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: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?

Hi, maybe read this whole thread first. There are many examples of heartbreaking situations where a late term abortion is absolutely on a list of horrible options. These things do happen, although very rarely. The last thing these families need is a legal hurdle.

[Anonymous]

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.

Suffered through infertility. Never had an abortion. Can think of 5 friends off the bat who had difficulty getting and staying pregnant. Not a single one of them ever had an abortion.

Best friend had abortion in college. Went on to have 3 kids no problem. Know 3 other women who had abortions for various reasons (including getting devestating news about the viability of the child) and none of them had fertility problems.

If you're truly upset about fertility rates then you would be out there lobbying for greater regulation of the pollution that effects sperm health. But I'd guess you are someone who thinks government should stop regulating polluters.

[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.

So b/c I cannot LOVE my baby, I will abort it - RATHER THAN allowing my baby to be adopted by a person who faces infertility issues.

I see logic isn't a strength of yours . . .

You think the state should be able to force a woman to go through 9 months of growing a baby inside her and then hours or days of labor and delivery. Have you ever gone through labor and delivery? It can be tortuous. And it changes your body forever. I am still feeling the negative effects of a difficult birth 15 years after giving birth to a wanted child whom I love very much. I did it willingly. I sacrifice my body for him. No person should have to put their body through what I did against their will because the state says we have to.

When you discover a way to remove a 7 week old fetus out of one womb and transfer it into the womb of someone who wants to gestate it, then we can talk. Why aren't you funding such research if this is so important to you? Instead you think the state should hold women hostage for 9 months and then put them through the agony of L&D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 . . .

But that doesn't answer the question as to why OP and these other prolifers think NY's law as its stated is so much worse than WV's law that allows for full term abortions without the mother's life being at risk.

It does, however, answer the question as to whether more people think abortion should be legal vs not.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

Hi, maybe read this whole thread first. There are many examples of heartbreaking situations where a late term abortion is absolutely on a list of horrible options. These things do happen, although very rarely. The last thing these families need is a legal hurdle.

So one pro abortion poster says late term abortion is so rare as to be nonexistent, and another pro abortion poster says they do happen, albeit rarely, and thus need legal protection.

So who is right?

You two can't even get on the same page.

[Anonymous]

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.

You know what else is a slippery slope? The government that can forbid you to have an abortion can REQUIRE you to have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, during the Obama administration abortions went down.

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

Not to mention that having access to quality health insurance helps people to keep their jobs, which helps them be more able to take care of a child.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

Hi, maybe read this whole thread first. There are many examples of heartbreaking situations where a late term abortion is absolutely on a list of horrible options. These things do happen, although very rarely. The last thing these families need is a legal hurdle.

So one pro abortion poster says late term abortion is so rare as to be nonexistent, and another pro abortion poster says they do happen, albeit rarely, and thus need legal protection.

So who is right?

You two can't even get on the same page.

1. Late-term abortions extremely rare. Only 1.4 % of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and probaly the vast majority of those take place around the 21-22 week mark.
2. When the rare ones do take place, it is for heartbreaking reasons such as a doomed pregnancy in which an abnormal fetus will suffer tremendously if carried to term, where it is safer for a woman to terminate at 22 weeks than go to term with a non-viable fetus, where a woman has a health emergency and needs to terminate immediately. The decisions to abort at this stage are not made lightly by the women who get them, and they reach those decisions in consulation with their doctors.

Why is that hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't want women to have abortions, then
1) pay for their medical care
2) pay for their birth control
3) pay for men to have vasectomies
4) offer to house the pregnant women, pay for their care, and adopt the child

You forgot to add
5) pay for their maternity leave. not for pathetic 3 months but for 24 months.

[Anonymous]

What's interesting when you look at the number of abortions in New York's is that there are currently about 25,000 kids in foster care in New York alone. if you outlawed abortion tomorrow and as soon as I said everybody put their child up for adoption would all the anti-choice people become foster parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 . . .

But that doesn't answer the question as to why OP and these other prolifers think NY's law as its stated is so much worse than WV's law that allows for full term abortions without the mother's life being at risk.

It does, however, answer the question as to whether more people think abortion should be legal vs not.

I don't think many bothered to look at comparisons. There's an entire chart showing which states offer which "levels" of abortions (for lack of better wording). If people looked at the breakdown of these states, I think they'd find pockets of people in the middle who would sway in favor of such measures. That would give "anti-NY" posters something to think about in terms of creating false generalizations.

So while a state may be "red," there are different levels of red. As mentioned above, I can be a fiscal conservative but my social beliefs are liberal, which means I will vote in favor of these measures.

I personally don't think people fit into one category, but this country is so f-ing crazy that we've divided along party lines to the point of imploding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

PP should be providing free BC and abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 . . .

But that doesn't answer the question as to why OP and these other prolifers think NY's law as its stated is so much worse than WV's law that allows for full term abortions without the mother's life being at risk.

It does, however, answer the question as to whether more people think abortion should be legal vs not.

I don't think many bothered to look at comparisons. There's an entire chart showing which states offer which "levels" of abortions (for lack of better wording). If people looked at the breakdown of these states, I think they'd find pockets of people in the middle who would sway in favor of such measures. That would give "anti-NY" posters something to think about in terms of creating false generalizations.

So while a state may be "red," there are different levels of red. As mentioned above, I can be a fiscal conservative but my social beliefs are liberal, which means I will vote in favor of these measures.

I personally don't think people fit into one category, but this country is so f-ing crazy that we've divided along party lines to the point of imploding.

Indeed.. which is why OP and some of these other folks picking on NY are blinded by their hatred of a rich blue state.

Some of the red states don't even require the surgical center that performs abortions to have any standards. So, they really should pluck out the log in their own eyes first, then look to NY once they get their own houses in order.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/abortion-laws-by-state/297/

[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 not readily available then. I'm sure they used family planning methods and it worked about as well as it did for many catholic people i knew who had 10 kids when I was growing up.

[Anonymous]

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.

Name a single instance of a nearly full-term viable, healthy baby in the womb of a healthy woman with no medical emergency was aborted.

+1

I’d like to hear an example of this too. Otherwise it’s just fear-mongering. SOP for the GOP.

I doubt women who abort their healthy babies would want their names made available to the public. Would you?