Is this where we are headed?

[Gerry Clinchy]

From the NY Times today

Cuomo Bucks Tide With Bill to Ease Abortion Limits

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...10/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/...atistics/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.