Politics Third trimester abortions?

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/25/...s-through-the-heart-with-poison-to-kill-them/

“Expanding cruel and brutal third-trimester abortions has long been a goal of the anti-life lobby who never met an abortion they didn’t like,” said Lori Kehoe, New York State Right to Life executive director. “With no regard for the fully developed unborn baby who is violently dismembered, or otherwise killed, the New York State Assembly once again put the abortion lobby above New York State women and their children.”

AB 6221, sponsored by Assemblywoman Glick, would change existing New York State law, which currently allows for abortion in the third trimester when the mother’s life is in danger, to allow abortion on-demand throughout all nine months. The law would be changed to allow abortion for any reason deemed “relevant to the well-being of the patient” including physical, emotional, psychological, and familial factors, and the mother’s age.

AB 6221 has no interest in the life of the living, developed, unborn human child, stripping away any protections the smallest members of our human family have.

I understand and agree on "pro choice", but at third trimester the babies are actually "babies". They even dream, suck their thumb, and have full functioning anatomy. I don't know if I agree with this at this stage of pregnancy

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

The vast majority of women getting 3rd trimester abortions would be the poor. That means they're on welfare and they're democrats. Fewer people on welfare and voting democrat seems like a win to me.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
The vast majority of women getting 3rd trimester abortions would be the poor. That means they're on welfare and they're democrats. Fewer people on welfare and voting democrat seems like a win to me.

Wow!!!! Even for you, that's a little disturbing

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
Wow!!!! Even for you, that's a little disturbing

Thank you.

The article you cited was very biased. Here is more accurate reporting of what is going on:

ALBANY, N.Y. - (AP) -- The state Assembly voted Wednesday for legislation to codify in New York the abortion rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court, moving it separately this year from a group of bills intended to ensure other women's rights in the workplace and courts.

New York first established abortion rights for women in 1970, three years before the top federal court did it nationally in Roe v. Wade. While both allow terminating a pregnancy in the first 24 weeks, New York's law allows later-term abortions to protect a woman's life, while the Supreme Court said it can be done also to protect her health.

"The Assembly majority believes that in the fight for true women's equality, the most basic right of all is a woman's right to make reproductive health decisions for her own body," Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said, surrounded by advocates for the bill and Democratic colleagues. "We believe that her body is a personal space, and its privacy and autonomy must be defended."

Assembly member Deborah Glick, a Manhattan Democrat and chief sponsor, said the bill would ensure those rights in New York should a Supreme Court with different members reverse itself. "It guarantees a woman's life and health can be protected in these decisions," she said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/region-...-to-vote-again-for-abortion-rights-1.10122023

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
Thank you.

The article you cited was very biased. Here is more accurate reporting of what is going on:

ALBANY, N.Y. - (AP) -- The state Assembly voted Wednesday for legislation to codify in New York the abortion rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court, moving it separately this year from a group of bills intended to ensure other women's rights in the workplace and courts.

New York first established abortion rights for women in 1970, three years before the top federal court did it nationally in Roe v. Wade. While both allow terminating a pregnancy in the first 24 weeks, New York's law allows later-term abortions to protect a woman's life, while the Supreme Court said it can be done also to protect her health.

"The Assembly majority believes that in the fight for true women's equality, the most basic right of all is a woman's right to make reproductive health decisions for her own body," Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said, surrounded by advocates for the bill and Democratic colleagues. "We believe that her body is a personal space, and its privacy and autonomy must be defended."

Assembly member Deborah Glick, a Manhattan Democrat and chief sponsor, said the bill would ensure those rights in New York should a Supreme Court with different members reverse itself. "It guarantees a woman's life and health can be protected in these decisions," she said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/region-...-to-vote-again-for-abortion-rights-1.10122023

Yeah the article I posted is way "bias"! Lmao!!!

But the fact remains that the house passed the bill to allow for third trimester abortions. That's still pretty sick if you ask me.

MarAzul · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
allow for third trimester abortions

What I don't understand is why they limit the terminations to the 3rd trimester? Why not extend it up to 2 or 3 year olds, pow! Mom knock them off.
Hell, if a woman does not want to be mom, the third trimester is not test on her mental health, check them out after wiping their arse for a year.
That is stress!.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

MarAzul said:
What I don't understand is why they limit the terminations to the 3rd trimester? Why not extend it up to 2 or 3 year olds, pow! Mom knock them off.
Hell, if a woman does not want to be mom, the third trimester is not test on her mental health, check them out after wiping their arse for a year.
That is stress!.

I think it's because it's in the woman. She can choose to kill it until it comes out, has control of her body until the life is no longer in her body. Then when it comes out, it's a citizen and you cannot kill it.

Denny Crane · Mar 25, 2015

1% of 1M+ abortions are post 21 weeks.

It's a very rare thing. I'd expect almost always if the fetus or the woman is endangered by proceeding any further.

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
Yeah the article I posted is way "bias"! Lmao!!!

But the fact remains that the house passed the bill to allow for third trimester abortions. That's still pretty sick if you ask me.

If the mother's life was endangered. IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE WAS ENDANGERED.

"New York's law allows later-term abortions to protect a woman's life."

...

"These are wanted pregnancies," said Corinne Carey of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "These are absolute tragedies."

Her office gets calls about those late-term cases about once a year, Carey said.

Your wife is currently pregnant, if a medical situation arose where it comes down to her life or the baby's life you want the government to tell her she has to have the baby and die instead of allowing her to make that decision of what is best for her situation?

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
If the mother's life was endangered. IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE WAS ENDANGERED.

"New York's law allows later-term abortions to protect a woman's life."

...

"These are wanted pregnancies," said Corinne Carey of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "These are absolute tragedies."

Her office gets calls about those late-term cases about once a year, Carey said.

Your wife is currently pregnant, if a medical situation arose where it comes down to her life or the baby's life you want the government to tell her she has to have the baby and die instead of allowing her to make that decision of what is best for her situation?

Yes. My wife is in her third trimester and I think she would demand that she keep the baby. And emergency c-sections can save both the mother and child. There have been accounts that a baby can be 3 months premature and still survive.

llm · Mar 25, 2015

Why would anyone pass on this complete fairy tale without first checking the sources and finding out the real story???? This article was so incredibly biased and said NOTHING about shooting babies through the heart with poison. Who makes up this stuff?

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
Yeah the article I posted is way "bias"! Lmao!!!

And yes, an article posted on an anti abortion website is going to be biased. Why wouldn't it be? Why would they present both sides? The people who visit that site go there for an antiabortion view point. Being biased isn't wrong. It just isn't always completely accurate. It's like coming to RipCityTwo and expecting it to be unbiased towards Kobe and the Lakers.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

Denny Crane said:
1% of 1M+ abortions are post 21 weeks.

It's a very rare thing. I'd expect almost always if the fetus or the woman is endangered by proceeding any further.

As I said to sly, you can have emergency c-sections. I just looked it up and there are accounts of 4 month premis still surviving. That is well before the third trimester.

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
Yes. My wife is in her third trimester and I think she would demand that she keep the baby. And emergency c-sections can save both the mother and child. There have been accounts that a baby can be 3 months premature and still survive.

That's not what I asked. Don't rewrite the scenario to fit your desired outcome.

If it came down to your wife's life or your baby's life who should get to make that decision? Your wife? The government? Pick one.

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
As I said to sly, you can have emergency c-sections. I just looked it up and there are accounts of 4 month premis still surviving. That is well before the third trimester.

And there are rare medical conditions where that is not an option.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

llm said:
Why would anyone pass on this complete fairy tale without first checking the sources and finding out the real story???? This article was so incredibly biased and said NOTHING about shooting babies through the heart with poison. Who makes up this stuff?

The abortion link for late pregnancy is done this way. Look it up. They assume that if you can abort a 6-9month old baby, you would need this mean of abortion.

I will admit the article is a bit "one sided", but the late pregnancy definition is after 21 weeks, which would mean the third trimester

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
That's not what I asked. Don't rewrite the scenario to fit your desired outcome.

If it came down to your wife's life or your baby's life who should get to make that decision? Your wife? The government? Pick one.

I would say I don't see this being a medical emergency in this day and age. Do you have supporting recent accounts that support this even being an option?

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
And there are rare medical conditions where that is not an option.

Link? Current, in this country?

Denny Crane · Mar 25, 2015

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/stories/my-late-term-abortion/

As we sat there, she said that the ultrasound indicated that the fetus had an open neural tube defect, meaning that the spinal column had not closed properly. It was a term I remembered skipping right over in my pregnancy book, along with all the other fetal anomalies and birth defects that I thought referred to other people’s babies, not mine. She couldn’t tell us much more. We would have to go to the main hospital in Boston, which had a more high-tech machine and a more highly trained technician. She tried to be hopeful — there was a wide range of severity with these defects, she said. And then she left us to cry.

We drove into Boston in near silence, tears rolling down my cheeks. There was no joking or chatting at the hospital in Boston. No fuzzy kittens and kissing dolphins on the ceiling of that chilly, clinical room. Dave held my hand more tightly than before. I couldn’t bear to look at this screen. Instead, I studied the technician’s face, like a nervous flier taking her cues from the expression a stewardess wears. Her face revealed nothing.

She squirted cold jelly on my belly and then slid an even colder probe back and forth around my belly button, punching it down every so often to make the baby move for a better view. She didn’t say one word in 45 minutes. When she finished, she looked at us and confirmed our worst fears.

Instead of cinnamon and spice, our child came with technical terms like hydrocephalus and spina bifida. The spine, she said, had not closed properly, and because of the location of the opening, it was as bad as it got. What they knew — that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby’s brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid — was awful. What they didn’t know — whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects — was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

Denny Crane said:
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/stories/my-late-term-abortion/

As we sat there, she said that the ultrasound indicated that the fetus had an open neural tube defect, meaning that the spinal column had not closed properly. It was a term I remembered skipping right over in my pregnancy book, along with all the other fetal anomalies and birth defects that I thought referred to other people’s babies, not mine. She couldn’t tell us much more. We would have to go to the main hospital in Boston, which had a more high-tech machine and a more highly trained technician. She tried to be hopeful — there was a wide range of severity with these defects, she said. And then she left us to cry.

We drove into Boston in near silence, tears rolling down my cheeks. There was no joking or chatting at the hospital in Boston. No fuzzy kittens and kissing dolphins on the ceiling of that chilly, clinical room. Dave held my hand more tightly than before. I couldn’t bear to look at this screen. Instead, I studied the technician’s face, like a nervous flier taking her cues from the expression a stewardess wears. Her face revealed nothing.

She squirted cold jelly on my belly and then slid an even colder probe back and forth around my belly button, punching it down every so often to make the baby move for a better view. She didn’t say one word in 45 minutes. When she finished, she looked at us and confirmed our worst fears.

Instead of cinnamon and spice, our child came with technical terms like hydrocephalus and spina bifida. The spine, she said, had not closed properly, and because of the location of the opening, it was as bad as it got. What they knew — that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby’s brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid — was awful. What they didn’t know — whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects — was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.

The baby was 3.5 months old Denny. That's 14.7 weeks into pregnancy. Hardly a third trimester situation

Denny Crane · Mar 25, 2015

http://www.womenscenter.com/late_abortion.html

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
Link? Current, in this country?

JAMA article as to why a woman would need a late term abortion:

Late abortions are fundamentally important to women’s reproductive health. Antenatal fetal diagnosis, such as maternal {alpha}-fetoprotein screening and amniocentesis, is predicated on the availability of induced abortion. Although techniques such as chorionic villus sampling and early amniocentesis have allowed earlier diagnosis, by the time results of midtrimester amniocentesis or ultrasound are available, a woman may be beyond 20 weeks’ gestation.

Illnesses of women and fetal anomalies lead to requests for late abortions. Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical disorders aggravated by pregnancy. Conditions such as Eisenmenger syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%. Craniopagus conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves abortion.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

Denny Crane said:
http://www.womenscenter.com/late_abortion.html

Yes absolutely, but I say this once again that these "abnormalities" can all be detected in early second trimester. Look it up. It's not like families aren't aware of these defects early on.

I know this because our child was a potential "high risk" situation. The doctor said we will know if these abnormalities will happen after the 18th week. Third trimester is starts at 28 weeks. That's 10 weeks before any parent can be informed of these abnormalities. We are in 2015, technology is way more advanced these days

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
JAMA article as to why a woman would need a late term abortion:

Late abortions are fundamentally important to women’s reproductive health. Antenatal fetal diagnosis, such as maternal {alpha}-fetoprotein screening and amniocentesis, is predicated on the availability of induced abortion. Although techniques such as chorionic villus sampling and early amniocentesis have allowed earlier diagnosis, by the time results of midtrimester amniocentesis or ultrasound are available, a woman may be beyond 20 weeks’ gestation.

Illnesses of women and fetal anomalies lead to requests for late abortions. Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical disorders aggravated by pregnancy. Conditions such as Eisenmenger syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%. Craniopagus conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves abortion.

Again, all that can be discovered in the second trimester. None of you have shown any substantial evidence that a baby cannot be c sectioned out. If the baby dies, then so be it. At least they have a chance

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

Look, I'm not against abortion. I'm against third trimester abortions.

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
Again, all that can be discovered in the second trimester. None of you have shown any substantial evidence that a baby cannot be c sectioned out. If the baby dies, then so be it. At least they have a chance

You do not have enough medical knowledge to make that statement.

And more importantly, the law you are upset over will not suddenly make it legal for anyone to have a 3rd trimester abortion for the hell of it. All it is doing is continuing to allow women to make that decision if their life is endangered.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
You do not have enough medical knowledge to make that statement.

And more importantly, the law you are upset over will not suddenly make it legal for anyone to have a 3rd trimester abortion for the hell of it. All it is doing is continuing to allow women to make that decision if their life is endangered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm

50% survival after 24 weeks.

Like I said... Early 2nd trimester, a modern OB can tell you if your baby has any abnormalities that are life threatening to you or your baby.

The earliest a baby has survived outside the womb is 21 weeks, so if one can survive, then all have a chance. The chances increase drastically at the start of the third trimester.

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
Like I said... Early 2nd trimester, a modern OB can tell you if your baby has any abnormalities that are life threatening to you or your baby.

Not true.

Also you're not taking into account medical conditions the mother may develop.

magnifier661 · Mar 25, 2015

SlyPokerDog said:
Not true.

Also you're not taking into account medical conditions the mother may develop.

It is true

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html?mobile=nocontent

50% survival of ALL KNOWN accounts after 24 weeks Sly.

SlyPokerDog · Mar 25, 2015

magnifier661 said:
It is true

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html?mobile=nocontent

50% survival of ALL KNOWN accounts after 24 weeks Sly.

Not true.

Mother in car accident. Baby injured. Abnormality.

Mother and baby shot. Abnormality.

Mother has stoke, suffers organ failure. Abnormality.

Lots of things can happen to the mother and/or the baby after the 1st or 2nd trimester. Cesarian is not always a viable option.

Stop with the absolutes, the only ones are death and taxes.

Politics Third trimester abortions?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

LongShip

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

It's not even loaded!

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

New Member

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Woof!

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

It's not even loaded!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

It's not even loaded!

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Woof!

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Woof!

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread