Cuomo going full tilt with extreme abortion bill

[AuH20]

This man has lost all bearings.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/21/cuomo-abortion-bill-outrageous-says-democrats-for-life/


The Democratic governor introduced the bill to cheers during his January 9 State of the State address, shrouding it in the name of “women’s equality.”

“The abortion language would allow late-term abortions, allow non-doctors to perform abortions, and supersede any reasonable restrictions such as parental notification,” the group stated.

“It is out of touch with the views of most Americans, out of touch with the views of most Democrats, and could hamper real reform for women’s rights,” the Democratic group concluded.

[kathy88]

Pure. Unadulterated. Evil.

[AuH20]

Ever since the hurricane, he has ripped off his moderate mask and has gone complete Stalin on NY.

[EBounding]

Ah so state regulations are great, unless it involves scraping unborn babies from the womb.

[paulbot24]

A couple of months ago I was reading more Bloomberg gasbagging out loud to my wife and she replied, "Enough about the mayor of New York City. Who is the Governor of New York? Where is he all the time? Shining Bloomberg's shoes?" It was funny at the time. I can't stand Bloomberg, but after reading Cuomo's "ideas" lately, I wish Cuomo would go back to being Bloomberg's shoe-shine boy. Hearing both of them spewing their dreck together is a sickness equivalent to having diarrhea and puking into the tub at the same time.

[AuH20]

I really hate this man. And I don't hate anyone:

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/andrew-cuomo-gun-law-honors-mlk

[BSU kid]

Why would anyone want to live in New York, Bloomberg, Cuomo and Piers Morgan make it an axis of evil.

[paulbot24]

Ah so state regulations are great, unless it involves scraping unborn babies from the womb.

State regulations are great. The problem with New York and California especially is that people watch what they do and then just decide that is what they should do/think. It is Justin Bieber politics. Somehow they have this "pulse of the nation" status that is seriously out of touch with most Americans.

[P3ter_Griffin]

40% abortion rate in NYC is pretty sick, but I commend Cuomo one this one. What a fucking shithole NYC must be.

[AuH20]

40% abortion rate in NYC is pretty sick, but I commend Cuomo one this one. What a fucking shithole NYC must be.

The state is underwater with medicaid expenses. I think we know where he is going with this.

[TCE]

State regulations are great. The problem with New York and California especially is that people watch what they do and then just decide that is what they should do/think. It is Justin Bieber politics. Somehow they have this "pulse of the nation" status that is seriously out of touch with most Americans.

Justin Bieber politics? Very nice. Anyone wonder what Cuomo will do after this? He'll have a full head of steam, too.

[ghengis86]

WTF....

[jclay2]

My dw and I are expecting are first in august. We just had an ultrasound today and even though it was only 7 weeks old, you could see the outline of the baby's body and the heart rate was measurable. I was always against abortion, but it gets a whole different perspective when you are looking at becoming a parent. Gosh this man is evil.

[shane77m]

My dw and I are expecting are first in august. We just had an ultrasound today and even though it was only 7 weeks old, you could see the outline of the baby's body and the heart rate was measurable. I was always against abortion, but it gets a whole different perspective when you are looking at becoming a parent. Gosh this man is evil.

It is neat when you get to see them move on the ultrasound.

[shane77m]

double posts abound.

[Keith and stuff]

Ever since the hurricane, he has ripped off his moderate mask and has gone complete Stalin on NY.
Some people are upset that he is trying to shrink the government in a way that they don't like.

[Confederate]

My dw and I are expecting are first in august. We just had an ultrasound today and even though it was only 7 weeks old, you could see the outline of the baby's body and the heart rate was measurable. I was always against abortion, but it gets a whole different perspective when you are looking at becoming a parent. Gosh this man is evil.

I went through the exact same thing.

[angelatc]

Why does anybody *need* an abortion?

[Pauls' Revere]

Ever since the hurricane, he has ripped off his moderate mask and has gone complete Stalin on NY.

never let a crisis go to waste.

[Pauls' Revere]

Why does anybody *need* an abortion?

Exactly, with all the different methods of birth control from vasectomy to condoms, to tubal ligation and depo shots. I can think of two exceptions, rape and/or incest. Other than that why the fuck does anyone need an abortion? Seems more like consequenses of sexual irresponisbility.

[Confederate]

Exactly, with all the different methods of birth control from vasectomy to condoms, to tubal ligation and depo shots. I can think of two exceptions, rape and/or incest. Other than that why the fuck does anyone need an abortion? Seems more like consequenses of sexual irresponisbility.

So what you're saying is that the right to life depends on the circumstances of your conception?

[Pauls' Revere]

So what you're saying is that the right to life depends on the circumstances of your conception?

does it not?

rape and incest is involuntary and/or illegal.

[Confederate]

does it not?

I didn't know some people have a right to life and others don't.




rape and incest is involuntary and/or illegal.

Which one was the innocent unborn child involved with? Which crime did the child commit to warrant the death penalty?

[ghengis86]

does it not?

rape and incest is involuntary and/or illegal.

Stick with involuntary. Smoking weed is illegal.

[Pauls' Revere]

I didn't know some people have a right to life and others don't.



Which one was the innocent unborn child involved with? Which crime did the child commit to warrant the death penalty?
does not the rape victim have rights? either to abort or conceive? A involuntary act against ones person.

[Pauls' Revere]

I didn't know some people have a right to life and others don't.



Which one was the innocent unborn child involved with? Which crime did the child commit to warrant the death penalty?

Ever since the first abortion was performed guessing (circa A.D.) someone decided who lives and dies. Not to get off topic but wars are fought on that premise.

[TheTexan]

Late term abortions? Ugh. If you're going to murder your child, at least have the common decency to do it before it develops feelings.

[Pauls' Revere]

Stick with involuntary. Smoking weed is illegal.

I had thought that well, there could be a case of voluntary incest..so.

[Pauls' Revere]

I still don't understand. With all the methods of birth control why is abortion even done. But as I said, I can see it in the case of rape or involuntary incest.

[angelatc]

Exactly, with all the different methods of birth control from vasectomy to condoms, to tubal ligation and depo shots. I can think of two exceptions, rape and/or incest. Other than that why the fuck does anyone need an abortion? Seems more like consequenses of sexual irresponisbility.

I don't see why I need a post-rape abortion any more than I need a pre-rape weapon. Same thing with the "save the life of the mother" argument.

That's like saying people don't need guns except to defend themselves.

[angelatc]

does not the rape victim have rights? either to abort or conceive? A involuntary act against ones person.

Does she have the right to go out and kill her attacker? No. Maybe she should, but she doesn't. Two victims doesn't make less crime.

[KingNothing]

Does she have the right to go out and kill her attacker? No. Maybe she should, but she doesn't.

In a civilized society, she most certainly should NOT have that right.

[KingNothing]

Why does anybody *need* an abortion?

In spite of what Ron Paul has said, there are legitimate medical reasons to have them. That said, those circumstances are relatively rare.

[kathy88]

A couple of months ago I was reading more Bloomberg gasbagging out loud to my wife and she replied, "Enough about the mayor of New York City. Who is the Governor of New York? Where is he all the time? Shining Bloomberg's shoes?" It was funny at the time. I can't stand Bloomberg, but after reading Cuomo's "ideas" lately, I wish Cuomo would go back to being Bloomberg's shoe-shine boy. Hearing both of them spewing their dreck together is a sickness equivalent to having diarrhea and puking into the tub at the same time.Best. Analogy. Ever.

[KingNothing]

A couple of months ago I was reading more Bloomberg gasbagging out loud to my wife and she replied, "Enough about the mayor of New York City. Who is the Governor of New York? Where is he all the time? Shining Bloomberg's shoes?" It was funny at the time. I can't stand Bloomberg, but after reading Cuomo's "ideas" lately, I wish Cuomo would go back to being Bloomberg's shoe-shine boy. Hearing both of them spewing their dreck together is a sickness equivalent to having diarrhea and puking into the tub at the same time.

Bloomberg to Cuomo:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6U57uPKnNs

[kathy88]

I still don't understand. With all the methods of birth control why is abortion even done. But as I said, I can see it in the case of rape or involuntary incest.my first was conceived on the pill. Number two by all rights should have had an IUD sticking out of his head. Three and four? Stopped trying to prevent it. :)

[KingNothing]

my first was conceived on the pill. Number two by all rights should have had an IUD sticking out of his head. Three and four? Stopped trying to prevent it. :)

Oh, thanks for the personal information. Much appreciated.

[jmdrake]

Exactly, with all the different methods of birth control from vasectomy to condoms, to tubal ligation and depo shots. I can think of two exceptions, rape and/or incest. Other than that why the fuck does anyone need an abortion? Seems more like consequenses of sexual irresponisbility.

Morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the universally medically accepted definition of conception (implantation) and can prevent even fertilization (sometimes sperm doesn't reach the egg until a day or so later).

That said, in every pregnancy there is the possibility of the woman coming down with some disease like cancer where the prescribed treatment could very well kill the fetus. If she's made it to late term a c-section can be performed, but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.

[KingNothing]

Morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the universally medically accepted definition of conception (implantation) and can prevent even fertilization (sometimes sperm doesn't reach the egg until a day or so later).

That said, in every pregnancy there is the possibility of the woman coming down with some disease like cancer where the prescribed treatment could very well kill the fetus. If she's made it to late term a c-section can be performed, but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.

Correct, and these also exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy Without an abortion that can prove fatal to the mother.

[Confederate]

Correct, and these also exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy Without an abortion that can prove fatal to the mother.

And in 99% of cases result in the death of the child.

[Confederate]

but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.

No, it's not. There is never a 'legitimate' reason for an abortion. Killing another human being is only justifiable in self defense. In the case of a pregnancy the child is always innocent and killing him or her is always wrong.

[angelatc]

Correct, and these also exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy Without an abortion that can prove fatal to the mother.

Even the Catholic Church differentiates these, because it is simply not, in the real sense, a pregnancy. It is a fertilized egg that is developing outside the womb.

[angelatc]

And in 99% of cases result in the death of the child.

The difference here is that this isn't a real pregnancy - it's a medical condition. Even if the mother opted to sacrifice her life, the child would never develop, because there's no nutrition from the womb.

[Confederate]

Even the Catholic Church differentiates these, because it is simply not, in the real sense, a pregnancy. It is a fertilized egg that is developing outside the womb.

Sort of.

Direct abortion is never acceptable. Abortion is always murder. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the baby. The Church teaches abortion is *always and everywhere* wrong. It is murder.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.

The second method is the adminstration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong.

[Philhelm]

How would "late-term abortion" be defined? What is the current limit as far as when a pregnant "mother" can abort?

Also, if I murder a pregnant woman, I can only be charged with one count of murder, right?

[Confederate]

How would "late-term abortion" be defined? What is the current limit as far as when a pregnant "mother" can abort?

I believe it's in the third trimester to be called a 'late-term abortion.' At this point the child is already 'viable.'


Also, if I murder a pregnant woman, I can only be charged with one count of murder, right?

No, you can be charged with two counts of murder.


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."


In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender"

[Philhelm]

I believe it's in the third trimester to be called a 'later-term abortion.' At this point the child is already 'viable.'

So, would having an abortion a day before the expected due date be acceptable?


No, you can be charged with two counts of murder.

What if one could prove in court that the parasite's victim (i.e. mother) had intended to abort the parasite? Could that potentially sway the court in favor of lessening the charge to one count of murder?

[angelatc]

How would "late-term abortion" be defined? What is the current limit as far as when a pregnant "mother" can abort?

Also, if I murder a pregnant woman, I can only be charged with one count of murder, right?

That depends on which state you're in. In Florida, you can be charged with 2.

[Confederate]

So, would having an abortion a day before the expected due date be acceptable?

Barack Obama thinks that. In Canada abortion is completely legal until the child is born. You can be 2 weeks late (in the 42nd week of pregnancy) and legally murder your child.




What if one could prove in court that the parasite's victim (i.e. mother) had intended to abort the parasite? Could that potentially sway the court in favor of lessening the charge to one count of murder?

I don't know. To me it wouldn't matter. Murdering 1 person or 2 I think you should still get the death penalty.

[Philhelm]

That depends on which state you're in. In Florida, you can be charged with 2.

All I ask for is consistency in the law.

[angelatc]

All I ask for is consistency in the law.

You don't believe in state's rights?

[Confederate]

You don't believe in state's rights?

I don't believe a state has the right to determine who is and who is not a person. A state has no just authority to deprive an innocent person of the right to life. A state has no right to legalize the murder of the unborn.

[Philhelm]

You don't believe in state's rights?

I was referring to logical consistency of the law. If the law, within a state, is that a late-term abortion is legal, then one who murders a pregnant woman should only have one count of murder, and perhaps one count of property damage.

[jmdrake]

No, it's not. There is never a 'legitimate' reason for an abortion. Killing another human being is only justifiable in self defense. In the case of a pregnancy the child is always innocent and killing him or her is always wrong.

Ummmm....you didn't carefully read what I wrote or you wouldn't have said what you did. Or maybe you don't understand self defense. Self defense isn't limited to where the other person is not "innocent". Case in point. Someone has been told that if they don't kill you someone else will kill their children. In certain jurisdictions that person may be found innocent of murder because of a duress defense. Or you're shipwrecked and in shark invested waters and someone who is bleeding to death is attracting sharks. If you push him away from the raft, hastening his death, most jurisdictions would allow you to raise the necessity defense.

In the case that I'm talking about, it really isn't even abortion per se. The chemicals being used to treat the mother have the unwanted effect of killing the child. That's not murder no matter how you slice it. Don't let Catholic sensibilities blind you to obvious truth.

[jmdrake]

Sort of.

Direct abortion is never acceptable. Abortion is always murder. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the baby. The Church teaches abortion is *always and everywhere* wrong. It is murder.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.

The second method is the adminstration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong.

And that's why I'm glad I'm not part of the Catholic church because it subjects you to backwards logic. In both instances the result is the same. If the procedure is successful, the baby is dead and the mother is alive. It would be one thing if procedure A gave the baby a fighting chance or if procedure A caused less pain to the baby at death or any other real reason to accept procedure A over procedure B except "the church calls one an abortion".

[roho76]

Save the children from assault weapons by carving them out of the womb with a coat hanger in a seedy motel bathtub beforehand. Yay, Democracy.

[Confederate]

Ummmm....you didn't carefully read what I wrote or you wouldn't have said what you did. Or maybe you don't understand self defense. Self defense isn't limited to where the other person is not "innocent". Case in point. Someone has been told that if they don't kill you someone else will kill their children. In certain jurisdictions that person may be found innocent of murder because of a duress defense. Or you're shipwrecked and in shark invested waters and someone who is bleeding to death is attracting sharks. If you push him away from the raft, hastening his death, most jurisdictions would allow you to raise the necessity defense.

In the case of the second example, hastening death has been ruled as murder. I can't remember the case name, but it was established under English common law that killing someone, even though they were already dying, in order to survive (in this case it was on a lifeboat after weeks at sea and they actually ended up eating the guy who they killed) is still murder.


In the case that I'm talking about, it really isn't even abortion per se. The chemicals being used to treat the mother have the unwanted effect of killing the child. That's not murder no matter how you slice it.

No, the point of the drugs is specifically to kill the child. It is a direct abortion and is unjustifiable. Removing the tube is a true medical procedure which unfortunately results in the death of the child because we have no way of saving him or her.


Don't let Catholic sensibilities blind you to obvious truth.

The only truth here is that your Protestantism has led to moral relativism where claim that sometimes abortion (the murder of an innocent child) is morally permissible.

[jmdrake]

In the case of the second example, hastening death has been ruled as murder. I can't remember the case name, but it was established under English common law that killing someone, even though they were already dying, in order to survive (in this case it was on a lifeboat after weeks at sea and they actually ended up eating the guy who they killed) is still murder.

A) They received a suspended sentence. (No jail time).
B) They actually killed and ate another human being.

So actually that case undermines rather than supports your argument. And we aren't talking about killing a fetus and using it for body parts (the equivalent of what happened in the case you cited). We are talking about whether someone bleeds to death sooner rather than later.



No, the point of the drugs is specifically to kill the child. It is a direct abortion and is unjustifiable. Removing the tube is a true medical procedure which unfortunately results in the death of the child because we have no way of saving him or her.


The point is that you are being a slave to someone else's warped sense of justice. Administering drugs is a true medical procedure. And the common abortion procedure of dialation and cutterage is the medically accepted procedure for dealing with babies who have already died in utero.



The only truth here is that your Protestantism has led to moral relativism where claim that sometimes abortion (the murder of an innocent child) is morally permissible.

It's the Catholic position that is being morally relativistic, which is saying that one way to kill a baby is acceptable and the other is not because the Catholic church says so. Look at it another way. Was what happened to Terri Schiavo more "morally acceptable" because she was starved to death? No? Then your Catholic logic makes no sense. The "tissue" being removed in your "medically acceptable" version includes a baby. And no effort is made to save said baby. It's just thrown in the trash along with other abortions. You're calling something that is clearly an abortion not an abortion so you can come up with a way to allow it while not allowing abortion. It's silly.

[Confederate]

A) They received a suspended sentence. (No jail time).
B) They actually killed and ate another human being.

So actually that case undermines rather than supports your argument. And we aren't talking about killing a fetus and using it for body parts (the equivalent of what happened in the case you cited). We are talking about whether someone bleeds to death sooner rather than later.

Actually no, they were sentenced to death. Their sentence was alter commuted.

The judges found there was no common law defense of necessity to a charge of murder, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality, which is what you're arguing.

[Lucille]

Progs are such cruel, violent, murderous ghouls.

[jmdrake]

Actually no, they were sentenced to death. Their sentence was alter commuted.

Do you know what They received a suspended sentence. (No jail time). even means? IT MEANS THEIR SENTENCE WAS COMMUTED!



The judges found there was no common law defense of necessity to a charge of murder, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality, which is what you're arguing.

A) They received a suspended sentence which should tell you something.
B) The effect of the suspended sentence was that the judge split the difference between "okaying murder in a necessity" and the state killing people for being forced to make a horrible choice.
C) Your "Take the baby out with the rest of the tissue and throw it in the trash and it's not an abortion because the Catholic church says so" position is untenable.
D) Pushing someone away from your raft because he's attracting sharks is quite different from killing and eating him. So your analogy doesn't even fit what I was saying.

Really, this is stupid hairsplitting on your part. And the end of the day the baby is dead and the mother is alive if everything goes right. Under normal circumstances both of us would agree that neither cutting the fetus out and throwing it in the trash nor pumping in chemicals with the intent of killing the fetus would be acceptable. And the original example that I gave, giving a mother chemotherapy which happens to kill the baby, is even less like abortion that what you find acceptable because the Catholic church told you so. Hell, under my example the baby could even have a fighting chance! Maybe it's really resilient to chemo? But no...no. Cut it out and throw it in the trash so you have the pope's blessing.

Edit: This is what I said earlier.



That said, in every pregnancy there is the possibility of the woman coming down with some disease like cancer where the prescribed treatment could very well kill the fetus. If she's made it to late term a c-section can be performed, but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.

And this is how you quoted me.


but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.

Let me know when you're ready to debate honestly.

[Smart3]

Ever since the first abortion was performed guessing (circa A.D.) someone decided who lives and dies. Not to get off topic but wars are fought on that premise.

Try Classical Greece, Hippocrates mentions abortion (and prohibits it) in his Oath.

[Confederate]

Do you know what They received a suspended sentence. (No jail time). even means? IT MEANS THEIR SENTENCE WAS COMMUTED!

They did not receive a suspended sentence. The convicted received a royal prerogative of mercy from Queen Victoria. And a suspended sentences is not the same thing as a commuted sentence.



C) Your "Take the baby out with the rest of the tissue and throw it in the trash and it's not an abortion because the Catholic church says so" position is untenable.

There is a big difference between something which has one purpose, that is to kill the child, and another which is a to medically cure the mother through the removal of tissue which unfortunately leads to the death of the child because we do not have the technology to transplant the child into the uterus.

[jmdrake]

There is a big difference between something which has one purpose, that is to kill the child, and another which is a to medically cure the mother through the removal of
tissue which unfortunately leads to the death of the child because we do not have the technology to transplant the child into the uterus.

1) Chemotherapy, what I talked about initially and what you dishonestly clipped out, has the sole purpose of curing cancer, but it can cause a natural abortion.

2) Medically what is described in point #1 is still called an "abortion" but your Catholic sensibilities cause you to react illogically when the word is used.

3) Taking "tissue out" and "throwing it in the trash" when there is still a baby inside is no ethically better then injecting chemicals to kill said baby no matter how you or 1 million other Bishops try to dress it up.

Edit:

4) Your "it's okay to take the baby out with the tissue and throw it in the trash" position actually fits the "pushing someone who's bleeding and attracting sharks out into the water" scenario whether you can admit that or not. In both cases you aren't directly killing the "victim" (different from the cannibalism case you cited) and in both cases the victim doesn't immediately die. In fact in the shark case there's always the possibility the victim could catch a ride on a dolphin.

[loveableteddybear]

NYers are idiots that beg for their rights to be taken away. They are a hopeless bunch.

(I live in NY)

[Lucille]

NYers are idiots that beg for their rights to be taken away. They are a hopeless bunch.

(I live in NY)

Vox Day (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/01/defying-king-cuomo.html#comment-form) asked yesterday, "Note that the Canadian government backed down when Canadians didn't comply. Are New Yorkers really more servile than Canadians?"

Evidently yes, they are. (NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvWGZpu_TXw#t=1m53s

[gwax23]

I agree with Confederate 110%. I live in NY. Cuomo Bloomberg and all the rest are all filth. This new proposal is disgusting.

I urge people to read up on Abortion in the soviet union. The Statistics and numbers are astonishing. That where we are headed in this country.