(Feb 2, 2019 06:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 1, 2019 04:09 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I agree (with you, Syne) about late term abortions, but that is a separate topic. I won't vote for anyone who thinks that's a ''woman's right.''
The new abortion law that was passed in New York addresses late-term abortions. It allows for them when the fetus is no longer viable or when it’s medically necessary to protect the life of the mother. This new law keeps women from having to deliver a stillborn baby. One woman said that she was sent home and told that she had to wait until the baby died. She said that she could feel it struggling inside her before he/she finally died and then she was forced to deliver a stillborn.
The actual law states:
"A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH." -
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S240
They do not define "health", which means it could be non-life-threatening illness or mental health, i.e. mother's subjective whim.
There is ZERO language in the bill about viability, so your "when the fetus is no longer viable" is completely made up.
They do define "homicide":
"Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen-
ty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally
negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in
the first degree]."
So killing "an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for
more [LESS] than twenty-four weeks" is not "murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally negligent homicide", regardless of if the woman intends to keep the baby.
Quote: (Jan 20, 2018 04:52 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Science shows it's human life. All human life has inherent value and natural rights, that's all.
Inherent? You mean god given? It’s a social construct to secure certain rights.
Inherent, as in a unique and living human organism, with human DNA. You know, science. There is no social construct to what constitutes human life. It's a brute fact of nature.
If you don't have natural human rights, simply by dint of being a living human, then you have no argument against slavery, rape, murder, etc.. Is that what you're arguing, or can you really not see the logical consequences of what you're claiming? O_o
Cannibalism doesn't violate any human rights as long as it's in a cannibalistic society? What if someone kills and eats a member of the in-group? That's called a double-standard, and it is immoral and does violate inherent human rights.
Quote:Force motherhood should not be considered a punishment for having sex. Since you’re the one that’s always so quick to point out our biological differences, you should realize that we’re the ones housing the fetuses, and you if you were granted any say in the matter our autonomy would be destroyed.
Men have zero legal say in abortion, and are forced to take responsibility for sex (or "forced fatherhood" as a punishment, if you like) ALL THE TIME. You whining about women being forced to the same standard is an ignorant, hypocritical double standard. Men have no out after the fact. Just like men, women also have the responsibility prior to sex to take precautions against unwanted pregnancy (and even have the
added option of the morning after pill). Failing BOTH of those when you definitely don't want a child is already a moral failing, before even considering abortion.
Having failed to be autonomous in taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy, and even failing to take the last ditch option of Plan B, a woman has proven she cannot be responsible for deciding the fate of another life.
Receptionist:
“How do you write women so well?”
Nicholson:
“I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”
- As Good As It Gets
And as with all other law, your autonomy ends where it harms another. Killing a human life is definitely harm.
If you fail to responsibly exercise your autonomy, you will lose it. Just like every criminal sitting in prison. Grow up, become an adult, and take responsibility for your own actions.
Quote:When you have sex with us, you grant us that right, and the ability to bear or not to bear your progeny.
No, we don't grant you the right to kill just by having sex. That would presume that women are actually infantile and cannot take ANY responsibility for their own choices. And if that's the case, you deserve no autonomy at all. You can't have it both way, deary. Either you're an intelligent, responsible adult who can take all reasonable precautions against a known and avoidable outcome or you're a child who demands that she shouldn't be held responsible for any decision...in which case no one gives you any choices.
Quote:And before you throw up child support, you might want to take a look at the stats of how much child support is actually collected. "On average, custodial single parents who receive child support get about $329 per month to help with food, shelter, clothing, medical costs, education, and incidentals."
"On average" is dragged down by fathers in poverty or actively trying to avoid child support, and that quote isn't even from your cited census. A criminal fleeing prosecution does not mean the punishment doesn't exist or does not impact other criminals.
Actually from your cited source:
Child support income accounted for over two-thirds
(70.3 percent) of the mean annual personal income
for custodial parents below poverty who received
full child support.
About half (48.7 percent) of all custodial parents had
either legal or informal child support agreements,
and custodial mothers were more likely to have
agreements (52.3 percent) than custodial fathers
(31.4 percent).
Quote:You may not be able to rid yourself of the financial obligations but can you just imagine if the courts tried to enforce visitation or custody on a man?
No one forces visitation or custody on a woman, so that's a moot argument. A woman is free to denounce her parental rights, but a man is not. Do you have any points that DON'T make my case for me? O_o