It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Because beyond being a mom, I am a person, and my own health and life has innate value.

This is part of why NY is a maker state, not a failed red state, by the by: equality for adults leads to better outcomes for all families and children over longer terms.

I'm 52.

no longer a practicing Catholic - but Italian . . . So there's a close tie btw the two worlds.

married late, had two kids in my late 30s, early 40s - healthy, no interventions

pro-choice to a degree, as I've supported many friends who had abortions - no judgment

But I did tell my husband with both deliveries that if he had to choose between me and the baby, that the baby would be saved. I'm no martyr; let's get that straight. But a baby has a lifetime ahead of him/her.

And that's your choice. But it's not the best choice for every family.

I grew up near a family who lost a mother, leaving behind 5 young children, and her death became a snowball effect that led to one tragedy after another. Those kids desperately needed their mother, who had kept the family stable and sound, and losing her forever ruined their lives (2 of which were needlessly cut short due to self-destructive behavior). Not saying every family goes to hell after a parent dies. But a decision to sacrifice a mother shouldn't be up to the state.

I could not agree more. Also, mothers should be able to chose whether to have additional children, based on their ability to care for the kids they already have.

Abortions should not be Birth Control 2.0. THAT'S a slippery slope, folks.

um ... abortion is Birth Control 2.0. that was the point of my comment.

clueless wonder - Abortions should NOT BE birth control - period!

2.0 is a better version, yes? Abortions and BC are not in the same category. BC is PROactive; abortions are REactive.

whatever dummy. obviously women prefer not to have an unintended pregnancy. abortion is a second-line protection against unwanted pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

My fiance's mom died having an illegal abortion when he was 5, his sister 4 and his brother 3 (he was disabled). His dad was in the military and they were married, but didn't have much money. It was the 1950s.

I guess her dying and my fiance not having a mom and his dad not having a wife was worth making abortion illegal. Putting the interests of a glob is more important than actual people.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My fiance's mom died having an illegal abortion when he was 5, his sister 4 and his brother 3 (he was disabled). His dad was in the military and they were married, but didn't have much money. It was the 1950s.

I guess her dying and my fiance not having a mom and his dad not having a wife was worth making abortion illegal. Putting the interests of a glob is more important than actual people.

Thanks.

Not to be crass but after the 2/3 child maybe birth control or family planning methods were in order. Sorry to hear your fiance lost his mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My fiance's mom died having an illegal abortion when he was 5, his sister 4 and his brother 3 (he was disabled). His dad was in the military and they were married, but didn't have much money. It was the 1950s.

I guess her dying and my fiance not having a mom and his dad not having a wife was worth making abortion illegal. Putting the interests of a glob is more important than actual people.

Thanks.

Not to be crass but after the 2/3 child maybe birth control or family planning methods were in order. Sorry to hear your fiance lost his mom.

Birth control was illegal in the 1950s, genius. And “family planning methods” are far from 100% effective. But keep blaming the dead woman! It’s all her fault!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s still a second degree felony to destroy a turtle egg.

Priorities are clear.

It’s a felony in NY to possess a firearm magazine that can hold 11 bullets.

But killing a unborn baby, nearly full term, that could live if it were delivered, simply “because I don’t wanna have this baby”, is perfectly legal.


It’s absolutely mind bending.

Truth.

Name an instance.

You know it’s clear you’re male, right?

Liar. I choose not to kill the human life within me, in spite of diar circumstances at the time.

Choose life. More and more people are finding themselves infertile when they finally decide they want a child. My heart goes out to them.

Most of the people who are infertile are infertile for reason.
Most of the people who chose to abort the child made a good choice because they would never be capable to love that child even if she carry it to a full term.

It's usually almost impossible to be sure exactly why the fertility rates are skyrocketing, isn't it? For that reason, previous abortion history cannot be excluded. After all, abortions DO mess with your reproductive organs. Perhaps Mother Nature doesn't much like elective interference.

Eco-systems can be highly sensitive.

There are several actual medical studies posted upthread showing that previous abortion has no effect on later fertility. Also, abortion rates have plummeted so I can’t see how they could affect “skyrocketing” infertility rates.

Do you also think that vaccines cause autism? Because that’s the same mindset as what you posted. “There are so many vaccines now and so much autism! That must be what’s causing it!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My fiance's mom died having an illegal abortion when he was 5, his sister 4 and his brother 3 (he was disabled). His dad was in the military and they were married, but didn't have much money. It was the 1950s.

I guess her dying and my fiance not having a mom and his dad not having a wife was worth making abortion illegal. Putting the interests of a glob is more important than actual people.

Thanks.

Not to be crass but after the 2/3 child maybe birth control or family planning methods were in order. Sorry to hear your fiance lost his mom.

Birth control was illegal in the 1950s, genius. And “family planning methods” are far from 100% effective. But keep blaming the dead woman! It’s all her fault!

Not only that, for people who don't have insurance, or don't have access to healthcare, family planning isn't so easy.

If prolifers don't want abortion to be so readily available, maybe they should fight for things like maternity leave, free healthcare and the like. Many women who get an abortion do so because having a child is expensive and they can't afford it. If your response to that is, "then keep your legs together", I would counter, "sure.. and then men would be all up in arms because their wives won't have sex with them". Lots of married women get abortions.

Maybe the answer is free vasectomy and require all men to get it until they are ready to have a child. It's a lot cheaper and less invasive than a woman having her tubes tied, and then we'd have less abortions or unwanted children in this world. There's certainly enough of them out there....

Speaking of which, I think all prolifers should also go adopt all those unwanted children. Once there are no unwanted children in this world, then abortions will become unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm still waiting for a pro-life person to explain why NY's law about abortion being ok if the mother's health is at risk or the fetus is not viable is so much worse than WV, AK, MS abortion law that allows for full term abortions even when the mother's life is not at risk. No prolifer has addressed my numerous post about this. Why is that?

Still waiting for prolifers to address this question. If you can't.. then just shut it about it NY. You don't have a leg to stand on here.

As of Dec. 2018, this was the breakdown of registered voters in WV:

D - 41.66%
R - 32.52%
Mountain (Green) - .18%
Libertarians - .53%
no party - 22.25%
other - 2.85%

Ds outnumber Rs. The Green party believes in a woman's right to choose (even supporting free abortions for women living in poverty), and Libertarians don't believe in governmental interference. "No party" can shift either way, I assume. However, nationally, more Ds than Rs shifted to "no party." So we may be able to safely say that "no party," in this case, supported the new abortion procedures.

Perhaps many in WV view themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Because beyond being a mom, I am a person, and my own health and life has innate value.

This is part of why NY is a maker state, not a failed red state, by the by: equality for adults leads to better outcomes for all families and children over longer terms.

I'm 52.

no longer a practicing Catholic - but Italian . . . So there's a close tie btw the two worlds.

married late, had two kids in my late 30s, early 40s - healthy, no interventions

pro-choice to a degree, as I've supported many friends who had abortions - no judgment

But I did tell my husband with both deliveries that if he had to choose between me and the baby, that the baby would be saved. I'm no martyr; let's get that straight. But a baby has a lifetime ahead of him/her.

And that's your choice. But it's not the best choice for every family.

I grew up near a family who lost a mother, leaving behind 5 young children, and her death became a snowball effect that led to one tragedy after another. Those kids desperately needed their mother, who had kept the family stable and sound, and losing her forever ruined their lives (2 of which were needlessly cut short due to self-destructive behavior). Not saying every family goes to hell after a parent dies. But a decision to sacrifice a mother shouldn't be up to the state.

I could not agree more. Also, mothers should be able to chose whether to have additional children, based on their ability to care for the kids they already have.

Abortions should not be Birth Control 2.0. THAT'S a slippery slope, folks.

um ... abortion is Birth Control 2.0. that was the point of my comment.

clueless wonder - Abortions should NOT BE birth control - period!

2.0 is a better version, yes? Abortions and BC are not in the same category. BC is PROactive; abortions are REactive.

whatever dummy. obviously women prefer not to have an unintended pregnancy. abortion is a second-line protection against unwanted pregnancy.

lol - I'm the dummy.

It's still BC in your eyes. Abortions are reactive. And if you think abortion is the answer, do some digging about the stats surrounding SES and racial identification.

Instead of making BC more accessible to those in need, we make abortions more readily available.

not the answer

again, to reinforce my points - Abortions are NOT birth control. BC is proactive; abortions are reactive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Because beyond being a mom, I am a person, and my own health and life has innate value.

This is part of why NY is a maker state, not a failed red state, by the by: equality for adults leads to better outcomes for all families and children over longer terms.

I'm 52.

no longer a practicing Catholic - but Italian . . . So there's a close tie btw the two worlds.

married late, had two kids in my late 30s, early 40s - healthy, no interventions

pro-choice to a degree, as I've supported many friends who had abortions - no judgment

But I did tell my husband with both deliveries that if he had to choose between me and the baby, that the baby would be saved. I'm no martyr; let's get that straight. But a baby has a lifetime ahead of him/her.

And that's your choice. But it's not the best choice for every family.

I grew up near a family who lost a mother, leaving behind 5 young children, and her death became a snowball effect that led to one tragedy after another. Those kids desperately needed their mother, who had kept the family stable and sound, and losing her forever ruined their lives (2 of which were needlessly cut short due to self-destructive behavior). Not saying every family goes to hell after a parent dies. But a decision to sacrifice a mother shouldn't be up to the state.

I could not agree more. Also, mothers should be able to chose whether to have additional children, based on their ability to care for the kids they already have.

Abortions should not be Birth Control 2.0. THAT'S a slippery slope, folks.

um ... abortion is Birth Control 2.0. that was the point of my comment.

clueless wonder - Abortions should NOT BE birth control - period!

2.0 is a better version, yes? Abortions and BC are not in the same category. BC is PROactive; abortions are REactive.

whatever dummy. obviously women prefer not to have an unintended pregnancy. abortion is a second-line protection against unwanted pregnancy.

lol - I'm the dummy.

It's still BC in your eyes. Abortions are reactive. And if you think abortion is the answer, do some digging about the stats surrounding SES and racial identification.

Instead of making BC more accessible to those in need, we make abortions more readily available.

not the answer

again, to reinforce my points - Abortions are NOT birth control. BC is proactive; abortions are reactive.

I can’t speak for you, but my team did make BC more accessible to those in need by passing the ACA. It’s the abortion-hating other team that thinks that’s the worst thing ever.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunate how often abortion gets used as BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunate how often abortion gets used as BC.

What policy and funding changes do you support to make proactive forms of birth control more accessible and available?

[Anonymous]

Well, during the Obama administration abortions went down.

Health care, education, and available birth control help prevent abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s still a second degree felony to destroy a turtle egg.

Priorities are clear.

It’s a felony in NY to possess a firearm magazine that can hold 11 bullets.

But killing a unborn baby, nearly full term, that could live if it were delivered, simply “because I don’t wanna have this baby”, is perfectly legal.


It’s absolutely mind bending.

First, it should be a felony to possess a firearm magazine that can hold more than 2 bullets.

And nearly full-term abortions are non-existant, which i'm sure you already know but don't actually care about because this isn't about babies, it's about controlling women.

First, such a law only makes sense to violent crazies like you, who wish to disarm everyone else because they assume the rest of the population is as violent and lacking in self control as they themselves are. You don’t trust others with a gun because you don’t trust yourself with one. Sorry, but I’m not you. I’m not a violent crazy person.

Secondly, if “full term” (let’s call it 7.5 months, since it’s pretty standard that babies born 6 weeks early almost universally survive) abortions are so nonexistent, then there’s no need for a law to legalize them, is there? That’s like having a law to protect flying spaghetti monsters. Since flying spaghetti monsters are nonexistent, what’s the point in lawfully recognizing them?

[Anonymous]

I support Margaret Sanger’s intent for Planned Parenthood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support Margaret Sanger’s intent for Planned Parenthood.

Hope you are going by how it actually went, not by the incorrect spin put on the history.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population