationing in the Caribbean when one of his buddies called him and told him they found a psychiatrist that was willing to sign off on him.  He ended his vacation early, flew back to the states, got the signature, and went off to Afghanistan.  You don't think you can find a doctor that is willing to deem a fetus unviable?  When for the most part, I would imagine after the abortion is conducted, the evidence would most likely be destroyed anyway.

With the protecting "health" of the mother whether  the fetus is viable or not will never be an issue. It can always be approved based on the lower threshold. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

in bold. Let's say the late term pregnancy was a a risk to the mother' life or health. (as per the law now). I agree with what you said in bold. to abort that late term it would be killing the baby and either inducing labor to have a still birth or a c-section to remove it. Explain to me how either of those procedures was any less of a risk to the mother whether the child was alive or dead? It's the same procedure isn't it? 

If that is truly the case that it is no different in either instance then the only variable is that the mother just wants the baby dead with the abortion scenario. No? 

I'm not on either side of this argument. Abortion is an issue I see both sides to. I'm not a doctor. I only entered into it when I saw some idiot spouting off about stuff he knows nothing about. And he wont answer my question regarding if he has children, a wife or gf. 

What we have here is a bunch of men on a hunting forum talking about woman's rights and that right there is what bothers me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rattler said:

For those who believe there is some major surgery required to abort at full term, look into "Partial Birth Abortions" and you will see it being done as the baby is being born.  As long as the head was not out of the woman, it could be aborted.  The doctor jammed scissors into the base of the infant's skull, then sucked it's brains out before letting the head come out of the woman.

This new law in NY will allow the exact same procedure to be legal again.

It also allows it for ANY reason a doctor puts down on paper.

This is pure INFANTICIDE and leftists applauded it in the state house.  God help the USA.

you're fn retarded and the fact that 2 people liked that comment is even more retarded.

Doctor in NY are not going to be sticking scissors into baby heads. Jesus christ man, what sort of african cave do you live in?

And where do you think the baby goes from there? You think pushing a baby out is no big deal? Why was there a team of doctors, post delivery surgery and 2 nights in a hospital for all 3 of my kids and the one we lost?

Edited by Belo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Belo said:

What we have here is a bunch of men on a hunting forum talking about woman's rights and that right there is what bothers me.  

I'm not a Jew and the holocaust still bothered me and I can voice that i believe it to be immoral and evil. 

I don't get the "men shouldn't have an opinion" stance. I am pretty sure that the mother's situation involved a man at some point. When the woman want to terminate the pregnancy it is a woman's issue and the man is not considered.  If the woman decides to keep the child by her own decision the man certainly will be involved then (child support, garnish or dodging the collection). The whole situation and law just sucks in my opinion. 

I know Steve863 and I have asked this prior in this thread but no one has answered our question either. What medical condition in the last trimester of a pregnancy could be deemed as a hazard to the life and health of the mother where the procedure of actually delivering a live baby is any different than the C-section or induction that would be used as part of the abortion. As far as I can find any of the abortions in the last trimester, especially very late would involve either induction of labor or a c-section to remove the dead baby. The same process to have the baby come out live. SO where is the benefit to the life or health of the mother? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have read there are two main procedures that are used for third trimester abortions. (C-section is almost never used). I am not going to post the step by step of the procedures becasue it is pretty graphic. I'll leave it to anyone that wants to know to Google it on their own. 

  • Induction Abortion: 
  • Dilation and Extraction:

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I'm not a Jew and the holocaust still bothered me and I can voice that i believe it to be immoral and evil. 

I don't get the "men shouldn't have an opinion" stance. I am pretty sure that the mother's situation involved a man at some point. When the woman want to terminate the pregnancy it is a woman's issue and the man is not considered.  If the woman decides to keep the child by her own decision the man certainly will be involved then (child support, garnish or dodging the collection). The whole situation and law just sucks in my opinion. 

I know Steve863 and I have asked this prior in this thread but no one has answered our question either. What medical condition in the last trimester of a pregnancy could be deemed as a hazard to the life and health of the mother where the procedure of actually delivering a live baby is any different than the C-section or induction that would be used as part of the abortion. As far as I can find any of the abortions in the last trimester, especially very late would involve either induction of labor or a c-section to remove the dead baby. The same process to have the baby come out live. SO where is the benefit to the life or health of the mother? 

to take stormy daniels argument, the man had equal responsibility not to get her pregnant as well right? Again, I'm trying to not weigh in on the details here. I will admit that some of the vagueness of the law has me concerned as well. But I do agree that if the baby is causing harm to the mother, they should have the choice to do something about it, not the husband.

On the other side of that, I don't see a bunch of woman running out and getting abortions at 8 months like the fear mongers believe. And I agree with the gun rights analogy. Those that were already abusing their bodies were likely to do it, whether it was legal or not.

You do see why the opinion of someone without kids or a wife is problematic right?

Edited by Belo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Belo said:

But I do agree that if the baby is causing harm to the mother, they should have the choice to do something about it, not the husband.  On the other side of that, I don't see a bunch of woman running out and getting abortions at 8 months like the fear mongers believe

Ok, What would that be medically where the baby couldn't be brought out alive with equal or less danger to the Mother. There very well may be cases, I am asking and not one has an answer. If you are killing the baby and then inducing, isn't that basically giving birth? 

There are not a lot of states that allow this and in some that do it is stated as  risk to life or physical health of the woman. Not just health. I have seen number of 12,000 to 30,000 late term abortions speculated but they said reporting is voluntary and many sates don't report the numbers. NY is one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jane Roe of Roe v Wade was a woman named Norma McCorvey. She went on to regret her role in US abortion law. She was a very troubled woman and during her time working in abortuaries she had to be constantly stoned or drunk to do the awful work. These places have a very high turn over of staff. Most people can't stomach it after a while .People should get her book and read her accounts of the clinics and how the dead babies were treated. Grim stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won by Love

 

by   
Gary L. Thomas (Goodreads Author)
 4.32  ·   Rating details ·  194 ratings  ·  38 reviews
As the plaintiff behind the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, Norma McCorvey became known as the poster child for the pro-choice movement. But underneath she led a life of drug and alcohol addiction as she increasingly felt alienated by the wealthy and famous elements of the pro-choice crowd. Then to make matters worse, her worst enemy, the pro-life group Operation Rescue, moved in next door to her clinic.Norma's story is a heartwarming tale of how Christians from Operation Rescue -- led by a seven-year-old girl named Emily -- banded together to break through even the hardest of hearts. Few expected that a woman who once told a reporter that she "lived and breathed" for abortion would one day walk next door, give her life to Jesus, and begin working for the people she once hated. Won by Love not only reveals the shocking, inside machinations of the abortion industry, but also reveals an inspiring tale of how God uses love to mold hearts to His service.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Belo said:

you're fn retarded and the fact that 2 people liked that comment is even more retarded.

Doctor in NY are not going to be sticking scissors into baby heads. Jesus christ man, what sort of african cave do you live in?

And where do you think the baby goes from there? You think pushing a baby out is no big deal? Why was there a team of doctors, post delivery surgery and 2 nights in a hospital for all 3 of my kids and the one we lost?

You are an opinionated, vulgar, fool!  If you took the time to look into PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS you would see how it's done.  But of course you didn't.  You prefer to spout sanctimonious pablum based on your ignorance.

I don't know what happened in your personal experience with childbirth, and apparently you don't either.  There was obviously a need for doctors and a 2 night stay, but it wasn't anything remotely close to an abortion of a healthy baby.

I have 3 children and 2 grand children and as an EMT have actually delivered a baby on the side of the road.  Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself if you can't be civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rattler said:

You are an opinionated, vulgar, fool!  If you took the time to look into PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS you would see how it's done.  But of course you didn't.  You prefer to spout sanctimonious pablum based on your ignorance.

I don't know what happened in your personal experience with childbirth, and apparently you don't either.  There was obviously a need for doctors and a 2 night stay, but it wasn't anything remotely close to an abortion of a healthy baby.

I have 3 children and 2 grand children and as an EMT have actually delivered a baby on the side of the road.  Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself if you can't be civil.

you brought up stabbing babies with scissors bro, not me. I'm guess your wife never went to the hospital after that delivery? Didn't receive any care, meds or treatment and never stayed the night correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Belo said:

you brought up stabbing babies with scissors bro, not me. I'm guess your wife never went to the hospital after that delivery? Didn't receive any care, meds or treatment and never stayed the night correct?

What has any of that got to do with PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION,  which was performed exactly as I described it, for which you responded with ignorant insults?  (BTW, for your lack of reading comprehension ability, it was not one of my children I delivered on the side of the road.)

Edited by Rattler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dems are now competing to see who is the most committed  Stalinist.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/30/virginia-governor-northam-abortion/

 

Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam couldn’t precisely answer whether he supports abortion until birth and suggested an infant could be born and then the mother and doctor could discuss what should happen next, in a Wednesday morning interview.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said in a WTOP interview.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuomo brushes off criticism of New York abortion law: 'I'm not here to legislate religion'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuomo-defies-catholic-church-with-new-york-abortion-law-im-not-here-to-legislate-religion

 

I did not know you had to be religious to figure out killing  a baby just before its born is messed up .

Lefty's have lost there minds 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2019 at 9:04 PM, Steve D said:

Just my .02 cents but as men I don't think it is any of our business. I know I will never have an abortion and doubt many of you will. That's a discussion women should be having and deciding on not us OR KING CUOMO.

it is ridiculous to suggest that men do not have vested interest in the continuation of the species.What if all women decided to abort all babies? And many of those babies are male i might add. It is also absurd to suggest that men cannot be concerned about he negative sociological implications of abortion on the society they inhabit. people who say or agree to such ideas have no philosophy or common sense in them

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know if these women have to see a psychiatrist before they do something like that , just my theory but many you see talking about it on tv seem  to have psychological problems,  this is not the 1700s 1800s where people really had to worry about not being  able to  feed there kids with so many other options available today for women , seems to me late term abortion especially is not needed . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By mike rossi
      http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/politics/cuomo-finds-endorsement-decision-in-grisanti-panepinto-race-difficult-20140919
       
    • By NFA-ADK
      They can create all the Illegal laws they want, it has been proven that gun owners would rather become felons with guns than to be victims of a corrupt Government that want to take away our rights.  Facts do not lie and we will not comply! 
       
      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/04/12/the-assault-weapon-rebellion-n1822409?utm_source=ArticleFeelingsWidget
       
      What is Cuomo going to do?  NOTHING!!!  He should stick to banning soda to save us.  So effective!  True savior of NY, LMAO.  Funny how abstract they get when power is at hand, like thinking you have a ticket to heaven on the fast track because you banned soda or guns.  That is a good one!
       
      Funny how he has guns to protect him at all times yet he feels it is OK to take away your guns.  Double standard?  You better believe it!
       
       
       
       
       
    • By mike rossi
      Obama endorses Chinese proposal for an exception to his own executive order to protect wildlife?
      Obama issues executive order to protect wildlife; then backs a proposal from China to make an exception????? If you read the following two articles both which surfaced today, that seems to be the case....
       
      News August 19, 2013
      Obama’s Executive Order to Protect Wildlife
       
      Will US Drones Fight Foreign Poachers?
      August 8, 2013 Sonia Horon
      (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) President Obama is considering lending U.S. drones to Tanzania in an effort to combat the rapid growth of wildlife poaching. The population of elephants in Tanzania is declining at an alarming rate and wildlife groups estimate ten to twenty-five thousand elephants are killed in Tanzania every year for their ivory tusks. The areas in need of monitoring are too vast for rangers to properly monitor—leaving wildlife at further risk of being killed by greedy poachers. The news comes just weeks after Obama’s executive order to protect wildlife from illegal poaching. Read on to find out how the drones could help during this troublesome time. — Global Animal
      Approximately 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year. Photo credit: Stock photo
      Washington Times, Ashish Kumar Sen
      Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones.
      On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States Liberata Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week.
      Wildlife groups estimate that 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year for their ivory tusks and the number of elephants in southern Tanzania has fallen by more than half. Much of the ivory is shipped illegally to Asian markets.
      “The extent of poaching is very, very, very high,” John Salehe, director of the African Wildlife Foundation’s Maasai Steppe, said in a phone interview from Tanzania.
      There has been sharp increase in elephant poaching over the past year, he said.
      Tanzanian officials say the area that needs to be monitored is vast with too few rangers.
      “There is trafficking, but also there is criminality, so we are fighting both,” said Mrs. Mulamula. “If we can work together, we can put an end to this.”
      That is where drones could play a crucial role.
      “The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” Mrs. Mulamula said.
      “One area, they said, was training [to] get more rangers. There was even suggestions that the U.S. government can help us with these drones.”
      Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania.
      “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added.
      However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1.
      Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem.
      “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said.
      An official of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also will be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam to support the Tanzanian government’s efforts to develop a wildlife security strategy.
      A State Department official, speaking on background, said the United States is “concerned by the growing involvement of transnational organized crime and armed militias in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.”
      “These activities negatively impact economic livelihoods, health, security and the rule of law across the African continent.”
      Tanzania is not the only African nation where drones have been considered to combat the menace of poaching.
      The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn.
      “We see the drone’s uses in three parts: deterrence, observation and tracking,” said Elodie Sampere, a spokeswoman for the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki, Kenya.
      The drones at Ol Pejeta are still in the test phase, but “just the rumor of an eye in the sky and the noise of it flying overhead will serve to deter potential incidents,” Mrs. Sampere said.
      The drones also would allow the conservancy to check on the safety of endangered animals and send critical information to rangers about the number of poachers and whether they are armed, she said.
      Drones also can track radio-frequency tags on endangered species, allowing rangers to monitor their movements.
      Ol Pejeta is looking for “a drone designed for conservation and not just an off-the-shelf ex-military solution,” Mrs. Sampere said.
      Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa.
      In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia.
      The illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is driven by markets in Asia, particularly in China and Japan. Large quantities of ivory originating in Tanzania have been seized in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
      “The challenges are enormous, especially because they have that huge market in Asia,” Mrs. Mulamula said.
      Although international trade in ivory is banned, a one-time sale in 2008 perpetuated a legal market for ivory in China and Japan, according to the African Wildlife Foundation.
      The Chinese government has not been cooperative in African efforts to reduce the illegal trade in ivory, said Arend de Haas, of the London-based African Conservation Foundation.
      “China should increase law enforcement, coordinate with African governments and consider destroying confiscated ivory stocks to show their commitment to combat the ivory trade,” he said.
      However, Mrs. Mulamula said the Chinese government is sympathetic to Tanzania’s concerns.
      Khamis Kagasheki, Tanzania’s minister of natural resources and tourism, has been spearheading anti-poaching efforts in his country, but wildlife groups say much more needs to be done.
      “The Tanzanian government has not been alert enough [regarding] the rise in elephant poaching in the region and country,” Mr. de Haas said.
      Tanzanian officials announced in July that more than 1,200 poaching suspects were arrested over a 15-month period that ended in March. It was not clear how many were involved in elephant poaching. Two ivory traders were arrested in July.
      Mr. de Haas said official elephant-poaching statistics are lacking.
      “Slow political processes and corruption within local security and conservation institutes are major obstacles to quickly implement effective solutions,” he said
       
       
      Appeals courts considers shark fin ban
      Obama's staff backs challenge to California law
      Bob Egelko
      Published 5:10 pm, Wednesday, August 14, 2013
       
      With support from the Obama administration, organizations of Chinese American businesses and suppliers of shark fins asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to halt enforcement of a California law banning the possession and sale of the main ingredient of shark fin soup, a traditional Chinese delicacy.
      The law was passed in 2011, but the prohibition on selling and serving shark fin soup took effect only last month. It was sponsored by conservation and animal-protection groups whose stated goals are to stop the cutting of fins from live sharks - a practice already banned in federal waters - and to protect consumers from mercury in the fins.
      But opponents, led by Bay Area Chinese restaurants and their suppliers, argued Wednesday that the law is discriminatory and conflicts with federal management of ocean resources.
      Chinese Americans are "the only community affected," Joseph Breall, lawyer for the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
      He said statements by some legislative supporters of the 2011 measure showed an intent to discriminate. For example, Breall said, one lawmaker observed that "we can't police the seas, but we can police Chinatown."
      But at least one member of the three-judge panel seemed unpersuaded. Judge Andrew Hurwitz noted that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who in a Jan. 2 ruling left the law in effect, found that it was deigned to promote conservation and public health, and there was no evidence of intentional discrimination.
      "Why isn't that a finding that we have to give deference to?" Hurwitz asked.
      The case took on a new cast July 22 when the Obama administration, in written arguments to the appeals court, said the California law interferes with the underlying purpose of the federal law - to allow commercial shark fishing to continue while prohibiting the "finning" of live sharks.
      By banning the sales of fins from sharks that were caught intact in federal waters, the state law "may effectively shut down shark fishing," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Although the federal law doesn't explicitly forbid such state regulation, they argued, it implicitly bars states from interfering with a healthy market for sharks that were legally caught.
      The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a regulation that could limit such laws in California and other states, including New York and Florida, a proposal protested by several dozen members of Congress including Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Sam Farr of Monterey.
      The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon, said the Obama administration's argument was based on speculation that "something bad could happen in the future."
      "There's no reason to assume that our law will have any more impact on the market for sharks than the federal ban on finning," Gordon told the court.
      If California can't ban the sale of shark fins because of a possible impact on the fishery market, "states could never regulate the sale of wildlife parts," like ivory from elephants, said attorney Ralph Henry, whose clients include the Humane Society of the United States and the Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance. He said the latter organization represents a substantial segment of Chinese Americans who support the California law.
    • By mike rossi
      http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/pipeline-incidents-since-1986.html
    • By mike rossi
      This video will supposedly be removed soon, so you should watch it soon.
       
      http://youtu.be/AdlVH1IjQu4
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...