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
397 visitors
“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."
American Family Radio's Abraham Hamilton III discussed the New York law on his program on Wednesday, January 23, 2019.
Yes, why not simply deliver the baby? If the mother's health is allegedly at risk and the baby is viable outside the womb, why not deliver it?
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?”
Do you not understand that delivering a child, even by Cesarean, for certain health issues that can arise that prevent that being an option without risking the mothers life?
" Severe maternal morbidity (SMM) includes unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a woman’s health. 1 Using the most recent list of indicators , SMM has been steadily increasing in recent years and affected more than 50,000 women in the United States in 2014."
It is not entirely clear why SMM is increasing, but changes in the overall health of the population of women giving birth may be contributing to increases in complications. For example, increases in maternal age, pre-pregnancy obesity, preexisting chronic medical conditions, and cesarean delivery have been documented."
The law states "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."
Now, why that isn't good enough for self righteous pricks who think they know better than the doctors should be the topic.
There are no mothers waiting to the last minute then just deciding "You know what, I don't want it anymore, I want the dangerous late term abortion procedure even though I don't really need one...". It's just NOT happening as all these fucking nosy busybodies want to claim. And there are no doctors out there who are willing to just ignore the law and perform late term abortions they know aren't truly necessary. Conservatives just make wild claims like there are all these evil abortion providers just rubbing their hands together at the prospect of terminating babies, like it's some enjoyable hobby.
The ones who are warped in the head are those who believe such total and utter bullshit all because they believe their religion, their faith, their belief that a fertilized egg has an immortal soul demands that they force themselves on unwilling women. So today a woman can have a man force himself on her impregnating her against her will, then conservative Republicans step in for sloppy seconds by also forcing themselves on the woman when they eliminate all her options to terminate the resulting pregnancy.
92% of all abortions occur at or before 12 weeks. The other 7.9% occur prior to viability while a minuscule .01% occur after 24 weeks and those only when it's to save the life of the mother.
Not a single anti-abortionist is being forced to get an abortion, you have no fucking dog in this fight conservatives, get your useless religious opinions out of other peoples lives.
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...
The topic is the Christian media response to to the new idiotic pro abortion law in the state of New York. This is seeded in the religion and ethics section so discuss the science, religion, and ethics of the issue. All political topics other than pro life v pro abortion are totally off topic.
Protecting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is not being pro-abortion. It is being pro-choice because nobody is being forced to have an abortion.
Instead of being pro-religion you might want to consider being pro-fact. These are the facts of the legislation with a minimum of religious hyperbole.
It’s time to take them to the Supreme Court under Roe as to the federal government interest to preserve human life in the 3rd trimester. It’s time for the federal government to ban all 3rd trimester abortions except sufficiently severe enough deformation to deny any quality of life at all once born and to protect the life of the mother.
This is already the current standard. Elective abortion ends at 23-24 weeks. Didn't you read what I previously posted? After 24 weeks abortion is only possible because of the viability of a fetus (at that point is in not really an abortion but a miscarriage), and to save the life of the mother.
Pretty sure that nobody is pro abortion. Shit just happens sometimes with an unwanted pregnancy.
Spontaneous abortions are far more common than the induced variety. God is an abortionist.
No one is pro abortion, we are pro choice. And it is none of your business what a woman chooses to do with an unplanned pregnancy.
This story that I copied from FB is the heartbreaking reason why the need for later term abortions:
This is my post about late term termination. I'm sorry if this upsets my loved ones but I have to get this off my chest. I want to thank NY for the update in law.
Here is the ugly truth about choices.
Yes in color so you can see our pain.
This is our grandson Xander Ramone Borges stillborn on April 4th 2017. He did not survive the birth and we knew he wouldn't since January 2017.
Our daughter was 1 week past the allowed # of weeks to terminate the pregnancy. Albany Medical Center said it wasn't ethical but that we could go to Colorado or New Mexico at a cost starting at $30,000. I even offered to speak to the ethics board.
My daughter SUFFERED for 4 months carrying a baby that we knew wouldn't survive. We cried, we prayed we did it all but the outcome was not changed. There is nothing I wouldn't do to take away our daughter and future son in law's pain. I am a Momma bear so I mean I would do anything.
So as you all post about how disguted you are about this law
Please know that some of us are not angry and I bet there are others who agree but are not yet strong enough to share. This late term termination law needed to change for the health of women who need the choice.
We will always love Xander but I sure wish my daughter could have had the choice that women in NY will now have.
Unfriend me if you can't have compassion.
One of my friends had a similar situation, I believe it wasn't even alive inside her (its been about 30 years, I forget details). We lived in Ireland at the time and they were illegal there, so she did end up flying to London to do it, but it would have been so cruel to force her to carry that. That doesn't even touch on the changes that go through the body during pregnancy. Nothing infuriates me more hearing utter bs from (usually men) who don't even understand female physiology and aren't smart, let alone a doctor. Maybe one day we should start a movement to look into ways to butt into the male business of penis and sperm, making up things to force them to submit to female oversight.
Sooooo, as long as someone isn't "Forced" to do anything.....everything should be just AOK ?
Damn that sucks, you and your daughter have my sympathy. Can't imagine how hard that must have been, knowing for all that time but still having to go through the entire ordeal just to hold a corpse.
No, and its a good thing that is not what this law says huh?
Thanks, but this is NOT my story, I found the story on Facebook.
Well the science really isn't all that complicated so no point. Since none of the major religions specifically deal with abortion there is no point in considering that aspect, and ethically this is a good law. It is unethical to force a woman to carry to term if she may well die from doing so, the fetus is already dead, or it will be so fucked up that it won't survive long after birth.
Ah got ya, still super sad.
The only thing idiotic is the Christian media response. It seems they don't really understand the new law and just go into ignorance based emotional hysterics. Here is what the law (partially) actually says:
Section 1. Legislative intent. The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman's health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman's fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.
Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals; any regulation of medical care must have a legitimate purpose. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.
Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.
Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman's health that burden abortion
access.
The entirety of the law can be found here :
In a nutshell, as supplied by the Timesunion , the law has several effects: First, it strips abortion from the state's criminal code and places it entirely within the realm of public health law. Second, it expands who can perform the procedure from beyond just physicians to any licensed, certified or authorized health care practitioner for whom abortion is within their scope of practice. Finally, it legalizes abortion after 24 weeks in cases where it would protect a woman's health or where a fetus is not viable. State law previously only allowed abortions after 24 weeks if the woman's life was in jeopardy.
The law does not advocate "baby killing" or imply that women can have elective abortions at 9 months pregnancy, or any other nonsensical claim and rhetoric the Christian media (and many other pro-lifers as well) come up with. It seems some people, when they hear abortion laws (like a trigger word) affirming a woman's right to an abortion, get emotional, don't bother to actually understand the law and circumstances itself, and become downright irrational. This seeded article is proof of that!
Yes! Is that a problem?
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.