Anti-Infanticide bill defeated!

Laiya

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 6:50 pm

simcha2 wrote:

No, that incredibly scientifically unsound link doesn't give the statistic you quoted.

Given that late term abortion is only permitted for medical reasons (health of mother or child), we can assume that if the child is healthy (from your unsubstantiated statistic) that it is the mother's health that is in danger, in line with halacha. (Not xtianity which assigns equal or greater value to the fetus than to the mother).

No one is making light of murder. To claim so is false.

Some posters are asking for accountability in posting of facts and quotes.

If you're referring to the NY bill, the bill permits abortion for the "life or health" of the mother. The problem is that the word "health" is not defined in the bill itself.

The US Supreme Court issued a decision shortly after Roe v. Wade (called Doe v. Bolton) that defined the word "health" in a GA abortion law as inclusive of factors relevant to the mother's "physical, emotional, psychological, familial [health] and [even] the woman's age".

This is far more broad than what halacha permits, especially if applied up until the end of a pregnancy.

Eta. I assume this is the reason Agudah opposes NY's new law

WhatFor

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 7:42 pm

Laiya wrote:

Halacha accounts for a woman's mental health in assessing whether a fetus is a rodeph. Jewish law is far broader than Christianity in this regard, which is why I think having religion dictate the laws is problematic, particularly if you're a frum Jew.

Infanticide, neglecting a baby, these are all already illegal. Those who didn't vote in support of this stated they didn't vote because those things are already illegal but this bill was designed to intimidate doctors who engaged in medically necessary abortions. They didn't want to participate in that.

DrMom

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 12:01 am

SixOfWands wrote:

People in the US are dying because of a lack of access to health care. So yes, it matters to me who will be paying the costs to prolong the death and suffering of babies whose conditions is not compatible with life. While we allow others to die.

Hmmm...

Anyone remember when Governor Sarah Palin was excoriated as a scare-mongerer when, in 2009, she warned:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society.' "

Anyone remember
Charlie Gard?

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 2:06 am

WhatFor wrote:

The anti-murdering babies bill was introduced because of the states expanding the definition of abortion. 5 states expanded the definition of allowable abortions. 29 states passed 80 bills expanding abortion, access to birth control, s-xual education. Bills expanding abortion outpaced bills contacting abortion rights. Virginia's proposed bill would allow abortion while the woman was in active labor. Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam, defended a proposed abortion bill by saying he would keep the baby comfortable and then the mother and doctors could decide what to do with the baby.

Democrats who support infanticide are immoral. Largely because of the backlash against Northam (D), the bill was defeated. Meanwhile, New York is one of the states
that expanded the ability to murder in the 3rd trimester.

My close friend is an OB/GYN. She told me that with imaging, Drs are aware of birth defects in time to get abortions much earlier in the pregnancy if the babies are incapable with life.

I gave birth at 30 1/2 weeks. What kind of person could murder these preemies?

Note to liberals: stop denying statements when there are video of them. You lose credibility.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 2:18 am

Ravenclaw wrote:

To those defending it because anyway late term abortions are only allowed to save the mother’s life—
How in the world can killing a baby—as opposed to delivering it (which the mother must go through regardless)—save the mother’s life?
I am baffled that people are defending this. Please explain this to me.

I don't think people are actually defending "murdering" a baby that is viable. I've seen accounts from woman who were induced to deliver non-viable fetuses that may have survived a few moments outside of the womb, where that was called an abortion.

People who practice other religions believe a woman should have to carry that fetus to full term. Judaism is more nuanced. That doesn't stop people from other religions from calling that a "murder" and mischaracterizing the process to get other people on board to their own religious agenda.

Just as an FYI, these agendas push to outlaw procedures that are not only halachically permitted, but are sometimes halachically obligatory.

There are frum women, I would guess even on this message board, who have had to deal with this nisayon. It's an unimaginable ordeal. I cannot imagine pushing for a law that would require a woman to have to travel to another state or another country to have a medical procedure that's torturous enough without this added burden.

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 3:22 am

WhatFor wrote:

Please explain to me why someone needs to wait until delivering a baby to decide to abort?

And do you think it is moral to abort late term babies that are viable?

simcha2

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 3:29 am

Squishy wrote:

No one in this site is advocating for murdering babies. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or has a reading comprehension problem.

Calling this bill "the anti murdering baby bill " is not only infantile, inflammatory and misleading it is genuinely offensive. I am assuming you haven't actually read the bill, but are just parroting talking points.

The bill doesn't change a single thing about the care of babies.

I don't understand why frum women want to legislate in a way that could lead to a situation where halacha can not be practiced. It seems wholly incompatible within a frum outlook.

We have had posters on this site who were given the psak that they had to terminate after 24 weeks and had to travel cross country to fulfill that psak.

Why do you want to make it illegal to do what is halachically necessary?

I truly believe that this debate has been taken over by a xtian outlook. The difficult tradeoff of living in a country that permits us to live our lives according to halacha is letting others live their lives according to their value system.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 3:51 am

Squishy wrote:

Please explain to me why someone needs to wait until delivering a baby to decide to abort?

And do you think it is moral to abort late term babies that are viable?

The baby is not "aborted" until the delivery. At the point where it doesn't survive the induced labor (for the predicted reasons), it's considered aborted.

It's like asking why something is always in the last place you look.

If you're interested in learning about why a woman would not terminate a pregnancy but then terminate in the third trimester for health reasons, there are hundreds of stories out there.

I personally know of two (Jewish, not frum) teenagers who had abortions not for health reasons afaik. They knew they were pregnant in the first trimester. They knew they wanted to terminate because the men they were with were abusive.

But they couldn't afford to pay for the abortions so they had to save (contrary to popular belief, Planned Parenthood does not provide free abortions.) So they had to save money to afford it, and while they saved the fetuses grew. They didn't ask my opinion, nor did I have the money at that age to loan them for this so they could get it sooner.

My moral opinion? I think knowing what we know about how women's lives are at risk when abortions are banned or limited, it's immoral to ban them. The laws permit women to choose not to have an abortion if they think it's immoral. The laws go so far to even permit a woman to carry a baby to full term knowing it will kill her. No one can force her to abort the fetus. She has the right to die for it, even if it's against halacha, even if some would consider it immoral. And I think that should be her decision too, just like a woman who follows halacha would choose to terminate a pregnancy that will kill her.

I don't believe that women should have to die to protect the interests of fetuses, and history has shown us that banning abortions causes women to die. I think rule by Evangelical Christianity is immoral.

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 4:47 am

simcha2 wrote:

Your post is your standard knee jerk reaction to anything I post. I am glad you find murdering viable babies offensive. Not killing is a moral imperative of the Torah.

Did you read the bill? I seriously doubt anyone here reads proposed bills unless it is their job.

Calling abortion pro choice is a misleading attempt to soften what it is. It's pro life vs pro abortion.

The Virginia governor discussed what would happen after birth. That's the really offensive part. If I stand with xtains on being disgusted that this could even be a conversation, so be it. They are correct.

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 4:54 am

WhatFor wrote:

Your friends could have gotten a free abortion from planned parenthood.

"Planned Parenthood has many payment options available for patients to receive high quality services regardless of income level, including no cost or low cost. We accept most insurance plans, including Medicaid and Medicare. No one will be denied access to services due to inability to pay."

No need to wait until the fetus grows.

Please site statistics that abortions save lives. Then we can compare it to how many unborn babies there are each year. I think my number will swamp yours.

simcha2

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 5:08 am

Squishy wrote:

Talk about knee jerk!

Where did I say anything that makes this sentence make sense?

Quote:

I am glad you find murdering viable babies offensive.

Quote:

Not killing is a moral imperative of the Torah.

except when it comes to fetus' it's a little more nuanced, as I said.

Quote:

Did you read the bill? I seriously doubt anyone here reads proposed bills unless it is their job.

But youare claiming things that aren't in the bill.

Quote:

Calling abortion pro choice is a misleading attempt to soften what it is. It's pro life vs pro abortion.

Nope, never used those words. But nice try trying to insert them in my mouth.

Quote:

The Virginia governor discussed what would happen after birth. That's the really offensive part. If I stand with xtains on being disgusted that this could even be a conversation, so be it. They are correct.

This has been back and forthed ad nauseam. But read the post above with the psak from R Elyashiv. (Also I didn't say a word about the governor)

So you basically failed to address any of my points, insulted me and put a lot of words in my mouth. Talk about knee jerk reaction.

Laiya

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 5:09 am

simcha2 wrote:

I don't understand why frum women want to legislate in a way that could lead to a situation where halacha can not be practiced. It seems wholly incompatible within a frum outlook.

The NY bill seeks to permit extreme situations, where a physically healthy woman with no previously diagnosed mental illness or unusual psychological stress would be able to have a legal late term abortion simply because she doesn't wish to give birth to a live baby.

This is so far removed from halacha that it seems like a rhetorical ploy to even mention halacha in this context.

In any case, many Jews and others oppose the bill, not because we're frum, but because we've read enough history to know that once a society begins making decisions as to whose life is more or less valuable--the end will NEVER be good for Jews.

Ravenclaw

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 5:24 am

WhatFor wrote:

Yes, I actually agree with you that abortion in general should not be outlawed (though I would love to see abortion “just because I want to further my career first” banned). I do however agree with you that to a certain extent we have to live and let live.
HOWEVER... it must be to a certain extent. One of the seven mitzvos bnai noach is setting up a justice system. We are not anarchists.
So you went off talking about abortion in general... but haven’t addressed my question. Why can’t they medically treat a baby who survived abortion? How does not doing so save anyone’s health or life?

simcha2

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 5:25 am

Laiya wrote:

Halacha does consider the mental health of the mother, not only the physical.

But as I stated above, I'm not saying that the law exactly replicates halacha, but rather, if we want to be able to follow halacha we have to allow that the law is broad enough to allow others to follow theirs.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 5:30 am

Laiya wrote:

I'm not a medical professional, but it's my understanding that once the baby is full term, assuming a healthy pregnancy with no complications, abortion is more dangerous for the mother than natural delivery.

The point was the induced delivery of the baby that couldn't survive outside of the womb was called an abortion even though it's exactly as you're describing. The only difference between that and regular delivery was that the mother was choosing to not wait until contractions started naturally.

WhatFor

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 5:33 am

Ravenclaw wrote:

Aiui, there was no law passed or proposed barring anyone from medically treating a "baby that survived abortion". Where did you see that?

Ravenclaw

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 5:47 am

But a bill proposing that they do was struck down.
The point is, abortion ahin abortion aher... once a baby is born, it should be considered a human being like any other. There should not be different laws for a human who survived abortion. Once born, the child should be under the care of the state and be given treatment accordingly. Also, It should be a crime if someone then kills said baby.
The proposed law said exactly that.
So why was it struck down? How does this affect abortions at all? This bill would not touch abortion.