Gov. Cuomo wants to kill more babies

[itshappening]

He also wants to allow "healthcare professionals" rather than doctors perform abortions, what can go wrong?

-
ALBANY — Bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is putting the finishing touches on legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

Mr. Cuomo, seeking to deliver on a promise he made in his recent State of the State address, would rewrite a law that currently allows abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy only if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. The law is not enforced, because it is superseded by federal court rulings that allow late-term abortions to protect a woman’s health, even if her life is not in jeopardy. But abortion rights advocates say the existence of the more restrictive state law has a chilling effect on some doctors and prompts some women to leave the state for late-term abortions.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.

Abortion rights advocates have welcomed Mr. Cuomo’s plan, which he outlined in general terms as part of a broader package of women’s rights initiatives in his State of the State address in January. But the Roman Catholic Church and anti-abortion groups are dismayed; opponents have labeled the legislation the Abortion Expansion Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/nyregion/cuomo-bucks-tide-with-bill-to-lift-abortion-limits.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[supermario21]

I hope he runs for president.

[Anti Federalist]

Why not just jump the shark and be done with all the pussy footing around?

A women (funny, the father never has any say so in the matter) has the right to infanticide up to the age of 2.

Very green, very "eco-concious", very "progressive".

[James Madison]

I hope he runs for president.

He would probably win.


Why not just jump the shark and be done with all the pussy footing around?

A women (funny, the father never has any say so in the matter) has the right to infanticide up to the age of 2.

Very green, very "eco-concious", very "progressive".

That would at least make sense. Better than saying the child is magically different after popping out of its mother.

[itshappening]

He would probably support post-birth abortion. The debate now seems to be at what age can you murder a disabled child.

[jkob]

what a sick man

[AuH20]

I hope he runs for president.

He's pretty much unelectable, then again the retard demographic is growly rapidly.

[tod evans]

I'd give ya 100 reps for the dad comment, sadly I'm limited to one...


Why not just jump the shark and be done with all the pussy footing around?

A women (funny, the father never has any say so in the matter) has the right to infanticide up to the age of 2.

Very green, very "eco-concious", very "progressive".

[No Free Beer]

He's pretty much unelectable, then again the retard demographic is growly rapidly.

you made me lol

[Smart3]

With the exception of taxpayer funding, I'm very supportive of this. In fact it doesn't go far enough.

[libertygrl]

Wait a minute.. am I understanding this correctly? It does say when a woman's health is in danger, no? I'm against abortion in other instances but when it comes to rape and possibility of death, I'd like to know there's an option should the woman be in danger. I'm not saying this choice wouldn't be difficult to make, (my God I wouldn't wish it on anyone) but ultimately the choice has to be made by the woman.

[Smart3]

Wait a minute.. am I understanding this correctly? It does say when a woman's health is in danger, no? I'm against abortion in other instances but when it comes to rape and possibility of death, I'd like to know there's an option should the woman be in danger. I'm not saying this choice wouldn't be difficult to make, (my God I wouldn't wish it on anyone) but ultimately the choice has to be made by the woman.

At the moment the law doesn't protect women seeking abortions in all cases of life/health. If Roe were repealed, NY law would have to be amended to allow the abortions you're ok with. Essentially Cuomo is just doing what people want anyways.

[libertyjam]

Why not just jump the shark and be done with all the pussy footing around?

A women (funny, the father never has any say so in the matter) has the right to infanticide up to the age of 2.

Very green, very "eco-concious", very "progressive".

Don't stop there! codify "I brought you into this world, I can dang sure take you out of it!" /s

[libertyjam]

He would probably support post-birth abortion. The debate now seems to be at what age can you murder a disabled child.

I say 30 sounds good /s(arc)

[asurfaholic]

This whole issue is nothing but a distraction from the things that are really important. Such as a government that is reserving the power to kill any american it deems "dangerous" to society. And a unsustainable fiscal policy that is putting this nation, which was once great, in grave danger of collasping from the inside out.

Bickering about it on an online forum does nothing but create animosity between people who need to unite against the government. The small details can be worked out later.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Cuomo knows the Medicare-ObamaCare; Fraud, Waste, and Abuse of the medical system. It's encouraged by the state/feds on return funding. What does that mean, Receiving money for Doctor performed operations. Now they can receive FED millions, and pay some medical peon/PA to work on your body. Then Cuomo can transfer the profits to where they want... most likely to Campaign donors.

[Danke]

Why not just jump the shark and be done with all the pussy footing around?

A women (funny, the father never has any say so in the matter) has the right to infanticide up to the age of 2.

Very green, very "eco-concious", very "progressive".

2 seems a bit arbitrary. I'd say when the "child" can form a complete sentence, that should be the cut off.

[Confederate]

2 seems a bit arbitrary. I'd say when the "child" can form a complete sentence, that should be the cut off.

Does "no, daddy" count as a complete sentence?

[shane77m]

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/abortion-v-protected.jpg?w=450&h=431

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/abortion-v-eagle-egg.jpg?w=450&h=430


http://youtu.be/pTjccxVZ8B0

[Danke]

Does "no, daddy" count as a complete sentence?

No.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNR4hKbSH7I

[Antischism]

I don't see a problem if it's for protecting the woman's health/life. That's what this article states, right?

[Confederate]

I don't see a problem if it's for protecting the woman's health/life. That's what this article states, right?

I see a problem when that means murdering innocent children.

[Antischism]

I see a problem when that means murdering innocent children.

It's up to the individual in a situation where their life is in danger if they don't have an abortion. It's a difficult one, but it's also up to the person. I'm not going to call a woman "murderer" if she decides to have an abortion if it means it would save her life.

[Confederate]

It's up to the individual in a situation where their life is in danger if they don't have an abortion. It's a difficult one, but it's also up to the person. I'm not going to call a woman "murderer" if she decides to have an abortion if it means it would save her life.

Abortion is always murder. There is no case where it can be justified.

Killing another human is only justifiable as a form of self-defense and the other is the aggressor. A child is never an aggressor, it is innocent, therefore there is no way to justify killing that child.

[amy31416]

Abortion is always murder. There is no case where it can be justified.

Killing another human is only justifiable as a form of self-defense and the other is the aggressor. A child is never an aggressor, it is innocent, therefore there is no way to justify killing that child.

Not even in cases where both the mother and child will die?

[Confederate]

Not even in cases where both the mother and child will die?

This sums up those cases:


In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the twofold, or double effect, states that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects as long as the following conditions are all met. The example shown is for the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, where the preborn child is developing in the Fallopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the tube will eventually rupture and will probably cause the death of both the mother and the child.[13]

(1) The object of the action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. In this case, the object of the surgery is to remove a pathological organ which presents a threat to the life of the woman. By contrast, the object of surgical or chemical abortion is simply to kill the preborn child ["object" is the end toward which an action tends, and does not connote the intention(s) of the operator, as does the word "objective"].

(2) The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself. In this case, the good effect (saving the mother's life) is not caused by the bad effect (the death of the preborn child). By contrast, in the case of direct abortion (surgical or chemical abortion), the death of the child is wrongly considered to be the "good" effect.

(3) The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. In the case of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want to kill the baby; his death is an unintended and unwanted side effect of the surgery. By contrast, the intent of abortion is to kill the preborn child.

(4) There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the reason is to save the life of the mother, a good that is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the baby's death. Pro-abortion groups often stretch this principle to absurd lengths, going so far as to justify all abortions under the principle of the double effect because, as they allege, all abortions threaten the life of the mother.[14]

(5) Sometimes a fifth condition is added, implicit in (4), above, namely, that there is no other alternative available to solve the problem at hand. If there are alternatives other than the intervention that offer better possibilities to save both mother and preborn child, these of course must be used.
In fact, this last condition is the one that most clearly distinguishes the "indirect abortion" case (the case under the double effect principle) from the "therapeutic" abortion case. "Therapeutic" abortion is direct abortion, and therefore is always gravely evil. It is the abortion committed with the (supposed) intention of saving the mother's life, but where one or more of the above conditions are not met. Basically, the doctor in this case does have alternatives to save both mother and preborn child, but chooses abortion as the most expedient way to solve the problem at hand. The phrase "therapeutic abortion" is in fact an oxymoron, since no direct abortion is therapeutic, i.e. it does not "cure" anyone of an illness, but instead kills an innocent human being.

When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, he has two patients. He must do all in his power to save both. He may not kill either patient. He must certainly try to save both. He may not always be able to do so.

[roho76]

Does "no, daddy" count as a complete sentence?

No. You didn't capitalize the first letter and you forgot the period at the end.

Besides, he's a hero. He's saving all these children from being killed with an assault weapon (most likely by a government agent who has the wrong address).

[roho76]

Does "no, daddy" count as a complete sentence?

No. You didn't capitalize the first letter and you forgot the period at the end.

Besides, he's a hero. He's saving all these children from being killed with an assault weapon (most likely by a government agent who has the wrong address).

[Anti Federalist]

With the exception of taxpayer funding, I'm very supportive of this. In fact it doesn't go far enough.

LOL - See what I mean.

[Anti Federalist]

2 seems a bit arbitrary. I'd say when the "child" can form a complete sentence, that should be the cut off.

And if your child is an idiot and can't form full sentences until 10 or so?

[Anti Federalist]

This whole issue is nothing but a distraction from the things that are really important. Such as a government that is reserving the power to kill any american it deems "dangerous" to society. And a unsustainable fiscal policy that is putting this nation, which was once great, in grave danger of collasping from the inside out.

Bickering about it on an online forum does nothing but create animosity between people who need to unite against the government. The small details can be worked out later.

Very true, but what is this government's "end game"?

Well, very simply, the end game of every tyrannical regime known to man.

The mass eradication of "undesirables".

Measures like this broaden that "undesirable" demographic.

A controversial and divisive statement, nonetheless true, and no "small detail", really.

[amy31416]

This sums up those cases:



When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, he has two patients. He must do all in his power to save both. He may not kill either patient. He must certainly try to save both. He may not always be able to do so.

Ectopic pregnancy's termination is abortion, you just don't want to call it that. RU-486 is even used in some early cases (though even that can be dangerous), and not all of these type of cases are limited to ectopic pregnancies.

[tod evans]

When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, he has two patients. He must do all in his power to save both. He may not kill either patient. He must certainly try to save both. He may not always be able to do so.

As a man/a father, I must have equal legal authority over any fetus my sperm helps create, this idea that decisions regarding a fetus is between a woman, her doctor and the state leaves the father out in the cold.

A fetus can't speak for itself but you can bet your ass a father can..

[Confederate]

As a man/a father, I must have equal legal authority over any fetus my sperm helps create, this idea that decisions regarding a fetus is between a woman, her doctor and the state leaves the father out in the cold.

A fetus can't speak for itself but you can bet your ass a father can..

I completely agree and I never said that shouldn't be the case. What I said was that in a pregnancy the doctor has two patients: the mother and child.

[tod evans]

I completely agree and I never said that shouldn't be the case. What I said was that in a pregnancy the doctor has two patients: the mother and child.

And who speaks for the "child" (fetus) when the mother and doctor conspire to abort?

[Confederate]

And who speaks for the "child" (fetus) when the mother and doctor conspire to abort?

I believe it is the role of the father and even the state at that point (the state only should exist to protect life, liberty, and property). I'm not saying the father shouldn't be an advocate for the child, he absolutely should be. All I said is the doctor's patients are the mother and child. The doctor is responsible for the well-being of the mother and child, not of the father.

[tod evans]

I believe it is the role of the father and even the state at that point (the state only should exist to protect life, liberty, and property). I'm not saying the father shouldn't be an advocate for the child, he absolutely should be. All I said is the doctor's patients are the mother and child. The doctor is responsible for the well-being of the mother and child, not of the father.

I could be reading this wrong, but it sounds as though you defer to the state instead of the father if doctor and mother conspire to abort the fetus..

Am I confused?

[Confederate]

I could be reading this wrong, but it sounds as though you defer to the state instead of the father if doctor and mother conspire to abort the fetus..

Am I confused?

If the mother and doctor conspire to murder the unborn child, then yes, the state should be involved in charging them with conspiracy to commit murder/attempted murder/premeditated murder (depending on how far it got).

[Matthew5]

My wife had a life threatening pregnancy...we celebrate my daughter's 5th birthday next month.

[Danke]

And if your child is an idiot and can't form full sentences until 10 or so?

Why would you want to keep it?

[Confederate]

My wife had a life threatening pregnancy...we celebrate my daughter's 5th birthday next month.

Congratulations :)

Ron Paul on this issue:


Abortion is frequently justified as a method for the mother to end or avoid various diseases. This argument is grossly exaggerated and was only a subterfuge used by the promoters of abortion to remove the legal restraints against performing abortions. In delivering nearly 4,000 babies, I personally never came across a need even to entertain the thought of therapeutic abortion for the health of the mother, nor can I imagine the story book case of the doctor being forced into a crisis and making a decision of whose life to spare—mother or baby. Such distorted medical views have come from poorly researched movies on the subject. The state of pregnancy is natural; it’s not a disease; and it is complimentary to both fetus and mother. Most of the time it’s a delightful period for the mother and she feels better than at any other time in her life.

[Occam's Banana]

[...] women [have] the right to infanticide up to the age of 2. [/sarcasm]


That would at least make sense. Better than saying the child is magically different after popping out of its mother.

So ... saying a child is "magically different" two years after "popping out of its mother" makes sense ...

... at least, more sense than saying a child is "magically different" immediately after "popping out of its mother" ...

Ooooookay ... :rolleyes:

[UMULAS]

............

[Matthew5]

Doesn't all pregnancies carry a certain amount of risk? Who makes the decision on what is dangerous to the mother?

Thankfully we had a doctor that cared for both the life of our daughter and my wife when a life threatening situation came up. This seems to add another excuse for "health professionals" to use to murder children.

New York is 0-2 in legislation this year!

[James Madison]

So ... saying a child is "magically different" two years after "popping out of its mother" makes sense ...

... at least, more sense than saying a child is "magically different" immediately after "popping out of its mother" ...

Ooooookay ... :rolleyes:

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.:rolleyes:

[Occam's Banana]

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.:rolleyes:

Was it? In any abortion thread involving Smart3, it becomes impossible to tell (unless explicit indicators are deployed). ;)

[TER]

Ron Paul:

In delivering nearly 4,000 babies, I personally never came across a need even to entertain the thought of therapeutic abortion for the health of the mother, nor can I imagine the story book case of the doctor being forced into a crisis and making a decision of whose life to spare—mother or baby.

I respectfully have to disagree with Dr. Paul here. As an emergency physician, I have seen more cases then I can remember of patients who came in close to death due to intraperitoneal bleeding from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, and several in which they did die. Ectopic pregnancy is the number one cause of mortality for first trimester pregnant women. The death rate in untreated ectopic pregnacy is very high, and this is still seen today in underdeveloped countries. I am not sure exactly what Dr. Paul is talking about with the quote above. Perhaps he doesn't consider an ectopic pregnancy to be a pregnancy? I am not sure, but this quote of his has always stood out to me (as a person who has seen people die from ectopic pregnancies) to be hard to understand.

In the Orthodox Church, abortions are a sin in every instance and is considered murder. That being said, in the special circumstance of an ectopic pregnancy where the women's life is in jeopardy, through the blessings of the Bishop there is allowed special dispensation to allow abortion as a means to defend the life of the women. The act is still considered sinful and thus requires spiritual guidance, much prayer and repentance of all involved. (I know some may be getting sick of me bringing up the Orthodox Church but I bring it up so that others can see how such sensitive topics are approached through a Christian mindset.)

[Confederate]

Was it? In any abortion thread involving Smart3, it becomes impossible to tell (unless explicit indicators are deployed). ;)

He's clearly said he has absolutely no problem with any abortion. He's even said that some children should be aborted as a crime prevention strategy and that he's still unsure of whether it would be unethical to murder a newborn.

[Confederate]

I respectfully have to disagree with Dr. Paul here. As an emergency physician, I have seen more cases then I can remember of patients who came in close to death due to intraperitoneal bleeding from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is the number one cause of mortality for first trimester pregnant women. The death rate in untreated ectopic pregnacy is very high, and this is still seen today in underdeveloped countries. I am not sure exactly what Dr. Paul is talking about with the quote above. Perhaps he doesn't consider an ectopic pregnancy to be a pregnancy? I am not sure, but this quote of his has always stood out to me (as a person who has seen people die from ectopic pregnancies) to be hard to understand.

In the Orthodox Church, abortions are a sin in every instance and is considered murder. That being said, in the special circumstance of an ectopic pregnancy where the women's life is in jeopardy, through the blessings of the Bishop there is allowed special dispensation to allow abortion as a means to defend the life of the women. The act is still considered sinful and for this requires spiritual guidance, much prayer and repentance of all involved. (I know some may be getting sick of me bringing up the Orthodox Church but I bring it up so that others can see how such sensitive topics are approached through a Christian mindset.)

Ectopic pregnancy is a whole other matter. What are the odds of a woman successfully carrying an ectopic pregnancy to term? According to this source (http://www.pregnancy-tips-and-advice.com/ectopic-pregnancy.html) it's 1 in 1,000,000.

I posted this earlier in the thread, which is the Catholic view on what can be done in that situation. I'm sure the Orthodox view is very similar:


In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the twofold, or double effect, states that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects as long as the following conditions are all met. The example shown is for the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, where the preborn child is developing in the Fallopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the tube will eventually rupture and will probably cause the death of both the mother and the child.[13]

(1) The object of the action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. In this case, the object of the surgery is to remove a pathological organ which presents a threat to the life of the woman. By contrast, the object of surgical or chemical abortion is simply to kill the preborn child ["object" is the end toward which an action tends, and does not connote the intention(s) of the operator, as does the word "objective"].

(2) The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself. In this case, the good effect (saving the mother's life) is not caused by the bad effect (the death of the preborn child). By contrast, in the case of direct abortion (surgical or chemical abortion), the death of the child is wrongly considered to be the "good" effect.

(3) The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. In the case of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want to kill the baby; his death is an unintended and unwanted side effect of the surgery. By contrast, the intent of abortion is to kill the preborn child.

(4) There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the reason is to save the life of the mother, a good that is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the baby's death. Pro-abortion groups often stretch this principle to absurd lengths, going so far as to justify all abortions under the principle of the double effect because, as they allege, all abortions threaten the life of the mother.[14]

(5) Sometimes a fifth condition is added, implicit in (4), above, namely, that there is no other alternative available to solve the problem at hand. If there are alternatives other than the intervention that offer better possibilities to save both mother and preborn child, these of course must be used.
In fact, this last condition is the one that most clearly distinguishes the "indirect abortion" case (the case under the double effect principle) from the "therapeutic" abortion case. "Therapeutic" abortion is direct abortion, and therefore is always gravely evil. It is the abortion committed with the (supposed) intention of saving the mother's life, but where one or more of the above conditions are not met. Basically, the doctor in this case does have alternatives to save both mother and preborn child, but chooses abortion as the most expedient way to solve the problem at hand. The phrase "therapeutic abortion" is in fact an oxymoron, since no direct abortion is therapeutic, i.e. it does not "cure" anyone of an illness, but instead kills an innocent human being.

[James Madison]

In the Orthodox Church, abortions are a sin in every instance and is considered murder. That being said, in the special circumstance of an ectopic pregnancy where the women's life is in jeopardy, through the blessings of the Bishop there is allowed special dispensation to allow abortion as a means to defend the life of the women. The act is still considered sinful and thus requires spiritual guidance, much prayer and repentance of all involved. (I know some may be getting sick of me bringing up the Orthodox Church but I bring it up so that others can see how such sensitive topics are approached through a Christian mindset.)

This paragraph is a theological mess.

[Occam's Banana]

He's clearly said he has absolutely no problem with any abortion. He's even said that some children should be aborted as a crime prevention strategy and that he's still unsure of whether it would be unethical to murder a newborn.

Precisely so. He actually seems to mean it, too. He moves the bar so far that it's hard to tell when someone else is being serious or sarcastic about such things ...

[TER]

I posted this earlier in the thread, which is the Catholic view on what can be done in that situation. I'm sure the Orthodox view is very similar:

Interesting article and thanks for posting it! I agree with most of it, though I do have a problem with one part of it. For example, an ectopic pregnancy does not need to end in natural death of the fetus. Indeed there are cases (albeit rare) in which ectopic pregnancies have lasted until a live birth and survival of the baby. As one would expect, this is a very risky option and few are willing to take it, but for some pious faithful, this has been the option they have chosen, and sadly many women have died as a result (though, I would argue that they likely gained the Kingdom of Heaven in exchange!)

The decision for surgery can be difficult and of course sometimes must be made in an emergency situation where there is little time to act. There are indeed real instances in which a live pregnancy can cause death to the mother (and this is not only in regards to ectopic pregnancies, but with placenta abruptio and ecclampsia where the treatment is immediate premature delivery of the infant to save the mother's life which may cause the baby to die).

The point I am (badly) making, is that there are indeed instances in which the mother's life is at great risk if the pregnancy proceeds and we should acknowledge that and I think Dr. Paul's quote does not help.

[TER]

This paragraph is a theological mess.

:) Do you believe in murder as an act of self-defense?

[James Madison]

:) Do you believe in murder as an act of self-defense?

I don't believe the Bishop has any authority in this regard. God is the sole Arbiter in the affairs of men; if an abortion occurs it is because God predestined it.

And to answer your question: No, killing in self-defense is never murder, by definition.

[TER]

I don't believe the Bishop has any authority in this regard. God is the sole Arbiter in the affairs of men; if an abortion occurs it is because God predestined it.

I see. So if a women decided to have an abortion and kill the baby because she simply decided she doesn't want to have a baby, then God willed it. And you don't think THAT is a theological mess?

[James Madison]

I see. So if a women decided to have an abortion and kill the baby because she simply decided she doesn't want to have a baby, then God willed it. And you don't think THAT is a theological mess?

Not if you're a Calvinist.;)

[TER]

Not if you're a Calvinist.;)

I understand. I am not a Calvinist, so I don't ascribe God to be responsible for the evil acts of men.

[Matthew5]

Forgive my medical ignorance, but couldn't an ectopic pregnancy be considered a miscarriage?

[Confederate]

I don't believe the Bishop has any authority in this regard. God is the sole Arbiter in the affairs of men; if an abortion occurs it is because God predestined it.

And to answer your question: No, killing in self-defense is never murder, by definition.

God does not predestine evil. He certainly does not predestine murder of innocent children.

[TER]

Forgive my medical ignorance, but couldn't an ectopic pregnancy be considered a miscarriage?

Nothing to forgive! Miscarriage is a general term used to describe the loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week of pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is when the fetus is implanted in a location outside the normal site of implantation (notably, the fundus of the uterus). If the fetus dies in an ectopic pregnancy, then it is considered a miscarriage. If the fetus is still alive in an ectopic pregnancy, then it is not a miscarriage.

[James Madison]

I understand. I am not a Calvinist, so I don't ascribe God to be responsible for the evil acts of men.

So, man is responsible for his own evil actions? Then he is also responsible for his Godly actions. In which case, man is righteous without God.


God does not predestine evil. He certainly does not predestine murder of innocent children.

If God isn't in complete control of everything, anywhere at any time, then he is not God. Every action, no matter how evil it would seem to man, must have a purpose and a part in God's larger plan.

[TER]

Confederate, do not argue with Calvinists. In their minds, you are already damned to hell.

[Smart3]

As a man/a father, I must have equal legal authority over any fetus my sperm helps create, this idea that decisions regarding a fetus is between a woman, her doctor and the state leaves the father out in the cold.

A fetus can't speak for itself but you can bet your ass a father can..

You're not the one with the parasite in your body. So no sir, you don't have any equal legal authority.

[bolil]

You're not the one with the parasite in your body. So no sir, you don't have any equal legal authority.

So you are comparing a baby to a tick? What makes you less of a parasite than a baby? Or me? Anyone on welfare, then, could be called a parasite. Should we abort them?

[TER]

So you are comparing a baby to a tick? What makes you less of a parasite than a baby? Or me? Anyone on welfare, then, could be called a parasite. Should we abort them?

Be careful what you ask. You may get the answer you were expecting...

[tod evans]

You're not the one with the parasite in your body. So no sir, you don't have any equal legal authority.

Parasite eh?

What a severely warped outlook on life...

Any other pearls of wisdom to share?

[Occam's Banana]

[Smart3] moves the bar so far that it's hard to tell when someone else is being serious or sarcastic about such things ...

You're not the one with the parasite in your body. So no sir, you don't have any equal legal authority.

QED.

[Smart3]

So you are comparing a baby to a tick? What makes you less of a parasite than a baby? Or me? Anyone on welfare, then, could be called a parasite. Should we abort them?

If people are not contributing to society, then they should be forced to contribute. None of this welfare crap. Everyone is capable of contributing. If for some reason they are not able, then they should be offered pills, because clearly they have no reason to continue living.

[bolil]

troll spotted.

[TER]

The role of the physician is not to make the decision for abortion. It must be the decision ultimately of the mother, for the baby lives within her. She has the most authority of any person apart from God with regards to the fate of the baby growing within her. By her very blood she feeds it and gives it life.

In the real world, if she would come into an ER in a comatose state or her wishes were unknown and timely decisions needed to be taken, the medical teaching is to do everything possible to save both the baby and the mother. The best way to ensure this be the outcome is to aggressively treat that which ails the mother, because if she dies, then both will likely die. The old adage is "treat the mother and save the baby". If it appears in those yet even rarer instances when only one can be saved, then the teaching is to save the life of the mother (unless she otherwise directs it or wills otherwise to give her life for the life of the baby). It is a fair system which has held true since the days of Hippocrates and it does not need to be changed now IMHO.

Doctors performing abortions bear great responsibility in this sin, and they carry much of it upon them. They will be held to give account for all of it eventually before the Judgement Seat of Christ.

Voluntary abortion is a sin, no matter what the reason. It must be approached in such a manner so as to find healing and grace from God. There must be penance and contrition. There must be forgiveness. There must be humility.

To do this, we must understand that any killing of another made in the image of God is sin, whether it is the fetus in utero or the enemy soldier in the front lines. Soldiers who have killed while in action and women who have terminated their pregnancies must repent of their deeds and pray to God for forgiveness. Indeed, all of us must repent of our evil deeds and pray to Him for mercy.

[Matthew5]

So if it were planted outside of the uterus, what is the odds of actual survival? I can understand a Bishop weighing the ramifications of this as medically necessary as it would only serve to kill the mother and the baby would be miscarried anyway.

However the original article is about late-term abortions where the mother's health is threatened. What situation could justify ending a life at this point? I'm assuming that since it's past 20 weeks that the fetus is in the proper place, what medical conditions could arise that it would need to be killed?

[shane77m]

I still don't understand the need for late term abortions. Many children born prematurely live to be healthy and happy. In my mind, selfishness and greed are the reason they are performed.

[Matthew5]

I still don't understand the need for late term abortions. Many children born prematurely live to be healthy and happy. In my mind, selfishness and greed are the reason they are performed.

I agree, with today's medical technology, seems as if the baby can be saved from an early stage. I can't fathom a justification for this.

[TER]

So if it were planted outside of the uterus, what is the odds of actual survival? I can understand a Bishop weighing the ramifications of this as medically necessary as it would only serve to kill the mother and the baby would be miscarried anyway.

The odds of an ectopic pregnancy going to term and being born live is extremely low (probably on the order of less then one percent). The overwhelmingly vast majority of the time the baby dies, and if untreated, the mother often dies as well.


However the original article is about late-term abortions where the mother's health is threatened. What situation could justify ending a life at this point? I'm assuming that since it's past 20 weeks that the fetus is in the proper place, what medical conditions could arise that it would need to be killed?

The most common instances where the mother's immediate life is threatened later in pregnancy would be eclampsia and placental abruption. In these instances, the definitive treatment to save the life of the mother is delivery of the baby. Most times this occurs late enough in pregnancy where the baby does survive, but unfortunately sometimes the baby does not. These instances (which are thankfully not common) often times occur suddenly and without warning and timely life and death decisions need to be made at a moments notice.

[KrokHead]

I like how in NY it's harder for a kid to get aspirin in school than birth control.

[UMULAS]

..........

[Anti Federalist]

If people are not contributing to society, then they should be forced to contribute. None of this welfare crap. Everyone is capable of contributing. If for some reason they are not able, then they should be offered pills, because clearly they have no reason to continue living.

Far out, Libertarian Stalinism.

[libertygrl]

It's up to the individual in a situation where their life is in danger if they don't have an abortion. It's a difficult one, but it's also up to the person. I'm not going to call a woman "murderer" if she decides to have an abortion if it means it would save her life.

That's my sentiments exactly. Thank you.

[Anti Federalist]

Very valid point and I just had to deal with this very situation in a maritime setting just two months ago.

I would almost have to say that Ron doesn't view an ectopic "pregnancy" as a pregnancy at all, as you noted. There is not a normal progression of embryonic development but rather a metastasis. A cancerous tumor, while "living" is not an emerging embryo.

As we are both well aware, it is a very painful and life threatening, immediate, medical emergency.


I respectfully have to disagree with Dr. Paul here. As an emergency physician, I have seen more cases then I can remember of patients who came in close to death due to intraperitoneal bleeding from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, and several in which they did die. Ectopic pregnancy is the number one cause of mortality for first trimester pregnant women. The death rate in untreated ectopic pregnacy is very high, and this is still seen today in underdeveloped countries. I am not sure exactly what Dr. Paul is talking about with the quote above. Perhaps he doesn't consider an ectopic pregnancy to be a pregnancy? I am not sure, but this quote of his has always stood out to me (as a person who has seen people die from ectopic pregnancies) to be hard to understand.

In the Orthodox Church, abortions are a sin in every instance and is considered murder. That being said, in the special circumstance of an ectopic pregnancy where the women's life is in jeopardy, through the blessings of the Bishop there is allowed special dispensation to allow abortion as a means to defend the life of the women. The act is still considered sinful and thus requires spiritual guidance, much prayer and repentance of all involved. (I know some may be getting sick of me bringing up the Orthodox Church but I bring it up so that others can see how such sensitive topics are approached through a Christian mindset.)

[Anti Federalist]

Mao Spotted

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01568/mao_1568761c.jpg[

http://cille85.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/stalin__s_future_by_extremefatboy.jpg

[UMULAS]

........

[The Free Hornet]

He also wants to allow "healthcare professionals" rather than doctors perform abortions, what can go wrong?

What can go right with state licensing of medical professionals. Such licensing was one of the original motivations for globbing onto this emotional issue and still is today. Why do you fall for this crap?


... when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

Who cares. Mind your business.


... the existence of the more restrictive state law has a chilling effect on some doctors and prompts some women to leave the state for late-term abortions.

State laws that are not enforced or are not enforcable AND that restrict individual power (not Federal power), should be taken off the books.


Also,


Gov. Cuomo wants to kill more babies

This is unsourced. Since legislation tends to have an opposite effect to the stated goals, how can you be so sure? He probably doesn't give a fuck which would be a good starting point for most on this issue.


Also, the anti-abortionists are spineless that want ZERO punishment for murder suspect number one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

There continues to be little-to-no evidence that anti-abortionists are anything but pro-medical regulation types. Too few want the mother punished for first-degree murder. Too many want doctors regulated and the surveillance-empowered state to address the issue. Like your typical progressive, they expect the state to do a better job deciding these affairs - on average - than the individual, on average.

[jmdrake]

Wait a minute.. am I understanding this correctly? It does say when a woman's health is in danger, no? I'm against abortion in other instances but when it comes to rape and possibility of death, I'd like to know there's an option should the woman be in danger. I'm not saying this choice wouldn't be difficult to make, (my God I wouldn't wish it on anyone) but ultimately the choice has to be made by the woman.

So viability of the fetus too? The woman's life and health is not in danger but she decides "Oh I think this baby will die....so I'll kill it anyway."

Regardless, that late in the pregnancy there's really no life or health reason for an abortion. The woman could get a c-section which is generally safer than a late term abortion. So what's going in is that women's health is being put in jeopardy just to protect the "right" to kill an unborn child under false pretenses.

[TER]

Regardless, that late in the pregnancy there's really no life or health reason for an abortion. The woman could get a c-section which is generally safer than a late term abortion. So what's going in is that women's health is being put in jeopardy just to protect the "right" to kill an unborn child under false pretenses.

I think there may be confusion in some of the terminology. An emergency delivery in instances of late term complications when the mothers life is indeed in jeopardy (such as in eclampsia), the treatment is to abort the pregnancy via cesarean section. We should understand that abortion does not always equal intention to kill the baby in late term complications. Sadly, such premature delivery of the baby does carry risk of death to the newborn. (Again, I am referring to instances when this is done emergently to save the life of the mother and not for other reasons such as voluntary death of the baby)

[DamianTV]

Here is a Socialist Solution that I am sure will be proposed.

Why not require Pregnancies to only occur with a Govt / Church issued license so that anyone who might even consider an abortion be denied permission to get pregnant?

People act as if Permission to get Pregnant is theirs to give already, as they already claim to have complete and total jurisdiction over those who are pregnant by attempting to tell those that are pregnant what they can and can not do with their own bodes. This is the polar opposite of what it means to be truly free. But honestly, Im half ass suprised that no one has passed a law yet (*afaik*) that prohibits the pregnant from consuming alcohol. What I am not half ass suprised is that there are no laws yet (again, *afaik*) that prohibit the pregnant from taking any prescriptions drugs.

The point being that unless you WANT Pregnancies to be Licensed by the Govt / Church, keep making your anti abortion efforts.

[Smart3]

Here is a Socialist Solution that I am sure will be proposed.

Why not require Pregnancies to only occur with a Govt / Church issued license so that anyone who might even consider an abortion be denied permission to get pregnant?

People act as if Permission to get Pregnant is theirs to give already, as they already claim to have complete and total jurisdiction over those who are pregnant by attempting to tell those that are pregnant what they can and can not do with their own bodes. This is the polar opposite of what it means to be truly free. But honestly, Im half ass suprised that no one has passed a law yet (*afaik*) that prohibits the pregnant from consuming alcohol. What I am not half ass suprised is that there are no laws yet (again, *afaik*) that prohibit the pregnant from taking any prescriptions drugs.

The point being that unless you WANT Pregnancies to be Licensed by the Govt / Church, keep making your anti abortion efforts.
I actually know someone who thinks government should only grant marriage licenses to couples that pledge pregnancy in the first year. People who couldn't reproduce, wouldn't be allowed to be married or have any benefits.

[Matthew5]

The point being that unless you WANT Pregnancies to be Licensed by the Govt / Church, keep making your anti abortion efforts.

A civil society already regulates murder, why would pregnancy have to be regulated as well?

[libertygrl]

So viability of the fetus too? The woman's life and health is not in danger but she decides "Oh I think this baby will die....so I'll kill it anyway."

Regardless, that late in the pregnancy there's really no life or health reason for an abortion. The woman could get a c-section which is generally safer than a late term abortion. So what's going in is that women's health is being put in jeopardy just to protect the "right" to kill an unborn child under false pretenses.

First off, it's not for the woman to decide if she thinks the baby will die anyway.The prognosis would come from her Dr.

Obviously, it has to be a last resort measure if the woman is about to lose her life. And I agree, if a c-section can save both, then what's the problem of doing that? But if this is all being put in under false pretense then it's wrong.

I'm sure the NYS Catholic Diocese is not happy with Cuomo who is supposedly a Catholic.

[Confederate]

I'm sure the NYS Catholic Diocese is not happy with Cuomo who is supposedly a Catholic.

So are Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Both have been barred from receiving Communion by their Bishops.

[bolil]

I actually know someone who thinks government should only grant marriage licenses to couples that pledge pregnancy in the first year. People who couldn't reproduce, wouldn't be allowed to be married or have any benefits.

and how does stali...errr... you feel about that?

[presence]

My stance on abortion: THE 10 GRAM RULE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396831-My-stance-on-abortion-THE-10-GRAM-RULE&highlight=nickles+ten+gram+rule)