PDA

View Full Version : Is this where we are headed?



Gerry Clinchy
02-17-2013, 11:46 AM
From the NY Times today

Cuomo Bucks Tide With Bill to Ease Abortion Limit (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pgYq9/GRG94p34Lb9aHObYUjQ5fRxYiHYHD2G9/IQnJSDmNLmj2opBP/t+saVUju7fbG3tSfqtOxP32oq4d0KWSzNxDv3UmB6L/fY6AH1rUkbzQPfENmgP1RhBv7P/hndWkaZjaWII+spqYHejq2HwR4iK3oZg+4OB&campaign_id=129&instance_id=26177&segment_id=43799&user_id=43ef0a15b1a965b08524a96f5c206b51)s

By THOMAS KAPLAN

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is preparing legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions, and remove the issue from the state's penal

How does one make a case for this? At what point does the Constitution start to step in for the rights of a human being that may be, or are, viable outside the womb?

If the life of the mother is not in danger, why not wait a few weeks longer and do a C-section?

Will the latter option cost us all money? I'd guess it would ... but if we can pay big-time taxes to save an endangered owl, crustacean or insect, what is a human life worth?

I just can't wrap my mind around a late-term abortion that is done for reasons of "convenience".

HPL
02-17-2013, 02:14 PM
AS I read the article, the statute would only guarantee the right to late term abortion if the mother's health is at risk or if the fetus is NOT viable.
Personally, I am pro choice, but think that abortion is a horrible form of birth control. If the religious right would get out of the way of good, effective family planning education in our public schools and get out of the way of good effective contraception, perhaps the abortion rate would plummet. Until the forces that are opposed to "sex education" and birth control get out of the way, abortion will continue to be the last resort of the uninformed and stupid (two cohorts that I would prefer aren't bringing more children into our society in the first place).

As to what a human life is worth, for many of those in question, not much.

sick lids
02-17-2013, 02:29 PM
Do you think peoples views on this would change, say if men were given the same control of what their dna could do in a womans body?

Gerry Clinchy
02-17-2013, 03:05 PM
HPL, yes, the change is from endangering the "life" of the mother to endangering the "health" of the mother, but there are no definitions given of exactly what endangers the health of the mother.

I was reading the comments on the article ... and it would make you think that there is no sex education in schools; that there is no birth control available. That is pretty far from the truth. In NYC schools, they even give out the morning-after pill free.

When we are at the topic of late-term abortions, we should be talking about rare instances of mother's life & non-viable fetus to begin with, as would have been the case with the existing law. Is there a "demand" for more late-term abortions? Part of the issue is the evidence that viable fetuses are being discarded as "medical waste". Why would there not be some restriction to prevent that as part of a law addressing late-term abortion? Do we not have a responsibility to those live babies as well? Once they have left the womb, and are viable, how can they not be defined as a human life?

The posting cited that 41% of NY pregnancies end in abortion. That is a staggering figure to me. I would like to see the stats on the reasons for these abortions. For example, how many are rapes, incest, teens, white, Latino, black, non-viable fetus, genetically damaged fetus, etc. and the point in pregnancy when the abortions are done. While it is often cited that many back-room abortions were done when abortion was less readily available, has ready availability made abortion more accepted as just another form of birth control?

If there is a significant number of non-white v. white, one could view such a policy of pro-choice having a racist element?

While I can accept that there are times when abortion IS a valid choice, maybe the only choice, it just seems that 41% of all pregnancies is a stunning number. Contrary to the Clinton hypothesis that freedom of choice would make abortion "rare", 41% is far from "rare".

road kill
02-17-2013, 04:56 PM
Of the 1,250,000+ abortions in 2012, does anyone know how many were due to rape, incest or the Mothers health being in danger??

Franco
02-17-2013, 05:42 PM
The issue of Abortion should be handle by the individual states. If the people of one state vote to end Abortions, then so be it. Until we let the people within the states vote on the issue, it will always be a hot botton issue! Let the people decide and lets move on to the issues that are choking this country.

Gerry Clinchy
02-17-2013, 10:02 PM
Franco, when we are talking about a viable baby surviving a late-term abortion, the Constitutional right to life becomes an issue. While there are many aspects open to discussion, when it comes to those babies who survive such an abortion, simply ignoring the presence of their innocent lives seems to be a Constitutional question.

When a living baby is found in a dumpster (placed there by a birth mother who didn't want it), great lengths are gone to for saving that vulnerable innocent. If found, the mother would be prosecuted for endangering the life of a child (perhaps some other things as well). But if such a living baby survives an abortion in a hospital (or wherever), it will be placed in the "medical waste" dumpster, and it's not a problem. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

sick lids
02-17-2013, 10:52 PM
When two people struggle to conceive a child finally do and the woman miss carries at less than a week it is considered a tragedy. There would be no telling the couple that life has not started at conception.

For the legal part you bring up. I would have to say that the point in pregnancy that the law would charge a murder with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman would be the legal precedent for giving the unborn child constitutional rights. Be it three hours or nine months 1 day. But I am not a lawyer nor ever plan on being one.

Gerry Clinchy
02-17-2013, 11:42 PM
For the legal part you bring up. I would have to say that the point in pregnancy that the law would charge a murder with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman would be the legal precedent for giving the unborn child constitutional rights. Be it three hours or nine months 1 day. But I am not a lawyer nor ever plan on being one.

This is a good point! This has definitely been done: the charge of two murders, yet it is not often mentioned in discussions of abortion.

There have sometimes been issues raised with attempts to prosecute a pregnant woman for smoking or drinking alcohol or using drugs during her pregnancy because she is endangering the "life" of her fetus. So, in a legal framework, is a fetus only a life if the mother wants it to be?

This is where the U.S. Constitution comes into the equation; and, hence, the Federal govt.

When it comes to the necessity of choosing between the life of a pregnant woman v. the life of an unborn (but viable) child, then we are left to our human frailty to choose one life or the other.

HPL
02-17-2013, 11:47 PM
HPL, yes, the change is from endangering the "life" of the mother to endangering the "health" of the mother, but there are no definitions given of exactly what endangers the health of the mother.

I was reading the comments on the article ... and it would make you think that there is no sex education in schools; that there is no birth control available. That is pretty far from the truth. In NYC schools, they even give out the morning-after pill free.

When we are at the topic of late-term abortions, we should be talking about rare instances of mother's life & non-viable fetus to begin with, as would have been the case with the existing law. Is there a "demand" for more late-term abortions? Part of the issue is the evidence that viable fetuses are being discarded as "medical waste". Why would there not be some restriction to prevent that as part of a law addressing late-term abortion? Do we not have a responsibility to those live babies as well? Once they have left the womb, and are viable, how can they not be defined as a human life?

The posting cited that 41% of NY pregnancies end in abortion. That is a staggering figure to me. I would like to see the stats on the reasons for these abortions. For example, how many are rapes, incest, teens, white, Latino, black, non-viable fetus, genetically damaged fetus, etc. and the point in pregnancy when the abortions are done. While it is often cited that many back-room abortions were done when abortion was less readily available, has ready availability made abortion more accepted as just another form of birth control?

If there is a significant number of non-white v. white, one could view such a policy of pro-choice having a racist element?

While I can accept that there are times when abortion IS a valid choice, maybe the only choice, it just seems that 41% of all pregnancies is a stunning number. Contrary to the Clinton hypothesis that freedom of choice would make abortion "rare", 41% is far from "rare".

Where did you get the 41% number. I didn't see that in the article. If true, that is certainly a horrific number. Since there are apparently about 250,000 live births in NY per annum ( http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2010/table04.htm ) that would mean somewhere around 168,000 abortions (I think). A huge number of abortions, but also, if live births, a huge number of unwanted babies to grow up under who knows what kind of conditions.

I did find Cuomo's position a bit appalling, appearing to take the position that more abortions would be a positive thing. Personally, although I am for fewer human births, I would prefer to accomplish that through effective contraception.

Do check out the link above. Some interesting stats and if you go to this one: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2010/ you can get all sorts of variations on the info.

At the first link, scroll down to the "out of wedlock" field and then read across. Somewhat telling.

sick lids
02-18-2013, 11:23 AM
I would look to the cdc for stats. The breakdown of % of abortions to live births by race would make this a racial issue also.

road kill
02-18-2013, 11:29 AM
Of the 1,250,000+ abortions in 2012, does anyone know how many were due to rape, incest or the Mothers health being in danger??

OK RK, I'll answer......less than 12% are due to rape, incest or Mothers health.

The other 88% are convenience abortions.

Nice choice!!!

sick lids
02-18-2013, 11:35 AM
I would think that % is over double what it really is on the high side.

GoldenSail
02-18-2013, 06:05 PM
While I cringe at the idea of late term abortions there are medical reasons to be able to do so. With abortions in general I do not like them, but I am not sure which is the greater evil. Children born into families who do not want them and cannot afford them? Adding to the stress of the welfare system and overpopulation? Repeating the vicious cycle?

Marty Lee
02-18-2013, 07:33 PM
While I cringe at the idea of late term abortions there are medical reasons to be able to do so. With abortions in general I do not like them, but I am not sure which is the greater evil. Children born into families who do not want them and cannot afford them? Adding to the stress of the welfare system and overpopulation? Repeating the vicious cycle?
not trying to single you out but IMO if we are going to condone abortion we may as well make infanticide legal too. when the babies are born to parents that get tired of them jsut killem......what age should we call it murder 2,3 4???? i personally see NO difference. it is all murder IMO...again this isnt directed to you personally just using your post to voice my opinion, thanks

Gerry Clinchy
02-18-2013, 10:31 PM
While I cringe at the idea of late term abortions there are medical reasons to be able to do so. With abortions in general I do not like them, but I am not sure which is the greater evil. Children born into families who do not want them and cannot afford them? Adding to the stress of the welfare system and overpopulation? Repeating the vicious cycle?
If they are unwanted children, there is adoption; and many who want to adopt are financially able to support that child. So that is one option.

The really bad situation is when someone on welfare continues to have children simply to get more monthly income; much of which will not go to caring for those children. I'd give one accident, but after a 2nd, sterilization should be required. Tubal ligations and vasectomies are now possible to reverse ... but you'd have to get off welfare first.

There are surely costs involved with more children, but there are other aspects, too ... what price on a human life?

The other question might be, when abortion is readily available for "convenience" does it disincentivize attention to use of contraception? If so, is it costing more to pay for abortions than to pay for contraception? Yet contraception is inexpensive and readily available, so why is there a need for so many abortions?

With all the tax money we spend to study insignificant things, maybe someone ought to spend some of it usefully to find answers to some of these questions.

GoldenSail
02-19-2013, 01:19 PM
If they are unwanted children, there is adoption; and many who want to adopt are financially able to support that child. So that is one option.


It is not that easy! I have a friend who nearly lost her house adopting a child from a very abusive relationship. Dad was a druggie, mom was a stripper both were very young. The adoption agency assumed the dad would not fight for the kid...and they were wrong. I think of this child and how wonderful it is they got to keep him (they actually lost the case, but sperm donor changed his mind at the last minute but went on to have more kids that he kidnapped and used in child porn). He used to be hit and would duck as a child when they went to pick him up. Now that he is older they are seeing some behavioral problems that are likely genetic. He is lucky to have them, but if he hadn't been adopted...

I am also skeptical that the adoption pool could support that many births...Much better for a child to have never been born than to face a lifetime of abuse, poverty, drugs, etc. Only to grow-up and repeat the cycle.

But this is what bothers me about right wing conservatives--while they are strictly against abortion they don't want to deal with the consequences of that choice. They complain about making birth control more accessible and affordable and then they complain about the burden of the welfare system and not wanting to add to it. There are also many that are against education in school. It seems like they don't care a lick about that child once it is born--end point is that the agenda is met when the baby is born without concern to what environment that may be.

Yes you can talk about personal responsibility and yes I would agree with you but at the end of the day you cannot force people to be accountable and responsible. So what is the answer?

sick lids
02-19-2013, 04:05 PM
[QUOTE=

Yes you can talk about personal responsibility and yes I would agree with you but at the end of the day you cannot force people to be accountable and responsible. So what is the answer?[/QUOTE]

No but you can freely give them all YOUR money and leave mine alone so that I can help save for my kids education.

Buzz
02-19-2013, 04:20 PM
From the NY Times today

Cuomo Bucks Tide With Bill to Ease Abortion Limit (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pgYq9/GRG94p34Lb9aHObYUjQ5fRxYiHYHD2G9/IQnJSDmNLmj2opBP/t+saVUju7fbG3tSfqtOxP32oq4d0KWSzNxDv3UmB6L/fY6AH1rUkbzQPfENmgP1RhBv7P/hndWkaZjaWII+spqYHejq2HwR4iK3oZg+4OB&campaign_id=129&instance_id=26177&segment_id=43799&user_id=43ef0a15b1a965b08524a96f5c206b51)s

By THOMAS KAPLAN

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is preparing legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions, and remove the issue from the state's penal

How does one make a case for this? At what point does the Constitution start to step in for the rights of a human being that may be, or are, viable outside the womb?

If the life of the mother is not in danger, why not wait a few weeks longer and do a C-section?

Will the latter option cost us all money? I'd guess it would ... but if we can pay big-time taxes to save an endangered owl, crustacean or insect, what is a human life worth?

I just can't wrap my mind around a late-term abortion that is done for reasons of "convenience".





I am not in favor of abortion. However I want my daughter's doctor some time in the future to have the option of doing what is best for her in the event a pregnancy goes bad. I don't think it is always as simple as, "just wait a few weeks and do a c-section." When my wife was pregnant she had some really strange things going on with her blood pressure. Thank God everything worked out and I have a kind, beautiful, and very smart 13 year old daughter today.

Gerry Clinchy
02-19-2013, 09:21 PM
It is not that easy! I have a friend who nearly lost her house adopting a child from a very abusive relationship. Dad was a druggie, mom was a stripper both were very young. The adoption agency assumed the dad would not fight for the kid...and they were wrong. I think of this child and how wonderful it is they got to keep him (they actually lost the case, but sperm donor changed his mind at the last minute but went on to have more kids that he kidnapped and used in child porn). He used to be hit and would duck as a child when they went to pick him up. Now that he is older they are seeing some behavioral problems that are likely genetic. He is lucky to have them, but if he hadn't been adopted...

I am also skeptical that the adoption pool could support that many births...

I don't have the stats to know the answer either, but we do know that many people who would like to adopt spend thousands of dollars to do so, and even then there are not always enough babies for these potential parents, so we are seeing adoptions of foreign-born children.


Much better for a child to have never been born than to face a lifetime of abuse, poverty, drugs, etc. Only to grow-up and repeat the cycle.

Unless we study the situation, we don't really know that the majority of these babies would be in situations you describe. If RK's stats are correct, many of them may not be.

But this is what bothers me about right wing conservatives--while they are strictly against abortion they don't want to deal with the consequences of that choice.


I'm not sure that is a true statement. As one example, Catholic Charities is a major resource for adoptions.

They complain about making birth control more accessible and affordable

While Roman Catholics have a religious position on contraception, I cannot think of any others. I don't think anyone on this forum has objected to contraception.

I would say that birth control is very accessible and very affordable: $7/mo for BC pills at Walmart; very cheap condoms; free condoms in NYC schools; free morning-after pills in NYC schools as well.


and then they complain about the burden of the welfare system and not wanting to add to it

Most who object to the welfare system burden are very much in favor of contraception to abate the unwanted pregnancies. Some even feel that mandatory sterilization would be just fine. Abortion is a different issue. And late-term abortion is possibly yet a different issue than the overall issue.



There are also many that are against education in school.

Some may disagree with how the subject matter is presented in public school curriculum, but I think most on this forum realize the necessity for providing the information.

It seems like they don't care a lick about that child once it is born--end point is that the agenda is met when the baby is born without concern to what environment that may be.

Painted with too broad a brush, I think.

Yes you can talk about personal responsibility and yes I would agree with you but at the end of the day you cannot force people to be accountable and responsible. So what is the answer?

I do not have the answer, but I cannot imagine taking a newborn, breathing infant and placing it in a waste heap.

Buzz, you and I do NOT disagree. When there is a serious medical problem occurring with a pregnancy, then a medical doctor is in a much better position to make the judgment than any legislator or bureaucrat. There could be a reason for a late-term abortion, so any solution, should not rule them out entirely. OTOH, if a baby should survive, then we have a human life to deal with and our Constitution speaks to every life. If such a baby has a serious defect, at the very least it should be shown tenderness and respect, just as we would show to an elderly person who is living his last days of life.

Gerry

Pete
02-20-2013, 07:50 AM
But this is what bothers me about right wing conservatives--while they are strictly against abortion they don't want to deal with the consequences of that choice. They complain about making birth control more accessible and affordable and then they complain about the burden of the welfare system and not wanting to add to it. There are also many that are against education in school. It seems like they don't care a lick about that child once it is born--end point is that the agenda is met when the baby is born without concern to what environment that may be

I don't think this is so true,, The ultra conservatives I know don't think its their business to interfere with other peoples decisions that they don't even know. I think you mean right wing republicans. Now there are many here that think because I believe this I can't be conservative. That kind of thinking is quite ignorant . many like to use "Thou shall not kill" as their biblical reason for this.
I use the record of the intentional assault on a pregnant woman's womb resulting in a miscarriage and show the fine resulting in that action. Murder was punishable by death not by a fine. So we have our differences. And Jesus was refereed as a"Holy thing" in the womb. Any way that's why I am neutral on the matter.
Pete