New York reveals its blood lust for baby killing
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Today, in New York, a perfectly viable baby of nine months, ready to be born at any minute, can be slaughtered by the will of the mother. That is blood lust. It is cruel. It is unwarranted. It is murderous. And New Yorkers smiled and cheered.
New York was already doing a fine job of slaughtering its unborn, especially its black babies. Why, then, did it need to pass a new, more extreme abortion law? And why did New York do this on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade? There's one simple answer: blood lust.
Secular media outlets are reporting that New York just updated its "archaic" abortion law.
Yet somehow, even with that "archaic" law, New York was already the abortion capital of America, aborting babies at twice the national average.
Somehow, New York was still managing to kill one baby for every two babies born.
And, despite that "archaic" law, New York City was able to kill more black babies in the womb than bring them to birth.
But no, that was not enough. The law must be expanded.
Today, a perfectly viable baby of nine months, ready to be born at any minute, can be slaughtered by the will of the mother.
That is blood lust.
That is the spirit of baby killing.
There is nothing humanitarian or compassionate about it.
It is cruel. It is unwarranted. It is murderous.
And it is utterly Orwellian to refer to it as the "Reproductive Health Act." Why not call it for what it is?
The moral bankruptcy of New York's new law – the pride of "Christian" governor Andrew Cuomo – is fully exposed in the last phrase of this sentence: "an abortion may be performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or [if] there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health."
Yes, the baby may be terminated "at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health."
And what, exactly, does that mean? What if the mother's mental health needed to be protected? What if she felt, the day before her due date, that she just couldn't take the stress of having a child. Would that merit abortion?
But that is to beg the question, since the baby could easily be delivered and adopted. We're talking about a totally viable baby! A baby who, under normal circumstances, would soon be crying and nursing outside the womb.
Today, however, that baby's well-being is at risk until the moment of the birth.
This is madness. This is murderous. Shades of Kermit Gosnell on steroids!
Princeton professor Robert P. George expressed it so well. He wrote:
"A huge irony: The NY law authorizing the killing of babies in the third trimester PROVES that the aim of the abortion lobby is NOT the protection of maternal health in circumstances of hazardous pregnancy, but is rather the right to destroy an unwanted child whose existence poses no risk to maternal health (in any sense of the term 'health' that amounts to anything other than a rationalization for killing unwanted babies). The only reason to kill rather than deliver a child in the third trimester of pregnancy and gestation is that the woman (or someone who is pressuring her to abort) wants the child to be dead rather than alive. It's the child's *existence*, not the pregnancy, which poses the alleged 'health' risk. The pregnancy can be ended ('terminated') by delivering the baby alive, rather than killing him or her. So do you see the see the sophistry in the argument for abortion here? It's glaring."
Plenty of parents would love to adopt the child.
Plenty of parents would gladly open the doors of their home to this precious little one.
Why kill it?
And let's not have some romanticized view of how a third-trimester baby is terminated. As noted by Steven Ertelt (with reference to a former abortionist):
"... The baby is injected with a poison directly into his skull or torso. He then suffers a hideously painful death, which he will certainly feel because of his developed nervous system. The mother carries the corpse around in her womb for a day. The next day, there is an ultrasound to check if the baby is dead. If he isn't – if he has been writhing and suffering in agony for the past 24 hours, clinging onto life – then he will be injected again. The following day, the mother delivers her dead child. Sometimes she delivers him at the clinic, but if she can't make it on time, the clinic is perfectly happy to recommend that she give birth into her toilet."
How can this possibly be for the good of the mother? And under what moral code is this not barbarous and inhuman? Or should we mention the grisly details of "partial-birth abortion," where the child is delivered feet first, then the skull is pierced with scissors and its brains sucked out – while still alive?
And if a baby somehow survived the murderous attempts of the abortionist, who does not even have to be a doctor? What if it was still born alive? Under previous New York law, efforts would be made to care for the child. But no longer! Under this new law, those provisions have been removed. The baby must die!
Yet New Yorkers were celebrating this moral madness. They were shouting for joy!
And in a final statement of depravity, the 400-foot spire of One World Trade Center was lit up in pink, as if to honor the women of New York.
It should have been lit up blood red.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
102 visitors
Sigh. If you ever have any knowledge of anyone ever killing a baby you must immediately report it to law enforcement under penalty of local, state and federal law. It is a serious felony to know details of capitol murder and not report that information to the police...
Same as knowing Russians are hacking Democrats and not calling the FBI.
We could even call illegally conspiring with foreign powers what? Treason...
New York reveals its blood lust for baby killing
Shades of the National Enquirer. Blood lust, really?
Hyperbolic sensationalism is all the rightwing forced birthers have left...
Wally,
Despite what the article says, it is only when the woman's life is in danger. It is not for a mental condition. This means that she can't deliver since she will die. I have read our very conservative "Newsday" here, and it confirms that. It also confirms that it's for when the baby would not survive.
Recently, there was a case where a boyfriend stabbed a late term mother in the womb killing the baby. She was forced to carry to term, under the previous law, even though the baby was dead the whole time. That is what brought this whole issue to the forefront. Btw, the boyfriend didn't get charged for murder, since the fetus was not considered a baby by federal law.
I feel passionate about this. I know what it's like to fight to keep a pregnancy since it happened to me. I also saw moms lose the battle, either because they were too pre-eclampsic, or because they delivered, too early, or the baby died in utero. I saw babies delivered at 25 weeks that suffered brain damage, and some who were fine. But all of these things have to be decided by both the doctors and the parents. I guess I was one of the lucky ones. My girls were born 1 month premature, so I didn't have to make any terrible decisions.
Dude, really? Even in this absurd seed it flat out says that late term abortions are only allowed if the mother is in danger or the fetus will not survive. I've told my wife that if it came down to a fetus or her, fuck the fetus. I feel like most women feel the same way.
That's not what the new law says or allows.
Glad my dad didn't have your attitude. When given that Choice when I was being born he told the doctors to do everything they could to save both of us and they did.
I think the article would be taken a little more seriously if it did not resort to such incendiary language. Unfortunately, other than shooting abortion doctors and bombing their clinics what other weapons do the anti-abortionist radicals have?
For real. Reading the seed you would think the state of New York is ordering abortion doctors to perform 3rd trimester abortions on unwilling women just for fun, or actively ordering that every 3rd pregnancy be terminated just because. Seeds like this are why I can't take the anti-choice crowd seriously, why I just dismiss them outright.
This man and this article are a wonderful job out of making a major case out of nothing. His article is a collection of various conservative grown horror stories about 3rd trimester abortions that don't happen. If they're that close to the baby being born naturally and the baby is viable, that woman is going to have a baby. Maybe people are thinking of a caesarian where the baby is removed surgically but intact if the birth would endanger the woman.
This law says if the baby is NOT viable then it should be removed at any stage which is a good idea if you don't want to risk the woman's life for no good reason.
Just as a side note, people do realize that mother and fetus share the same circulatory system until the umbilical cord is cut, right? I guess if some conservatives were to do a abortion, I suppose they might try to inject poison into a fetus (good luck with that) and that way get rid of both problems, the baby and that sinful woman or sinful girl too.
I'm sure some conservatives are going nuts now, armed with this dramatic fantasy entertainment instead of something with facts. "Should have been lit up blood red" indeed.
I look forward to the next installment, where he goes into detail about the Drs and Nurses gather around the still living baby, drilling holes in it's head and sucking the brains out with straws. With lightning and wind outside the window for effect.
Barbaric.
Not if the mother's health is in danger or the fetus dies in utero
How so?
Good.
The article closed for an inflammatory title as per the CoC.